Sweepstakes

I know I’m currently predicting a clean sweep in the acting categories for Closer. According to Oscar Trivia, this has happened 13 times in Academy Awards history. The last time was in 1981. So, it’s not a very common occurrence – at least not anymore (though it’s been 22 years since the last instance, the first seven all appeared within a 17-year span, while the other six happened in a 15-year period).

What changed? Having not seen all 13 films in question, I have two theories that require a lot more research to substantiate. One concerns the evolution of the Academy while the other concerns the evolution of filmmaking itself.

First, the Academy’s definition and criteria for a “supporting” role seem to have changed in the last twenty years. With Judi Dench’s nomination and subsequent win for Shakespeare in Love being an anomaly, I think most recent Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress nominees have had more screen time and more significant presences in their films than did their counterparts between 1936 and 1981.

Renee Zellweger, Benicio Del Toro (21 Grams and Traffic), Tim Robbins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Julianne Moore (The Hours), Jim Broadbent, Ethan Hawke, Ben Kingsley, Jennifer Connelly, Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock), Angelina Jolie, Minnie Driver, Juliette Binoche, William H. Macy, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Uma Thurman might all have been considered Leads in another era (and at some awards – like the Golden Globes and SAG – in this one, too). Many of them, in fact, had screen time rivaling the so-called Lead co-stars they were supporting. Look at 1996, when [though I can’t find confirmation of this, so I’m not 100% certain] the two Supporting winners may have had more screen time than the two Lead winners.

The point is, that a lot of the Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress nominations that enabled those 13 sweepers to sweep probably wouldn’t pass muster these days. Even without having seen these films in a while, I’ll cursorily mention a few nominated actors that don’t stand out: Nancy Olson, Erich Von Stroheim, Estelle Parsons, Ned Beatty and Beatrice Straight. Which isn’t to denigrate any of their performances (except for maybe Parsons’), it’s just that I can’t imagine them being serious contenders now.

Another change that may be at the root of this drought is the shift from the Studio System to the star-empowered free agent system in place today. Back when the studios could dictate who appeared in what without concern for cost, they could easily pack four top-level stars into a prestige picture. Now money is an issue, so it’s rare to fill out every role with an Oscar-friendly face, especially in an intimate character-driven film. While newcomers do slip in from time to time, and celebrity is no guarantee for an award, there’s no denying that it helps.

There’s also the matter of the scripts themselves, which so rarely offer four substantial roles (though I have no real explanation for why this might have changed). All you have to do is look at the 13 films in the last 14 years that have been represented in three acting categories: Mystic River, Adaptation, Chicago, The Hours, Iris, In the Bedroom, Shakespeare in Love, As Good as It Gets, Good Will Hunting, The English Patient, Pulp Fiction, In the Name of the Father, Dances With Wolves.

Of these, Mystic River, Adaptation, Good Will Hunting, Pulp Fiction, In the Name of the Father and Dances With Wolves all had their most prominent females nominated in the Supporting Actress category, leaving nobody to fill the Best Actress slot (indicative of the general dearth of strong female roles in many movies?). Likewise, The Hours had its most prominent male nominated for Best Supporting Actor. And As Good as It Gets didn't have any notable Supporting Actress contenders. So none of these movies had any hope of securing a nod in their elusive fourth category.

In the Bedroom and Iris both had very low star wattage in their Supporting Actor contenders, and neither Nick Stahl nor Hugh Bonneville (in America, anyway) really generated any sort of buzz for their performances, so sweeps never seemed likely for those two films either.

The English Patient had an Oscar-friendly star up for Supporting Actor, but the role wasn’t particularly showy, and amidst all the buzz for that film, none ever stuck to Willem Dafoe.

That leaves just Chicago and Shakespeare in Love as the two with legitimate shots at sweeps. Both Richard Gere and Joseph Fiennes had some buzz surrounding their lead performances and a few preliminary awards and nominations. However, neither was considered much of a sure thing.

Now, back to this year. Closer appears to have the best shot at a sweep of any film in recent memory. It’s got four well-respected actors (presumably) competing in each of the four categories, and each one has a strong role to play. In addition, Mike Nichols has guided a cast to this achievement once before with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? It’s still very much a long shot that all four will actually receive nominations, but for now I’m tentatively predicting it. But I’m also predicting that Closer won’t get nominated for Best Picture, which might be an even bigger long shot.

Because of those 13 films that have achieved this milestone, only the first one did this without getting a Best Picture nomination (interesting to note that 1936 was also the first year that any movie could pull off this feat, seeing as how it was the first year to include the Supporting categories). Strangely enough though, only two of the lucky 13 (Mrs. Minniver and From Here to Eternity) have gone on to actually win the Best Picture award. Again, I’ll stand by my prediction, but history is not on my side.