The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

How much does it cost to win an Oscar award? Six minutes in the role of a queen, 101 in that of a retiree

2024-03-10T04:50:09.932Z

Highlights: Screen time of award-winning actors in the history of the award confirms that it favors longer performances by secondary actors. The main performances of Carey Mulligan and Colman Domingo as the closest to the average of the winners in their categories. No Oscar winner monopolizes the screen like Art Carney did in Harry and Dumb : he was present in 87% of the film and his greatest absence lasts only 40 seconds. Vivien Leigh is untouchable: she spent two hours and 23 minutes in the shoes of Scarlett O'Hara.


The screen time of the award-winning actors in the history of the award confirms that it favors longer performances by secondary actors.


The elderly and widowed Harry Coombes and his cat were on screen for 101 minutes so that Art Carney, who played him, won his first and only Oscar for the film

Harry and Tonto

.

On the other hand, Judi Dench only needed 6 minutes of acting in the role of Queen Elizabeth I of England to win the same statuette for

Shakespeare in Love

.

They are two extreme examples, in the category of best leading actor (Carney) and best supporting actress (Dench), but they illustrate the variability of the cost of the statuettes: Oscars have been given to supporting performances that occupied more than 67% of the awards. the film and there are protagonists awarded for appearing in just 20% of the footage, according to EL PAÍS' analysis of the times compiled in Screen Time Central.

Below, a review of the cost in time of the coveted statuettes throughout the history of the gala, which reaches its 96th edition with the main performances of Carey Mulligan and Colman Domingo as the closest to the average of the winners in their categories.

The secondary ones are cheaper, but with exceptions

No Oscar winner monopolizes the screen like Carney did in

Harry and Dumb

: he was present in 87% of the film and his greatest absence lasts only 40 seconds.

However, in absolute numbers, Vivien Leigh is untouchable: she spent two hours and 23 minutes in the shoes of Scarlett O'Hara during the nearly four hours of Gone with

the Wind footage

;

61% of the film.

Leigh's presence in this film is only slightly above average for an award-winning or nominated lead performance: leading actors or actresses typically accumulate 57% of screen time (67 minutes on average).

Among the rest of the cast, presence falls by half: the average duration of the award-winning performances is 31 minutes (25 more than Judi Dench needed) while those that do not make it past the nomination fall to 27 minutes (25 % and 22%, respectively).

It is rare that in the same edition the supporting winners perform more than the main ones, but it has happened in eight galas.

The last in 2006, when Jennifer Hudson in the cast of

Dreamgirls

surpassed by 4 minutes the 47 of Helen Mirren starring

in The Queen.

And this year?

Cillian Murphy and Jodie Foster would be historically long Oscars

In this edition, the performances whose duration is closest to the average of those awarded throughout history are those of Carey Mulligan and Colman Domingo in the main performances section, and those of Da'Vine Joy Randolf and Ryan Gosling among the secondary ones.

But there are two other performers whose Oscars would be historically expensive.

If Cillian Murphy were awarded for his 113 minutes of leading role in

Oppenheimer

, his would become the third most demanding Oscar - in time - in history in this category, only behind Charlton Heston (121 minutes) in

Ben-Hur

and Daniel Day Lewis in

Wells of Ambition

(117 minutes).

The same would happen with Jodie Foster's 60 minutes in

Nyad

: she would enter the podium of supporting actresses just over 5 minutes behind Tatum O'Neal in

Paper Moon

and Patty Duke in

The Miracle of Anne Sullivan.

Leading actresses regain ground

So far this decade, leading actresses have bridged a gap that has marked almost the entire history of the Oscars.

Now they act, on average, 5 minutes more than men, but in the 2000s they reached 16 minutes less, with extremes such as Day-Lewis' 117 minutes in

Wells of Ambition

and Nicole Kidman's very brief role in

The Hours

: 23 minutes and a half.

In the case of supporting actors, the gap is smaller and was almost equal in the 90s, but it remains open, with a seven-minute difference between actors and actresses.

More screen time is better for secondary children

Arriving at this Sunday's gala with the longest (or shortest) performance among the nominees does not seem especially decisive for the leading actors.

More than half of the awards have distinguished performances that were between the extremes.

For supporting actors, acting a few more minutes can make a difference: three out of every ten Oscar winners in this category won their statuette with performances that exceeded their opponents' in time.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_

Source: elparis

All life articles on 2024-03-10

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.