2020 Oscar Nominations

[Big Magilla]

I find these time breakouts of basically of value. I seem to recall one of them calculating that Kim Hunter had as much screen time in Streetcar as Brando -- yet no one in their right mind would argue Brando was anything but lead, Hunter anything but supporting. I'm guessing the Leslie Odom number similarly reflects "time in the frame", not necessarily time he's doing very much. I know this is a pretty knotty argument -- it can descend into the subjective realm of how much impact a character is having on a scene or film (and our absent friend Uri convincingly argued that some of those arguments had class assumptions built into them). But the purely mathematical approach is every bit as misleading as a fraudulent Oscar campaigner's spin.

I think you meant to say of no value.

I agree that statistics in themselves don't meant much - I basically find all these so-an-so or such-and-such will win because of this or that statistic of no value but I find these screen time numbers fascinating.

Kim Hunter had one minute more screen time than Brando in Streetcar, but yes, he was the male lead and she was the secondary female character with far less screen time than Vivien Leigh.

Here's the breakdown of the One Night in Miami actors:
Aldis Hodge - 42:24 / 37.08%
Eli Goree - 47:41 / 41.71%
Leslie Odom Jr. (One Night in Miami) - 54:20 / 47.52%
Kingsley Ben-Adir - 55:36 / 48.63%

You can consider them all leads or all supporting players or Ben-Adir and Odom leads and Hodge and Goree support, but why were Ben-Adir and Goree initially campaigned for lead and Odom and Hodge for support? That makes no sense to me. Clearly it was because Odom being the biggest name amongst the four was always going to be the one with the best chance of winning so they wanted to position him in support where he would have his best shot.

With Kaluuya and Stanfield, they are really so close in screen time that it would make sense to consider them both as leads in their mutual story, but if you're going to go by screen time in promoting one for lead and the other for support then Kaluuya makes sense in support, but then he, like Odom is the better-known player so it does reek of gamesmanship. That said, however, Kaluuya and Odom are my own picks for the win, but a surprise win for the criminally ignored Stanfield would make for great TV - the biggest upset since Jodie Foster won the Golden Globe last month.

[Mister Tee]

I find these time breakouts of basically of value. I seem to recall one of them calculating that Kim Hunter had as much screen time in Streetcar as Brando -- yet no one in their right mind would argue Brando was anything but lead, Hunter anything but supporting. I'm guessing the Leslie Odom number similarly reflects "time in the frame", not necessarily time he's doing very much. I know this is a pretty knotty argument -- it can descend into the subjective realm of how much impact a character is having on a scene or film (and our absent friend Uri convincingly argued that some of those arguments had class assumptions built into them). But the purely mathematical approach is every bit as misleading as a fraudulent Oscar campaigner's spin.

[Big Magilla]

Screentimecentral.com has all the Oscar nominees by category listed in length of screen time order with the percentage of time of the film also noted. I think this is the same guy who used to post this information on Letterboxd.

Interestingly, both Kaluuya and Stanfield have both less screen time and percentage of overall screen time than Leslie Odom, Jr. has in One Night in Miami. All three have less screen time than Al Pacino, Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins did last year and less percentage of overall screen time time than Pitt and Hopkins, so it's all relative.

92nd Academy Awards - 2019
Joe Pesci (The Irishman) - 43:22 / 20.71%
Tom Hanks (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood) - 44:56 / 41.36%
Al Pacino (The Irishman) - 53:58 / 25.77%
Brad Pitt (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) - 55:12 / 34.21%
Anthony Hopkins (The Two Popes) - 55:14 / 43.85%

93rd Academy Awards - 2020/2021
Paul Raci (Sound of Metal) - 18:21 / 15.19%
Sacha Baron Cohen (The Trial of the Chicago 7) - 30:14 / 23.23%
Daniel Kaluuya (Judas and the Black Messiah) - 46:09 / 36.80%
LaKeith Stanfield (Judas and the Black Messiah) - 49:51 / 39.75%
Leslie Odom Jr. (One Night in Miami) - 54:20 / 47.52%

[Greg]

It is unlikely any film will win more than 4 Oscars this year. This means that, somewhat surprisingly, Slumdog Millionaire, with 8 awards including Best Picture, will have reigned for more than a decade as the biggest Academy-Award-winning film.

[rolotomasi99]

How did you come to that 17 nominations limit? Not counting the categories with rules about length or type (i.e. shorts, documentaries, animated, foreign), there are 17 categories. Of those, 12 are allowed only one nomination per film, and 2 of those are mutually exclusive (Original vs Adapted Screenplay). However, the other 5 categories allow for multiple nominees from the same film, and could potentially provide a movie 22 nominations all on their own.

You are absolutely right...

Mine was just a very quick exercise, without much thinking into it. I focused on the categories and not on the fact that many allow multiple nominations for the same movie.

That's how I reached my wrong limit of 17... which I think it stands for maximum categories instead of nominations...

And no, I do not consider your comment pedantic, on the contrary, I appreciate it.

Good to hear.

In doing the research for my post, I found that from 1980 to 2020 there were 14 films with double Supporting Actress nominees. In that same time period, there were only 7 films with double Supporting Actor nominees. Interestingly, 3 of those 7 came within the past 4 years.

I am still really hung up on why Lakeith Stanfield was nominated in the Supporting category. Do the Academy members think Jesse Plemons was the lead in that film? When Oscar goes along with this blatant of category fraud (DJANGO UNCHAINED, CAROL, GREEN BOOK, etc.) at least there is a lead character they can point to when they classify the co-lead a supporting character. With JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH, they just treated it like a large ensemble movie (SPOTLIGHT or GOSFORD PARK) where there is no lead character. I am glad Stanfield was nominated, but it is just so bizarre. If it becomes a habit with them, it could make predicting any of the acting categories much more difficult...or exciting, depending on your point of view.

[HarryGoldfarb]

How did you come to that 17 nominations limit? Not counting the categories with rules about length or type (i.e. shorts, documentaries, animated, foreign), there are 17 categories. Of those, 12 are allowed only one nomination per film, and 2 of those are mutually exclusive (Original vs Adapted Screenplay). However, the other 5 categories allow for multiple nominees from the same film, and could potentially provide a movie 22 nominations all on their own.

You are absolutely right...

Mine was just a very quick exercise, without much thinking into it. I focused on the categories and not on the fact that many allow multiple nominations for the same movie.

For what it´s worth, in my mind a film can get nominated for:
- Best Picture
- Best Director
- Acting (four categories)
- Screenplay (just one out of two)
- International Feature Film
- Production Design
- Costume Design
- Cinematography
- Sound
- Film Editing
- Song
- Score
- Make Up and Hairstyling
- Visual Effects

That's how I reached my wrong limit of 17... which I think it stands for maximum categories instead of nominations...

And no, I do not consider your comment pedantic, on the contrary, I appreciate it.

[rolotomasi99]

- In fact, considering the end result, Mank could have easily been placed in the pantheon of 12 nominations, but was deprived of two key nominations. As it is, it looks buried in terms of chances of winning.

Now that I think about it, Mank could have easily made it to 13 nominations, but it was also deprived of the separate sound nominations.

With the number of categories now reduced to 23, of which a film can be eligible for a maximum of 17 nominations (if it is a foreign film, 16 if it is not), it will be more difficult now that we see films with a nominations total of two digits or more. Only last year, 1917 and OUAT...IH reached 10 nominations thanks to the two separated sound categories, and previously Rome and Mad Max: Fury Road did so, just to name recent examples.

How did you come to that 17 nominations limit? Not counting the categories with rules about length or type (i.e. shorts, documentaries, animated, foreign), there are 17 categories. Of those, 12 are allowed only one nomination per film, and 2 of those are mutually exclusive (Original vs Adapted Screenplay). However, the other 5 categories allow for multiple nominees from the same film, and could potentially provide a movie 22 nominations all on their own. I know that would never happen, but multiple actors are nominated in the same category often enough. In fact, it has happened in one of the two Supporting categories each of the past four years.

While three acting nominations from the same film in the same category is very, very rare...it is still possible; and there is no rule I am aware of that would prevent one film from sweeping a specific acting category (again, extremely unlikely).

The Song category is the other source of multiply nominations although current rules allow a maximum of two per film. However, that can easily be changed in the future.

Sorry, HarryGoldfarb, not wanting to be pedantic or give you a hard time, but the 17 nominations limit you describe is just too low.

To your broader point, I think there are several films this year which have the potential to rack up double digit nomination totals: DUNE, WEST SIDE STORY, THE LAST DUEL, THE FRENCH DISPATCH, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH, and IN THE HEIGHTS.

[HarryGoldfarb]

- In fact, considering the end result, Mank could have easily been placed in the pantheon of 12 nominations, but was deprived of two key nominations. As it is, it looks buried in terms of chances of winning.

Now that I think about it, Mank could have easily made it to 13 nominations, but it was also deprived of the separate sound nominations.

With the number of categories now reduced to 23, of which a film can be eligible for a maximum of 17 nominations (if it is a foreign film, 16 if it is not), it will be more difficult now that we see films with a nominations total of two digits or more. Only last year, 1917 and OUAT...IH reached 10 nominations thanks to the two separated sound categories, and previously Rome and Mad Max: Fury Road did so, just to name recent examples.

[Okri]

- The average age of the nominees for Best Director is 44.8 years; This must be one of the youngest lineups to ever nominate. At 58, Fincher is the senior of the group, while Fennell, at 35, must be in the top 20 of the youngest nominees (although this I have not verified)..

Looks like she barely misses it, but your point stands.

[anonymous1980]

- I am very happy for Paul raci, he survived a season that did not treat him quite well, with frequent omissions by important groups. His acting is one of those restrained and subtle ones that can easily be overlooked by more showy efforts. His nomination is perhaps the one that pleases me the most.

This one - almost above all the others - made me the most happy too, Harry. Paul Raci was so SO GOOD in this movie.

Someone tweeted that what makes Paul Raci’s nomination special is that it’s based on entirely on merit. He’s not a name and had no advanced buzz.

[danfrank]

I think the absence of One Night in Miami and Ma Rainey on the best picture ballot gives Judas and the Black Messiah a strong chance to win the big prize. Its six nods, including Stanfield’s surprise nomination, shows that it has strong support across various branches of the Academy. It’s a year without broad and passionate support for any of the other contenders. Judas is a well-respected film with a lot of enthusiastic support, is a latecomer in a year without a strong front runner, and has a social message aligned with the times we are living in. Yep, I think it could win.

[rolotomasi99]

Like everyone else, I was surprised that Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and One Night in Miami failed to make onit to the Best Picture lineup, but like most, I agree that Ma Rainey suffers from being too close to a filmed stage play instead of a properly opened up film, but not so One Night in Miami which is smartly opened up.

You are absolutely right, Magilla. Of the two films, One Night in Miami is the least stagey, but it's somehow so talky that it doesn't entirely disguise its origins. Comparatively, King did a much better job at directing than Wolfe. But still, it never seemed like Best Picture material to me.

THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is talky...almost oppressively so. I think ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI is far more deserving of a Best Picture nomination than the dishonest tripe Sorkin served up.

It would be incredibly disheartening for a year of truly spectacular nominees ending with the worst film winning Best Picture. It might not be as bad as GREEN BOOK or CRASH, but it is not a film that deserves to be remembered as the best 2020 had to offer.

[nightwingnova]

I think Best Pic is between Nomadland and The Trial of the Chicago 7.

Nomadland is depressing and plays like a docudrama at times. So I'm not 100% certain that it will win.

It certainly is the favorite, though.

[HarryGoldfarb]

Like everyone else, I was surprised that Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and One Night in Miami failed to make onit to the Best Picture lineup, but like most, I agree that Ma Rainey suffers from being too close to a filmed stage play instead of a properly opened up film, but not so One Night in Miami which is smartly opened up.

You are absolutely right, Magilla. Of the two films, One Night in Miami is the least stagey, but it's somehow so talky that it doesn't entirely disguise its origins. Comparatively, King did a much better job at directing than Wolfe. But still, it never seemed like Best Picture material to me.

[Big Magilla]

Like everyone else, I was surprised that Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and One Night in Miami failed to make onit to the Best Picture lineup, but like most, I agree that Ma Rainey suffers from being too close to a filmed stage play instead of a properly opened up film, but not so One Night in Miami which is smartly opened up. My only real criticism of the film was the coda which focuses on Malcolm X's assassination several months later but completely ignores Sam Cooke's murder which occurred between the two events.

It was probably the last minute release of the excellent Judas and the Black Messiah that pushed it out of the way.

Overall, though, a very good day for some very good films.