Oh, I could totally live with an Oscar for Close.OscarGuy wrote:I don't know that I understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to nominations only. On the awarding side, both actor and actress races have seen the average winner age increase over the last two decades (with a strange downward slip in the last 5).Reza wrote:I guess then that puts a permanent lid on that much reviled Oldman / Dench theory as (im)possible winnersOscarGuy wrote:I have an article I've been working on regarding ageism at the Oscars and exploring such things. Best Actor's range tends to average in the 30s and 40s whereas Best Actress is usually in the 20s and 30s. There is no PYT consideration for actors as there is for actresses.
That said, Daniel Day-Lewis was 55 when he won for There Will Be Blood. Oldman is 59 now. Colin Firth won at 50, Jeff Bridges at 60, Day-Lewis at 50, and Nicholson at 60, all within the last twenty years, which is more than enough cover to suggest they aren't above honoring Oldman. Further, I'd say Oldman is following a Bridges-like never-honored trajectory. The difference there is the several nominations Bridges had by the point he won. Oldman had none.
On the ladies' side, Julianne Moore won at 54, Meryl Streep at 62, Helen Mirren at 61. That's not a lot over 50. Streep was the only one of those "older" actresses who didn't win her first Oscar. That counts against Dench. Dench has one and I doubt the Academy is clamoring to give her another, especially against the likes of Winslet, McDormand, Close, and Stone. I'd say Close has a better chance at winning than Dench does because Close follows more closely the Bridges paradigm than Oldman does.
Close over Dench anytime.
