Of the five examples you gave, the only one I would say is a "career" win is Paul Newman for a perfectly serviceable performance in THE COLOR OF MONEY. There was also the factor that he was reprising his greatest performance from 25 years ago so the symmetry was just too perfect.danfrank wrote:rolotomasi99 wrote: I do not buy into the idea Academy members pick winners based on who is overdue -- just look at Peter O'Toole and Glenn Close. However, I think Sabin is correct that Branagh is a well-liked actor and director, which could help him in a tight race.
Sure, there are a few examples of folks who have been nominated a bunch of times and never won, but there are also lots of examples of “career” Oscars. Al Pacino, Paul Newman, Leonardo DiCaprio, Gary Oldman, Martin Scorsese, and John Wayne come immediately to mind. Of course they also sometimes choose fresh faces. All I’m saying is that all things being relatively equal there is a tendency to reward those who have a storied career.
Scorsese's Director victory was for a movie that also won Best Picture so clearly it was generally well loved just beyond Scorsese being due.
Pacino, DiCaprio, and Oldman all won in Best Picture nominees, and they were giving capital P performances that would have been hard to ignore even if these were not their first Oscar victories.
Wayne perhaps had career sentiment behind him, but he was also playing a pretty great character who earned another actor a nomination as well, 40 years later. I think anyone who had played Rooster Cogburn in 1969 could have won because the character is just that much fun.
However, to both our larger points, I think if Branagh wins it will be because audiences just truly love BELFAST, not because anyone thinks they owe him a win. After all, many folks are predicting Jane Campion will be nominated for Director, and she has never won despite her long career. Interestingly, both Campion and Branagh debuted as film directors in 1989.
