Is anyone else tired tired tired of biopics winning best actor/actress performance oscars?

over the last 30 years, 17 of the top two performance oscars have gone to folks playing real life individuals in films generally centered around that person's life (note: i'm not counting N.Kidman as Virginia Woolf)

but more than 50% of those biopic oscars have gone out in the last 6 years alone

is anyone else tired of the growing trend of giving an actor an award for mimicking a real person rather than creating a character?

in 2 of the last 4 oscar ceremonies, 2006 (idi amin, queen eliz II) 2005 (truman capote, june carter cash) you had both awards going to these types of roles

i'd love to hear other people's opinions on the value of creating a character and the value of recreating a real person

2/23/2009 4:21:29 PM

I think a lot of people find the idea of portraying a real life icon more attractive than pulling off one that is made up. Do I think that's right? Not really. Maybe people find it more inspiring when a performance is based off a real life character. Maybe it's easier to relate some of your own struggles or problems with a character that actually existed. Whatever the case, the trend of awarding actors in biopics as you put it doesn't really surprise me.

2/23/2009 4:24:25 PM

Can you tell me who should have won it then those years? Kate Winslet won for best actress last night--she wasn't portraying a real person.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2009 4:29:56 PM

i thought that's all the oscars gave awards out for

2/23/2009 4:34:13 PM

i think the growing trend is only in relation to the growing amount of biopics being made.



people enjoy seeing history recreated through the lens of a camera. They enjoy seeing actors take on the roles of historical figures and heroes and reenacting moments that have impacted not only them but the world. I think the roles mean more and stick with the average person longer. Thus gaining more praise than the average fictional role.

2/23/2009 4:35:42 PM

Quote :

"Kate Winslet won for best actress last night--she wasn't portraying a real person."

never said she did

and i fully admit that 17 out of 60 isn't a huge percentage

but i will still say that 8 out of 12 is a bit too high for my liking

as far as who should have won?
thats not the point of my argument; what i'm suggesting is that actors creating a character should have won
i don't know which one should have won

2/23/2009 4:39:20 PM

the only 4 oscars out of the last 12 to go to "created" characters were

Daniel Plainview (there will be blood)
Jimmy Markum (mystic river)
Hanna Schmitz (the reader)
Maggie Fitzgerald (million dollar baby)

2/23/2009 4:42:54 PM

Quote :

"people enjoy seeing history recreated through the lens of a camera. They enjoy seeing actors take on the roles of historical figures and heroes and reenacting moments that have impacted not only them but the world. I think the roles mean more and stick with the average person longer. Thus gaining more praise than the average fictional role."

I do too, I dont think people are necessarily complaining about historical movies, rather the fact that it often takes more work to make the character your own given a script than to mimic someone else.

2/23/2009 4:43:14 PM

i think that could definitely be a good discussion.

2/23/2009 4:48:37 PM

but do people have higher standards for people portraying real characters? (especially those who are in the collective memory of the voters) thus, when someone does a good job of portraying those characters, it's even more impressive?

2/23/2009 4:57:41 PM

aight

1948 - 1998 (100 Best Actress/Actor Awards given) - 10 go to Biopic performances
1999 - 2008 (18 Best Actress/Actor Awards given) - 11 go to Biopic performances

i'm sorry, but thats absurd
you have more in one decade than in the previous 5???

2/23/2009 5:02:43 PM

how many biopics were made in those 5 decades though?

i think more biopics have been made in the last 15-20 years than in the previous 40.


and from 1998-2008 how many of the nominated actors and actress came from biopics (not just the winners)?


i did a very quick count of just actors from 1998-2008 and got 19 from not just biopic, but non-fictional characters. i'll do a better count later, but that should get us started
[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : add]

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM. Reason : add]

2/23/2009 5:12:35 PM

more of every type of movie has been made

2/23/2009 5:14:05 PM

Quote :

"and from 1998-2008 how many of the nominated actors and actress came from biopics (not just the winners)?"

for the men:
2008 2
2007 0
2006 2
2005 3
2004 4 (holy shit)
2003 0
2002 1
2001 2 *
2000 2
1999 3*
1998 0

so if you look, in the latter half of the decade, if there was at least one biopic candidate, they won
both of the character awards from the last 6 years (plainview, markum) were years when there were no biopic candidates

2001 and 1999 represent the only time in the last decade that a character beat a biopic (Alonzo Harris, Training Day and Lester Burhnam, American Beauty)

i'll be back in a minute with the women; i'm sure the numbers will be roughly similar, as they represent 6 of the oscars

2/23/2009 5:22:56 PM

for the women

2008 0
2007 2
2006 1
2005 1
2004 0
2003 1
2002 1 #note: nicole kidman was playing a fictionalized version of Virginia Woolf
2001 1*
2000 1
1999 1
1998 1

so again, 2008 and 2004 represent years when no biopic was there, 2002 is an odd year because it wasn't a biopic situation, but nicole kidman was definitely playing a real person

so 2001 represents the only time this decade that an actress playing an only-on-the-script character beat a person playing a flesh and blood character...

2/23/2009 5:37:31 PM

Quote :

"what i'm suggesting is that actors creating a character should have won"

But... why?

Are you suggesting that historical portrayals aren't acting?

Quote :

"idi amin"

That shit was the bomb

2/23/2009 5:56:37 PM

so last king of scotland wasn't really a biopic either. that movie was fiction.

per the wiki:

Quote :

"The Last King of Scotland tells the fictional story of Dr. Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), a young Scottish doctor who travels to Uganda and becomes the personal physician to the dictator Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker). The movie is based on factual events of Amin's rule."

2/23/2009 6:04:14 PM

which is more impressive

robert deniro helping breathe life into the life of vito corleone, mafia boss
or
robert deniro mimicking al capone, mafia boss

i'm not saying a masterful performance of an existing individual isn't worthy of an oscar

what i'm saying is

75% of the top performance oscars over the last 10 years have gone to people playing real-life individuals

just watch a fucking documentary people

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ^yeah, my term "biopic" has been loose and fast this whole time]

2/23/2009 6:07:09 PM

Quote :

"so last king of scotland wasn't really a biopic either. that movie was fiction. "

Well, durr

But Amin was very real and Forest Whitaker fucking nailed it

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM. Reason : ]

2/23/2009 6:12:33 PM

i don't know. you look at most fictional characters and actors have usually based them off of real individuals. and lots of depictions of historical people haven't exactly been dead-on impersonations (see hoffman's truman capote for an example). lots of times a biopic just means they're basing their character off someone everyone knows. often a fictional character is just based off of someone else (or an amalgam more likely).

lots of the credit in fictional movies should be given to the screenwriter who created the character to begin with.

2/23/2009 6:12:52 PM

It isn't an outrage, but it is definitely ... an interesting trend.

That said, Sean Penn has won for fictional and real-life-insipred characters.
So has Daniel Day-Lewis.
Ben Kingsley's been nominated 4 times for 2 fictional and two non-fiction roles.

And I'm not sure most of the people (voters) who watched theses movies critically have spent significant amounts of time really getting research done and trying to figure out whether or not actors are "perfectly channeling" their real-life counterparts. They're just good roles in good movies.

Johnny Depp has been nominated for roles based on Disney Rides, Stage Performances, and J.M. Barrie. But he's a good actor, so he'll keep getting nominated even if he does it for cartoon dog voices.

The point is, Ray Charles and Johnny Cash may not have been the most inspired performances ever , and it is a little easier to be critical and call something a cheap imitation if there is TONS of footage and memory of a real-life person. I don't think the same things were being said when F. Murray Abraham won for Salieri.

Should we be upset if a person wins for a character in a movie remake of a movie adapted from a novel (Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman) over a performance wholly original (Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven)? Oh, wait, he beat out Denzel as Malcom X and Downey, Jr. as Charlie Chaplin. OK, still good then ...

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 10:04 PM. Reason : a]

2/23/2009 10:04:09 PM

Quote :

"I don't think the same things were being said when F. Murray Abraham won for Salieri."

thats because the last time a biopic role won the oscar WAS 12 YEARS EARLIER

honestly, to me the oscars in 2007 was despicable

biopic actress presenting award to biopic actor, biopic actor presenting award to biopic actress

mdaldrich was there, i've been complaining about this since then...

this is just the first time i've bothered doing the legwork...

again, last 10 years: 11 wins
50 years before that: 10 wins

don't tell me the academy hasn't shifted

Quote :

"That said, Sean Penn has won for fictional and real-life-insipred characters."

and both oscars were fucking shams if you ask me

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM. Reason : sean penn can eat my ass]

2/23/2009 10:08:44 PM

Quote :

"Should we be upset if a person wins for a character in a movie remake of a movie adapted from a novel (Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman) over a performance wholly original (Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven)?"

you show me a statistical trend that Novel-Movie-Remake-Movies are leading to more oscars, then we'll have that discussion

2/23/2009 10:11:35 PM

Quote :

" thats because the last time a biopic role won the oscar WAS 12 YEARS EARLIER "

not true. Gandhi netted Sir Ben Kingsley a Best Actor Oscar a two years prior, and a Jake LaMotta impression got DeNiro the same award two years before that.

also, Abraham was up against two other biopic actors (Waterston in The Killing Fields, and Tom Hulce in Amadeus, too)

also, the point I was really trying to make is ... I'm not so sure I disagree with you, but are you mad at Hollywood for being out of original ideas, or for the Academy for so easily being bowled over by "cheap imitations?" Because both are valid criticisms, but I don't think you can argue against Hoffman or Whitaker's performances. They are all at least equal to their opponents in their nomination years. DiCaprio as Hughes? Great performance. Ray? Not so much.

My biggest complaint is that Kate Winslet couldn't also have won this year for Revolutionary Road.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM. Reason : a]

2/23/2009 10:26:12 PM

ah, you're correct, i had 82 and 80 in my notes, i assumed salieri was 80

for some reason i did not count salieri in the mix, for pretty much the same reason i don't count virginia woolf

2/23/2009 10:39:43 PM

Quote :

"DiCaprio as Hughes? Great performance. Ray? Not so much"

you and i see this completely backwards

i thought dicaprio was COMPLETELY UNDERWHELMING and entirely unconvincing in his portrayl

while i thought jamie foxx was amazing in ray (until he fucked all that over by doing Ray for Kanye)

2/23/2009 10:41:17 PM

i'd also love to see some data on when movies released in december (generally in limited release) became the predominant BP noms/winners

i think we've had a break from that recent tradition with slumdog, no country, departed, crash

(and yes, i understand most of the people in flyover will only see these movies after a win/big nom pull, but it still sucks)

2/23/2009 11:33:58 PM

wall-e should have won best picture

2/23/2009 11:53:43 PM

2/24/2009 9:24:28 AM

^^^^i agree

my inability to buy dicaprio's accent really hurt my belief in that character, plus i don't think he was that good anyway

2/24/2009 10:46:43 AM

Just as a though, thinking of the people who vote on Oscars (predominately actors) maybe it's considered a greater challenge to portray a real life person. If you're creating a character you have more leeway but in interpreting a person, people actually know what that person is like and have more basis for comparison.

I also would say that the portrays that win are more than just mimicing someone, a good performance of a real character requires something much deeper than just an impersonation to be good. There's a world of difference between Sean Penn's performance in milk and that guy that's always in the TBS commercials, or between Josh Brolin's W and Will Ferrel's.

2/24/2009 2:35:50 PM

Quote :

"people who vote on Oscars (predominately actors)"

Nah

2/24/2009 2:42:15 PM

umm, think again

Quote :

"The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), a professional honorary organization, maintains a voting membership of 5,829 as of 2007.[17] Actors constitute the largest voting bloc, numbering 1,311 members (22 percent) of the Academy's composition. Votes have been certified by the auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (and its predecessor Price Waterhouse) for the past 73 annual awards ceremonies.[18] "

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2009 3:07:35 PM

^even if they're the largest block, 22% hardly qualifies as "predominant"

2/24/2009 3:08:36 PM

i think that's exactly what it qualifies as. Its almost one quarter of the voting membership with 75% being distributed amond 14 other branches


Art Directors
Cinematographers
Directors
Documentary
Executives
Film Editors
Makeup
Music
Producers
Public Relations
Short Films and Feature Animation
Sound
Visual Effects
Writers


[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM. Reason : add]

2/24/2009 3:14:24 PM

I guess if all we have to go on is an uncited Wikipedia article, you're right

2/24/2009 3:26:04 PM

Here's another uncited list:

Quote :

" Actors: 1243 members Producers: 454 members Executives: 440 members Sound: 412 members Writers: 396 members Art Directors: 373 members Directors: 374 members Public Relations: 369 members Members at Large: 254 members Shorts/Feature Animation: 330 members Visual Effects: 264 members Music: 235 members Editors: 223 members Cinematographers: 195 members Documentary: 141 members Makeup: 116 members"

http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2246025764/m/330104822

2/24/2009 3:27:00 PM

Well then

2/24/2009 3:31:03 PM

Ok, I'll concede the voters for Oscars are not predominately actors. That was an aside anyways(hence the parentheses).

...maybe it's considered a greater challenge to portray a real life person. If you're creating a character you have more leeway but in interpreting a person, people actually know what that person is like and have more basis for comparison.

I also would say that the portrays that win are more than just mimicing someone, a good performance of a real character requires something much deeper than just an impersonation to be good. There's a world of difference between Sean Penn's performance in milk and that guy that's always in the TBS commercials, or between Josh Brolin's W and Will Ferrel's.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ...]

2/24/2009 4:20:02 PM

i will make my prediction right here in this thread..

in 2011, Liam Neeson will win the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : 2011]

2/24/2009 4:38:15 PM

ahaha. i thought that was a joke. but it's totally not. and you're probably right. other than maybe the year. it could get delayed or something as big movies like that tend to be delayed.

2/24/2009 4:42:42 PM

haha yeah i guess i should specify that he will win in 2012 for his role in 2011's Lincoln. Spielberg has plenty of time, but you're right you never know with hollywood

2/24/2009 5:09:23 PM

That will be his second consecutive Oscar after his 2011 win for his role in 2010's Taken 2: Taken it to the Streets

2/24/2009 5:18:19 PM

LOL I will be at the midnight premiere for that one.

2/24/2009 5:51:37 PM

Who cares about the overpaid hollywood fucktards

2/24/2009 6:40:20 PM

oh man

could you imagine if they waited to release LINCOLN until obama was running for re-election

SHIT

WOULD

BEAT

TITANIC

2/24/2009 9:53:27 PM

heck just make a movie about obama's run for his first term of presidency to get Will Smith an Oscar

2/24/2009 10:02:30 PM

he did call DIBS on playing obama

and i'll say this one more time

my problem isn't the performances
its the fact that there is a marked increase in the recognition their receiving

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ^and don't forget the closest he's ever come was for playing ALI]

2/24/2009 10:11:57 PM

Quote :

"^and don't forget the closest he's ever come was for playing ALI"

hah yea true.

2/24/2009 10:13:20 PM

just watched michael clayton again for the first time since i saw it in theaters

i had to double check who clooney lost the oscar to (DDL for TWBB)

if he had lost to a biopic, i would have burned hollywood to the ground

3/1/2009 1:49:08 AM