Trawl through Oscar history and mythology, and it doesn’t take long to find a base layer of superstition, and the idea of an “Oscar curse”. This, proponents argue, strikes occasionally and randomly, and manifests in a career which, instead of receiving a boost from a win, founders or loses direction. Examples cited include Louise Fletcher, whose win for her chilling performance as Nurse Ratched failed to translate into a high-profile film career, and F Murray Abraham, a winner for Amadeus, who languished for over a decade in supporting roles in a string of B movies.
While it is pretty much impossible to establish a causative relationship between an Oscar win and a subsequent career spiral, it does seem possible that the spotlight falling on Tatum O’Neal, for example – at 10, the youngest actor to win an Academy Award – might have contributed to her later problems.
Oscar winners live longer than non-Oscar winning contenders. This is the sort of thing – sort of observation – which backs up all that Spirit Level sorta nonsense about the perils of societal hierarchy and inequality and all that.
So, if Oscars are actually a curse then the Spirit Level is wrong, isn’t it?
It’s nonsensical, isn’t it, based on a few examples rather than any real analysis. Clint Eastwood has won 5 Oscars; Katherine Hepburn and Woody Allen 4; Daniel Day-Lewis, Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep 3.
Clearly a link between winning multiple Oscars and living long, successful lives
“Oscar winners live longer than non-Oscar winning contenders.”
The statues probably make good weapons of self defence.
If you pick scripts at random, almost all movies you end up in will not be winners (or even nominated).
Winning is only sometimes an indicator of “quality” anyway (often it’s “someone else’s turn” or it’s a political statement or…).
So getting into multiple winners is like winning a large amount in the lottery twice.
“F Murray Abraham, a winner for Amadeus, who languished for over a decade in supporting roles in a string of B movies.”
This is the usual for an actor. Look at Gene Hackman: over 100 movies listed in IMDb over six decades, won twice. Getting upset about it usually gets you a reputation for being hard to work with, and less of a chance as a result.
Exactly M.
For many actors it’s more important to be constantly in work, rather than trying to pick winners. The late David Warner is a good example : great actor, some brilliant performances ( eg Morgan, Omen, Time Bandits ) and dozens of dodgy films. The important thing though was that he “up for it” every time.
M,
“If you pick scripts at random, almost all movies you end up in will not be winners (or even nominated).
Winning is only sometimes an indicator of “quality” anyway (often it’s “someone else’s turn” or it’s a political statement or…).”
And if you read up on film, lots of actors choose to do films that seem great on paper but turn out badly. Or vice versa. Things get changed after they sign up, or they just didn’t work. The cast of Casablanca didn’t think it would be anything special.
Actors are like the top of the iceberg. They’re usually a very small part of what makes a film work. They’re what people see but writing, directing, editing, sound design, production design are more important. Heaven’s Gate has a great cast, but it’s a rubbish movie.
. . . the spotlight falling on Tatum O’Neal, for example – at 10, the youngest actor to win an Academy Award – might have contributed to her later problems.
‘ the fuck? Oscar winning doesn’t seem to have featured in O’Neal’s own account. She seemed more bothered by emotional and physical abuse by her druggie father, and sexual abuse by daddy’s drug dealer. Being Michael Jackson’s girlfriend at age 13 can’t have helped much.
While it’s possible winning an Oscar might lead to a young girl being sexually abused, Roman Polanski reminds us that sexually abusing a young girl will not stop you winning an Oscar.
It doesn’t help that the Oscars
have becomehas been the prime virtue-signalling event in the Industry for over two-three decades now.Becoming directly associated with the cause-du-jour, which is fickle and discarded like yesterday’s fashion in a world that centers around Image, may well prove detrimental to your career.
Especially when the people involved, and ultimately arrange for your next job, know that the prime requirement for getting that award is not the actual quality of Pretending to be Someone Else Convincingly…
If you want to find the real actors you generally have to look for the “supporting role” awards. Those people can regularly turn a turd into a diamond. And get remembered longer, with a generally stable career, and their own “cult followers”, for their performance than the Main Cast.
Re: Tatum O’Neal
see also Drew Barrymore. It was getting sliced up in Scream that resurrected her career.
I guess that the support ( and rewards ) are better now for child actors than they were in the 1970s and 80s, but Hollywood is still full of nonces.