Oscars theory No. 3: The Babe Factor
Oftentimes, when that randy naked golden boy named Oscar embraces a best actress champ, his taste in gals becomes obvious. He sure loves babes.
Recent winners have all had youthful beauty in common: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow. The trend is less blatant in the category for supporting actresses, but older gals triumph there only now and then: Judi Dench once, Dianne Wiest twice in recent years, for example.
Sometimes a gal over age 40 like Susan Sarandon prevails, but it's rare compared to all the wrinkles we see on the guy side: Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey and Roberto Benigni, etc. In the past 15 years only one actress over age 50 has won an Oscar in the lead or supporting races: Dench. Meantime, consider all of these chaps north of the half-century mark who've triumphed during the same years: Jim Broadbent, Michael Caine, James Coburn, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Martin Landau, Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance.
Age bias against women reaches ridiculous heights at times like 1996 when everybody on the planet agreed that Golden Globe and SAG champ Lauren Bacall had the Oscar in the bag, but she got usurped by a babe (Juliette Binoche).
Pace University proved the obvious a few years ago when it conducted an Oscar study spanning the 25 years prior to 2000 and discovered that best actor winners were, on average, five years older than their female equivalents. Seven years separated male and female nominees.
None of this is new, of course. Take the best actress matchup of 1951, for example. To most Oscarwatchers, it looked like a diva smackdown between two big-screen grande dames: Gloria Swanson ("Sunset Boulevard") versus Bette Davis ("All About Eve"). Davis had already won twice, so the graying Swanson, age 53, hoped she could finally nab her overdue Oscar at last, but the gold, alas, was snatched away by ingénue Judy Holliday, who portrayed a gum-snapping floozy in "Born Yesterday."
It just so happened that Swanson and Holliday were seated side by side at a nightclub in New York when they heard the news over the radio. A newspaper photograph captured the scene: flabbergasted Holliday looked spooked as her eyes bugged out of her pretty little head upon hearing that she'd won. She didn't seem to notice Swanson, who leaned in close whispering, "I'm very happy for you, dearie, but, ahem, couldn't you have waited till next year?"
This year beauty and age may matter again if the lead actress race is truly between Reese Witherspoon — looking all pretty, perky and sexy at age 29 in "Walk the Line" — and Felicity Huffman, 43, who makes herself frumpy and manly in "Transamerica." Or is age not really an issue this time? Perhaps Witherspoon deserves to win fair and square — or might Huffman prevail despite the odds? Or maybe The Babe Factor will pull off one of its notorious shockeroos, resulting in a victory by Keira Knightley?
What do you think? Click on the "Comments" link below and pipe in, but note that it may take a while before your post goes live.
Photo: Once queen of the silent screen, Gloria Swanson believed she finally had the Oscar crown within her grasp when she wowed "those wonderful people out there in the dark" in Billy Wilder's brilliant talkie "Sunset Boulevard."
(Paramount Pictures)
I do believe that Juliette Binoche won her Oscar for her ACTING alone -- it was the most heart-breaking performance as compared to her nominess that year (Joan Allen's the next in THE CRUCIBLE). Most ppl rooted for Bacall is she is a so-called legend, and NEVER nominated for anything in her life. What most ppl forgot is the fact that Bacall has her fair share of enemies due to her tough cookie image, and yes, ppl in this town do avange even at teh Oscars. Let's face the fact that JULIETTE BINOCHE is, the best supporting actress for 1996, and will remain so for eternity.
The whole Marisa Tomei scandal is soooooooooooooooooo funny, I wonder if she sleeps comfy at night? Maybe her scariest dream would be Vanessa Redgrave or Judy Davis comes to her room and snatch that Oscar away. Speaking of la Redgrave, I think another factor that contribues why you lose an Oscar is YOUR POLITICS! After the whole Zionist hoodlum brouhahas, la Redgrave was only nominated twice, even though she deserves props for her perf (sorry, Tom, borrow fr u a bit) in WETHERBY, PRICK UP YOUR EARS and LITLE ODESSA.
I am confident that FELICITY HUFFMAN wil take home the Oscar as Best Actress.
Posted by: Kamal | February 20, 2006 at 07:54 PM
Helen Hunt didn't beat Judi Dench because Helen is (or was) a babe. No, Helen won based on another Oscar theory that Tom hasn't gotten around to -- THE ONLY AMERICAN ACTING NOMINEE.
Helen bested 4 brits (Judi, Julie Christee, Kate Winslet and Helena Bonham Carter).
Marisa Tomei (see, THIS is the real reason) beat out Miranda Richardson, Vanessa Redgrave, Joan Plowright, and Judy David.
Robert Duvall beat out Tom Courtney, Albert Finney, Michael Caine and Tom Conti.
Jason Robards beat Peter Firth, Maximillian Schell, Alec Guinness and Mikhail Baryshnikov for his award for Julia (see, how else to explain him winning back-to-back besides THE ONLY AMERICAN [because with the Oscar theory, the actual performance means nothing])
To the best of my recollection, these are the only 1 American acting match-ups at the Oscars from the last 30 years or so. And frankly, trying to support an Oscar Theory based on something that happened in 1947 is kinda cheesy.
Posted by: Not because she was a babe | February 20, 2006 at 04:20 PM
Helen Hunt winning for As Good As It Gets, over Judi Dench in Mrs. Brown, was an example of a babe winning over an easily superior performance by an older actress. Mortifying.
Posted by: randy | February 20, 2006 at 06:47 AM
I covered the Oscars (red carpet and backstage) in 1999-2003. I've followed this great awards show since I was a kid. The "babe" factor does play a role, for sure, but more importantly is when an actor or actress plays an over the edge type with a showy, actor's lab-type performance -- drunkard (Ray Milland) retarded (Dustin Hoffman) mentally unbalanced (Angelina Jolie) woman who is playing a man (Linda Hunt and Felicity Huffman) pretty woman gone ugly (Nicole Kidman) serial-killer prostitute (Charlize Theron) For this reason --Felicity Huffman will win. Nothing to do with age. Regardless, I think Reese Witherspoon deserves it for her finely tuned role and doing her own very good singing.
Posted by: Roger Galloway | February 20, 2006 at 06:15 AM
This babe theory is really insulting to Reese Witherspoon and to the Oscars (this year), unless mostly all of the critics group and BAFTA ascribe to it, too.
Posted by: lvakad | February 19, 2006 at 09:54 PM
It was a travesty that Julia Roberts' performance won the Oscar, while Ellen Burstyn's incredibly brave effort in "Requiem for a Dream" was overlooked. It was a hard-hitting performance in a hard-hitting movie.
Posted by: Bruce | February 19, 2006 at 08:37 PM
Of course Bacall deserved to win! She was the best thing in the movie. Juliette Binoche shouldn't have even been in the supporting category, for cryin' out loud. It was a lead performance and she didn't want to compete with Kristin Scott Thomas.
Posted by: Mike O. | February 19, 2006 at 08:00 AM
It's not "age bias against women," you silly; it's age bias until a deserving actress loses out to a guy. And pretty bias, of course.
Posted by: Ted | February 18, 2006 at 11:15 PM
Juliette Binoche won the Oscar over Lauren Bacall because she gave a much better performance. I would hate to think that Oscar voters take into account anything but the performance. If being a beautiful babe meant winning an Oscar, then Jessica Tandy, Kathy Bates, Shirley Booth, Anna Magnani, Maggie Smith, Frances McDormand, and many others would not have won.
Posted by: unkie469 | February 18, 2006 at 01:13 AM
I am going to make some corrections about the year Nicole Kidman won. she did not win major critics awards. That was an incredible competitive year. Nicole won the Golden Globe and the BAFTA award. Renee Zelleweger won the Golden Globe and SAG Award. Julianne Moore did not dominate the critics awards, although she won a lot of them. Diane Lane won the NY film critics award and the National Society of Film Critics awards, which to old school people are two of the four major critics awards and two of the most prestigous. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, she did not win any of the major critics awards at all that year. She won the SAG and the Golden Globe. Of the 4 major critics awards, Fernada Montengro won 2, Ally Sheedy won 2 and Cameron Diaz won 1 that year (there was a tie for the LA critics award)--you will notice that only Fernada got an Oscar nomination that year (1998).
Posted by: Bryan | February 17, 2006 at 09:39 PM
I think this age thing is going a bit far. YES, the past winners of the Best Actress have been young and beautiful. But a deeper look at this shows that the winner each year has been the front-runner, not because of her age, but because she has statistically won the most pre-cursor awards. And come on, we all know that the critics awards are NOT known, in any case, for being based on youth and beauty. To back up my story, look at these facts: Hilary Swank won the overall majority of critics awards last year (Annette Bening took a handful) and won the Golden Globe and SAG awards for Best Actress. Charlize Theron won almost every single pre-cursor award for her performance in Monster. She won the Golden Globe and SAG Award for Best Actress as well. Halle Berry and Nicole Kidman are the wild cards in recent years. Halle Berry won a few critics awards for her performance and the SAG Award, but overall, the race was dominated by Sissy Spacek (including a Golden Globe win). Nicole Kidman was the same way: won a few critics awards and the Globe, but the race (in terms of critics awards) was completely dominated by Julianne Moore for Far From Heaven. Julia Roberts was the undeniable queen of her Oscar winning year, winning the most critics awards, as well as the Golden Globe and SAG Award for Best Actress. The same goes for Hilary Swank the previous year, where she won almost every single critic award for Boy's Don't Cry, as well as the Golden Globe for Best Actress. And finally, the same can be said for Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. She won several critics awards for her performance, as well as the Golden Globe and the SAG award for Best Actress. I DO NOT, in any way, shape or form, believe any of these women could have gotten as far as they did in the respective Oscar-winning years based upon their looks. It's not like any of them had not won anything and then went to win the Oscar for Best Actress just because they were beautiful. The statistics show that each Best Actress over the recent years, although yes very beautiful, has won the majority of pre-cursor awards, or at least several, before claiming her Best Actress Oscar.
Posted by: Tristan Carpenter | February 17, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Could it just be that the "babes", Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank and Gwyneth Paltrow were just deserving of their win despite their "babe" status. I mean, was there any one else nominated that year who wasn't considered a "babe" and had a better performance and should have won?
And what constitutes a "babe"? Because if you ask me, Felicity Huffman is quite beautiful but then again, what do I know...I am a girl after all.
I do think it is sad though that the younger men who give phenominal performances can seem to win (with the exception of Adrien Brody). If Oscar is biased, I think it's more towards the young men that they consider "heart throbs".
Posted by: AS1976 | February 17, 2006 at 09:53 AM
The reason everyone thought that Lauren Bacall would win was it was her only nomination, more of a life time thing. Good article Tom, though the Davis/Swanson/Holliday race was 1950, one of the better years in film history.
Posted by: patrick | February 17, 2006 at 09:41 AM
The reason Lauren Bacall didn't win the Oscar was because her movie was a piece of crap, and she just wasn't that good in it, either.
Posted by: Brian | February 17, 2006 at 05:23 AM