“big deal, anyone could win an Oscar playing that role”

[Riv86672]

Was reading through a conversation at a different site between two posters about the acting talent/lack thereof, of a certain actor.

At one point poster two reminds poster one that the the guy they’re discussing has won an Oscar.

Poster one comes back w. “big deal, anyone could win an Oscar playing that role”.

Can’t say I personally agree w. that logic but wanted to throw it out there and see what the board thinks.

Are there some roles so good they’d win an Oscar for anyone???

[Kirby101]

No. There are roles that could lead to an Oscar, but the actor still needs to do a great job. Not "anyone".
I would like to know which roles they are talking about.
I will add that sometimes a movie is so popular or revered that some of the Oscar's it receives are band wagon.

[Android 17]

Yeah, not anyone could just play any role.

Take Silence of the Lambs for example. It would be a whole different movie if Adam Sandler played Dr Lecter.

[AnthonyO'Brien]

I'm somewhat critical of will Smith's win as Serena Williams dad. ..

[caj]

I never saw Monster but I remember a lot of people criticizing Charleze Theoren's win for Best Actress, crediting her makeup over her acting.

[James Cameron]

I could be Joker and win that oscar. I'm a lot like Joker

[choptop]

I'm somewhat critical of will Smith's win as Serena Williams dad. ..

I agree with this he didn't deserve it even without the slap.

[j9ac9k]

I suppose it's a matter of just how good the movie is in terms of everything else (which seems to be the heart of the argument) v. what that particular actor brought to the role.(and also how they affected the performance of other actors around them) Sometimes I feel the Academy voters demonstrate that "anyone could've succeeded in that role" attitude in reverse when a movie gets nominated for almost everything else except the lead actor/actress or what have you.

I would guess (obvs we'll never know) there are some films that have so much going for it that one could swap out that one actor for another and still win that actor an award, but it would be a short list, not just "anyone."

That said, since Anthony Hopkins was mentioned it's on my mind - I think there probably are a few other actresses who could've won for Foster's role in "Silence of the Lambs" because everything else about that movie was so good.

[AnthonyO'Brien]

Thanks. Haven't seen it but it looked like an overblown TV movie. I'd rather watch a sports channel documentary about Mr Williams...

[useridgoeshere]

That statement doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe a nomination, but even then, there are so many great performances that people who choose “Oscar bait” roles don’t even get that. I can’t think of a winner where the role is more important than the actor’s identity and/or their performance.

This year, I don’t think the roles in Oppenheimer, Poor Things, and The Holdovers were guaranteed wins for whoever got cast. Giamatti was the frontrunner for Best Actor for a long time over Murphy, so someone else as Oppenheimer who wasn’t as amazing could have easily lost.

And there are the times like with Jamie Lee Curtis or Robert Downey Jr. where who they are played a role in their win. I don’t believe that a lesser known character actor was guaranteed to win either of those Oscars. If not RDJ, I think Ruffalo or DeNiro would have gotten more consideration. And JLC was a nice moment in a movie that was sweeping awards, but that role or performance weren’t exactly groundbreaking. I don’t think she was the best supporting actress in EEAAO, much less every movie in 2022.

[Catlady in training]

I think there is a bias for biopics and it is much likelier to get an Oscar for playing a real person than, for example, a character in a genre movie. Even if the performance is just as good.
(Not counting something like Joker as genre movie in this context.)

[Mister Mets]

What performances are people talking about here?

Recent Oscars have gone to performers who were really good (Cillian Murphy, Emma Stone, DaVine Joy Randolph, Olivia Colman, Mahershala Ali, Anthony Hopkins, Francis McDormand) or had a narrative (Renee Zelwegger, Brendan Fraser, Ke Huy Quan, Michelle Yeoh, Jamie Lee Curtis) or both (your favorite performances among the actors with a narrative.)

Maybe something like Bohemian Rhapsody is Oscarbait, but it's also technically difficult, so it's not like just anybody would have been able to pull it off.

That statement doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe a nomination, but even then, there are so many great performances that people who choose “Oscar bait” roles don’t even get that. I can’t think of a winner where the role is more important than the actor’s identity and/or their performance.

This year, I don’t think the roles in Oppenheimer, Poor Things, and The Holdovers were guaranteed wins for whoever got cast. Giamatti was the frontrunner for Best Actor for a long time over Murphy, so someone else as Oppenheimer who wasn’t as amazing could have easily lost.

And there are the times like with Jamie Lee Curtis or Robert Downey Jr. where who they are played a role in their win. I don’t believe that a lesser known character actor was guaranteed to win either of those Oscars. If not RDJ, I think Ruffalo or DeNiro would have gotten more consideration. And JLC was a nice moment in a movie that was sweeping awards, but that role or performance weren’t exactly groundbreaking. I don’t think she was the best supporting actress in EEAAO, much less every movie in 2022.

Everything Everywhere had a weird advantage for actors in that gave them a chance to play multiple versions of themselves. Curtis played a bureaucrat, a love interest and a sci-fi villain.

I do think Downey's performance would have won in most other circumstances, including if he had won before or that same kind of performance came from someone with a different background (IE- someone just coming off a prestige TV drama.)

[BeastieRunner]

Sounds like someone that's never played a role of any kind including in a school play.

[Gray Lensman]

A movie that is truly excellent at almost every level can maybe elevate a middling performance to Oscar worthy in the eyes of voters, but I don't think it do that for a truly bad performance. And to be honest, it probably requires at least a good to very good performance in order for it to be elevated to great in the eyes of watchers. Things that are truly bad tend to stand out as such, and even more so when surrounded by excellence to make the contrast even more...dramatic.

[krazijoe]

I don't know...I may be able to give Anna Paquin a run for her money in the Piano...