Tapley Injects Some Reality into the Silliness

I think you have to be an old timer in the Oscar race to really get certain things about it. One of those things is the so-called “Norbit” myth that has its roots in Jeff Wells of Hollywood-Elsewhere’s imagined “take down” campaign of Eddie Murphy during the Dreamgirls. Wells was in the tank for –wait for it — Little Miss Sunshine that year thus, he wanted to do what he could to knock out the competition. At least I think that’s what it was about. I’ll never really know why he went after Murphy or why he went after Mo’Nique (who won anyway). These things remain a mystery. But what I do know? There is no Norbit myth. Eddie Murphy didn’t win because Alan Arkin did. Alan Arkin, you know, Mr. Academy?

You might believe Eddie Murphy’s win was derailed by Norbit opening at the same time and supposedly embarrassing Murphy and more importantly, embarrassing Academy voters. But then you’d be in the awkward position of having to explain why Lauren Bacall lost, or Virginia Madsen, or Kate Hudson, or Bill Murray. You’d have to figure out why voters went the way they did when it was already decided for them. Because that’s what they do. They pick what they want to pick, no matter what. For better or worse.

There is no one with a real thinking brain who is going to look at what Eddie Redmayne did in Jupiter Ascending and think they’d rather give the Oscar to someone else. If anything, Murphy, like Madsen, Bacall, etc. didn’t have a weighty enough performance and they decided to go for the more “serious” performance. Sure, that isn’t the case, necessarily, with Alan Arkin, but in that case you had a Best Picture contender up against a non-Best Picture contender. Almost always the acting wins go to a nominated Best Picture.

Nine times since 2000 Supporting Actor went to a Best Picture contender and only five times did it go a win that wasn’t a Best Picture contender.

Redmayne is up against Michael Keaton, primarily, which explains Wells’ fixation, and both are in Best Picture contending films. The problem with Keaton’s is that he’s up against Redmayne. Redmayne’s only problem is that he’s young. This might be Keaton’s only shot. Voters won’t think that way – they will likely go with their heart. And trust me, they have no clue about Redmayne’s work in Jupiter Ascending. I’m sure the journalists chasing after this story are going for maximum humiliation for all involved but the Oscars don’t really work that way.

Of course if Redmayne loses, Wells will believe it was due to the Norbit factor, but no such factor exists, not in my 16 years of watching this race. Shitty campaign smears? Sure, those work. But this? Nah. By the time they get their ballots voters won’t have even heard of Jupiter Ascending. They won’t hear of it until it trickles down to VOD and then they’ll wonder why they never heard of it. So if Redmayne is to lose, it will have to be for a different reason, like they liked Birdman more.

Kris Tapley’s piece kind of says it all.