Oscars Won For Less Than 20 Minutes Of Screen Time
video description
With twenty-four minutes and fifty-two seconds of screen time, Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance in this movie is the second shortest to ever win an Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, with David Niven in Separate Tables (1958) beating him, at twenty-three minutes and thirty-nine seconds.
Date: 2020-07-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
ChucksterOLove
Screen time doesn't matter, who you know matters more. There are so many times when undeserving people win. Did Mira Sorvino deserve an Oscar for 'Mighty Aphrodite'? Did Marissa Tomei deserve an Oscar for playing a ditzy New Yorker in 'My Cousin Vinnie'? Did Gwyneth Paltrow deserve to win for 'Shakespeare in Love'? NO.
Politics have more to do with winning an Oscar than acting.
reply
Screen time doesn't matter, who you know matters more. There are so many times when undeserving people win. Did Mira Sorvino deserve an Oscar for 'Mighty Aphrodite'? Did Marissa Tomei deserve an Oscar for playing a ditzy New Yorker in 'My Cousin Vinnie'? Did Gwyneth Paltrow deserve to win for 'Shakespeare in Love'? NO.
Politics have more to do with winning an Oscar than acting.
reply
Elaine
I would have picked Burgess Meredith for Rocky over Jason Robard. Meredith was one of the greatest actors this country ever produced, especially on the stage. But cmon! Whose performance is better remembered today - Merediths scruffy little trainer, Mickey or Robards news editor? Besides, Robard won again, the very next year, for Julia.
reply
I would have picked Burgess Meredith for Rocky over Jason Robard. Meredith was one of the greatest actors this country ever produced, especially on the stage. But cmon! Whose performance is better remembered today - Merediths scruffy little trainer, Mickey or Robards news editor? Besides, Robard won again, the very next year, for Julia.
reply
Josh
Many people are glad that Anthony Hopkins won for his performance in Silence of the Lambs but are disappointed that it was for Best Lead Actor rather than Supporting Actor. I felt his presence and weight throughout the movie even though he technically had scant screen time, so I'd say the title of Leading Role also belongs to him.
reply
Many people are glad that Anthony Hopkins won for his performance in Silence of the Lambs but are disappointed that it was for Best Lead Actor rather than Supporting Actor. I felt his presence and weight throughout the movie even though he technically had scant screen time, so I'd say the title of Leading Role also belongs to him.
reply
Carolyn
Shampoo was overrated from the moment was released. Anne Hathaway is given a bad rap. Jason Robards could've won a oscar reciting the alphabet. Jack Palance knew how to make the most of a small role & gave one the best oscar acceptances EVER. Both Judi Densch & Beatrice Staight? Ahh they don't make actresses like that anymore.
reply
Shampoo was overrated from the moment was released. Anne Hathaway is given a bad rap. Jason Robards could've won a oscar reciting the alphabet. Jack Palance knew how to make the most of a small role & gave one the best oscar acceptances EVER. Both Judi Densch & Beatrice Staight? Ahh they don't make actresses like that anymore.
reply
Jean
It's not about the amount of screen time a person gets. It's about the performance and it's impact on the movie. The actor made sure that the scenes he/she was in, he/she totally stole them and the scenes were dominated by them. That's why viola Davis was nominated for being in a movie for like 11 minutes.
reply
It's not about the amount of screen time a person gets. It's about the performance and it's impact on the movie. The actor made sure that the scenes he/she was in, he/she totally stole them and the scenes were dominated by them. That's why viola Davis was nominated for being in a movie for like 11 minutes.
reply
FitnessFreak
What about Gloria Graham for The Bad and the Beautiful in 1952? She won the oscar for best supporting actress with only 9 minutes of screen time. AND. she was the previous record holder for the shortest time on screen to win an oscar before Beatrice Straight did with Network.
reply
What about Gloria Graham for The Bad and the Beautiful in 1952? She won the oscar for best supporting actress with only 9 minutes of screen time. AND. she was the previous record holder for the shortest time on screen to win an oscar before Beatrice Straight did with Network.
reply
msdisco85
tbf, much as people hate it, I remember so much of that 5 minutes of Beatrice Straight from the first time I watched that film and I didn't even know she got an Oscar for it. I mean, it's a pretty brutal 5 minutes, it comes out of nowhere, but it makes its mark.
reply
tbf, much as people hate it, I remember so much of that 5 minutes of Beatrice Straight from the first time I watched that film and I didn't even know she got an Oscar for it. I mean, it's a pretty brutal 5 minutes, it comes out of nowhere, but it makes its mark.
reply
Douglas
Anthony Hopkins does appear, spread out for only 16 total minutes throughout a 2 hour film. however his performance is so good, so chilling that you can't help but feel his presence throughout the entire film hence it felt like a leading role.
reply
Anthony Hopkins does appear, spread out for only 16 total minutes throughout a 2 hour film. however his performance is so good, so chilling that you can't help but feel his presence throughout the entire film hence it felt like a leading role.
reply
Queen
Silence of the lambs totally deserving till date I couldn't make it through to the movie completely. Scares the crap out of me, didn't realize he only had 16 minutes. But one fine day I will conquer through this movie.
reply
Silence of the lambs totally deserving till date I couldn't make it through to the movie completely. Scares the crap out of me, didn't realize he only had 16 minutes. But one fine day I will conquer through this movie.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
