Some Harvard students spend their weekends on problem sets and too-hastily-composed response papers. Ben Zauzmer, a freshman, recently attracted the attention of several major newspapers by putting his mathematical mettle to the test in predicting the 2012 Academy Awards winners. His formula that draws from Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic ratings, previous BAFTA and Golden Globe wins since 2001, and a linear algebra formula to clunk out a raw percentage score in each category.
But how did the formula hold up?
Exceedingly well in most categories. Zauzmer correctly predicted the wins of the “Big Six” categories: The Artist for Best Picture, Michel Hazanavicius for Best Director, Jean Dujardin for Best Actor (The Artist), Meryl Streep for Best Actress (The Iron Lady), Christopher Plummer for Best Supporting Actor (The Beginners) and Octavia Spencer for Best Supporting Actress (The Help). Impressive, eh?
And where did Zauzmer’s predictions go astray?
Out of 20 predicted awards, Zauzmer batted a .750. However, there was something a little strange about three of the five he predicted incorrectly. Two of them are somewhat innocuous: he incorrectly predicted that Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory would win Best Documentary instead of the winner, the ironically-named Undefeated. He also incorrectly predicted that The Artist would win Best Film Editing instead of his last choice with only about 10%, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
But in the Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, and Best Sound Editing categories, Zauzmer did not predict that Hugo would take all three awards. Personal feelings aside, (we’re going to ignore that Harry Potter was completely shut out as the Oscars do not deserve Alan Rickman), it seems a bit strange that Hugo so outperformed the prediction with reliability, taking a total of five of the minor awards and yet not a single major win.
But then again, it makes sense. Scorsese, who is in the final years of his illustrious career, put together a glorious display of a sort of French steampunk style. However, the story is dead on its feet. Wall Street Journal critic Joe Morgenstern wrote that “Thematic potency and cinematic virtuosity…can’t conceal a deadly inertness at the film’s core,” and “Visually “Hugo” is a marvel, but dramatically it’s a clockwork lemon.” And he is completely correct. Hugo has something missing in its acting and execution with a kind of “Titanic” feel that if Scorsese makes something so technically-wondrous then there’s NO WAY that the production can be anything but outstanding.
This view is a pity and raises the question of if the Oscars matter anyway, a topic that has prompted studies galore. In one such study, the researchers found that a Best Picture/Best Actor/Best Actress win can do wonders for a film while, “a nomination or award for “lesser” prizes, such as best supporting actor/actress, has little if any impact on these variables.” If Supporting Actress and Actor are considered “lesser” prizes, then where on Earth does “Best Sound Editing” fit into the mix (no pun intended…okay, yeah, it was)? Apparently, it doesn’t mean a thing.
Thus, shall we come to the conclusion that minor Oscars can go to soothe the egos of fading star directors? If there’s no monetary gain, is it merely a ruse? These are questions that only the 6,000 voting members of the Oscars can answer, but whatever the conclusion, Zauzmer’s predictions bring up some important questions about what it means when wins can be easily predicted from nominations and the causes behind deviations from a formula.