Well, how about Frederic March for DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE, then?
There’s an argument to be made that Shakespeare in Love is the greatest ever Oscar-bait. It’s got:
- Cute British accents, which are a magnet for Oscar voters
- The name “Shakespeare” in the title, which convinces them that it must be something high-brow and deeply important
- Clever Shakespearian references which allow viewers to think themselves educated
- In-jokes about the entertainment world, since after all the Oscar voters are entertainers
- Period costumes and settings
- A less than perfect hero who struggles against difficulties and almost magically wins at the end (when he rewrites Romeo and Juliet to the form we know)
- A romance against the odds (although one which the two lovers eventually realize must end)
- A wise older person (Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth) who, it becomes clear, understands what’s going on better than anyone
All this is on its side. Admittedly it’s not a drama, which is usually what wins. In general, comedies, action/adventure films, thrillers, horror movies, fantasies, and science fiction films don’t win. It also doesn’t contain any mildly advanced moral messages, which is what usually wins. An Oscar winner with a message usually has to have one that’s slightly more liberal than most people’s current beliefs but not too much more liberal.
“Chariots of Fire” apparently won because it was an Oscar bait film. (Brits; self-importance; heroes overcoming obstacles). I liked this film a lot when it first came out but it has NOT aged well.