Which 2024 Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominee has the longest (and shortest) screen time?

Matthew Stewart
·4 min read
1
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Given the back-to-back additions of Alicia Vikander (“The Danish Girl,” 2016) and Viola Davis (“Fences,” 2017) to the list of Best Supporting Actress Oscar winners with the five highest amounts of screen time, one might have reasonably expected subsequent recipients of the award to follow suit. However, since they all clocked in under 29 minutes, none of the last half dozen victors even cracked the top 30, and that trend is almost sure to continue in 2024. Indeed, all but one of the category’s five current hopefuls are nominated for performances that are shorter than at least half of the ones that have ever merited this honor.

The 2024 supporting actress nominees have an average screen time of 29 minutes and 48 seconds, or 22.97% of their respective films. These amounts are almost four minutes and over 3% greater than last year’s. In terms of physical time, their average is the 16th highest in the category’s 88-year history, while their percentage mean is the 25th highest.

More from GoldDerby

The last 10 winners of this award appeared on screen for an average of 30 minutes and seven seconds, or 22.70% of their films. Reigning champ Jamie Lee Curtis took the gold for her 17 minutes and 15 seconds of work in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” making hers the category’s 20th shortest winning performance. Since she can be seen in just 12.38% of her movie, she ranks 12th in a proportional sense, with every other 21st century victor outpacing her by at least 0.65%.

Emulating Curtis as the nominee with the least screen time in her lineup is Emily Blunt, whose performance in “Oppenheimer” adds up to 16 minutes and 50 seconds, or 9.33% of the three-hour film. In the context of this category, she is the 64th contender to ever fall below 10% and the first to do so since Michelle Williams (“Manchester by the Sea,” 2017). Over the years, this award has gone to 17 women with lower amounts of actual screen time than hers and only four with smaller percentages, with the latter group consisting of Beatrice Straight (“Network,” 1977), Maureen Stapleton (“Reds,” 1982), Judi Dench (“Shakespeare in Love,” 1999), and Gloria Grahame (“The Bad and the Beautiful,” 1953).

Next is America Ferrera, whose 22-minute and eight-second appearance in “Barbie” results in her having her lineup’s second highest proportional time: 19.42%. Considering all 20 of this year’s acting contenders, her character is given the latest introduction, as viewers don’t meet her Gloria until “Barbie” reaches its 31-minute and 42-second (or 27.81%) mark.

Incidentally, middle featured female nominee Danielle Brooks is absent for nearly all of her own film’s first half hour, as her Sofia isn’t introduced until the 21.13% point of “The Color Purple.” She is ultimately seen for 24 minutes and 19 seconds (or 17.27%) of the musical’s running time, outpacing the previously nominated holder of the same, originally non-musical role – Oprah Winfrey (1986) – by 78 seconds and 2.30%.

Not far off from Brooks is Da’Vine Joy Randolph, whose presence in “The Holdovers” amounts to 25 minutes and 29 seconds (or 19.10%). She delivers the third longest performance in her film behind lead hopeful Paul Giamatti (1:13:47) and non-nominee Dominic Sessa (1:05:04), the latter of whom was campaigned as a supporting actor despite his proximity to the former.

The final slot is filled by the lineup’s only veteran nominee: Jodie Foster, whose one-hour and 16-second (or 49.75%) performance in “Nyad” is even longer than those that brought her her two Best Actress wins (“The Accused,” 1989; “The Silence of the Lambs,” 1992). Indeed, her new role is the seventh longest (eighth by percentage) ever nominated in this category and would be the third largest to win here, following those of Tatum O’Neal (“Paper Moon,” 1974) and Patty Duke (“The Miracle Worker,” 1963).

Make your predictions at Gold Derby now. Download our free and easy app for Apple/iPhone devices or Android (Google Play) to compete against legions of other fans plus our experts and editors for best prediction accuracy scores. See our latest prediction champs. Can you top our esteemed leaderboards next? Always remember to keep your predictions updated because they impact our latest racetrack odds, which terrify Hollywood chiefs and stars. Don’t miss the fun. Speak up and share your huffy opinions in our famous forums where 5,000 showbiz leaders lurk every day to track latest awards buzz. Everybody wants to know: What do you think? Who do you predict and why?

SIGN UP for Gold Derby newsletters and updates

Best of GoldDerby

Sign up for Gold Derby's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Click here to read the full article.