ACADEMY AWARDS NOMINATIONS : Analysts See Merging of Art, Box-Office Appeal

The nominations for the Academy Awards, say industry pundits, represent a rare coming together of the artistic and commercial impulses of Hollywood. Though box-office hits often have been overlooked in the past, they surfaced in droves in this year’s balloting.

“If the awards represent how Hollywood sees itself and not how the public views Hollywood films, this year the two have come very close,” observes Larry Gerbrandt, a senior analyst with Paul Kagan Associates. “Four of the five films nominated for best picture performed very well at the box office. Overall, there’s a definite mainstream thrust.”

In an “extremely conventional” field of choices, says Joe Roth, chairman of 20th Century Fox Film Corp., the primary breakthrough was “Beauty and the Beast.” It was the first time, he notes, that an animated film had been included in the best-picture field. “Happily, the academy seems to have gotten past its tendency to prejudge a movie on how it has been put together, and is approaching each film solely as entertainment,” says Roth. “Disney has done a terrific job of getting people past that concern. Getting nominated was the hard part . . . Now it has as good a shot of winning as any.”

That “JFK,” Oliver Stone’s controversial treatment of the Kennedy assassination, walked off with a nomination, some say, was a victory of craft over content. “There was passionate disagreement with the story Stone told, but great respect for his moviemaking,” says Del Reisman, president of the Writers Guild of America West. “Voters decided not to vote on his conclusions but on the quality of Stone’s work, which is a very mature way of approaching it.”

Observers point out that Barbra Streisand’s omission from the list of best-director nominees, however unfair, is certainly not unprecedented. Directors such as Penny Marshall and Bruce Beresford were overlooked when “Awakenings” and “Driving Miss Daisy” were entered into the best-picture sweepstakes.

Since the balloting is, to some extent, a popularity contest, some say Streisand started out in a hole. “People don’t seem to like her--as an actor or a director,” says David Horowitz, a marketing supervisor at Orion Pictures. “Though the Directors Guild saw fit to nominate her, the academy evidently looked the other way.”

Horowitz, among others, believes that the best-screenplay nomination accorded “Europa Europa,” a highly acclaimed film about the Holocaust that walked off with the best foreign film Golden Globe award, was a way of compensating for the German Film Commission’s failure to to submit it for contention in the best foreign language film race. “The omission raises the question of whether the academy leaves too much control in the hands of the country of origin,” he says. “If there are three great films released by one country, why should only one be considered? I’d be surprised if there isn’t a real move to re-examine the rules and give the nominating system a closer look.”

The conventional wisdom has it that those films which have performed weakest at the box office are most likely to profit from an Oscar nudge. “The more popular the film, the less impact a nomination or award has,” says Art Murphy, box-office analyst for the trade publication Variety. “Films that haven’t done that well despite good reviews suddenly get a bump.” “My Left Foot,” which had grossed only $2.65 million before it was nominated for best picture, took in an additional $8.1 million by the time of the Academy Awards in 1990. 1987’s costly “The Last Emperor” came into the nominations with only $26 million at the box office. After the nominations and a best-picture award, it took in a full 41% of its $43.9-million domestic gross. Some believe that may hold true for “Bugsy,” the only best-picture contender that hasn’t hit it big.

“Bugsy was an underdog from the beginning,” observes Peter Guber, chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment. “It was incorrectly viewed as a gangster film in a long string of gangster films. People wondered if Warren (Beatty) had the capacity to deliver a box-office punch. The nominations will give the film longevity, help it to perform not only in this country but in international, home video and cable. This is a business of pieces now . . . We don’t just care how a film plays in Westwood.”

Mike Simpson, co-head of the film department at the William Morris Agency, speculates that, if history is any indication, “Bugsy”--nominated for 10 awards--may well be on its way to the top spot. “Typically, films with the most nominations and nominated for best director go on to take best picture,” he says.

Whatever the outcome, analysts say, Sony--whose TriStar and Columbia divisions garnered 36 awards collectively--has certainly emerged a clear winner.

“That says that, for all of the complaining in the press and elsewhere, people running the studios have come up with some pretty good choices,” says Samuel Goldwyn, chairman of the Samuel Goldwyn Co. “With ‘Bugsy,’ ‘Prince of Tides, ‘ ‘Hook,’--and ‘Terminator’ . . . in the technical categories at least--the nominations represent a great Japanese victory.”

Another likely beneficiary, says Goldwyn, is the Academy Awards telecast. “Much of the time, the vast majority of the audience hasn’t seen a lot of the nominees,” he points out. “This year, because so many of the pictures have worked at the box office, I expect we’ll have the biggest viewership yet.”

Actress

* Geena Davis: “Thelma/Louise”

* Laura Dern: “Rambling Rose”

* Jodie Foster: “Lambs”

* Bette Midler: “For the Boys”

* Susan Sarandon: “Thelma/Louise”

Last year’s winner: Kathy Bates, “Misery”

Actor

* Warren Beatty: “Bugsy”

* Robert De Niro: “Cape Fear”

* Anthony Hopkins: “Lambs”

* Nick Nolte: “Prince of Tides”

* Robin Williams: “Fisher King”

Last year’s winner: Jeremy Irons, “Reversal of Fortune”