Supposedly Richard Feynman once said, “the Nobel Prize will be the tombstone on all great work”. Ironically he went on to win the prize for groundbreaking work, but at the core, he raised a valid question which I think is ‘what happens when after years of passionate work and putting in your all, you finally receive recognition at the highest level’?

理查德·费曼(Richard Feynman)曾经说过：“诺贝尔奖将成为所有伟大作品的墓碑”。 具有讽刺意味的是，他继续获得了开创性工作的奖项，但从根本上讲，他提出了一个有效的问题，我认为是“经过多年的热情工作并全力以赴，您最终获得最高级别的认可会发生什么？ ？

Most disciplines have an award at the top. One that’s highly coveted, more prestigious than all the others and reserved for experts, the best of the best — The Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, Pulitzer Prize and so on. Becoming an expert requires a commitment of mind, body and time while navigating the many inevitable obstacles that get in the way of achieving success. More often than not it’s only those with passion and a fire inside who can surmount the largest of obstacles to produce truly groundbreaking work. But what happens when people achieve success and recognition for their work? Rarely do those who practice in a field and win an award do so more than once.

大多数学科都获得最高奖项。 一件令人垂涎的作品，比所有其他作品都享有盛誉，并且为专家而设，其中包括最好的-诺贝尔奖，菲尔兹奖章，普利策奖等。 成为专家需要投入心智，精力和时间，同时要克服许多阻碍成功的障碍。 通常，只有那些内心充满激情和热情的人才能克服最大的障碍，才能完成真正的突破性工作。 但是，当人们的工作取得成功并获得认可时，会发生什么？ 在某个领域进行实践并赢得奖项的人很少会多次这样做。

Is this because people genuinely only have enough in them to produce one piece of groundbreaking work in their lifetime? Or is it because that once they receive this recognition, they no longer have the drive or passion to produce and overcome obstacles like they used to?

这是因为人们真正只有一生才有能力在他们的一生中完成一件具有开创性的工作吗？ 还是因为一旦他们获得了这种认可，他们就不再具有像过去那样制造和克服障碍的动力或激情了？

This last question got me thinking about how I could find a data-driven answer. But when talking about passion and creativity, we’re talking about variables that on their own don’t have any direct measures aside from rewards. There’s no ‘passion scale’ or ‘creativity spectrum’, just acknowledgment when work is extraordinary. So then how can we measure passion before and after recognition? This got me thinking about the field of cinema and a certain actor.

最后一个问题让我开始思考如何找到以数据为依据的答案。 但是，在谈论激情和创造力时，我们所谈论的是变量本身除了奖励之外没有任何直接的措施。 没有“激情尺度”或“创造力谱”，只有在工作非凡时才能得到承认。 那么，我们如何才能在认可前后衡量热情呢？ 这让我开始思考电影领域和某个演员。

麦康妮 (The McConnaissance)

Remember Matthew McConaughey? Between 2011 and 2014 he was experiencing a revival of his career, taking on more nuanced and cerebral roles than the usual handsome, romantic heartthrob characters he was known for. He performed in a slew of critically acclaimed and high grossing films such as “Mud”, “The Lincoln Lawyer”, “Bernie”, “Interstellar”, and a stint on television in one of my favourite shows — “True Detective”. Many critics referred this time as the “McConaissance”. He truly worked on revitalizing his career and this time eventually culminated in him receiving an Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Ron Woodroof in “Dallas Buyers Club”.

还记得马修·麦康纳吗？ 在2011年至2014年间，他正经历着职业生涯的复兴，比起他通常所熟知的英俊，浪漫的心跳人物，他扮演的角色更加细微和大脑化。 在我最喜欢的节目之一“真侦探”中，他参加了许多备受赞誉和高票房的电影的演出，如《泥》，《林肯律师》，《伯尼》，《星际穿越》和电视节目。 这次，许多批评家将其称为“ McConaissance” 。 他为振兴自己的职业生涯做出了真正的努力，这次他最终因在《达拉斯买家具乐部》中饰演罗恩·伍德罗夫而获得奥斯卡最佳男主角奖。

However, since then, his career has been quiet with only a handful of lacklustre appearances in films such as “The Dark Tower”, “Beach bum” “The Gentleman”. In almost the same amount of time that the “McConaissance” was declared, it ended. So to our question, did Matthew McConaughey lose whatever it was that drove him to portray roles to critical acclaim? Is this a correct observation to make? And is this a common occurrence among other actors after they achieve the highest award in acting?

但是，从那以后，他的职业生涯一直很平静，在诸如《黑暗之塔》，《海滩烧伤》，《绅士》等电影中只有很少的露面。 在宣布“ McConaissance”的几乎相同的时间内，它结束了。 因此，对于我们的问题，马修·麦康纳(Matthew McConaughey)是否失去了促使他将角色刻画为好评的一切？ 这是正确的观察吗？ 在其他演员获得最佳表演奖之后，这是否在其他演员中很常见？

奥斯卡最佳男主角奖 (The Academy Award For Best Actor)

Let’s first look at how we can come up with a measure for creativity and passion. The Academy Award, more commonly known as the Oscar, for Best Actor/Actress, is given out once a year and is probably the most highly coveted award in the field of cinema. It is given “in honor of an actor who has delivered an outstanding performance in a leading role while working within the film industry”. Only a handful of artists have won the award more than once. In fact, in its 92 years of running, 83 men have won “Best Actor”, and 76 women have taken home the title of “Best Actress”.

首先让我们看一下如何提出创造力和热情的措施。 每年颁发一次的奥斯卡金像奖最佳男主角奖，这可能是电影界最令人垂涎​​的奖项。 它被授予“以表彰在电影界工作中表现出色并担任主角的演员的荣誉”。 只有少数艺术家多次获奖。 实际上，在连续92年的运营中，有83位男性赢得了“最佳男主角”，有76位女性获得了“最佳女主角”的头衔。

In addition to this, an outstanding performance occurs more often than not in a critically acclaimed film. In fact the average ratings for films in which there was a winner for best actor/actress on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes is 88% / 86% respectively.

除此之外，出色的性能比在广受好评的电影中更常见。 实际上，在评论聚合影片《烂番茄》中获得最佳男主角/最佳女主角的电影的平均收视率分别为88％/ 86％。

With that, maybe we can look at the ‘quality’ of films via proxy variable — in this case, ratings — before and after an actor or actress won the Academy Award, as a measure of the quality of their career. We can use the scores from Rotten Tomatoes — a site that may be familiar to you, but briefly how it works — they are an aggregator that take all reviews in all forms and scales and simply take whether or not the review was positive or “fresh” (thumbs up, above 60% or 3 stars) and give a score that “represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film”. I added a section in the methodology if you’re keen on understanding further.

这样一来，也许我们可以通过代理变量(在本例中为收视率)来观察电影的“质量”，以衡量演员的职业质量，以此来衡量演员的质量。 我们可以使用Rotten Tomatoes(您可能很熟悉，但工作原理简短的网站)中的得分，它们是一个汇总器，可以对所有形式和规模的所有评论进行简单评估，而只需考虑评论是肯定的还是“新鲜的” ”(竖起大拇指，超过60％或3星)，并给出“代表专业评论家评论对某部电影正面评价的百分比”的得分”。 如果您想进一步了解，我在方法中添加了一节。

测量麦当劳 (Measuring The McConnaissance)

We started our discussion looking at Matthew McConaughey so now let’s look back at the question in his context. The figure below shows his career from 1990 to 2020 and the ratings the films he acted in received. In the late 90s, he seemed to be performing in some highly-rated films. Yet something changed between 2000 and 2010 where the opposite was true.

我们开始讨论的是马修·麦康纳，所以现在让我们回顾一下他所处的环境。 下图显示了他从1990年到2020年的职业以及他所代理的电影的收视率。 在90年代后期，他似乎在一些高评价的电影中表演。 然而，在2000年至2010年之间发生了一些变化，情况恰恰相反。

During “The McConnaisance”, between 2010 and 2015, he was experiencing a definite height of his career that seemed to culminate in his 2013 Oscar. But what’s interesting to note is between 2015 and 2020 McConaughey acted in a greater number of films than any 5 year period before. In addition, there seems to be a larger spread in the quality of these films.

在2010年至2015年的“麦当劳之行”期间，他经历了一段职业生涯的顶峰，这似乎在他的2013年奥斯卡颁奖典礼上达到了顶峰。 但值得注意的是，2015年至2020年之间，麦康纳的电影表演数量超过了过去五年中的任何一年。 此外，这些胶片的质量似乎有较大的差异。

During “The McConnaisance”, between 2010 and 2015, he was experiencing a definite height of his career that seemed to culminate in his 2013 Oscar. But what’s interesting to note is between 2015 and 2020 McConaughey acted in a greater number of films than any 5 year period before. In addition, there seems to be a larger spread in the quality of these films.

在2010年至2015年的“麦当劳之行”期间，他经历了一段职业生涯的顶峰，这似乎在他的2013年奥斯卡颁奖典礼上达到了顶峰。 但值得注意的是，2015年至2020年之间，麦康纳的电影表演数量超过了过去五年中的任何一年。 此外，这些胶片的质量似乎有较大的差异。

Is the variance in this quality a result of his acting? Perhaps his critical accomplishments net him enough demand that he could afford to act in films that may offer a higher return in box office success, but not in ‘quality’ of the role. Regardless he’s kept busy so his drive to continue acting has not wavered.

这种素质的差异是他的行为造成的吗？ 也许他的关键成就使他有足够的需求，要求他有能力出演电影，这些电影可以提供更高的票房回报，而不是角色的“品质”。 不管他忙什么，继续前进的动力都没有动摇。

Whatever the answer, there was a definite change in his behaviour over the 6 years after his Oscar win from the 6 years prior to it. We can explore this further by looking at the average ratings of the films he was in over this 12 year period and also extract his highest-rated film of each year.

无论答案是什么，从他获得奥斯卡奖的6年之后的6年里，他的行为都发生了明显的变化。 我们可以通过查看他过去12年中的平均电影收视率，并提取其每年最高收视率的电影来进一步探索这一点。

Taking time = 0 as the year he won the Academy Award, it’s evident that there was a gradual incline in the quality of the films he performed in. In fact, the average ratings largely seem to follow the same trends from about 4 years until his award. At this point, however, there starts to show a difference between the two metrics. We can gather from this that while Matthew McConaughey’s career since has included some very well-received films, there’ve been quite a few movies of a lesser quality bringing down his yearly average rating.

以时间= 0作为他获得奥斯卡金像奖的那一年，很明显，他表演的电影的质量在逐渐提高。实际上，从大约4年到他的电影平均收视率似乎都遵循相同的趋势。奖。 但是，此时，这两个指标之间开始出现差异。 我们可以从中得出结论，尽管马修·麦康纳(Matthew McConaughey)的职业生涯以来已经收录了一些非常受欢迎的电影，但也有不少电影的画质较差，这降低了他的年度平均评分。

这是常见的情况吗？ (Is This A Common Occurrence?)

So in the case of Matthew McConaughey, we have two sets of information indicating some sort of behaviour change. But what about other actors? Did their pre/post success follow the same pattern? We can compare them along the same lines as we did with McConaughey, standardizing the year they won the academy award as year 0 and looking at 6 years before and after.

因此，以马修·麦康纳(Matthew McConaughey)为例，我们有两组信息表明某种行为发生了变化。 但是其他演员呢？ 他们的成功前后是否遵循相同的模式？ 我们可以像对待麦康纳奇一样对它们进行比较，将他们获得奥斯卡金像奖的那一年标准化为0年，并考察前后的6年。

Between the years of 2000 and 2014, there were only a few actors who won the academy award who had careers prolific enough to have data for 6 years before and after. We’re going to take a closer look at 4 of them alongside Matthew McConaughey.

在2000年至2014年之间，只有少数演员获得了奥斯卡金像奖，其职业生涯丰富，足以掌握前后6年的数据。 我们将与Matthew McConaughey一起仔细研究其中的4个。

At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be as visible a pattern before and after. However, looking closer, it becomes interesting to note that at time = 0 (the year of winning the award) actors, in general, are experiencing a peak in their careers, and more interestingly, seem to be observing a short term decline in their ‘best performance’ of the year. Looking at the longer-term trends they somewhat stabilize but what’s fascinating is what seems like a ‘hangover’ to their win.

乍一看，之前和之后似乎没有一种可见的模式。 但是，仔细观察，可以发现有趣的是，通常在时间= 0(获奖年份)，演员的职业生涯达到顶峰，更有趣的是，他们的职业生涯似乎在短期内下降。年度“最佳表现”。 从长期趋势来看，他们有些稳定，但令人着迷的是似乎是他们获胜的“宿醉”。

Can we now say with any certainty that an Academy Award win leads to a dip in performance? It certainly seems that something happens, with some actors being able to bounce back quicker than others. Taking a sample set from best actress winners in the same vein as actors, we can see a similar pattern with a decline in performance in the short term.

我们现在可以肯定地说，获得奥斯卡金像奖会导致业绩下滑吗？ 似乎确实发生了某些事情，有些演员能够比其他演员更快地反弹。 从与男演员相同的角度出发，从最佳女主角获奖者中抽取样本，我们可以看到短期内业绩下降的相似模式。

我们在哪里拿？(Where Do We Take This?)

The study illuminated some insightful patterns among academy award winners. But what do we take from this? Do we stop giving out awards to encourage creative work? That seems a little far fetched, especially considering that perhaps it’s in pursuit of this recognition that creatives find their drive. I find this is reflected more and more in today’s society. We concern ourselves so much with likes, views, comments and followers that a lot of drive to create content is fuelled by these metrics.

该研究阐明了学术奖获奖者中一些有见地的模式。 但是，我们从中得到什么呢？ 我们是否停止颁发奖励以鼓励创造性的工作？ 这似乎有些牵强，尤其是考虑到创意人找到驱动力的原因可能是这种追求。 我发现这在当今社会中越来越得到体现。 我们非常喜欢点赞，意见，评论和关注者，因此这些指标助长了创建内容的巨大动力。

This ultimately raises an observation that in acting, there is no objective indicator of performance — or at least not one that I’m aware of. The difficulty lies in determining a quantitative measure that does not currently exist. With that in mind, it would be worthwhile to develop a more complete measure of an actor’s performance within a given year. Maybe this framework or model could include additional measures such as the actor’s time on-screen, the number of roles they acted in within a given year, the box-office earnings from their movies, the pay they received, along with the overall critic rating for the film itself. This metric could perhaps then be extrapolated as an actor’s score — deepening and complexifying the rating system that we are taking from Rotten Tomatoes, to better quantify creativity. Perhaps we can even offer a data-driven approach to acting that artists, dancers and even amateur actors on Social Media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have been following for years.

这最终引起了一种观察，即在表演中没有客观的绩效指标，或者至少没有我所知道的绩效指标。 困难在于确定当前不存在的定量措施。 考虑到这一点，有必要对演员在特定年份的表现进行更全面的评估。 也许此框架或模型可以包括其他衡量标准，例如演员在屏幕上的时间，他们在一年内扮演的角色的数量，电影的票房收入，所获得的报酬以及评论家的整体评分电影本身。 然后，可以将该指标推断为演员的评分-加深和复杂化我们从“烂番茄”中获得的评分系统，以更好地量化创造力。 也许我们甚至可以提供一种数据驱动的表演方式，而社交媒体平台(如Instagram和TikTok)上的艺术家，舞者甚至业余演员多年来一直在关注。

We can also look at other fields. For example, athletes don’t seem to follow the same success patterns as actors or Nobel Prize winners. Fairly often, star athletes tend to reign over many years and amalgamate multiple wins while at the top of their game across all forms of sports.

我们也可以看看其他领域。 例如，运动员似乎没有遵循与演员或诺贝尔奖获得者相同的成功模式。 通常，明星运动员往往会统治许多年，并且在赢得各种形式体育比赛的最高成绩时会融合多次胜利。

Micheal Jordan played 15 NBA seasons, out of which he won 6 NBA championships with the Chicago Bulls and to this day Jordan is the all-time 2nd highest scorer of the NBA. Jordan’s reign and success, however, was objectively measured and easily quantifiable. One could argue that his achievement of the highest levels of recognition in the sport, was a direct outcome of effort and quality of his work. This correlation between the quality of work and recognition seems much more linear than the Academy Awards rubric for “winning” the Oscar which is neither objective nor static over time. And this is basketball, where it could be argued that the highest level of success in the sport — winning an NBA championship, could still be attributed to the larger team, rather than simply one individual.

米歇尔·乔丹(Micheal Jordan)参加了15个NBA赛季，其中他在芝加哥公牛队(Chicago Bulls)赢得了6个NBA冠军，迄今为止，乔丹(Jordan)一直是NBA历史上第二高的得分手。 但是，约旦的统治和成功是客观衡量的，而且很容易量化。 有人可以说，他在这项运动中获得最高认可的成就，是他努力和工作质量的直接结果。 工作质量和认可度之间的这种关联似乎比“奥斯卡奖”获得奥斯卡金奖的规则更为线性。 这就是篮球，可以说，这项运动的最高成功-赢得了NBA冠军，仍然可以归功于更大的团队，而不是一个人。

When we turn to look at other more individualistic sports than basketball such as Olympic sprinting or Tennis, there emerges perhaps an even stronger correlation between the quality of work and recognition/success.

当我们转向篮球以外的其他个人主义运动时，例如奥林匹克短跑或网球，可能会发现工作质量与认可/成功之间甚至存在更强的相关性。

Ultimately, actors provide us with a great source of entertainment. One could argue that during this time, locked indoors and unable to go outside, we’ve turned to them. They help get us through the evenings and keep us company giving us an outlet to feel our emotions or escape from them. So they should be rewarded. But the more so applauded for work they create in such a risky field with no guarantees and no safety nets. Maybe we can learn to do this as well. With that, I’ll end with a thought from the great Rodney Mullen.

最终，演员为我们提供了很多娱乐来源。 有人可能会争辩说，在这段时间里，锁在室内而又无法出门，我们转向了他们。 他们帮助我们度过了夜晚，并让我们陪伴着我们，让我们可以感觉到自己的情绪或摆脱情绪。 因此，他们应该得到回报。 但是，他们在如此高风险的领域中创造的工作受到更多的称赞，没有保证，也没有安全网。 也许我们也可以学习这样做。 这样，我将以伟大的Rodney Mullen的想法作为结尾。

“Just find joy in what you do for the sake of it. And then recognize how you’re being shaped in the process, and hopefully, over time, you become a better person through it.”

仅仅为了自己的工作而感到快乐。 然后认识到您在此过程中的塑造方式，并希望随着时间的推移，您会因此而变得更好。”

方法 (Methodology)

There were a couple of ways I went about structuring my thoughts and gathering the data. Below I go over some of my thought process and what I did, but feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

我有两种方法来组织思想和收集数据。 下面，我详细介绍了我的一些思考过程和所做的事情，但是如果您有任何疑问，请随时与我们联系！

探索问题 (Exploring The Questions)

The first step I needed to take was to identify a measure for ‘quality’. Cinema is a subjective field. A film may be lauded by some but criticized by others, and outside of awards, there aren’t really any metrics to measure individual performance as such.

我需要采取的第一步是确定“质量”的衡量标准。 电影是一个主观领域。 电影可能会受到某些人的称赞，但也会受到其他人的批评，而且除了奖项外，实际上没有任何衡量个人表现的指标。

However, there are metrics that one can attach to the quality of a film, such as ratings and box office performance. But these metrics are difficult to standardize. Take in the case of movie critic reviews. All over the world, critics and journalists (professional or amateur) go to screenings, absorb the film and share their thoughts sometimes attaching a score that could be anything from a 1–10 scale, 5-star rating or simply give a thumbs up/thumbs down. Furthermore, between all of these systems, it’s difficult to make sense of the subjective nature of scoring. Legendary film critic Roger Ebert once reflected on how his style of rating movies changed over time according to what his readership was looking for. He found they weren’t looking for a ‘review’ of the film, but simply advice on whether or not they should spend their evening watching the film in question.

但是，有些指标可以附加到电影的质量上，例如评级和票房表现。 但是这些指标很难标准化。 以电影评论家的评论为例。 在世界各地，评论家和新闻工作者(专业人士或业余爱好者)都去放映电影，吸收电影并分享他们的想法，有时会附上分数，范围可能是1-10分，5星级或仅表示赞许/不看好。 此外，在所有这些系统之间，很难理解评分的主观性质。 传奇电影评论家罗杰·埃伯特(Roger Ebert)曾经反思过，根据读者的需求，他对分级电影的风格如何随着时间而改变。 他发现他们不是在寻找电影的“评论”，而只是建议他们是否应该晚上看电影。

There are a few ways to solve this problem, but as I briefly touched on, review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes seems to have done it best. Simply, as you may be familiar with this, they take all reviews in all their forms and aggregate whether or not the review was positive or “fresh” (thumbs up, above 60% or 3 stars) and give a score that “represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film”. As this system allows for reviews from all sorts of systems to be aggregated, Rotten Tomatoes is often one of the more trusted or go-to indicators of public opinion.

有几种方法可以解决此问题，但正如我简短地谈到的那样，审查聚合器“烂番茄”似乎做得最好。 简而言之，正如您可能熟悉的那样，他们以各种形式参加所有评论，并汇总评论是肯定的还是“新鲜的”(竖起大拇指，超过60％或3星)，并且给出的分数“代表对某部电影持正面评价的专业评论家评论的百分比”。 由于该系统可以汇总来自各种系统的评论，因此烂番茄通常是公众舆论中更受信任或首选的指标之一。

获取数据 (Getting The Data)

To attempt to answer the questions above, I was going to need data — a lot of it…but also not all of it. To do this and help draw out some of the relevant overarching data, I made a few assumptions. Firstly, the focus was on ‘modern’ cinema, starting from 2000 to 2014. Movie rating systems evolved around this time and due to the growth of the internet, this is when the number of reviews available grew and aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes seem to give a better indication of critical acclaim. Kind of like how it’s easier to trust a restaurant rated 4.2 with 1000 reviews than one rated 5 with 8 reviews.

为了尝试回答上述问题，我需要数据-很多数据……但不是全部。 为了做到这一点并帮助绘制一些相关的总体数据，我做了一些假设。 首先，从2000年到2014年，重点放在“现代”电影上。随着这个时代的到来，由于互联网的发展，电影分级系统也在不断发展，这是因为可用的评论数量不断增长，而诸如烂番茄的聚合器似乎在不断发展。更好地表明他们的好评。 有点像信任评级为4.2(有1000条评论)的餐厅比评级为5(有8条评论)的餐厅更容易。

Secondly, the driver for this was based on a long and winding thought process that started with Matthew McConaughey. So I based the timeframe on a pattern of performance pre and post his Academy Award in 2013 to now. As such, I want to look at patterns within the same time frame of +/- 6 years from an actor’s first academy award win.

其次，这是基于马修·麦康纳(Matthew McConaughey)开始的漫长而曲折的思考过程而进行的。 因此，我将时间表设定为绩效表现的依据，并在2013年至今颁发了奥斯卡金像奖。 因此，我想看看演员第一次获得学院奖后的+/- 6年内的模式。

The data was collected from two sources. I wrote a Python script to0 scrape Wikipedia to get a list for all Best Actor and Actress. With that, I used the data and to guide a further web scrape of each winner’s filmography page on Rotten Tomatoes. I’m happy to share my code, just drop me a line!

数据是从两个来源收集的。 我编写了一个Python脚本，以抓取Wikipedia以获得所有最佳男主角和女主角的列表。 这样，我就使用了数据并指导了烂番茄上每个获奖者的电影作品页面的进一步网上抓取。 我很乐意分享我的代码，只需给我留言！

Note - I originally published this on my personal website. If you’re curious, head on over, I write about Data Science, technology and reflect on books I’ve read.

注意-我最初将此发布在我的个人网站上。 如果您感到好奇，请继续前进，我将撰写有关数据科学和技术的文章，并回顾一下我读过的书。