A rant: Who's sick of the Academy placing performances in the wrong category?

[Nate6]

I was just thinking about this today: I hate it when publicists submit their clients' performances in the wrong categories just because it'll increase their chances of being nominated and perhaps winning. Case in point: Haley Joel Osment received a Best Supporting Actor nod for The Sixth Sense. Now that's a lead performance if I've ever seen one. Why was he nominated in the supporting category? Because he's a kid, and kids do better in supporting categories (Tatum O'Neal and Anna Paquin both won there). Another example: Annette Bening's performance in American Beauty, scene for scene, in my opinion, is really a supporting job. But she was placed in the Best Actress slot. Does anyone else hate this? And can anyone else think of some more examples?

[Scarface98.9]

Annette Benning was a lead actress in it since she's in it for about 3/4 of the movie and Thora Birch woulda recieved the supp. nod. Bruce Willis was the lead in the Sixth Sense since he had equal amounts of screen time w/ Osment, but was about Willis's "journey" from winnner of the award, to shame, and then to...yo know the rest, with Osment's story figured in

[Nate6]

Yes, but come on, if you watch the movie through, yes, the real focus is on Willis, but the story centers on Osment. It is because of his character that the story moves along. I get your point about Bening, although just because you say she's in the movie for 3/4 of the time (another point I disagree with) it doesn't make it a lead performance. Plus, Osment was probably in Sense more than Bening was in Beauty, meaning a contradiction in logic.

[This message has been edited by Nate6 (edited 09-16-2002).]

[Jasonite]

Yeah, I agree, some of those categories defy explanation. The one that I'd most wish to change was in 1972, Brando being nominated for Best Actor. He was in less than half the movie, and the movie's plot didn't revolve around him, it revolved around Michael Corleone. What makes even LESS sense is Al Pacino's nomination for best Supporting Actor?? He's the main fucking character! Ya ask me, Brando should've been nominated (and won) for best supporting, Pacino should've been nominated (and won) for best Actor.

Jasonite

[The Postmaster General]

i think benning and osmond were supporting actors because their character's weren't the main ones.

the one i don't get is the supporting actor nomination for Ethan Hawk in training Day. He was so much the main character it wasn't even funny.

it's like when they put Jack Nicholson's name about Michael Keaton's in BATMAN. The movie wasn't called THE JOKER....

[docholiday_13]

The Acadamy blows so much stale ass who even cares about the category placements. The right people never win anyway so its all totally moot. Rocky winning over Taxi Driver? Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan? Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption? It's all a joke.

[CheekyShepherd]

It's not always the academy's fault. The studio's often advertise their leads in a support role to ensure a win.

I'll explain:

In 1996, Miramax adveritsed Juliette Binoche as the supporting character in The English Patient so she'd steer clear of the Frances McDormand V Brenda Blethyn battle in the main event. Juliette won!

In 1954, Columbia listed Eva Marie Saint as a supporting character in On The Waterfront to ensure she wouldn't get caught in the battle between Grace Kelly, Jane Wyman & Audrey Hepburn[/b].
Saint got the supporting trophy!

Most recently: Ian McKellan & Jim Broadbent were submitted as supporting characters for Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring and Iris, respectivcely. This ensured they'd stear clear of Denzel, Russell & Will in the main ring.

I personally blame the fiasco of 1944 for this blatant Oscar-fishing technique; It was then that the rules changed (When Barry Fitzgerald was nominated for BOTH Best Actor & Best Supporting Actor for Going My Way, winning the latter), now it's judged by the majority of votes for that category. (e.g. If Haley Joel Osment got 50 votes for Best Actor in The Sixth Sense and 51 votes for Best Supporting Actor in the same flick. He will be nominated for the Support. It sucks, I know. But half of the academy voters are probably too busy to even watch films!! I'm definately gonna change things when I earn my place on the academy voting board)

[This message has been edited by CheekyShepherd (edited 09-18-2002).]

[Scarface98.9]

it happens, but isn't all that big a deal. One women from the movie Network won Best Supporting Actress despite only being in it briefly

[CriticalBill6966]

Hey! I work on the Academy, and this thread should clearly go in General Horror Forum. :p

[Antonio]

"SUPPORTING" OSCAR-WINNERS & NOMINEES WHO SHOULD HAVE COMPETED IN THE LEAD CATEGORIES

Kevin Kline in A FISH CALLED WANDA
Geena Davis in THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST
Samuel L. Jackson in PULP FICTION
William H. Macy in FARGO
Juliette Binoche in THE ENGLISH PATIENT
Jennifer Connelly in A BEAUTIFUL MIND
Judy Davis in HUSBANDS & WIVES
Tommy Lee Jones in THE FUGITIVE

[Jason Lives]

Ethan Hawke was definitely the main character in Training Day and he should have been in the lead category. Also Anthony Hopkins wasn't in Silence of the Lambs enough to win Best Lead Actor

[tbone]

How about Kevin Spacey best supporting nomination for The Usual Suspects?

[Jon Lyrik]

Haley Joel for Supporting? WTF? He was in the just as much if not more than Willis.

McKellan=supporting? Not as much screen-time as Wood, but certainly a second lead.

[FeverDog420]

I never saw Running on Empty, but wasn't Best-Supporting-nominated River Phoenix in every scene?

And who really believes Anthony Hopkins should have been in the Supporting catagory? Sure, he's only in the movie for, like, 28 minutes, but his presence is felt throughout the movie. (Osment's performance, however, is the very definition of "supporting," when all is said and done.)

We shouldn't measure a person's role by screen time, but rather the impact his/her character has in the overall movie.

[ilovemovies]

You know I thought Kate Hudson in Almost Famous was more of a lead role than a supporting role.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Antonio "SUPPORTING" OSCAR-WINNERS & NOMINEES WHO SHOULD HAVE COMPETED IN THE LEAD CATEGORIES

Jennifer Connelly in A BEAUTIFUL MIND


I so agree. She was fabulous in that film (actually the only good thing in it, at all, IMHO.)

That squalid fiasco with Kidman winning Lead Actress for a Supporting-Level duration performance this year ought to convince everyone but...


SHE'S SO PRETTY... :rolleyes:

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

it's like when they put Jack Nicholson's name about Michael Keaton's in BATMAN. The movie wasn't called THE JOKER....


Lol! you never cease to make me laugh. And that's probably the best example so far as well.


And what about Paul Newman winning best LEAD in Color of Money? I really think Cruise was the main character.

[Hannibal21]

If you ask me, JULIANNE MOORE should've been up for best leading actress for 'The Hours' as well, along with NICOLE KIDMAN. It would've been great to see them both win, but what does the academy know.....:rolleyes:

I hope this doesn't stir up any Nicole Kidman bashing.....:eek:

[Neesh]

How come John Travolta was nominated for best actor in Pulp Fiction, while Sam Jackson was nominated for best supporting actor? I mean, I'm no critic or anything.... but ... they were both featured to about the same extent.... and I bet if you counted all the lines, I think Sam had more dialogue.
Ah well.... yet another reason why the academy awards, or any other award for art is completely futile.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Neesh
How come John Travolta was nominated for best actor in Pulp Fiction, while Sam Jackson was nominated for best supporting actor? I mean, I'm no critic or anything.... but ... they were both featured to about the same extent.... and I bet if you counted all the lines, I think Sam had more dialogue.
Ah well.... yet another reason why the academy awards, or any other award for art is completely futile.


Plus it was his character who went through the major change in the movie. He had the biggest character arc in the movie.

[Ronaldinho]

Osment's role in sixth sense is practically the definition of a major supporting role. His nomination in that category was completely appropriate.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Hannibal21
If you ask me, JULIANNE MOORE should've been up for best leading actress for 'The Hours' as well, along with NICOLE KIDMAN. It would've been great to see them both win, but what does the academy know.....:rolleyes:

I hope this doesn't stir up any Nicole Kidman bashing.....:eek:

I'll behave, little brother. You know how I feel already.

I would really and truly like to see the AMPAS take the idea that if someone has two outstanding performances, that should be a GOOD thing and they shouldn't cancel one another out. Criric's awards are like this. (Julianne received at least one this year based on her combined work in The Hours and Far From Heaven.)

They could have done the same thing recently for Nicole (Moulin Rouge and The Others) and Billy Bob Thornton Monster's Ball and The Man Who Wasn't There as well.)

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Hannibal21
If you ask me, JULIANNE MOORE should've been up for best leading actress for 'The Hours' as well, along with NICOLE KIDMAN. It would've been great to see them both win, but what does the academy know.....:rolleyes:

While I agree that Julianne most certianly was lead along with Nicole and Meryl, I'm happy they campaigned for her in supporting becuase this way she got two nominations. Sad thing is, had she only got one, there would've been no vote splitting and she probably woud have won.
And I agree Nicole and Julianne tying for BA would've been a dream scenario.

[Obrotherrules]

You know the Academy's out of hope when it can't even decide whether a movie's screenplay is original or adapted. (O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU is adapted? BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING is original?) However, let's not get so heated about the lead/supporting thing.

It's absolutely correct that given straight, objective facts, some performances are in the wrong category. But let's take some of these examples:

Julianne Moore is in THE HOURS more than Nicole Kidman. I didn't time it, but some no-life loser did, and I guess I'll believe them. But let's be serious; who commanded the screen more? (I didn't say "better"; there's clearly a best performance in THE HOURS, and it's not Nicole Kidman's.) The fact is, THE HOURS is about Virginia Woolfe, and Moore especially (much more so than Meryl Streep) is mainly a supporting character. She does a lot of internalizing; she's not really an attention-grabbing center. She does a great job, but it's really not outgoing. She's not leading the movie; her presence is not guiding the picture. Virginia Woolfe is.

Haley Joel Osment may very well be in THE SIXTH SENSE more than Bruce Willis. But the same is true: Cole Sear is not guiding the film. He is mainly a child device for Malcolm Crowe to reconcile with his wife. This is really simplifying the film, but the fact is that Osment isn't the center of the film. He's certainly an integral part for making it work, but Willis, not Osment, is the gravity of the film.

Sam Jackson in PULP FICTION is a better argument. He is an actor who inherently commands attention and makes every scene his own. So why was he in the supporting category? Wow, this one's tougher. If you ask me, John Travolta should've been supporting, rather than the other way around (Jackson should've been nominated in the lead category). But in this case, the Academy decided that Jackson was supporting Travolta. No arguments from me. This is a more valid complaint, but it could really go either way; Jackson is not obviously a lead performer.

So how about Jennifer Connelly? This is almost ridiculous; she is clearly supporting Russell Crowe. There is no question about this; she's not even in it for the first half. Also, once she is in it, she is ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY a second banana. Nobody thinks that A BEAUTIFUL MIND is about Alicia Nash; it is about John Nash, and it just so happens that for a good portion of it, John Nash is being supported by Alicia. End of story. Incidentially, this goes for all "supporting" spouses. IRIS is about Iris Murdoch, not her husband. Jim Broadbent is not leading that film. Neither is Marcia Gay Harden leading POLLOCK; Ed Harris made sure of that.

As for Ethan Hawke, who was clearly in almost all of TRAINING DAY, yet got second billing, I have to agree. Even though Denzel Washington was barely in it and won for Best Actor (how about that: you show up for work for a few days, act the same way you always do, get $20 million, and win an Oscar), the fact is, he was without a doubt the center of attention. For much of the film, Alonzo Harris is the active one, and all Jake Hoyt really does is react to what's happening. I don't have any question about this one; just as with Anthony Hopkins (THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) and Jack Nicholson (BATMAN), we have a character who is commanding so much attentiion that they can't really be seen as supporting anyone. In rare cases like that, you just have to admit that they're leading the film as much as the lead character is. Clarice Starling is the central focus of SILENCE, but whenever he's on the screen, the focus goes almost completely to Hannibal Lecter.

In conclusion, be honest: if 100 schmoes were polled about each performance, and asked if it was leading or supporting, do you think that it would be 100-0 either way? In most cases, I say no. So why should you expect the Academy to guess right? It's not always just politics.

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Obrotherrules
Julianne Moore is in THE HOURS more than Nicole Kidman. I didn't time it, but some no-life loser did, and I guess I'll believe them. But let's be serious; who commanded the screen more? (I didn't say "better"; there's clearly a best performance in THE HOURS, and it's not Nicole Kidman's.) The fact is, THE HOURS is about Virginia Woolfe, and Moore especially (much more so than Meryl Streep) is mainly a supporting character. She does a lot of internalizing; she's not really an attention-grabbing center. She does a great job, but it's really not outgoing. She's not leading the movie; her presence is not guiding the picture. Virginia Woolfe is.
Kidman, Streep and Moore are ALL lead in The Hours, imo. Yes, Virginia Woolf is the driving force of the movie and the most attention-grabbing character, but the argument that Moore is supporting just because her character is the most internal doesn't stand. She is the center of her part of the story, just like the other two ladies are of theirs. But this of course is a never-ending debate, and if it hasn't been resolved in the past 5 months, we're not going to resolve it here, so let's just agree to disagree.

Btw, the "loser" that timed the actresses is The New York Times, and it's:
42 Streep
33 Moore
30 Kidman