Toronto

[Reza]

And, then, of course, there's the whole issue of stars scrambling for Supporting nominations when they realize that the Lead category is too competitive. That's always struck me as a rather wussy response, and distinctly unfair--which is why I'd rather see Streep nominated in the appropriate Lead category so that Emily Blunt (admittedly, a longshot possibility) can have a fair chance in Supporting.

There's the famous case, in the past, of one supporting actress who refused to be considered for the supporting award because she thought she was a star and should be considered instead in the lead category. Ofcourse she ended up without a nomination in either category! The star was Rosalind Russell in Picnic (1955). It was widely acknowledged then that had she relented she would certainly have received a nomination in the supporting category if not the award itself.

Though personally I thought she was way too over the top in that part and did not deserve a nomination at all!

Just checked my own list for 1955 and I have Roz listed amongst my supporting nominees along with Jo Van Fleet (the winner), Betsy Blair, Natalie Wood and Lillian Gish. I couldn't think of a possible fifth nominee for 1955 so she made my list.

[flipp525]

There's the famous case, in the past, of one supporting actress who refused to be considered for the supporting award because she thought she was a star and should be considered instead in the lead category. Ofcourse she ended up without a nomination in either category! The star was Rosalind Russell in Picnic (1955). It was widely acknowledged then that had she relented she would certainly have received a nomination in the supporting category if not the award itself.

and there is the Meryl Streep case who refused to be considered for supporting in Marvin´s Room

I have to agree with that one, though. Streep and Diane Keaton are clearly co-leads in that film. Gwen Verdon or Leo would've been fine supporting nominees.

[Hustler]

There's the famous case, in the past, of one supporting actress who refused to be considered for the supporting award because she thought she was a star and should be considered instead in the lead category. Ofcourse she ended up without a nomination in either category! The star was Rosalind Russell in Picnic (1955). It was widely acknowledged then that had she relented she would certainly have received a nomination in the supporting category if not the award itself.

and there is the Meryl Streep case who refused to be considered for supporting in Marvin´s Room

[dws1982]

"Ghosts of Mississippi," which did garner a nod for James Woods.

Nearly ten years later, I still think that's one of the four or five worst nominated performances of the 90's. What were they thinking?

[criddic3]

There's the famous case, in the past, of one supporting actress who refused to be considered for the supporting award because she thought she was a star and should be considered instead in the lead category. Ofcourse she ended up without a nomination in either category! The star was Rosalind Russell in Picnic (1955). It was widely acknowledged then that had she relented she would certainly have received a nomination in the supporting category if not the award itself.

Though personally I thought she was way too over the top in that part and did not deserve a nomination at all!

I remember a similar story back in 1996, when Whoopi Goldberg was asked which category she would prefer to be considered for. She said she'd prefer Best Actress if she was considered at all for her role in "Ghosts of Mississippi," which did garner a nod for James Woods. She was respectable in that film, but even then it seemed a bit reaching to expect any awards.

[The Original BJ]

I don't mean to add to the off-topicness of this discussion, but let me chime in on the thumbs up side for Russell in Picnic. Theatrical, yes, but deliciously so, and with a sense of desperation that never felt over-the-top to me. She all but walks off with the film, a picture with several other memorable performances, most notably Strasberg and O'Connell.

I agree that, had she been nominated, she would have surely won the Oscar. Jo Van Fleet is excellent, but her screentime is of course quite limited, and would have been no match for Russell. Add to that Russell's "due" nature (which others have pointed out), as well as voters' fondness for the film (true, two awards ain't a ton, but voters must have REALLY wanted it to go home with some prizes—how else do you explain that editing award?), and you have what I think would have been a slam dunk prize. Too bad she messed it up for herself.

[Big Magilla]

I nominated both Rosalind Russell and Susan Strasberg for my award and gave it to Russell for her delicious over-the-top performance, a rare occasion when my award went to such a performance, but as Cam says she was "owed" after great performances in Craig's Wife, His Girl Friday (both which went without nominations), My Sister Eileen and Sister Kenny. She was also the first to win both my lead and supporting actress awards, winning best actress for Auntie Mame three years later.

If I remember correctly both were nominated for Gloden Globes. The Globe nomiantion records for 1955 have been "lost", but I remember a TV announcer saying when the film first aired on TV that both had been nominated for supporting actress, confirming my own feelings about their performances and putting the lie to the myth that Russell was never nominated for a Globe she didn't win although she did win on five other occasions for Sister Kenny, Mourning Becomes Electra, Auntie Mame, A Majority of One and Gypsy.

Strasberg indeed gave the female adolescent performance of the year, though it was Natalie Wood who got the Oscar nod for Rebel Without a Cause.

[Penelope]

I'm afraid I have to side with Reza on Russell's perf in Picnic; yes, the scene where she begs O'Connell to marry is terrific, but everything else she does is so over-the-top. The really great, nomination deserving Supporting Actress in Picnic is Susan Strasberg, who gives a wonderfully shaded performance in the midst of all that (admittedly glorious) melodrama.

[99-1100896887]

Oh, now! I differ with that. I thought her "proposal" to Howard( Arthur O'Connell) was genius.One of the best moments in any film, in the same moving way as Beatrice Straight's speech in Network. She is supporting though, not lead. It seems to more fashionable these days to "slum in supporting" than it was in 1955.
Tall about being "owed" an award: she should have won one in 1956. She was "owed" for Picnic.

[Reza]

And, then, of course, there's the whole issue of stars scrambling for Supporting nominations when they realize that the Lead category is too competitive. That's always struck me as a rather wussy response, and distinctly unfair--which is why I'd rather see Streep nominated in the appropriate Lead category so that Emily Blunt (admittedly, a longshot possibility) can have a fair chance in Supporting.

There's the famous case, in the past, of one supporting actress who refused to be considered for the supporting award because she thought she was a star and should be considered instead in the lead category. Ofcourse she ended up without a nomination in either category! The star was Rosalind Russell in Picnic (1955). It was widely acknowledged then that had she relented she would certainly have received a nomination in the supporting category if not the award itself.

Though personally I thought she was way too over the top in that part and did not deserve a nomination at all!

[Okri]

On the general subject of Toronto: Does it strike anyone else the festival was kind of a bust his year? There was no big breakthrough on the scale of Brokeback last year, or Sideways/Ray the year before. And it appears, from sudden loud murmurs across the Net, that the didn't-bother-to-screen The Departed is about to critically upstage the whole bunch.

You know, while I agree about Toronto, I'd be genuinely surprised if The Departed was that big a success. Partially because I adore the original so much (Infernal Affairs is one of the great crime films of the past 15 years), but nothing about it looks particularly inspired.

The reaction about TIFF shouldn't be that surprising - you mentioned it yourself at the beginning when pointing out the number of films that were/could be expected to screen weren't.

[Penelope]

See, I differentiate Altman's films from the likes of Traffic or Syriana due to the fact that in the majority Altman's films, all of the characters interact with each other (at least at some point, such as the opening airport scene and the closing concert in Nashville) and are true ensemble pieces. There's no one, two or three characters that the audience is specifically directed towards, but rather the entire cast.

Conversely, a film like Traffic and Syriana clearly has leading roles that thread through the entire film and supporting characters that appear in fewer scenes; for example, would you say that Michael Douglas is supporting Topher Grace in Traffic? No, clearly not; Douglas is unquestionably a primary character in the film, while Grace appears in only a few scenes. The same argument can be made vis a vis George Clooney and Christopher Plummer in Syriana. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but considering that this genre of film is apparently here to stay, I think we need to restructure our ideas of Lead vs. Support accordingly.

[flipp525]

the wonderful Catherine O'Hara(no matter how much she deserves an award for her work) will not get a nod. And where will For Your Consideration end up at awards time?

You’re right, cam. It might be an uphill battle for Catherine O’Hara because she’s in an ensemble Christopher Guest film but Oscar loves it when a movie takes a crack at the actual Academy Awards (see: In and Out, California Suite, A Star is Born, etc.) O’Hara has already gotten great notices for her role and she’s also been a consistent character actress for many years. A nomination now would also recognize her body of work. Her performance as a fading actress with a last chance at recognition plays that thin line between fiction and reality, with a whiff of desperation all too familiar to this crowd. With a shrewd enough campaign (I’m thinking a lot of For Your Consideration: O’Hara in “FYC” type ads in Variety for starters) and in a (so far) relatively weak year for BSA, I don’t see her nomination as an impossible feat.

[99-1100896887]

Some time ago, I suggested that the Academy might look at Ensemble films as a separate award; it would not be unheard-of : other awards give Ensemble recognition. Here is the topic again--raising its annual head. Altman films, for example,will never get the full recognition that they deserve, as he uses ensembles--actors with more or less the same screen time. Christopher Guest films only have supporting players, which is one reason why Fred Willard was not nominated for supporting actor in Best in Show, and the wonderful Catherine O'Hara(no matter how much she deserves an award for her work) will not get a nod. And where will For Your Consideration end up at awards time?

[The Original BJ]

I guess I've never really had a problem with Clooney in Syriana, Del Toro in Traffic, the Closer pair, heck, even Del Toro in 21 Grams (which is a pretty borderline case, I admit) skewing supporting mainly because once you move past one and two-character driven stories, everyone really seems to be supporting each other.

True, all of the above have their own narrative threads, but so do the characters in even bigger ensemble pics like Nashville and Gosford Park, and I'd never place any of 'em in lead just because they lack the screentime.

I feel like I'm more than willing to allow for some wiggle room in this department. Linney in Kinsey and Harden in Pollock? Okay, their films are really biopics about the men, so it's fine to shoehorn them down there. Yeah, Weisz in Constant Gardener is the female lead, but she disappears half way through the film, so supporting isn't a stretch even if leading would fit too.

What bothers me much more are the blatantly obvious examples of PROTAGONISTS slumming it in supporting so as not to compete with the other actors in their films (Ethan Hawke, Jake Gyllenhaal) or themselves (Jamie Foxx). When you think that terrific supporting players like Steve Buscemi, Jeff Daniels, and Peter Sarsgaard might have been recognized in those years, it makes this category fraud even more outrageous.

On the other hand, I don't particularly care when a big star lands in supporting, so long as they have a supporting role. Tom Cruise was terrific in Magnolia, and I don't care how famous he is, that was clearly a supporting performance. The whole "star power" factor eludes me in terms of making these distinctions.