Notes on a Scandal

[dylanfan23]

That is by far the most irritating, i agree. Like i said, i'll buy cate as supporting, i don't know if i agree with it but i'll accept it because there was someone in the film that was moreso a lead. But i do hate when a performance like mcavoy's is shoved into supporting, or foxx or hawke in training day, theres ususally about one a year that is total nonsense. I'm fine with putting whitaker in the lead catorgory, his character merits it just like washingtons did in training day. But if your gonna do that, you can't just shove the actual lead of the story down to supporting...that doesn't make any sense.

[Okri]

While I agree the lines are blurry, what's really irritating is seeing the performer who if I had to choose one lead and only one lead, fits that role but is still getting pushed into supporting: Jamie Foxx in Collateral is one, James McAvoy is another this year. It's just frustrating to see.

[The Original BJ]

My general rule with respect to lead/supporting status (though I know others disagree) is that if a film has three protagonists (Traffic, Chicago) or four (Closer, Iris), it's okay to bump some or all of them down to supporting. The lines in these cases are often blurry, and for me, Hudson in Dreamgirls falls into this category. I think she'd fit into either lead (she is a protagonist...) or supporting (...but she's gone for chunks when Foxx/Beyoncé take focus.) Ditto Nicholson, who could be one of three leads in The Departed, or supporting Damon & DiCaprio.

But when there are two main characters, unless one has significantly less screen time than the other, for me, they're both leads. I see no way that Blanchett is supporting Dench because the former is only in the film a hair less than the latter. So she doesn't have the voice-over. Big deal. Neither did Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird and no one thinks he should be in supporting...I think.

[OscarGuy]

There is no way McAvoy is Support in Scotland. McAvoy should be the one winning attention for lead. Whitaker is much more of a supporting character even if he does have the titular role.

Hudson and Blanchett should both be considered lead.

[Penelope]

I haven't seen Last King of Scotland, but, I'm sorry, Hudson is much more supporting than Blanchett.

Also, I'm very, very, very durnk right now.... :p

[dylanfan23]

She's much more supporting then jennifer hudson is in dreamgirls. I'll actually buy her character as supporting dench's lead. Dench is the clear lead in this film, by the way it was it was written and her character in general as the force of the story. I've seen far worse go into the supporting catorgory. It's much more terrible to put someone like james mcavoy's character in the last king of scotland in the supporting catorgory.

[Penelope]

Is it possible to describe Notes on a Scandal as post-post-modern camp? It's a fun romp of silliness, with two great actresses giving it everything they've got (and, I'm sorry, but there's NO WAY Blanchett is Supporting in this), pouncing on every bit of dialogue like they were ravenous in the desert, all of it wrapped up with as much melodramatic flourish that director Richard Eyre, screenwriter Patrick Marber and composer Phillip Glass can muster--with it's hackneyed lesbian predator (yes, it's homophobic only in that it trades on a homophobic stereotype, but Dench mostly manages to humanise Barbara) plotline and its oh-so-proper Brit setting, it's the most enjoyable movie of 1966!

[Precious Doll]

Paul Cox's earlier 1991 film A Woman's Tale, which starred the 74 year old Shelia Florence playing a woman dying of cancer, contains a scene of a nude Ms Florence in a bath tube fondling herself over sexual memories of the past.

This wasn't the first time Ms Florence stripped for the camera. She also did a nude scene in a little known gem from 1986 - The Tale of Ruby Rose. Though it was of a non-sexual nature.

[Big Magilla]

When was the last time an actress over 70 was allowed to have a sexual thought on film?

Whilst she may have only been 68 at the time (I don't know who old the character was meant to be) Anne Reid got done and dirty with her daughter's boyfriend (Daniel Craig) in The Mother. Even indulging in what may have been anal sex.

Good call.

Julia Blake in 2000's Innocnence also caused quite a stir but she was only 64 at the time.

[Precious Doll]

When was the last time an actress over 70 was allowed to have a sexual thought on film?

Whilst she may have only been 68 at the time (I don't know who old the character was meant to be) Anne Reid got done and dirty with her daughter's boyfriend (Daniel Craig) in The Mother. Even indulging in what may have been anal sex.

[criddic3]

Akash:

outright lying etc.

Yeah, right. Okay. Whatever you say.

[rolotomasi99]

We aren't a debate forum. Films don't HAVE to present both sides of an issue. We aren't watching documentaries, we're watching movies. It would have been wholly inappropriate to suddenly ADD a character just to appease a specific group of people.
I was never offended by the film's portrayal of Dench's character as a lesbian. And it's never even said. That's all subtext...but I really think it works quite well and is befitting the story.

maybe you were not offended because you are not a lesbian. just a possibility. i went to see the movie with my mother over the holidays, and as a lesbian she found it very offensive. i just thought it was a bad movie, but she thought it was a bad movie and homophobic. i agree with her, but i only mentioned it on this thread rather casually. i was not trying to start a fight (despite what some people may accuse me of doing).
it is probably accurate that dench's character would be "the only gay in the village," but even going into the film and knowing what it was about i was struck by how homophobic the thing felt. i think it was that scene where blanchett finds the diaries and confronts dench. it just felt like she was more concerned that it was a woman that was obsessing over her rather than just some crazy person in general.
it just surprises me that this year we saw mainstream films like V FOR VENDETTA and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS be more gay friendly than art house films like NOTES ON A SCANDAL and RUNNING WITH SCISSORS. not a big deal or anything, i just thought it was interesting.

[OscarGuy]

We aren't a debate forum. Films don't HAVE to present both sides of an issue. We aren't watching documentaries, we're watching movies. It would have been wholly inappropriate to suddenly ADD a character just to appease a specific group of people.

And let me saying something on the use of the word Gay...Criddic would have us think that the term has no negative connotations at all. However, I hear the word used CONSTANTLY to refer to something wrong or bad. Not to homosexuals. But someone might say "that's so gay". To them that means that it's unfair or somehow disgusting...

So, I would hardly say the "hijacking" of films, the word gay and, indeed, this thread, is a good thing but I really don't think Notes on a Scandal is that homophobic. I was never offended by the film's portrayal of Dench's character as a lesbian. And it's never even said. That's all subtext...but I really think it works quite well and is befitting the story.

[rolotomasi99]

why is it all or nothing with you folks? they did not have to take out the lesbianism from dench's character, they only needed to do what THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION did, add a character or a piece of dialogue that showed there was an alternative to the predator that dench had become. i felt like that scene with her sister was supposed to serve that purpose. it is clear that dench's sister knows she is a lesbian, and asks about her girlfriend (we later discover she was a victim much like sheba). we see the denial of dench's character, the internalized homophobia, that is turning her into this obsessive monster. perhaps if the other women had actually been a lesbian that was living happily with another woman, that would have made things easier.

however, like i said before, i object more to the fact that NOTES ON A SCANDAL is a bad movie than that it is homophobic. the writing was actually good, and dench kicked ass. i think the film is a good example how the wrong director can single handedly destory a film. he just got the tone of the whole thing wrong. to me this highlights how much more important it is for the director to find a film's voice rather than worry about fancy visuals, but i do not want to start another argument.

[Big Magilla]

Sometimes a movie is just a movie. I suppose it would have worked if they had taken all aspects of sexuality away from Dench's character, but then the filmmakers would have been accused of pussyfooting around the issue. Is there really anyone out there who is naive enough to believe that Dench's character is representative of lonely old lesbians any more than they believed Close's character in Fatal Attraction was representative of single career women in the 80s?

I say hurray for Dench. When was the last time an actress over 70 was allowed to have a sexual thought on film? I don't think ever, yet she's done it now three times - first as the old lady lusting after the young boy in Ladies in Lavender, then as the horny old broad who puts on a nudie show in Mrs. Henderson Presents, and now as a crazy old dyke. She's an equal opportunity myth slayer.