Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:35 am**

The trailer is excellent!

The film is a freaking masterpiece.

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:00 pm**

Jesus Christ! Same fucking minute?!

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:56 pm**

paperboy wrote:Fiennes is definitely going Supporting as well. Does this make 'The Reader' the first non-ensemble film with no discernible lead?

There IS a discernable lead; it's just that Harvey wants us to believe that the leading lady is actually supporting, which is utterly ridiculous.

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:37 pm**

I haven't read it, and I know nothing more than what I just saw in the trailer, but maybe there are large chunks of the movie that Kate Winslet isn't in. If so, maybe Supporting won't be so bad. I mean, what if she could do what's never been done, and win TWO acting awards in the same night?

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:31 pm**

Fiennes is definitely going Supporting as well. Does this make 'The Reader' the first non-ensemble film with no discernible lead?

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:11 pm**

Lena Olin looks hot.

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:01 pm**

Jinx, Sabin!

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:50 pm**

http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein ... large.html

Beyond anything else: A) Looks ravishing, and B) what music is this?

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:50 pm**

Trailer. Even here, it's pretty obvious this is a lead role.

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:41 pm**

flipp525 wrote:I also think that this whole debate is sort of pointless until anyone has actually seen the film in its entirety.

well, actually the debate is pointless because harvey gets what harvey wants. we have no say in the matter so debating it is nothing but filler until the precursors are announced.

you and i have seen THE HOURS and yet we still disagree on who was a lead. i do not see how waiting until we see the movie is going to settle anything. kate winslet is most likely a lead in THE READER, but she is being submitted as supporting so she can have double nominations. i was just curious if people are upset because they consider supporting a demotion.

penelope, i am not sure i understand. you obviously worship kate as much as i do, but you feel somehow a double nomination would be tainted. have we ever gone a year where someone did not end up in the wrong category? it is tradition. if kate could be nominated twice in lead, they might run her. i think if anyone could pull off a double nomination in lead category it would be the great kate, particularly these two performances. however, if she wants a double nomination, or more specifically if we want it for her, she is going to have to be nominated in supporting. yes, she will be pushing someone else out, but that is just how it goes. everyone is nominated over someone else. i do not think it should reflect badly on kate.

oh, yeah. uri, you are much braver than i am. :;):

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:56 pm**

flipp525 wrote:Well, that's debatable. Nicole Kidman was incontrovertibly the lead of The Hours. Virginia Woolf was the engine by which all the other characters were driven. She was writing the book which "gave life", if you will, to the two other main character's storylines. While I think that Julianne Moore's Laura Brown was one of her most impressive performances, even I can step back and see the rationale for placing Kidman in the lead over her. Plus, I don't think they had "equal screentime". Moore, if I recall correctly, actually had more screentime than Kidman.

Yes, to this day I'm puzzled Jane Doe wasn't nominated for best actress for playing the title role in Rebecca. After all, her character's actions and presence were so powerful they triggered everything that went on in the movie. And instead they went for the mousy, passive second wife who simply reacted. Strange.

Woolf 's is defiantly a key role in The Hours, but the way it's structured, it's the least "leading" of the three – I saw it as (or at least I thought it should have been) a kind of a reflection on, an inspiration for, a meditation about the two actual protagonists, Clarissa and Laura. And if played by someone more capable than that tall plastic non actor it might have amounted to an award worthy borderline leading/supporting performance.

Edited By Uri on 1225130398

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:55 am**

Agreed, Penelope. If this move cheats a Rosemary DeWitt, Viola Davis or a Taraji P. Henson out of a nod, under-the-radar actors turning in genuinely supporting performances, I'm going to be unhappy.

Edited By flipp525 on 1225122944

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 am**

rolo, I don't see it so much as an insult to Winslet as I consider it an insult to other actors who are genuine Supporting players and have their chance for a nomination obliterated because of "political" chicanery. Thus, if Winslet were to be nominated for both performances, I would consider the achievement tainted, requiring an * in the record books.

More than anything, I want The Great and Glorious Goddess Known to Mere Mortals as Kate Winslet to win an Oscar, but I don't want her to win one thanks to producers cheating someone else out of a nomination.

Edited By Penelope on 1225122574

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:02 am**

flipp525 wrote:She shouldn't. That's exactly what kaytodd's whole post was arguing. The actions/decisions of April Wheeler drive most of the plot of Revolutionary Road. There is no conceivable way she could be construed as being a supporting character.

Yes, well, of course I know what he meant. But it's so obvious. And I don't think anyone from the Revolutionary Road production team ever even thought of putting Winslet in the supporting category.

But the Reader production team did (as far as we know; I still have my doubts). And I don't even think that they organized this strategy in agreement with those from the "rival" movie; they are probably just afraid that Winslet, in the Best Actress category, would get more votes for Revolutionary Road than for The Reader (and by the way I have my doubts about this, too). But for some reason I'm not so sure that this will turn out to be a wise and successful move.

Edited By ITALIANO on 1225125221

Posted: **Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:59 am**

rolotomasi99 wrote:nicole kidman was considered lead while julianne moore was considered supporting in THE HOURS, despite their characters having equal screentime and importance (not to mention the myriad other examples which have already been given). this allowed moore to have a double nomination that year. may have not made sense, but it made me happy. that is how i feel about the winslet situation.

Well, that's debatable. Nicole Kidman was incontrovertibly the lead of The Hours. Virginia Woolf was the engine by which all the other characters were driven. She was writing the book which "gave life", if you will, to the two other main character's storylines. While I think that Julianne Moore's Laura Brown was one of her most impressive performances, even I can step back and see the rationale for placing Kidman in the lead over her. Plus, I don't think they had "equal screentime". Moore, if I recall correctly, actually had more screentime than Kidman.

Also, I don't think it's a slap in the face to place Winslet in support for her role in The Reader...yet. I haven't seen how the script has interpreted her role and therefore I can't make hasty pronouncements about how "wrong" it is. I do agree with Penelope that she is at least a co-lead according to the novel. But the only person who can actually say what the substance of her performance is would be dreaMaker and, quite honestly, I haven't gleaned much from his observations of the film in its current state.

I also think that this whole debate is sort of pointless until anyone has actually seen the film in its entirety.

Edited By flipp525 on 1225119933