Most Egregious Category Gerrymandering - Lead Roles Incorrectly Pushed to Support

[jack]

I may have missed a few posts, but what about The Godfather? An argument could be made to switch the nominations for both Brando and Pacino. What I mean by this is that Pacino had no right being nominated in support and deserved a lead actor nomination. Now, I don't believe that this idea of catagory "gerrymandering" was much in focus back in the 70s, but as I said before Pacino should have been a Best Actor nominee.

[Bruce_Lavigne]

For me, this is an extremely close four-way race between Tatum O'Neal, Casey Affleck, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Jamie Foxx.

Ultimately, I'm going with Gyllenhaal, because not only was he a lead taking up a spot that could otherwise have gone to a worthy supporting actor (in a year that had so many I still can't bring it down to a consistent top 5), but he did so with a performance that I just wasn't all that impressed by. At least Affleck, O'Neal, and to a lesser extent Foxx (better in Collateral than Ray, IMO) were worthy of awards recognition, even if they got it in the wrong category.

[Bog]

One that thankfully didn't pan out was Focus Features' supporting campaign for Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation. Had she been nominated in support for that role, she probably would've been my pick, or at least would've come close.

Hell, she would easily have been my choice for Best Actress! Ahh, those were the days when more indie Scarlett was making good choices and challenging herself and her once incredibly prominent young acting chops. It seems that we can just continue to wade in a long line of "He's Just Not That Into You's" until she fades into artistic irrelevance.

The blame could probably be purely placed upon Maxim magazine...oh well.

[dws1982]

I know there were only ten choices allowed in the poll, but another that would fit on this list would be Ethan Hawke for Training Day.

One that thankfully didn't pan out was Focus Features' supporting campaign for Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation. Had she been nominated in support for that role, she probably would've been my pick, or at least would've come close.



Edited By dws1982 on 1256391056

[OscarGuy]

Uri, I don't disagree with your assessment of Passion Fish, I slightly disagree with English Patient as the decision was made more on the fact they didn't want both nominated in lead or support, so they gave the preference to the actress speaking in English as opposed to the one with dialogue in French. It's the same concept, but it had nothing to do with social strata, IMO.

As for ER, you can't blame Emmy voters, you can blame the showrunners because they are the ones who etched out the positions within the show for the cast. Ostensibly, George Clooney, Anthony Edwards and Sherry Stringfield WERE the leads of the show. The series, while an ensemble, focused mostly no those three characters. Eriq La Salle, Noah Wyle and Julianna Margulies were mostly supporting characters at the time (I do remember watching the series back then and this was very clearly how the show was written).

While Noah Wyle, who eventually became what one would consider a lead, never moved up to lead status at the Emmys, Julianna Margulies actually earned only two nominations in Support and, after Sherry Stringfield left the show, was promoted to a Lead Actress as her stories were given more power and importance within the confines of the show. Eriq La Salle didn't really move into a more lead-like position on the series until after the show had already ceased earning acting nominations.

So, while I can see from your perspective why you saw it as a class struggle (let's keep in mind that Wyle's character was an affluent son of a wealthy man who was becoming a doctor out of sheer boredom at the start would qualify as a higher class character than you specify), I think it's wrongheaded to suggest it was the Emmys who were at fault in that situation.

Let's also clarify how the Emmys work because they are a different entity than the Oscars. At the Oscars, the voters themselves, based on suggestions and other awards, can nominate an actor in lead or support as they see fit. For the Emmys, the talent themselves or the showrunners work together to determine where everyone should be placed and then submit it to the Emmy Awards. The voters themselves have no power to alter the submitted category of a contender, thus the Emmys are not responsible for the category assignments in the least.

[Mister Tee]

Fletcher, both before and after Cuckoo's Nest was a character actress, not a star. Had the role been played by Ellen Burstyn, Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Page, Angela Lansbury or any of the other big names who turned it down, would we be even questioning it?

I've been hearing this question for over 30 years, and my answer has always been an emphatic yes. Nurse Ratched is a supporting part, no matter who's playing her.

[rain Bard]

Had the role been played by Ellen Burstyn, Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Page, Angela Lansbury or any of the other big names who turned it down, would we be even questioning it?

Presumably if one of these actors had taken the role, the part would have been beefed up. Another tricky aspect of these supporting/lead controversies...

[Big Magilla]

In The Passion Fish, which is about a relationship between two women, the screen and the point of view are equally shared by the rich, white employer and the down on her luck black nurse taking care of her. The rich bitch (on wheels) was nominated as lead. The nurse, naturally, was promoted as support (and yes Magilla, I know Woodard happily accepted her Free Spirit best supporting award, as you told me the last time I brought it up, and good for her – as we all know black actresses don't win as leads unless they are half white and conventionally fuckable).

That doesn't sound like me as I hardly pay any attention to the Spirits and wouldn't know if someone "happily" accepted their award or not, but I get your point.

I don't disagree that old people and youngsters, as well as minorities, can be marginalized by the Oscars and other awards givers but films in general marginalize such characters. I thought both women in The English Patient should have been nominated in support as neither quite dominated the film.

I've always been of two minds about Fletcher's role. On one hand it is the second largest role in the film, on the other it is significantly less important than Nicholson's. Had it been a stronger year for lead actresses she probably would have been relegated to support. In fact had her producer husband not had a falling out with Robert Altman she would have played the Lily Tomlin role in Nashville (which had been written for her) and would have been a supporting actress nominee for sure. However, I think we're being a little snobbish questioning this particular categorization. Fletcher, both before and after Cuckoo's Nest was a character actress, not a star. Had the role been played by Ellen Burstyn, Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Page, Angela Lansbury or any of the other big names who turned it down, would we be even questioning it?



Edited By Big Magilla on 1256330042

[Uri]

I've said it before, but – the first year ER was eligible for the Emies, its 6 stars (the 6 people featured on the opening credits) were nominated. The 3 white doctors as leads, the nurse, the student and the black guy as support. Both female stars of The English Patient were nominated – the high society lady who was present quite sparingly and always as a fragment of the leading man consciousness was considered a lead. The lower class nurse, who was fucking a colored guy was put in the supporting category, never mind the fact that she was the protagonist of her chunk of the film and she had a lot more screen time than the English rose, probably about as much as the male lead. In The Passion Fish, which is about a relationship between two women, the screen and the point of view are equally shared by the rich, white employer and the down on her luck black nurse taking care of her. The rich bitch (on wheels) was nominated as lead. The nurse, naturally, was promoted as support (and yes Magilla, I know Woodard happily accepted her Free Spirit best supporting award, as you told me the last time I brought it up, and good for her – as we all know black actresses don't win as leads unless they are half white and conventionally fuckable).

We can go on debating about screen time and star power and pr strategies and all is valid, but there are a lot of unacknowledged political, social and cultural undercurrents influencing the category placement. And a lot of time this placement corresponds with the status the character the actor is playing is supposedly having. Children are marginalized – in life and by the Academy. Old people are marginalized. People of color are marginalized. Men who take it up their ass are marginalized, as are creepy, murderous groupies. Taxi drivers and house keepers are marginalized. And of course, people who have no drive to be someone on their own so they end up nurturing and supporting other, more important people – all those submissive mothers, spouses and yes, nurses, all end up you know where. But, as Louise Fletcher and Kathy Bates know, once nurses do have a mind of their own and start torturing leading men they get noticed and being promoted to lead, no matter how big their role is. As for that girl on the whale – the all point was that she turned out to be a leader, a central figure in her community despite her age, gender and family status – so the Academy took notes – she was important! (And in '03 they had such a tough time filling the best actress category, so what the hell).



Edited By Uri on 1256325788

[Penelope]

You know Hutton as the star he soon became, not as the relative unknown actor he was then.

Your arguments have given me a good understanding of the different views of the time, though I would like to add that no one here seems to be advocating for Hutton's lead placement based on the fact that he eventually became a star, or any other extra-cinematic determining factor.

Yes, this is our point, Magilla. We're basing this purely on what's on the screen, that's all. And based purely on that, how anyone could consider Hutton anything other than a Lead--in fact, THE Lead--in Ordinary People is a complete mystery to me.

[The Original BJ]

You know Hutton as the star he soon became, not as the relative unknown actor he was then.

Your arguments have given me a good understanding of the different views of the time, though I would like to add that no one here seems to be advocating for Hutton's lead placement based on the fact that he eventually became a star, or any other extra-cinematic determining factor.

[Big Magilla]

It seems to me that all the objections to Tim Hutton's nomination and win in support are coming from people who either weren't born or were too young to have paid attention to such things at the time. You know Hutton as the star he soon became, not as the relative unknown actor he was then.

It seemed perfectly logical to those of us who had been brought up (so to speak) under the rules of the star system for him to be considered for awards recognition in the "lesser" category. Stars, including those in breakout performances - Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday, James Dean in East of Eden - could be nominated in lead when they were the whole show but when a movie was sold, as Ordinary People was, on the basis of a megastar's dazzling directorial debut and the female lead's equally dazzling reversal of image, their star power overwhelmed everything else including the incredible work of a gifted teenage co-star even if his character was the one we all identified with.

Poor Donald Sutherland was the one who got lost in the shuffle. Practically no one noticed him, even to the extent that his deserved spot in Oscar's lineup was taken by Jack Lemmon at his hammiest in the godawful Tribute.

[dws1982]

Tatum O'Neal is a different story because it wasn't until the Oscar nominations that she was considered supporting. It was the reverse situation of that already forgotten young girl in Whale Rider.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but there was a lot of outrage online about the distributor of Whale Rider promoting Keisha Castle-Hughes for a Supporting nomination. I don't think anyone who had actually seen the movie considered her an actual supporting player in her film.

[The Original BJ]

I don't think I was just saying that. No one at the time considered Hutton anything but a supporting player. No one, not one of the pre-cursors. It wasn't the big deal you guys are making it.

Those may be the reasons why it's considered the most egregious now.

This reminds me of how loony it was that ALL the precursors -- including the supposedly independent-minded National Society of Film Critics -- recognized Casey Affleck as a Supporting Actor...just because everyone else was doing so.

The only reason I wouldn't vote for Hutton as THE most egregious is because you could make a good argument that Ordinary People has three leading players, which always complicates things a bit more than situations with co-leads (most of the others). The problem is, I see absolutely no way you could argue that Moore and Sutherland are leads but NOT Hutton. Either they're all leads or Hutton is the lead and one or both of the parents are supporting.

I think what this debate is coming down to is a difference of opinion between those who think this should be judged on something easily quantifiable (i.e. screen time), and those judging on more fluid terms (i.e. star power). Although I think there are often gray areas, for me, I just don't understand how someone with more screen time can ever support someone with less screen time, regardless of their star wattage, or how they're billed, or how old they are, or if they've got another performance competing in lead, or whatever.

[Sonic Youth]

I don't think I was just saying that. No one at the time considered Hutton anything but a supporting player. No one, not one of the pre-cursors. It wasn't the big deal you guys are making it.

Those may be the reasons why it's considered the most egregious now.