Re: Hollywood Review articles
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:35 pm
When it comes to category fraud, I think it's not a matter of percentage of screen time, but of the importance of a given character within the context of the narrative of the film he or she is in. It's not that simple. For instance, I consider both last winners, Simmons and Arquette, as supporting performances, even if they were much longer in their respective movies than, say, Jared Leto and Lupita Nyong'o. On the other hand, I still don't understand how one could label Peter Finch supporting in Network or Louise Fletcher leading in Cuckoo's Nest. And what about Maximilian Schell in Nuremberg and Brando in The Godfather? I can't make up my mind on those two. My point is that this deals with very subjective territory, added to practical reasons, which are winning the more statuettes the better, never mind the means. It's indeed a problem without an obvious solution.
It's true that this year's situation is specially unfair. I haven't seen Carol yet (I'm dying to do so), but I did read Highsmith's novel, and in no way that character could be considered supporting by a rational mind. If Mara gets nominated there, as will probably occur, it will be the more flagrant case ever, even more than Tatum O'Neal or Timothy Hutton, as I see it.
It's true that this year's situation is specially unfair. I haven't seen Carol yet (I'm dying to do so), but I did read Highsmith's novel, and in no way that character could be considered supporting by a rational mind. If Mara gets nominated there, as will probably occur, it will be the more flagrant case ever, even more than Tatum O'Neal or Timothy Hutton, as I see it.