Correcting Oscar 2020

[Okri]

Outside of this board, I don't see people being bothered a lot by category manipulation. It means that stronger roles and better known actors get nominations, so the press generally don't seem to have any issue with it. Without it, the gap in quality between Lead and Supporting categories would be larger. For the same reason, I'm fine when they fudge "secondary Lead" roles into supporting, but some of the category manipulation - like pushing both Kaluuya and Stanfield in Supporting this year - are just ridiculous.

I would challenge this. I actually think the supporting category gets weakened when you get leading performances nominated. There's a degree to which they get demoted because they aren't good enough to compete against the leads) - whether true or not (Alicia Vikander, Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal, Mahershala Ali in Green Book, Hopkins in The Two Popes). If it's strictly about avoiding internal competition, it also tends to weaken the leading category too. It really makes the acting categories feel... less thoughtful. And if there's a star hierarchy in play, it makes it feel even worse. But we'll get to those categories in time.

[Sabin]

Heksagon
Bakalova and Odom are, in my opinion, Supporting, but I think that valid arguments could be made for both to be in the Lead also. Bakalova's role is secondary to Sacha Baron Cohen, but it's still a key role, and the main female role. I see One Night in Miami as an ensemble piece without any lead roles, but others may well view it differently. So it really depends on your point of view. But I'm pretty sure Odom would not have been nominated had he been campaigned in the Lead.

Outside of this board, I don't see people being bothered a lot by category manipulation. It means that stronger roles and better known actors get nominations, so the press generally don't seem to have any issue with it. Without it, the gap in quality between Lead and Supporting categories would be larger. For the same reason, I'm fine when they fudge "secondary Lead" roles into supporting, but some of the category manipulation - like pushing both Kaluuya and Stanfield in Supporting this year - are just ridiculous.

That's more or less how I see it. I don't think it's an injustice that Bakalova and Odom were pushed for supporting, especially as both were borderline cases. The purist in me would push them both for lead, but I see no issue with them both up for supporting. Kaluuya and Stanfield though are different stories.

[Heksagon]

Boseman, Davis, Kaluuya and Stanfield would be Lead, but I don't think Stanfield would have gotten nominated in that category if they had campaigned him there, so I will put him as "Neither" and others as "Lead".

Bakalova and Odom are, in my opinion, Supporting, but I think that valid arguments could be made for both to be in the Lead also. Bakalova's role is secondary to Sacha Baron Cohen, but it's still a key role, and the main female role. I see One Night in Miami as an ensemble piece without any lead roles, but others may well view it differently. So it really depends on your point of view. But I'm pretty sure Odom would not have been nominated had he been campaigned in the Lead.

Outside of this board, I don't see people being bothered a lot by category manipulation. It means that stronger roles and better known actors get nominations, so the press generally don't seem to have any issue with it. Without it, the gap in quality between Lead and Supporting categories would be larger. For the same reason, I'm fine when they fudge "secondary Lead" roles into supporting, but some of the category manipulation - like pushing both Kaluuya and Stanfield in Supporting this year - are just ridiculous.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
LaKeith Stanfield: I think he's a lead, but he misses out if he gets pushed as lead. I do think more people would have predicting him, though, if Kaluuya was pushed lead

Odom Jr: I think that he's a lead and wouldn't be nominated. While it is an ensemble, I think the driving conflict is between Malcolm X and Sam Cooke. I think both Ali and Brown have key moments, but they are more supporting. I have to admit One Night in Miami's overall awardage, both as a play and a film, throws me. I think Ben-Adair gives by far the most layered and interesting work but he just wasn't in the frame. I always find it weird when American plays get recognized abroad before hitting New York (or in this case, never hitting NY)

I think if Kaluuya was pushed for lead, then more people would have predicted Stanfield for supporting. I think that would have been a much safer bet.

I agree with your assessment of One Night in Miami... and that Kingsley Ben-Adir gave the most interesting, layered performance. I honestly don't understand why he didn't pick up more attention. Odom, Jr. is quite good though.

[Okri]

Maria Bakalova: I haven't seen the movie, so I'll skip making a judgment, but I actually think that if she goes lead, she misses out. She won a tonne of supporting performance critics including two of the three biggies, which I think gave her some momentum. I don't think that happens for her in lead.

Daniel Kaluuya: I think he's lead, I think he gets nominated in lead if they place him there and am surprised, ultimately, they didn't.

LaKeith Stanfield: I think he's a lead, but he misses out if he gets pushed as lead. I do think more people would have predicting him, though, if Kaluuya was pushed lead

Davis and Boseman: Both are leads, but I do think it's debatable and wouldn't have been mad if they were pushed in the other category (Like I think Davis in Fences is more of a lead then Davis in Ma Rainey, but I don't object to really either placement). I think they would've been obviously nominated in either category.

Odom Jr: I think that he's a lead and wouldn't be nominated. While it is an ensemble, I think the driving conflict is between Malcolm X and Sam Cooke. I think both Ali and Brown have key moments, but they are more supporting. I have to admit One Night in Miami's overall awardage, both as a play and a film, throws me. I think Ben-Adair gives by far the most layered and interesting work but he just wasn't in the frame. I always find it weird when American plays get recognized abroad before hitting New York (or in this case, never hitting NY)

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Davis in the title role of Ma Rainey has an underwritten role but she is every bit the star of the film as Marlon Brando was the star of The Godfather and belongs in lead. Boseman's performance is a strong one. I thought it could go in either lead or support. Stage versions of the play have vacillated between giving sole star billing to the actress playing Ma with the actor in Boseman's role listed in support and giving them equal billing.

I think if Boseman were nominated in support and Kaluuya in lead, Boseman would have been an easy winner in support. With them both in the same category, whether lead or support, it makes it tough to choose between them. However, I would nominate him in support, making that tough choice one that we should have had.

I could come around to the idea of Boseman/Levee being a supporting role, although it's borderline. He doesn't feel supporting.

Big Magilla wrote
Even though Kaluuya and Stanfield are co-leads in their film, I don't have a problem separating them. The story is told from Stanfield's perspective which makes him the one I would move to lead. However, with such a packed category and a number of other deserving nominees left out of contention, I don't see him getting a slot, so I say neither.

While this is technically true, so much of the film takes place away from Stanfield's perspective. The two figures really do feel like separate entities in the film.

[Big Magilla]

I think that Bakalova's is an interesting performance but not strong enough to merit a Best Actress nomination. On the other hand, it's not really a supporting one. I say neither.

Davis in the title role of Ma Rainey has an underwritten role but she is every bit the star of the film as Marlon Brando was the star of The Godfather and belongs in lead. Boseman's performance is a strong one. I thought it could go in either lead or support. Stage versions of the play have vacillated between giving sole star billing to the actress playing Ma with the actor in Boseman's role listed in support and giving them equal billing.

I think if Boseman were nominated in support and Kaluuya in lead, Boseman would have been an easy winner in support. With them both in the same category, whether lead or support, it makes it tough to choose between them. However, I would nominate him in support, making that tough choice one that we should have had.

Even though Kaluuya and Stanfield are co-leads in their film, I don't have a problem separating them. The story is told from Stanfield's perspective which makes him the one I would move to lead. However, with such a packed category and a number of other deserving nominees left out of contention, I don't see him getting a slot, so I say neither.

I agree with Sabin that Trial of the Chicago 7 was an ensemble piece in which none of the characters are leads and One Night in Miami which has a smaller ensemble in which all four members are leads. However, it wouldn't have been likely for all four actors to receive nominations in lead or support, so the film's producers were right to split them. Kingsley Ben-Adir as Malcom X had the slightly dominant role with Leslie Odom Jr.'s Sam Cooke coming in second. Even so, I don't have a problem with Odom listed in support.

So, for me, Davis, Kaluuya, and Odom stay where they are, Boseman moves to support, and Bakalova and Stanfield miss out, Stanfield just barely.

[Sabin]

I'll start!

I would consider Maria Bakalova a lead in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm. Her arc of self-discovery becomes such a dominant story-driver that I think it warranted consideration as a lead performance. The pre-disgraced Hollywood Foreign Press clearly agreed with me, although they gave their award to Rosamund Pike. Although I loved the sheer weirdness of the 2020 Best Supporting Actress race coming down to Bakalova and Yuh-jung Youn over such likelier, blogger-forecasted contenders like Glenn Close and Amanda Seyfried (although we'll never know the final totals), I would rule against Bakalova's placement in support and say that she belongs in the leading category. However, would she have gotten nominated for Best Actress? I'm inclined to say no, although it might've been closer than we think. The runners up for a nomination beyond the eventual five were startlingly weak. Amy Adams got a SAG nomination for Hillbilly Elegy, there was talk about Elisabeth Moss for The Invisible Man, Zendaya for Malcolm and Marie, and Rosamund Pike for I Care A Lot. If she was appropriately considered a leading actress, Maria Bakalova's chances would've been roughly as good as any of theirs for a nomination. Could she have broken into the five? Davis, McDormand, and Mulligan were obviously set in stone. The only two contenders that Bakalova could have upset were Andra Day and Vanessa Kirby. I remember being more shaky about Andra Day's chances at the time but in retrospect, I think her performance was too strong to ignore. Vanessa Kirby on the other hand probably wasn't helped by general apathy for Pieces of a Woman. But she had a showy role and Netflix behind her. That being said, people really seemed to enjoy Bakalova's arc of self-discovery (it was a good year for that arc) and Borat Subsequent Moviefilm did a little better than most expected going into Oscar season. I'm going to ultimately say no, but I could be persuaded. I vote Neither.

I'm going to tackle Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith Stanfield together because I think they're both leads. A firmer case could be made that Stanfield is the protagonist because he has the stronger growth arc, even though it's eventually tragic by his refusal to change course, but Kaluuya's arc is so independent of Stanfield's throughout the film (their lack of a real meeting of the minds is I think the film's big flaw) that it's hard not to consider Kaluuya the film's true protagonist. His performance is also such a dominant one, whereas Stanfield is adroitly understated. Because of those dual tones, I would understand it more if the film's producers pushed Kaluuya for lead and Stanfield for supporting. But they're both leading performances in my book. Would they have been nominated? I think Kaluuya would have if appropriately pushed. I think Kaluuya could've gotten a nomination past Steven Yeun or Gary Oldman. Judas and the Black Messiah over-performed expectations on Oscar morning. Heck, if Daniel Kaluuya was pushed for lead, I think there's a chance he could've won. I would've supported that. Would LaKeith Stanfield have broken into the lead category? No. So for Kaluuya, I vote Lead. For Stanfield, I vote Neither. Does this break open an opening for Jesse Plemons one year earlier? Maybe.

2020 gave us three pretty good examples of ensemble films that give us different definitions of what are leading vs. supporting players: Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, One Night in Miami..., and The Trial of the Chicago 7. With Ma Rainey..., I would consider Boseman and Davis leads because the film is (at least notionally) both Levee and Ma Rainey have independent arcs and the film comes to a head when their values collide. I think the film would benefit from a freer adaptation to really bring that to life more but it's hard to consider either of those arcs subordinate to anything else in the film, either another performance or a larger story. With The Trial of the Chicago 7, I think a case could be made that there is no leading performance and that all performances are subordinate to the larger story in the film: the trial. If there were a leading performance, it might be Eddie Redmayne's Tom Hayden or Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Richard Schultz, but the story doesn't play out that one with one performance more dominant than the other. I think it's an ensemble film with all supporting players. One Night in Miami... is trickier but I think all performances are more or less on equal ground. I think they're all leads, although I could see a case to be made for Jim Brown being supporting. It's a story of all four of them meeting up for one night. There's no one dominant story or idea that they're supporting. If a film like The Philadelphia Story can have three leads, I don't see why One Night in Miami... can't. So, I would consider Leslie Odom, Jr. a leading player.

Boseman and Davis would stay in lead. Would Odom, Jr. be nominated as a lead? I don't think so. He's quite good (I'd argue that Kingsley Ben-Adir is even better) but I don't see room in the race for him.

So, my top-level vote would be that the Best Actor race would include Daniel Kaluuya in its lineup, Best Actress would likely remain the same (although I could see Maria Bakalova getting in past Vanessa Kirby), Best Supporting Actor would see an exodus of three players (Kaluuya, Odom, Jr., and Stanfield) from the lineup, and Best Supporting Actress would see one opening from Bakalova's departure.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Great idea, Sabin. Something for us to talk about before, during, and after Oscar season.

One thing, though. We cannot repost this particular set of choices.

We already have six with three options for each. The maximum number of choices allowed by the system is twenty.

We would have to handle that with another poll for 2020.

Copy that!

[Big Magilla]

-If anyone feels desperately about an addition, we'll consider adding and re-posting. We cannot exceed five.

Great idea, Sabin. Something for us to talk about before, during, and after Oscar season.

One thing, though. We cannot repost this particular set of choices.

We already have six with three options for each. The maximum number of choices allowed by the system is twenty.

We would have to handle that with another poll for 2020.

[Sabin]

Hey all! For years, one of my biggest Oscar pet peeves has been actors shuttled into the wrong categories for political reasons. The first egregious offender of my Oscar-viewing life was Ethan Hawke for Training Day, but I chalked it off as an aberration. But by the time we started hitting absurd nominations like Jamie Foxx for Collateral, Jake Gyllenhaal for Brokeback Mountain, and Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James..., it was quickly becoming an annual travesty, especially as so many other deserving candidates would go without mention.

I wished that someone would set the record straight with the Academy on what should be considered a leading performance, what should be considered a supporting performance, and what each race would look like if the voters got their act together.

A little bit ago, I realized that we could do that. This is what I propose we do:

-Let's go year by year, starting in the present and working backward, re-categorizing what should be considered a leading performance and what should be considered a supporting performance.
-We'll list the possible nominated offenders of performances in the wrong category. Our first year will be 2000, which will include Bakalova, Boseman, Kaluuya, Stanfield, Davis, and Odom, Jr.
-If anyone feels desperately about an addition, we'll consider adding and re-posting. We cannot exceed five.
-Everyone will be given a choice to vote between three options: LEADING, SUPPORTING, NEITHER.
-LEADING means that a performance that is already considered leading should stay in that place or a supporting performance should have been considered leading and would have gotten a nomination if appropriately considered.
-SUPPORTING means the reverse; a performance that is already considered supporting should stay in that place or a leading performance should have been considered supporting and would have gotten a nomination if appropriately considered.
-NEITHER means that a performance should not be considered in the category that it was nominated but it would not be nominated if it was considered in its appropriate category.

We will discuss and debate, as is the purpose of this board, and perhaps recast our votes.

When the dust is settled, we will have a separate second conversation on another post about what other performances would have most likely been nominated in our reshuffled Oscar race.

I decided to begin with 2020 because I don't see any prime offenders with last year's competition while 2020 definitely features one of the most historically odd instances of two performances being shuffled into one category. But I'd be open to circling back to 2021.

So, let's begin.

Was Maria Bakalova nominated in the right category? Vote Supporting. Should she have been nominated in a different category and would she have? Vote Lead. Or should she have been nominated in a different category but that would not have happened? Vote Neither.

Was Chadwick Boseman nominated in the right category? Vote Lead. Should he have been nominated in a different category and would he have? Vote Supporting. Or should he have been nominated in a different category but that would not have happened? Vote Neither.

Was Viola Davis nominated in the right category? Vote Lead. Should she have been nominated in a different category and would she have? Vote Supporting. Or should she have been nominated in a different category but that would not have happened? Vote Neither.

Was Daniel Kaluuya nominated in the right category? Vote Supporting. Should he have been nominated in a different category and would he have? Vote Lead. Or should he have been nominated in a different category but that would not have happened? Vote Neither.

Was Leslie Odom, Jr. nominated in the right category? Vote Supporting. Should he have been nominated in a different category and would he have? Vote Lead. Or should he have been nominated in a different category but that would not have happened? Vote Neither.

Was LaKeith Stanfield nominated in the right category? Vote Supporting. Should he have been nominated in a different category and would he have? Vote Lead. Or should he have been nominated in a different category but that would not have happened? Vote Neither.

Please give your reasons. That's why we're here!

[Big Magilla]

I set this up at Sabin's suggestion.

Please wait for his description of what we're doing before you vote.

Thanks.