Correcting Oscar 2019

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Sabin, that was Matthew Rhys, not Jonathyn Rhys Meyers, in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Thank you. I didn't watch The Americans so I missed the leap from one Rhys to another.

[Big Magilla]

Sabin, that was Matthew Rhys, not Jonathyn Rhys Meyers, in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

Johannsen and Theron were clear leads in their films. Ronan was the lead in Little Women.

Even though Hopkins and Pitt were clear co-leads in their films, given the way things are done now, I didn't have a problem with either one being placed in the supporting category. I thought if they had to be split, it was the proper way to do it. Hanks was more problematic for me inasmuch as he was the focus of the story even if it was told from the viewpoint of his co-star who had more screen time. His was similar to the positions of Forest Whitaker vis-a-vis Kames McAvoy in The Last King of Scotland and Brad Pitt vis-a-vis Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. But in the early days of the pandemic and the upcoming 2020 election I didn't give it a lot of thought. It wasn't as though there were any genuine supporting performances that I felt strongly about being ignored.

[Sabin]

I’m going to hop around on this one.

The Two Popes seems to be a pretty clear cut case of two leading roles. It’s a film about two independent figures coming together and having a meeting of the minds. I might be persuaded if Hopkins’ role was to change Pryce’s way of thinking, but that’s not the case. It’s about two opposing forces finding common ground. I could be persuaded in framing this film as Pope Francis’s story in that the film is more centered around his story, both in how it delves into his past and how it is more about his rise, as well as having to overcome Pope Benedict as an obstacle on his journey. It raises the question of how do we measure leading performances vs. supporting performances when they are largely only two performances in the film. How do we treat films where one character is more of an obstacle, and where there is no other supporting performance to measure them against?

In terms of screen-time and percentages, Pryce is in the film for 72 minutes and Hopkins is in the film 55 minutes (that’s 43% to 57%). Hopkins has more screen time than any of the other supporting nominees, including Pitt by two seconds and Al Pacino by a little over a minute, but also by percentage of screen-time topping his nearest competitor Tom Hanks by 2.5%.

I’m agnostic but I’m inclined to think of them both as lead performances. I would vote Neither because I don’t think Hopkins would ultimately make the cut if both were pushed for lead.

I’m not agnostic about Brad Pitt in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. This is a film about the end of a friendship, but they also have arcs independent of each other, and there is a clear, story-pertinent supporting performance to measure them against (Margot Robbie). Also, he’s only in the film six minutes less than DiCaprio (55 minutes to 61) and 3% less in screen-time (34% to 37%). Despite the fact that one arc is eventually about a comeback (DiCaprio) and the other is about an overdue departure (Pitt), I can’t see any argument why one is the dominant performance over the other. Both deserved to be nominated for Best Actor. I vote Lead because I think it’s entirely possible that Brad Pitt could’ve made a Best Actor lineup for this performance over Jonathan Pryce for The Two Popes and Antonio Banderas for Pain and Glory.

Side note: increasingly, I think Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance is one of my favorite of his career and might be my choice for Best Actor of the existing lineup. Now in middle-age, he really is quite good at playing self-absorbed neurotics.

I’m including Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood because it pertains to the conversation. He’s a supporting performance, even though he factors into his film with an almost equal percentage of screen-time as Anthony Hopkins. It’s clearly Matthew Rhys’ (thanks Magilla) story and Tom Hanks’ function is to heal him. But we do see these kinds of roles nominated from time to time in lead. Usually the big difference involves a tourist entering a very special person’s world, like James McAvoy in Forest Whitaker’s in The Last King of Scotland or Eddie Redmayne in Michelle Williams’ in My Week with Marilyn. Or Jonathan Pryce in Anthony Hopkins’ in The Two Popes. But in the case of A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Tom Hanks is more a tourist in Matthew Rhys' world (thanks Magilla). Again, this entry is more included for conversational purposes.

I think he is appropriately considered supporting.

I included Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story mainly to have a conversation about something we see often when it comes to nomination. We tend to nominate characters in leading roles when they serve a role (or have an archetypal personality) that’s perceived as dominant in relationships. We see this in films like Brokeback Mountain and Carol, but it could be extended out to include Annette Bening in American Beauty. Is that film really more about her than it is about Thora Birch’s character? A conversation for another time. Marriage Story is about the dissolving of a marriage and Noah Baumbach tries to make it as even-handed as possible. In execution, I don’t think he succeeds. But the numbers bear out. Driver is in the film for 85 minutes to Johansson’s 65 and dominates 62% of the film to Johansson’s 56%, both of which represent a clear majority of screen-time.

I think it’s appropriate to consider Scarlett Johansson as a lead.

I thought about including Saoirse Ronan or Florence Pugh to start a conversation about whether or not Ronan should be considered supporting or if Pugh should be considered lead as they are both part of an ensemble, but it would take too many slots and I don't see many disagreeing that Ronan should be considered lead and Pugh should be considered supporting due to screen-time (55% to 31%, favoring Ronan) and this certainly feels like a film told through Jo/Ronan's POV. But I'll list Other if anyone wants to start that conversation.

So instead, I’m including Charlize Theron for Bombshell mainly for how Bombshell functions as something akin to a procedural drama. While it isn’t a film about a case like Spotlight, it’s certainly about a case in the making and women making the choice to come forward. Charlize Theron has 37 minutes of screen-time (34%) in contrast to supporting player Margot Robbie with 26 minutes of screen-time (24%). That’s probably enough to differentiate on its own terms, but I wonder what Michael Keaton’s screen-time was in Spotlight. I always found it odd that he wasn’t considered a supporting player by NYFCC. What does it for me is that from a narrative perspective the film frames itself with Megyn Kelly being the pivotal figure in the film, both in telling the story of Fox News at the beginning and also with her decision to come forward at the end. I don’t think the film effectively does this but that’s clearly the intention of her role.

I think she is appropriately considered a leading performance.

What do you think?