This is a good point. I liked Junebug when it came out in 2005 but I haven't revisited it since it came out. Had it been told from Adams' point of view I think I'd revisit it more and I wouldn't be alone.dws1982 wrote
Adams - support. I think it is Nivola's and Davidtz's story, although I want it to be Adams' because I really think that by making Nivola the lead, the movie ultimately betrays Adams (and McKenzie, Weston, etc.) in a way that makes me like the movie less than I would if it were told from Adams' point of view. She (and maybe Witherspoon) is the only one of these who made my shortlist.
Correcting Oscar 2005
Re: Correcting Oscar 2005
"How's the despair?"
Re: Correcting Oscar 2005
Adams - support. I think it is Nivola's and Davidtz's story, although I want it to be Adams' because I really think that by making Nivola the lead, the movie ultimately betrays Adams (and McKenzie, Weston, etc.) in a way that makes me like the movie less than I would if it were told from Adams' point of view. She (and maybe Witherspoon) is the only one of these who made my shortlist.
Clooney - lead. Ensemble movies tend to be either like Crash, where everyone is Support because the main character is the theme or the setting, or like Syriana where it has multiple plot lines that come together in the end (or not). Been a long while since I watched Syriana but I thought Clooney was the clear lead of his plot line, his plot wasn't overshadowed by others, and could be considered a lead on that basis. Wouldn't have nominated him.
Gyllenhaal - lead. He's got plenty of screen time, independent screen time, away from Ledger, doesn't leave the movie that early, and the relationship between Ledger and Gyllenhaal is the reason the story exists.
Witherspoon - lead, but I could see the case for supporting. Unlike Gyllenhaal, she is mostly only seen in reference to Phoenix; but also unlike Gyllenhaal, I think the film itself is focused more on the Cash/Carter relationship than Brokeback is on Ennis/Jack (it focuses at least as much, if not more, on how their relationship effects their other relationships).
Weisz - support. Lead for the first forty minutes, but I remember it mostly being about her murder's effect on Fiennes. But I have not seen this film since Oscar weekend 2006.
Dillon - support. See above, I think everyone in Crash is support. A lot of "main" characters get equal weight, but no one gets enough focus or point of view that they would be lead.
And for non-nominated performers, I think I would put Linney and Daniels in Support for The Squid and the Whale, because I think it is all about how those characters are framed through Jesse Eisenberg's point-of-view.
Clooney - lead. Ensemble movies tend to be either like Crash, where everyone is Support because the main character is the theme or the setting, or like Syriana where it has multiple plot lines that come together in the end (or not). Been a long while since I watched Syriana but I thought Clooney was the clear lead of his plot line, his plot wasn't overshadowed by others, and could be considered a lead on that basis. Wouldn't have nominated him.
Gyllenhaal - lead. He's got plenty of screen time, independent screen time, away from Ledger, doesn't leave the movie that early, and the relationship between Ledger and Gyllenhaal is the reason the story exists.
Witherspoon - lead, but I could see the case for supporting. Unlike Gyllenhaal, she is mostly only seen in reference to Phoenix; but also unlike Gyllenhaal, I think the film itself is focused more on the Cash/Carter relationship than Brokeback is on Ennis/Jack (it focuses at least as much, if not more, on how their relationship effects their other relationships).
Weisz - support. Lead for the first forty minutes, but I remember it mostly being about her murder's effect on Fiennes. But I have not seen this film since Oscar weekend 2006.
Dillon - support. See above, I think everyone in Crash is support. A lot of "main" characters get equal weight, but no one gets enough focus or point of view that they would be lead.
And for non-nominated performers, I think I would put Linney and Daniels in Support for The Squid and the Whale, because I think it is all about how those characters are framed through Jesse Eisenberg's point-of-view.
Re: Correcting Oscar 2005
I'm not going to add her but Rachel Weisz was nominated as Best Leading Actress for The Constant Gardener by the BAFTAs. She's certainly the female lead in the film but she spends the bulk of the film as a mystery being uncovered by Ralph Fiennes. She's in the film for 23.34% of the time. It's just been so long since I've seen it.
I suppose if anyone wants to make the case for Rachel Weisz we can count it here in the messages.
I suppose if anyone wants to make the case for Rachel Weisz we can count it here in the messages.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19371
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Correcting Oscar 2005
I'm probably alone in this, but I did not like Amy Adams or anyone else in Junebug so I wouldn't have voted for her in either category, though if I were forced to choose between lead and supporting, I would say supporting.
Clooney could have been either lead or supporting. I would have nominated him in supporting as I would have Jeff Daniels in The Squid and the Whale but would have given the award to Gyllenhaal. Ledger and Gyllenhaal were, of course, co-leads in Brokeback Mountain, but no one nominated Glyllenhal in lead - it was either supporting or they ignored him. I would like to have seen them both win their categories.
Witherspoon could have been nominated either in lead or support. I had no problem with her nomination in lead, but to give her an award for such a limited role when there were other choices didn't seem right, and still doesn't. My pick was Felicity Huffman in Transamerica.
Clooney could have been either lead or supporting. I would have nominated him in supporting as I would have Jeff Daniels in The Squid and the Whale but would have given the award to Gyllenhaal. Ledger and Gyllenhaal were, of course, co-leads in Brokeback Mountain, but no one nominated Glyllenhal in lead - it was either supporting or they ignored him. I would like to have seen them both win their categories.
Witherspoon could have been nominated either in lead or support. I had no problem with her nomination in lead, but to give her an award for such a limited role when there were other choices didn't seem right, and still doesn't. My pick was Felicity Huffman in Transamerica.
Correcting Oscar 2005
I only have two candidates this year. I thought about including potential contenders who were placed in the wrong category, like Jeff Daniels for The Squid and The Whale. He’s a real borderline case in my opinion. It’s probably the story of a son and a father with his brother and mother in support but there’s an interesting case to be made that Daniels is strictly supporting. Linney also received lead mention from the HFP but she’s clearly supporting. Similarly, Maria Bello was nominated for Best Lead Actress - Drama for A History of Violence but showed up everywhere else as supporting. But no Oscar nominations.
I’ve included a few hedges in this lineup just for purposes of conversation.
On the page, Amy Adams’s role in Junebug is clearly supporting and the 29.22% screen time in the film backs that up. But Junebug is such a slight film (although one I like very much) that it all but seems to exist to serve as Adam’s breakout vehicle. The whole movie just comes to life when she meets her sister-in-law. But she still feels like an extension of Davidtz’s journey with not quite enough of her own story going on to constitute a leading role in my opinion. I vote to keep her in support.
I’m including George Clooney in Syriana just to have a conversation about movie stars in sprawling ensembles. Clearly, this is a case of a movie star slumming it in a supporting role winning for other reasons than his performance. Although the 2005 Best Supporting Actor lineup is weak enough that I almost understand it. But could a case be made that Clooney is the lead in Syriana? He’s only in the film for 21.83% of he screen-time. I have no idea if he has the most screen-time in Syriana but it feels like it. With these sprawling ensembles, I usually ask if it feels more like there is a dominant protagonist within whose eyes we see the film or if there is a god-level view of all these characters, as if they’re all subordinate to a larger idea. The latter seems true to me, especially given the inscrutable title which can only be a larger idea understood only by the film’s director.
I vote to keep Clooney in support despite the fact that this performance probably shouldn’t get a nomination.
Reese Witherspoon is a borderline case to me. As anyone what Walk the Line is about and they’re going to center their answer about Johnny Cash, not about Johnny Cash and June Carter but about their romance as it impacts Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix is in the film for 73.33% of the screen-time while Witherspoon is in it for less than half that time at 34.17%. Beyond that, I don’t recall many scenes revolving around Witherspoon without Phoenix there. The only case I can think of for Witherspoon is that the romance is a major part of Phoenix’s journey which does overtake the plot, she is the female lead in the film, she is a major part of the film vs. all the other supporting roles, and her career draws enough mention. Also, Witherspoon brings a movie star oomph.
I’m going to keep her in lead despite the fact that the rules of the Oscar game of 2005 would categorize her as supporting if June Carter was a man.
Which brings us to Jake Gyllenhaal, which I consider the most offensive instance of category malfeasance of my moviegoing life. Other contenders like Ethan Hawke in Training Day and Jamie Foxx in Collateral are more egregious, but Gyllenhaal’s is more cynical from the perspective of Oscar politicking. I less view this as a case of sexual politics. Heath Ledger is on-screen much longer than Jake Gyllenhaal, at 62.06% screen-time to 43.29%. And as the film goes on, Ledger probably becomes more of the protagonist. It’s ultimately his tragedy that he doesn’t take up Gyllenhaal’s offer at a better life and has to live with regret. But the film begins with the two of the basically on-screen at the same time, goes through their courtship together, follows them more or less equally as they wind in and out of each other’s lives. It only becomes fully Ledger’s when Gyllenhaal’s character tragically exits the film, which leaves a palpable emptiness over the rest of the film which I would argue transforms it (and only that section) into a great film.
Jake Gyllenhaal should be considered leading but I don’t think he would get the nomination. He’s quite good in Brokeback Mountain and probably better than everyone else in his supporting actor lineup but the Best Actor race in 2005 was among the fullest in recent memory, which is what made Jeff Daniel’s push for supporting all the more foolish. It’s a borderline case, probably truly a co-lead, but the case of a career character actor getting a breakout role in a generally well-liked film (it would’ve clearly made a Best Picture ten) going for lead in one of the most packed year for leading actors of the decade instead of the weakest for supporting.
I’ve included a few hedges in this lineup just for purposes of conversation.
On the page, Amy Adams’s role in Junebug is clearly supporting and the 29.22% screen time in the film backs that up. But Junebug is such a slight film (although one I like very much) that it all but seems to exist to serve as Adam’s breakout vehicle. The whole movie just comes to life when she meets her sister-in-law. But she still feels like an extension of Davidtz’s journey with not quite enough of her own story going on to constitute a leading role in my opinion. I vote to keep her in support.
I’m including George Clooney in Syriana just to have a conversation about movie stars in sprawling ensembles. Clearly, this is a case of a movie star slumming it in a supporting role winning for other reasons than his performance. Although the 2005 Best Supporting Actor lineup is weak enough that I almost understand it. But could a case be made that Clooney is the lead in Syriana? He’s only in the film for 21.83% of he screen-time. I have no idea if he has the most screen-time in Syriana but it feels like it. With these sprawling ensembles, I usually ask if it feels more like there is a dominant protagonist within whose eyes we see the film or if there is a god-level view of all these characters, as if they’re all subordinate to a larger idea. The latter seems true to me, especially given the inscrutable title which can only be a larger idea understood only by the film’s director.
I vote to keep Clooney in support despite the fact that this performance probably shouldn’t get a nomination.
Reese Witherspoon is a borderline case to me. As anyone what Walk the Line is about and they’re going to center their answer about Johnny Cash, not about Johnny Cash and June Carter but about their romance as it impacts Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix is in the film for 73.33% of the screen-time while Witherspoon is in it for less than half that time at 34.17%. Beyond that, I don’t recall many scenes revolving around Witherspoon without Phoenix there. The only case I can think of for Witherspoon is that the romance is a major part of Phoenix’s journey which does overtake the plot, she is the female lead in the film, she is a major part of the film vs. all the other supporting roles, and her career draws enough mention. Also, Witherspoon brings a movie star oomph.
I’m going to keep her in lead despite the fact that the rules of the Oscar game of 2005 would categorize her as supporting if June Carter was a man.
Which brings us to Jake Gyllenhaal, which I consider the most offensive instance of category malfeasance of my moviegoing life. Other contenders like Ethan Hawke in Training Day and Jamie Foxx in Collateral are more egregious, but Gyllenhaal’s is more cynical from the perspective of Oscar politicking. I less view this as a case of sexual politics. Heath Ledger is on-screen much longer than Jake Gyllenhaal, at 62.06% screen-time to 43.29%. And as the film goes on, Ledger probably becomes more of the protagonist. It’s ultimately his tragedy that he doesn’t take up Gyllenhaal’s offer at a better life and has to live with regret. But the film begins with the two of the basically on-screen at the same time, goes through their courtship together, follows them more or less equally as they wind in and out of each other’s lives. It only becomes fully Ledger’s when Gyllenhaal’s character tragically exits the film, which leaves a palpable emptiness over the rest of the film which I would argue transforms it (and only that section) into a great film.
Jake Gyllenhaal should be considered leading but I don’t think he would get the nomination. He’s quite good in Brokeback Mountain and probably better than everyone else in his supporting actor lineup but the Best Actor race in 2005 was among the fullest in recent memory, which is what made Jeff Daniel’s push for supporting all the more foolish. It’s a borderline case, probably truly a co-lead, but the case of a career character actor getting a breakout role in a generally well-liked film (it would’ve clearly made a Best Picture ten) going for lead in one of the most packed year for leading actors of the decade instead of the weakest for supporting.
"How's the despair?"