Correcting Oscar 2001

[dws1982]

Spacek first, because she was and probably still is my favorite actress. Lead is the correct placement for her, although if she had been placed in Support, it would've only been the third worst case of category fraud that year. Honestly she probably would've won the Supporting Actress Oscar going away.

But she is Lead. I watched In the Bedroom a few months back (if you have Paramount Plus, it is on there now, btw), after TAR; it really is one of those cases where the films are obviously very different but you can also see connective tissue visually and even thematically between the films. Not only does Ruth Fowler have agency, she is the dominant party in that marriage and it's Ruth who drives Matt's actions in the last act of the film. The big argument scene, which got reduced to Spacek smashing a plate is so well-played by Spacek and Wilkinson, and so meticulously-written and shot by Field; she knows exactly how to throw him off-balance, she knows exactly how to subtly, without him realizing, manipulate him into doing what she wants. This is all very skillfully weaved into the film and specifically into that scene. Matt is, in some ways, more passive than she is (earlier it's Ruth who tells him to ask the reporters to leave their house after the court hearing; he would've just stayed inside and let them stay outside; Ruth who confronts the DA about how the case will likely go). She may not have a lot of POV (and I think the film might be even stronger if she did), but she actively drives so much of the narrative that I can't imagine her as Support.

Broadbent and Hawke are both Lead, but both would not have been nominated if campaigned as such. If a distinction had to be made, Hawke and Washington should have switched places, but I do think Washington and Hawke are both leads of that film.

Connelly is Support. She is basically just The Wife. Always weird to me how she was such a runaway frontrunner, and I guess it partially came down to the fact that A Beautiful Mind was a Best Picture frontrunner, as much as we didn't want it to be, and it had to win another thing or two to back up its Best Picture win. My bizarro speculation is that Connelly may have damaged her career with her Oscar speech that year. I know, it didn't make her pick bad projects, but some people might not have sought her out for projects with all the charisma she showed on that stage.

[Big Magilla]

I agree with everyone's votes so far that Spacek is lead and Connelly is support.

I also agree with you that Hawke is as much of a lead as Washington and is in Training Day and is in the wrong category but wouldn't be nominated if not for being placed in support where the competition was less severe. However, I don't think he stole Steve Buscemi's spot. I think that was the now totally obnoxious Jon Voight as the always obnoxious Howard "speaking of sports" Cosell in Ali.

Broadbent is an interesting case. His performance in Moulin Rouge is so powerful and so memorable that I thought that would be the one he would be nominated for, but Miramax's machine being what it was went into overdrive on Iris which is a dreary, overbearing film I didn't like anything about. Neither Dench nor Winslet deserved a nomination for it either.

[Sabin]

Before I begin, I'll just share something anecdotally. I had coffee with somebody who worked in Miramax's marketing department in the late 1990's this past week and was involved with their Oscar campaigning budget. I didn't know that going into the meeting. We chatted a bit about his time there. I tried not to appear to geeky on the subject. He ended that part of the conversation by saying "Yeah. But nobody cares about that stuff today. Awards. That's 90's shit." I said "Yeah, I know..."

Anyway, back to 90's shit.

There was a lot of history made in the 2001 Oscar race. Halle Berry's Oscar was historic. Denzel Washington's Oscar was (fairly) historic. Ron Howard's Oscar victory over his competition might not have been historic but it was certainly memorable for the wrong reasons. If we're going one step farther, I think one could make the case that the anti-A Beautiful Mind campaign was the last really famous instance of mudslinging going into the race. But for me, this was the first out-and-out instance of category fraud with Ethan Hawke's nomination. It was such a wacky citation that I couldn't muster up much animosity towards it even though it presumably came at the expense of Steve Buscemi in Ghost World. Also, who could begrudge someone like Ethan Hawke getting a nomination, someone who I doubted would ever factor into the Oscar race. But the only case one could make that Jake is supporting in the film is that he's the audience surrogate. He's clearly the protagonist of the film who goes on an unexpected education that he must survive. And the numbers? Ethan Hawke is in Training Day for 61.05% of the running time and Denzel Washington is in it for 60.08%. The similarity is significant because Ethan Hawke's character has a whole stretch of film where Washington's character is gone (having been set-up) which goes to show just how much of the film's runtime the camera is just locked on Washington's performance. But they're co-leads.

I vote that Ethan Hawke should be considered for The Other Category (Lead) But Would Not Register a Nomination. A side thought, Training Day wasn't regarded as much more than a well-received commercial entertainment back in 2001, which was one of the arguments against Washington winning over Crowe's more "Oscar-worthy film." But it feels like Training Day and Washington's performance has held more of the zeitgeist in the year's since. I wonder if in a lineup of ten Training Day might have made an appearance.

Continuing down the Best Supporting Actor category is Jim Broadbent who was the most supporting actor of 2001 with his performances in Bridget Jones' Diaries and Moulin Rouge! Arguably, his Moulin Rouge! performance is the more remembered today if only for his getup. It'd be hard to isolate an Oscar clip IMO. Regardless, he's in Iris for 42.60% of the film and Judi Dench is in it for 48.72%. To contrast, Kate Winslet is in Iris for 24.21% of the screen-time. I don't know how much Hugh Bonneville is in it but I would imagine closer to Winslet's screen-time. The A Story of the film largely concerns Dench's mental state and it could be said that Broadbent supports her (or questions why he would) but despite the fact that he's a sweet, doddering presence I suspect that if Broadbent's star was a bit bigger at the time (or ever) he would be more in the conversation for Best Actor. A quick glance reveals that not just the BAFTAs considered him a lead (as well as Dench, with Bonneville and Winslet in support) but also the European Film Awards and he was runner up for lead at the NYFCC.

I think that Iris is a film where Broadbent probably should be considered a co-lead with Dench, but would he muster a nomination? Honestly, I think Miramax could've made it happen. Back in the pre-MCU days of 2001, there were a lot of contenders for Best Actor but I didn't get the sense that voters were much in love with any of them beyond Crowe, Washington, and Wilkinson. Penn was a sole nominee in a critically derided film. Smith was in a flop. Beyond that, who was left? Hackman, Spacey, Kline? I think Broadbent could've gotten a Best Actor nomination with a proper push.

I'm including Jennifer Connelly only because of her weird placement in SAG as a leading actress. The only case I think that can be made for her as a lead is that there are clearer supporting actors in the film (most of them figments of Crowe's imagination) whereas she isn't. But she has no off-screen life to speak of. The only scene I can think of where she doesn't share the screen with Crowe is where she screams at the mirror that he's too drugged up to fuck her. But she is on-screen for 28.32% of A Beautiful Mind which is almost twice that of most of her competition (save Winslet).

I mention that because she has virtually the same screentime% as Sissy Spacek in In the Bedroom with 29.56%. To contrast, Wilkinson is at 54.02% and Tomei is at 15.94% so Spacek is parked between them a bit. I think just as many cases could be made that Spacek is supporting as lead. It's been ages since I've seen the film but my rough recollection is that Field spends the first act of the film setting up a perfect (or so) world that is suddenly destroyed. Then Wilkinson navigates the uncertainty of the second act until he finally takes action in the third act to set it "right." Spacek has plenty of scenes without Wilkinson but she is largely absent from the third act. Her presence though is felt, which is a testament to Field's director and Spacek's star power. Again, it's been ages since I've seen the film but my memory is that Spacek has plenty of agency apart from Wilkinson in the film and isn't defined by him.

I'd be interested in other perspectives. Again, it's been ages since I've seen the film and I think if the film has one protagonist it's Wilkinson. But I think Spacek probably belongs in lead.

Finally, I realizing I'm leaving a bit of fun on the table. If the Academy followed suit to the proper changes, I think Broadbent would probably replace Sean Penn in Best Actor (based on the other acting nomination for Ali), I think Hawke would be out of it, and the two Best Supporting Actor slots would be filled by Jim Broadent for Moulin Rouge! and probably Steve Buscemi for Ghost World but I think it's just as likely that Hugh Bonneville would make it in for Iris with Broadbent out of the way. I'm going to say Buscemi probably makes it in though.