Most Egregious Category Gerrymandering - Lead Roles Incorrectly Pushed to Support

Post by **OscarGuy** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:50 am

I voted for Gyllenhaal because it's fairly obvious they could have pulled a Thelma & Louise for him, but Hutton is a fairly strong choice as well. Then again, pigeonholing support is ludicrous, IMO. I wish it was a committee that determined placement in categories and not the studios or campaigns, because, let's face it, the Oscar campaigns and studios are the real reasons people get pushed in certain categories. They start early getting most critics groups to recognize the distinction and then it goes downhill from there.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:13 am

It's unlikely Jackie Cooper would have been nominated in support for Skippy, a hugely successful film in which there were no adult players of any significance. However he would certainly have been nominated in support the following year for The Champ in which he is co-lead along with Wallace Beery.

I love Eileen Heckart in Butterflies Are Free and wouldn't deny her her Oscar for anything, but I can see an argument for placing her in the survey. She was the star name associated with the play on Broadway and her replacements on Broadway and on tour including Gloria Swanson and Ann Southern were certainly stars. Also, the role had been coveted by every major actress of a certain age from Ingrid Bergman to Olivia de Havilland when it was announced for the screen.

Post by **flipp525** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:35 am

I'd add Jennifer Hudson's performance in Dreamgirls to this list.

Hutton is, without question, the most egregious example of this phenomena. Tatum O'Neal is close behind, although I think Big Magilla's "Old Hollywood" answer is probably the best justification for why it happened there and so frequently at that time (if there had been a supporting category in 1931, you better believe little Jackie Cooper would've been on it).

Today, it seems like more of a way to get even established stars their "Oscar" by shoe-horning them into the supporting categories when either the lead category is too stacked or their studio doesn't want them to compete with a co-star from the same film. Can you imagine Geena Davis nominated in support for Thelma and Louise while Sarandon was campaigned in lead? It would've been unthinkable.

How did Eileen Heckart make this list? Hers' is a supporting performance through and through (not to mention one of the most deserved Oscars of the 70's).

Gyllenhaal was placed in support because he was the bottom, let's all be honest

Edited By flipp525 on 1256215483

Post by **Big Magilla** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:56 am

You guys will soon have a new one to fret over - Christopher Plummer is being promoted for Supporting Actor in The Last Station about the last days of Leo Tolstoy in which he plays... Tolstoy. James McAvoy, as one of his followers, is ostensibly the protagonist but Plummer and Helen Mirren as Tolstoy and his wife are the film's focus.

Post by **ITALIANO** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:26 am

I voted for Hutton, but the most obvious cases (Richard Burton, Don Murray, Mary Badham, Patty Duke, etc) are pre 1970.

Post by **Eric** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:03 am

Nor would Affleck being in lead have pulled a single vote from Day-Lewis.

It's interesting that none of the seven selections here from the last decade managed a win.

Sabin · Post by **Sabin** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:51 am

It's both. I don't think Gyllenhaal would have stolen one vote from Ledger.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:39 am

Sabin wrote:The most egregious case is Jake Gyllenhaal. It's not the foulest offender. That would be Casey Affleck. But Gyllenhaal was a bigger star than Ledger and was delegated to support only because his performance wasn't good enough to be nominated for lead. Ridiculous.

It wasn't that he wasn't good enough. He was relegated to support to keep the two actors from competing against one another. Ledger's role was marginally larger. The closest comparison is probably Dench and Blanchett.

Sabin · Post by **Sabin** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:30 am

The most egregious case is Jake Gyllenhaal. It's not the foulest offender. That would be Casey Affleck. But Gyllenhaal was a bigger star than Ledger and was delegated to support only because his performance wasn't good enough to be nominated for lead. Ridiculous.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:13 am

I voted for Jamie Foxx. A second nomination in the supporting category for a film in which he was at least the co-lead the same year he was the front-runner in the lead category was overkill.

With the exceptions of Moore and Blanchett, the others were character actors or newcomers for which the supporting categories had long been their province. Their names were not used to sell their films.

Post by **Eric** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:19 pm

I'm going with Hutton here, who really and truly is the unquestionable protagonist and main character in Ordinary People. O'Neal, Osment, Gyllenhaal and, yes, Affleck all at least split a double bill.

Post by **The Original BJ** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:29 pm

Guess who I voted for......... :p

Post by **Penelope** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:05 pm

Since this is a constant refrain on the board, I thought we should take a vote on it: what was the most egregious example of category gerrymandering, pushing a clearly leading role/performance into the supporting category?

This has been increasing particularly in the past decade, so I've selected 10 of what I consider the most glaring examples since 1970. Of course, feel free to chime in with your own choice if it's not listed here.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.

Most Egregious Category Gerrymandering - Lead Roles Incorrectly Pushed to Support

Most Egregious Category Gerrymandering - Lead Roles Incorrectly Pushed to Support