Most Egregious Category Gerrymandering - Lead Roles Incorrectly Pushed to Support

[Penelope]

I still maintain that there was nothing egregious about Hutton's nomination and win in support. Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland were stars playing very difficult roles as the conflicted parents of one dead child and one almost dead one. Tim Hutton was the fourth billed up-and-coming 19 year-old (at time of filming) son of a much loved actor who died of cancer at the age of 45 the year before. If the Oscars had a Best Newcomer category it might have been a better fit, but the only possible way for the Academy, as well as several pre-cursors, to honor him was in support where he would not be competition with the likes of De Niro, Duvall and John Hurt at their best. And believe me, all of Hollywood wanted to award this second generation star who showed so much potential.

Meh. To me, you're saying the only way to justify putting Hutton in support is that it makes for a "cleaner" Oscar narrative. I say you have to bend over backwards to support this sort of logic, totally ignore what's on the screen and concentrate almost solely on strategy instead of examining and analyzing what's on the screen.

Which is, of cousre, the only way to discuss Oscars.

I don't think I was just saying that. No one at the time considered Hutton anything but a supporting player. No one, not one of the pre-cursors. It wasn't the big deal you guys are making it.

But that still doesn't make it right.

[Big Magilla]

I still maintain that there was nothing egregious about Hutton's nomination and win in support. Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland were stars playing very difficult roles as the conflicted parents of one dead child and one almost dead one. Tim Hutton was the fourth billed up-and-coming 19 year-old (at time of filming) son of a much loved actor who died of cancer at the age of 45 the year before. If the Oscars had a Best Newcomer category it might have been a better fit, but the only possible way for the Academy, as well as several pre-cursors, to honor him was in support where he would not be competition with the likes of De Niro, Duvall and John Hurt at their best. And believe me, all of Hollywood wanted to award this second generation star who showed so much potential.

Meh. To me, you're saying the only way to justify putting Hutton in support is that it makes for a "cleaner" Oscar narrative. I say you have to bend over backwards to support this sort of logic, totally ignore what's on the screen and concentrate almost solely on strategy instead of examining and analyzing what's on the screen.

Which is, of cousre, the only way to discuss Oscars.

I don't think I was just saying that. No one at the time considered Hutton anything but a supporting player. No one, not one of the pre-cursors. It wasn't the big deal you guys are making it.

Tatum O'Neal is a different story because it wasn't until the Oscar nominations that she was considered supporting. It was the reverse situation of that already forgotten young girl in Whale Rider.

There are no hard and fast rules for these things. In the first year of the supporting awards, Stuart Erwin, who was the lead in Pigskin Parade was nominated in support while the better known Spencer Tracy was nominated as lead for his clearly supporting performance in San Francisco.

Beulah Bondi in Of Human Hearts, Jane Darwell in The Grapes of Wrath and Ethel Barrymore in None But the Lonely Heart are early examples of female leads in their films who were relegated to support at the Oscars. No one got upset, least of all the ladies themselves.

In 1974, Lauren Bacall and Ingrid Bergman were mentioned as contenders for Best Actress despite the size of their roles in Murder on the Orient Express. Bergman didn't complain when she was nominated in support, though she did think her Oscar for that was undeserved.

The only argument for which there is any real justification is the one that puts up alternative nominees who were frozen out of the nominations because of a bigger name gone slumming. Aside from the blatant greed of the producers of Collateral, The Departed and The Reader, who wanted their stars nominated any way they could get them, offhand I can't think of any Oscar campaigns that really got to me.

[Penelope]

What about reverse cases? As in supporting roles promoted to lead?

Not to worry, it'll be my next poll.

[Eric]

I still maintain that there was nothing egregious about Hutton's nomination and win in support. Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland were stars playing very difficult roles as the conflicted parents of one dead child and one almost dead one. Tim Hutton was the fourth billed up-and-coming 19 year-old (at time of filming) son of a much loved actor who died of cancer at the age of 45 the year before. If the Oscars had a Best Newcomer category it might have been a better fit, but the only possible way for the Academy, as well as several pre-cursors, to honor him was in support where he would not be competition with the likes of De Niro, Duvall and John Hurt at their best. And believe me, all of Hollywood wanted to award this second generation star who showed so much potential.

Meh. To me, you're saying the only way to justify putting Hutton in support is that it makes for a "cleaner" Oscar narrative. I say you have to bend over backwards to support this sort of logic, totally ignore what's on the screen and concentrate almost solely on strategy instead of examining and analyzing what's on the screen.

Which is, of cousre, the only way to discuss Oscars.



Edited By Eric on 1256246996

[OscarGuy]

Dead Again is probably not the best selection of examples. It made $35 M at the BO, which while a goodly amount, only placed in 35th for the year's box office.

I think Emma Thompson won based on the performance, not based on any name recognition because to U.S. audiences she would have been an unknown and to say Academy voters aren't like U.S. audiences would be to discount Oscar winners like Braveheart and Crash, which certainly have a middlebrow audience mindset.

[Big Magilla]

I'd say it's a stretch to think that Emma Thompson was some huge known quantity in the U.S. after Dead Again.

Perhaps not to the film going public as a whole, but certainly among the critics and Academy members who overwhelmingly voted her the year's Best Actress honors.

We could go on with this forever, but enough is enough. As anonymous points out, it works both ways.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1256240667

[flipp525]

"Different year; different circumstance" could be used to begin almost any comparison on any subject on anything on this board. Penelope wasn't using marquee billing as his point of reference. He was using the factors of screen time and "known-ability" (I just made that word up) in determining category placement.

Also, I'd say it's a stretch to think that Emma Thompson was some huge known quantity in the U.S. after Dead Again.

The Thelma Ritter/The Mating Season instance isn't a better comparison because a) it was very much under the same old studio rule of pigeon-holing character actors into support and b) billing played a much greater role in category placement at that time (see: Helen Hayes in Anastatia).

Penelope's comparison is actually of the same general era of filmmaking.

[Big Magilla]

Magilla: well, then, what about Emma Thompson in Howards End? She was fourth-billed in that film and was an "up-and-coming" star (at least in the US). Star status doesn't play a role for me determining who's the lead and who's supporting. Timothy Hutton, regardless of who he was OFF screen, was clearly and without question the lead ON screen.

Different year, different circumstance. Regardless of how well known she was or wasn't in the U.S. at the time of filming, she had made a name for herself in the U.S. with Dead Again by the time the film opened. Whereas a case could be made for Donald Sutherland as the male lead in Ordinary People, neither Vanessa Redgrave nor Helena Bonham Carter, who were billed over Thompson in the opening credits had sufficient screen time to be considered lead over her in any way shape or form.

A better comparison might be Thelma Ritter who was in almost every scene of The Mating Season but was nominated in support because of her billing. Gene Tierney and John Lund, who had much less screen time were billed over the title and Mirtiam Hopkins who had less time than either Tierney or Lund, let alone Ritter, was the first billed under the title.

[anonymous1980]

What about reverse cases? As in supporting roles promoted to lead?

Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs, Talia Shire in Rocky and Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest could all be considered supporting performances.

Also, Robin Williams had shockingly little screentime for someone who was nominated in the lead category for Dead Poets Society.

[Penelope]

Magilla: well, then, what about Emma Thompson in Howards End? She was fourth-billed in that film and was an "up-and-coming" star (at least in the US). Star status doesn't play a role for me determining who's the lead and who's supporting. Timothy Hutton, regardless of who he was OFF screen, was clearly and without question the lead ON screen.

Flipp: gotta respectfully disagree with re Winslet; I found her performance in the tedious Revolutionary Road to be too calculated, too predictable; conversely, she was at her best in The Reader, challenging herself and triumphing with a difficult, ultimately unlikable character.

[Big Magilla]

The most egregious campaigns were two in recent years that mercifully failed: Leonardo DiCaprio in support for The Departed and Kate Winslet in support for The Reader.

Or Kate Winslet being campaigned for anything in The Reader. One of the worst performances to win an Oscar this decade. Lena Olin far outshined anything she did in that movie with about 1/15 of the screentime. Winslet should've been recognized for her much braver work in Revolutionary Road last year.

Back to this topic, though: I still haven't heard any argument for placing Tatum O'Neal in support.

The Reader was last year's most unfairly maligned film. Winslet's performance is perfection. The usually good Olin was merely adequate.

As or O'Neal, there really isn't any good explanation for her placement. In fact, if you look at my Oscar Shouldabeens for 1973 you will see that I've "promoted" her to lead. She now competes against actual nominees Burstyn and Woodward along with Julie Christie (Don't Look Now) and Liv Ullmann (The New Land). Ullman wins. Valentina Cortese wins in support for Day for Night as she always did.

I wonder if Day for Night had been Oscar eligible in 1973 as it had been for the N.Y. Film Critics and others, if Paramount would have pushed O'Neal for support. As it was, the supporting actress competition was not all that strong, but neither was the best actress line-up.

One rationale for slotting her in support would be that much of her performance was in reaction to her co-star father so in a sense she was "supporting" him.

I still, however, feel that Jamie Foxx's nomination in support for a co-lead role in Collateral when he was the odds-on favorite to win best actor for Ray was the most egregious. It smacks of pure greed.

[flipp525]

The most egregious campaigns were two in recent years that mercifully failed: Leonardo DiCaprio in support for The Departed and Kate Winslet in support for The Reader.

Or Kate Winslet being campaigned for anything in The Reader. One of the worst performances to win an Oscar this decade. Lena Olin far outshined anything she did in that movie with about 1/15 of the screentime. Winslet should've been recognized for her much braver work in Revolutionary Road last year.

Back to this topic, though: I still haven't heard any argument for placing Tatum O'Neal in support.

[Mister Tee]

I'm more or less with Magilla, that Hutton's placement could at least be rationalized by the presence of Sutherland in another focal male role. I'm not saying it's not deeply questionable; I'm just saying I can see the decision. Osment, Affleck and Gyllenhall are also cases where at least there's someone else you can point to as their films' male leads -- even while acknowledging their roles are far too large to be classically supporting.

But, I'm sorry: Tatum O'Neal is the central character in Paper Moon. If she'd been ten years older, there's no way she would have been slotted into support.

I'm with flipp, however, that Heckart is classic support. Yeah, Glorya Swanson and Eve Arden played the part on stage...because they were actresses well past their casting primes and were happy to get such a role, regardless of size. The movie is about Edward Albert, and both Hawn and Heckart (Danner and Heckart onstage) could be deemed supporting.

[Big Magilla]

I still maintain that there was nothing egregious about Hutton's nomination and win in support. Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland were stars playing very difficult roles as the conflicted parents of one dead child and one almost dead one. Tim Hutton was the fourth billed up-and-coming 19 year-old (at time of filming) son of a much loved actor who died of cancer at the age of 45 the year before. If the Oscars had a Best Newcomer category it might have been a better fit, but the only possible way for the Academy, as well as several pre-cursors, to honor him was in support where he would not be competition with the likes of De Niro, Duvall and John Hurt at their best. And believe me, all of Hollywood wanted to award this second generation star who showed so much potential.

The most egregious campaigns were two in recent years that mercifully failed: Leonardo DiCaprio in support for The Departed and Kate Winslet in support for The Reader.

[Penelope]

When I saw Butterflies Are Free a few years ago, I was stunned that Heckart had been placed in Supporting; to me, it was clear that Heckart and Edward Albert were the leads, with Goldie Hawn borderline lead/supporting.