Most Egregious Category Gerrymandering, Part 2 - Supporting Roles Pushed Up to Lead

[OscarGuy]

I voted Deborah Kerr because there is no change her role in From Here to Eternity was a lead. At least with others on the list I could see and understand the argument.

[Sabin]

Anthony Hopkins. I've never heard a single good case for how his sideshow performance could be a lead, both in screen-time and story focus.

[Big Magilla]

I voted for Kristin Scott Thomas in this poll. Travolta would have been my second pick.

Nothing against either Travolta or Jackson, but I thought they were both part of an ensemble, with Travolta the slightly better of the two. I did think Travolta should have gotten a best actor nod for the following year's Get Shorty.

[Big Magilla]

While we're in this thread, can Big Magilla explain how Diane Keaton is supporting in Annie Hall? If Keaton is Supporting for that, then I guess Marion Cotillard is Supporting in La Vie En Rose.

Just following the precedent set by the National Board of Review. It's no stranger than Vanessa Redgrave being considered supporting by Oscar for playing the title role in Julia the same year or Sissy Spacek, for that mater, being considered supporting for her co-lead in 3 Women by the New York Film Critics.

Anyway I've always thought Anhedonia, the working title, was a better fit for the film which is more about Woody Allen's character than Keaton's. Keaton's best actress nomination should have come that year for Looking for Mr.
Goodbar.

[kaytodd]

I think the sole reason people had the impression Jackson was in the movie as much as Travolta is because Jackson's performance/role was so much more dynamic. If you want to say he was BETTER than Travolta, you get nothing but agreement from me. But that has nothing to do with role-size.

That is a fact. I thought Martin Landau was great in Ed Wood and I was rooting for him. But there is no question in my mind that Samuel L. Jackson gave the best performance of those five. Travolta was good but whenever Jackson was on the screen you could not take your eyes off him. One of the most memorable screen performances of the 1990's. Can't say the same of Travolta's performance.

[dws1982]

While we're in this thread, can Big Magilla explain how Diane Keaton is supporting in Annie Hall? If Keaton is Supporting for that, then I guess Marion Cotillard is Supporting in La Vie En Rose.

[Mister Tee]

I see Travolta got a vote, reminding me of what was, IMO, a ridiculous controversy in February 1995 when Travolta was nominated for Lead and Jackson for Supporting. When I first saw Pulp Fiction in November 1994 there was no question to me that Travolta was a lead performance and Jackson was supporting. I never even saw Jackson as a co-lead. I was appalled by the accusations of racism thrown at AMPAS and Miramax.

There is no question Travolta has more screen time. The main argument I remember for Jackson being lead is that he supposedly had more lines in the script than Travolta. Well, Tarantino had Jackson give that long speech about sheep and shepherds at least three times. And Vince struck me as a more laconic type than Jules, though they are both talkative like all Tarantino characters.

Not only did Travolta have more screen time I do not remember any scene in which Jackson was not with Travolta. The only extended screen time Jackson had without Travolta was the scene with Tim Roth, and Travolta was a few yards away using the bathroom at the time. There was also a brief scene when Jackson was talking on the phone with Ving Rhames during The Bonnie Situation, but again Travolta was a few feet away in Tarantino's house.

Travolta, on the other hand, went to Eric Stoltz's house to buy heroin without Jackson. He went on the date with Uma Thurman without Jackson. Travolta and Thurman returned to Stoltz's house for a very memorable scene after the date, again without Jackson. Travolta also had two brief encounters with Bruce Willis. The second one was quite important and, again, Jackson was not around for that one. I think one of the Weinsteins made the following point: Travolta's character was the one who tied all of the film's story lines together.

As most of you know, Daniel Day-Lewis wanted to play Vince Vega. At the time Pulp Fiction was cast, he had already won one Lead Oscar, had just gotten a Lead Oscar nomination for In The Name Of The Father, and the year before had given a well regarded star turn in the box office hit Last Of The Mohicans. If a major star had played Vega, would there have been a controversy?

But some people still feel strongly that Jackson was shafted by the Academy and Miramax. Is there something I am missing?

I agree with every word of this. I especially concur that the folks who tossed around a racial explanation for it were being extremely irresponsible, in a society that doesn't need ethnic tensions inflamed for no reason.

I think the sole reason people had the impression Jackson was in the movie as much as Travolta is because Jackson's performance/role was so much more dynamic. If you want to say he was BETTER than Travolta, you get nothing but agreement from me. But that has nothing to do with role-size.

[kaytodd]

I see Travolta got a vote, reminding me of what was, IMO, a ridiculous controversy in February 1995 when Travolta was nominated for Lead and Jackson for Supporting. When I first saw Pulp Fiction in November 1994 there was no question to me that Travolta was a lead performance and Jackson was supporting. I never even saw Jackson as a co-lead. I was appalled by the accusations of racism thrown at AMPAS and Miramax.

There is no question Travolta has more screen time. The main argument I remember for Jackson being lead is that he supposedly had more lines in the script than Travolta. Well, Tarantino had Jackson give that long speech about sheep and shepherds at least three times. And Vince struck me as a more laconic type than Jules, though they are both talkative like all Tarantino characters.

Not only did Travolta have more screen time I do not remember any scene in which Jackson was not with Travolta. The only extended screen time Jackson had without Travolta was the scene with Tim Roth, and Travolta was a few yards away using the bathroom at the time. There was also a brief scene when Jackson was talking on the phone with Ving Rhames during The Bonnie Situation, but again Travolta was a few feet away in Tarantino's house.

Travolta, on the other hand, went to Eric Stoltz's house to buy heroin without Jackson. He went on the date with Uma Thurman without Jackson. Travolta and Thurman returned to Stoltz's house for a very memorable scene after the date, again without Jackson. Travolta also had two brief encounters with Bruce Willis. The second one was quite important and, again, Jackson was not around for that one. I think one of the Weinsteins made the following point: Travolta's character was the one who tied all of the film's story lines together.

As most of you know, Daniel Day-Lewis wanted to play Vince Vega. At the time Pulp Fiction was cast, he had already won one Lead Oscar, had just gotten a Lead Oscar nomination for In The Name Of The Father, and the year before had given a well regarded star turn in the box office hit Last Of The Mohicans. If a major star had played Vega, would there have been a controversy?

But some people still feel strongly that Jackson was shafted by the Academy and Miramax. Is there something I am missing?

[Mister Tee]

I think McDormand/Fargo belongs on this list far before Kerr, Travolta, Neal or Witherspoon. I'm with rudeboy, that Witherspoon, especially, had plenty of screen time, and deserved to win in that pitiful '05 field. And I've never felt Kerr's or Neal's roles were anything less than topline.

I know much has been said about Hopkins' limited screen minutes, but he so dominates the film while he's on that nominating him in support would have been, for me, unfair to genuine supporting candidates.

Garson sure doesn't occupy much of Goodbye Mr. Chips. But my vote went to Talia Shire, perhaps because she was the third straight would-have-won-support-easily female bumped up, and the size-of-role progression (Perrine to Fletcher to Shire) seemed to be shrinking ominously --you could imagine, next, Beatrice Straight finding herself competing for the top Oscar.

[rudeboy]

Kerr, Williams, Hopkins, Travolta, Scott Thomas and Witherspoon were, to me, clearly lead or colead (it's not only about screen time, but about reasons of narrative, etc).

If Kerr and Scott Thomas are co-lead then I think Talia Shire certainly is too.

I'm quite surprised that Witherspoon has picked up a vote - I haven't seen Walk the Line since it came out but I reckon she has the largest role here by some way, and it's certainly the 'starriest' performance in the list.

[ITALIANO]

Kerr, Williams, Hopkins, Travolta, Scott Thomas and Witherspoon were, to me, clearly lead or colead (it's not only about screen time, but about reasons of narrative, etc).

There are other interesting cases, but of those listed here, it's between Garson and Fletcher (I voted for Fletcher).

[anonymous1980]

I think it'd be interesting to find out which performance nominated as a Lead has had the least amount of screentime. I was shocked by how very little screentime Robin Williams had in Dead Poets Society since he's widely considered to be the lead actor in that film. I'd be surprised if it was more than 15 minutes.



Edited By anonymous on 1256410459

[Penelope]

The last time I watched From Here to Eternity, I was shocked by how limited Kerr's screen-time is: I don't think it's more than 20 minutes in a film that runs 2 hours; she certainly has less screen time than Supporting Actor winner Frank Sinatra. I suppose it's the fact that a) she was a big star and b) that beach scene became so immediately iconic that it contributed to her being nominated in the Lead category.

[rudeboy]

I voted for Garson. I may be wrong but I think it's the shortest performance listed here by a good few minutes, and in her brief screentime in the middle of the film she doesn't really have much to do, save for that wonderful first scene in the mountains.

If not her I'd have gone for Fletcher - but at least she's there throughout - or Neal, but hers is such a magnificent performance, and she has some genuinely great moments in her 30 minutes or so, that I'm happy to leave her in lead.

Apart from the borderline Kerr and Scott-Thomas, I'd say the rest of those performances were all correctly positioned in lead.



Edited By rudeboy on 1256407268

[The Original BJ]

Unlike some around here, I'm a lot less irritated by borderline supporting cases bumped to lead than the other way around. Leads in support usually rob true supporting players, whereas maybe-supporting players nominated in lead usually indicates ballot-filling when there aren't too many possible candidates. (In this way, I have NO problem whatsoever with the lead nominations for Fletcher, Neal, and Witherspoon, who were all obviously able to WIN lead trophies in staggeringly weak fields.)

I voted for Greer Garson. She shows up WAY late and leaves the film early, and doesn't dominate in any kind of way. She's clearly supporting Robert Donat, and she's the candidate here who I have most difficulty coming up with an argument that she's a lead.

Deborah Kerr would probably be my runner-up, because I think From Here to Eternity's leads are Clfit & Lancaster, and it doesn't feel like Kerr has a much larger role than Sinatra and Reed.