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

[anonymous1980]

I have to bump this thread up to contribute one more name: Marlon Brando in Julius Caesar. He's a big star and he got the play's most famous monologue but his part is rather small for what's considered to be a LEAD role.

[flipp525]

Speaking of James Dean, has anyone seen the eerie PSA he did for safe driving where he says, "The life that you save may be my own?"

Yes, I have seen that PSA and thought it was rather eerie as well. If I recall correctly, Gig Young hosts it?

[Greg]

Speaking of James Dean, has anyone seen the eerie PSA he did for safe driving where he says, "The life that you save may be my own?"



Edited By Greg on 1256567699

[Big Magilla]

James Dean in Giant would be another candidate I'd list before a lot of these contenders. Given the size of Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson's roles, I find it very difficult to argue that Dean is a third lead.

Today, it's unfathomable he'd be pushed and nominated as a Lead Actor.

A good one, but it would have been heresy at the time given the cult surrounding the actor that was at its peak. Given the star system then in place it would have been unthinkable to consider him a supporting player in the film that became a hit largely because it was his last film, one that was completed days before his untimely death.

[Big Magilla]

Absolutely can't argue against it being shrill and obvious (just because Bill Withers' "She's Lonely" is a great song that matches the action of the film perfectly doesn't make it a wise decision to use it in a masturbatory montage)

I saw Goodbar in a Times Square theatre (the Old Times Square -- when it was fun) on opening night, and when Boz Scaggs' "Lowdown" came on the soundtrack, a whole bunch of people spontaneously jumped up and started dancing in the aisle.

Goodbar is such an Old Man's movie, but not in the good sense. Richard Brooks was a bitter man wailing against the excesses of the young, while we young people laughed at the corny excesses of his ridiculous movie.

Must have been a later showing than the one I was at - I remember the giggles but not the dancing in the aisles.

[The Original BJ]

James Dean in Giant would be another candidate I'd list before a lot of these contenders. Given the size of Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson's roles, I find it very difficult to argue that Dean is a third lead.

Today, it's unfathomable he'd be pushed and nominated as a Lead Actor.

[Eric]

I saw Goodbar in a Times Square theatre (the Old Times Square -- when it was fun) on opening night, and when Boz Scaggs' "Lowdown" came on the soundtrack, a whole bunch of people spontaneously jumped up and started dancing in the aisle.

But not at Diana Ross's "Love Hangover"? Heresy!

[Damien]

Absolutely can't argue against it being shrill and obvious (just because Bill Withers' "She's Lonely" is a great song that matches the action of the film perfectly doesn't make it a wise decision to use it in a masturbatory montage)

I saw Goodbar in a Times Square theatre (the Old Times Square -- when it was fun) on opening night, and when Boz Scaggs' "Lowdown" came on the soundtrack, a whole bunch of people spontaneously jumped up and started dancing in the aisle.

Goodbar is such an Old Man's movie, but not in the good sense. Richard Brooks was a bitter man wailing against the excesses of the young, while we young people laughed at the corny excesses of his ridiculous movie.

[Big Magilla]

Goodbar had been based on a real life NYC murder. The character of the city was as important to the narrative as some of the flesh and blood characters in the novel. The thing that most detracted from the film version was the decision to film in it a no man's land combination of Los Angels and San Francisco which completely robbed it of its distinctly unique New York flavor. The performances of Keaton, Tuesday Weld, Richard Kiley, Richard Gere and Tom Berenger, however, all rose above the tacky script.

[Eric]

(And Keaton was never going to win for something as vile and shrill as Mr. Goodbar. Yes, everyone had looked forward to the dramatic change-of-pace, especially coupled with Diane's early-year breakthrough with Annie. But once the Brooks film was seen, there was no doubt where Keaton supporters would concentrate)

Just rewatched much of Goodbar on YouTube (in a senselessly bowdlerized version) a few weeks ago and came out of it just as mixed as I was the last time I saw it all those years ago -- back when tapes were standard at video stores.

Absolutely can't argue against it being shrill and obvious (just because Bill Withers' "She's Lonely" is a great song that matches the action of the film perfectly doesn't make it a wise decision to use it in a masturbatory montage) ... but I also can't deny its rightful place among the great tradition of late '70s/early '80s NYC-as-Hell flicks. Nor, for that matter, its place among the larger tradition of horror-movies-that-aren't-horror-movies.

Nor can I argue that Keaton's performance is, if not in the same league as her performance in Woody Allen's film, fantastic in its own right.

[Mister Tee]

While Redgrave's nomination and win in support seems logical now, her relegation to support was considered rather shocking at the time as were the NBR and NYFC wins for Keaton and Spacek in that category.

Magilla, your recollection of 1977 is somewhat different from mine. Redgrave is barely in Julia -- if she has 1/3 the screen-time of Fonda, that's more than it feels like. Of course, as Spencer Tracy once said, What's there is cherce. That meeting in the cafe between Lillian and Julia is so overwhelming -- so brimming with feeling expressed and unexpressed -- that one feels incredible empathy for both actresses. A day or so after seeing Julia, I said to a friend that, based on that scene, Vanessa Redgrave, three-time best actress nominee, had to be considered the leading prospect for the best supporting actress Oscar. I said this in some amazement -- it was, as you say, unusual for a luminary that big to be running in support. But the size of the role made anything else unthinkable.

Ralph Rosenblum's book When the Shooting Stops told us that Annie Hall, when it was called Anhedonia, ran 30-40 minutes longer and that the additional material was fully focused on Alvy not Annie. Had that version been released, Keaton might well have been viewed as a supporting actress. But in the existing film, there's no doubt she was the leading lady. NBR was full of beans. (And Keaton was never going to win for something as vile and shrill as Mr. Goodbar. Yes, everyone had looked forward to the dramatic change-of-pace, especially coupled with Diane's early-year breakthrough with Annie. But once the Brooks film was seen, there was no doubt where Keaton supporters would concentrate)

The NY bunch was also full of it in declaring Sissy supporting; there I do agree with you. But 3 Women was way too out there to eve get Oscar attention, anyway. The one who really got hosed was Shelly Duvall, who was by leagues better than Mason, Bancroft or MacLaine.

[ITALIANO]

Vanessa Redgrave is certainly Supporting in Julia, but I repeat, if it were only about screen time we should all go to the movies bringing our stopwatch, because in some cases it's REALLY borderline. But ok, if it must be like this, Mary Badham is Leading in To Kill a Mockingbird and Gregory Peck is Supporting, and with just a bit of screen time more, Hattie MacDaniel could be Leading in Gone with the Wind, and maybe Clark Gable Supporting, and so on.

It's not about "the effect" of the character, of course, but about the role he or she has in the narrative line, and there are other factors too, less rational but not less important, even (why should I deny that?), "conventional" factors, which come not only from society and prejudices (and, unlike others here, I LIVE in this society and maybe, since I am not perfect, I am a victim of its prejudices sometimes), but, in a more noble sense, about the way certain roles have been traditionally considered in the history not only of movies, but of literature and theatre and more generally culture too, and honestly, to ask the Oscars to suddenly rebel to centuries of tradition and become a sort of cultural avant gard is, I think, VERY naive.

I wouldnt read too many hidden, dangerous meanings in something which more often has to do with star billing, star power, lack of potential nominees in a certain category, and in general with Hollywood logics rather than relevant contemporary issue. Yes, in some cases it's about issues too, but not always, because otherwise we should go on and say that Talia Shire's nomination as Best Actress in Rocky was an important sign of the new role of women in 70s society, that serial killers like Anthony Hopkins, through him being nominated as Best Actor, are subtly promoted as new male role models, and then there's the Denzel Washington/Ethan Hawke problem, but then of course one could always say that the black guy is chosen as Leading because he plays corrupt and so it's another sign of racism and so on; it becomes an endless game, and not a very relevant one I'm afraid.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1256471151

[Big Magilla]

It all has to be taken in context.

Yes, Greer Garson's screen time in Goodbye, Mr. Chips is limited and even she herself thought her role was a supporting one but Mrs. Chipping is a beloved character whose presence lingers over the film once she leaves it. Petula Clark is around for much longer in the remake but even though she has more to do, hers is not the equal of Peter O'Toole's towering performance. Garson's was equal to Donat's, though the real reason she was pushed for lead was because MGM has so much invested in her as their new "great lady". In any case, she deserved a nomination whether it was for lead or support.

Deborah Kerr not only gave a memorable performance in From Here to Eternity. It was a career changing one, as was Donna Reed's, of course, but Kerr's character was always considered the principal female one. It was supposed to have been played by Joan Crawford who bailed because she didn't like the wardrobe, not because she didn't have enough to do.

Of course Patricia Neal's role in Hud is supporting, but 1963 was such a dismal year for actresses that everyone cheered her category placement and win.

1977 was so crowded with great performances by lead actresses that early on there were considered to be no less than seven front-runners for the five slots: Bancroft and MacLaine in The Turning Point; Fonda and Redgrave in Julia; Mason in The Goodbye Girl; Loren in A Special Day and Keaton in both Looking for Mr. Goodbar and Annie Hall.

Supporting actress, by contrast, was a pretty dismal affair with just about anyone who made a movie that year considered a possibility. While Redgrave's nomination and win in support seems logical now, her relegation to support was considered rather shocking at the time as were the NBR and NYFC wins for Keaton and Spacek in that category.

That's the one that set the precedent for major stars who were serious actors routinely being considered for supporting awards. Just the year before it would have been unthinkable for Peter Finch to have been nominated in support for Network even though had the role been played by a Soupy Sales it would have been considered just that. Yes, I know George Burns had been nominated and won in support for The Sunshine Boys the year before that but he was a "comedian", not a "serious" actor. Plus, he was old, which meant there were two strikes against him.

Hopkins role in Silence of the Lambs was always supporting to me but Hopkins early on let it be known that he did not want to be considered for a supporting actor Oscar even though he would have won that category easily. His trip to the podium as lead was by no means certain. Nick Nolte gave him quite a run for his money.

While this makes for interesting theoretical discussions, this is not something anyone should get upset over. The argument against major stars competing for supporting awards has always been that they take opportunities away from the hard working character players for whom the category was designed. No one has ever suggested the reverse is true.

[Damien]

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.

That film is completely dominated by the presence of Ethan Hawke (though he, too, was supporting).

I voted for Anthony Hopkins, although some of my attitude comed from the fact that his performance is so diminished when you compare it to Brian Cox's Lechter in Manhunter.

[Uri]

So, according to some people, it's all about the effect the character played by the actor has on the film. Following this logic, the actress who played the title role in Rebecca should have been a leading contender for the best actress award back in 1940. Without that character there would be no story to tell. I'm also puzzled by the notion that the better the performance the bigger it gets. The supporting awards are not about second rates actors or acting. Julia was the heart, the brain and the point of reference to everything happening in the 1977 film of that name, Vanessa Redgrave's portrayal was superlative and the Oscar she won was one of the most deserved ever – yet it was exactly in the right category.

Btw, I went with Scott Thomas, for the reasons I mentioned on the other thread, but apart for Travolta (alas, of the lower section of the leading spectrum) and Witherspoon (a borderline case benefited from the year it was on), I'll rank the rest of them as supporting. I haven't seen FHtE in a long time, and I must admit I had Kerr on my best actress list (I'm a huge fan and again, '53 was another tough year for leading actresses), but in hindsight, it was a case of the lady who fucks around to punish her relatively high ranked husband considered lead, the hard working girl who does the same for money is supporting.



Edited By Uri on 1256454992