More Top 10 Oscar CATEGORY FRAUD Examples of ALL TIME
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 кві 2024
- What do I think are the most egregious examples of category fraud at the Oscars? Here is another ranking! #oscars #academyawards #topten #categoryfraud #oscarnominations #theawardscontender
THE AWARDS CONTENDER ON PATREON
Exclusive Videos, Vote for Elusive Oscar, and More!
/ theawardscontender
WRITTEN AND PRODUCED BY BRIAN ROWE
/ mrbrianrowe
/ mrbrianrowe
FOR ALL INQUIRIES:
brian_rowe@me.com
MUSIC
Bossa Antigua by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.filmmusic.io/song...
License: filmmusic.io/standard-license
Ethan Hawke said something I thought was so great about the Oscars for Training Day, it might have even been like on the red carpet. Essentially, he said “If I did my job right, Denzel will win tonight.” Like that’s how he viewed what it meant to be a “supporting” actor.
He’s such a darling
0:37 Queen Elizabeth slapping around another Queen Elizabeth! 😂😂
Perfection
It’s a pretty powerful and uncomfortable scene
It's weird how if you're younger or lesser known, therefore your role is considered Supporting? Haley Joel Osment and Tatum ONEal are 100% the LEAD in their films but because theyre children, they get moved to Supporting? Its a miracle that Quvenzhané Wallis made it into Lead category at age 9
I always said that Julia’s performance in “August Osage County” is her best performance to date. Y’all might not agree with me on this take but she managed to outshine Meryl Streep. This is the movie in my opinion that she should have won her Oscar for.
You are absolutely right, BUT NO ONE could Beat Blanchett in Blue Jasmine that year
Julia is amazing in AOC but I don’t think she would have beaten Blanchett. It wasn’t a particularly strong category that year but I don’t think moving to lead would have improved her chances.
@@ChrolliForeverthat’s actually a year where all the nominees would’ve been worthy winners in different years. But I agree nobody was taking down Blanchett.
@ChrolliForever true
@@ChrolliForever True that she took no prisoners with that performance.
I think it's important to mention that the main reason why Alicia Vikander was nominated in supporting instead of lead was because the studio thought her chance of winning best supporting actress was better than winning lead actress.
They didn't want to compete with Brie Larson, which I think 100% deserved her win.
Just as important was the studio’s interest in pouncing on Vikander’s it girl status on the heels of Ex Machina. They took a “whatever it takes” approach.
I’ve always hated when the academy does this. It happened last year with Michelle Williams for The Fabelmans. If your actors aren’t the leads in the movie, GO FOR THE DAMN SUPPORTING CATEGORY!!! And vice versa! Who cares if they’re duking it out and competing against one another!
Fablemans is one of my favourite movies of all time but I totally agree with you
@@ethanburns4011 It was a great film. 😀
True
i don't understand why you pointed Michelle Williams when she was the opposite of that. should be, "go for the damn supporting category" - which she indeed should've
@@davidvieira16 That year's Best Actress category was one of the weirdest for me, especially since IMO the two best LEAD performances of that year were snubbed -Mia Goth for Pearl and Danielle Deadwyler for Till. Goth obviously because she was in a horror movie, Deadwyler...I can't explain that one. The movie didn't get enough attention maybe? But then why De Armas for Blonde, which everyone hated?
Don't really see what's weird about Waltz being supporting. When I think Djano Unchained I literally think about Django.
He said it. He is practically the co-lead, while Di Caprio and Jackson are more properly supporting performances (and both fantastic and snubbed BTW).
@@FrakkinToasterLuvvanah
I think waltz was a bigger supporting role but he was so understated. I’d have given it to Jackson or Leo who were riveting
@@Dorthyturner Waltz was great but they could have campaigned him as a co-lead, which he practically was, and Di Caprio and Jackson as supporting.
Of course being in supporting gave him a bigger chance, but did he really need the second Oscar for best supporting role?
I disagree with two of these. Denzel and Hawke may be co-leads but if I haven't heard "King Kong ain't got shit on me" like a million times. He's the more recognizable and memorable performance in the movie while being just as important as Hawke.
The biggest one I disagree with is Waltz. Christoph Waltz is very much the supporting actor. He's not in the last 30 minutes, the story is not predicated on him, and the film is literally called DJANGO Unchained. Waltz supports Django's journey but isn't what's pushing it forward. Waltz is very clearly the supporting actor
The Lakeith one pissed me off. Basically saying there’s no lead of that movie. I’m happy he got nominated but even he was like “huh”?
That's probably the most egregious, simply due to being unable to justify who was the lead.
I always think of Jennifer Hudson whenever anyone mentions category fraud. The entire story is about her. Even when she does leave the movie for a while, the story is about her NOT being there. It's not always about screentime but who the movie is actually about. Plus the role of Effie White is lead on Broadway and at the Tony's. Just because Beyonce is the "leader" of the Dreams doesn't automatically make her the lead role of the movie
Highly agree!!!
But Jennifer is absent for most of the second part of the movie and appears only at the end, so it seems more or less fair
@@petrvarfolomeev1993 I addressed that in my original comment. She has the 6th most screentime for any supporting actress winner ever and appears in 39.6% compared to Beyoncé's 40.1%. And again, the story is about her even when she isn't on screen.
🤔
She has less screentime than. Beyonce, and honestly you could argue Jamie's Curtis was the narrative lead of the film and how he took advantage of the Dreams. But it makes sense since even the narrative tries to highlight more Beyonce than Hudson
Once again, you forgot to mention Dev Patel going supporting for Lion. He's the freaking main character in that film.💀
Might have gotten away with it because he didn’t appear until like halfway in.
Dev Patel might have played the main protagonist in “Lion” but his actual screen time was about 1/3 of the entire movie and that does (in my opinion) justify his nomination for Best Supporting Actor that year.
This all started at the 1944 Oscars when Barry Fitzgerald got two nominations (best lead and supporting actor) for the same role in "Going My Way".
1945 oscars* but yes really weird to put in 2 categories an actor for the same role, they really wanted him to win.
Viola Davis in Fences 2016. She should have been lead and Michelle Williams should have won for MBTS.
Michelle’s performance 🎭 was heartbreaking ❤️🩹 and stunning 😍 😮. Apox on Davis for winning with category fraud.
Very that!!!
I think she's in Brian's first video about category fraud
I would’ve picked Naomie Harris in “Moonlight” to win, over Michelle Williams, had Viola Davis been nominated in lead.
Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
Mira Sorvino - Mighty Aphrodite
Marcia Gay Harden - Pollock
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
My only thing about Waltz is that I don’t really think Waltz has enough to himself to call it between lead or supporting. The film is Django’s story and he’s supporting that in my opinion.
Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain
Jake Gyllenhaal in Enemy, Jake Gyllenhaal in Prisoners, Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler, Jake Gyllenhaal in Nocturnal Animals, Jake Gyllenhaal in End of Watch, Jake Gyllenhaal in Stronger. I swear someone in the Academy hates him.
Loved this movie so much. Everyone thought I was crazy , but what a love story.😎
i think he's in the right category, of course he is very important but all we know about he's character is because Ledger's character so
DiCaprio and Sam Jackson were robbed for a best supporting actor nomination for Django unchained
Samuel L. Jackson? Yes. DiCaprio? Nah, can't stand that performance - he's supposed to play an intimidating plantation owner, not a whiny manchild!
Truly a highway robbery.
I agree
I think a lot of the time the Oscars just look at the top billed actor and go “oh, that’s the lead”, which is correct most of the time but there is a not insignificant amount of movies where there isn’t the case.
I don't really agree about DJANGO UNCHAINED. For the first two thirds of the movie, you could argue Christoph Waltz is a co-lead, but then he's not in the last third at all. As far as overall screen time goes, he definitely has quite a bit less than Jamie Foxx. I agree that DiCaprio and Jackson probably should have been nominated for Supporting Actor instead of him, but I wouldn't call Waltz being there an example of category fraud.
I think that Christoph Waltz in “Django Unchained” is the very few exceptions to the full that , despite the huge amount of screen time he has, Jamie Foxx as Django has always been established as the main protagonist and Christoph’s role as The Dentist has always been centered around Django and he’s only there to support Django’s main goal for revenge.
Viola Davis in 2017 and Alicia Vikander are the worst examples imo. Michelle should have won 🥇 in 2017 for a legit supporting performance. Winslet should have won in 2016 because Alicia was lead and not supporting. 😮
Thank you for calling out Geena Davis in Accidental Tourist! It pains me to this day that Sigourney Weaver didn’t win that year because of Geena’s co-lead performance being bumped to supporting 😢
Indeed!!!
So sad
I think Davis was in the right category. According to Screen Time Central, Davis was in 29:30 (24%) of The Accidental Tourist. That’s pretty standard scree time for the supporting category and way too low to be nominated for lead. She only had 7 minutes more than Weaver and was identical with Pfeiffer.
@@leighton_knapp I guess but I still feel like Weaver was more of a true supporting performance. She only had 4 or 5 scenes in the movie and was gone for the entire middle of the film, but I think her impact was really felt in the little amount of screen time she got.
Davis was basically the co-female lead of the movie and split that role in the story with Kathleen Turner so was sort of felt like a lead with less screen time vs supporting with a lot of screen time
Louise Fletcher, Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins and more all didn’t have a ton of screen time but still won in lead
I agree completely that Weaver should have won.. what also played a tole toward her loss I think was that she split votes with fellow film coworker Joan Cusack.
Margo Martindale deserved the nomination for being the true supporting actress in August: Osage County. Great work by a great actress.
I love Margo but I would go with Julianne Nicholson for Supporting Actress.
They seriously have to set a minimum / maximum screen time for leading and supporting categories. It should be a rule. Another clear case is VIOLA DAVIS going supporting for FENCES. What a joke. Michelle Williams should’ve won supporting
I would’ve personally picked Naomie Harris in “Moonlight” to win instead, if Viola had been in the Lead Actress category. Just my opinion.
I think both Rachel and Emma were the lead (in The Favourite) while Olivia was supporting. But, yeah, that one is tricky.
Wonderful video!
Either that or all three were co-leads (i.e. if you're describing the plot in one sentence you'd include all three but if you did so for idk Shakespeare in Love you'd omit Judi Dench).
I read a magazine article years ago where Ethan Hawke was asked about being nominated in Supporting while Denzel was in Lead for Training Day, even though Ethan had more screen time. His response was, "The truth is, Denzel is the bright light of that show... And you're giving those awards way too much credit. They're not much different than awarding Homecoming Queen."
Well if you wanna use that film as an example, regardless of screen time, I'd argue that Denzel is definitely the lead actor there, even if he is an antagonistic one
Ethan’s humbleness is endearing & he is right that Denzel is more the lead than him. They are sort of co-leads, but it really is Denzel’s show in the end especially with his “King Kong…” rant at the climax
Awards Contender saying "This is just stupid" amused me, I don't know, I guess I wasn't expecting it. He was fired up.
Does anyone even remember that Alicia Vikander is an Oscar winner, for THE DANISH GIRL no less? That is a win that did not age well. Had she won for Ex Machina, like she should have, that would have stuck more in people's memories and would have been a better mark in the history of film and awards.
The Danish Girl is offensively terrible. Worse than Cats. Tom Hooper should be banned from filmmaking.
Al Pacino was the lead in The Godfather as he had more screen time than anyone else in the film, but Marlon Brando was the big name of that film, so Pacino was put into the Best Supporting Actor category and Brando would win Best Actor, despite being in the film for 40 minutes. Obviously the two should have been switched, but it’s like the Jesse James situation you mentioned where Casey Affleck is the obvious lead, but since he’s not as famous as Brad Pitt, he’s put into the Supporting Actor category. Also Pacino was still new to the world of film when The Godfather came out, he only did a few films prior so him basically being unknown also likely factored into him getting put into Supporting Actor. Thanks for the video Brian, I hope you’re doing well. Keep up the great work and take care!
What about both in lead Like the golden Globes dir with Brando and Pacino???
Apparently Pacino was so annoyed about it he refused to attend the ceremony, and imagine if he won. That would have been both Godfather acting winners not showing up.
@@samuelbarber6177true
I always see people talk about Brando in the Godfather as an example of category fraud, but given that Al Pacino appears on screen for 1 hour and 6 minutes, there's less than half an hour difference between their screen time. It would have made sense if they were viewed as co-leads, but I'm thinking the Academy probably was thinking that both nominations in the same category would have canceled each other out (which doesn't seem to be a problem for Supporting categories ex: Caan/Duvall for the same movie, Curtis/Hsu for EEAAO, etc.), but have had multiple actors nominated in Lead Actor before and after this.
That was Brian's pick for the most egregious category of all time in a previous video about category fraud. He's made 3 of them so far.
The Judas and the Black Messiah deal is absolutely ridiculous
By far, the most egregious.
I never understood how Christoph Waltz was the Supporting Actor performance from Django, when l both Leonardo DiCaprio & Samuel L Jackson are right there
Dev Patel’s nomination for Best Supporting Actor for LION bothered me. He was the lead. The movie was about his character.
03:11 Men, since I saw that movie, it seemed absurd to me all the nominations that Affleck had as a supporting actor when he was the protagonist of that film.
It's not about time on screen... it's about whose story it is
Thanks for mentioning that My Cousin Rachel is available in UA-cam. I wanted to see it since I saw the remake with am Claflin and Rachel Weisz.
Thanks so much Brian for all your content. I look forward to each one.
Love the videos, man. Keep it up!!!
I actually think Waltz should have been nominated as Best Actor in Inglourious Basterds. He actually has the most screentime there. Also, Lakeith is clearly the lead actor in Judad and the Black Messiah.
I think Inglourious Basterds is a difficult one because, like a lot Tarantino’s movies, there isn’t really one defined main character, but personally when looking at Landa’s role in the story I think it makes sense having him in Supporting since his character mostly exists to complement the stories of Shoshanna and Aldo Raine rather than being a leading player in his own right. I agree with you on Judas and the Black Messiah though.
Judas AND the Black Messiah... two leads
He was brilliant. You got the creep crowly from him
Agree. The Landa character has a lot of screen time, he is at the beginning, the middle and the end. And he is crucial for the different storylines.
Meryl Streep for lead in The Devil Wears Prada. I get it but Andrea (Anne Hathaway) for me was the lead in that movie, she has more screen time and the story is about her. Meryl is supportive
IMO screen time isn't always the most relevant or important criterion for deciding category consideration. Sure, it's easy to categorize performances based on screen time, but I think that's too simplistic.
The Favourite's categorizations don't personally irk me because Colman is clearly the center of gravity for that film in the same way that Nicole Kidman is central in The Hours. Without Queen Anne's royalty, naivete, volatility, etc. the story simply wouldn't work. Her character is more pivotal for the plot, as without her childish traits, she wouldn't have been as easily manipulated. And although Colman commands less screen time than Stone, the Queen is always on the other characters' lips and minds-even when they're not in her presence.
Now, the protagonist argument is very valid. Stone certainly starts out as the protagonist, and a sympathetic one. But by the story's end, we come to loathe her character for all her manipulation and destructiveness (even if we understand her motives!). By the final scene, we pity Colman, not Stone, and while this effect is a confluence of the writing and both high-caliber performances, I think it positions Colman as the film's true object of sympathy, and therefore the lead.
An example of category fraud where the protagonist argument is much stronger is Carol. Rooney Mara is clearly the protagonist, and we root for her from beginning to end. Blanchett is really supporting Mara's character as she blossoms into a confident and assured young woman. I agree that Mara should've been campaigned and nominated for leading actress. Thanks for reading!
About the Favorite, yes little tricky, three amazing women, all co-leads, but I do think Emma was leading, because we mostly follow her, see things through her. But I think they thought oh, Olivia plays Queen and another two fighting for her attention and power.
If Olivia went supporting she would sweep the season, and Glen would have won her Oscar 😔
Alicia’s move was one the most outrageous, at least Viola campaigned from the beginning the entire award season as supporting( she wanted to win). But what Alicia did was huge slap in the face to another actresses in the category. Kate kinda had the similar situation back in 2009, when she switched categories, academy didn’t allow her campaign both roles, maybe in the fear she might win both categories, but her choosing Holocaust film was predictable😅
Waltz was supporting, so obviously.Django was leading man!
Judi Dench should have won Best Actress for Notes On A Scandal. Her career-best performance.
She should have won for Mrs Brown
@@dirksiedler1397, agreed
Thanks Brian! I think I commented on your previous category fraud video that I long for the Thelma and Louise days when you had two great leads in the same movie nominated together in the same category.
The worst example of category fraud for me is Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People, the absolute protagonist of the movie in supporting actor
One argument that could be made for Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained is that, while he kind of serves as a main character to start the film, his character is killed off 2/3 into the movie. While he certainly has more screen time than Dicaprio and Jackson, is it much much less than Jamie Foxx because of this.
Love your picks as always! I do think in Notes on a Scandal the lead is definitely Judi Dench (it’s her story through and though, following her viewpoint, narrated by her and beginning and ending with her) and I do see Cate Blanchett as supporting.
Oh no nit again. In my Personal ballot I Had Blanchett all the time in lead
Cate and Judi are co-leads. The story might not be told from Cate’s POV but her character was as fully fleshed out as Judi’s, including the first glow, her insecurities, the family life, her mental and emotional decline - the full arc of her transformation was captured in the film. It is NOT a supporting performance.
I get what you’re saying, but when I think about the movie Training Day, I only think of Denzel Washington. He is the movie. Ethan Hawke, to me, really was a supporting actor.
The category fraud really bothers me. I’m of the opinion that I would rather an actor be snubbed than to be nominated as a consolation prize or as a way of the Academy saying, “hey we don’t have enough space for you in the category you deserve to be in.” A lot of it also has to do with who billed first or billed second. Example one: Training Day, Denzel is top billed and Ethan is billed second, so therefore Denzel gets lead and Ethan gets supporting. Example two: August Osage County, Meryl is top billed and gets in lead, and Julia is billed second and is nominated in supporting. The question the Academy needs to ask here is: who exactly is Ethan Hawke supporting in Training Day and who is Julia supporting in August Osage County? The movies they are in is almost entirely seen through their characters’ eyes. Like come on.
The worst thing about category fraud is that it usually prevents an actual supporting actor from being nominated. Had Julia campaigned lead with Meryl, the studio may have gotten a nomination for the best actress in the film, the wonderful Julianne Nicholson.
Agreed. Like for Godfather 2,a part of me wishes Deniro had gone lead so john cazale could've gotten a supporting nom.
Interesting point about Emma Stone in the Favourite. Somehow since she didnt appear until about 20-30 minutes into the movie, in my head she's the most supporting out of the three, but I never realized she has the most screen time! I actually do wonder though if Olivia Colman had been in supporting, I feel like she probably would have beaten Regina King in a movie that doesn't even get a Best Picture nomination. I mean she has beaten the biggest narrative of all (Glen Close), and I do think Colman gave a better performance than King. In that alternative universe, I imagine both Colman and Glenn Close would've swept through the season, Colman would also win SAG under that weird supporting category where King wasnt nominated and lead to Emily Blunt winning.
It almost feels like Jackie brown, though I don't think her story begins as late as stone's.
I made this point on another comment, but I really think The Favourite has three co-leads in Stone, Coleman, and Weisz (i.e. if you describe the plot of the movie in one sentence, you'd include all three). To me a supporting actor or actress is one who isn't central to the story (like Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love).
@@dante6985 so true, I like that definition of supporting, although probably half of supporting performances nowadays would no longer be eligible by that standard. If all three goes leading, not sure how it's going to go, hard to separate the three, they may all cancel each other out, and probably Glenn Close would win her Oscar
The Academy confused the heck outta me for what it did to Judas and the Black Messiah. I'm fine with Kaluuya winning in supporting. But my man, Stanfield, needed to have his Oscar for leading!
Oh wait, Hopkins would still have smoked him in leading lol. NVM.
Lakeith Stanfield gave a great performance in Judas and the Black Messiah and awesome that he’s an Oscar nominated actor. However, I don’t get how he was nominated in Supporting Actor, to me he was the main character of that movie. I wondered if it was a last minute thing to suddenly switch Stanfield from Leading to Supporting. Daniel Kaluuya deserved his victory and sweep that season but Stanfield’s placement still confuses me to this day.
No it didn’t make sense but they were both superb performances
They wanted the late Black Panther to win best actor.
@@clevelandphil I wanted Chadwick to win 🥇
You need to look into David Niven in Separate Tables. He won for lead, but is in only 24 minutes of the film. Less than Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. Figured that would have received a mention in either of your videos
Agreed. I will say, I love that film. Such a great ensemble. Deborah Kerr, Gladys Cooper and Wendy Hiller are particularly strong.
In Pulp Fiction, Samuel L. Jackson had more than twice the dialogue as John Travolta, though Jackson was only considered a "supporting character." Though Travolta appeared in more scenes than Jackson (even with scenes without Jackson) he was never the character who's dialogue drove those scenes. With the scenes involving Jackson, it was almost always Jackson's dialogue driving those scenes.
Name recognition swung the "Best Actor" category to Travolta.
Jackson is definitely given more focus in the scenes he's in, but he's only in the first and last chapters. Supporting makes sense to me, and I'd argue Travolta could justifiably be in Supporting too with no real lead in the ensemble film. Plus if you put Jackson in Lead he's got to lose to Tom Hanks' Gump sweep, where he wouldn't have a hope in hell. At least he had a shot against Martin Landau (who for the record is an amazing and deserving winner).
I'd say Vincent is the lead. Jules is the definition of scene stealing supporting. And Jackson should've won over Landau. Freeman should've over hanks.
Interesting that Jennifer Hudson isn't on this list because she is the true lead (or co lead) of the Dreamgirls.
These can be tricky because the difference between Lead and Supporting should be objectively obvious, but the Academy and the campaign like to blur them and make them not so obvious.
I also noticed problems with the Judas and the Black Messiah and The Favourite nominations.
The most egregious case of category fraud imo was River Phoenix being nominated for supporting actor in running on empty.
Duuuude, good choice.
I think you could argue Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men as a case because he’s absolutely a proactive character. He doesn’t even share any scenes with the apparent lead and is absolutely not supporting that narrative.
That's an interesting one 🤔
I'd argue more that Llewellyn is the main character.
"it makes you feel kinda icky inside" ... AGREE! 😅
Although I agree that screen time is probably the biggest factor in determining who is leading or supporting, I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
There’s more to it than just numbers. You also have to consider who the film’s narrative serves most frequently, even if they aren’t always on screen. Whose story is primarily being told. It can get tricky when defining certain roles in that regard
Agreed. Like for The Fabelmans, you can make the case that Michelle Williams was lead or supporting. But I appreciate that she campaigned in lead because that film was a tribute to Spielberg's mother. Aside from Emma Stone (who I viewed as supporting in The Favourite for narrative reasons), Brian points out the most egregious examples where the supporting actor is clearly a lead in the movie.
I don't see anything weird about Waltz Supporting Actor nod. He wasn't in the last 25 minutes of the movie.
I can think of a reverse situation.
The film Giant from 1956 had 2 leading men nominations for both Rock Hudson and James Dean (posthumously). Dean was in about 30 min of the films 3+ hr run time and is clearly a supporting role (he's just looming in the background for most of that 30 min too). Although he has some great scenes and his presence is felt throughout most of the film, he definitely wasn't a leading man. I think if Dean was in the right category that year he could have won.
You say fraud, I say creativity. That's the genius of the Oscars.
It might be unpopular but I love Waltz’s win for DU . I love his performance.
Colman is the focus in The Favorite so I get that one too .
I never understood the Vikander win . There were better performances. I understand the strategy but still.
“The Favourite” is one of my favorite ❤️ films of all time (No pun intended). I agree that Emma Stone is the mvp of that film 🎥 both in terms of screen 📺 time and I think 💭 she gave the best performance 🎭. Which is why I was rooting for her to win 🥇 in supporting but they liked Regina too much for that to happen. So now Olivia Colman has an Oscar for a superb performance 🎭 and Emma has two for two other superb performances. I just wish that both her wins were for Yorgos Lanthimos films.
Back in 1980 Timothy Hutton should have won Best Actor Oscar for his role in Ordinary People instead of Best Supporting Actor since he was the lead in the movie, however they gave the Best Actor Oscar to Robert DeNiro for his role in Raging Bull.
One more thing about My Cousin Rachel: Philip, Richard Burton’s character in the film, is also the book narrator. And what a book it is! ❤️
Brilliantly researched video as always. Yes, Emma should have gone lead and Olivia supporting. Then Glenn Close would have the Oscar on her shelf she should have won 5 years ago. ❤
I became a Geena Davis fan because of her performance in "The Accidental Tourist". I love that film.
Frankly, I think the way performances are categorized is outdated, based on the old studio system of how films were written. There were ensemble pieces of course--Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, and Mutiny on the Bounty come to mind--but the "movie star", "character actor" dichotomy is pre-1970s. The structure should be re-evaluated, although I don't know what a good solution would be. Probably just more nominations in each category.
I also think that, instead of the disastrous Best Popular Film category they tried to implement a few years ago, they should just split Best Picture into low-mid and high budget categories. Any high budget film is expected to be popular, so it covers the old category proposal without implying that there's less artistry involved. Can you imagine Spotlight and Mad Max: Fury Road sitting equally next to each other, or Moonlight and La La Land?
I'm still bewildered that Kevin Spacey was considered a supporting actor in The Usual Suspects. Verbal is the narrator. The entire movie is told from his perspective. If he is not the lead, then who is?
(Not getting into issues of Spacey personally, just the role.)
Good point. Don't see a lot of people bringing that up.
Calvin Candie is my favorite of all DiCaprio’s performances. I will forever be angry that he didn’t get a nomination for that role.
I'm glad he wasn't. I can't take an effeminate manchild seriously as a threat. Samuel L. Jackson was way better
Richard Burton was a rough looking 25 year old in 1953.
After watching many of your videos, seems that a pattern emerges: The lead vs supporting criterion is “years of work trajectory / prior nominations”:
- Breakthrough new performances end up in supporting nomination
- Older, seasoned and academy regarded actors tend to land Lead nomination
- Exceptions do ocurr (Rami Malek for Bohemian Rhapsody)
- Oscar campaigning is as shady a political campaigning
Haing S. Ngor was the leading actor in "The Killing Fields".
But so was Sam Waterston.
And Haig S. Ngor won for supporting actor, even though he was the main actor for pretty much 90% of the picture.
Mira sorvino:Mighy aphordite
Jennifer Hudson: Dreamgirls
Octavia Spencer: The Help
Da'vine Joy Randolph:The Holdovers
How did Tatum O’Neal not get lead in Paper Moon? Was it just so she gets the win? She was in every scene in the movie.
Thanks for this channel. I just discovered it. Being around the film business for years I find the whole award shows a joke, manipulative and just all favoritism and political its gross. Its all so fake and the ones who deserve to be winners never do. Accidental Tourist was not a Oscar winner…Sigourney Weaver in Working Girl got robbed..she was fantastic and so three dimensional as Catherine..! Its infuriating!
River Phoenix on Running on empty wasn’t supporting actor either. He is the main character of the movie, couldn’t believe he was nominated as supporting actor.
Definitely a good choice.
I had never heard of that Burton example before, and I think it takes the cake. I don't know if they already have some rules regarding this, but they should bring some in. Say, if you're in >50% of the film, then you are only eligible for lead consideration, but if you're in
Probably a long forgotten one but Frank Finlay as Iago in the 1965 Othello starring Laurence Olivier. By sheer line count Iago does have more stage time than Othello and in this film they are on equal footing. Funny enough Finlay poor notices when they did the show on stage in London but he got bigger raves when it got transferred to film especially against Oliviers over the top Moor.
My only guess as to why he didn't get a lead nomination is the same as Burton here, he wasn't a known star so they just out him in supporting.
Also fun fact it's the only Shakespeare adaptation where all four leads got nominations (Olivier Finlay, a young Maggie Smith as Desdemona, and Joyce Redman as Emilia.)
I think Christoph Waltz won because he was in more of the movie than DiCaprio and Jackson. I think that since Waltz died before the climax, I can see why he’s supporting. Django is the title character therefore the lead.
Very much with you on a few of these, but I think I disagree on Christoph Walz. True, he’s in it a lot, but there’s something about that role that feels supporting to me. Not saying that is definitely the case, but that’s the feeling I get from it. Great video as always! Thanks for all the great content.
I Love My Cousin Rachel! So Glad too see you mention it.
Speaking of De Havilland and The Heiress, I would also say that Ralph Richardson should be nominated in lead actor instead of supporting actor.
definitely timothy hutton in ordinary people
I agree that Alicia Vikander won that year's body of work (mainly for Ex-Machina). Have you done a video on actors who won as a make-up for losing a prior year? I can think of a few that fall into this category.
Good idea. A domino effect video.
Jack Albertson probably should been in lead for The Subject was Roses. Interestingly, his co-star in that movie, Patricia Neal, had won in lead a few years earlier for a performance in Hud that was probably supporting (but still amazing).
Agree about Vikander! Winslet would have two Oscars now, and Vikander would’ve used the momentum earned from her first nomination to get better roles and more nominations. So it didn’t even help her career.
How I wish they had nominated Waltz in the Lead Actor category and Leonardo Di Caprio and Samuel L. Jackson in the Best Supporting Actor category. The supporting category that year was weird because two amazing supporting performances from Django were snubbed, while Alan Arkin really didn't need to be nominated for Argo. I love Arkin but that was little more than a fun cameo. I feel like they just wanted to give Argo an acting nomination, which it really didn't need to have.
And then one of them should've won it. Leo was already overdue by that time so I feel in that case he wins, but in my ideal scenario Jackson wins, that was the performance that blew me away the most in that movie, especially since it took me a very long time to even realize that was Jackson.
Then we wouldn't need this year's "should Samuel L. Jackson win this year for The Piano Lesson whether or not that role turns out to be award worthy" discourse.
Hell yes to everything you said, part about Jackson.
A lot of these frauds come down to narrative within the plot. The Favourite is a clear example, as you have two women “supporting/competing” for the Queen. I may not agree as well but it made sense on Oscar nominations morning.
Notes on a Scandal is one of my favourite films of all time!
You should do a ranking of the top 10 Best Visual Effects winners of your opinion. Or even Cinematography.
I found a first edition of The Danish Girl signed by the author at the $1 bookstore. I wonder what I can get for it. I got the book because the story was interesting.
That sounds like an awesome find!
@syria0110 Not really I looked, and it has a buy it now option for $11. I guess the author signed a lot of copies. Now, if I found something like a signed Hemingway first edition, that would really be a great find.
Anthony Hopkins: Best Supporting Actor 1992. 😅😅
What about Haing S. Ngor in The Killing Fields?
That's a good example. Dith Pran was the main subject, but he was also the subject of the NYT story that was written by Sidney shanberg, played by Sam waterston, the other main actor.
Completely agree on Notes on a Scandal. Both were leads.
Moviemaking is an industry, and Los Angeles ("Hollywood") is a company town, and the Academy Awards are Hollywood's annual company picnic, at which awards are bestowed. Unfortunately, they and we call those categories "best" when it would be more accurate to call them "favorite." Then pearl-clutchers wouldn't have to tsk-tsk about "category fraud."
Supporting and leading role isn't necessarily about who has the most screen time but about who's character decisions drove the narrative of the film in The Favorite both Emma and Rachels characters revolved around Colemens the story beats and breaking points of each act were according to Colemans character.
Why does the Academy allow this? So annoying
Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker. She and Anne Bancroft were co-leads. Angela Lansbury should have won Best Supporting Actress for The Manchurian Candidate that year.
Here's what I don't get - doesn't the Academy have the authority to place an actor in the appropriate acting category? I thought they did this with Kate Winslet when she was racking up pre-cursor accolades in Supporting for The Reader because she also had Revolutionary Road that year.