"I don't think we need another film about the Holocaust, do we? It's like, how many have there been? You know? We get it. It was grim. Move on. No, I'm doing it because I've noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust, you're guaranteed an Oscar.... 'Schindler's Bloody List,' 'Pianist' -- Oscars comin' outta their ass."
-- Kate Winslet (in character) on "Extras" (2005)
There are two main reasons I don't do Oscar predictions: 1) I'm bad at it; and 2) the Oscars take place in a corner of the cinematic universe that's only tangentially related to the movies I love. The Oscar ceremonies have been called the Gay Super Bowl and that's as good a characterization as any -- or at least it was, until "Crash" won.
But some peculiarities at the Golden Globules got me to wondering about the Academy rules. Although I remembered that Peter Finch had won a posthumous Oscar for "Network" in 1976, I didn't know for certain if the rules permitted a posthumous nomination -- like, say, for Heath Ledger, who won a Globule for best supporting actor as the Joker in "The Dark Knight." Turns out, nothing in the Academy's Rule Six: Special Rules for the Acting Awards prohibits it.
Perhaps a more pertinent question would be: Is it really a supporting role? Kate Winslet got her hands on two Globules this year -- one for lead performance in "Revolutionary Road" and another for supporting performance in "The Reader." Some have suggested that the latter is a little like considering Faye Dunaway's role in "Chinatown" a supporting one, but I figured the Hollywood Foreign Press Association just wanted to award Winslet a pair of Globulettes for reasons known best to themselves, so they went out of their way to nominate her in separate categories.
UPDATE: Indeed, Oscar voters have nominated Winslet's "Reader" performance in the lead category. She did not receive a nomination for "Revolutionary Road" -- even though she may well have received enough votes to qualify for both. At least, I think that's what this rule says:
5. In the event that two achievements by an actor or actress receive sufficient votes to be nominated in the same category, only one shall be nominated using the preferential tabulation process and such other allied procedures as may be necessary to achieve that result.
[Oscar rules below.]
We had a similar discussion last year about the three main characters in "No Country for Old Men," played by Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem. They were almost never on the screen at the same time, and various groups honored them as lead actors or supporting actors, however they saw fit.
For the record, the Academy's rules let the nominating voters (the members of the acting branch) decide:
3. A performance by an actor or actress in any role shall be eligible for nomination either for the leading role or supporting role categories. If, however, all the dialogue has been dubbed by another actor, the performance shall not be eligible for award consideration. Singing that is dubbed will not affect the performer's eligibility unless it constitutes the entire performance. The determination as to whether a role is a leading or supporting role shall be made individually by members of the branch at the time of balloting.
4. The leading role and supporting role categories will be tabulated simultaneously. If any performance should receive votes in both categories, the achievement shall be only placed on the ballot in that category in which, during the tabulation process, it first receives the required number of votes to be nominated. In the event that the performance receives the numbers of votes required to be nominated in both categories simultaneously, the achievement shall be placed only on the ballot in that category in which it receives the greater percentage of the total votes.
However, the Academy does not allow two performances by the same actor to compete within a single category. So Jason Statham cannot be nominated for best actor in "The Bank Job" and "Transporter 3."
UPDATE: Edward Copeland adds: "The most recent posthumous acting nomination was Massimo Troisi in 1995 for The Postman. Conrad Hall won cinematography posthumously for Road to Perdition in 2002 (Stop me before I spew Oscar trivia again :-)"
* * * *
"Kate Winslet talking dirty to Anne Frank and Joseph Goebbels. Just another normal day."
From "Extras" -- Oscar stuff begins about three minutes in:
However, the Academy does not allow two performances by the same actor to compete within a single category. So Jason Statham cannot be nominated for best actor in "The Bank Job" and "Transporter 3."
And here I thought "Let the Right One In" being shut out of the Best Foreign Film category was a travesty.
I touched on the supporting category and how characters are determined to be in which category a couple of weeks ago here at Cinema Styles and got a healthy response. The distinction between lead and supporting is one that few, least of all the Academy Acting Branch, really understand.
JE: Wow, Jonathan, that was quite a thread you got going there!
Ricky Gervais made a point of reminding Kate about that scene at the Globes (and then went on to more offensive hilarity):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_sMEjUMkjc.
And obviously Jim was joking about Jason Statham. We all know he should have been nominated for "Death Race."
Personally, I'd draw the distinction between lead and supporting actors at the line of which among them, if any, carries the weight of the story arc. Screen time or not, Anton Chigurh has no arc. So, Oscar-worthy performance or no, in my mind he does not lead the movie.
First off, their/they're/there problem in the quote. [JE: Thanks. Fixed.]
I don't know how meaningful the distinction really is, but I would consider Ledger's a supporting role in that, if you had to name a protagonist/lead, you'd name Bale without much hesitation. Or at least I would. He's onscreen much of the time as either Batman or Bruce Wayne, the movie's named after him, and so on. The Joker just pops up from time to time to give life to an otherwise lifeless movie. A literal supporting role! Take Ledger away and that whole movie comes tumbling down.
Can't say as to Winslet, as I haven't seen her movie yet.
And ISN'T Faye Dunaway's role in Chinatown a supporting role? I can't think of why it would be considered anything else. Obviously it's Nicholson's movie, and she's in it, in something more than a cameo and less than a lead. Am I missing something?
A few years ago, I remember being confused when Jamie Foxx was nominated as a supporting actor for "Collateral", when I believe he got more screen time than Tom Cruise. Do they take lead billing into account, even if that actor isn't the main character?
"Kate Winslet got her hands on two Globules this year"
"Got her hands on"?
Tell us what you really think of Kate Winslet.
"I figured the Hollywood Foreign Press Association just wanted to award Winslet a pair of Globulettes for reasons known best to themselves"
Some of those reasons might pertain to y'know, viewing the perfomances for which she was awarded. By any chance did you happen to do that, Jim? Mmm?
JE: Yes I did. I think she's one of the best actresses in movies. I was talking about the double-category Globule wins, that's all. The only negative thing I can think of to say about Kate Winslet (who, as the clip above shows is also really, really funny) is that she's married to Sam Mendes ("Revolutionary Road"), who isn't a good enough director for her.
Why allow directors and DP's to be nominated twice and not actors? This is most likely why Roger Deakins lost the award last year. He probably got close to 20% of the vote each for No Country and Jesse James. Sort of lame, though the Days of Heaven esque sequences in There Will Be Blood were nice.
Uhm, could someone explain to me why you're calling them Globules instead of Globes?
And I certainly agree with Paul, Christian Bale is the lead actor and Ledger isn't. It's a Batman movie, the lead is Batman, the villains are supporting cast. Easy, isn't it?
Not that it really matters, the real question should be "Why was he nominated?". While I think the competition is a little weak this year I still strongly feel he doesn't deserve an Award for his performance and the only reason everyone says else is because he's dead. Same reason the movie itself is so overrated in IMDB and by a lot of critics. Are we supposed to give away all major awards to the poor chap that died that year!?
JE: I have called them the Globules for many years as an indication of the esteem in which they are held within the industry, and because the Globulettes themselves look just like my Uncle Globule.
and because the Globulettes themselves look just like my Uncle Globule.
Brilliant!
Thanks for the explanation :)
The Academy has never been able to get lead and supporting right. Anthony Hopkins deserved an Oscar for Hannibal Lecter -- in supporting. He doesn't show up for about a half-hour, is only in Silence of the Lambs for about a half-hour and then is gone until his little coda at the end. Frances McDormand is really supporting in Fargo as William H. Macy had more screen time and Buscemi and Stormare had almost as much. I always feel when it's an ensemble like that, they should all be considered supporting. The potential nomination that will annoy me this year is if they nominate Dev Patel for supporting actor for Slumdog Millionaire. Sure, two younger actors play him in flashbacks, but for the most part he's in the film from the very beginning to the very end and absent very little. It just keeps with Oscar tradition of sticking younger actors in supporting no matter how much screen time they have. How Keisha Castle-Hughes got nominated as lead for Whale Rider is miraculous.
Jan--
I'm afraid early reviews were praising Ledger's performance as the best of his career even before he died. Seriously.
Fiction is a record of change for a character or characters. A character begins one way, the reader recognizes the character's need to change, the story is an opportunity for him to change, and the conclusion is when the character has changed and grown, or when the opportunity has passed and the character has failed to grow.
If we follow the definitions more-or-less espoused by Syd Field, Robert McKee, and David Mamet, a "main character" has a goal; a flaw he needs to overcome; a negative force trying to stop him; controls the story with his choices (usually bad choices); and determines whether the ending is happy (he overcomes his flaw and changes/grows) or tragic (flaw overcomes and he stagnates/fails/dies).
One could argue that almost ALL movies/stories have only one "lead actor."
Since "Collateral" Tom Cruise, "Dark Knight" Ledger, "No Country" Bardem are in no danger of changing/overcoming their flaws, they are supporting roles. The "leads" -- Foxx, Bale, and Tommy Lee -- learn lessons from them and grow as a result.
Romantic comedies, in which two lovers each learn to adapt to the other, have two leads. Michael Mann's "Heat" and "The Insider" have two leads, because they are both essentially two movies put together.
To be more literary, "The Great Gatsby" has two lead characters. Gatsby believes he can "buy" the past back with enough money, then learns he can't. Nick Carraway believes that he'll be happy by going East and joining the rich, but observes Gatsby and changes his mind. Gatsby is the main character in Gatsby's life, but a supporting role in Carraway's.
"The Godfather" is similar: Don Vito goes from believing he can use crooked means to protect his family and learns he's failed, while Michael (wrongly called a supporting role by the 1972 Oscars) goes from innocence into sin. Both tragic character arcs. If Vito began "The Godfather" already believing that his life's work was wrongheaded, or if he went to his grave believing his methods were necessary and successful, then he would be a supporting role.
"Lord of the Rings," one could argue, has NO lead character because no one has a flaw to overcome, no one makes any meaningful decision ("keep going" or "quit and stop the movie" is too transparent to be dramatically meaningful), and no one changes outside of holding the magic ring.
P. said:
"'Lord of the Rings,' one could argue, has NO lead character because no one has a flaw to overcome, no one makes any meaningful decision ('keep going' or 'quit and stop the movie' is too transparent to be dramatically meaningful), and no one changes outside of holding the magic ring."
So Aragon evolving from ragged and reluctant Ranger to a full-bore king of men doesn't qualify as character development? Aragon had no flaw to overcome? What about Theoden's decision to aid Gondor? Boromir didn't have a flaw to overcome? And I guess it wasn't dramatically meaningful when Frodo, in the heart of Mount Doom, declared that the ring was his?
"Lord of the Rings" wasn't Shakespeare, but it was no bargain-bin action spectacular, either. It respected its characters, even though it was clearly serving plot first.
"I figured the Hollywood Foreign Press Association just wanted to award Winslet a pair of Globulettes for reasons known best to themselves, so they went out of their way to nominate her in separate categories."
I could be wrong, but I think this mostly has to do with the studios' awards campaigns. In Brokeback Mountain's year, the studio pushed Ledger for lead and Gyllenhaal for supporting because they didn't want to split votes. This year Frost/Nixon's studio is pushing Langella for lead and Michael Sheen for supporting for the same reason. Sheen has said he'd prefer to be pushed for lead actor even if that diminishes his chances of winning. I guess in an effort to keep Kate Winslet from splitting the vote, she's being pushed for lead in Revolutionary Road and supporting in The Reader.
Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.
All the Hobbits, Boromir, Gandalf, Arwen, a lot of characters had flaws to overcome or succumb to, and decisions to make. But maybe in its time this movie was the Dark Knight that people hated regardless of quality, and are still picking on. I dunno.
Anyway that scheme for lead/supporting is way too involved. It also doesnt work, as far as books go, in that a book can be narrated by a character (as a movie can, I know), which, since books ARE the words (while movies are not the narration/voiceover), makes a mess of the whole lead/supporting thing. Carraway is not just a partially-involved narrator, the entire story is his interpretation of events. It's really best not to look for a true protagonist in Gatsby, especially as there are no awards to give away.
Though I think there are far moreforms of stories and arcs and non-arcs than those described by McKee, etc., that theory does hold up well when applied to Scarface, where Pacino's character remains a hateful, self-absorbed scumbag from frame one to frame-the-last and subsequently the film surrounding him feels like nothing so much as a huge, sucking black hole...
And Jim, any words on the passing of Kathleen Byron? Glen Kenny did a nice little tribute over on his blog. If you already have, and I missed it, apologies.
Let us remember that George Lucas, back when he was still cool, wanted to have Yoda nominated for an academy award. He cited Frank Oz's talent for puppeteering as a valid form of performance that should not be neglected.
On a similar note, Firesign Theater once did a bit about a recently deceased actress who starred in a movie posthumously by being hung from strings and puppeteered like a marionette. Would she be eligible for an Oscar?
Yep, let's vote for the dead guy... I found his performance formulaic and stiff. Just because the dude died does not make his acting any better. I was really disappointed by the end product.
When you get an event like the death of Heath Ledger following his performance in The Dark Knight, at least 10 percent people are going to say 'it's the best thing I've ever seen - don't deny him an Oscar just because he died', and a similar percentage are retorting 'sorry, that was the worst thing i've ever seen - you can't give him an Oscar just because he died'.
Here's a hint - you are both wrong. You guys know who you are. Thank God you aren't voting.
So, are all animated films locked out of Best Picture consideration because of the Animation category? Regardless of someone's embarassment over "Beauty and the Beast" BP nomination, I think anyone could vote for WALL-E without shame.
How do I rate Heath Ledger's performance in a role and movie that I don't want to see again? He and the movie may have been remarkable, but I'm torn about supporting an award for something that I could't miss, yet would not want to see again.
One aspect of Lord of the Rings that was an improvement over the books was some of the character development. Aragorn is very boring in the books. But they changed him from a gung-ho warrior to a reluctant heir for the films, and I think that worked well. And Frodo's humanity and empathy, and the hobbits' overall sense of duty over comfort all develop throughout the films.
Jeeem, your namesake James Dean (d. 9/30/55) was nominated for Best Actor two years running and both times posthumously: in 1956 for 1955's "East of Eden" and in 1957 for 1956's "Giant." Didn't win either time.
Stephen: Let the Right One In is not elegible for nomination because it was released after September 30th; it only gets a shot next year.
Kroms--
Is that what it was? I thought it was because Sweden didn't offer it for consideration, and each nation only gets one entry.
Jim, Sam Mendes is the most overrated director in our film industry today. Soderberg would be there if I didn't enjoy the "Ocean's" movies so much!
Stephen, Thank you! "Let the Right One In" is probably one of the best movies this year. Shame on the Academy.
About the nominations though, someone who is nominated has the right to not accept a nomination. Didn't Michael Moore do that a couple years back with his documentary, which he wanted up for Best Picture instead. Silly man. I seem to remember studios having a pull over what their performers are nominated for, obviously they push for certain categories, and normally those pushes in magazines like "Variety" etc, end up guiding the Academy members...who are really not always that bright, and who often walk out of movies in the first 15 minutes complaining loudly and disrupting the movies for other people. You would think fellow filmmakers would have a little more respect...they don't! Always pisses me off. Pardon my French.
I don't think that lead characters need to overcome a flaw or obstacle or transform. Look at Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. He didn't change at all; he perhaps worsened, but he was essentially the same at the end of the film as he was at the start.
No, I think it's about significane to the plot and whose POV the story is told from. The Joker was significant, but the film was told from Batman's POV and was about Batman fighting Joker, not Joker fighting Batman.
Truthfully, I think that villains are invariably supporting characters; for if the become lead characters, they are almost always romanticised. Afterall, Joker was great, but do you really want to watch a film SPECIFICALLY about him?
I watched an Academy voters copy of Frost/Nixon last night (For Your Consideration) and found it interesting that while the Academy rules allow its voters to determine which role an actor should be nominated for based on voting totals, the inside cover of the DVD had the entire cast categorized by role (Sheen, Langella for Best Actor, etc).
The studios are trying to provide some direction.
JE: Yes, I think voters are considerably influenced by the studio Oscar campaigns -- though, this year, evidently they were not so convinced by the "Reader" publicity pushing Winslet in the supporting actress category. Remember when Miramax decided that John Travolta would get the best actor pitch for "Pulp Fiction" and Samuel L. Jackson would be promoted for supporting actor?