Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
All season long the question from countless readers was, “Why do you have Hailee Steinfeld listed as a supporting actress contender? Her character is the lead of ‘True Grit.’“ Indeed. But I knew where Paramount was going to campaign the performance, and I expected a number of critics groups to follow that notion like sheep (and they did, save for the independently-minded Utah set).
Of course, the possibility always existed that the Academy would vote its own way.
The acting branch, remember, decides category placement when it comes to performance contenders. Just two years ago they weren’t buying the supporting campaign for Kate Winslet in “The Reader,” opting instead for lead (and she ultimately won the Oscar for Best Actress). Child performances, however, tend to struggle in the leading ranks.
But ever since I saw the film and was so taken by Steinfeld’s performance, I’ve been on the record: the studio should step up and push this as a lead (especially with two other supporting contenders in “The Fighter” to work with). But Steinfeld has racked up enough supporting honors (and even a few trophies) to help legitimize the decision.
But I wonder. If enough voters decide to go their own way and vote the performance in lead, it could take away from a number of potential supporting votes and splinter the works, allowing for another supporting hopeful to slide in (though perhaps it’s fortunate there are so few real contenders in that category). Looking at the rules and eligibility, unless I’m not understanding things correctly, this could be a possibility (bold mine):
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.
Dave Karger is reporting today what a lot of us have been hearing, that a number of voters are indeed calling it as they see it. And he also shrewdly notes that, with enough voting firepower, of course, Steinfeld could slide into a lead actress slot after all, because there is one spot seemingly up for grabs, given how the precursor circuit has gone. I’ve been expecting the British contingent to help Lesley Manville make it in, but Steinfeld is certainly a contender to follow in Keisha Castle-Hughes’s footsteps from 2003.
Then again, is it possible enough lead votes take away from her supporting haul and push her out altogether? I’m just asking the question.
[Photo: Teen]
69 responses so far
1 1-03-2011 at 12:35 pm
Guy Lodge said...
I’ve also been wondering if voters will bump her up to lead on their own initiative, once they check out the film for themselves. They’ll feel warm and fuzzy about doing it, it makes a nice story, and so on. And that fifth slot seems splintered enough that she wouldn’t need too many first-place Best Actress votes to crack it.
The obvious precedent is Keisha Castle-Hughes, ludicrously campaigned in supporting, where SAG nominated her — but Academy voters followed their hearts and promoted her.
2 1-03-2011 at 12:41 pm
James D. said...
I would rather see her just miss for Lead than to make it for Supporting. Maybe it would result in a change in the madness in following years.
3 1-03-2011 at 12:42 pm
Graysmith said...
R.I.P. Hailee Steinfeld’s Oscar nomination chances 2010-2011.
4 1-03-2011 at 12:44 pm
Maxim said...
I think that it’s a fair question. Without a rule that would allow an actor to draw from votes actross the two acting categories (when needed) there’s always going to be a risk of a vote split.
It seems ironic, by the way, that an Instution that relies on preferential ballot sheme wouldn’t have a rule like that that would actually favor voter’s favorites. I guess that in their eyes, THAT would be an example of categrory fraud. Oh well.
And another good question is why should the category placement be dictated by how the votes are counted? Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to wait until all of the votes are accounted for and then see which category gets the higher total?
5 1-03-2011 at 12:44 pm
James C said...
Part of me hopes she will get in for supporting for the win, but I don’t know if there is anyone who can stop Leo’s chances and she doesn’t have a shot against Portman/Bening. As long as she gets nominated, I’ll be happy. I saw it a second time. Love the flick even more.
6 1-03-2011 at 12:44 pm
Dylan said...
Who was Keisha Castle-Hughes supposed to be supporting? The whale?
It’s an interesting case with Steinfeld because I think she deserves an Oscar for her performance, but there’s no way she would win if she was put into lead. I’d say she would be the frontrunner if placed in supporting….but it’s not a supporting performance. Tricky tricky.
7 1-03-2011 at 12:51 pm
Maxim said...
Am I the only one who thinks the supporting categrory is made for performances like the one given by the old man on the train in Black Swan?
I mean, who wouldn’t want to see that accept a prize? Or at the Globes?
Just think of all the 2 second cut-away opporunities!
8 1-03-2011 at 12:53 pm
DylanS said...
I, like everybody, believe that she is a lead in “True Grit”. But if I were a lawyer assigned to her case and forced to defend her in supporting, I would say that several of the extended sequences display her in a less prominant role, especially the scene in court with Jeff Bridges ( his first physical appearance in the film). I think you could argue that from that scene onward, Bridges becomes the film’s central character. A slanted case, but a case nonetheless, and one you really couldn’t make for “Whale Rider”
9 1-03-2011 at 1:04 pm
DylanS said...
And does the Academy really want to shoot themselves in the foot and remove the arguable favorite and only standout performance in an otherwise empty category, consider that.
10 1-03-2011 at 1:06 pm
Victor said...
I think Hailee was wonderful and she really deserves to be recognized in the right category. I feel it’s a travesty to nominate her in the supporting class only because she has a better chance at winning. That role was so much more than that. To do so feels like a cheap shot and it demeans the performance in my humble opinion.
Give the girl the recognition she deserves. Give her a chance to go against Natalie and Bening! She earned it goddamn it! You never know, she might even give them a good run for their money. If the odds are against her, big whoop, at least she was recognized in the right class. God, I really hate politics.
11 1-03-2011 at 1:15 pm
Indiana said...
I’m a little surprised that AMPAS doesn’t have an eligibility board that determines correct category placement. This type of issue happens yearly at the Tony Awards- in which a special board of the American Theatre Wing meets several times yearly to determine what they feel (despite producer submissions) is the correct lead/ supporting category for lead/ supporting
Ironically this board largely came to be as a fault of the 1990 Tonys in which 11 year old Daisy Eagan won the best supporting actress Tony for her leasing role in The Secret Garden.
12 1-03-2011 at 1:36 pm
Guy Lodge said...
“does the Academy really want to shoot themselves in the foot and remove the arguable favorite and only standout performance in an otherwise empty category, consider that”
Only if you’ll consider this: that some people, such as myself, might prefer Melissa Leo, Amy Adams, Mila Kunis and Jacki Weaver’s performances to that of Steinfeld.
13 1-03-2011 at 1:42 pm
DylanS said...
I wasn’t implying that I think the category is empty, I like Leo, Adams and Kunis a great deal, actually. I was just referring to the “consensus” being that this category is the thinnest of the four.
14 1-03-2011 at 1:52 pm
tom said...
Thinnest of the four, maybe, but only because this is the most substantial across-the-board year for performances I can remember. Even without Steinfeld, there are worthy candidates bound to be omitted from suppoting actress, like Dianne Wiest and, you know what, Lesley Manville, who’s substantially closer to supporting than Steinfeld. Maybe Sony Classics & Paramount can work some trade-off deal.
15 1-03-2011 at 1:58 pm
Duncan Houst said...
I’d be absolutely for Steinfeld heading into the Lead Actress category if she stood a chance, but she doesn’t. As much I’d love to see category justice for her, I also want to see her win for one of the best performances of the year. That’s what I’d like, and she won’t get that going up against Natalie Portman. She’s had huge successes in the Supporting Actress field. She should stay where she is already becoming the frontrunner.
16 1-03-2011 at 2:01 pm
Ella said...
Of course she’s the lead, it’s her story, she’s the narrator, and appears prominently in virtually every scene. Then again, Paramaount can do what it wants; I’m in awe of how they’ve been able to spin the “TG *almost* beats Fockers” story that most outlets have bought. I guess this is horseshoes. It’s certainly horse-something. But yeah, Hailee for lead; she’s a real find.
17 1-03-2011 at 2:05 pm
Hans said...
“Who was Keisha Castle-Hughes supposed to be supporting? The whale?”
Thank you, Dylan, for your that. I’m stuck for 3 hrs at the airport and you just made me laugh heartily.
I’m fine either way. Ryan Adams said that when he talked to her, she said she was fine with it because it’s an ensemble film in which everyone works together (that calls into question Jeff Bridges, but whatever, he’s Jeff Bridges). On the plus side for me, bumping her up to lead would open up room for Marion, anyone? Wishful thinking? Ok.
18 1-03-2011 at 2:24 pm
DylanS said...
Hans: As in “Bridges as supporting actor?”
19 1-03-2011 at 2:26 pm
Robert Hamer said...
Best Supporting Actress is not a consolation prize, Duncan; it’s a completely different kind of honor for a completely different kind of achievement. Yeah, it sucks sometimes that there’s only one female lead performance that can win an Oscar, but that’s why an Oscar is so coveted. Disrespecting actual supporting performances and encouraging dishonesty in this is not the way to honor Steinfeld. If she pulls off this absurd grab for a supporting slot, her achievement will always have an asterisk attached to it.
20 1-03-2011 at 2:28 pm
Robert Hamer said...
And what’s the deal with people describing a supporting Oscar as a “lesser” award? Trying to embody a character and perform a specific function in the story with only a few scenes can be just as difficult and is certainly as vital as carrying a film.
21 1-03-2011 at 2:28 pm
daveylow said...
I really hope Michelle Williams doesn’t get shoved out of the Best Actress category by Steinfeld.
22 1-03-2011 at 2:38 pm
Victor said...
Well said Hamer!
23 1-03-2011 at 3:06 pm
D said...
Who was Keisha Castle-Hughes supposed to be supporting? The whale?
Quality.
24 1-03-2011 at 3:19 pm
Paul Outlaw said...
Wiest, Manville, HBC, Leo, Adams, Richardson, Cotillard, K. Washington, Kunis, Hershey, Griffiths, Peet, Wasikowska, O. Williams, Scott Thomas, Tomei, to name a few: It’s not that supporting actress is thin this year, it’s that no one is paying attention and the consensus is lazy.
25 1-03-2011 at 3:27 pm
SJG said...
Am I the only person that doesn’t think Steinfeld’s performance is even worthy of a nomination at all?
My suggestion isn’t to vote for her in lead, or in supporting. My suggestion would be to vote for the more deserving candidates in each and bypass Steinfeld altogether.
I’m apparently in a small minority with that opinion, though.
26 1-03-2011 at 3:31 pm
sam said...
I was just not that blown away by her performance, it was good, but enough to win the oscar? No….. Amy adams has long deserved to win and i hope she prevails.
27 1-03-2011 at 3:38 pm
Silencio said...
Actually I’ve been feeling more lately that TG is an ensemble piece. So from that POV, I’m fine with a supporting nom. But the politics of this scenario are, in a word, lame.
28 1-03-2011 at 3:47 pm
Victor said...
Sam, I love Amy Adams! God knows I want nothing more than for her to get an Oscar. She is an amazing, impressive and inspiring actress and she is so deserving of the award. But you have to give credit where credit is due. Hailee was impressive, hands down, whether you saw that or not. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could miss that, but that’s why we have opinions. :)
Amy was robbed with her first nomination. With her second nomination, I thought she lost fair and square. If they put her against Hailee, I don’t see how Amy has a chance. It’s not that Amy didn’t do a great job, she did, but I think that Hailee had a tougher role to portray and she did it well. And I think that is because that was a lead role and not a supporting role. I don’t care what anyone says. She should be going against Natalie and Bening, not Adams and Helena. Bastards!
29 1-03-2011 at 3:56 pm
Guy Lodge said...
There’s a vast difference between a thin field and a scattered one. This year’s Best Supporting Actress race is the latter.
30 1-03-2011 at 3:57 pm
Andrew M said...
Like everyone is saying, I want Steinfeld to get into the right category, but I want to see her WIN. Seeing her in the audience as the presenter announces “Nominated for Best Actress” would be great though.
31 1-03-2011 at 4:27 pm
JJ1 said...
Well, she IS in most of the movie; more than anyone else; the narrator, etc..
That said, it is true what some have said, in that ….
she’s actually in the background for a lot of the movie, as well. i.e., watching the hangings, watching Bridges in the courtroom, letting Bridges & Damon do their thing out in the wilderness (staking out, gun shooting, etc.). Bridges does most of the talking when they’re on their horses, etc..
Furthermore, I think that the most impressive component to her performance is that she can spout impressive dialogue and come across convincing at age 13 (when filming). Otherwise, it actually isn’t a marvelous Oscar-winning portrayal, in my honest opinion.
32 1-03-2011 at 4:49 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Incidentally, if she was nominated for Best Actress, the presenter (assuming they don’t mess with the formula this time) would be Jeff Bridges. Needless to say, that’d be pretty sweet.
33 1-03-2011 at 4:52 pm
Tyler said...
If Hailee were older her performance would definitly not be generating the buzz it is now. I think its remarkable for an actress her age, but that doesn’t make her performance better than, let’s say, Jacki Weaver who oscarolgists predict will be edged out due to Hailee’s nomination. They way she acted in ‘Grit’ swas very
rehearsed and forced, not graceful at all. In some aspects it seemed extrely forced and unnatural.
Don’t get me wrong, a performance of that caliber at uch a young age is awe-inspiring, but please don’t conuse that with deserving thbe merit of an Oscar nomination.
34 1-03-2011 at 5:15 pm
JJ1 said...
What Tyler said.
35 1-03-2011 at 5:21 pm
j said...
Right now she’s tied with Leo for Supporting Actress wins.
“If she pulls off this absurd grab for a supporting slot, her achievement will always have an asterisk attached to it.”
Please look at 2002 & 2006′s winners. There’s a reason that at the Tonys nominees included “Best Leading Actress in a Musical—Chita Rivera, Gwen Verdon” & Jennifer Holliday WON the Lead Actress Tony.
36 1-03-2011 at 5:42 pm
americanrequeim said...
does anyone else feel that adams and leo being in the same field for the same movie kinda of kills both their chances? Who does that leave for the win otherwise…carter, kunis?
37 1-03-2011 at 5:42 pm
DylanS said...
Dishonest, yes, “absurd”, not necessarily. Does the name Tatum O’Neal ring a bell? I mean that one was clearly a lead performance. This isn’t anything new.
38 1-03-2011 at 5:44 pm
LexG said...
I am hoping a Hailee nomination or win will mean one thing:
A return to screen for her uncle, ’80s fitness icon Jake Steinfeld.
39 1-03-2011 at 6:03 pm
A.J said...
Stop with the Zeta-Jones and Hudson allusions. Even the Rush comparison for this year. If you had to pick one lead from Chicago it would be Zellweger from Dreamgirls it would be Knowles and for The King’s Speech it would be Firth. If you had to pick one lead from True Grit it would be Steinfeld. There really is no way to justify a supporting nomination. At least with the other ones you could say well they were supporting X.
40 1-03-2011 at 6:36 pm
Guy Lodge said...
“does anyone else feel that adams and leo being in the same field for the same movie kinda of kills both their chances?”
No, not if one performance pulls ahead of the other in terms of discussion and awards, which Leo’s — at this stage — has done. (It helps that she’s the senior actress.)
So many people make an automatic assumption that two nominees from one film will cancel each other out, but Catherine Zeta-Jones, Dianne Wiest, Jessica Lange, Meryl Streep, Tatum O’Neal, Cloris Leachman and Hattie McDaniel, among others in the Supporting Actress category, could all tell you otherwise.
41 1-03-2011 at 6:44 pm
DCist said...
I believe this is why Scarlett Johansson wasn’t nominated in 2003 for “Lost in Translation.” She had been campaigned in supporting, where everyone figured she’d show, but scored enough notices and confusion for a lead campaign that she lost out on both.
42 1-03-2011 at 7:08 pm
Rob said...
Whatever happens will happen, so be it. If she has a better chance of winning in supporting then obviously they’re going to campaign for her there; wouldn’t be the first time. Also, perhaps comparisons to her character in the John Wayne version are leading those who haven’t seen the new film yet to expect her to be a supporting character rather than the lead that Mattie Ross is portrayed as in the Coen brothers’ version. After having seen all the likely candidates for supporting actress minus Helena Bonham Carter, I’d say Hailee Steinfeld could easily win. Mila Kunis will be lucky to be nominated and while both Amy Adams and Melissa Leo were great in the Fighter, I have a hard time choosing which one I liked the best of the both and Christian Bale is more likely to receive most of the attention for that film.
43 1-03-2011 at 7:25 pm
DylanS said...
Rob: I couldn’t agree more that Adams and Leo will split simply because they both match each other and neither one pulls out ahead of the other
44 1-03-2011 at 7:26 pm
Jason said...
Natalie Portman is winning Best Actress & Amy Adams is winning Best Supporting Actress. The Academy can put Hailee Steinfeld in whichever category they want, she’s still losing!
45 1-03-2011 at 7:33 pm
JJ1 said...
I feel like Adams will eek out the win, as well. We’ll see.
46 1-03-2011 at 7:51 pm
Speaking English said...
***Adams and Leo will split simply because they both match each other and neither one pulls out ahead of the other***
So wrong. They both may match each other in terms of how good they are, but Leo’s performance is the one that stands out most.
47 1-03-2011 at 7:57 pm
JR said...
I think Steinfeld’s won already, simply by generating this much discussion! That said, IMHO, she’s clearly the lead. From the moment she haggles with Dakin Matthews (my former college English professor!), she owns that film.
The closest comparison I can make is to Jamie Foxx in Collateral, also slotted in Supporting, despite being in nearly every frame of the film. Like Steinfeld, it could be argued that his role was more reactive to Cruise’s showier role, not to mention Javier Bardem. Still, the film was all about him. I’d also argue that it was a stronger, subtler performance than Ray.
48 1-03-2011 at 8:10 pm
Marshall1 said...
I think Steinfeld is adequate in the over-praised True Grit, not amazing. My 5 finalists will be: Hershey in Black Swan, Weist in Rabbit Hole, Rebecca Hall in the Town, Adams in the fighter, and Weaver in Animal Kingdom.
49 1-03-2011 at 8:12 pm
Marshall1 said...
To me, Castle-Hughes and Anna Paquin were better when they were young in their respective roles…..not to say Steinfeld will not be good in the future if she keeps developing her acting skills….
50 1-03-2011 at 8:13 pm
DylanS said...
I like the mention for Rebecca Hall, that’s also in my personal five.
51 1-03-2011 at 8:14 pm
DylanS said...
JR: Also Ethan Hawke in “Training Day”, he’s clearly the central character in that film and has more screen-time then best actor winner Denzel.
52 1-03-2011 at 8:19 pm
Rashad said...
Hailee gave the most authentic, charming, and endearing female performance of the year. Age has nothing to do with it.
53 1-03-2011 at 8:36 pm
Aaron said...
I’m not the best person to comment on this post since I unfortunately haven’t seen True Grit yet, but I really don’t want her to be placed in lead because she will ultimately knock out Michelle Williams for best actress—like I said, I haven’t seen Steinfeld yet, but I have a hard time imagining that she could match the emotional depth and complexity Williams displayed in Blue Valentine. I’m hoping the actors actually watch BV, because I simply just can’t imagine them watching it and not putting Gosling and Williams on their ballot.
54 1-03-2011 at 8:49 pm
Nathaniel R said...
the most depressing thing about this whole “controversy” is that wherever she’s nominated she knocks out someone FAR more deserving. All because people love teen actresses and precocious characters.
the second most depressing thing is that “critics” who are supposed to be judging the art of movies and not playing Oscar politics, keep playing Oscar politics, like they’re part of the Academy and not, well, critics.
55 1-03-2011 at 9:51 pm
Glenn said...
Someone once said that if you can’t condense a movie’s plot down to one sentence without mentioning a character then they are lead. You can’t condense the plot of “True Grit” down to one sentence without the focus being on Steinfeld’s character. You can’t do that to “The Reader”, “Whale Rider”, “Collateral” either.
56 1-03-2011 at 10:31 pm
Paul Outlaw said...
I like that explanation, Glenn. As far as Dreamgirls goes, that would make all three ladies lead (or supporting, if you look at it as an ensemble piece). It makes Rush in The King’s Speech lead, too. (Ditto for Ruffalo in TKAAR and possibly Bale in The Fighter.)
57 1-03-2011 at 11:44 pm
The Great Dane said...
It’s probably the Brit vote that pushed Winslet into the lead category (where she had already been placed by BAFTA). In the US she was considered supporting, so I think it comes more down to the Brits rallying behind her than the Academy at large thinking “we don’t buy the campaign”.
58 1-03-2011 at 11:52 pm
The Great Dane said...
Thankfully I see that others also remember the Jamie Foxx category fraud, the biggest category fraud of all time (except child performances). Like Training Day, it was about getting enough nominations, and Ethan Hawke was more of a lead in Training Day than Denzel Washington – but Washington was the “star”.
Tom Cruise was the “star” in Collateral, but the whole movie was about Jamie Foxx and he had double the screen time of Cruise. And it was also to avoid messing with Foxx’s “Ray” performance. He was great in Collateral, but that he received a Supporting nomination for it and stole a true supporting slot from someone who actually deserved to be in the category is the one category fraud I will never forgive the Academy.
I really believe it should be like the Globes. The Academy should put out a list of actors who are lead in every film released in the year. All not listed = supporting. There should be a couple of weeks for studios to apply for a category change, and it should be decided in each case if a change would be justified.
I can’t blame Foxx himself for that nomination. It’s the voters who went for it. Can’t believe they saw the film and thought “great supporting turn”. He was the only true lead in what wasn’t even an ensemble piece to begin with! Grrrr…
59 1-04-2011 at 12:08 am
/3rtfu11 said...
A statuette is a statuette regardless of the title attached. I hate the term “category ghetto” in reference to Oscar categories which aren’t seen as valid to the top five – Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay. Yes, I know this post is about “category fraud” but people want an excuse to bitch about The Oscars. There’s something about perceived miscarriage of justice at The Academy Awards that just adds to the texture and weight of the whole thing.
60 1-04-2011 at 6:01 am
parker said...
Let’s not forget Keisha Castle-Hughes had the advantage of very few Best Actress contenders back in ’03, leaving her plenty of room to move up.
This year, not so much.
61 1-04-2011 at 6:14 am
JJ1 said...
I also think that Steinfeld, while very good, would not be on the level of the 5 or 6 other women contending for Lead, no less Julianne Moore.
In Supporting (cat. fraud), she’d make it in fine; though, maybe a Weist or Weaver or Hershey or Manville or whoever else should be in the 5 there, too.
On my ballot, I have her Lead, and 9th.
In Supporting, I guess I’d have her somewhere 8th? I just don’t think that however great she was, she was more impressive than other women, this year.
62 1-04-2011 at 6:21 am
Maxim said...
There is nothing more ridiculous than seeing people go out of their way to argue that Hailee is NOT a lead.
Posts like “well if I had to defend it…” are just dumb. Like /3rtfu11 level stupid. You can similarlee marginalized every perfromance in history. Stop it. Hailee is as much of a lead as is anyone in the film. And she’s amazing. End of story.
63 1-04-2011 at 7:35 am
thebizkey said...
The way I see it, there is only one issue at hand, and that is the issue of where she can win. That is the top priority of the studio behind the film, I can assure you. If pushed for a nomination in lead, Steinfeld most likely would not win there. If she even got in. She’s young. And new. And sometimes that works against actors.
If pushed for a nod in the supporting category, however, there she’d have an excellent shot at winning. And that kind of thinking happens to the supporting category all the time. Over the years, its’ been filled with lead or co-lead performances like these supporting winners: Walter Matthau for THE FORTUNE COOKIE, Tatum O’Neal for PAPER MOON, George Burns for THE SUNSHINE BOYS, Tim Hutton for ORDINARY PEOPLE, Jessica Lange for TOOTSIE, Haing S. Ngor for THE KILLING FIELDS, Kevin Spacey for THE USUAL SUSPECTS, Juliette Binoche for THE ENGLISH PATIENT, Benicio Del Toro for TRAFFIC, Catherine Zeta-Jones for CHICAGO, Javier Bardem for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and last year’s Christoph Waltz for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Some are more arguable than others on whether or not their role is a lead or not, but all the examples listed had a heck of a lot more screen time than a typical supporting performance. And all of these were nominated in lead categories in some other award show or on critic’s lists.
The Tim Hutton example illustrates the thinking perfectly. He was clearly the lead role, the one whom everyone’s story swirled around, in Robert Redford’s film in 1980. But his chances of beating Robert DeNiro for RAGING BULL that year in the lead actor category were very slim. Hutton was new. And young. And DeNiro gave a seminal performance. Thus, Hutton was pushed into the supporting category where he had a better shot at winning an Oscar. And he did. Now, do you think he’d rather have the nomination in lead or the win in supporting?
One can argue whether Steinfeld is the lead or co-lead in TRUE GRIT. But hers is in no way a supporting performance. But where she can win, well, that’s a different matter. She can win in supporting. And an Oscar win, no matter where it is, is better than a loss.
64 1-04-2011 at 7:47 am
Maxim said...
That’s all good and well ,of course, but that doesn’t solve the issue that many of us would like to see people placed in the right category regardless of their chances of winning and other politics.
65 1-04-2011 at 8:01 am
thebizkey said...
But who determines that, Maxim? A select panel? Critics? The studio? And what of a performance like Waltz’? Not so easy to place, no matter who’s called upon to make that decision. On one hand, he’s got more screen time than anyone else in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, but is the film itself, and therefore the role, part of an ensemble piece? Tough questions to answer. And ones that are likely not to be answered adequately by anyone. And thus, the rules won’t be changed. Heck, the Academy won’t even include a stunt category, which makes a helluva lot more sense than the awful best song category, because of the toes it steps on, so don’t hold your breath waiting for the injustices of the supporting category to be corrected by the Academy. Just applaud when Steinfeld wins her supporting gold!
66 1-04-2011 at 8:09 am
Maxim said...
I have an opinion on how such things should be resolved but I’ll keep it to myself as I doubt it would be much of revelation to anyone here.
Nevertheless, I’ll say that while there are some definite gray area characters, Hailee’s isn’t one of them. So I’ll just say that in cases like hers there should be no ambiquity and the decisions should not be politically motivated.
I’ll always applaud for the perfromances that have touched me regardless I guess but I’ll insist that winning or not winning is a sepatate issue altogether from how to determine where one should be placed and it would be nice if, like in the a perfect world, it wasn’t considered at the time the placement is decided.
67 1-04-2011 at 12:20 pm
thebizkey said...
Agree with everything you just said, Maxim. In a perfect world, you know?
68 1-04-2011 at 2:10 pm
Marv said...
@ JR
I agree about Foxx’s role in “Collateral being a stronger, subtler one than in “Ray.” Probrably actually should have ommitted “The Ray performance in lieu of his “Collateral” one.
Now back to Steinfeld. In my opionion she is cleary the lead. But is there really any hard and fast rule (just going by prior history of nomianations) as to what defines a lead or supporting performance?
Hell! You could argue that Kate Winslett stole an Oscar from Meryl Streep for “The Reader” because she was in the wrong catergory.
69 1-04-2011 at 2:41 pm
/3rtfu11 said...
“Like /3rtfu11 level stupid.”
OMG you’re still thinking about me? I must get your dick hard.