During last night’s DVD release party for “The Social Network” I ended up in a spirited debate with producer Scott Rudin about the category placement of Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit.” Thankfully it went beyond ideas of the Hollywood star system and strategy and into the philosophy of the narrative itself.
Since it’s been such a point of discussion as of late (most recently in a heated debate between yours truly and Anne Thompson in this week’s Oscar Talk), I thought I’d pass along his reasoning for thinking the performance a supporting one. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind, so here goes…
In a nutshell, Rudin’s argument (and it’s the smartest one I’ve heard in favor of supporting placement yet), is the idea that the Mattie Ross character is really the impetus for change in Rooster Cogburn’s character. And, most importantly, she doesn’t have an arc, Rudin says, while Cogburn does. He changes, she doesn’t. So Mattie is the instigator. It’s an interesting point, but I’m still not buying it.
(SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD)
For starters, we begin the movie and end it with Mattie. Rudin noted that that doesn’t necessarily matter, and I would agree if not for the fact that “True Grit” is her story. Think of those words: “true grit.” They’re meant to describe Rooster Cogburn’s ruthless Marshaling ways, but in reality, they define Mattie’s stalwartness, perhaps more definitively. To say nothing of the fact that without her and her situation, you wouldn’t have a narrative.
To that, Rudin was quick to note examples like “Paper Moon” and “The Last Detail,” that the protagonists of those films are the Ryan O’Neal and Jack Nicholson characters respectively. No argument there, but Cogburn doesn’t dovetail with those examples, in my opinion. We get no closure for the character. And, I’d argue, the arc isn’t that substantial, either. After all, from the moment Mattie crosses that river, he’s endeared to her. We see it in his eye when he pulls that sidearm on La Boeuf. Sure he wavers in the midst of an alcoholic haze here and there, but I don’t think he ever truly switches gears back. So it’s less of a journey of change for Rooster, I think. The movie itself is very much about the natural course of things rather than dramatic change and growth. It’s about the elusiveness of the former, really.
I still think it’s a lead performance through and through, but it was great to spar with Rudin on the matter. He’s a charming, brilliant guy and he clearly loves movies and what he does. That’s what I took away from the conversation most of all.
Anyone care to argue with the gentleman? Have at it.
[Photo: Paramount Pictures]
Comments
85 responses to “Rudin’s reasoning for Steinfeld in supporting”
I don’t buy it, either.
But if I were to think of any way that she’d be Supporting, it would be that she’s very often an observer.
i.e., at the hangings, in the courtroom, while Bridges & Damon spar, while staking out in the wilderness, Bridge’s shoot-outs, etc..
But again, I still don’t buy it, and neither did the Brits. Makes one think.
Nah. She’s a lead or a co-lead. Every role in history can be marginalized. Hamlet is not a lead, but is there to reveal the bigger, story, setting, etc.
It’s all BS.
Rudin is conflating the ideas of a leading role and a protagonist. He’s making an argument why Rooster and not Mattie is the protagonist. Buy it or not (I don’t, but it’s an arguable point) Mattie is still a leading role along with Cogburn.
I could go either way on this. It’s not like it’s clear-cut. Yes, the movie is about Mattie; it begins and ends with Mattie; she’s in almost every scene. But she is no longer the dominating force in the second half of the movie. She is mainly an observer; and honestly, her role for much of the film’s running time is as the child-in-peril, where she literally asks “what do we do?” every few minutes. I could go either way, but what surprises me is that folks can vehemently argue one way or the other.
Since when does a character face changes in order to be consider as a lead?
I really don’t think its an OMG category fraud like others are screaming. Supporting is just fine, she wasn’t as impactful as Bridges and she was the observer to this tale and the catalyst, but you can’t say she was the meat of it.
In essence she is narrating a story about this man she met, and how she met him and what was their parting like.
Sherlock’s stories are all narrated by and begin and end with Watson. And his being a first person account he is present at the events he describes and even takes part in them. But they are Sherlock’s stories.
I have no problem at all with Steinfeld being supporting and don’t think its something to cry over either.
Started reading the article then stopped to ask: is this spoilerific?
I would argue with Rudin that we do see how Mattie Ross changes because of her relationship with Rooster; and La Boef: she may be a passive observer for much of the central action of the second act of the storytelling, but the framing device of the film showing Mattie as a grown woman clearly shows how the events of the unfolding story changed and patterned her life afterwards.
If we’re defining protagonist as the character who “drives the story” through his/her actions, then there’s no question Mattie Ross is the protagonist (and main character) of True Grit. I would argue it’s Hailee Steinfeld’s age that works against her in the her in the Best Actress category. Timothy Hutton, who was 20 when he won the Supporting Actor Oscar for Ordinary People, was undoubtedly the protagonist of that film but went the supporting route and it paid off. Keisha-Castle Hughes went for lead Actress for Whale Rider and lost. Younger actors just don’t fare well in lead categories. I see this as a smart political move on Steinfeld’s part.
Oh please. Not the dominating force in the second half?? SPOILERS The whole ending is about how she gets bitten by a snake and loses her arm and then waits decades to see Cogburn and make amends… all while narrating. She’s even the one who shoots Josh Brolin. The whole arc is about her learning the cost of revenge and the cycle of violence. Yes, she DOES have an arc.
There are two leads in this film: Mattie and Cogburn. It’s about their relationship. Period. And I’d argue that placing Cogburn as supporting would be less fraudulent since he’s at least not the narrator of the film, with whom we begin and end the story (but that would never happen, since he’s played by Jeff Bridges). Any rationalization of Mattie Ross as a supporting character is just strategic finagling by the studio. If Steinfeld were 5 years older and/or a bigger star, and/or the supporting race were less crowded than the lead one, there would be no issue here.
This Rudin argument smacks of reverse rationalization wherein one decides on a course of action and then finds ways to justify it, not unlike the underhanded tactics used in other areas of business or politics. Can anyone seriously say with a straight face that if Mattie Ross were a 20-year-old played by, say, Natalie Portman, that there’d be any discussion of supporting at all? Heck, this is practically the same story as Winter’s Bone, except Jennifer Lawrence is campaigned as a lead because…
A) her performance is stronger
B) she’s old enough to vote
C) she doesn’t star opposite a famous male star
Really I only blame the critics awards bodies that are legitimizing this, though. Why shouldn’t the studio be dishonest if they can get away with it? Thankfully, the HFPA and BAFTA people aren’t buying it, and I think there’s a significant portion of the academy that won’t either.
I would have more respect for Rudin had he just came out and said “Look Kris, I get it. But she stands a really good chance at winning Supporting Actress. I have two horses in this BP race and True Grit’s best and probably only chance is with Hailee. This is all off the record, right?”
Kinda/sorta, Hans. Nothing plot-wise, really, but it’s worth putting up a warning, I suppose.
narrator=/=lead character, not always.
Take Days Of Heaven, its narrated by the girl but she doesn’t take part in the movie’s central drama. Infact probably everybody in that movie is supporting, the leading character is the landscape. :)
In Shane, Shane enters the story obliquely and departs it without resolution to his character but he is the protagonist, one does not need to be in every frame to be a protagonist.
I do agree that in case of True Grit, Cogburn and Mattie both are the ‘lead characters’. But Bridges makes a much bigger impact according to me and therefore seems more of a lead than Steinfeld.
Sometimes it what you can do with your screen-time that can dictate whether people remember you as leading or supporting. A passive lead character can be said to be supporting and an aggressive supporting character can be said to be leading, this happens all the time.
@10 I think that Jennifer Lawrence comparison is ridiculously ungrounded in narrative reality.
This is A LOT closer to calling Hawke supporting in Training Day or Foxx in Collateral or McAvoy in Last King of Scotland – they have more screen time and sit at the heart of the narrative but the movie isn’t really about their character as much as it is about the dominant force in their life.
Here’s what I don’t get – why does it really matter? I think Steinfeld was fantastic and if it takes supporting to get her a nod (a likely concession) then I’m all for it.
Loyal: I don’t think he feels that way, though. I confronted him on that, too, with a, “Come on. You saw that lead actress was tight and you went with supporting.” But he seemed to think lead would have been easier, he said (though I’m not sure how).
I think he makes fair points here. But like I said, they don’t sway me, personally.
Bernard: It’s not that it “matters,” per se. It’s an interesting discussion about the narrative of the film and this debate is simply driving that discussion.
I was actually expecting him to offer something like how Hailee only played the young Mattie and hence was merely a piece of the Mattie Ross character, like Saorsie Ronan in Atonement, for example. Since it was not Hailee narrating and acting out the end, which contained the real catharsis for Mattie, she was not the lead the way the whole Mattie Ross was the lead. That argument I could sort of see even though I don’t buy it since we’re really just talking about 5-10 of screentime at the end.
red_wine: Fine and good, but I don’t think this is Cogburn’s story. I think it is Mattie’s.
That’s a fair point Kris – guess I just wouldn’t mind seeing her work recognized regardless of category.
“And, most importantly, there is the fact that she doesn’t have an arc, while he does. He changes, she doesn’t, Rudin says. So Mattie is the instigator.”
So does Rudin think that supporting characters can’t be supporting; or that lead characters can’t be static?
I know convention says the opposite, but each story has the opportunity to be different by having the story run through certain characters.
“I would argue with Rudin that we do see how Mattie Ross changes because of her relationship with Rooster; and La Boef…”
The last part there is key, I think, Indiana. I charged back with, “She changes,” but Rudin doesn’t think so. And I can understand how it could easily be argued that she is in the end who she is at the beginning, but that’s personality, to me.
Throughout the film, we see Mattie’s coming-of-age. We see, in regards to La Beouf, “awakening romantic longing,” as I put it in my review. To me, we see her life change, even if we don’t see her disposition change.
And I want to reiterate that, at this point, it’s not like I’m up in arms at the campaign. It is what it is. She’ll get nominated and potentially even win in supporting, and that’s great. I’m just talking creatively and philosophically about the narrative at this point.
“I see this as a smart political move on Steinfeld’s part.”
Not her call.
honestly, I say let’s take her out of the awards conversation all together. Come back in a few years with some experience down and then maybe she will deserve it – but this was hardly a revelatory performance, regardless of the category it is placed in (IMHO.)
Bernard, I don’t think it’s unfounded at all. Both stories are about teenagers being forced into settling their dead/missing fathers’ affairs, since no one else in the family is willing or able to do so. Both enlist help. Both grow and change somewhat. Both succeed, but at a cost. I think the Teardrop and Cogburn characters are quite similar, though yes, Cogburn is a much more dominant presence.
The main difference is that we spend much more time alone and/or in closeup with Lawrence than we do with Mattie, and that there’s not a clear second lead in Lawrence’s case, but those are not dealbreakers narratively. They are both protagonists in relatively similar stories.
And YES, I heartily agree that Steinfeld’s situation is just like the Ethan Hawke, Jamie Foxx and James McAvoy situations, but here’s the thing: THOSE WERE FRAUDULENT, TOO. Just because a character is passive does not make him a non-lead role.
Yeah, to be fair and frank, its an expert performance and film serving but also slightly bland. Certainly not as colorful and personality driven as Bridges’ exemplary work here.
People often confuse whether they love the character or the performance. Same was the case with Shosanna in Inglorious Basterds, same is the case with Mattie in True Grit.
I feel in love with both the characters, not the performances. I love both films but would not nominate either lady if it were in my hand.
Spoilerific…
She absolutely has an arc: from starting off believing firmly that all bad deeds are avenged in time, to mucking up her first shot, pulling it off at random and knocking herself in a snake pit on the next try, and finally admitting in the end that “time just gets away from us.” That image of Chaney eternally escaping her as Cogburn’s riding her to help is one of the saddest of the year for me: she didn’t even get to see the body, and this formative moment in her life is about to end with her passed out in a hospital, waking up to never see her two companions again. Her righteousness doesn’t fade, but her faith in the romantic storytelling she seems so fond of in her early narration is certainly lost forever. Lead!
It’s like arguing the sky isn’t blue. If they’re going to keep moving lead performers into the supporting category, then the category itself loses all meaning and inherent value. They might as well just scrap the “BEST SUPPORTING” category and have “BEST LEAD PERFORMANCE ‘A’” and “BEST LEAD PERFORMANCE ‘B’”
And though I totally do think she changes, I’d also counter the argument of “it’s a passive character” and “she doesn’t change” with: “Really? If we spend a whole film with someone who just passively stands there and remains unchanged, then what exactly is award-worthy about the performance?” Since I happen to think it is, indeed, a pretty solid but not award-worthy lead performance.
red_wine, there are stories where Watson can not only be considered a co-lead but is pretty much THE lead.
The Hound of Baskervielles immediately comes to mind.
P.S. This conversation is null because we all know that had it been someone more experienced she would be campainged in lead. Thus the politics dectated the placement. Thus it is NULL.
That said, and while I’d be delighted to see her get nominated in lead, I’m kind of with Anne: everything in the marketing and even the credits has been selling True Grit as a three dudes and “introducing the very special” HS kind of movie: putting her in supporting might misrepresent the role, but it’s consistent with the star tier the film has been running with so far.
Oh, and by the way, one can argue that Juno is not the lead of Juno since by the end of it, her character has more of an impact on Garner’s chatacter’s life then vice versa. By the end she just goes back to her old life (But… for it… that’s exactly what a true lead does). And that’s also one of the reasons why I hated the movie’s ending so.
@qwiggles – My question would be “since when does the marketing of a film have any relation to the integrity of the narrative or the plain truth therein”?
Adam – that’s fair on Hawke, Foxx, McAvoy, I appreciate the consistency. I actually agree with you on the way these roles should be considered but was more bringing up precedent than anything else. There’s a long tradition of the dominant ‘force’ in a movie, regardless of if their the protagonist or not, getting lead billing.
I agree with you that Winter’s Bone and True Grit’s female leads share narrative similarities, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the ‘bulk’ of the performance. I think you can make a case for Steinfeld for supporting – I don’t think you could ever say the same about Lawrence. I believe Lawrence ‘carries’ the movie in a way Steinfeld is never required to as she has fantastic actors to play off of in nearly every scene while Lawrence spends a good deal of time as the dominant presence on screen.
Honestly I think this may come back to bite the campaign, since neither the HFPA nor BAFTA allowed her into the supporting ranks. One could argue that SAG only did so because they accept every placement no matter what. The same people who nominated her for supporting at SAG may well switch it up and put her in lead where they really think she belongs.
I think there’s about a 50% chance she shows up in supporting, a 30% chance that she splits her vote and misses both categories, and a 20% or so chance that she pulls a Keisha and actually gets the 5th best actress slot.
Adam, I believe I read that a category splitting vote is a myth and that all her votes are counted in the category where she has the most support.
I can at least agree with the argument because I subscribe to a similar understanding of The Shawshank Redemption. In my estimation, that film may revolve around Andy Dufresne, but it’s really about Red, and on the point the Academy seemed to agree. True Grit revolves around Mattie Ross in her role as an instigator, but it’s really about the arc of Rooster Cogburn. I think that a supporting nomination would befit her role more appropriately, as well as give Melissa Leo and Amy Adams a run for their money.
John: It doesn’t. But I’m not talking about the integrity of the narrative there — I’ve already argued she’s the lead in that respect — so much as the integrity of the campaign. And it’s more than the campaign, besides: I’ve never liked seeing debuting actors listed last in credits, after lesser roles, but the Coens do it here, right on-screen.
Actually now I’m pretty sure I just stated that exactly wrong – so ignore what I said on the voting.
http://incontention.com/2011/01/03/category-justice-or-precarious-situation-for-steinfeld/
But see how you even called them “female leads”? That because they’re leads. I do think there’s a difference between being a lead and carrying a film. The difference generally has to do with how much help the lead is getting from other actors. But if Steinfeld’s performance had been bad or unbelievable, the film would’ve have worked, since she’s our whole entry point.
I just get very worked up about this since to me, it seems a simple true vs. false situation. Sometimes it really is open to interpretation, like with Lesley Manville. But this one’s pretty clear cut. Calling a Steinfeld supporting is disrespectful to supporting actors, the integrity of the awards process, and even to Steinfeld herself. Frankly, if I were her and I had to go onstage and accept an award for Best Supporting Actress, I’d feel humiliated and like I was living a lie.
Mattie Ross is not just and instigator or catalyst. You cannot have the movie without her character. She is a lead who happens to have a co-lead.
Even’s in Coen’s mind, there’s a reason why the kept referring to it as not a Western but a juvenile action adventure. It is clear as it it clear in the movie that they care more about her chatacter than Rooser and that makes the friggin film.
Bernard, I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure they just count your votes in each category separately. It’s certainly simpler that way.
I’m surprised more of the staunch Steinfeld-as-lead boosters haven’t raised an eyebrow over Bridges as lead. He has less screen time and no narration or closure, and as Kris points out, if his supposed arc is coming to respect Mattie, then it’s concluded about 20 minutes into the movie.
Adam you’re 100% right – I already posted another comment with a link that needed moderation so it hasn’t appeared yet
Bernard: It’s not really a myth. It’s math. If suddenly people are deciding to vote in lead rather than supporting, that pulls away and dilutes her support in the latter, potentially allowing another performance to steal a spot there and leaving her out in the cold with lead.
Very possible.
Now, it does say on the acting ballot that if you are confused, vote for the performance in both categories. But I don’t think anyone really does that.
Oh, just saw that, Bernard. Sorry.
I had a thought. I know that a person cannot be nominated in both categories but is there a rule that specifically forbids people from voting for her in both categories?
See comment #45, Maxim.
As one of those staunch Seinfeld-as-lead boosters, I say this: I wouldn’t really mind Bridges being supporting, since I think there’s gray area, but since he’s Jeff Bridges, they’re obviously going lead. I think it’s a better placement for him than supporting, but it could sort of go either way.
The thing is: when you’re a semi-supporting “co-lead” character and you’re able to make enough of an impression on people to have them vote for you over film-carrying star turns, good for you. The perf was obviously memorable. One can argue that if the role was THAT dominant and memorable, it’s a lead role by default, or can at least be given the benefit of the doubt. This happened with Nicole Kidman and Anthony Hopkins among others. It’s a gamble, but at least it’s not fundamentally unfair to the other actors in the race.
In the reverse situation, wherein a co-lead (or in this case, an out-and-out lead, which is even worse) hijacks the supporting category, it puts actual supporting roles at a huge disadvantage, punishing them for simply being what they are: smaller roles. It’s like a heavyweight competing in the middleweight field. In addition to being disingenuous, it’s just not fair.
Talk about writing too late. Just saw something that answered my question above.