Like last year, this year’s Best Supporting Actress race was a free-for-all when it came to the last spot. Potential category confusion almost had two spots up for grabs. And there was absolutely no shortage of possible spoilers once the BAFTA had spoken up with a slate of formidable possibilities.
And great work was still left off the ballot. Mila Kunis was on track to score, but ultimately fell short. Veterans Barbara Hershey and Miranda Richardson seemed to be making a play for recognition, too. In the end, an early campaign made all the difference for one indie contender, while another young hopeful managed to keep her grip in the supporting ranks despite giving a lead performance.
The nominees are:
Amy Adams, “The Fighter”
Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”
Melissa Leo, “The Fighter”
Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit”
Jacki Weaver, “Animal Kingdom”
Unlike last year, however, this field anything but decided. The neck-and-neck nature of the race will naturally make it one of the most interesting ones to follow throughout the second phase of the awards season. And for the most part, it’s difficult to argue with this field.
Amy Adams wasn’t at the top of too many lists going into the season, if only because word was that her co-star, Melissa Leo, had a juicier role and stole the show. But ultimately what we got out of Adams in “The Fighter” was something we’ve never seen before, and a head-spinning portrayal as a result. Eschewing her bright-eyed good-girl persona for a tough-as-nails Lowell bartender with a heart of gold, the actress couldn’t have been more surprising. Racking up her third nomination in just five years, Adams has proven her range with this performance, one that actually outshines her co-star if only because she gives what could have been merely a plot device character a natural complexity and a vigorous hidden spirit. I’d keep my eye on her for a potential shock on Oscar night.
One film that clearly had the Academy’s heart this year was “The King’s Speech,” which hauled in 12 nominations across the board. One of them has been considered a good bet since day one, perhaps less due to the merit of the work than the expected coattail ride on a front-running contender. But what Helena Bonham Carter does in the film really shouldn’t be undercut by the realities of an awards season. She adds a delicate humor and balance to the piece and provides, in fact, an emotional anchor for Colin Firth’s King George VI that is hardly a phoned-in portrayal. Not every performance is meant to be breathless, after all, and the grace of simplicity is as difficult to master as the usual intense emoting that earns accolades. As a result of love for the film, she could be a spoiler.
The frontrunner going into the race is clearly Melissa Leo, who flies off the rails in “The Fighter” in such a way that demands attention and tends to earn awards. It’s a showy performance which chews the scenery, but the irony is Leo (and the other actors tasked with portraying colorful characters) actually held back a bit. The Ward family is actually MUCH more colorful. But Leo has lapped up a Critics’ Choice Movie Award and a Golden Globe already. She may well take the SAG prize, too. But even that kind of haul wouldn’t seal the deal, I think. There are a lot of textures to this race, and one of them is the idea that Amy Adams could pull attention away from Leo as the circuit moves forward. Nevertheless, the safest place to put your chips is right here.
There was a lingering possibility going into this year’s nominations announcement that Hailee Steinfeld would receive enough lead actress votes to either land her in that category or divide her potential altogether, leaving her out of the mix. Thankfully she made it, even if it’s in the wrong category. In “True Grit,” this first-timer really lit up the screen opposite some of the industry’s most respected actors. She commanded unique language and cranked out a persona of unflinching justice and honor, giving a fully realized portrayal that felt entirely authentic. As a result, and considering the healthy nomination haul for the film, I think she could be a spoiler to watch for on Oscar night. To say nothing of the fact that she drives so much of the film, she simply makes for one of the best narratives of the season.
Rounding out the category is the spot which seemed to be up for grabs. Ultimately it was Jacki Weaver who nailed it down for her eerie portrayal of a mild-mannered Lady McBeth in the Aussie drama “Animal Kingdom.” Weaver’s campaign got off on the right foot as the film was one of the first screeners to hit voters’ doorsteps. She pulled off a National Board of Review win at the start of the season and boy, those T-shirts were all the rage. It’s understandable why actors gravitated to her work as the subtlety is intriguing and the character is fascinating. But I never felt that Weaver lifted it off the page and gave it a life that wasn’t already inherent. Nevertheless, who could begrudge her her success? She’s in the club now after working hard for years, but the nomination will likely be her reward.
Will win: Melissa Leo, “The Fighter”*
Could win: Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit”
Should win: Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit”
Should have been here: Lesley Manville, “Another Year”
Check out my current rankings for this race at its dedicated Contenders page here.
Who do you think deserves to win the award for Best Supporting Actress? Have your say in today’s sidebar poll!
*This prediction updated 2/24/2011.
[Photos: Sony Pictures Classics, Paramount Pictures]
Comments
129 responses to “OSCAR GUIDE: Best Supporting Actress”
Will Win: Melissa Leo
Could Win: Hailee Steinfeld
Should Win: Hailee Steinfeld
If I ran the Oscars:
Barbara Hershey, Black Swan
Mila Kunis, Black Swan
Melissa Leo, The Fighter
Jackie Weaver, Animal Kingdom
Olivia Williams, The Ghost Writer
@ Dylan
Totally agree. Weaver was great as a supporting player, but Mendelsohn was electrifying.
Steinfeld should have competed in Lead but screwing her over because she was voted by other people into supporting category isn’t right either.
I’m rooting for two women. Helena Bonham Carter and Melissa Leo since both women have a previous failed Best Actress bin – I can’t see Leo winner making much difference in her career overall but it could and will for Bonham Carter who hasn’t been on anyone’s radar in quite awhile.
Amy Adams is playing Janis Joplin – this is why I don’t want her to win in this category. If she were always supporting actress then fine give it to her now. But she’s young enough that they won’t mind giving it to her for lead once she breaks through into that category. Look at Michelle Williams now.
This is indeed a very exciting race. I’ve been pulling for Amy Adams since day one, warning all those riding the Melissa Leo train to not count her out and the result, she earns an equal nomination every step of the way. Given that it has gone to Leo as of late, it would be awful to begrudge her this last achievement. However, I agree that Adams has that capability.
While I loved Steinfeld’s peformance, it is very much Oscar’s practice to deny the prize to young new-comers, so I’m going to stick with that.
Finally, Jacki Weaver’s performance is nothing short of stunning. If it weren’t for the small nature of Animal Kingdom, I would say she is a shoe-in, but I think you’re right Kris, in saying the Award for her will be the nomination.
I don’t really have much to say on Helena Bonham-Carter’s performance, other than it doesn’t bode will to poo-poo recognition for your performance.
Jacki Weaver is this year’s villainous supporting acting winner after Javier Bardem, Heath Ledger and Christoph Waltz
I agree: Jacki Weaver could win.
Keith (#47) makes a certain sense. Rules are rules, after all, and that’s the title of the category. It’s not like I’d give Aaron Rodgers a Cy Young just because I think he’s the best person in the world at throwing a ball.
Will win: Amy Adams, “The Fighter”
Could win: Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”
Should win: Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”
Should have been here: Lesley Manville, “Another Year”
I’ll stick with Bonham Carter due to split votes between Leo and Adams… Plus her simple yet affecting performance for TKS…
I also think Steinfeld can pull off a win for the love in True Grit, but are they ready to give an Oscar to a young actress? And I agree with the one who commented that she should be in Lead Actress category therefore the Academy should vote for a REAL supporting role…
Just a comment in favour of Helena Bonham Carter: I agree with Kris that she provides an emotional anchor for Firth’s portrayal, and I’d add (as a Brit) that she makes for a very plausible young Queen Mum-to-be. I don’t think she’ll win this year, but I wouldn’t have a problem with it if she did.
“I don’t get taking the category fraud thing so far as to begrudge someone a win. Let’s say the best performance of the year, in your opinion, is a lead. And it’s nominated for supporting. So you would deny that performance an Oscar simply because it was placed in the wrong category?”
Yes, yes I would. They are entirely different accomplishments, and to say otherwise – in my opinion – displays an enormous amount of disrespect for the types of performances that are supposed to be competing in that category.
I agree that these things can be subjective (Mark Ruffalo, Christian Bale, etc.), but you don’t even think Mattie Ross is a supporting character, so why even bring up that argument? Some frauds are so blatant that they are evident to just about anyone who isn’t cowtowing to Oscar politics, and that kind of dishonesty (which I realize is not Steinfeld’s fault, but Paramount’s) should not be rewarded.
The Steinfeld issue is simple with me. I don’t find her “Supporting”. I was really impressed with her performance, though. And she’s in my personal Top 10 for Lead (in 10th).
Though, she impressed, I think Portman, Bening, Moore, Kidman, Williams, Swinton, Emma Stone, Lawrence, and Kim (“Mother”) gave better performances.
So the idea of her winning in Supporting – and it very well may happen – will be a slight bummer for me. Adams, Leo, HBC … they gave great supporting performances in my mind.
On an upnote, I think Steinfeld is talented and cute as a button. And far worse people have won in the past (lead, supporting).
Will win: Steinfeld
Could win: Leo
Should win: Steinfeld
Should have been here: Barbara Hershey, Miranda Richardson, Blake Lively.
I chose not to choose Steinfeld on the sidebar because she deserves Lead.
I really want Helena Bonham Carter to pull off an upset and take this home. I’m not betting on it, but attention could be divided between Adams/Leo/Weaver/Steinfeld, whereas I wager HBC has smaller but unwavering support.
She’s been criminally underrated throughout her career, and this win would be a bit of justice for a sensational talent.
I’d also argue that Weaver’s performance doesn’t do much to expand an inherently interesting character, but I’d say that Ben Mendelsohn’s work in the same film does exactly that — he reaches some unsettling heights.
Out of the selected five, I think I’d go with Leo, but my overall choice for the category would be either Kunis or Fanning.
Kel D:
Yeah… but I’d say Jeremy Renner in The Town keeps that tradition alive stronger.
Will win: Melissa Leo, The Fighter.
Could win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit.
Should win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit.
Should have been here: Mia Wasikowska, The Kids Are All Right.
I’m glad to finally read some support for Helena Bonham Carter. I thought she was spot on, subtle, affecting, very believable as the young version of the Queen Mum (the way she carried herself) and perfectly calibrated emotionally. Plus she’s been sensational before, esp. in her previous nominated performance “Wings of a Dove”. However, Leo, Adams and Steinfeld are all deserving – and I still need to see Weaver.
“I don’t get taking the category fraud thing so far as to begrudge someone a win. Let’s say the best performance of the year, in your opinion, is a lead. And it’s nominated for supporting. So you would deny that performance an Oscar simply because it was placed in the wrong category?”
Umm, yeah. Because the award is for Best SUPPORTING actress. Even if she was that much better than everyone else in the category (which she isn’t by any means), she has like 2 hours of screentime in her movie to show her stuff while the other actresses have like 30 minutes? That’s just an unfair comparison and it shouldn’t be rewarded.
On top of that, it’s not like if Steinfeld had been placed in LEAD, she would’ve actually had a chance at winning. So it’s not like she’s being robbed of anything.
Good write up Kris.
I think this category will be a fun one this year. Leo, Adams and Steinfeld would all be worthy winners, and any of them could win at this point. Haven’t seen Weaver, but will watch Animal Kingdom soon. As for Bonham carter, she is the anchor for Firth’s performance, but that kind of performance rarely, if ever, wins awards, so I don’t think she’ll be a major player.
One other reason I’d support a Helena Bonham Carter win is – the woman always manages to stick out; to be memorable – and always in a good way.
Room with a View – who IS that dark young girl? I can’t keep my eyes off of her. And she’s pretty darn good, too!
Lady Jane – held her own as a Lead.
Maurice – perfect supporting role.
Hamlet – another good one.
Howards End – wonderful performance. Nom-worthy.
Frankenstein – very memorable.
Mighty Aphrodite – stellar.
Wings of the Dove – what can I say? Win-worthy.
Fight Club – fantastic supporting turn.
Planet of the Apes – she stuck out.
Big Fish – memorable as the one-eyed witch.
Conversations with Other Women – great performance, great chemistry with Aaron Eckhart.
Corpse Bride – great voice-work.
All the Harry Potters – where she’s most widely known, believe it or not; as the wild, murderous Bellatrix Lestrange.
Sweeney Todd – Nomination-worthy.
And this year, Alice in W. and The King’s Speech – one character that pops, one character that is subtle.
She’s had a long, successful career. She always makes an impression; and she happened to do it TWICE this year in 2 very different roles.
She’s fun, witty, well-liked, and wonderfully odd. I just think she’s a great, versatile actress who would be deserving if AMPAS loves her, the movie (enough), appreciates the subtleties she lent in TKS, and pops up through the other 4 contending women.
I disagree about Weaver’s performance not lifting off the script. Look at when she visits Mendelsohn and Ford in jail… we see her vulnerability for the first time (even after we saw her cry) and then again, her character she reveals a completely new dimension when she meets with the lawyer in the last act. We see her go from passively controlling her family and circumstances to actively and aggressively taking the reins. The last few moments in the grocery store and in the last shot, she goes from headstrong villainess to completely surrendered.
JJ1:
I would like to add her small screen time but convincing Bellatrix Lestrange in HP7: Part 1… Though yes, she was one of the saving grace in Alice in Wonderland…. We’re at the same boat for her…..
Funny how this argument of *category fraud* is like the Energizer Bunny (yep, you know the rest).
The Academy has pulled this kind of stuff as far back as I can remember. This happens to young talent all of the time, & I don’t see them planning to change, so I’m just accepting the fact that Hailee’s nominated & moving on. No use crying over spilled milk folks…
For those of you thinking that her age/newcomer status would affect her winning–
Two words: Tatum O’Neal.
End of story.
Hat’s Off to Miss Steinfeld.
To all those saying that people shouldn’t vote for Steinfeld because of category fraud, was it HER choice to be campaigned as supporting?
Well, a general consensus of people in the 1,205 actors branch bought the studio’s push for Steinfeld to be Supporting and voted accordingly.
I’d like to think that a portion of AMPAS (however hefty or small) would not vote for her to win, either because she’s not the best (subjectively) or because non-actors in the Academy know when there IS category fraud; and won’t fall for it.
@ AN: So, because it’s been done before, that means it’s okay to continue doing it? Great logic.
@ Conor: No it wasn’t, and I’m certainly not harboring any personal grudge towards her (that belongs to Paramount and the idiot critics’ groups who went along with it). However, that *does not* mean she deserves to win. Best Supporting Actress is a specific type of prize for a specific type of accomplishment. Period.
As for me, I’m not blaming Steinfeld for being nominated in a category she doesn’t belong… What I’m just saying is that the Best SUPPORTING Actress should go to a supporting role…
And it’s been a long while since there was a young talent who won in the acting category and they might as well give it to the older talents… And the fact that it was a category fraud, it might be a factor…
JJ1: I think if any branch is going to take offense to category fraud, it would be the actors themselves.
I would agree. I just wonder how many of those 1,205 “will” care and not vote for her because of it; no less 5,500 total.
I think AMPAS (like many of us) have fallen in love with Steinfeld and won’t care, but it still doesn’t make it seem altogether fair.
I doubt she’ll lose any votes that she hasn’t already lost to supporters of Leo, Adams, Weaver or HBC. I almost wonder if the academy is past the category fraud issue at this point and is just accepting things as they are.
This is true.
“They are entirely different accomplishments, and to say otherwise – in my opinion – displays an enormous amount of disrespect for the types of performances that are supposed to be competing in that category.”
This is such a stupid comment. Don’t affix your own fucking meaning to my words, please. “Disrespect?” Jesus.
The point is “category fraud” is subjective. I have my thoughts on the performance. I think it’s a lead. It should have been nominated there. It wasn’t. I’m not going to attempt to retroactively “fix” that by not voting for a performance when I clearly think it’s a better portrayal than the other five.
Seriously, I can’t get my head around people thinking that way. It makes NO sense to me. And, frankly, puts way too much on the wording of things. It’s like you’re a damn robot.
Marlon Brando sure as shit gives a supporting performance in The Godfather. If it were up to this lot, Sacheen Littlefeather would have accepted on behalf of one of the other actors (whose names you don’t even remember, I’m betting).
While it is tough to really compare Hailee Steinfeld’s lead performance against everyone else’s in the category, it does give her more of a headstart as she’s got more material to base an opinion of her off of (which, alternatively, is one of the many reasons Helena Bonham Carter has no chance and why I wouldn’t hold my breath for Amy Adams either who, while brilliant, really wasn’t as visible as Melissa Leo, Christian Bale, or Mark Wahlberg in the film). I’ve still yet to see Animal Kingdom, but I am behind any of the nominees really as they all gave great performances and all really deserve to be there. But, and likely because Hailee’s performance was a lead, I’m pulling for her most because she was able to and did give so much.
What I should have elaborated is what I mean by “visibility” is a combination of screen time and general scene domination in said screen time. Melissa Leo and Amy Adams, for instance, probably have about equal screen time, but Melissa Leo’s is, like her fabulously snubbed costuming, larger.
Because, obviously, actors have won before in the supporting categories for limited screen time, but that’s usually because they’re a) Judi Dench or b) chewing the scene crazy and (maybe) well.
Maybe they should fusion the leads and supporting roles in two 10-nominee categories that are just “Best Actors” and “Best Actresses”, and pick two winners out of them. It’s a very vanilla way of doing things, but at least it takes the ‘is it a lead or a supporting role’ dilemma out of the way completely.
In other news, I’m kidding.
If I seem a little silent from these boards from now on it’s because I’ve only seen 8 of the 41 films nominated for Oscars and so my opinion is basically worth jackshit.
Well, I had stated before that I like Steinfeld a lot. I was impressed by the performance. I think it’s a Lead performance.
I feel (though I have no basis for it, honestly) like non-actors in AMPAS could vote for someone else because they see it as category fraud. This IS 5,500 people with differing opinions.
BUT that’s just a totally unqualified feeling/hunch/whatever. I could be dead wrong. And I don’t have an ounce of AMPAS knowledge that Kris and others have.
Love how frank you are, Chad. haha
Uh, okay Kris, since you (once again) cannot seem to handle disagreement from me without taking it personally, I didn’t “affix” any meaning to your words. I’m becoming increasingly confused with how to honestly express my opinion without a furious reaction from you.
The Best Supporting Actress award is for actresses who supported their films. Hailee Steinfeld didn’t do that. Yeah, yeah, “category fraud” is subjective, I grant you that. But you don’t think she’s a supporting performance either, and yet you *still* think she should be given an award for something that isn’t meant for her. Saying that she is SO amazing that she deserves an Oscar, any Oscar, without heeding what its actually meant for…how can I not take that as a big ‘screw you’ to the other legitimately supporting nominees?
It has nothing to do with how “good” she was, or “retroactively fixing” anything, it has to do with what the award is for, and what Steinfeld actually accomplished. It’s no less absurd than if a screenplay based on a book won Best Original Screenplay. No matter how good it is, it was recognized for something it didn’t do.
Look, I have nothing personal against her. Obviously a 14 year-old newcomer isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds her (in this case, Paramount) or jeopardize her chances at major publicity. It’s unfair that her first Academy Award nomination has an asterisk attached to it, and I hope she has a long and successful career. But that doesn’t change the fact that she has a clear and unfair advantage over her competitors.
Disagree all you want. Don’t leap to the clearly offensive stance of stating that I “disrespect” something. Everyone else was somehow able to make their argument without going there.
Maybe it’s just your personality or something. But it set me off.
“…how can I not take that as a big ‘screw you’ to the other legitimately supporting nominees?”
It’s quite simple. For whatever reason you chose otherwise.
“It’s no less absurd than if a screenplay based on a book won Best Original Screenplay.”
No. Not in the slightest, actually. One element is subjective. The other is not. And regardless of whether I think she’s lead or not, the fact is she is where she is and it’s due to subjective reasons.
I can prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “Winter’s Bone” is based on a book. I can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a performance is supporting or lead. I can only state my case for believing one way or the other.
By the way, “The Social Network” wasn’t based on a book. It was a script written apart from said book through original research (to go by what Sorkin says). But guess where it is? Point being, at the end of the day, it’s politicking and posturing (they’re sure selling a bunch of those books with the TSN stamp on them). So maybe I just don’t care enough about the minutiae of the stated “purpose” of the award to parse things like you are. And when it comes to performances, it’s about which performance is better, in my book. The rest: whatever.
And one more note: the screen time argument doesn’t wash, not least of which because screen time does not designate category placement in my book.
Well, I think we ought to rule out Geoffery Rush under that logic, clearly a second lead there. Just look back over a list of previous winners (which Steinfeld isn’t even, as of yet) and you’ll see that this has happened many many many times before. This is nothing new, it happens every year, and it happens for a reason. Category placement is incredibly subjective, and if a majority of academy members think she’s a supporting actress, then they’re allowed to think so. I actually think your argument is a bit disrespectfull to them. They’re not braindead morons casting blind votes, they’re adults who made a conscious decision to place a performance in the category THEY, not you, felt appropriate.
Who’s argument, Dylan?
Actually, a few commenters *did* go there, calling advocacy for her to win “unfair comparison,” “offensive,” “just wrong,” and “idiotic” on this thread alone. So I guess it is just my personality. Which is fine, I don’t expect or demand that everyone like me. I would, however, appreciate a small benefit of a doubt when responding to my points.
Now, why do you keep harping on the “subjective” thing? If we were debating, say, Lesley Manville or Mark Ruffalo I would totally agree with you on that point. But we’re talking about a contender that you, I, and everyone else here agrees is a lead. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Steinfeld is a lead.
I also take exception to your idea that the screenplay distinctions are not at least somewhat subjective. Besides you strangely undercutting your very own point with The Social Network (which is still an adaptation by the way, adding additional research and material to a screenplay which was not actually written “apart from said book” to my knowledge, does not make it any more “original” than There Will Be Blood was for changing 90% of Upton Sinclair’s novel), there was also the debate over Bright Star’s categorization last year. That wasn’t even my point, anyway.
I guess what bothers me about your assertion is that you darn well know that Steinfeld is a lead, but you’re arguing that there’s some sort of legitimate grey area about her placement when (at least between you and me, and nearly everyone else on this site) there clearly isn’t.
@ DylanS: Okay, I’ll rule out Geoffrey Rush as well, and if he was a threat to win I might be more miffed about it. And where did you get this idea that I think they’re “not allowed” to place her in supporting? They have every right to nominate her wherever they want, but that shouldn’t stop me from criticizing their decisions.
Plus, I seriously disagree that your implication (forgive me if I’m wrong) that they didn’t follow the pack on this one. Anyone who knows about groupthink and the Asch conformity experiments will tell you that it’s *easy* for a large group of people to follow along with consensus, even against their senses.
With regards to the Marlon Brandos and Anthony Hopkins and the like performances out there, I will say that I think it is a lot harder for a supporting performance to compete against true leads, just as most assume that a lead performance against four supporting performances gets more time to strut their stuff.
Random q: what order are you going in for these cats, Kris? I recall last year you left the more up in the air categories for last (cinematography, original screenplay), so I was surprised to see this one pop up as the inaugural column.
Haha, Robert’s, not yours, Kris.
I couldn’t really understand which argument amanda was making, so I let “idiotic” slide. And thinking it would be “offensive” to the other actresses, by way of a generalization, is a lot different than “to say otherwise – in my opinion – displays an enormous amount of disrespect.” In my view.
I’m debating the subjective thing because it matters. And I bring up Brando for you once more. The best performance in the category is the best performance in the category. It shouldn’t be docked because of a subjective issue.
Or should Caine have taken it for “Sleuth?”
I’m also not undercutting my point with the TSN thing. I’m using it as an example of the fact that, ultimately, the placement in these fields isn’t some “pure” thing, so why try to be so “pure” about voting when it comes to this stage.
“which is still an adaptation by the way, adding additional research and material to a screenplay which was not actually written “apart from said book” to my knowledge, does not make it any more “original” than There Will Be Blood was for changing 90% of Upton Sinclair’s novel”
No, it’s not. I don’t think you have all the facts. And you’re TWBB example doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. PTA sprung from the book to his story. There was no book when Sorkin was writing. And there was no (according to him) exchange of ideas and info. Original.
“I guess what bothers me about your assertion is that you darn well know that Steinfeld is a lead, but you’re arguing that there’s some sort of legitimate grey area about her placement when (at least between you and me, and nearly everyone else on this site) there clearly isn’t.”
Not my problem that this bothers you. I’ve made it pretty clear that I merely think it’s stupid to dock a performance that is better than the competition in its field due to little more than a technicality. It is where it is. I guess in my view, there is no further fight to be had.
At least we can agree that the Academy followed the pack on the placement. Shame on them. Not on Steinfeld.