The other day I mentioned to a friend that the Meryl-Viola upset that happened at the Oscars may be the result of greedy movie producers who want to rack up as many awards as possible.
(By the way, whenever you're looking for someone to blame for something, always blame the mysterious greedy movie producers/studio executives. They're everybody's favorite scapegoat.)
Let me explain.
If you actually count up the amount of time Viola Davis is in "The Help," you'll probably find that she has only a bit more screen time than Octavia Spencer, who won for Best Supporting Actress. She has significantly less screen time than Emma Stone, who, at one point, was actually marketed as the movie's lead.
So why was she put in the Lead Actress category?
Admittedly, she gave a commanding performance, and a more dramatic performance, whereas a mostly-comedic performance like Spencer's does seem to fit more appropriately into the Supporting category.
But I think what really happened was this:
If Davis had gone up against Spencer, Davis would have won. The producers/execs/whoever realized this, and they thought--Well hey, Viola Davis can probably compete in the Lead category and then well have TWO winners for our movie.
So they opted to spread out their actors.
This can sometimes work, and sometimes not.
In the case of Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, it worked. Her role was huge, and so she had much more to show the Academy voters, and took the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. The thing is, she didn't belong in that category. That was a leading role.
Kate Winslet won the Oscar for Best Leading Actress for The Reader AFTER she won the Golden Globe for the SAME ROLE in the SAME MOVIE.
Why is there confusion over this?
People like to make fun of actors like Judi Dench who win for a mere fifteen minutes in a film like Shakespeare in Love, but the truth is, that's more of a Supporting Role than Renee Zellwegger's part in COld Mountain, which was just as big as Nicole Kidman's part, and much flashier.
So what do we do about this?
Have the Academy set a time limit on roles. If you're a movie for a certain amount of time, you're a lead. If you're in the movie for less than that, you're in the supporting category.
This shouldn't be left up to the whims and fancies of the people submitting these actors for consideration. There should be guidelines.
Then maybe you won't see such controversy.
Or maybe you would.
It is show business after all.
(By the way, whenever you're looking for someone to blame for something, always blame the mysterious greedy movie producers/studio executives. They're everybody's favorite scapegoat.)
Let me explain.
If you actually count up the amount of time Viola Davis is in "The Help," you'll probably find that she has only a bit more screen time than Octavia Spencer, who won for Best Supporting Actress. She has significantly less screen time than Emma Stone, who, at one point, was actually marketed as the movie's lead.
So why was she put in the Lead Actress category?
Admittedly, she gave a commanding performance, and a more dramatic performance, whereas a mostly-comedic performance like Spencer's does seem to fit more appropriately into the Supporting category.
But I think what really happened was this:
If Davis had gone up against Spencer, Davis would have won. The producers/execs/whoever realized this, and they thought--Well hey, Viola Davis can probably compete in the Lead category and then well have TWO winners for our movie.
So they opted to spread out their actors.
This can sometimes work, and sometimes not.
In the case of Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, it worked. Her role was huge, and so she had much more to show the Academy voters, and took the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. The thing is, she didn't belong in that category. That was a leading role.
Kate Winslet won the Oscar for Best Leading Actress for The Reader AFTER she won the Golden Globe for the SAME ROLE in the SAME MOVIE.
Why is there confusion over this?
People like to make fun of actors like Judi Dench who win for a mere fifteen minutes in a film like Shakespeare in Love, but the truth is, that's more of a Supporting Role than Renee Zellwegger's part in COld Mountain, which was just as big as Nicole Kidman's part, and much flashier.
So what do we do about this?
Have the Academy set a time limit on roles. If you're a movie for a certain amount of time, you're a lead. If you're in the movie for less than that, you're in the supporting category.
This shouldn't be left up to the whims and fancies of the people submitting these actors for consideration. There should be guidelines.
Then maybe you won't see such controversy.
Or maybe you would.
It is show business after all.
Comments
Post a Comment