Home Forums Movies Academy Awards: Inscription vs Hardware count

Academy Awards: Inscription vs Hardware count

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
Created
5 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
11
replies
858
views
7
users
3
2
2
  • black30
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 14th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89834

    What’s more important: the inscription of a statuette (leading role / supporting role) or the hardware count (multiple wins for acting)? 

    Reply
    black30
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 14th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89836

    I can’t believe everyone’s silent on the subject especially since everyone’s made a big deal about Day-Lewis winning a 3rd (inscription) Best Actor statuette. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jason Travis
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89837

    I’m confused by this post.

    Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
    13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views

    FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017

    ReplyCopy URL
    Scottferguson
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 26th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89838

    Oscars for best actor, best actress, best picture and best director are generally regarded as being much more important/impressive than other categories.

    Michael Caine had two Oscars for supporting. He has openly expressed disappointment he never won lead. He is one case where someone would gladly have preferred to have one lead than two supportings. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    black30
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 14th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89839

    I’m confused by this post.

    Inscription is category Jason, only the acting categories, does it matter if you have more hardware (Oscars) or if you won in the Leading catorgies—Meryl Streep has 3 Oscars but only 2 of them are for Leading roles, while Daniel Day-Lewis is assured his 3rd and all of his being Leading roles, including his nominations, etc.

    I don’t know how to explain this better but everyone seems to believe an Oscar for a leading role means the performer will be seen in the history books as a leading man or woman.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    GhostOrchid
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 27th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89840

    Well, I do think most actors/actresses would prefer to win in lead rather than supporting. Because lead is…. well, lead. And supporting just…. supporting. The 2nd fidle.
    Though did Dianne Wiest ever complained about that? Or did Meryl ever complained her first Oscar was “only” in Supporting? (Would she if her third was a supporting one?)
    But considering the “desperate” route Melissa Leo went in 2010 or Anne Hathaway somehow is seen this year- they really really wanted those Oscars and didn’t care that they were “only” in Supporting.
    Mo’Nique seemed pretty proud of her Oscar, as was Christoph Waltz that year, I’m sure.
    I don’t know, I guess it depends on people….

    But it’s also true lead wins are more remembered than supporting wins, except for Heath Ledger and Christoph Waltz, I think. Because they’re still very popular.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jason Travis
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89841

    Oh okay, I get it now.

    I think generally Lead acting Oscars are more impressive, however if your role was supporting- then wouldn’t it justify the win in that category? Then again actors like Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman arguably won their Lead trophies for supporting roles, and perhaps that allowed them to join higher ranks?

    In someone like Streep’s case, it was nice she can have 2 leads and 1 supporting. Wouldn’t seem the same if she had 2 supporting and 1 lead (which is why I am glad she lost in Adaptation).

    This is why De Niro winning for SLP would be a bit odd- one of the greatest actors of his generation, but he has only 1 lead actor and 2 supporting.

    Interesting topic.  

    Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
    13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views

    FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017

    ReplyCopy URL
    Junk
    Member
    Joined:
    Jul 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89842

    [quote=”Jason_Travis”]I’m confused by this post.

    Inscription is category Jason, only the acting categories, does it matter if you have more hardware (Oscars) or if you won in the Leading catorgies—Meryl Streep has 3 Oscars but only 2 of them are for Leading roles, while Daniel Day-Lewis is assured his 3rd and all of his being Leading roles, including his nominations, etc.

    I don’t know how to explain this better but everyone seems to believe an Oscar for a leading role means the performer will be seen in the history books as a leading man or woman.  [/quote]
    Lol why all the fancy talk? You could’ve just said Lead vs. Supporting, which is better? 

    Oh and btw, Meryl is doing a new film which Tommy Lee Jones is directing and starring, along with Hillary Swank. It will be a supporting role, one she’s doing probably after 6/7 years?

    ReplyCopy URL
    unsunganthem
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 9th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89843

    I tend to think that Inscription is more important to the people involved than the Hardware count. A film that wins Best Picture and very little else (like I imagine Argo will do this year), is held in much higher regard than a film that wins multiple technical awards (like Life of Pi will probably do this year). Think of how disappointed Ang Lee was when Brokeback lost Picture to middling little Crash back in 2005 or Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love in 1998 or Reds losing to Ordinary People in 1980. I guarantee that, while each of the directors of those films were thrilled to have won their Best Director Oscars, they would have loved the historic stamp of approval of a Best Picture win as well.

    I also think winning in the Lead Acting categories propels a star into higher regard than simply winning in Supporting, even if it is multiple supporting wins. Does anyone remember Walter Brennan? He won 3 Best Supporting Actor Oscars over a five year period. The same can be said for Diane Weist or a Melvyn Douglas, who each won two Supporting Oscars. They’ll never have the name recognition of as a Brando, Nicholson, Pacino, Hoffman, Day-Lewis, Streep, Hepburn, etc. because those folks all won Lead Oscars and were legitimate “above the title” stars. The only exception I can think of is maybe George Clooney. Winning Supporting Actor for Syrianna did nothing to slow down his career. Still, I’d bet he wished he had that Lead Oscar for Up in the Air or The Descendants. Pull up the video of Jack Lemmon winning for Save the Tiger in 1973. His euphoric reaction probably has a little to do with the fact that he finally won for a Leading role (he already had a Supporting Oscar on the mantle for Mister Roberts). Actors like Melissa Leo, Whoopi Goldberg, Christoph Waltz, etc. are deeply grateful for their Supporting Oscar wins because they know how lucky they are to even be considered. They aren’t (or weren’t at the time of their wins) big name A-list celebrities.

    ReplyCopy URL
    black30
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 14th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89844

    As a Kathy Bates fan, I’m internally grateful for her Lead Actress win, and she’s a case where the inscription makes a difference and maybe the reason why she hasn’t won a single one of her two Supp Actress bids, yet because Dench won Supp, it seems impossible to take Lead Actress, which is why I never wanted Chastain to take Supp last year, because I knew it was a trap, only Streep and Lange were about to overcome it, the only other who’ll likely do the same is Blanchett, her Supp win isn’t enough.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Morgan Henard
    Member
    Joined:
    May 27th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89845

    As a Kathy Bates fan, I’m internally grateful for her Lead Actress win, and she’s a case where the inscription makes a difference and maybe the reason why she hasn’t won a single one of her two Supp Actress bids, yet because Dench won Supp, it seems impossible to take Lead Actress, which is why I never wanted Chastain to take Supp last year, because I knew it was a trap, only Streep and Lange were about to overcome it, the only other who’ll likely do the same is Blanchett, her Supp win isn’t enough.

    I could easily see Cate Blanchett, along with Angelina Jolie (robbed of a nomination and win for A Mighty Heart) and Rachel Weisz (robbed of a nomination this year for The Deep Blue Sea). I used to think the Chicago ladies, but Catherine Zeta-Jones has resorted to supporting roles in underwhelming films (Rock of Ages, Playing for Keeps, Broken City) while Renee Zellweger completely removed herself from the radar. If [When] Anne Hathaway wins this year, she’ll automatically be put with Blanchett and Jolie; unless, she goes the route of Zeta-Jones (bad choices) or Zellweger (all but retired). 

    These days, would an actor really say, “Yeah I won an Oscar, but UGH. It’s only Supporting”? That is some serious ego talking. Michael Caine is a great actor but he shouldn’t have such a sour grapes attitude about his two Oscars, especially considering his second is a win for the weakest performance of the five nominees. Sometimes, roles are reversed. For example, Philip Seymour Hoffman has a Lead Oscar while Christian Bale has a Supporting Oscar. Frances McDormand and Kathy Bates have Lead Oscars while Penelope Cruz and Dame Judi Dench have Supporting Oscars.

    I’m sure plenty are prideful of their Supporting statuettes. For example, Mira Sorvino, Kim Basinger, and Cuba Gooding Jr. can all say, “I may be on the C-list, but I still have an Oscar!” 

    Halle Berry has a Lead Actress Oscar, but who cares? Her post-Oscar career has been one letdown after another, save for a few exceptions (Things We Lost in the Fire, Cloud Atlas). Same thing can be said for one-hit wonder Adrian Brody. 

    Then there’s the due factor for so many greats. At this point, would the following scoff at an Oscar win if it was in Supporting: Annette Bening, Glenn Close, Laura Linney, Julianne Moore, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sigourney Weaver, Albert Finney, Peter O’Toole. I’m sure Alan Arkin and Christopher Plummer were more than pleased to finally be honored with a competitve Oscar, regardless of it being in Supporting. 

    Lastly, the Supporting categories have given some nice wins, some that I never imagined I would see. Dianne Wiest has not one but two. She’s an obscure character actress who knocks it out of the park every time. Her two Oscars are icing on the cake. I never imagined Melissa Leo would be invited back after Frozen River. She too was just “too obscure.” Then – annoying campaigning antics aside – she got a meaty supporting role and covered her mantle. Jim Broadbent and Chris Cooper get not only noticed with nominations but wins? Love it! I’m sure none of these would ever say, “Eh. Just a Supporting Oscar though.” 

    Ultimately, an Oscar is an Oscar is an Oscar. Even Christine Lahti is an Oscar winner, only for a Documentary Short. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are Oscar winners, only for an Original Screenplay. Now these folks may have something to aim for.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    unsunganthem
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 9th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #89846

    It’s a matter of ego. If a huge star who normally carries a film has only a Supporting Oscar on his or her mantle, I bet they’re itching for a Lead win. It doesn’t mean the Supporting Oscar doesn’t count or doesn’t matter. In their minds, however, it doesn’t validate their own self-importance.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
spencer - Nov 22, 2017
Movies
RobertPius - Nov 22, 2017
Movies