September 12, 2016 at 11:27 am #1201921053
These are my Best Supporting Actor nominees for 2012. Feel free to vote for your pick.September 12, 2016 at 12:40 pm #1201921098
Hoffman, though I don’t mind the Waltz victory.
OSCAR FLASHBACK: Best Original Song (2009) – Where the Wild Things Weren’tSeptember 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm #1201921153
The great Albert Finney in Skyfall gets my vote.September 12, 2016 at 4:09 pm #1201921168
This should have been an easy win for Tommy Lee Jones.September 12, 2016 at 4:35 pm #1201921179
Hoffman edges out Jones for me, but I’d’ve nominated Eddie Redmayne for Les Mis and Dwight Henry for Beasts of the Southern WildSeptember 12, 2016 at 5:17 pm #1201921211
PSH. One of his best performances, btw. God, I miss him…September 12, 2016 at 5:26 pm #1201921217
De Niro gave the best performance of his overrated movie. However, the Academy has yet to give an actor 3 wins where only one of them is lead.
Brennan 3/4: Supporting
Hepburn 4/12: Lead
Bergman 3/7: 2 Lead, 1 Supporting
Nicholson 3/12: 2 Lead, 1 Supporting
Streep 3/19: 2 Lead, 1 Supporting
Day-Lewis 3/5: Lead
Michael Caine has expressed wanting to win a 3rd one for Best Actor. But there’s no precedent at the Oscars. So De Niro loses because of his supporting Godfather II win.September 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm #1201921218
Okay, I’m going with Hoffman.
Javier Bardem, Skyfall
Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained
Samuel L. Jackson, Django Unchained
Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Sam Rockwell, Seven Psychopaths
Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild
Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
Ewan McGregor, The Impossible
Christopher Walken, Seven PsychopathsSeptember 13, 2016 at 8:36 am #1201921673
The best performance of theses 5 is Hoffman’s, but he’s lead, not supporting – same thing with Waltz. So, voted for Jackson, who is the best supporting in this list, and actually my #2 of the year, just behind Javier Bardem in Skyfall.September 13, 2016 at 9:09 am #1201921695
Hoffman was miles ahead of a very strong category, which demonstrates how great he was in The Master. Category fraud? Probably, yes, but it’s at least debatable and I wouldn’t be able to resist voting for him anyway. This was a perfect opportunity to make Hoffman a double Oscar-winner before his untimely death. It was wasted on a second win for Waltz in my opinion, good as he was (and he was definitely category fraud). My favourite of the three true supporting performances in the lineup is Tommy Lee Jones, who handles Tony Kushner’s rich dialogue with aplomb. Also the unnominated Matthew McConaughey was brilliant in Magic Mike, but the old farts in the Academy were never going to watch a movie about male strippers.September 13, 2016 at 9:12 am #1201921698
I don’t know. Some people consider Hoffman lead, but I wouldn’t. Waltz is definitely not supporting in Django Unchained with a screen presence over half of the film (58%). Hoffman, however, is in about 49% of The Master while true lead Phoenix is in 83%.September 13, 2016 at 9:32 am #1201921711
I don’t know. Some people consider Hoffman lead, but I wouldn’t. Waltz is definitely not supporting in Django Unchained with a screen presence over half of the film (58%). Hoffman, however, is in about 49% of The Master while true lead Phoenix is in 83%.
Interesting, but there are plenty of lead performances that last less than 49% of the runtime, usually when there’s more than one lead. Although screen-time percentages are problematic. Do you count the exact number of seconds a character appears on screen, or simply the amount of time the character is present in the scene, regardless of whether they are actually in the shot or not?September 13, 2016 at 10:07 am #1201921733
Hoffman was miles ahead of a very strong category, which demonstrates how great he was in The Master. Category fraud? Probably, yes, but it’s at least debatable and I wouldn’t be able to resist voting for him anyway. This was a perfect opportunity to make Hoffman a double Oscar-winner before his untimely death. It was wasted on a second win for Waltz in my opinion, good as he was (and he was definitely category fraud). My favourite of the three true supporting performances in the lineup is Tommy Lee Jones, who handles Tony Kushner’s rich dialogue with aplomb. Also the unnominated Matthew McConaughey was brilliant in Magic Mike, but the old farts in the Academy were never going to watch a movie about male strippers.
DEFINITELY. I quite like Waltz in Django but I was so sad when he won – it was the perfect timing to give Hoffman his second: third nomination after his win, terrific performance and lots of other unnominated great ones (Before The Devil Knows…, Ides of March, The Savages, Magnolia…). Aside of that, the only thing notable Waltz has done other than his Tarantino’s characters was Carnage – everything else I saw from him was quite repetitive and uninspired.September 13, 2016 at 10:14 am #1201921736
P.s.: to be lead or supporting is not an exclusive matter of screentime, it’s much more about focus and p.o.v.. Although Phoenix’s character is the one at the center, the movie plot is based on his interactions with Hoffman’s, in a master/pupil relationship in which is also given spotlight to Hoffman’s leader’s perspective. Clear co-lead case for me.September 13, 2016 at 3:58 pm #1201921964
True, but in most of those cases, I wouldn’t count it as much of a singular, award-worthy lead then. People with a lot less than 50% of screen time like Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), and Steve Carell (Foxcatcher) wouldn’t really be leading to me. They all have “co-leads” (Foster, Moore/Streep, Tatum) but these other, often overlooked actors, have far more screen time that doesn’t equal out. So, even though the movie is driven forward by Hannibal Lecter’s words or influenced by Virginia Woolf/her book or about John du Pont/his team, they aren’t the leads to me (those “co-leads” are the true leads).
(Ugh, this is going to be a lot of numbers)
I think with co-leads that their screen time should almost match up. For instance, in Carol, Blanchett and Mara have nearly the same amount, with Mara actually having more (68% to 54%) and therefore, are co-leads. In the Danish Girl, Redmayne (67%) and Vikander (51%) have a similar amount of time on screen are should be considered co-leads. Something like Silver Linings Playbook seemingly has co-leads, but when you examine the screen time, Cooper (89%) has just over double that of Lawrence (44%) and thinking back, the movie had far more to do with Cooper’s character Pat and his family than with Tiffany (other than through Pat). This is almost similar to The Master where Phoenix has about 35% more time than Hoffman and therefore, more focus on just Phoenix’s Freddie. Unlike Lawrence though, there are some shots of Hoffman without Phoenix but usually with his wife (Adams) or other people and not really alone. In Carol and the Danish Girl, the camera (and story) followed Blanchett and Mara in their separate lives and Redmayne and Vikander in their separate struggles. We only really see Tiffany and Lancaster Dodd through Pat and Freddie. (Again this could be argued slightly BUT you get my point and this is already a mess of an explanation)
(also drink every time I’ve said screen time)
And yeah, I agree not exclusive to screen time but it should mainly have to do with it because after all screen time=focus on a character and more importantly screen time=acting. If the character doesn’t have much time on screen, then there isn’t all that much focus on them and that actor isn’t showing us their acting. Less screen time means less of the audience seeing the actor act and that’s really what an acting award is for.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.