Oscars: Supporting champs that would’ve won in lead too

Home // Forums // Movies // Oscars: Supporting champs that would’ve won in lead too

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
24
replies
817
views
13
users
6
4
3
  • CanadianFan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 23rd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192102

    If bumped up to lead, could any of the supporting actor/actress winners have won? 

    Would Christoph Waltz make a dent for ‘Django Unchained’? Could Anne Hathaway take down Jennifer Lawrence? Could feel-good Timothy Hutton beat Robert DeNiro? 

    Reply
    Etchie
    Member
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192104

    Mo’Nique (Precious-2009) >>> Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side-2009)

    Meryl Streep (Adaptation-2002) >>> Nicole Kidman (The Hours-2002)

    Chris Cooper (Adaptation-2002) >>> Adrien Brody (The Pianist-2002)

    Patricia Arquette (Boyhood-2014) >>> Julianne Moore (Still Alice-2014)

    J.K. Simmons (Whiplash-2014) >>> Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything-2014)

    Benicio Del Toro (Traffic-2000) >>> Russell Crowe (Gladiator-2000)

    Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men-2007) >>> Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood-2007)

    Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds-2009) >>> Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart-2009)

    Amy Adams (Junebug-2005) >>> Reese Witherspoon (Walk The Line-2005)

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    AMG
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192105

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    ReplyCopy URL
    salvador
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192106

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    Only because Moore was overdue. At least Arquette’s win had more to it than that.

    ReplyCopy URL
    AMG
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192107

    [quote=”agloster94″]

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    Only because Moore was overdue. At least Arquette’s win had more to it than that.

    [/quote]

    Moore’s performance was sublime. Regardless of the overdue factor, she was still very much worthy of the Oscar. Also, Arquette didn’t have it in the bag. There was at least some talk about who would beat Arquette. Some people believed Stone could have won. While the talk was relatively muted, at least there was talk. There was no doubt that Moore was going to win. Surely that just shows by itself that Moore would have beaten Arquette? 

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    salvador
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192108

    [quote=”Salvador”]

    [quote=”agloster94″]

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    Only because Moore was overdue. At least Arquette’s win had more to it than that.

    [/quote]

    Moore’s performance was sublime. Regardless of the overdue factor, she was still very much worthy of the Oscar. Also, Arquette didn’t have it in the bag. There was at least some talk about who would beat Arquette. Some people believed Stone could have won. While the talk was relatively muted, at least there was talk. There was no doubt that Moore was going to win. Surely that just shows by itself that Moore would have beaten Arquette? 

     
    [/quote]

    Certainly not better than Pike’s or Cotillard’s performances. And Arquette had in the bag as much as Moore, if not more. She had won more precursor awards for her performance than Moore and besides she was in a runner-up for Best Picture, as opposed to a litte seen movie that was made with the sole purpose of awarding Moore her Oscar. And nobody actually believed Stone could have won, as good as she was in Birdman.

    ReplyCopy URL
    AMG
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192109

    [quote=”agloster94″]

    [quote=”Salvador”]

    [quote=”agloster94″]

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    Only because Moore was overdue. At least Arquette’s win had more to it than that.

    [/quote]

    Moore’s performance was sublime. Regardless of the overdue factor, she was still very much worthy of the Oscar. Also, Arquette didn’t have it in the bag. There was at least some talk about who would beat Arquette. Some people believed Stone could have won. While the talk was relatively muted, at least there was talk. There was no doubt that Moore was going to win. Surely that just shows by itself that Moore would have beaten Arquette? 

     
    [/quote]

    Certainly not better than Pike’s or Cotillard’s performances. And Arquette had in the bag as much as Moore, if not more. She had won more precursor awards for her performance than Moore and besides she was in a runner-up for Best Picture, as opposed to a litte seen movie that was made with the sole purpose of awarding Moore her Oscar. And nobody actually believed Stone could have won, as good as she was in Birdman.

    [/quote]

    For me, Moore was not better than Cotillard. Pike was my personal winner, but I have to admit that Moore was worthy. So many times people with the ‘overdue’ factor win for pretty ‘meh’ performances, but Moore actually won for one of her career bests. Fair enough, the film wasn’t much cop, but her performance (which is what was recognised) was stellar. Arquette was in a buzzier film, but her performance wasn’t as good for me. And if the two went head to head, Moore would win hands down.

    Plus, in this fictional scenario, you have to imagine who voters would have gone for. I think that the typical voter would have plumped for Moore. 

    More people were talking about a battle in Supporting Actress between Arquette and Stone/Streep/Knightley/Dern than Moore and any of her competitors. Boyhood won a truck load of precursor awards, but look what happened come Oscar night. They don’t always make for a definitive answer if one performance or one film wins more.
     

    ReplyCopy URL
    OnTheAisle
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 19th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192110

    I can immediately think of some winners of supporting Oscars who could have gone lead and possibly won.

    1972  Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon

    There is little doubt that Addie Loggins is the lead character in Paper Moon. Fiery and vulnerable at the same time, ten year old Tatum O’Neal dominates the film. She was clearly delegated to the supporting category based on her age. Best Actress Glenda Jackson was a surprise winner for the second time in two years for A Touch of Class, a romantic comedy. Not only is it likely that O’Neal would have bested Jackson, it would have opened supporting actress for a win for Paper Moon‘s true supporting performance, the brilliant comedic work of Madeline Kahn as Miss Trixie Delight.

    1972  John Houseman for The Paper Chase

    Much like Best Actor winner Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs, Houseman infuses the life of the film with minimal screen time. Though not always visible as the Professor Kingsfield, his presence is felt in every moment. A subsequent television series was created around Houseman’s character. Greatly revered for his long career in theater and film, Houseman would have been a formidable challenge to Best Actor winner Jack Lemmon who was honored more for his body of work than his performance in the rather pedestrian Save the Tiger.

    1974  Robert De Niro for The Godfather Part II

    With a role spoken entirely in Sicilian, Robert De Niro electrified audiences in the sequel to the then most successful box office film of all time. The Godfather Part II is intercut with the story of young Vito Corleone and the continuing saga of his son Michael (Al Pacino). It seems understandable that the studio promoted De Niro in supporting simply because he was a relatively new name and Pacino was now a star. De Niro has fourth billing, below Robert Duvall and Diane Keaton. The unexpected winner of Best Actor Art Carney from Harry and Tonto was certainly vulnerable, as his victory has often been credited to a split in the voting between Pacino and Jack Nicholson as detective Jack Gittes in Chinatown. Moving De Niro to the Best Actor race would have definitely affected the voting for Best Actor and also opened a Best Supporting Actor slot for the great performance of John Cazale in The Godfather Part II as Fredo.

    1984  Haing S. Ngor for The Killing Fields

    As Cambodian journalist Dith Pran, Haing S. Ngor held a leading role but was nominated as a supporting one. Perhaps this was due to Ngor’s status as a novice actor. A doctor, he was a survivor of the Khmer Rouge. He had never acted previously but is superb in The Killing Fields. Best Actor winner F. Murray Abraham was not a headliner but did solid work. Ngor’s performance is astonishing and, I suspect, would be the likely victor had he been matched against Abraham. Ngor was nominated for Best Actor for BAFTA and won.

    1994  Dianne Wiest for Bullets Over Broadway

    In her second Oscar winning performance, Dianne Wiest played aging alcoholic actress Helen Sinclair in Woody Allen’s comedy Bullets Over Broadway. Wiest’s work was recognized in most precursors for the Oscars including SAG, Golden Globe, and prominent critic organizations. Best Actress winner Jessica Lange for Blue Sky, a film completed years earlier and shelved, gained prominence due a lengthy and particularly well written (and well timed) essay in the Los Angeles Times that raved about Lange and her body of work. That piece and the fact that her primary competition was Jodie Foster in Nell, who would have received a third Oscar victory in five years contributed to her victory. Wiest could quite plausibly have won that Best Actress Oscar with her highly celebrated performance.

    ReplyCopy URL
    salvador
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192111

     

    1974  Robert De Niro for The Godfather Part II

    With a role spoken entirely in Sicilian, Robert De Niro electrified audiences in the sequel to the then most successful box office film of all time. The Godfather Part II is intercut with the story of young Vito Corleone and the continuing saga of his son Michael (Al Pacino). It seems understandable that the studio promoted De Niro in supporting simply because he was a relatively new name and Pacino was now a star. De Niro has fourth billing, below Robert Duvall and Diane Keaton. The unexpected winner of Best Actor Art Carney from Harry and Tonto was certainly vulnerable, as his victory has often been credited to a split in the voting between Pacino and Jack Nicholson as detective Jack Gittes in Chinatown. Moving De Niro to the Best Actor race would have definitely affected the voting for Best Actor and also opened a Best Supporting Actor slot for the great performance of John Cazale in The Godfather Part II as Fredo.

     

     

    I’ll never understand the hype surrounding Deniro’s performance in that movie. Cazale, for example, did more in one scene than Deniro in the entire movie. How people say it’s one of the best supporting performances to win the Oscar is beyond me. What does he exactly do, besides speaking in sicilian and slightly impersonating Brando’s performance? There’s no emotion or subtlety to his performance, especially when we compare it to his co-stars performances’. Or to his own much better performances in movies like The Deer Hunter.

    ReplyCopy URL
    ETPhoneHome
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 3rd, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192112

    I would have loved to have seen the battle between Timothy Hutton and Robert De Niro in 1980 had Hutton been placed in the correct category. I think that would have been a total toss-up where De Niro may have eked out the victory.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Evergreen
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 20th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192113

    I can’t stand category fraud, for someone like Hopkins in Lambs he should have won for supporting and not lead.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192114

    [quote=”agloster94″]

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    Only because Moore was overdue. At least Arquette’s win had more to it than that.

    [/quote]

    Arquette wasn’t even the best in her own category (she was even 2nd in her own film after Linklater..)….her average and a bit forced performance cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Moore’s fantastic turn!

    ReplyCopy URL
    MrGoodWood
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 14th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192115

    Arquette would have got a nod in lead (barely), but no way she would have won over Moore.

    Heath Ledger would have won in lead.

    ReplyCopy URL
    salvador
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192116

    [quote=”Salvador”]

    [quote=”agloster94″]

    Arquette was not capable of beating Moore. She had that in the bag from the first screening of Still Alice.

    Only because Moore was overdue. At least Arquette’s win had more to it than that.

    [/quote]

    Arquette wasn’t even the best in her own category (she was even 2nd in her own film after Linklater..)….her average and a bit forced performance cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Moore’s fantastic turn!
    [/quote]

    I can’t take anybody who says Linklater’s performance in Boyhood was better than Arquette’s seriously. I mean, Lorelei wasn’t terrible, but her performance was quite uneven. She was quite good as a child, but once she got older we could clearly see she wasn’t even trying anymore. That scene at the car with Arquette when she says they don’t even have a place to live is cringe-worthy due to Linklater’s bad acting. Fortunately Arquette manages to save the scene.  Actually there’s a piece of trivia saying she wanted to quit filming and get her character killed off, but her father insisted on her not quiting. Arquette was amazing, and filled her role with humanity and subtlety. One of my favorite portrayals os motherhood in any movie, ever. Most people that scene at the end, which is of course quite good, but what they don’t realize is that it wouldn’t be nearly as powerful if Arquette’s performance as a flawed mother hadn’t been so relatable. Her character stayed with me for a long time after the movie was over. Very few actresses could have been so down-to-earth and subtle as Arquette was in her role. Very deserved Oscar, according not only to me and the Academy, but dozens of other people who awarded Arquette for her performance. I mean, even though Boyhood lost the two awards most people predicted it would win (BD and BP), she still prevailed, which I think means something.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #192117

    Well, take me seriously honey, because I’m serious and it’s all very-very subjective.

    Patricia Arquette is “Boyhood” is avarage. At best. I could name at least 50 better female supporting turns – starting with Tilda Swinton, Keira Knightley, Rima Te Wiata, Jessica Chastain, Erica Rivas, Jennifer Connelly, Rene Russo and so on – better than hers from last year. Winning an Oscar is nice and everything, and it’s clearly means that you are popular at this point, but just for the record, it doesn’t mean that “you are the ultimate best”. We all feel differently, I personally wouldn’t even nominate her for Boringhood.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
Reply To: Oscars: Supporting champs that would’ve won in lead too

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Spenser... - Aug 16, 2017
Movies
Tegan - Aug 16, 2017
Movies