December 13, 2015 at 3:21 pm #202727
What if Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” was campaigned differently categorically wise? I saw “Oridnary People” for the first time a couple of months ago and really liked it. I honestly thought Timothy Hutton was the leading man of that film and Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland were supporting players. My question is what would have happened if Timothy Hutton was campaigned for Lead that year at the Oscars and Moore and Sutherland were Supporting. I am not air if this forum has been done before but really interested on everyone’s perspective.
Key Questions: Would Timothy Hutton have WON for Best Actor and been the youngest recipient or would he had just been nominated? Would Donald Sutherland be an Oscar nominee or Winner? Would Mary Tyler Moore be an Oscar Winner or still just a nominee? Would Emilie Hirsch be an Oscar Winner or Nominee? Thanks just trying to see what everyone else would think!December 13, 2015 at 3:37 pm #202729
Sorry I typed in the wrong name I mean “Judd Hirsch.” I got the two confused my apologies.December 13, 2015 at 4:00 pm #202730
Hutton would have never been able to beat DeNiro in Raging Bull for Best Actor. Mary Tyler Moore would have probably won in supporting actress.
I guess Sutherland and Hirsch would both have been nominated for supporting but I think Joe Peschi would have won had Hutton not been in thecategory.
Thinks were different back then though. Major stars didn’t want to be in supporting. It was considered a sign they weren’t big anymore.December 14, 2015 at 11:18 am #202731
I thought about this the other day actually. I wondered if this was the first film to begin what we know today as “Category Fraud.”
It should have been
– Lead Actor: Timothy Hutton
– Supp. Actor: Judd Hirsch
– Supp. Actor: Donald Sutherland
– Supp. Actress: Mary Tyler Moore
As previously said, Hutton would not have been able to stop De Niro in Raging Bull, but who cares; he would have made a great alternative.
I think Sutherland would have absolutely won in Supporting Actor. Hirsch didn’t really do anything to warrant a nomination and was here via the success of the film.
I love Mary Steenburgen in Melvin and Howard, but she would have lost to Moore. I’m as confident in Moore being second to Sissy Spacek (Coal Miner’s Daughter) as I am Annette Bening being second to Hilary Swank for 99.
The thing is… This isn’t strategic category-placement! Hutton was the actual lead… Sutherland and Moore were actually Supporting (co-lead at best). And while Hutton would have lost to De Niro, Sutherland and Moore would be Oscar winners.
This year, we have Paul Dano and Jacob Tremblay contending in Supporting Actor, while we have Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander contending (The Danish Girl) in Supporting Actress. Long live the category-fraud.December 14, 2015 at 12:19 pm #202732
No there were many many many examples of category fraud predating this one (Eva Marie Saint in On the Waterfront, Al Pacino in The Godfather, etc.)December 14, 2015 at 9:05 pm #202733
Was Patricia Neal in Hud category fraud? I was shocked when I finally saw that film that she had a pretty small part. How’d she end of in lead? Was the competion easier there?December 14, 2015 at 10:46 pm #202734
Mary Tyler Moore was absolutely leading in Ordinary People. She may not have had as much screentime as Hutton (who should have been leading), but in terms of characters- Beth was a central character. The teen girls in Hutton’s life were supporting. To this day, I wish Moore had won the Oscar. I respect Spacek, but I think Moore was impeccable.
Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views
FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017December 15, 2015 at 6:13 am #202735
Was Patricia Neal in Hud category fraud? I was shocked when I finally saw that film that she had a pretty small part. How’d she end of in lead? Was the competion easier there?
In a sense yes. This was a year under a different set of rules wherein the studio submitted the actor in either lead or supporting and that’s how they were printed on the ballot. Now, the voters actually put down the names of the actors in whichever they feel appropriate. Part of the reason for the change was in this year FOX submitted Roddy McDowell as lead for Cleopatra (which they did for all their stars in that mess) when it was fairly universally agreed he would be nominated and win in supporting. The people behind Hud, knowing full well the ladies from Tom Jones would likely dominate in supporting and that lead actress was weak put Neal in lead.December 17, 2015 at 12:38 pm #202736
No there were many many many examples of category fraud predating this one (Eva Marie Saint in On the Waterfront, Al Pacino in The Godfather, etc.)
Actually, I remember reading an interview with Pacino. He wasn’t a category fraud due to campaigning. He was campaigned in lead and he won the National Society of Film Critics and was a Globe nominee in lead but the Academy voted for him in supporting. Maybe this was the power of Brando.
And I’m usually surprised that when people write about category frauds, they always forget about Marcia Gay Harden who was a clear lead but the performance was great and her win was a really good choice, so people forgive her. But well, she was a category fraud and initally she was campaigned in lead but the NYFCC win made them all reconsider. So the critics are responsible for this category fraud.