Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?

Home // Forums // Movies // Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 61 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
60
replies
4027
views
25
users
18
7
4
  • Marcus Dixon
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Jun 12th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204943

    I’m scratching my head about all of the so-called “category confusion” for Alicia Vikander in “The Danish Girl.” If you ask me, she has the exact same role that Felicity Jones had in “The Theory of Everything” last year — the loving wife who copes with Eddie Redmayne’s physical and emotional hardship. Yet why was Jones automatically accepted as lead, while Vikander is splitting votes between supporting and lead? Can anyone explain this?

    Reply
    nkb325
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 6th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204945

    It does seem like a minor miracle that Felicity Jones was rightfully campaigned in Lead last year, seeing as it’s the exact type of role that normally gets pushed supporting, case in point Vikander this year.

    The only explanations I can think of are: Best Actress was a little weaker last year. Jones was the only nominee from a BP contender and only one of two to not be the sole nominee for their film. This year has the possibility for every nominee to be in a BP nominee.
    Or maybe more likely, the rise in Eddie Redmayne’s status is the deciding factor. Last year Redmayne and Jones were both rising stars, of relatively equal fame and success, neither nominated before, neither movie stars yet. They were at the same point in their career so they recieved the same status. But NOW, Redmayne is an oscar winner, a movie star who’s been around for what feels like a while considering our short attention spans. This is an Eddie Redmayne movie, also starring some actress that no one knew in 2014. Vikander is starring in an Eddie Redmayne movie, their not starring in it together (just a description of perception of course)

    ReplyCopy URL
    montana82
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204946

    There was no confusion last year because Felicity Jones was placed and campaigned in her rightful category while Vikander and Rooney Mara are pulling off 2 of the biggest cases of category fraud I have seen since following the Oscars.  They are constant presences throughout their movies. Their films are clear 2 handers with Redmayne/Vikander the leads of Danish Girl and Blanchett/Mara the leads of Carol.

     

    The fact they are being campaigned as supporting when they are not is why it’s confusing.  The HFPA couldn’t even look the other way. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    drenja
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204947

    Last years best actress field wasnt as stacked as this year so i believe thats why studio didnt want to push Jones to supporting actress. This years, however, though both Vikander and Mara are co-leads studios wanted to push them to supporting which is not very competitive so they can get sure nominations with solid chances to win. I hope, since even GG which accpets a lot of things didnt go for this croud, they will both end up as contenders in field they belonge to and thats best actress. Vikander is getting some love for her performance in “Ex Machina” and i can even see scenario in which she ends up with 2 nominations, though that is unlikely.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204948

    Well, maybe because Felicity Jones  was the real lead in The Theory of Everything…The whole story is tell from her point of view, is based on the memories of the wife of Hawkins.

    The other day i was thinking what if The Theory of Everything and The Danish Girl open in the same year and I’m sure Redmayne would compete in lead for TDG and supporting for TTOE since it isn’t the story of Stephen Hawkins but of his first wife. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204949

    I agree that lead actress was weak last year. If The Theory of Everything came out this year, I can promise that she would have been pushed supporting.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Sasha
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204950

    Okay guys, some of you you clearly have no idea how studios work. These people are greedy as fuck. Vikander was pushed supporting this year because silly Focus Features wanted Mulligan to get nominated. And not only because she’s more famous than Vikander but also she’s a former Oscar nominee, they have put Alicia in supporting. It backfired because Mulligan is absent this awards season while Vikander is juggling categories. And I’m happy about it. Those greedy bastards need to learn a lesson. It’s much easier for studios to campaign only one person in leading category. The same thing happened to Helen Hunt, they wanted Mirren in leading so they campaigned Hunt in supporting although she was a clear co-lead. Of course Mirren missed nomination while Hunt scored one thanks to this disgusting fraud.

    I think the only thing that can teach those studios something is snubbing Vikander, Mara, Tremblay and others. Because nominating them in leading won’t teach them anything. They’re gonna be like ‘oh we can still commit category frauds because they’re either get nominated in leading or supporting so it’s a win win.’ Snubbing those fantastic performers is the only way to go.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204951

    So if the Academy actually decided to put these roles in lead, you would want them snubbed because the studio pushed them supporting?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Daniel Montgomery
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204952

    So if the Academy actually decided to put these roles in lead, you would want them snubbed because the studio pushed them supporting?

    I think the idea is that if category confusion costs an actor a nomination altogether, that’s better than getting the nomination in the wrong category. And it’s happened before (Scarlett Johansson in “Lost in Translation” and Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Departed” probably suffered due to misguided supporting campaigns for clear lead performances), but this year is like nothing I’ve ever seen. There are three or four lead performances being pushed supporting, and then others that could go either way depending on how you look at it (the actors in ensemble movies like “Big Short,” a split-timeline story like “Love & Mercy”). More confusion than ever.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204953

    [quote=”PhilipHopf”]

    So if the Academy actually decided to put these roles in lead, you would want them snubbed because the studio pushed them supporting?

    I think the idea is that if category confusion costs an actor a nomination altogether, that’s better than getting the nomination in the wrong category. And it’s happened before (Scarlett Johansson in “Lost in Translation” and Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Departed” probably suffered due to misguided supporting campaigns for clear lead performances), but this year is like nothing I’ve ever seen. There are three or four lead performances being pushed supporting, and then others that could go either way depending on how you look at it (the actors in ensemble movies like “Big Short,” a split-timeline story like “Love & Mercy”). More confusion than ever.
    [/quote]

    I agree that there are a ton of category frauds this year. But u think that people get all twisted about it. Why is it people get so mad about lead being in supporting but seem to have no problem with Supporting Actors in Lead aka Anthony Hopkins.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Daniel Montgomery
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204954

    I agree that there are a ton of category frauds this year. But u think that people get all twisted about it. Why is it people get so mad about lead being in supporting but seem to have no problem with Supporting Actors in Lead aka Anthony Hopkins.

    People competing as lead actors with limited or borderline screentime (Hopkins in “Lambs,” Kidman in “The Hours”) are at an inherent disadvantage against other lead actors hwo dominate their films. If you can get a lead nomination for arguably a supporting role, it’s a testament to the strength of that performance.

    But a lead actor competing in the supporting category is doing so under the assumption that it’s easier for someone with tons of screentime to be nominated against actors who don’t have as much. Leads going supporting is an unfair advantage, while supporting going lead is giving yourself a disadvantage, so if your performance is that good (like Hopkins’s iconic Hannibal Lecter), more power to you.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204955

    [quote=”PhilipHopf”]

    I agree that there are a ton of category frauds this year. But u think that people get all twisted about it. Why is it people get so mad about lead being in supporting but seem to have no problem with Supporting Actors in Lead aka Anthony Hopkins.

    People competing as lead actors with limited or borderline screentime (Hopkins in “Lambs,” Kidman in “The Hours”) are at an inherent disadvantage against other lead actors hwo dominate their films. If you can get a lead nomination for arguably a supporting role, it’s a testament to the strength of that performance.

    But a lead actor competing in the supporting category is doing so under the assumption that it’s easier for someone with tons of screentime to be nominated against actors who don’t have as much. Leads going supporting is an unfair advantage, while supporting going lead is giving yourself a disadvantage, so if your performance is that good (like Hopkins’s iconic Hannibal Lecter), more power to you.

    [/quote]

    I get what you are saying, but fraud is fraud.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204956

    ^ To be honest I think both Hopkins was in the correct category for Lambs, so to me he’s not a fraud. I can’t think of anyone who won or was even nominated for a lead Oscar when they belonged in supporting since Patricia Neal in Hud. Other names have been brought up in the discussion (Reese Witherspoon, Mary Tyler Moore) but they don’t make sense to me. A lead doesn’t have to be in every scene.

    Obviously I would object if Joan Allen was nominated as a lead actress for Room (lol) but category fraud in reverse doesn’t do as much collateral damage as the more commonplace lead-as-supporting does, a little like how “reverse racism” doesn’t have the same social and political ramifications as white supremecy. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204957

    ^ To be honest I think both Hopkins was in the correct category for Lambs, so to me he’s not a fraud. I can’t think of anyone who won or was even nominated for a lead Oscar when they belonged in supporting since Patricia Neal in Hud. Other names have been brought up in the discussion (Reese Witherspoon, Mary Tyler Moore) but they don’t make sense to me. A lead doesn’t have to be in every scene.

    Obviously I would object if Joan Allen was nominated as a lead actress for Room (lol) but category fraud in reverse doesn’t do as much collateral damage as the more commonplace lead-as-supporting does, a little like how “reverse racism” doesn’t have the same social and political ramifications as white supremecy. 

    Hopkins is completely supporting I Silence of the Lambs.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204958

    We could debate that till the cows come home. To me it’s all about narrative function, not screentime. Hopkins in Lambs might be the shortest lead performance of all time. But we can agree to disagree.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 61 total)
Reply To: Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?

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

Similar Topics
Chris B... - Aug 18, 2017
Movies
Denis - Aug 18, 2017
Movies