Home Forums Movies The category fraud thread

The category fraud thread

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 88 total)
Created
2 weeks ago
Last Reply
4 days ago
87
( +8 hidden )
replies
5031
views
44
users
Baby Clyde
9
O´Hara
8
RobertPius
6
  • SN
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 7th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721224

    Recently, for me one of the worst category fraud was The Danish Girl because Vikander actually won. Some people argue this film was just about Lili Elbe transition, but no, it was actually a tragic love story between Redmayne and Vikander characters. I’ve even heard that the title’s danish girl was actually her character. The fraud was obviously only because she would’ve better chances in supporting and it worked.

    Viola Davis is also being mentioned here. I had no problem with her in supporting, since Fences was mostly about Troy Maxter story. Davis could’ve been place in either leading or supporting and that would be fine, although I would’ve been happier it she had won in lead and I still think she would’ve won over Stone.

    At that same year of The Danish Girl, Carol was also a terrible and even worst example. While you can still have an argument about Vikander’s fraud, you can’t say anything about Mara’s fraud. Both her and Blanchett had the same importance and screen time and it was 100% a love story between their characters. I just cannot understand why no movie can have two leading nominations these days like Amadeus, Thelma and Louise and Terms of Endearment. So f**cking silly.

    ReplyCopy URL
    adamunc
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721226

    I remember a couple years ago reading that the reason Viola was in lead at the Tony’s was because she was top on the marquee with Denzel, and the Tony’s have a rule stating that if you’re on the marquee you have to submit lead. Never saw the play so I can’t comment on it, but I think she was supporting in the film.

    While it’s true that being above the title on the opening night program means a performer will likely be considered a lead, producers can and do request exceptions and the administration committee can also change the category at their discretion. The lead actress category was fairly weak in 2010 while featured actress was more competitive, so that was likely a factor in the producers letting the billing rule stand.

    Going supporting for the Oscars in this case just felt calculated. It was basically a filmed version of the Broadway production with several carryover cast members.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721235

    I LOATHE category fraud with a burning passion.

    Oscar noms change careers. Every time a big name actor pushes their way into Supporting fraudulently they push out someone whose career could be forever changed by the honour.

    In 2016 when Viola cheated her way to a win the probable 6th placer in noms was Lily Gladstone in ‘Certain Women’. Ever heard of her???

    Imagine if someone like Jacquie Weaver hadn’t got in because of Hailee Steinfield’s ridiculous placement or June Squibb was snubbed because of Julia Robert’s egomania.

    It’s disgusting.

    Very seldom is there genuine confusion as to where anyone should be placed. No one thought Mara Rooney or Alicia Vikander where Supporting they just new it was easier to get them nominated in that category. Casey Affleck playing the title character and in every scene just wasn’t a big enough name to guarantee a Best Actor nom but with all that screen time could easily impress enough to get in over people with 5 minute roles.

    There is new and indefensible idea that no film can have 2 leads of the same gender. It’s been 27 years since two women were nominated for the same film in Lead and 34 since 2 men were. Films didn’t change, just the way that campaigns were run. Today there is no doubt that either Thelma or Louise would be demoted.

    We’re told this year that both Timothy Chalamet and Mahershala Ali are Supporting just because neither is the Lead of their respective films. But they are a Lead. The films are two handers. They don’t exist without both characters being front and centre. It’s highly unlikely either would be campaigned in Supporting if they were female. I’m particularly appalled by someone like Ali who was himself a journeyman actor before his Oscar win made him a star. Now he is potentially denying a Russel Hornsby or a Bryan Tyree Henry the same opportunity.

    There used to be a real stigma around big stars appearing in the Supporting category even if they were in real supporting parts. As late as 1961 there was criticism when Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift were nominated for Judgement At Nuremberg because they were thought to be stealing the places of true character actors. In 1955 Rosalind Russell refused to be campaigned as Supporting for Picnic because she had fought hard to because a leading lady and didn’t want people to thing of her in any other way. It was seen as an insult. Obviously Julia Roberts didn’t get the memo.

    I consider her to be the most egregious example in Academy history. Never before had a star of her magnitude made such a cynical and craven bid for a nomination. It’s one thing for children, newcomers or character actors in main roles to do so but the biggest female movie star of the last 25 years plumbed new depths.

    The Academy needs to step in. It’s not hard to determine placements. Leads are usually obvious. They are roles that are instrumental to the plot. Parts that can’t be removed without the film being fundamentally changed. Jake may have a slightly smaller role than Heath in Brokeback Mountain but they are both integral to the storyline. If Jake is Supporting then what’s Randy Quaid. If Vikander is Supporting then how do you define Amber Heard’s role?

    There are only a couple of genuinely problematic cases each year. A simple committee that passes judgement of dubious attempts at cheating would be an easy fix to the problem and would lead to genuine Supporting performers getting their just reward and a far more interesting Oscar race at the same time.

    ReplyCopy URL
    O´Hara
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 11th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721240

    I LOATHE category fraud with a burning passion.

    Oscar noms change careers. Every time a big name actor pushes their way into Supporting fraudulently they push out someone whose career could be forever changed by the honour.

    In 2016 when Viola cheated her way to a win the probable 6th placer in noms was Lily Gladstone in ‘Certain Women’. Ever heard of her???

    Imagine if someone like Jacquie Weaver hadn’t got in because of Hailee Steinfield’s ridiculous placement or June Squibb was snubbed because of Julia Robert’s egomania.

    It’s disgusting.

    Very seldom is there genuine confusion as to where anyone should be placed. No one thought Mara Rooney or Alicia Vikander where Supporting they just new it was easier to get them nominated in that category. Casey Affleck playing the title character and in every scene just wasn’t a big enough name to guarantee a Best Actor nom but with all that screen time could easily impress enough to get in over people with 5 minute roles.

    There is new and indefensible idea that no film can have 2 leads of the same gender. It’s been 27 years since two women were nominated for the same film in Lead and 34 since 2 men were. Films didn’t change, just the way that campaigns were run. Today there is no doubt that either Thelma or Louise would be demoted.

    We’re told this year that both Timothy Chalamet and Mahershala Ali are Supporting just because neither is the Lead of their respective films. But they are a Lead. The films are two handers. They don’t exist without both characters being front and centre. It’s highly unlikely either would be campaigned in Supporting if they were female. I’m particularly appalled by someone like Ali who was himself a journeyman actor before his Oscar win made him a star. Now he is potentially denying a Russel Hornsby or a Bryan Tyree Henry the same opportunity.

    There used to be a real stigma around big stars appearing in the Supporting category even if they were in real supporting parts. As late as 1961 there was criticism when Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift were nominated for Judgement At Nuremberg because they were thought to be stealing the places of true character actors. In 1955 Rosalind Russell refused to be campaigned as Supporting for Picnic because she had fought hard to because a leading lady and didn’t want people to thing of her in any other way. It was seen as an insult. Obviously Julia Roberts didn’t get the memo.

    I consider her to be the most egregious example in Academy history. Never before had a star of her magnitude made such a cynical and craven bid for a nomination. It’s one thing for children, newcomers or character actors in main roles to do so but the biggest female movie star of the last 25 years plumbed new depths.

    The Academy needs to step in. It’s not hard to determine placements. Leads are usually obvious. They are roles that are instrumental to the plot. Parts that can’t be removed without the film being fundamentally changed. Jake may have a slightly smaller role than Heath in Brokeback Mountain but they are both integral to the storyline. If Jake is Supporting then what’s Randy Quaid. If Vikander is Supporting then how do you define Amber Heard’s role?

    There are only a couple of genuinely problematic cases each year. A simple committee that passes judgement of dubious attempts at cheating would be an easy fix to the problem and would lead to genuine Supporting performers getting their just reward and a far more interesting Oscar race at the same time.

    I´m living for this and I´d really like to read what you think about The Favourite placement?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721241

    Going supporting for the Oscars in this case just felt calculated. It was basically a filmed version of the Broadway production with several carryover cast members.

    It was 100% calculated. I actually asked her about this and she said that she felt Denzel was the Lead role so she should go Supporting which would only make any sense if they were competing in the same category. The real tragedy is that she would have won Lead anyway (Which I told her).

    No one is arguing that her role is the Lead but she is clearly one of the leads of the film. The ludicrous idea that if you’re not the absolute main focus then you’re Supporting is infuriating.

    These days they’d try and place Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca or Clark Gable in Gone With The Wind Supporting.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Pulp
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 13th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721244

    People complain about Vikander but both Emma Stone and Mahersala Ali this year blow her out of the water in terms of being a LEAD.

    I haven’t seen Green Book but I don’t understand why people aren’t making a bigger deal about Stone being in supporting. I think Colman and Weisz are borderline because they both sort of disappear from time to time but Stone was no doubt the lead in The Favourite.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721258

    I´m living for this and I´d really like to read what you think about The Favourite placement?

    They are all Lead in the same way that they are in 9 to 5 or The First Wives Club. One role may be slightly more central (Jane Fonda’s for example) but that doesn’t mean the others should be demoted.

    In The Favourite Emma has the story arc, Olivia is the central figure and Rachel is the title character. Take any of them out and you don’t have a film. Nicholas Hoult and Joe Alwyn are the supporting characters.

    With the Stone, Weisz, MacKenzie, Blunt and Portman all being fraudulently campaigned in Supporting there is a distinct possibilty that over half of the nominations could be for leading roles. The likes of Yeoh and Debicki have barely been in the conversation because at least 2 spots are already taken.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by  Baby Clyde.
    ReplyCopy URL
    wattsgold
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 6th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721260

    They are all Lead in the same way that they are in 9 to 5 or The First Wives Club. One role may be slightly more central (Jane Fonda’s for example) but that doesn’t mean the others should be demoted. In The Favourite Emma has the story arc, Olivia is the central figure and Rachel is the title character. Take any of them out and you don’t have a film. Nicholas Hoult and Joe Alwyn are the supporting characters. With the Stone, Weisz, MacKenzie, Blunt and Portman all being fraudulently campaigned in Supporting there is a distinct possibilty that over half of the nominations could be for leading roles. The likes of Yeoh and Debicki have barely been in the conversation because at least 2 spots are already taken.

    And this is how you school most of the lazy readers here. Well done! Sheep will clap the frauds with blatant ignorance if that means their star of choice is nominated. Homegirl Natalie needs to learn, glad she is getting zero nominations.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202721290

    Just watched The Favourite and now I understand the controversy around Olivia Coleman, yes she could have go in either direction but for me without Queen Anne there’s not movie, she is Lead to me. Rachel Weist is also Lead, there’s no way you can separate the story of Lady Marlbough and Queen Anne. Emma Stone is the case that I’m more incline to give it a pass in Supporting but all in all her character is still a Lead character, a little less than Queen Anne and Sarah but still a Lead.

    PS: I loved the movie, this is the one I’ve had enjoyed the most of all the best picture contenders, even if I know that Roma is the very best of the group.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202724395

    I get her point as she did beat Ryder to the BAFTA and I’m sure Winona was pushed for the Oscar over her but I watched The Age Of Innocence the other day and there’s no fraud being committed.

    DDL and Queen Michelle are the Leads. Ryder has a large Supporting role.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Baby Clyde.
    ReplyCopy URL
    Elazul
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 2nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202724426

    I get her point as she did beat Ryder to the BAFTA and I’m sure Winona was pushed for the Oscar over her but I watched The Age Of Innocence the other day and there’s no fraud being committed. DDL and Queen Michelle are the Leads. Ryder has a large Supporting role.

    Completely agree, those category placements were proper.

    To me from the last three decades only The Hours and Carol are egregious, the rest can be justified one way or another.

    ReplyCopy URL
    SHT L
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 7th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202724435

    Right. Ryder seriously disappears through large chunks of the film and to me there’s no question her role is a supporting one. Or maybe I’ve been conditioned, since the days where the likes of Goldie Hawn won for a role that is arguably a lead (well, I guess Ingrid Bergman was really the lead of that film but Hawn’s part was huge) and Marissa Tomei won for a role where’s she’s a lead female role as well.

    ReplyCopy URL
    prognosticator
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 9th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202724471

    If both women were nominated in leading actress from Carol they’d cancel each other out. I loved that film. It’s actyally very well done and handles a lesbian love story with sensitivity and beauty. It’s a great film. I’d have liked both ladies to win. I think category placement is more arbitrary in film than theater.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202724810

    If both women were nominated in leading actress from Carol they’d cancel each other out. .

    There’s over 20 examples of 2 people nominated in the same category from 1 film resulting in a win for one of them. And seeing as neither of them won anyway it obviously wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Baby Clyde
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 8th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202724824

    Yes, category placement was just. But she’s just example of character actor being screwed over even if there was no fraud committed here but I’m sure you get the bigger picture.

    Totally agree. There were at least 3 women from A:OC who gained no traction at all because Julia was stealing their thunder.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 88 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Chris B... - Jan 20, 2019
Movies
L Hawks - Jan 20, 2019
Movies