-
-
After recently posting a lead vs supporting poll on Jeremy Irons, I got to thinking about category fraud at the Emmys, and how it doesn’t get anywhere near as much talk as it does at the Oscars. So I figured I’d ask what people think are the most notable cases of it.
From shows that I’ve seen, the biggest one is the acting placement in Angels in America. All the principals were nominated, with the three going lead being Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, and Emma Thompson. This is despite all these roles commonly being seen as supporting onstage (Pacino’s is often considered to border on lead and supporting though), while supporting nominee Justin Kirk is undeniably the main character of the story.
I understand the placement as those three were beloved veterans while Kirk was an unknown, but it’s still pretty ridiculous that he was in supporting while Thompson as by far the smallest role was in lead.
What are some other noticeable examples of actors being in the wrong category at the Emmys?
ReplyShailene Woodley in Supporting in 2017 for Big Little Lies. She was co-lead in the first season with both Kidman and Witherspoon.
I’d also say this year Russell Tovey being in Lead for Years and Years is category fraud. I mean he doesn’t appear in the last two episodes of the show…
ReplyCopy URLFYC OSCARS : VANESSA KIRBY FOR "PIECES OF A WOMAN", AMANDA SEYFRIED FOR "MANK", ANTHONY HOPKINS FOR "THE FATHER", CHADWICK BOSEMAN FOR "MA RAINEY'S BLACK BOTTOM", PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN (BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY).
DRAMAS AS COMEDIES. (yes this needs to be in all caps). Barry, Dead to Me, Russian Doll, Fleabag are the most guilty parties. Genre fraud is insidious and that’s being NICE. It is a stain on the Emmys that these four were allowed to compete as comedies.
Maybe you just don’t have a sense of humour?
ReplyCopy URLFYC OSCARS : VANESSA KIRBY FOR "PIECES OF A WOMAN", AMANDA SEYFRIED FOR "MANK", ANTHONY HOPKINS FOR "THE FATHER", CHADWICK BOSEMAN FOR "MA RAINEY'S BLACK BOTTOM", PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN (BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY).
Shailene was definetly the most lead of season 1, at least for me. Nicole actually felt the most ‘supporting’ of the three. But both Reese and Nicole are far bigger names than Woodley, not to mention both were producers on the show. So Shailene was the one getting sacrificed into supporting.
ReplyCopy URLI don’t really consider a supporting player competing in lead to be fraud.
The whole outrage with alleged “fraud” is that leads get an unfair advantage in the supporting categories when they are competing with true supporting actors. The same cannot be said in the reverse and, in fact, they can be at a disadvantage.
I find “fraud” controversies to be pretty overblown anyway.
ReplyCopy URLYou mean behind her category placement? I have absolutely no idea. A case can be made about her being lead in the first season because Tony going to the therapy is one of the main plots, but after that it was pure category fraud.
She was submitted in lead for seasons 1, 2 and 3, and in supporting for 6B. I don’t know in which category she was placed in seasons 4, 5 and 6A. She was probably submitted in lead for the first season because she was the biggest name on the show, while everyone else was relatively unknown.
ReplyCopy URLDRAMAS AS COMEDIES. (yes this needs to be in all caps). Barry, Dead to Me, Russian Doll, Fleabag are the most guilty parties. Genre fraud is insidious and that’s being NICE. It is a stain on the Emmys that these four were allowed to compete as comedies.
Fleabag isn’t even close to being a drama. This is literally the first time I’ve ever even heard someone suggest that.
People are too quick to call dramedies straightforward dramas. Shows like Barry may have a lot more drama than the average comedy, but they still have an abundance of comedic scenes that you wouldn’t find in a straightforward drama. Scenes like Anthony Carrigan in a terrible wig and Bill Hader imagining he’s best friends with Jon Hamm keeps Barry a comedy in my mind.
I don’t really consider a supporting player competing in lead to be fraud. The whole outrage with alleged “fraud” is that leads get an unfair advantage in the supporting categories when they are competing with true supporting actors. The same cannot be said in the reverse and, in fact, they can be at a disadvantage. I find “fraud” controversies to be pretty overblown anyway.
I agree that I don’t mind supporting players going lead as much as the other way around, although it bothers me if they miss out, cause it makes their snub look worse, as the average person finding out about them missing will think that they couldn’t make it into the category that’s often less competitive.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
