Best 'Supporting' Actor???
This is a clear cut case of best actor or nothing. Richard Burton is CLEARLY the lead actor in this movie and has more screen time than most best actor and best actress nominees.
Often Hollywood places a certain actor or actress in "supporting" category for whatever reason. Clearly, Burton qualified for a "Best Actor" nomination. Frankly, his Philip Ashley in MY COUSIN RACHEL remains my favorite of all his early roles.
Same thing happened with de Havilland in "Gone with the Wind." David O. Selznick gave her star billing along with Gable, Leigh and Howard. He had to. He promised Jack Warner he would give Olivia star billing. Then, when it came time for the Oscars, he put her in "supporting role" category against Hattie McDaniel. Go figure.
Actually, all the other roles in GWTW were in support of Vivien Leigh. She had more screen time than Gable, de Havilland or Howard or anyone else in the cast.
"Somewhere along the line, the world has lost all of its standards and all of its taste."
While I agree with most of what you say, this movie is practically a case of "Hamlet" in which Richard Burton's character dominates the movie. Since you brought up GWTW, it would be like nominating Vivien Leigh for "Best Supporting Actress" in that movie. I realize these strange things happen with the Oscars but this one was entirely nonsensical.
Maybe Burton's press agent should share some of the blame. He evidently allowed his client to be placed in the best supporting category. This was Burton's first American film and he was unknown at the time to American audiences. Olivia, of course, was playing the title role and was a two-time Oscar winner by 1952. Must have been Fox's decision to put Burton as "supporting" even though he had a large role. Or did Olivia insist on getting sole starring billing???
It's really an odd decision, since Fox then signed him to a long term contract and were obviously grooming him for stardom.