I have only one objection, and the only objective objection, to her Oscar win. That objection is that it is yet another example of nomination of a leading actress in the supporting category who then wins because, of course, her work was bigger and bolder than others in an actual supporting role. Since there is no other prominent female role in the movie she is by default the leading actress, and the role is certainly a leading role, and therefore should not even be eligible for nomination in the supporting category at all.
This business seems to be poorly defined. "Supporting" usually seems to mean "Not the top billed star" and has little to do with the actual role. We have instances where two are rightly nominated in the same category e.g Judgement at Nuremberg where Schell won over Tracy, and other instances where the two leads are split between leading and supporting e.g. The Miracle Worker that enables two wins but clearly abuses the supporting category. That is unless you think a young actress is automatically supporting by virtue of being young. This rationale worked for "supporting actress" Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon where again there no more prominent female lead, and worked against co-nominee Madeline Kahn in a true supporting role. Sometimes the result of the single category nomination is that both lose, possibly due to vote splitting over one work, e.g. Midnight Cowboy (a controversial film, rated X (!), and two unpleasant characters. Sentiment that they "owed one" to John Wayne gave the voters an easy out The controversy did not prevent the movie winning Best Picture, Director and Writing. Not unlike the later situation and outcome for Brokeback Mountain only rated "R" not "NC-17", three Oscars but not the "hot" ones, Best Picture or Best Actor). Some think that Lauren Bacall was robbed in this fashion for The Mirror Has Two Faces against winner Juliette Binoche in The English Patient (and despite any possible sentiment that Bacall was "owed one") when Binoche's role was of leading actress magnitude. At least there was another nominated leading actress in that movie with an arguably larger role to justify this nomination, unlike My Cousin Vinny.
A mess, and one that is and will inevitably repeated regularly.
Despite all the dubious fun generated (the endless argument and the red carpet nonsense around the ceremony itself) I agree with George C. Scott that the whole thing is a bad idea and the craft, if not the business, would be better off without it.
Yours is an excellent post. Thanks. I just addressed this very issue in another post of mine, up above. I will copy-and-paste it here below:
Another person stated:
I also had no idea there was the slightest hint that this was not a deserved Oscar win. I had no idea she was 'supporting' - I thought she was the star along with Pesci.
My reply was:
Tomei certainly was a star in the film (along side with Pesci, of course). Whether a performance is considered "leading actress" or "supporting actress", however, is all politics.
In other words, if the studio thinks that the actress does not stand a chance in the "leading" category, they simply list her role as "supporting", assuming that she stands a better chance in the latter category.
Whether the role is, in fact, a leading or a supporting role is entirely beside the point.
Hollywood politics.
That being said, Tomei turned in a stellar performance. As we all know, the Academy doesn't take too kindly to comedies, in general. They prefer other genres. But, I assume, acting in a comedic role is just as much "hard work" as acting in a dramatic role (if not more so).
Did she deserve an Oscar? I'd say "yeah". Did she deserve this Oscar? I dunno. I'd have to check who the other four contenders were to make my final decision.
A few years back, I actually "looked into" this matter. I think that I called or emailed the Academy. The basic response was: the members themselves decide in any way that they wish what constitutes a "leading" role and what constitutes a "supporting" role. There are no rules or guidelines, whatsoever (except, perhaps, for common sense).
But -- as with any competition -- people will learn to "game the system" and that has certainly happened here (with the leading/supporting ambiguities).
Throw in Hollywood politics, on top of all that. And greed (the producers wanting as many awards as possible). And ego (the actors wanting to win). It's all a recipe for disaster. It is ripe for abuse and, many times, that abuse occurs.
As you said, it's unfair to nominate a "leading performance" in the "supporting" category, because the actors/actresses who truly are "supporting" will, by definition, be at a disadvantage. The "leading role" (even it's it arbitrarily called "supporting") will always outshine them. And that's just not fair. It's not fair to anyone: leads or supports.
That being said: what "rules" could the Academy possibly set forth to define a "lead" role versus a "support" role? I can't think of any whatsoever.
It's sort of like what the U. S. Supreme Court said about "pornography". They said: "I can't define it. But I know what it is when I see it."
Same here, I think.
reply
share