MovieChat Forums > Angels in America (2003) Discussion > Can somebody explain me why Streep and T...

Can somebody explain me why Streep and Thompson are considered leads?


In my opinion, Mary Louise Parker has much more screentime than Streep and Thompson together.

reply

Can somebody explain me why Streep and Thompson are considered leads?
Considered by whom? If you are talking about categories at awards shows, those are usually self-determined and self-submitted (for instance, it was minorly notable this year when Ed O'Neil of "Modern Family" chose to submit himself for an Emmy in the Supporting [instead of Lead] Actor category). This is a determination that sometimes gets made based partly (as you alluded to) on minutes of screentime but also on whether inclusion on a category puts you in competition with one of your costars--as having both Streep and Parker together would have done. I am just guessing here, but I assume a determination was made by Parker and Streep (or more likely, by their "people") to assign Streep the "lead" slot and Parker the "supporting" slot so both would have the chance to win Emmys and Golden Globes, which both of them did.

Also, are you really sure that Mary-Louise Parker had more screentime than Mary Louise Streep? I haven't sat down to watch the movie with a stopwatch or anything, but Streep did play four different roles in the film, while Parker only played one.

reply

It has nothing to do with the size of the roles. Streep and Pacino are the biggest names, so they get the billing.

reply

[deleted]

Just as it is with movies, the studio that makes the film determines the category each actor will be submitted in. There is no self-submission.


No, you're wrong about that:

As the Emmy rules stand, an actor is forced to decide to submit him or herself in the supporting or lead category. An ensemble award, like that given out by the Screen Actors Guild, could provide a solution for actors who fall between the poles -- a dilemma that created a thorny problem for some notable performers in last year's Emmy race.

Take 2010's most egregious Emmy snub, Ed O'Neill on ABC's Modern Family, which Lowe might have been alluding to in his tweet. In the spirit of one for all, every adult member of the cast -- Julie Bowen, Ty Burrell, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Sofia Vergara, Eric Stonestreet and O'Neill -- agreed to enter the race in support. Each was nominated except O'Neill, who might have made the cut in the less-crowded lead actor category had he contended there.

"Perhaps people thought he was in the wrong category," the show's co-creator, Steve Levitan, said of O'Neill the morning nominations were announced. Despite the snub in 2010, O'Neill has entered the race as supporting again this year.

Unlike the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, whose members determine whether an actor qualifies for the support or lead Oscar race, the Emmys leave it to the candidates -- which can complicate a network or studio's campaign efforts. "While we happily provide guidance and advice, the decision always rests with the performer, and rightfully so," says Chris Alexander, senior vp corporate communications at 20th Century Fox TV, the studio behind Modern Family. "With ensemble shows, it can be entirely subjective."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/emmys-why-rob-lowe-is-192739


and:

A couple of things to remember: 1.) Nominees (or their agents, managers, or mothers) have to submit themselves to get onto the ballot in the first place, 2.) There's sometimes a lot of strategy involved in deciding which category to submit to, and the results don't always make sense.

It never fails. Every year, there are actors who submit to the various lead categories even though they're clearly not the lead (and in some cases, not even a co-lead) of their show. Rob Lowe is famous for doing this on just about every show he's appeared on, including Parks and Recreation.

...

If you think the lead categories are a mess, take a gander at the seemingly never-ending ballots in the supporting and guest races. Because of the self-submission process, there's no hard-and-fast rule for what distinguishes a supporting performance from a guest role, so we'll often see people we consider fundamental members of the cast submit in guest categories.

http://www.tv.com/shows/the-primetime-emmy-awards/community/post/emmy-nomination-ballots-2014-140250593098/

reply

I came here to ask the exact same thing. I'm midway through Chapter 3 and Thompson has barely been in it (not an angel yet). Parker has more screentime than Streep for sure. Pacino has a dominant part, but all the other supporting actors have more screetime than these two women so far.

reply


i thought about this too. i'm guessing that the credits appear in order of the famousness of the cast member, therefore here, the order is al pacino, meryl streep, emma thompson, then etc etc


timing is everything

reply

You would be correct, toni from wellywood. It's star power, and the bigger stars get higher billing.

reply

I agree.It was probably star power.

reply

The film won Emmys for all 4 categories. The producers planned well.

reply

It's more about the execution than the planning. A movie without much planning can still be pulled off well in the right hands. This movie was brimming with talent.

reply

Are you classing them as leads just because their names were credited before Parker's?

reply

Kirk, Shenkman and Wilson were obviously the leads. Streep (debatable), Pacino, Louise-Parker, Thompson and Wright were supporting.

I guess Thompson was considered lead because:
a) she's an A-list actress
b) she was integral to the plot

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqo3wsfboy1qahk68o1_500.gif

reply

Streep played four different characters. Surely that constitutes a lead. Pacino played Cohn, the person along with Prior who has AIDS in this play, and his living with the disease in parallel with Prior makes Pacino an obvious lead along with Justin Kirk.
It truly is shameful, though, how Kirk was ignored at the Globes for his performance. Which is nothing short of outstanding.

reply

^^^ What you said.

Though I don't think Kirk was as good as Pacino, Streep and Parker.

reply

I agree, those three were in a class of their own. But I feel Kirk should've been awarded somehow for his efforts (though not at the cost of Pacino), or at least acknowledged - aswell as Patrick Wilson and Ben Shenkman, really.
I mean, everyone in this were pretty much amazing. It's seems very rare to get such great performances from an entire cast. Of course the play itself is a masterpiece which must make it a joy for the actors, but still.

reply

It boils down to industry clout. It's hard to put veterans in supporting roles (even when they are) while lesser or unknown actors take the leading roles.

Also, the acting parts of Pacino and Streep are much stronger than the other actors, the types of acting found in leading roles, not supporting roles. And hence, even when they're in supporting roles, you have to put their work in the leading category.

--

reply

You're saying because they're "veterans" and famous, their acting is by definition better? I totally disagree with that. I don't think anyone did a better job than Justin Kirk, Patrick Wilson, and Ben Shenkman in this film. The whole thing sits squarely on the shoulders of these three actors, and if any of them stumbled, the whole thing would fall apart.

Luckily, they didn't stumble.

reply

I agree except for Shenkman. He was adequately good. Not great, certainly not outstanding. Out of the whole cast I thought Jeffrey Wright and Justin Kirk did their best work. Pacino and Streep were superb, but you'd expect that from them. Wright and Kirk were the newbies, so they completely blew me away. Especially Wright. At any rate, all of the actors' work was awarded accordingly. But Kirk being completely left out is still hard for me to fathom!

reply

[deleted]