What do people think of the actual supporting players?
Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:00AM As I was updating the supporting actress chart I was reminded again why I hate category fraud. This year Mya Taylor, Alicia Vikander, and Rooney Mara have all been campaigning for supporting awards and in truth I love them. They're terrific in their films (Tangerine, The Danish Girl, Carol respectively) and in two of the three cases the MVP of their films. But all three are also leading ladies in films that are absolutely duets. There's been a lot of (deserved) discussion of these performances but category fraud creates a vacuum elsewhere. It's not just that it's dishonest, a gaming of the system to give more attention to actors who usually already get plenty of it (Mya Taylor being an exception here obviously... but usually category fraud benefits stars), but it skews the conversation such that once awards season rolls around, you wake up and you realize you have precious little idea what anyone actually thinks of the supporting players of the year. This is one of the reason "coaster" nominations happen where people get in simply because their film is loved. People haven't really thought their choices through. Because they haven't been discussed. Not the way leading performances are.
Like these women... shouldn't there be more conversation about what they bring to their films? But how can that conversation even start when people are only talking about leading ladies.
The next time someone tells you the supporting race is thin -- point them to this graphic. I don't love all of these performances myself but all 24* of them, if they were to be pointed out to a wide group of voters as viable options, well, wouldn't they each have no trouble finding some fans? My point is this: you can definitely find 5 great performances in any category in any film year.
See the updated Supporting Actress Chart and discuss your favorites in the comments. Which of these 24 women do you love and who should we all be discussing? Not for their probability of a nomination but for their actual performances?
* I am torn as to whether Kristen Stewart or Elizabeth Banks can justifiably be called supporting for Clouds of Sils Maria & Love and Mercy. They're borderline cases. Each is the lead of their portion of the film but they're not the leadiest (if you will) since someone else is even more important and they both disappear for a section of their films.
Reader Comments (39)
Nathaniel has The Legend of Barney Thomson been released in the US? It was out in the UK in rhe summer and Emma Thompson's hilarious 77 year old Mother of Robert Carlisle was one of my favourite supporting performances this year. Plus having just seen Carol there is no way Mara is supporting!!! Maybe they'll both still get in for lead....
I think the tide is shifting with Rooney Mara. With that Indie Spirit lead nomination, a (likely) Lead Actress Drama Globe nomination and supposed rumors that she's lead at the SAGs, I think it's going to be more likely for voters to vote for her in lead. I have no idea with Vikander though, as buzz with that movie is extremely quiet right now. We know she stands a chance of getting a Lead Actress Drama nomination at the Globes though.
I maintain neither Mara nor Vikander will make it to Supporting Actress at the Oscars. I may be convinced to believe Mara may hit a lucky one with being nominated in Lead tho.
For Supporting Actress, I speculate:
Allen
Fonda,
Nixon*
Walters
Winslet
*dreaming is okay, alright.
Maybe the Academy should create a category named "Best Actress in an Actual Supporting Role"
It just hit me the Academy is never interested in the conversation about who potentially belongs in the final five configuration. They want an impressive campaign to direct to the biggest name or the most showiest performance from an unknown supporting performer.
It feels so late to be having a conversation about the multiple possibilities because things will lock up soon. The best thing about this season is no concrete front runner for any category except Animated Feature.
I can't believe I'm rooting for Stallone. But if they're going to outright ignore the Best Supporting Actor performance of the year in Jason Mitchell then Stallone is the next best potential possibility.
I have no interests in supporting actress this year. I want Rampling to make the final five. Not to say it wouldn't be exciting to see Fonda receive her 8th nomination and Winslet her 7th. Blanchett is going for her 7th. So exciting to see actresses inching closer to double digit nomination status. Davis, Hepburn, and Streep are lonely at the top.
On Stewart:
I always use Dr. Zhivago as a standard. Julie Christie is not in large sections of the movie, but half of the movie is about Lara since this is a love story, so this is a leading role. You can say the same about Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener. The whole action of the movie is about her. Or Hilary Swank in The Homesman.
The thing about Cloud os Sils Maria is that the movie is a two-hander about a relationship of an actress and her assistant in 2/3 of it, so this is clearly a leading role.
And the Steve Jobs comparision doesn't hold up, since Stewart's scenes are also about her.
Still, it's a very subtle and intelligent performance, but Binoche's work is just too much for Stewart to put a fight. Binoche is awesome in every single scene of it.
Her versatility just scares me. She came from auteur vessels parts with no character at all - what make the performances even more complicated (Red Balloon and Certified Copy), then switches into absolute naturalistic rawness in what may be her performance ever (Camille Claudel 1915) and then goes to this impossibly heart-breaking diva act!
I think it's time for a Film Bitch gold medal.
Three suggestions that should be added on the list: Julia Roberts (Secret in Their Eyes, her best since Closer, a real supporting role unlike AOC), Mickey O'Hagan (Tangerine, truly authentic and quietly heartbreaking, also a real supporting unlike Maya), Virginia Madsen (Joy, brilliantly combines humor and sorrow with a complete subplot of her own.）
Secret in Their Eyes in one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Poor Julia. She really needs a new agent.
I'm just gonna keep muttering Kristen Stewart and Cynthia Nixon's names until somehow they get in and I'm ecstatic.
Nathaniel, you are so right how much talent in supporting actress there was this year and it's sad how the supporting campaigns for Mara and Vikander will negate the conversations people at large will have about such performances. Just saw Danish Girl and would argue that it is even more about Gerda than Lily. Completely mystifying how that bit of category fraud is being accepted.
I feel Vikander will get in for supporting, but I think Mara is going to be bumped up to lead. The tide is shifting early and people are talking more and more about like they did in 2008 for Winslet (funny how she must be praying they do the same to Mara/Vikander that they did to her in 08 so she can have a shot at Oscar #2).
It's also great how people are offering even more suggestions to your 24, once again showing the breadth of great work done this year by actresses in a true supporting role.
This is drawing an almighty long bow, but imagine if Cate won best supporting actress for Cinderella and best actress for Carol! Heads would explode! Mine especially. I know, I know, it will never happen...but geez what a spectacle that would be...
I just saw Secret in their Eyes this afternoon. I don't think there are any supporting players there who will get a nom. But I feel more in love with Nicole than ever before. What a supreme being she is.
Julia Roberts needs to chase auteurs instead of parts she feels will get awards consideration. The Academy loves her. May not seem like it because she's good for a nomination per decade. But it says they care and her output is too inconsistent or their attention spans concerning her is short every decade. I like Julia Roberts. I know I usually hate the popular and especially ones with unlikable personas. But she feels like a genuine movie star to me like Tom Cruise. It must be my age but they were very much a big deal growing up and re-watching much of their filmography reminds they don't make movies like the used to nor stars.
IMO, I thot Jennifer Jason Leigh wld sneak into top 5 now that the winds turned her direct, w her NBR win & Indie nom??
I've a feeling Oscar will follow GG & view Mara as a lead, rather than supp.
So my bet now is:
Actress
Larson (lock)
Blanchett (lock)
Mara (If she was not lost in the confusion among the voters whr to place her)
Tomlin (or Rampling, depends which veteran resonates more w the voters)
JLaw (or Ronan, who din really gain award traction)
Supp Actress:
Winslet (lock)
JJL (lock)
Fonda
Banks
Vikander (If she was not lost in the confusion among the voters whr to place her)
Actor:
Damon (lock)
Fassbender (lock)
Leo (lock)
Redmayne
Depp (or Caine, depends who the voters prefer)
Supp Actor:
Keaton (lock)
Ruffalo
Hardy
Dano
Rylance (or whoever has a more aggressive campaign, lol)
That said, I tink the Golden Globes nom on Dec 10 will clear tinks up abit & we will know which direction which of the actors/actresses were heading
I ish Swank had gone supporting last year,Nat maybe you should get the ball rolling with a Allem,Winslet,Fonda write up.
I saw James White last night and Nixon's work is simply astonishing, would love to see her nominated. I also love it when a performance as subtle as Allen's gets traction, it reminds me a bit of Jacki Weaver in SLP (one of my favourite nominations ever), where there is no one big 'scene' but the character is so lived in and truly supports the narrative of the film.
I haven't seen a ton of these yet - saw Spotlight last night, though, and thought McAdams was pretty weak.
But Joan Allen, man! I love her in Room. I don't know what it is about barely-holding-it-together moms on screen, but I'll put that up there with Laura Dern in Wild and Debra Winger in Rachel Getting Married as low-screen-time performances that completely floor me.
And I'll light a second candle for Elizabeth Banks, one of the half-dozen actresses I was recasting in the McAdams role while I watched.
With these options, are we really satisfied with the potential Fonda nomination? Obviously she rules and her presence is always welcome, but based solely on performance, there's so much more meat to these others. She sells her scene, but it's completely handed to her. It will be hilarious if she's in the same category as Mara or Vikander. I'm a Nixon/Stewart/Paulson/Debicki/Banks (acknowledging category fraud) voter but I also have a lot of love for Nicholson and Allen, and could get behind most of these options.
It's funny though - as much as I hate category fraud, I'll probably be rooting for Mara if she's nominated against any combination of Winslet, Vikander, Fonda, Allen, Banks, or McAdams.
The biggest wildcard is JJL, who I love dearly, but whose performance I know very little about. In theory she's a winner I can get behind, but I should see it before I make that call.
Like the Actor race, it's a really strong field of options with the dialogue settling on unexciting options. But the race is just starting, and everything in these categories (and supporting actor, really) still feels pretty up in the air.
I really loved Molly Shannon in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. She was her dependable goofy self playing another wonderful lush, but there were some wonderfully heartbreaking layers to her as well.
Nat, I think her role might be a tad too large for your Cameo/Limited category, but if not, please consider her.
This is why your site has been a frequent favorite of mine for going on 4-5 years now, though it feels longer! There are dozens of wonderful performances year in and year out, and I'm glad there is a community for writers and film lovers to praise work that otherwise would find no traction or be a part of any such conversations. This year, personally speaking, I found work from Sarah Snook (Predestination), Greta Gerwig (Mistress America), and Rachel Weisz (Youth) amongst others to be just as good if not better than (and truly supporting) than some of the actresses predicted above.
Heres how I think nominations will shake out as of now:
Jane Fonda, Youth
Diane Ladd ( or Virginia Madsen), Joy
Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs
I've said you. Marion Cotillard should be considered for Macbeth. Stunning performance.
I would add Marcia Gay Harden in Grandma, Katherine Waterston in Queen of Earth, and Phyllis Smith and Amy Poehler in Inside Out - all among my favorite supporting performances of the year. Of those that I've seen that will probably get nominated, I'm with Winslet. I found Joanna Hoffman to be the most interesting part of Steve Jobs, one of the best movies of the year.
Of the performances I've seen so far, I really loved Elizabeth Banks in Love and Mercy, and Jessica Chastain in Crimson Peak. Banks creates a person of depth and determination with a very slenderly written part. On a second viewing of Crimson Peak, I began to realize how restrained Chastain was with her part, making specific and precise actor choices.
I also really liked Tatiana Maslany in Woman in Gold. And Elizabeth Debicki and Rose Bryne added a lot of zip to their movies.
I look forward to seeing Carmen Ejogo in Born to Be Blue, Sarah Paulson in Carol (she's the supporting actress in that film), Jennifer Jason Leigh in The Hateful Eight, and Rachel Weisz in Youth.
Does anyone know if/when James White is actually going wide? It's distribution model is confusing to me.
Suzanne: Amy Poehler in Inside Out is blatantly a LEADING turn. Voice only, sure, but the lead.
I'm not wholely unconvinced that Mya Taylor isn't a supporting performance in TANGERINE. The dramatic arc of the movie is Kiki Rodriguez's; there's a whole portion in which she's tracking down Chester when Alexandra is not present, and though we follow the latter character for some portion on her own, it's not as requisite to the action or journey of either character. She spends a great deal of the film standing back, watching, waiting, supporting Sindee, and ultimately, she takes a back seat, waiting in slow agony until Chester makes the big reveal of her secret.
The character is supportive of Sindee, undeniable. Does that make Mya's a supporting performance? I'm not sure.
This is not the same level of fraud as in the case of Rooney and Alicia, I do believe that.
Mary - but Swank was in no way Supporting in that film.
When people wonder about what's considered supporting or lead, I always want to ask them what they think of Kidman vs. Moore in "The Hours." They were both roughly in a third of their movies. If the storyline hadn't been interwoven and you just saw Kidman in just the 1st third and Moore in the middle third, would Kidman still feel like a lead? Probably not.
Swank has two Best Actress awards she's done.
John T -- tiny films like that have to perform well in the big cities to decide whether to expand. I'm not sure they'll be expanding that much as it hasn't really lit the screens on fire. Wide is out of the question i'd say but it will hopefully get a few more big cities.
Steve -- i can see that reasoning.
DJ Deejay - the questions isn't whether Kidman is Leading, it's whether Moore is Supporting!? The three women are all leads, all integral to the plot. All leads.
I know we all love Julianne, but condoning category fraud to keep her double nomination? We cannot lower ourselves!!!
So many cases are personal - I think that Weisz is the perfect supporting role in The Constant Gardener and can't really understand why anyone would think otherwise (unless you're BAFTA and the Best Actress field needs padding out).
Kermit - I'm not sure this "integral to the plot" argument really works. Maggie Grace's character is integral to the plot of "Taken" (without her getting kidnapped, the movie wouldn't happen) but you wouldn't call her a lead.
My favourite supporting actresses thus far are voice over performances : Phyllis Smith in Inside Out and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Anomalisa.
DJ Deejay - apologies, poor choice of words. I meant 'focus of the movie'.
I think that a film can have 4 leads, but more than that and it gets messy. That way, it becomes a true ensemble (everyone supporting).
A sprawling film like Boogie Nights has a lead (Mark Wahlberg is the focus much more than his co-stars).
A sprawling film like Magnolia is an ensemble (people might argue Melora Walters but I think that if she's lead then Cruise is and Moore is and Macy is and Reilly is and it gets confused)
However, a movie like The Hours has three clear characters as its focus. Julianne was definitely frauded to a double nomination.
I think about this a lot (I am a geek and keep worksheets of my Top 10s for each year so for every film I watch I have to make a decision)
A few brain-wreckers for me -
Closer has 4 focal characters with roughly even screen time. All leads.
The Exorcist has Miller (instinctively a lead), Burstyn (a focal point too), Blair (a dominating presence through the whole movie). 3 leads? But Von Sydow has as much screen time and focus as Blair. I have him as supporting. But is he a lead too?
The Witches Of Eastwick has Sarandon, Pfeiffer and Cher with roughly equal screen time and focus. But then so does Nicholson. 4 leads?
The Craft (obviously only Balk is under consideration) has 4 main characters - all leads? Though Tunney and Balk hog the screen time, all have focus on them for sections and are always present.
American Beauty. Spacey a Lead. Bening feels like a Lead, but if she is then Birch is too. 3 leads. Yet a nagging feeling that Bentley is as focal and present as Birch...
The Ice Storm - instinctively Kline is a Lead, which makes Allen one too. But does this make Maguire and Ricci also Leads? They have lots of screen time and are part of the central family that drives the plot, each drawing focus. Yet Weaver has as much screen time as they do. Ensemble.
I think my point is that everyone's views are different on some films. You've just got to be consistent with how you decide - and screen time alone can't dictate that (no one argues that Streep in The Devil Wears Prada is Supporting, though you legitimately could). Likewise Hopkins in The Silence Of The Lambs or Fletcher in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
How does everyone decide? I love to hear from other obsessives about their own rules!
Hi Nathaniel, just a couple of questions regarding the Acting Predictions that you have just updated:
1) The Hateful 8 - Why is JJL in Tier 3 when the movie just received great word of mouth and her performance was considered out of the standouts (and also she is the sole woman in the ensemble) and why Sam L JAckson isn't in Tier 1-3 at all?!!
2) It seems like despite the campaign for Supproting, Rooney is getting nominated for leads in awards. If she has to bump out someone from the top 5, who should go and Lily Tomlin or Charlotte Rampling? (Looks like the senior women are duking out for one slot in this incredibly competitive year for Best Actress)
Thank you!!!
I think (hope) that Cynthia Nixon is this years surprise nominee that was too good to ignore.
I could also see Cynthia then being cast in projects worthy of her talent and perhaps returning to the Oscars in coming years (as was the case for Melissa Leo/Jacki Weaver).
If I say both of those statements enough, maybe they'll happen.
I'm also not against Mya Taylor being supporting. Take her out of the film and you still have a film. The example of Maggie Grace works that way, too. You can still have the movie without them. It'd be somewhat different, but the core story would still be the same (Sindee finding down the fish who screwed her boyfriend/Liam Neeson tracking down the people who kidnapped his daughter). Vikander and Mara on the other hand (and Kristen Stewart too, really, although she's so passive at times that it feels like maybe she's not really there half the time - that's a positive thing to say) are completely essential to their films. Without either of them there is no movie.
That reasoning doesn't always work - especially when it comes to films like LOVE & MERCY - but in these cases I go with that.
Bluemoon02: Because everyone's agreed that Walton Goggins is the standout. As I kind of expected, honestly. (Seriously: Watch him on The Shield S5-7. WOW.)
BlueMoon -- we don't really know how Hateful Eight has been received yet because it's under embargo. Yes, some people have tweeted about it but generally embargos are broken when people are hugely positive. this might not be representative of reaction as a whole.
remember when Our Brand is Crisis first screened and people wer elike SANDY IS A BEST ACTRESS PLAYER. and then it screened more broadly and... nope.
Nathaniel, can't wait to hear your response to this insane article from Variety...
http://variety.com/2015/film/in-contention/oscar-category-fraud-lead-supporting-actor-1201650427/
^^^Ridiculous article, and Steve Carell didn't win last year.
I totally think that Mya Taylor is a lead. It's about their relationship in a very Thelma & Louise-ish way. You do NOT still have a film without her in it. I'd argue actually that Kiki's is the more one-note, kooky performance and Mya is the leadier and more rounded of the two. It may not be as bad as the Mara example (which doesn't even make sense on a "but she's not famous" level), but it's a lead.
I'd be willing to settle for a Vikander supporting nom (and possible win) for Ex Machina if it would cock block the Danish Girl supporting nom. Ex Machina to me is definitely lead-ish but more borderline, since it's whatshisname's story really. Vikander has the objectified femme-fatale role that's very much straddling the line of lead/supporting in that it's the secondary lead. A case could be made that it's supporting, or at least less supporting than her Danish Girl role... And doesn't it feel like she's going to win the globe?
I think the academy is also not going to buy the Rooney Mara bulls**t and is going to bump her up to lead. The precedent has been set by multiple other orgs, which is more than could be said of Winslet this time in '08.