Pt 1. Oscar Editorials to Make the Blood Boil: on Category Fraud
Friday, December 4, 2015 at 1:10PM 
'I'm not SUPPORTING you. I don't even like you!'I'm not in the habit, as some online pundits are, of dissing articles written by other people but two articles just published enraged me. ...I exaggerate. They made my skin crawl from their indifference and hypocrisy. Let's get the indifference out of our system first.
Variety's "Long and Honorable History of Category Fraud" - Tim Gray
Gray immediately pisses the reasonable Oscar-lover off with the way he begins this defense of Category Fraud, a topic birthed and coined right here at The Film Experience years ago since nobody else was willing to get riled up about it and make it a cause. He introduces the topic in the the context of real world problems with life & death consequences as a way to insure that any complaints about the topic are, in the grand scheme of things, entirely irrelevant. Yes, it's true, Tim. Category Fraud does not lead to car accidents (unless Nathaniel is enraged and driving) and it doesn't threaten the world's natural resources. But this is a cheap argument. Imagine the rage you'd conjure in the reader if you used this same tactic when speaking about the lack of diversity in casting and directing jobs in Hollywood. The same is, in fact, true. Nobody will die and it won't cause starvation or droughts if people of color don't get acting jobs and women aren't considered for directing big budget Hollywood movies. But that is absolutely no reason to not care about these problems!
Every topic will seem small when placed against death and disaster. By this logic the Oscars aren't worth talking about either! But that does not mean that the topics are unimportant within their own "ecosystems." That's Gray's choice of word so let's use it. [More...]
There is a supporting actress in Carol but her name is not Rooney Mara.
A lot of what Gray does in the article is map out past instances of category fraud and why it happens and he's absolutely right about this point...
Definitions have been fuzzy for decades and actors are generally placed in the supporting category for four reasons: age, star power, ensemble casts or business considerations.
But where he goes wrong is in suggesting that it all balances out (citing the meager lot of arguably supporting roles that went lead of which there are very very few -- screentime is only part of it, people). Where he goes even more terribly wrong is in concluding with this neat bit of rationalization that you can vote for leading roles like Rooney Mara's in supporting whenever you want...
...with a clear conscience. Because Oscar history is on your side.
Believing that something is okay because it has been done for a long time does not mean that it is OK. It merely means that you are complacent or that you just don't care. And if you don't care about the Oscars, move along... we're done here.
A correction that few people seem to realize: this is not always the way it's been. We are dealing with a distortion of history brought on by exactly this kind of anything-goes complacency. Category Fraud has gotten much worse in the past twenty-five years which is why we complain about it so much. It's one thing to accept the rare instances when a child leads a film and is demoted to supporting. The Film Experience accepts that this is almost always the way it's been... even if we don't agree with it. But it's quite another to nominate bonafide adult stars in supporting when they are the protagonist of their film (Jamie Foxx, Collateral anyone) or to refuse to acknowledge that same-gendered double acts are both lead. If Thelma & Louise (1991) or Amadeus (1984) or Terms of Endearment (1983) were released today, the last three instances of double lead nominations in the same category in Oscar history, the studios would pretend that one of the stars in each was "supporting" the other. People would have laughed you out of the room if you had said this in 1983... even in 1991 if you had claimed that.
Thelma & Louise are NOT amused by Category Fraud. You can't separate them!
Things have definitely gotten worse and the gaming more egregious over the years. Awards bodies with consciences must keep an eye on these types of abuses. The Academy has changed many rules over the years -- such as curtailing certain types of campaigning -- to insure that they stay legit and respectable. The Emmy governing body recently had to change the rules on "Guest Actor" because people had been abusing the category so much campaigning in "Guest" and winning when they were obviously "recurring" characters in every episode. That was a clearly fraudulent practice. They finally had put a stop to it.
So the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences needs to do something as we've been reaching peak fraud for some time. My suggestion is an executive committee that makes rulings on the lead vs supporting cases. Our other suggestion --that leading actors pretending to be supporting actors for the sake of prizes have to give back their lead salary perhaps to SAG to support out of work character actors -- and accept whatever salary they might have been offered for a non-headlining role in its place.) The Tony Awards already have a committee to make these determinations. The committee's choices are sometimes controversial but for the most part the system works and the stars of Broadway shows are not allowed to pretend that they're not one of the headliners if they think they'd have a better chance of winning that way.
Finally it's worth noting -- and we don't care if we sound like a broken record people -- that the Supporting Category was created when people in Hollywood noticed a vacuum. There was no way for character actors to be honored since only stars were given Oscars as there was only prizes for leading players. Back in the studio system the lines between headliners and characters actors were much less blurry but no matter: The Academy Awards should stay true to the spirit of the definition of supporting actor and the original purpose of the category's creation.
Then they can feel free to vote with a clear conscience.
P.S. Despite my anger, I would like to thank Tim Gray for this following bit of trivia that I had either forgotten or never knew. It's just wonderful and true to its film.
In 1964’s “Dr. Strangelove,” Peter Sellers played three roles, so Columbia had four campaigns: One as lead actor, and three pushes in the supporting category, for each of the characters. Nowadays, the studio would be endlessly blasted on Twitter and in blogs, but you have to admit, it’s a pretty fun idea and in keeping with the anarchic spirit of the film. (For the record, Sellers was nominated once, as lead.)
Reader Comments (56)
"The thesis I would like to prove today is that nothing really matters, so who cares, anyway."
hee
Some of this category fraud is so blatant. I still cringe when I read the archives and see Jake Gyllenhaal as Best Supporting Actor nominee in 2005. As far as leads, I will never accept that Anne Bancroft in '67 or Louise Fletcher in '75 were supporting. AMPAS got it right.
Nat, I believe the solution is simpler than that. The Academy needs to release a clear, concise and concrete definition of what constitutes a leading performance and what constitutes a supporting performance, and then every performance must be evaluated within these criteria. Without that, there is no barometer to determine what is and isn't "lead" or "supporting" and "category fraud" is not really fraud (since technically no rules are being broken), but simply a violation of a moral stance that Oscar watchers share. What made the Emmy rule changes work is that they were concrete, so maybe AMPAS needs to do the same.
Did you see (or link to) Time's 10 best performances of the year? Blythe Danner was number one!
Richter -- but it's not complicated. Most people understood... as recently as the 1990s what a leading lady or leading man was. It was only with these shenanigans that people started being like "but what does 'lead' mean <I>REALLY</I>?..."
^ It's a wonderful list.
Jeez Nathaniel, didn't you know that you can only be upset about one issue, it has to be the biggest problem, and if you bring up any other issues ever clearly you don't care about any problems that are bigger.
Ojh, man... what's is the point of Gray discussing cinema when there is so much wrong in the planet? Why don't he specializes in "World's greatest problens"?
Brookesboy
I wish both boncroft and fletcher were supporting because i can never choose between bancroft and faye dunaway or fletcher and isabelle adjania
It's like he's just singing "So What" and just commending the strategic scheming behind category fraud. He's just using tradition to back it up because of course tradition is the foundation for all decisions nowadays. And he's certainly not helping himself by bringing up failed attempts like they were okay. Naomi Watts went supporting? Lack of star power means it's okay? And why even bring up car crashes and shit that's like bringing up floods in Haiti to justify manned space flights to Pluto. Neither are okay but they're also unrelated and disasters shouldn't be used to excuse nonsense people actively try to make happen. I just don't get it.
Did you read Weinstein suggesting that people could vote for Mara in lead lkke they did with Winslet?
Does anyone also feels cheated when supporting are nominated as leading actors?
Amirfarhang, 1967 was indeed an embarrassment of riches in the Best Actress race. I wanted Anne to win; Kate shouldn't even have been nominated, though she's very good. I often tussle with a pal over mine. He always says Louise should have been supporting, and I scream BLASPHEMY! Louise's win is one of my favorites ever in the Best Actress category. But Isabel is sooo good.
Absolutely agree with you, Nat!
Gray's piece is very poorly written, a bunch of really weak arguments. In addition, he never explained why is it "honorable"? Where is the effing honor in doing such a thing????
That word, honorable, is the one that really got me. What a strange word choice.
Brookesboy
Your completely right ! Kate's winning drives me nuts!
Also I can't believe in the heat of night won oscar over boonie and clyde and graduate!!
Louise's oscar is one of my favorite oscar moments too what a amazing speech! But isabelle adjani was oscar worthy too
I was surprised to read that Weaver was campaigned as supporting in Alien?!
Crickey. I would hope this was under the argument that it was an ensemble piece and everyone was supporting one another, rather than a woman can't lead a sci-fi film. I wonder if Skerritt was campaigned as lead....
He says it's not worth talking about because it's banal... but then he makes a living writing about awards? Doesn't make much sense, if you ask me.
I've often thought they need three acting categories:
1) Lead - on screen more than half of the length of the movie, or say 50 minutes or more of an average-length movie
2) Supporting - on screen and or significant dialogue for 15 minutes to half of the length of the movie
3) Featured (stealing a term from the Tony Awards) - on screen for less than 15 minutes
Perhaps these could be all based on percentage of time on screen and/or amount of dialogue. I realise there are problems. In a film like Gravity, one could have had half the dialogue and have been on screen for only a few minutes. In any case, I am opposed to lead characters being nominated in the supporting category because there is already a sure-fire lead nominee. I resent Julia Roberts being nominated in supporting for August, depriving Julianne Nicholson of a nominee for what I thought was the best performance in the film. Julia deserved a nomination but it should have been for lead.
Dame Peggy Ashcroft won Best Actress from the NY Film Critics for "A Passage to India" in 1984. She then was nominated by the Academy in Supporting Actress alongside Geraldine Page with around 5 minutes of screen time for "Pope of Greenwich Village." Deservedly, Ashcroft won. I bring that up because this year we have a similar situation with Rooney Mara or Alicia Vikander possibly getting nominated along Jane Fonda.
It has gotten worse, but unless Rooney and Vikander are nominated as Best Actress, no one else has a chance in supporting.
brookesboy, may I ask why you think Anne Bancroft was unquestionably lead in 'The Graduate'? Mrs. Robinson was an important, iconic character, but the film was never really about her and her screentime was very limited. She's terrific in the film, but I think she should have been nominated and won in supporting.
Supporting roles going lead irks me nearly as much as the reverse because it's a very different challenge to carry a film on your own. 'The Story of Adele H.' would have been a disaster with a weak actress in the lead. Adjani's brilliance was a huge factor in the overall success of the film, whereas Fletcher's was less so.
Nat, the point is that with an official Academy definition, these "shenanigans" would not be allowed. They would officially mean they're cheating at this game (which is what the Oscars are after all). Isn't that what you want? A tightening of the rules to avoid the shenanigans?
I agree with Mike, there is no lead female role in The Graduate: both Mrs. and Miss Robinson are supporting. I always thought Bancroft got that nomination to avoid competing with Ross in supporting, where she might have actually beat Parsons.
Fan-fucking-tastic response Nathaniel. By the way, I have it on good authority that Gray prefers his cappuccino with a light sprinkle of cinnamon. Put too much on and he will cut you with his Meh!-blade. Decidedly, he prefers his cinnamon best supporting.
I can see why this article would make you angry, especially when last week it was encouraging to see The Hollywood Reporter" publish an article which was taking this problem seriously.
I don't know how old Tim Gray is but he is ignoring that this has gotten way worse in the past 25 years. There are a lot of famous duo performances - Paul Newman & Robert Redford, Michael Caine & Sean Connery, Susan Sarandon & Geena Davis. Double nominees were quite the norm for a film with several major performances.
Either the Academy creates a committee to review submissions, or it takes a look at creating that 3rd category RDL mentioned that exists for the Tonys.
I doubt Tim Gray's article will have much effect - "don't worry - be Happy" is hardly sufficient.
The Tony's Comitee usually makes very accurate decisions. It could work.
To add to your list LadyEdith here are some more memorable duos: Network, Sleuth, and The Dresser.
Hi Mike. Anne does disappear for most of the second half of The Graduate. But her powerful presence is still felt. Mrs. Robinson is the driving force of the film, not only setting the action in motion but constantly deciding its tempo and rhythm. She dominates the other characters even when she leaves the story. The character is a constant outsider who never really loses her distance. It's an amazing trick that Bancroft pulls off.
As for Louise, her moderate screen time in no way diminishes her effect on the story or the viewer. Cuckoo's Nest is an allegory, and Ratched is the other side of that allegory. Her role is essential to how it all plays out. All the emotion seething from this story is a response to her and what she symbolizes--in chillingly human form.
I offer a final argument that could be controversial. Both actresses are such perfection in these films that not only can you not picture anybody else in the parts--they also elevate the dramatic cache of their characters. That should be recognized and rewarded.
Actors are vain so of course they want the most opportunity for themselves to be nominated or to win, and this trajectory has led to the current shenanigans about category fraud. As the Oscars, critics events, and other awards shows get more and more commercialized, I don't know that anyone takes them all too seriously anymore. I already have a new thorn in my side: the automatic nomination. For example, people saying Joy is shit but Jennifer Lawrence will "for sure" be nominated. Why? Because she is Jennifer Lawrence? She's no Meryl Streep, but maybe she is the perfect emblem of this generation? What about all the other talented actors who don't have a studio bank account behind them? Boobs like Sasha Stone spend all year trying to justify their silly predictions, and then several months backpedaling. I try to focus now on seeing good films and not worry about the awards. Skidoo.
Several things about that Variety article annoy me. For starters, if writing about awards is so insignificent, then give the gig and the paycheck to somebody who will actually do a proper job. Secondly, the Hitler defense is always terrible. "It's not like he's Hitler..." when defending somebody who's done something bad, but, yes, when compared to Hitler isn't really that bad. Of course nobody's going to look that bad when compared to Hitler! Ugh.
I agree with everything you said, Nat. There's been a discussion about this going on on the forum of a awards body I am a member of, and it's frustrating as hell to see people bending over backwards to justify it. "Therese is more passive. Mara's subtle performance is *supporting* Blanchett's" for instance, which makes no sense.
You KNOW Debra WInger would be campaigned as supporting these days ala Julia Roberts in August: Osage County. The lesser famous one from Amadeus, too. I really wish they'd named carol CAROL & THERESE because surely Thelma & Louise is the only movie of that bunch that people wouldn't be able to argue with.
I can u/stand Y the studios & even the actresses (Mara & Vikander) agreed to being pushed to supp, the lead actresses field is chock-full o good performances this yr, & if pushed as lead, they might not even get b nom. But if they r pushed to supp, not only will they b nom, they have a v high chance (esp Mara) o winning
Can't blame them for wanting an Oscar, any Oscar badly...lol
W all the recent outcries, I believe Mara's chance at goin supp had greatly diminished & most voters now viewed her as co-lead, she still has a good chance in lead, but same can't be said o Vikander. If voters dun buy her as supp, she might not get enuff votes as lead
I like how Claran speaks with his hand. What about my work in The Martian? That was a real woman, but Katniss always gets the kisses.
Mara absolutely did not want to be campaigned as Supporting.
Maybe I could respect your opinion on this subject more if you hadn't placed Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada in lead, Mark Ruffalo in You Can Count On Me in supporting and Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener in lead. Or if you could tone down your dogmatic approach to the subject and acknowledge that there are borderline cases (like Peter Ustinov in Topkapi, Paul Winfield in Sounder, etc.). Or if you could stop telling us that screentime wouldn't matter at all. (When an actor is offscreen as consequently as Anthony Hopkins is in The Silence Of The Lambs, then he's not steering a movie anymore.) Or if you hadn't ended this article with one of my least favorite actors.
Anyway, I coincidentally just finished Best Supporting Actress. (For the record, the intermediate results now read like this: I have missed 10 nominees in Best Actor, 4 in Best Actress, 0 in Best Supporting Actor and 0 in Best Supporting Actress.) In any case, I have to admit that Tim Gray is right: Oscar does have a long - but to my mind not exactly "honorable" - history of category fraud. It already began in the year the supporting acting categories were introduced (1936), with supporting players Spencer Tracy in San Francisco and Luise Rainer in The Great Ziegfeld both nominated in lead. And numerous further examples of fraud have followed over the years and decades. Oscar has refused "to acknowledge that same-gendered double acts are both lead" (The Miracle Worker in 1962, I Never Sang For My Father in 1970) and occasionally nominates the protagonist in supporting (The Devil And Miss Jones in 1941, The Godfather in 1972, Ordinary People in 1980). Additionally, our little brookesboy reminded us that Louise Fletchter in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest had no business in lead, but 1975 was seen as a very weak year for lead actresses, and look where Fletcher went. This year, Best Actress is seen as very crowded and look what Carol's Rooney Mara tries...
Sorry, lord and master, but all of this to my mind clearly indicates that greedy stars and studios have now (more or less successfully) tried for many decades to get the noms and wins in whichever category they believe will be the most promising. A few curious examples regarding this include Eva Marie Saint in On The Waterfront (1954) as supporting, David Niven in Separate Tables (1958) as lead and Susan Sarandon in Atlantic City (1981) as supporting. The latter didn't work out by the way and Sarandon was nominated where she belongs. In any case, the tradition of trying to manipulate Oscar voters is so old that Tim Gray can justifiably call it "simply doing some savvy marketing", since for most of the time, the Academy will play along with the category charades. Okay, sometimes it won't (Keisha Castle-Hughes), but the situation is like it is and has not gotten worse. Or, to put it this way: Would Jacob Tremblay in Room be campaigned as supporting if Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon had been nominated as lead?
In conclusion, I'm tempted to say that we're simply dealing with a case of Oscar - and star/studio/campaign - history here, just as Tim Gray observed. I just don't think that the parties concerned should be all too proud of their tradition on that front.
The worst case of category fraud is August Osage County, where Julia Roberts, a massive and iconic superstar, who delivered the film's best performance, was pushed to supporting, effectively killing any chance for Julianne Nicholson (a hard working character actress who delivered a powerful mostly subdued performance in that very same movie), in order to make room for another massive and iconic superstar, Meryl Streep, at her 20th nomination, and for probably one of her worst performances of her career.
Lose/lose/lose.
Plus, the 2013 line-up with Blanchett/Bullock/Dench/Roberts/Adams would have been stellar.
One small thing to add: with the chorus against category fraud getting louder, it was only a matter of time until one of the studios paid a less reputable writer to come up with a stupid defense of their questionable practices.
I really hope Tim Gray was well compensated for this piece. If he did it for free out of his own volition, then he is incredibly stupid. I rather suppose an editor in Vanity Fair is corrupt crook rather than a total fool. I mean, it's the same thing of some idiot defending steroid use in sports competitions because a) it's not death or disaster and b) it's been going on forever.
Since so many of the commentators here obviously don't know what they're talking about - no to mention your own ridiculous remark "Most people understood... as recently as the 1990s what a leading lady or leading man was" - I think that we should delve into Oscar's history even further. I've already discussed 1936, so let's take the next five years.
1937
Spencer Tracy on the line between leading and supporting in Captains Courageous.
Massive category fraud with Roland Young as supporting in Topper.
1938
Beulah Bondi bordering on lead in Of Human Hearts.
Miliza Korjus somewhere on the line beween leading and supporting in The Great Waltz.
1939
Massive category fraud with Greer Garson as lead in Goodbye, Mr. Chips.
Another massive fraud with Brian Aherne as supporting in Juarez, a movie that better should have been called Maximilian.
1940
William Gargan practically a co-lead in They Knew What They Wanted.
James Stephenson bordering very much on lead in The Letter.
Jane Darwell is basically the female lead of The Grapes Of Wrath.
1941
Massive category fraud with Walter Huston as lead in All That Money Can Buy.
Massive category fraud with Charles Coburn as supporting in The Devil And Miss Jones. (Couldn't the two devils just have switched categories?)
And I've not even touched on some other cases like Barbara Stanwyck, who actually isn't in that much of Ball Of Fire, or Walter Brennan, who is in a lot of The Westerner.
Now, shall we go on or are at least a few of you beginning to grasp that Tim Gray is (unfortunately) right with his reference to Oscar history?
Willy, these are all interesting to research but Stanwyck is definitely a lead in Ball of Fire.
It's not a matter of screen time percentage. It's a matter of she's one half of a couple at the centre of a romantic comedy.
I'd never dispute Stanwyck's lead classification, I merely pointed out in how little of the film she is. But now that you mention it, is she really "one half of a couple at the centre of a romantic comedy" or is she simply "the girl" in a comedy about one man's self-discovery?
One way or the other, in 1941, Barbara Stanwyck should have been nominated for The Lady Eve, where she's indeed "one half of a couple at the centre of a romantic comedy" and in any case much better than in Ball Of Fire.
Also while I heartily support Nathaniel's original point, the finicky squabbling in this thread is starting to unfortunately make Gray's [insipid] point seem valid.
I'm not sure it's worth getting too heated over whether obviously ambiguous cases like Bancroft in The Graduate or Bardem in No Country or even Bale in The Fighter.
Surely we can all agree to disagree on this type of categorisation since there are strong arguments on both sides.
But Mara in Carol, Foxx in Collateral, Roberts in Osage County?
That's just blatant and harmful category fraud very much worth getting angry over (on behalf of already undervalued and less powerful-within-the-industry character actors) and it urgently needs to be snuffed out.
Meantime I personally am also very disturbed that anyone would consider Roberts's a good - much less the best-in-show - performance in Osage County or that they would rank Violet Weston among Streep's career-worst.
That shoe monologue alone is the best acting Streep has done since 1995. As for Roberts (who I otherwise very much like as an actress, with few exceptions) - just consider: what might Cate Blanchett have done with that role? How about a [minimally younger] Melissa Leo? Laura Linney? Or hell, Amy Morton? Or even completely left-field choice like, I don't know, Julia Louis Dreyfuss? Really any great actress who can pull off volcanic visceral rage? How decidedly weak does Roberts look in this context.
Willy - I certainly agree that Stanwyck should have been nominated and won (perhaps two Oscars, just for the hell of it) for The Lady Eve.
Willy -- why the condescending tone?
I stand by all of those decisions except Mark Ruffalo in supporting. In the early days of the site before i got militant about it from all the egregious abuse i often just followed the campaigns... occassionally i make decisions i'm not proud of after the fact in my own classifications but we all make mistakes and at least i'm trying consciously to not cheat when i draw up my awards because i love an actor. It broke my heart to leave out Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain in his year (one of my very favorite actors in a movie I think is an all timer) but he is in no way shape or form "supporting" in that movie.
I have acknowledged that there are borderline cases every single year. I don't actually care that much if a borderline case wants to be defined as supporting. I have also been clear about this. This year for example... Elizabeth Banks and Kristen Stewart seem like borderline cases to me. Mara & Vikander are not borderline at all but pure leads. Paul Dano is an interesting case because the entire movie is about Brian Wilson but there are two actors playing him. I get why people say "supporting" even though I view him as a lead.
in doing the supporting actress smackdowns I have discovered that screentime is a very strange thing. Some movies are more crowded than others. It does not mean that a 40% screentime in one of those movies is "less" of a leading role than 60% in another. Paulina Garcia is in literally every frame of GLORIA (the director's own rule for himself). This does not make her "more" of a lead than Julia Roberts is in Erin Brockovich who is not in 100% of the movie's images. I have never said that screentime doesn't matter... just that it can't be the sole arbiter of such things. I'm assuming Kate Winslet has huge screen time in Steve Jobs. But she is absolutely a supporting actress in that.
"why the condescending tone?"
Because it's Willy speaking here.
"I stand by all of those decisions except Mark Ruffalo in supporting."
Do you stand by The Dark Knight's Heath Ledger in lead as well?
"he is in no way shape or form "supporting" in that movie"
One COULD argue that he's the second lead in a film with two male leads and absent for roughly the last fifth of the movie.
Anyway, I am with you in your fight against category fraud. But one or two frauds per year in the final shortlists is not "much worse", it is what we have to deal with for nearly 80 years now. Unfortunately.
Don't you feel like it somewhat diminishes the prestige of being nominated in that it dilutes the lead fields? It's less impressive for who they beat out to a nomination if strong contenders are switching to supporting. We all want to see our favorites nominated, but isn't it less exciting when the contenders are spread thinner?
Willy - the supporting category was initially introduced not so much for celebrating smaller, secondary performances but "lesser", "secondary" actors. More often than not, of course, the size of the role would correlates to the magnitude of the performer's stardom, but even if that was not the case, one's place in the fame food chain was more relevant to one's definition as lead or support. Established stars, such as Tracy or Stanwyck, were automatically placed in the lead category, as well as stars in the making such as Rainer in TGZ or Garson in GMC. Likewise, character actors were placed as supporting, regardless of the size of their performances, even when they played the protagonists in their films (Stuart Erwin in Pigskin Parade, Young in Topper). Jennifer Jones was probably the first major star to be "downgraded" to support the year following her win as lead, (and she was immediately pushed back the next two years). Interestingly, the same year (1944), was the year of Barry Fitzgerald's infamous double nomination for Going my way, and following this, it was decided that the placement of an actor as lead or support would not be left to the voting members of the Academy but to the studios. This was indeed the procedure until the mid 60's. Famous casualties of this system were Rosalind Russel, who refused to be listed as supporting player in Picnic, and Roddy McDowall who was mistakenly listed as lead in Cleopatra. Both missed being nominated as supporting actors as they probably would have if placed correctly.
Now - we should discuss what the (social, racial, economic) nature of the character one is nominated for has to do with the placement s lead or support (think Deborah Kerr/Donna Reed in FHtE or Juliette Binoche/Kristen Scott Thomas in TEP), but not this time, I guess.
An interesting theory that makes instant lead nominations for Barry Fitzgerald, Gladys George, Monty Woolley, Fay Bainter, Raymond Massey and Paul Lukas downright impossible, unless these character actors were all considered to be "stars in the making"... It also doesn't explain why established lead actors H.B. Warner and Mary Astor received their first (and only) nominations in supporting. Stars in the unmaking perhaps?
I also find the identification of Stuart Erwin as the protagonist of the ensemble film Pigskin Parade highly dubious.
I guess I should know better, but I will bite on your response Willy. Last thing first - I actually like this "stars in the unmaking". It's a great term which fits Astor of the late '30s early '40s perfectly. Her Madonna like beauty which made her a leading lady in the '20s was going out of fashion, so she was reinventing herself, especially following the diary scandal of 1936, as a respected supporting actress rather than a leading lady (she would spent most of her acting career, following her career high of 1941, playing supportive mothers). And for God's sake, at 62, H.B. Warner's days as a leading man were long gone when he was nominated for Lost Horizon.
As for my "theory" - it's an observation, not an exact science, so nitpick at it as you please (you do like doing it, it seems) - there are many exceptions to it, but interestingly, most of those you brought up seem to correspond with the point I was making at the end of my previous post. Bainter, Massey and Lukas were all playing noble, admirable hero types, Woolley was playing upper class, culturally and socially intimidating one - these are all CHARACTERS, rather than actors, members of the academy would love to canonize (it's the Gandhi factor, if you please).
Oops - regarding Woolly, I mixed up The Man Who Came to Dinner with The Pied Piper - put him on the noble, heroic list as well.
To me personally a performance can be lead without great screentime. And yes, it's quite tough these last years to get double nominated in lead, especially if you have the same gender. Putting the "lesser" star in supporting is for a studio simply the safest option to get two male or two female acting nominations.
Would Roberts really have been nominated in lead in 2013 too? I doubt it. And I doubt Mara would be nominated in lead if they placed here there, too.