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)
Sonja -- same is true of Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal i think. But this is exactly why it angers me. If the performance isn't strong enough to be nominated in lead, it shouldn't be "demoted" and then be considered suddenly worthy in an unlevel playing field because it's competing against short supporting roles.
Well, if being "a star in the unmaking" means being just 35 years of age, looking spectacular, having a lead role in a hit movie (The Maltese Falcon) and a near-lead role in another successful film (The Great Lie) plus winning an Oscar for the latter, then I suspect that many more stars wish to be as unmade as Mary Astor was in 1941. As for H.B. Warner, I assume you'll at least concede that he wasn't entirely forgotten in 1937.
But your second paragraph does not read like your previous contribution. At first you said that (up to that point) completely unknown newcomers like Luise Rainer, Greer Garson and Jennifer Jones were considered to be "stars in the making" and therefore had a shot at a lead acting nomination whereas established character actors like Raymond Massey, Alexander Knox and Paul Lukas had to settle for supporting noms. But now you say that even the character actors could play a certain kind of type - as you call them: "CHARACTERS" - that would bring them attention in the lead categories. A legitimate observation I think, but one that contradicts your first statement.
I'm glad the studio system era is over. Many character performers would be stuck in supporting roles only if it were still in place. I like movie stars taking on smaller roles just to work with a filmmaker or because the role itself is irresistible to them. And character performers getting opportunities to lead movies (Melissa McCarthy).
The whole fraud thing is based on the importance of the prize itself. Marisa Tomei remains the most controversial Oscar win in our lifetime and it's for a Supporting statuette. What was initially thought of as a lesser achievement despite the growing pedigree of the prize.
I love it that you keep championing category justification, Nat lol.
I myself am quite indifferent to this issue. Worhy people get nominated, and sometimes they either win or lose. Big deal.
Other than Thelma & Louise and Sleuth, I think there can be an argument that the other half of all the other pairs is supporting, but thank god, the Oscars got it right.
This is a great article and I'm glad that some people are doing their part to fight against category fraud.but there is just one small thing about your article that I take issue with, when you say:
"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."
It seems like you are suggesting that fraud for child actors is somehow more acceptable, and I disagree with that. Yes, it's true that the supporting categories were designed to recognize character actors, and it's annoying when star names pretend to be supporting to get an easy nomination, but in this day and age there is more to category fraud than just stars hijacking the category.
I think the main thing that should determine category placement is the role and ONLY the role. Now that we're no longer in the studio system, where the categories might as well have been called "Category for stars" and "category for character actors", it should be more about the actual role you see on screen and not external factors. So, it doesn't matter if Jacob Tremblay is 9 years old or 99, whether famous child star or unknown plucked off the street, he is the main protagonist of ROOM and should be going lead, period. No excuses. His age shouldn't be a factor. In my eyes, his fraud is just as bad as Vikander and Mara. I wish you would treat his fraud the same as the others (you have CATEGORY FRAUD ALERT! in your prediction pages for Vikander and Mara, but not Tremblay!)
But other than that, I agree with everything and I support your fight against fraud!
Jinny -- this is a good point. i just don't think that battle can ever be won because with child actors people view them as supporting even when they're lead -- my theory being that even if they want to vote for them some part of them knows that they didn't give the performance alone. the director and co-stars are in their too helping them reach it.