Best Actress Updates, Or: Get Right With God. Stop Category Fraud!
Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:01AM 
REVISED ARTICLE
News, or shall we say "scuttlebutt," recently broke in regards to Todd Haynes long-awaited Carol that Cate Blanchett would campaign for Supporting Actress and Rooney Mara for Lead. Speaking at length to someone who has seen the picture they say, and I quote, "...either demotion absolutely insane. Even moreso than Notes on a Scandal." referring of course to the last time that Cate Blanchett pulled out the category fraud stops to get nominated for a lesbian drama. Only this time she's the title character, making it even more ridiculous.
Then Cate's agent denied it.
Which is all along way of saying... that discussions and are still forming. But why should they be when it comes to Supporting/Lead campaigns? why should they be?
If it were to go that way the reasoning is clear: to have Cate avoid competing with herself for Truth, the Rather-Gate movie in which she plays Mary Mapes to Robert Redford's Dan Rather, and defer to Rooney Mara since Rooney took Best Actress at Cannes. If you remove all concerns about ethics, this is just fine and makes sense... but really now. Shouldn't power players within Hollywood have some ethics and set good examples? Cate has two Oscars already. It's time for actors, particularly those of Cate's magnitude, to stop with the greed and start standing up for what's right: let actual character/supporting actors have a shot at Oscar nominations in the category designed to honor them rather than pretend you're not huge star in a leading role just so that you can be feted again. (See also: Julia Roberts in August Osage County recently who also had no excuse for the greed, and whose very stardom ruined the property's ending by insisting on a cutaway closeup that dampened the meaning)
And yes stars do approve their campaigns. They are not blameless though the strategies come from elsewhere.
On the other hand this particular Carol proposition would not likely be the type of Category Fraud that voters would go along peacefully with. Especially not with Cate having top billing, being the title character, and getting 3/5th of the movie poster for her face. Every once in a while they do balk at fraudulent campaigns as when they "promoted" Keisha Castle-Hughes to her true category (Lead for Whale Rider despite a supporting campaign) or when Kate Winslet greedily attempted a double nod by pretending she was supporting in The Reader to clear the way for her lead campaign in Revolutionary Road. Instead AMPAS voters just ignored the latter and "promoted" her for the Holocaust drama to the category she belonged in anyway. For now I'm demoting both Rooney & Cate on both charts until we see further evidence that anyone beyond SAG (who are required to vote by how the studio submits) is going to buy this 'Carol is the supporting player in Carol' business.
Finally, there is no reason to believe that both Rooney and Cate couldn't be nominated in Best Actress if they ran a truthful campaign as it's happened before, and not just once either. One could argue that the only reason it doesn't happen anymore is that its only very rarely attempted it. In supporting where it's frequently attempted it happens frequently.
Spotlight's ensemble features Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo in the largest roles. But technically they could go any which way with campaigning, even trying "all supporting" like The Departed did
In other strange categorization news I forgot to add Jason Segel (in another two-hander same-gender film) to the Supporting Actor chart last time round for End of the Tour so there he goes. All Acting Category Charts are now updated:
LEAD ACTRESS - lots of strong contenders
LEAD ACTOR - lots of strong contenders
SUPPORTING ACTRESS, - very vague at this point. much will still happen
SUPPORTING ACTOR - starting to take shape
Reader Comments (56)
Anne Thompson has personally asked Blanchett's agent after the Supporting news broke out and she confirmed that Blanchett stays in lead.
If Truth turns out to be really good thing might change though. Eagerly awaiting the premiere this weekend!
Yavor -- adjusted but the points remain.
totally agree otherwise, Cate has 2 Oscars already; I'm satisfied with 1 nomination for the better leading performance, be it Carol or Truth.
I am sure the McAdams thing is going to happen, but she has to be one of the most boring actresses working today-she has made nothing remotely fun or interesting in the past ten years, I do not get her lasting appeal.
you've forgotten list brie larson as a contender [probably won't happen but she's got to be a better bet than melissa mccarthy]
I really see Keaton getting in again. Voters seem to love confirming there picks from the previous. Plus good buzz from Telluride.
Once more female performances underwhelm, I believe Streep can climb up the charts. Especially with a golden globe or SAG nomination and timing of the release on bluray/DVD. Ricki is her best performance in a while and it would be a shame for it not to receive a nomination when her lesser performances have. Still keeping the faith....
I agree with you on the hard push for the actresses on Carol. Rooney got her premature tribute and Cate is getting two; BFI & MOMA.
Carol is exquisite and they are both fantastic. So give them both all the awards. But in lead.
PAR - argh. must update again. she should definitely be on the chart.
I don't know why Nathaniel insists with this Carol is admired but not loved thing. Yes, not everybody thinks it's a masterpiece but it's one of the few movies this year getting that label. It had incredible support at Cannes, placing high in every possible poll even with the most hard to please crowd. The Telluride reaction was still strong and critics like David Ehrlich called it his fave movie of the decade. Ofc the lowbrow Oscar pundits like Scott Feinberg or Kris Tapley won't think much of it since it stars 2 women and isn't a lame heartwarming tale made to win Oscars and is also competing with the mediocrities they are already supporting like Black Mass or Spotlight.
The Blanchett category switch clearly didn't come from her camp as she is front and center talking about the movie everywhere, it's her first producing role and a project she fought to get made for years. She hasn't even talked about Truth yet lol so it was probably Weinstein testing the waters or Feinberg acting cute for Rooney's camp or for Sony Classics that want some time in the sun for their movie.
I want them both in lead and it would be awesome for a due to be welcomed to the category since Thelma & Louise last did it but Rooney could win in supporting and now she's gonna struggle in the grown ups table.
@ John T: I'm not a big fan of Rachel McAdams either, but one' gotta give due - she was phenomenal, I thought, in Southpaw - completely stole Gyllenhaal's thunder; when her character died the movie died a slow and agonizing death. (Naomie Harris was great, as usual, too.).
And if McAdams is good in the new one, as well, that should be honored - despite her past bland performances.
While this year is quite the competitive one in lead actress I think with the strong awards run Carol seems destined for that Mara and Blanchett will both compete in leading and while neither of them might not win having two nominations to me is the bigger feet then Mara going supporting and easily winning for a lead role. Outside those two I think a mix of Mulligan, Ronan, Lawrence, Bullock and Rampling will be our best actress nominees. Vikander while just as lead as Redmayne will most likely be campaigned in supporting due to being the same studio as Mulligan who will get the leading push and while Vikander will get some push they will focus on Mulligan who can win the category.
I want Charlotte Rampling to be nominated. She has never been nominated and this season could have three veterans in Best Actress (Paltrow's mom and Tomlin). We saw how well it worked in an older actress' favor with Streep having Close and Davis as co-nominees.
Lots of visiting intentions here without much in the way of support. It would be nice if stars used their muscle to make room for their less celebrated, less rewarded supporting casts, and it's great to voice disapproval if that doesn't happen, but I'm not sure about characterizing these stars as the Scrooge McDucks of the award season, swimming in their trophy lakes while dreaming of more. The kind of strategic jockeying for nominations at the expense of less famous performers that you are discussing is unseemly and unfair, but I can see the rationale behind it. Nominations and wins (even expectations of same) can and often do bring in audiences for the kind of mid-budget dramas that otherwise struggle at the box office - and the higher-profile the nomination/win, the better. Stars are often necessary in securing funding to get these kinds of films made in the first place (assuming that they aren't producing them as well), and they're usually central to the promotion, from interviews and junkets to posters and trailers. It isn't hard to see how they might be persuaded of the necessity of going supporting if they want to help give the film that extra push. Perhaps these stars are in the grip of trophy-lust, or perhaps they want to best position their films to be seen by audiences. Or both. Or neither. I just don't see the point in calling actresses who have arguably earned the benefit of the doubt from us 'greedy' over and over (and over and over) again like they just snatched the last slice of pizza from out of our very hands. I'll be happy to recant if we find a text from Cate to Killer Films reading "Fancy 3rd trophy f**k Paulson LOL" but maybe, until then, a little circumspection might be in order.
Just curious: how much say does the actor really have in the category choice? I would imagine part of the issue is the studio/publicists wanting to get as many oscar noms as possible and in as many categories as possible to make the advertisements better. If it's all about money, I would imagine that is where a lot of the decision falls...but you would know better than I.
Aren't you forgetting someone? ... ... BRIE LARSON!!! Early word is very strong from Telluride. And we need to keep putting this out into the atmosphere until it happens. Update, please! :)
I agree with what others has said in that the tone of the article is ungenerous to Blanchett. Particularly when it has been confirmed that she is pursuing a lead nomination. Blanchett has always been effusive in her praise of other women with whom she's worked. The love fest with Sally Hawkins, I mean her praise for Judi Dench continued from their NOTES press tour til she won an Oscar years later and dedicated a bit of time in her acceptance speech for Dame Judi.
She's not an ungenerous actress who wants to hog the limelight and all the awards. At least there is no evidence of that.
But studios are wary of double lead campaigns because when they had tried them they have failed recently. Foxcatcher, The Kids Are All Right.
Not to mention no one was saying a thing when Mara was the one category frauding even if Therese is the true lead of the novel and the film. Now Feinberg starts a rumour and Cate must stop her greed evil woman show!!!
summer: I don't know if Julianne Moore as either 6th or 7th place (give or take Swank's surprise SAG citation) that year can be called an out and out failure for The Kids Are All Right because that still leaned comedic.
Had a look at the Jason Segal box on the chart and I have to ask, Nat - do you honestly think the Academy "owe" him, or that a mistake?
There are instances of the title character being a supporting role. I understand that's not the case here, but this article makes it sound like a preposterous notion. See also: Rachel Getting Married and Julia (1979).
The Jack--that line really threw me and then I found out Nat is talking about matthias schoenaerts.
Tom M -- the stars *always* have a choice in how the campaign goes. They aren't the ones strategizing but they have approval on such things. Just like they have a choice in all things involving them. (what they wear, which reporters they talk to, which shows they attend, etcetera). The lower rung actors have choices too, if not as much of a willingness to rock the boat if the studio says "this is what we want you to do."
Laika, Harge, Summer -- i admit that the tone is a little harsh but it's incorrect to act like it's a personal attack on Cate or that i would't complain about Rooney doing it (i would). I am not hypocritical about these things. I'm very consistent on this point. I would diss Pfeiffer herself, my beloved, if she pretended to be supporting from a leading role. I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of / egregious disrespect for the working actor without 7 figure salaries and the entire purpose of the Supporting Category (and given that the Academy has let modern campaigners distort the meaning of these things beyond all measure in the past 25 years - they'd do well to regain some control by creating an executive committee that would make hard rulings about this so that people wouldn't constantly try to game the system.)
also Cate did approve a supporting campaign for her leading role in Notes on a Scandal so obviously she does not feel strongly about taking attention away from supporting players.
I doubt that any star ACTUALLY thinks about this -- stars are surrounded by whole reams of people propping them up after all -- but if they could get outside themselves at all I think they'd realize it's unseemly. Which is why i bring it up even though i get a lot of grief each year from readers / publicists about it. If no one speaks out, nothing will ever change.
Alex - i've mentioned those in past article. in HENRY & JUNE, june is clearly supporting as she's missing for at least half the picture. there are other examples. But it's not common. And it's a matter of perception.
EVERYONE -- if they both do both campaign as lead, I will print an apology and pay tribute since I've been begging awards campaigns to tell the truth for a change!
I will say that, having read The Price of Salt rather recently in prep for Carol, it's certainly a co-lead but if ether of them were to go supporting (purely based on the book) Blanchett makes more sense to me. The whole story is told from Mara's character's perspective, and there is some time (not *more*, but certainly some) spent ruminating on Carol vs. her actually being there; she's written as pretty enigmatic. The title is kind of a misdirection in that way. But who knows if that will actually be how the film operates.
What about Kate Winslet's chances Nat is Jobs the role to get her back in at the Oscars.
How is Bel Powley (Diary of a Teenage Girl) not on this chart??
Anyone know of release date info for "The Light Between Oceans?" Apparently it has a January 2016 UK release date but US is supposed to be 2015. Great book and powerhouse cast (Michael Fassbender, Alicia Vikander and Rachel Weisz) -- I can't believe there doesn't seem to be any award buzz about it!!
Mark Ruffalo has 2 noms.
@Olivia: The script is significantly revised from the novel to temper the impression of it all being from Therese's POV, and several of Carol's scenes unfold with Therese nowhere in sight (and vice versa). So I'd say it's even more "two-lead" than the novel.
@Nathaniel: I'm with you on all the stop-the-madness sentiment about category manipulation, obviously. But I don't think the actors themselves are calling these shots or even as endowed with veto power as you're suggesting here (though you're right they're hardly without knowledge or approval), and I do think the "greed" focus here seems misplaced. Even though I sympathize strongly with the larger point. A friend interviewed a recent "perpetrator" of category fraud only to reveal that the team surrounding this performer, well before the nomination, was pushing for what we'd call the more appropriate placement and/or for an end to the mixed signals about which "way" the campaign was tilting, which looked opportunistic and probably bad for both film and award prospect. So, there was a voice at the table, but still the decisions seemed well out of the actor's control and way more focused on the kinds of factors Laika cites. To include feeling, rightly or wrongly, that it benefits the whole film and everyone associated, lower-tier actors included, if anyone receives a nomination and promotes the work, which this actor agreed with. (Not meaning to be coy, just not my place to say.)
(Incidentally, wherever one falls on any of these issues, the title of this post and the faux-tweet from Blanchett in Laika's response are both *hilarious*.)
' 'Carol is the supporting player in Carol' business.'
Hey, worked for Julia and Georgia. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if kate winslet will be nominated for 'steve jobs', she will be the more young actor in history to have SEVEN ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS???
anyone one could answer me??? thanks
Possible category frauds:
Rooney Mara (Cate's agent was in Telluride with Winslet and confirmed Blanchett as lead, no word from Mara's camp yet)
Tom Courtenay (officially getting a supporting campaign from IFC)
Jacob Tremblay (lead Kid goes supporting for awards)
Ellen Page (also a co-lead going supporting, why isn't the Freeheld poster in the article?)
Alicia Vikander (probably going supporting to stay out of the way from Focus' other leading lady, Carey Mulligan)
Paul Dano (got the best reviews from Love & Mercy, young fella, supporting according to Open Road)
Jason Segel (co-lead, goes supporting)
Where's the outrage for them Mr Rogers?
Really, Nathaniel? You're still harping on the ending of August: Osage County. Isn't it time to have a twinkie and get over it? And why blame Julia or her stardom for the ending to A:OC? Blame Tracy Letts. That's the ending he always had in the shooting script. He confirmed it countless times in various interviews.
@ nathaniel "it's incorrect to act like it's a personal attack on Cate"
1) Calling someone greedy isn't a personal attack?
2) My comments aren't limited to Cate - they apply to Kate and Julia too, and any other star who's ever dubiously campaigned in supporting for a lead(ish) role.
I don't disagree with you on the fundamental points - particularly the injustice and disrespect towards supporting actors, or the need to kick up a fuss about it as often and as loudly as possible in the hope of change. I just think focusing on the idea of the star as greedy might be beside the point, and actually a little unfair.
brendam (?)
If Kate Winslet is nominated this year, she will have seven acting nominations by age 40.
Bette Davis got her 7th oscar nomination when she was 35 or 37, depending on how you rate her Of Human Bondage write-in nomination.
Meryl Streep was 38 with her 7th nomination.
I wonder why this article were't published last year (August)? Or when Gyllenhaal was nominated? Sorry, but Blanchett doesn't deserve this, especially after her agent denied those rumours.
Hoping that if situation like that happen to Kidman (which is very unlikely) Nathaniel will be equally outraged;)
"I am sure the McAdams thing is going to happen, but she has to be one of the most boring actresses working today-she has made nothing remotely fun or interesting in the past ten years, "
Only if you haven't seen De Palma's PASSION or Malick's TO THE WONDER.
@ Gustavo, liked her in To The Wonder as well; a very non-Rachel McAdams performance.
Rachel McAdams was SO GOOD in To The Wonder
1. I love Cate Blanchett so much that I don't actually dislike her nomination for Elizabeth: The Golden Age.
2. Anyone who genuinely thinks Nathaniel hasn't complained about category fraud EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS hasn't been paying attention. Hell, even if it could potentially happen, it irritates him. I'd actually assert he sometimes sees category fraud in more cases than most.
Haven't seen Carol yet, but I'd wager that if the film was about a romance between a man and a woman, there would be absolutely no confusion of fraud or placement and both leads would be placed in lead. There is something almost sinister about gay love interests being spliced between the lead/supporting line.
Speaking of Cate Blanchett and supporting roles, we're almost completely ignoring her brilliance in the very wonderful "Cinderella" ; she steals the show and that performance will end up being better and more memorable than at least one of the nominated five. Especially if we have a plethora of the Amy Adams in The Master or Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings incidents. Mark my words ;)
@John
I dunno about that considering the long suffering wife is a stock character from Supporting Actress winners. This year already has Alicia Vikander trying to be considered supporting to Redmayne even if it's the story of the couple.
There's a lot of angst here about Carol when it's all pure speculation at this point.
Category placement is not a science, it's highly subjective, just as evaluating these performances in the first place.
"How is Bel Powley (Diary of a Teenage Girl) not on this chart??"
Maybe if these were charts for the Indie Spirit Awards. Alas, the film hasn't caught on and there's really no chance of her getting nominated. Sadly.
Per the topic at hand, Nat has *always* been against category fraud. He *has* complained about many recent examples of it at the time. And, yes, if CAROL were about a man and a woman there would be no point for discussion. They'd both be lead and that would be that, end of discussion.
I am gunning for Brie Larson and Carey Mulligan. I would like to see Jennifer Lawrence sit this year out. I also would suggest Cate stop playing Carol and Lucy types from the 1950's but I am sure it's just a phase. There is no pleasing her.
Y'all homosexuals are so butthurt it's both scary and entertaining, lmao. So overprotective of your favs. Take a break and eat a cookie, you guys.
@Philip - Besides the fact that your comment was very rude, it doesn't even stand. Not evety gay man here supports his favorite actress(es) no matter what, and I doubt you know each and every commentor's sex and sexual orientation. I suggest you be nicer in the future..or is that too gay for your tastes?