What's the worst case of "category fraud"?
Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 11:13AM 
Some people don't care about "category fraud" and that's understandable. I'm a big proponent of just being happy that great artists are honored, ignoring the categorization of their work, especially when it's all so subjective. However, when it comes to the Oscar acting prizes, it does feel wrong that awards specifically created to honor character actors are now regularly dominated by stars in leading roles. Instead of opening avenues to highlight those performers with less narratively-prominent parts, the Supporting categories have become a way for leading actors that couldn't crack the leading prizes to still win gold. This game of fraudulent campaigning may have just hit its apex with this year's slew of Best "Supporting" Actor and Actress nominees.
To organize my thoughts and hopefully make the arguments clearer, here's a ranking of the "category fraud" cases of the year from least to most egregious. This is all subjective, though I'd side-eye anyone who tried to argue for the legitimacy of that top choice...
Sacha Baron Cohen in THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7
Aaron Sorkin's Best Picture hopeful is an ensemble piece, which means that it's difficult and very dubious to separate its cast between leads and supporting roles. Nonetheless, the script is so unbalanced in how it treats the titular Chicago 7 that some characters rise above the others in terms of relevancy and POV. I'd say Sorkin structures the movie around the ideological conflicts of Eddie Redmayne's Tom Hayden and Sacha Baron Cohen's Abbie Hoffman, making them into protagonists, much to the movie's detriment.
Olivia Colman in THE FATHER
The film is about the relationship between father and daughter and, while his POV dominates, she also has moments alone without the patriarch. My love for The Father comes, in part, from the juxtaposition of two different experiences of the same prolonged situation. We get to watch a mind lost to dementia from within and also from outside. Plus, when sharing scenes, Colman is usually the one modulating tone, guiding Hopkins through confusing events. Even though Olivia Williams sometimes steps into Colman's shoes for added disorientation, the Best Actress champion of 2018 is still a co-lead in my eyes.
Leslie Odom Jr. in ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI…
Similar to Baron Cohen, Leslie Odom Jr. acts in an ensemble picture that divides its narrative between multiple individuals. Despite this, just like in Trial of the Chicago 7, the script of One Night in Miami… constructs itself around one principal ideological conflict with two characters arguing throughout the main part of the film. They are Kinglsey Ben-Adir's Malcolm X and Leslie Odom Jr.'s Sam Cooke. Furthermore, both the real-life people's early deaths haunt the movie and lay a mournful veil over it. The conclusion of the entire affair also focuses on Cooke, implying his experience and personal arc are what defines the theme and structure of Regina King's movie.
Maria Bakalova in BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM
Borat's sequel is about Borat, for sure. However, one element makes it stand apart from the original and redefines the tone of the comedy even as the mechanics of it remain constant. That element is Maria Bakalova's Tutat, Borat's daughter, and the gift he plans to give to American politicians. Her presence completely reconfigures the movie, giving it a narrative arc, an earnest sensibility so at odds with the original it manages to elevate the sequel above its predecessor. Such a central part of the film deserves to be considered a co-lead. What is Borat Subsequent Film's story if not the evolving relationship of this father-and-daughter duo?
LaKeith Stanfield and Daniel Kaluuya in JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH
This is ridiculous. Judas and the Black Messiah is a classic two-hander, a story told about and from the perspective of two individuals whose experiences intersect. Daniel Kaluuya's campaign as a supporting actor was already ridiculous enough, but to nominate LaKeith Stanfield alongside him just makes these nominations all the more preposterous. In one regard, I love the fact Kaluuya is a two-time nominee and that Stanfield was nominated. They're great actors who have many Oscar-worthy works in their respective filmographies. That being said, I also wonder what genuinely supporting actors were ignored in order for AMPAS to reward these leading men.
Think of how insane it would look for both Thelma and Louise to be named supporting players in the movie titled after them. Who is the lead of Judas and the Black Messiah if not Judas (the betrayer) nor the Black Messiah (the great man who is betrayed)? If the Academy wanted to nominate these two so much, why not recognize them in the leading actor category? In truth, that might have been what happened. If AMPAS ever releases their vote totals, I wouldn't be surprised if Kaluuya ranked higher than some of the actual nominees in the Best Actor race and just ended in Supporting because that's where he got more votes, overall.
Considering all of this, I think this year's Best Supporting Actor category may very well be the worst example of category fraud ever. There's only one inarguable supporting player among the bunch, the less famous of the recognized actors, Paul Raci for Sound of Metal. In the past, it's been common for more than half of the category to be made up of leads but it's never gotten to this level of absurdity. For instance, while I consider all of the Best Supporting Actress nominees of 2006 to be in the wrong category, all but Cate Blanchett are somewhat defensible cases that came from ensemble movies where it's trickier to assess and decide who's at the center(s) of the dramatic story.
The last time we saw Supporting lineups comprised of only supporting players was 2011 for men and 2017 for women. Of course, that's my assessment and I'm sure many would disagree. Nonetheless, I find it concerning that this trend is becoming somewhat akin to an unwritten rule. So much so, that people's opinions on the Oscar contenders seem to be skewed, making genuinely supporting actors have to contend with criticisms of their roles being too small. I recall conversations like that occurring when Mahershala Ali won the Oscar for Moonlight and when Regina King conquered her trophy for If Beale Street Could Talk and remain baffled by them. Of course, their roles are small – they are supporting characters, not protagonists.
Thankfully, both performers managed to win the gold, defeating such lead actors as Dev Patel in Lion and The Favourite ladies. While trying to keep positive, I fear that such results may become increasingly rarer and that AMPAS will continue to do nothing to rectify that. For all their many faults, the HFPA has committees that examine these category placements and rule in favor or against the studio's campaigns. It doesn't seem like that would be so hard to implement and, even if the rulings wouldn't always be universally accepted, they surely would result in fewer eyebrow-raising lineups.
I'd love to know your opinion on this subject. Do you, dear readers, care about "category fraud"? How would you rank this year's examples and what lineups do you consider to be the most "fraudulent" in Oscar history? Please, sound off on the comments.
Reader Comments (108)
If a character is essential to a one-sentence description of the plot of a film, it is extremely unlikely that the character is supporting:
- In need of a driver and protection on a concert tour in the Deep South in 1962, world-class African-American pianist Don Shirley recruits Tony Lip, a tough-talking bouncer from an Italian-American neighbourhood in the Bronx.
- Barbara Covett, a veteran teacher at St. George's, senses a kindred spirit in Sheba Hart, the school's new art teacher, who Barbara learns is having an inappropriate affair...
- After spotting the beautiful, elegant Carol perusing the doll displays in a 1950s Manhattan department store, shopgirl and aspiring photographer Therese Belivet develops a fast bond with the older woman, which becomes a love with complicated consequences.
I think it’s greed on the studio’s side & political desperation on the Academy’s side. Competing studios probably sense that Best Actor will automatically go to the deceased Boseman. So-head to Supporting where your BIG Lead role will overshadow those tiny supporting scenes of no-name nobodies. They know that the Academy ain’t taking that nomination away once it’s secured. And it seems that the Academy is so defensive about being perceived as #sowhite, that they want those 20 slots filled with African American actors because 2 seconds after nominations are announced, there’s no time for congratulations because the face counters are up in arms with zero people in the B. Supporting Actress category. It’s like the Academy last year has to give out explanations on why JPhoenix, ReeneZ, Brad Pitt and Laura Dern were honored. Because of their talent! They’re now happen to give co-lead M. Ali any award for Green Book because his win in Supporting keeps down the yelling. So-it’s complete crickets with the leads elbowing into Supporting. Almost feels like how women athletes are forced to lose when competing against trans-athletes.
On some level, I’m kinda glad such a ridiculous, glaring example happened like this. People are TALKING about it. People are re-examining past category fraud.
What's disappointing, as has been said, is how easily critics groups just march right along with whatever the studio says about category placement. Daniel Kaluyya won critics awards for supporting actor! So did Rachel Weisz for The Favourite, etc.
This wasn't always the case. Back in 91, one of the groups (NBR maybe?) gave Hopkins its supporting prize. And LAFCA awarded Mercades Ruehl the lead actress prize. Was it because studios' preference wasn't so blanketed onto the process?
Even still, why are critics so obsequious about it now?
The acting bransch of the academy has NEVER cared for ”category fraud ” since leading roles has been nominated for lead since the beginning. And since its the actors careers thats at stake why should they care what any others think?
It's astounding that *both* leading men from Judas got into supporting. As much as category fraud sucks, if they had just made the distinction that Lakeith was lead and Daniel was supporting, I could understand and lightly support it. While I'm overjoyed both men are Oscar nominees, this is a prime example of having one's cake and eating it too.
However, I'm not going to complain too hard when we could've got Jared Leto instead, lol.
Genius idea there, Nathaniel.
That whole thing w/ Stanfield/Kaluuya is very confusing as one of them should've been nominated for Best Actor. This is fucking weird. I blame the pandemic.
I am 100% against category fraud because it denies true supporting actors their deserved chance to shine - a lot of times that's their moment of glory. Think Robert Fuller getting a nod for Jackie Brown or the recognition Virginia Madsen received for her part in Sideways. Both talented, longtime character actors who got invited to the party one year. It was downright heartwarming!
Category fraud is at its core simply unfair. So why would anyone support it?
Don't care. Concern yourself with more important things in the world than "category fraud" at the Oscars.
LaKeith is the only example listed that's beyond ridiculous and required active Academy contortions to make happen.
"Don't care. Concern yourself with more important things in the world than "category fraud" at the Oscars."
My so above it all. Hear that folks, there are more important things in the world so I guess we shouldn't discuss this. Dad said.
I hate that the supporting categories have now been co-opted by stars. What I always loved about the supporting categories was the chance to honor character performers, those who rarely get chances to be nominated for an Oscar. How great would it have been to have Will Patton or Glynn Turman in supporting actor or Miranda Hart in supporting actress?
Agree with a lot of the discussion here. I hate category fraud too. Just want to mention one fo the ones that I count as the biggest, that hasn't been mentioned here: Casey Affleck (in almost every scene) in THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD.
As for egregious, Brad Pitt's win was pretty bad as were Alicia VIkander and Viola Davis. Supporting seems to mean supportive now.
Rob, not Robert Fuller, but Robert Forster in "Jackie Brown."
I know Nathaniel will be unhappy that I'm saying this, but I think it's inevitable that, at some point (It might be five years from now, it might be 35 years from now), the categories are going to go gender neutral. Hopefully, by then there will be little to no likelihood that men will grab the majority of nominations. (I can actually see the opposite happening. Women's roles tend to be more emotive.) Anyway, at that point I can see four gender neutral categories: Lead (GANDHI, THE REVENANT anything focused on two characters like THELMA & LOUISE), Ensemble player (ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI, THE BIG CHILL, really most of the cast of THE GODFATHER), Supporting (Thelma Ritter in REAR WINDOW, Jack Nicholson TERMS OF ENDEARMENT), and something with a really diplomatic name for essentially one or two scene wonders, like Melinda Dillon in ABSENCE OF MALICE or Jane Fonda in YOUTH. And they WILL need a committee with a stop watch to oversee the categories.
Who cares about 'category frauds'?
The truth is that it's very often difficult to decide who is 'leading' and who is 'supporting'. IMO there's no leading characters in 'Chicago 7' as it's an ensemble movie and no one there is more important than the rest. Bakalova might be considered supporting as her movie is about Borat and she is an addition to his story. Kaluuya's story is watched from the point of view of Stanfield's character so yeah, he might be considered 'supporting' as this is a film more about Stanfield's moral decisions than about Kaluuya. Odom is clearly more 'supporting' in "One Night in Miami" than Ben-Adir (as Malcolm X is the person that organizes the meeting and puts it in motion, organizaing discussion etc.). So I have my doubts only about Stanfield (I haven't seen "The Father" yet so I cannot comment on Colman). But I'm pretty sure that he was campaining 'lead' and his placement is the result of votes of people who didn't understand "Judas" and didn't notice that his character is more important there than Kaluuya so you cannot call this 'category fraud' as he wanted to be considered 'lead', did he not? :) And 'fraud' is when someone cheats and he did not cheat so... :)
@Tim
What the heck is up with the trans comment at the end of your comment?
Also why are bringing race so into the category fraud debate? What about Brad Pitt just last year? Or Waltz?Personally I think Ali taking supporting was insulting and racist ( he gives a better performance and puts the plot in motion).
Anyway the double supporting while wrong shows excitement of AMPAS for Judas over other nominees. They could have another ONIM, and Chicago 7 person in that spot but clearly chose not to.
Even with a name put above the title to distinguish who is the Lead, I bet that Oscar savvy studios would still place names below the title just to test the campaign waters. I can’t see audiences racing to seeing Daniel K. and LaKeith S. (who?) in Judas. Now it places them both on a category borderline.
In the end, I guess it’s the voters (not us, unfortanutely) that must/will decide what they think of this blatant trickery. I felt that voters punished Eddie Murphy/Dreamgirls for trashing Scary Spice’s maternity claims during that voting season. Let’s wait and see if this issue sinks in with them (probably not).
Also agree that the Supporting category was added in 1936 to recognize Category actors that shine in the background while the Leads always got the adulation, fawning press, money and attention. Now it’s every Lead wanting a win no matter how they obtain it.
yeah, @Tim, what the F***. Race has nothing to do with this. Olivia Coleman is white, Tim Hutton is white, Brad Pitt is white, Maria Bakalova is white, George Burns was white. I could name dozens more. Category fraud happens across the racial spectrum. Get some therapy and stop resenting the success of people of color.
It's a fascinating subject and quite confusing. I was thinking of "Moonlight". Naomie Harris was Oscar-nominated for support, and was in the entire film while Mahershala Ali (also nominated and won) was in just the first 1/3 of the movie. But those two seem reasonable. Which category would Trevante Rhodes or André Holland have been put into if they were nominated, as their characters are the leads (Trevante's more so), yet they are only in the last third of the picture? Maybe the Academy members did not know where to put them so they struck out.
@ Rob: Sure did say what I said. Save your shitty remarks for someone else. Have a nice day!
@Kyle: ok, I thought you were being dismissive (this is a film site so you know, we get to talk about this shit) but I was totally being condescending. I apologize.
@Eric: You're right, thanks! Robert Forster, of course! Ugh, forgive me, Robert! I loved you in Jackie Brown!
I LOATHE category fraud with a burning passion.
Oscar noms change careers. Every time a big name actor pushes their way into Supporting fraudulently they push out someone whose career could be forever changed by the honour.
In 2016 when Viola cheated her way to a win the probable 6th placer in noms was Lily Gladstone in 'Certain Women'. Last seen for about 30 seconds in First Cow.
Imagine if someone like Jacki Weaver hadn't got in because of Hailee Steinfield's ridiculous placement or June Squibb was snubbed because of Julia Robert's egomania.
It's disgusting.
Very seldom is there genuine confusion as to where anyone should be placed. No one thought Mara Rooney or Alicia Vikander where Supporting they just new it was easier to get them nominated in that category. Casey Affleck playing the title character and in every scene just wasn't a big enough name to guarantee a Best Actor nom but with all that screen time could easily impress enough to get in over people with 5 minute roles.
There is new and indefensible idea that no film can have 2 leads of the same gender. It's been 29 years since two women were nominated for the same film in Lead and 36 since 2 men were. Films didn't change, just the way that campaigns were run. Today there is no doubt that either Thelma or Louise would be demoted.
Mahershala Ali went Supporting for Green Book just because he wasn't the only Lead of the film. But he as a Lead. The film is a two hander. It doesn't exist without both characters being front and centre. It's highly unlikely he would have been campaigned in Supporting if he was female.
The Academy needs to step in. It's not hard to determine placements. Leads are usually obvious. There are only a couple of genuinely problematic cases each year. A simple committee that passes judgement of dubious attempts at cheating would be an easy fix to the problem and would lead to genuine Supporting performers getting their just reward and a far more interesting Oscar race at the same time but I don't think The Academy wants that. They want Brad Pitt on their stage with a little gold man not and on the news the next day not some unknown character actor of star of the theatre.
I literally screamed when Stansfield got nommed (Kaluya was bad enough) but now I'm pleased it's happened. The situation of so absurd that maybe something will be done. This is a modern phenomenon. They are very few A list stars frauding their way to Supporting noms before this century. Used to be almost exclusively newcomers and children being placed there by the studio. Now top billed stars who have more than enough power to determine their own placement are actively choosing to cheat. It's used to be seen as shameful for a STAR to go supporting, With enough attention hopefully we can go back to those days. Let's keep up the pressure.
Tom -- but the thing is the awards campaign people couldn't game that above the title / below the title thing. That is contractual and decided before a movie even shoots. Billing determines advertising and money and clout. No star is going to give up their money and clout and name above the title on the off chance that someone decides they should run a fraudulent Oscar campaign a year later if the movie turns out well. There is already a system for big stars in supporting roles and that's being at the end of the credits with a special designation like "and" or "with" -- those are stars you know would be higher in the billing if they had an actual leading role in the film.
High time for the Oscars to make a clear ruling or even a committee to handle this category fraud thing.
Bewildering and stupid to have both title characters in supporting.
I'm RT everything you're saying on Twitter but I feel pretty hopeless about it. If Julia and Brad were totally Ok with it...
A comittee is the best option (although the Tonys were also starstruck when they were OK with Metcalf in supporting for Three Tall Women)
Very late to this, just want to add my support to the following:
1) Egregious examples such as Alicia Vikander for "The Danish Girl" set a tone. That tone can be summarized as "Cheating is OK, and it works" More leading actors and actresses come along and imitate the winning an Oscar at any price strategy. So even people you think wouldn't stoop to doing it - do. (Viola Davis, etc.)
2) The situation is getting worse, but solutions like the Tony committee are the intervention that is needed. Nathaniel's 2 suggestions are terrific.
3) Also - the critics awards should be upholding stricter rules, not giving in to PR campaigns.
Especially The Independent Spirit Awards, they should show some spine and refuse to go along.
Category fraud has gotten so ridiculous that I think we need AMPAS to introduce an equation based on screen time. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think even a fairly liberal rule would eliminate at least the most egregious cases. I think 40% is a reasonable divide here: no actor whose performance makes up more than 40% of screen time in their movie can be nominated for the supporting race. If a studio wants to elevate an actor from supporting to lead, even though they'd qualify for supporting based on screen time (e.g. Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs), that's fine. But, in that case, no actor from the same movie with more screen time than "the lead" can be nominated in supporting.
A few thoughts:
1. I recognize category fraud is a real thing, and while I'm not as bothered by it as many of you, I am bothered by the idea of taking nominations away from Daniel Kaluuya, LaKeith Stanfield, and Dev Patel in the interest of... purity?
2. There is no objective measurement to what constitutes a lead or a supporting role. Being a title character is not definitive of being a lead. Kate Winslet (young Iris in Iris) and Vanessa Redgrave (Julia in Julia) were nominated as Supporting Actresses.
Screen time is also not definitive. Leslie Odom Jr. may have been in 47% of One Night in Miami, but how much of that was him in the background? The movie was a staged play, which means actors might stick around even if they are not central to the action.
3. So the determination has to be a subjective one, and I would like to suggest an approach that seems to work. Ask yourself: if someone were to make a new, separate movie focused on this character within the same timeframe, would it basically be the same as the movie you're watching, or would it be something completely different? If the former, the character is a lead; if the latter, the character is supporting.
So, if I made a new film about Fred Hampton or William O'Neal in Chicago 1968-1969, that film would be a lot like Judas and the Black Messiah. So Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith Stanfield are both leads. If I made a film about Roy Mitchell or Deborah Johnson in Chicago 1968-1969, it would be significantly different from Judas and the Black Messiah. So Jesse Plemons and Dominique Fishback are both supporting.
Try it out.
Bakalova does, after all, play the titular bribe in BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM: DELIVERY OF PRODIGIOUS BRIBE TO AMERICAN REGIME FOR MAKE BENEFIT ONCE GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN.
Something about how the studio campaigned JUDAS compared to the Academy's history of category fraud is that the higher status character, showier performance, and older actor playing a role the film revolves around is normally campaigned in lead, while a younger actor with a more primary POV is campaigned in supporting. Thinking of TRAINING DAY, COLLATERAL, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, FOXCATCHER, CAROL, THE FAVOURITE. The JUDAS campaign inverted that structure, which I think is interesting.
There have been examples where the studios attempted category fraud and the Academy wouldn't play along. Paramount pushed Susan Sarandon for supporting actress for ATLANTIC CITY but they nominated her in the lead category anyway, as they well should have. Worked out: she didn't get what could have been an easy win in the supporting category, but then they might not have ever felt she deserved anything later.
Colman is lead. It's not necessarily all from Hopkins' POV, as there are a few scenes where Colman is obviously the one whose perspective we see.
Cohen is in an ensemble.
Odom is arguably in that it's a film about four people but not really about them; rather about what and who they represent.
Plus the Malcom character is the main protagonist. One can argue either way, but there's nothing complicated about Colman. She's lead. The end.
Alicia Vikander was clearly a supporting character. She supported the titular "The Danish Girl".
Look, it's not the Academy's fault that you don't understand the difference between 'leading' and 'supporting'.
They also don't sometimes (Stanfield, Viola Davis in "Fences" etc.) but usually they do. Category frauds are extremely rare, to be honest, and only people who don't understand movies can complain about them (because they are almost non-existent).
@Someone. By your logic Jane Fonda should have won Best Supporting Actress in 1972 because her film was called KLUTE, not BREE. And she should have won another supporting actress award for JULIA (with Vanessa Redgrave winning Best Actress that year.) Names are pretty meaningless. REBECCA isn't even in the film of her name. A character who doesn't even have a name was the main character of that film.
I do hope the Academy will announce some measures after this Stanfield/Kaluuya debacle, its too ridiculous and blatant & while we point to the studio & stars for the category fraud, let us not forget tt Stanfield had campaigned as LEAD and it was the VOTERS who pushed him into supporting!!
There shld be a clear guidelines to the VOTERS on what constitutes Supporting, AND there shld be a committee to oversee the final nominees before they are announced.
If both LEADs are nominated in supporting when the pic is clearly a 2-handlers, the committee can act to veto the nominee who was campaigned as Lead (ala J&BM) and give the slot to the next nominee w the 6th highest no. of votes.
Yes, Its drastic measures but the VOTERS cant be trusted with their votes!!
I was so annoyed at Brad Pitt’s steamroll last year.
I don't like category fraud. There are certainly debatable cases - I don't expect everyone to agree on leading/supporting designations all the time.
It sometimes feels like a way to get a lesser acclaimed performance some recognition against a more acclaimed costar (Blanchett vs Dench in 2006; Seymour Hofffman vs Streep or Phoenix in 2008/2012, Roberts vs Streep in 2013). It's obviously related to star power of the performer (Casey Affleck in 2007). Sometimes it's just to obviously get out of their own way (Jamie Foxx in 2004).
The most egregious supporting campaign: how is it not Keisha Castle-Hughes for Whale Rider? What's frustrating was that, for a time, these campaigns seemed to falter for the performers they were pushing (Naomi Watts for Mulholland Drive, Scarlett Johansson for Lost in Translation), whereas now they succeed (Vikander for The Danish Girl is a good example) even if there is no reason for it too (Vikander probably would've beaten Lawrence for that 5th slot in lead, even if she doesn't win).
It sucks, functionally, because obviously, <B>THERE ARE MORE SUPPORTING PERFORMANCES THAN LEADING ONES</B>. So instead of nomination 10 leads and 10 supporting, they nominate 13 leads and 7 supporting performances.
@A.F.: I haven't written that Vikander was supporting in "The Danish Girl" because she wasn't the titular character. :) But the movie was about Redmayne's character and Vikander was supporting him/her being transgender. It's rather obvious that she wasn't 'lead' in this movie as this movie wasn't about her at all.
It's called "Supporting Actress," not "Supportive Character," Someone. Gawd. Movies can be "about" a lot of things, including abstract ideas. Your logic makes no sense. Talk about "people who don't understand movies."
I really like the comparison of Judas and the Black Messiah with Thelma & Louise - would've been ridiculous to nominate both Davis and Sarandon in Supporting and it.is ridiculous to nominate both Kaluuya and Stanfield in Supporting. Sure, not the first time category fraud has happened but it is a particularly egregious case.
And just from a labor perspective I'm saddened by the "it doesn't matter" responses here. Most actors will always have their careers centered around supporting roles. A shame to take away the main way to honor those people, the bulk of the profession, in a high-profile way.
Even with the Susan Saradon/Atlantic City Supporting attempt in 1981-that was 40 years ago. Guess the members had more respect for each category and their fellow players. The egos and blatant manipulations has gone off the rails in this era. The Academy seems to need gatekeepers. They’d made changes in the past with increasing the Best Picture category, combining the Sound category, adding the Hairstyling unit, changing Art Direction to Production Design, etc...
And a hard agree on instituting a Tony-style nominating committee to make category rulings.
Another thing the Tonys get right: the categories are called "Featured Actor/Actress," not "Supporting."
The Jeff Awards, honoring theatre in Chicago and voted on mostly by old white people, have instituted gender neutral categories in the past few years, with a category for Principal Performer and Supporting Performer, each with 10 nominees and two winners. Usually it's shaken out to one male and one female winner, but there have certainly been cases where the two winners in a category were both women. As a test case on smaller scale, there's an argument to be made that could reassure us that nominees/winners won't be dominated by men in a gender-neutral field.
Here is my idea, if someone gets votes in both supporting and lead (which I am guessing the Judas actors did) then both votes should count and then a committee should decide where to place them.
Or the easiest way is to have 'above the title' actors automatically submitted in the lead category and if the studio feels strongly to campaign them in supporting then it is decided by a committee (and same for a vice versa situation which is rare)
@A.F. You're moron. :)
@Alex
I suspect that theatre voters are more purely egalitarian, to be honest.
I absolutely DO care and I really, really wish the Academy would get their act together and create clear cut guidelines that designate a supporting role vs a lead role. Your examples are strong - all of them. It would be interesting to see how much screen time Cohen had in CHICAGO 7. It seemed like a lot!
Jennifer Hudson's Effie White in Dreamgirls felt like lead to me.
@Someone. You forgot about TERMS OF ENDEARMENT. Shirley McLaine's Aurora is so supportive of her daughter, Emma, in that film. How did McLaine wind up in the Best Actress category?? And you DID use the title of THE DANISH GIRL as evidence Alicia Vikander couldn't e considered the lead. Delete your account.
The answer to category fraud isn't as simple as using a stopwatch to count screentime. If that's the case, then we have to account for fraud that goes in both directions. it can't only be bad when leads are nominated in supporting. It has to also count when supportings are nominated in lead, which I sense is the good kind of category fraud that everyone likes. If we're going by screentime, then Anthony Hopkins should have been supporting for "The Silence of the Lambs." LaKeith Stanfield's nomination is a mess, but the advisory committee determinations seem like the best option to address the problem. It might need to exist as an independent audit outside of the Academy, since I'm guessing otherwise this will inevitably be influenced by lobbying and campaigning efforts from studios. Do all of this before Academy voting. Rules would also need to change within the Academy.