The Gotham nominations caused quite a stir among the Film Experience readership. Going through the comments section, the matter at hand is category fraud: who is and isn't guilty of perpetrating it going into the awards season? For instance, I would have categorized Ryan Gosling as a secondary lead in Barbie, but I've been convinced by the comments that he fits better in supporting. Other cases discussed included Binoche's Gotham-nominated work in Taste of Things, Whishaw in Passages, Hüller in Zone of Interest, and beyond.
So, why not relocate that discussion here while having fun with polls? You get to vote, deciding on each performer's rightful placement…
Since many of the buzziest are still awaiting release after their festival runs, let's leave the likes of Binoche and Hüller for a later date. Instead, these polls shall focus on pictures the general public has had a chance to watch. Also, for variety's sake, the horizons of the inquiry shall be broader than Oscar probability. In other words, some of these folks have no chance of getting nominated, but it's fun to discuss their category placement, what makes someone a lead or supporting.
To start things off, we have three pairs whose categorization may inspire some confusion. They're the Osage heart and the White Devil in Killers of the Flower Moon, a chaotic man's lovers in Passages, and two lonely souls wandering through Wes Anderson's desert diorama in Asteroid City.
Our next thespians have all been nominated for the Gotham Award for Best Supporting Performance, though some would argue they're intruding upon a category where they don't belong. Barbie's Ken Blackberry's belligerent business bro, and They Cloned Tyrone's slick killer – where do they belong?
The next two cases often enjoy the camera's gaze like leads by virtue of their films' structures. Still, they have been categorized as supporting players for campaign purposes. In NYAD, a swimmer's friend is roped into becoming her coach, finding herself as the narrative's anchor when the other woman is too busy swimming for a dream. In Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan's intertwined chronologies mean a third of the picture's timelines and a great deal of its final act unravel a politician, rather than a scientist, taking center stage.
Sure, this final trio isn't getting anywhere near the Oscar ballot. However, discussing their categorization could reveal exciting things about their films or, alternatively, how audiences perceive them. We have a spectacular action movie, a sex comedy, and an apocalyptic horror - a thief, an awkward teen, and a prophet.
Beyond the yet unreleased films, is someone missing from these polls. Leave your thoughts in the comments.