|
Post by akittystang on Feb 27, 2019 20:43:38 GMT
She should've won for Dangerous Liasions and/or Fatal Attraction, imho. Colman isn't my personal choice but she is a worthy winner.
I'm not the biggest fan of "career" awards, however, I do find it funny that say Gary Oldman just last year managed to snag a career win while Close, who has been nominated far more, went home empty-handed.
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Feb 28, 2019 8:34:45 GMT
I loved The Favourite and Colman's performance, but the more I think about it, the more I believe she's supporting and that Emma Stone is the true lead of the film. Narratively speaking, Stone is lead, Weisz is co-lead and Colman is supporting. We all know how awards season works, c'mon. I'm still undecided about Weisz, but yeah, Stone is definitely lead. She's given more perspective than anyone else, and she also has more scenes of her own. Without her character, the film would be just about an ordinary day in the life of a bissexual queen and her relationship with her lover. It's the conflict between these two women (Weisz and Stone) that drives the narrative, and in that perspective, Colman's character is definitely supporting.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 28, 2019 8:51:15 GMT
Narratively speaking, Stone is lead, Weisz is co-lead and Colman is supporting. We all know how awards season works, c'mon. I'm still undecided about Weisz, but yeah, Stone is definitely lead. She's given more perspective than anyone else, and she also has more scenes of her own. If it wasn't for her character, the film would be just about an ordinary day in the life of a bissexual queen and her relationship with her lover. It's the conflict between these two women (Weisz and Stone) that drives the narrative, and in that perspective, Colman's character is definitely supporting. No matter which way anyone spins it I can't see putting any of them in supporting. They're all far too significant. Supporting roles are not central ones. I'd disagree that it's the conflict between Sarah and Abigail that drives the narrative because Anne's character isn't just a pawn in this game, nor is she off to the side, ever. They're three points of a triangle; Sarah and Abigail vying for Anne's influence and Anne playing with both alternatives and ultimately losing at her own game (as do they all). The film examines all three of these different perspectives and it does so fairly equally; Sarah and Abigail fighting for that control and Anne meting out her favor according to whims. They all have too many of their own scenes and too much time spent on their own individual arcs for any of them to be supporting. I can't fathom how anyone could watch this film and feel differently, or maybe I just have a different standard for what constitutes lead and supporting roles. But again, they're all so significant. The film revolves around all three of them. Colman is NOT supporting and I will die on that hill.
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Feb 28, 2019 9:33:35 GMT
I'm still undecided about Weisz, but yeah, Stone is definitely lead. She's given more perspective than anyone else, and she also has more scenes of her own. If it wasn't for her character, the film would be just about an ordinary day in the life of a bissexual queen and her relationship with her lover. It's the conflict between these two women (Weisz and Stone) that drives the narrative, and in that perspective, Colman's character is definitely supporting. No matter which way anyone spins it I can't see putting any of them in supporting. They're all far too significant. Supporting roles are not central ones. I'd disagree that it's the conflict between Sarah and Abigail that drives the narrative because Anne's character isn't just a pawn in this game, nor is she off to the side, ever. They're three points of a triangle; Sarah and Abigail vying for Anne's influence and Anne playing with both alternatives and ultimately losing at her own game (as do they all). The film examines all three of these different perspectives and it does so fairly equally; Sarah and Abigail fighting for that control and Anne meting out her favor according to whims. They all have too many of their own scenes and too much time spent on their own individual arcs for any of them to be supporting. I can't fathom how anyone could watch this film and feel differently, or maybe I just have a different standard for what constitutes lead and supporting roles. But again, they're all so significant. The film revolves around all three of them. Colman is NOT supporting and I will die on that hill. Being far too significant for the story isn't a good enough reason to consider anyone lead when the film is not about them. Meryl Streep's character is far too significant for The Devil Wears Prada, yet the film is not about her, it's about a woman who went to work for her and all the people she met and the things she experienced during that period. In The Favourite, Abigail is brought to the castle, we are introduced to her origins, and then we follow her path from being a simple "lady-turned-maid" to being the queen's favorite. Stone does have far more to do in the film outside of that love triangle, as we also see her interacting with Harley and Masham. We can't say the same about Weisz or Colman.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Feb 28, 2019 10:04:17 GMT
I'm still undecided about Weisz, but yeah, Stone is definitely lead. She's given more perspective than anyone else, and she also has more scenes of her own. If it wasn't for her character, the film would be just about an ordinary day in the life of a bissexual queen and her relationship with her lover. It's the conflict between these two women (Weisz and Stone) that drives the narrative, and in that perspective, Colman's character is definitely supporting. No matter which way anyone spins it I can't see putting any of them in supporting. They're all far too significant. Supporting roles are not central ones. I'd disagree that it's the conflict between Sarah and Abigail that drives the narrative because Anne's character isn't just a pawn in this game, nor is she off to the side, ever. They're three points of a triangle; Sarah and Abigail vying for Anne's influence and Anne playing with both alternatives and ultimately losing at her own game (as do they all). The film examines all three of these different perspectives and it does so fairly equally; Sarah and Abigail fighting for that control and Anne meting out her favor according to whims. They all have too many of their own scenes and too much time spent on their own individual arcs for any of them to be supporting. I can't fathom how anyone could watch this film and feel differently, or maybe I just have a different standard for what constitutes lead and supporting roles. But again, they're all so significant. The film revolves around all three of them. Colman is NOT supporting and I will die on that hill. The point is: I don't see the film as a description of a triangle of love affair. It's a tale about power. The core, the engine of the film is the fight for power between the two favourites. Stone is clearly the one who makes the film and the narrative move, Lanthimos uses her figure to light up the film, while Weisz stays a little bit behind because of the "darker" positon. The queen is indeed an important character but, as fas as I'm concered, is obviously supporting. [Are we getting off topic tho? lol]
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 1,629
|
Post by Javi on Feb 28, 2019 16:08:11 GMT
I'm still undecided about Weisz, but yeah, Stone is definitely lead. She's given more perspective than anyone else, and she also has more scenes of her own. If it wasn't for her character, the film would be just about an ordinary day in the life of a bissexual queen and her relationship with her lover. It's the conflict between these two women (Weisz and Stone) that drives the narrative, and in that perspective, Colman's character is definitely supporting. No matter which way anyone spins it I can't see putting any of them in supporting. They're all far too significant. Supporting roles are not central ones. I'd disagree that it's the conflict between Sarah and Abigail that drives the narrative because Anne's character isn't just a pawn in this game, nor is she off to the side, ever. They're three points of a triangle; Sarah and Abigail vying for Anne's influence and Anne playing with both alternatives and ultimately losing at her own game (as do they all). The film examines all three of these different perspectives and it does so fairly equally; Sarah and Abigail fighting for that control and Anne meting out her favor according to whims. They all have too many of their own scenes and too much time spent on their own individual arcs for any of them to be supporting. I can't fathom how anyone could watch this film and feel differently, or maybe I just have a different standard for what constitutes lead and supporting roles. But again, they're all so significant. The film revolves around all three of them. Colman is NOT supporting and I will die on that hill. Agreed. No idea what people are talking about when they claim Stone is the sole lead (WTF??) or when they try to sort out who is more lead than the other. The movie is very clearly about how power affects all three women equally. And they are equally leading. The only explanation for all the mental gymnastics involved in this is that Stone and Weisz look like movie stars so they are somehow more leading than Colman... I've also seen some hilarious posts trying to frame Colman's nomination and win as "category fraud" . It couldn't be more of a leading performance if it tried: Colman showed integrity when she asked to be campaigned as leading (a supporting win would have been sooo easy, and yes, fraudulent). And assuming it was a supporting performance (which it isn't)... after decades of leading actors stealing Oscars from true supporting performances left and right, are you really going to complain about a character actress winning Lead Actress? More power to her if she beat all that "leading" competition with a measly supporting role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 16:51:09 GMT
Javi - I think a lot of the frustration is stemming from the idea that if there had to be only one actress from the trio to be campaigned as Leading, the choice would most obviously have been Stone. Not only is she the biggest star, but the film begins and ends with her, so to speak - the narrative follows her character's arc completely. I agree that it can seem silly to qualify leading performances (a lead is a lead), but I do think that she's more clearly the film's focus than Colman or Weisz.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 1,629
|
Post by Javi on Feb 28, 2019 17:01:42 GMT
Javi - I think a lot of the frustration is stemming from the idea that if there had to be only one actress from the trio to be campaigned as Leading, the choice would most obviously have been Stone. Not only is she the biggest star, but the film begins and ends with her, so to speak - the narrative follows her character's arc completely. I agree that it can seem silly to qualify leading performances (a lead is a lead), but I do think that she's more clearly the film's focus than Colman or Weisz. The movie begins with her but it's not about her imo. It had to begin with someone. I agree that Oscar campaigning is arbitrary. In a "fair" world all three should have been campaigned as leading (Colman suggested as much). But that was never going to happen. In any case, I think people should be critical of Stone and Weisz's placement and not Colman's. But that's just my take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 17:08:40 GMT
Javi - I think a lot of the frustration is stemming from the idea that if there had to be only one actress from the trio to be campaigned as Leading, the choice would most obviously have been Stone. Not only is she the biggest star, but the film begins and ends with her, so to speak - the narrative follows her character's arc completely. I agree that it can seem silly to qualify leading performances (a lead is a lead), but I do think that she's more clearly the film's focus than Colman or Weisz. The movie begins with her but it's not about her imo. It had to begin with someone. I agree that Oscar campaigning is arbitrary. In a "fair" world all three should have been campaigned as leading (Colman suggested as much). But that was never going to happen. In any case, I think people should be critical of Stone and Weisz's placement and not Colman's. But that's just my take. Oh, I agree, and I am upset with Stone and Weisz. Who knows what kind of traction someone like Michelle Yeoh could have generated had they not been sure things at every awards ceremony. I didn't know that Colman suggested all three go Leading - that makes me like her even more.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Feb 28, 2019 17:11:45 GMT
Javi - I think a lot of the frustration is stemming from the idea that if there had to be only one actress from the trio to be campaigned as Leading, the choice would most obviously have been Stone. Not only is she the biggest star, but the film begins and ends with her, so to speak - the narrative follows her character's arc completely. I agree that it can seem silly to qualify leading performances (a lead is a lead), but I do think that she's more clearly the film's focus than Colman or Weisz. The movie begins with her but it's not about her imo. It had to begin with someone. I agree that Oscar campaigning is arbitrary. In a "fair" world all three should have been campaigned as leading (Colman suggested as much). But that was never going to happen. In any case, I think people should be critical of Stone and Weisz's placement and not Colman's. But that's just my take. Agreed. It's the two of them being placed as supporting, that's the issue. Colman was definitely a lead the way I see it. To me, all three of them were leads and if the academy HAD to place one of them as a supporting role, that could only be Weiss. Then again, that's just me and my general criteria of who is a lead and who's not in movies are not too successful
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Feb 28, 2019 17:20:00 GMT
I loved The Favourite and Colman's performance, but the more I think about it, the more I believe she's supporting and that Emma Stone is the true lead of the film. Narratively speaking, Stone is lead, Weisz is co-lead and Colman is supporting. We all know how awards season works, c'mon.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 28, 2019 17:21:06 GMT
Javi - I think a lot of the frustration is stemming from the idea that if there had to be only one actress from the trio to be campaigned as Leading, the choice would most obviously have been Stone. Not only is she the biggest star, but the film begins and ends with her, so to speak - the narrative follows her character's arc completely. I agree that it can seem silly to qualify leading performances (a lead is a lead), but I do think that she's more clearly the film's focus than Colman or Weisz. The movie begins with her but it's not about her imo. It had to begin with someone. I agree that Oscar campaigning is arbitrary. In a "fair" world all three should have been campaigned as leading (Colman suggested as much). But that was never going to happen. In any case, I think people should be critical of Stone and Weisz's placement and not Colman's. But that's just my take. It should also be noted that studios view leading prizes as more prestigious than supporting ones (for some damn reason; an Oscar is an Oscar any way you slice it), and it's clear from the start (i.e. pre-Venice) that they wanted Olivia Colman (the only one of the trio who didn't have an Oscar, which became a fixture in their advertisements for the movie) to be their main horse for the film. And historically, running multiple performances in lead for the same film has caused either vote-splitting or, more commonly, caused one of the contenders to be left in the cold entirely. So they relegated Stone to supporting. I don't think they ever intended or expected for her to be a contender for the win; Weisz was always going to be the one reaping those prizes for the film because she hadn't won nearly as recently and you can make an argument that she is more of a supporting character than Stone is, if one goes by the asinine argument of screentime. But there was almost no way she had a shot to win in lead, having just won two years earlier (yes, I know Ali just did that, but different situation there). Still, they could maximize their nomination count by running her in supporting, see if the category fraud took hold, and go from there. And that's what happened. I still maintain that we should refrain from calling what Olivia Colman did category fraud anyway, even if you did have her as a supporting performance. I don't believe that you can fraud a performance from supporting to lead, because there's no weighted benefit to it. Category fraud implies that you're screwing over performances because you come in with an advantage (usually screentime or character focus). But Colman had to contend with two other leads in her film, probably had the least amount of screentime of the five Best Actress nominees, and still won out. I'd call that category confidence, not fraud.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Feb 28, 2019 22:55:07 GMT
Narratively speaking, Stone is lead, Weisz is co-lead and Colman is supporting. We all know how awards season works, c'mon. You haven't forgotten me!
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Mar 1, 2019 0:10:09 GMT
The movie begins with her but it's not about her imo. It had to begin with someone. I agree that Oscar campaigning is arbitrary. In a "fair" world all three should have been campaigned as leading (Colman suggested as much). But that was never going to happen. In any case, I think people should be critical of Stone and Weisz's placement and not Colman's. But that's just my take. It should also be noted that studios view leading prizes as more prestigious than supporting ones (for some damn reason; an Oscar is an Oscar any way you slice it), and it's clear from the start (i.e. pre-Venice) that they wanted Olivia Colman (the only one of the trio who didn't have an Oscar, which became a fixture in their advertisements for the movie) to be their main horse for the film. And historically, running multiple performances in lead for the same film has caused either vote-splitting or, more commonly, caused one of the contenders to be left in the cold entirely. So they relegated Stone to supporting. I don't think they ever intended or expected for her to be a contender for the win; Weisz was always going to be the one reaping those prizes for the film because she hadn't won nearly as recently and you can make an argument that she is more of a supporting character than Stone is, if one goes by the asinine argument of screentime. But there was almost no way she had a shot to win in lead, having just won two years earlier (yes, I know Ali just did that, but different situation there). Still, they could maximize their nomination count by running her in supporting, see if the category fraud took hold, and go from there. And that's what happened. I still maintain that we should refrain from calling what Olivia Colman did category fraud anyway, even if you did have her as a supporting performance. I don't believe that you can fraud a performance from supporting to lead, because there's no weighted benefit to it. Category fraud implies that you're screwing over performances because you come in with an advantage (usually screentime or character focus). But Colman had to contend with two other leads in her film, probably had the least amount of screentime of the five Best Actress nominees, and still won out. I'd call that category confidence, not fraud.Couldn't have said this better.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Mar 1, 2019 1:01:08 GMT
Olivia Colman was 1000% lead.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Mar 1, 2019 1:27:46 GMT
Olivia Colman was definitely 100% leading Stone and Weisz to bed.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Mar 1, 2019 2:59:28 GMT
The fact there is back and forth discussion on this means that Colman could have been Lead or Supporting. She won Chicago Film Critics as supporting.
There was actually plenty of discussions with the pundits that all 3 are co-stars.
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Mar 1, 2019 12:48:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Mar 1, 2019 14:38:10 GMT
Amazing news! Thanks for sharing
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Mar 1, 2019 20:43:15 GMT
The movie begins with her but it's not about her imo. It had to begin with someone. I agree that Oscar campaigning is arbitrary. In a "fair" world all three should have been campaigned as leading (Colman suggested as much). But that was never going to happen. In any case, I think people should be critical of Stone and Weisz's placement and not Colman's. But that's just my take. Oh, I agree, and I am upset with Stone and Weisz. Who knows what kind of traction someone like Michelle Yeoh could have generated had they not been sure things at every awards ceremony. I didn't know that Colman suggested all three go Leading - that makes me like her even more. Not having followed the awards season, I was very surprised Yeoh didn't get basically anything relevant. The film is a nice and well written comedy, her Asian movie stardom would have helped her a lot, the role was juicy and she could have been a perfect Asian nominee in these years of "diversity" and stuff. I was sure she was going to get at least the nod.
|
|