|
|
Post by Sullivan on Dec 13, 2018 19:03:32 GMT
I don't put it on the same level as a leading role Oscar at all. When Waltz won his second, everyone was "oh yeah, he won for the second time, hehe", like he won just two Golden Globes or something. Same thing for Ali, he's in it for a second win, and the overall attitude about this is "whatevz".
Denzel Washington once said this: People say, "Congratulations, you finally got the Oscar", and I have to correct them: "Actually, it's my second one. I won for Glory (1989) in 1989." Some people say, "Yeah, but that was for a supporting actor role", but for me, it's the same thing.
So as you can see, people do think less of it compared to a leading Oscar. I guess it's fine tho, people can win again relatively easy when they already have a supporting Oscar in the bag.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557 
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 13, 2018 19:06:28 GMT
An Oscar is an Oscar is an Oscar. To consider the supporting categories as lesser is an outdated view with no real justification behind it other than mere vanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 13, 2018 19:08:35 GMT
An Oscar is an Oscar is an Oscar. To consider the supporting categories as lesser is an outdated view with no real justification behind it other than mere vanity. Said it better than I ever could. This perception than a leading Oscar is better than a supporting Oscar irritates the fuck out of me. As for Amy Adams, I'd want her to win an Oscar for whichever category she happens to give the best performance in. That has yet to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Sullivan on Dec 13, 2018 19:15:46 GMT
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't people like Colman (to use a recent example) risking a sure win in the supporting category by trying to go for that sweet, sweet leading Oscar?
|
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 13, 2018 19:16:31 GMT
Despite her popularity, Amy Adams (who should have won for The Master) is hardly a leading lady. American Hustle was a (bad) ensemble piece, and when she gave a finally convincing lead performance, she was shockingly snubbed.
Vice will be her 6th nomination, and 5th in Supporting. Why should she get a Lead Oscar at all costs, when her career says otherwise?
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 13, 2018 19:19:11 GMT
I never understood why some undermine the supporting Oscars as being of lesser value. It's an Oscar. You're an Academy Award Winner if you get one, who gives a shit about the category. Brad Pitt and Matt Damon are Oscar winners and it doesn't matter what for - they just are. So if we indeed want Adams to win one (and I wouldn't mind!), it can be for anything. Let her win for Sound Editing for all I care - as long as she does a worthy enough job.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 13, 2018 19:19:31 GMT
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't people like Colman (to use a recent example) risking a sure win in the supporting category by trying to go for that sweet, sweet leading Oscar? Colman wants to be seen as a leading actress because she is a woman of a certain age who isn't traditionally glamorous (she's beautiful, but not in the everyday leading lady aspect), and it seems that rather than just take a token prize home (and committing category fraud in doing so, because unlike what others say, she is leading, as are the other two), she wants the Best Actress clout behind her name because people think that being seen as a leading actress is preferable to being a working supporting player. It's all a question of bankability. I don't question her personal motives because they are valid (she wants more opportunities), but the perception that a leading award means more than a supporting award is problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 13, 2018 19:20:52 GMT
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't people like Colman (to use a recent example) risking a sure win in the supporting category by trying to go for that sweet, sweet leading Oscar? She may want that for entirely different reasons than pure vanity. A Lead Oscar, or Oscar nomination, means a world of opportunity. Besides, Fox SearchLight agreed with the move, so that she could place the two bigger names in Supporting. |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 13, 2018 19:20:53 GMT
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't people like Colman (to use a recent example) risking a sure win in the supporting category by trying to go for that sweet, sweet leading Oscar? Well, from what I hear, Colman actually is leading in her film, so there's that. And even then, for every Olivia Colman I can raise you an Alicia Vikander, who gladly campaigned in Supporting to get that sweet, sweet frauded win instead of sticking to the allegedly more prestigious (and in Vikander's case, actually accurate) leading category. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 13, 2018 19:33:45 GMT
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't people like Colman (to use a recent example) risking a sure win in the supporting category by trying to go for that sweet, sweet leading Oscar? Well, from what I hear, Colman actually is leading in her film, so there's that. And even then, for every Olivia Colman I can raise you an Alicia Vikander, who gladly campaigned in Supporting to get that sweet, sweet frauded win instead of sticking to the allegedly more prestigious (and in Vikander's case, actually accurate) leading category. Honestly, I'll never understand why people think that a potentially supporting performance running lead is category fraud, as the term "fraud" implies a negative with the express purpose of gaining an easy profit. Performances like Colman or Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs don't automatically benefit from running in leading categories against roles with longer screen times. Something like Vikander and Mara in 2015 is fraud because those are undeniably leading performances, which automatically have the upper hand against a performance with less screentime. So in the case of The Favourite, Stone and Weisz are the ones frauding, not Colman. Even if you make the argument that Stone alone is the lead of the film, Colman still isn't frauding her placement. There needs to be a different term when a borderline supporting (if not outright supporting) runs lead, like Hopkins/Patricia Neal/Colman. Category confidence, perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Dec 13, 2018 20:48:56 GMT
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't people like Colman (to use a recent example) risking a sure win in the supporting category by trying to go for that sweet, sweet leading Oscar? That’s because she’s trying to establish herself as a leading lady. The only reason for someone like Adams to care is if she subscribes to the sort of snobby attitude in the OP. She’s already a top tier A-lister with access to the best roles for her age range. A win in either category isn’t going to impact her career much at all. Also, the problem with the sort of thinking in the OP is that it automatically assumes that the stars will ever align in lead. The reality is that it’s not a guarantee by any means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 20:59:50 GMT
To be nominated in 20 acting spots is an honour enough. Winning in a supporting category makes no difference. A win is a win.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 13, 2018 21:10:06 GMT
I don't put it on the same level as a leading role Oscar at all. When Waltz won his second, everyone was "oh yeah, he won for the second time, hehe", like he won just two Golden Globes or something. Same thing for Ali, he's in it for a second win, and the overall attitude about this is "whatevz". Denzel Washington once said this: People say, "Congratulations, you finally got the Oscar", and I have to correct them: "Actually, it's my second one. I won for Glory (1989) in 1989." Some people say, "Yeah, but that was for a supporting actor role", but for me, it's the same thing.
So as you can see, people do think less of it compared to a leading Oscar. I guess it's fine tho, people can win again relatively easy when they already have a supporting Oscar in the bag. I think less of it. A supporting actor winner is not on the same level as a lead winner, it's harder to be the show rather than supporting the show. I say it all the time with the Triple Crown of Acting - there are 3 men who have done it, just 2 men who have done it for 3 unique roles - it's hard to do and it's a lot easier to do it in Support and if it wasn't it would be that small a number for that group but it isn't. I'm not saying support doesn't matter or is fraud - it's an achievement certainly but it isn't the same - I am old enough to remember Julia Roberts saying Washington needs to win a lead one, it's obscene that she has one and he doesn't have a lead one etc. I think it would be fine if Adams won in Support, I am not locked into thinking of her a lead by any means.......... |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 13, 2018 21:12:49 GMT
That would be one more than Close. Richard Gere has been acting for 40 plus years and has no nods so....
|
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Dec 13, 2018 21:31:56 GMT
No , not particularly . I want her to win award(s) for her TV work in SHARP OBJECTS , though  |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 13, 2018 21:33:52 GMT
A supporting actor winner is not on the same level as a lead winner, it's harder to be the show rather than supporting the show. Conversely, one could also argue the opposite: that it's much harder to stand out and make a lasting impression with little screentime than it is when you're the main focus, which would make a true scene-stealing supporting part more impressive and indicative of a great actor than a performance that's heavily favored by the writing and editing. Both statements carry the same weight-- very little. They make no sense as general, one-size-fits-all rules. That 100% depends on the actor and the project. There are 5-minute performances with more gravitas and complexity than entire one-person shows and vice versa, and that depends not on the size of the role, but on the material itself and the actor's ability to elevate it, neither of which have anything to do with category placement. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 13, 2018 21:35:33 GMT
when should she have won for Lead? American Hustle?  |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 13, 2018 21:48:06 GMT
A supporting actor winner is not on the same level as a lead winner, it's harder to be the show rather than supporting the show. Conversely, one could also argue the opposite: that it's much harder to stand out and make a lasting impression with little screentime than it is when you're the main focus, which would make a true scene-stealing supporting part more impressive and indicative of a great actor than a performance that's heavily favored by the writing and editing. Both statements carry the same weight-- very little. They make no sense as general, one-size-fits-all rules. That 100% depends on the actor and the project. There are 5-minute performances with more gravitas and complexity than entire one-person shows and vice versa, and that depends not on the size of the role, but on the material itself and the actor's ability to elevate it, neither of which have anything to do with category placement. Well "a true scene stealing supporting part" is something no actor should engage in ever, but yes I agree it depends on the actor and the role - that's true. As for elevating, I'd just say to me it's more difficult to elevate Hamlet if you're actually playing Hamlet (heavily favored in the writing, editing, everything else) rather than the guy playing Rosencrantz regardless how of well he plays it  |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 13, 2018 22:08:05 GMT
Why not?
One, it's still an Oscar. Second, in movies, she's primarily been a supporting actress. She's done Arrival, Enchanted and a few other lead things, but I mostly think of her as someone who does a lot of supporting roles, even if she can carry a project. So it's sort of fitting. Adams has had a very smart and strategic career where she gets herself in ensembles that she doesn't have to carry the burden of box office most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 13, 2018 22:16:05 GMT
I don't put it on the same level as a leading role Oscar at all. When Waltz won his second, everyone was "oh yeah, he won for the second time, hehe", like he won just two Golden Globes or something. Same thing for Ali, he's in it for a second win, and the overall attitude about this is "whatevz". Denzel Washington once said this: People say, "Congratulations, you finally got the Oscar", and I have to correct them: "Actually, it's my second one. I won for Glory (1989) in 1989." Some people say, "Yeah, but that was for a supporting actor role", but for me, it's the same thing.
So as you can see, people do think less of it compared to a leading Oscar. I guess it's fine tho, people can win again relatively easy when they already have a supporting Oscar in the bag. I think less of it. A supporting actor winner is not on the same level as a lead winner, it's harder to be the show rather than supporting the show. I say it all the time with the Triple Crown of Acting - there are 3 men who have done it, just 2 men who have done it for 3 unique roles - it's hard to do and it's a lot easier to do it in Support and if it wasn't it would be that small a number for that group but it isn't. I'm not saying support doesn't matter or is fraud - it's an achievement certainly but it isn't the same - I am old enough to remember Julia Roberts saying Washington needs to win a lead one, it's obscene that she has one and he doesn't have a lead one etc. I think it would be fine if Adams won in Support, I am not locked into thinking of her a lead by any means.......... It's not the Oscar that matters, it's the performance. It's mostly bragging rights. but it's still a shiny trinket at the end of the day. If a legendary supporting performance wins an Oscar, people may value it more than a forgettable lead winner. Heath Ledger's supporting actor Oscar carries a lot more weight with people than a lot of leading wins (Eddie Redmayne, Roberto Benigni) Do people care that Javier Bardem has a supporting Oscar and not a lead, or are they just glad he's an Oscar winner for No Country For Old Men? Also, with the amount of category fraud that has been going on for years, loads of "supporting" performance that win or are nomimated for Oscars are really leads. You only have to look at Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz in The Favorite. Leads who would be frontrunners to win a supporting Oscars if they were not already Oscar winners. |
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,390
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Dec 13, 2018 22:29:50 GMT
Certainly Mara, Vikander, Stone, Portman, etc doesn’t seem to be hurt by it in any way, no their ego, anything. Is about the possibility and in Adam’s case, I know she’s had quite a few films as leading lady but for the longest time I saw her as a supporting player
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 14, 2018 2:16:05 GMT
Conversely, one could also argue the opposite: that it's much harder to stand out and make a lasting impression with little screentime than it is when you're the main focus, which would make a true scene-stealing supporting part more impressive and indicative of a great actor than a performance that's heavily favored by the writing and editing. Both statements carry the same weight-- very little. They make no sense as general, one-size-fits-all rules. That 100% depends on the actor and the project. There are 5-minute performances with more gravitas and complexity than entire one-person shows and vice versa, and that depends not on the size of the role, but on the material itself and the actor's ability to elevate it, neither of which have anything to do with category placement. Well "a true scene stealing supporting part" is something no actor should engage in ever, but yes I agree it depends on the actor and the role - that's true. As for elevating, I'd just say to me it's more difficult to elevate Hamlet if you're actually playing Hamlet (heavily favored in the writing, editing, everything else) rather than the guy playing Rosencrantz regardless how of well he plays it Rosencrantz isn't even close to the most interesting supporting part in Hamlet*. If an actor can do something really interesting and superb with Rosencrantz, I'd think much more of that than another great Hamlet performance, which are about a dime a dozen now with such a juicy and long-studied part. * Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is another story, however. |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 14, 2018 2:44:35 GMT
Whether we want or not, she's pretty much a lock to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Dec 14, 2018 3:50:25 GMT
Whether we want or not, she's pretty much a lock to win. People still say this kind of shit? |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 14, 2018 4:03:07 GMT
Whether we want or not, she's pretty much a lock to win. People still say this kind of shit? Yes |
|
