This happened many years ago, but I am still surprised by the decision to nominate Tatum O'Neil for best supporting actress for her performance in "Paper Moon." I mean, she's in every scene of the movie, and the decision to move her up a category was basically because she was a little girl and not considered "old" enough to be nominated in a lead category.
This is classic example. Less competition that year in supporting and academy more likely to give Oscar to younger/first time nominee in supporting. She should have been lead and if she was Linda Blair would have won best supporting for the Exorcist (which I think she should have).
Just like how they are campaigning Dominic Sessa from The Holdovers. Chalamet got into lead as a breakout performance. If it’s good enough, it’s possible even if you are an unknown
I also believe it’s up to Academy voters to decide whether they actually put actors in lead or supporting. For example, for Judas and the Black Messiah, Lakeith Stanfield was campaigned and submitted by the film producers for the lead actor category but Academy members voted to nominate him in supporting. So sometimes, the members themselves commit category fraud!
The funniest part of that story is that Daniel Kaluuya was also (reasonably) nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the film, suggesting the Academy believes there is no actual lead in the film.
@@Tuaronthe reason being is because they are both leads, but awards shows don’t like two of the same gender competing for the lead category, only supporting
The same thing happened to Kate Winslet with The Reader. Winslet won numerous supporting actress awards throughout the season, yet on Oscar nom morning the Acting Branch nominated Winslet in Lead. My understanding is that the Acting Branch ultimately decides which category the performance will be nominated for.
I strongly disagree with category fraud. It should be an Oscar rule. If they have rules for runtimes and percentages, there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a rule for acting nominees. Also, it’s incredibly dishonest and disrespectful to ACTUAL supporting performers.
Meryl Streep being nominated as lead for The Devil Wears Prada instead of supporting. Was that a case that she was already too big a name? I think she could have won in supporting category instead of Jennifer Hudson.
God I am sick of people saying Meryl was supporting in The Devil Wears Prada. I’m sorry but that is plain idiocy. First of all the film is called The Devil Wears Prada, her literal character is in the film title. Plus the film all revolves around her and her influence. She is the authoritarian boss that Andy has to work for, it is a counter between Andy and Miranda. It’s about Andy’s entire demanding work experience with this fashion conglomerate where Miranda is the literal center point of the entire plot. Anne and Meryl were both leads in that film. When we summarise the film we’d usually say “this is a story about intern Andy navigating her way through the authoritarian and demanding world of her boss Miranda Priestly”, a synopsis where Miranda is supporting is if the film focuses solely on Andy’s entire life and psychological profile in the fashion world and the boss Miranda as one of the figures in it. But no the film was written in a way that surrounds this entire character of Miranda Priestly. Screen time is NOT the only factor in determining an actor’s category at all. It is about their character’s impact on how they drive the narrative of the film. The entire plot existence of The Devil Wears Prada is dependent on the existence and decisions of Miranda Priestly. Every turn of plot is at the mercy of Miranda Priestly. What moon man world is that supporting when your character literally drives the narrative? There is ZERO way shape or form that Miranda Priestly is a supporting role, period😊
The perception thing is totally true: on the flip side when they nominated Viola Davis for supporting actress in Fences it lead me to feel that the movie had less understanding of Rose’s purpose within the story, turning it from a story about a husband and wife to just centrally about the man of the house and how he intersects with his wife and son equally
Have you seen Maestro? Mulligan is clearly a co lead and should be campaigned as such. Gladstone straddles, neither is "fraud" though like Mara or Hopkins...
@@tonyg76i would've agreed with you if the performance wasn't good but hers was a stellar performance. Calling it a diversity win is just a lazy way to deny indigenous artists.
@@hikarumurasaki8498 No, it is a diversity win because it was not a lead performance. It was a supporting performance where she laid in bed for half the movie. Has nothing to do with denying indigenous artists. It has to do with it not being an Oscar quality performance.
@@tonyg76 What about Mullighan's character? Montealegre is from costa rica, and lived in chile til age 21. In fact, casting mullighan is pretty much the opposite as diversity. This debate could go on and on.
@@jsalinasbarros If Mulligan gave the best performance, she should win. It is not about diversity, it is about merit. As far as casting goes, movies go for money and awards. If they thought Mulligan would help with either/both, that is why they casted her.
Exactly. She should be nominated in supporting. She’s easily the best choice. On Best Actress you have Emma Stone to win the Oscar I mean Gladstone not gonna be her and they both won Golden Globes
I think part of it may be a sense of greater prestige: Lead Actress sounds like a bigger deal than Supporting, so if you expect you can get nominated but not win, push for the bigger category. Additionally, there's something in the terms used: "Lead Actor/Actress" and "Supporting Actor/Actress" is often how they're colloquially referred, which suggests respectively "the lead *actor* or the lead *actress*" (the biggest actor or the biggest actress, which isn't necessarily a lead role) vs. "a supporting role"...which is funny, as it is officially "in a lead/supporting role", so that concept shouldn't play into it, but I think it does somewhat.
Or even more so the fact that they are even more often colloquially referred to Best Actor/Best Actress (a category that actually does not exist), which makes it sound like it's an award for overall best performance (i.e. better than the supporting ones), which is actually not the case. This was kind of obvious to me in the recent prediction conversations about the Best Actor and Best Actress awards at the Cannes film festival, where people kept talking as it only lead actors could win this category, which is not the case.
Let's not even talk about Al Pacino in The Godfather. I do think that Marlon Brando deserved the won for best actor however, not nominating Al Pacino in the lead category as well felt a bit odd. I mean, back then it was perfectly fine to nominate both for the lead acting peformance, like in Sleuth where both Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine were nominated the same year as the Godfather. I dunno why but it just feels odd
Ahhh yes great example!! Of course Marlon Brando was great but Al Pacino was deffo a lead - I mean that last scene with the door closing is clearly showing his complete transformation.
Yeah definitely! Although I read that it was apparently her own decision to go for the lead category rather than the filmmaker's choice - so that's why I didn't put her in :)
@@kassiogomes8498 Ok. Nonetheless, she should not be nominated for either category as laying in bed is not acting. Would rather see Emma Stone, Carey Mulligan, Davane Joy Randolph, Emily Blunt win instead.
Everyone was upset that Riseborough got a nomination and "stole" a nomination from an African American actress, however I say the it was Michelle Williams and the fraudulent best actress nomination she got for The Fabelmans when she was a supporting actress that took away from more talented lead actresses. In my opinion.
Currently, I have Gladstone winning Actress, not just getting nominated. Part of it is also context. Gladstone's role, on paper, is written as a supporting role. But when you see what Scorsese does with it and her presence in the film, she's a lead role. That's just how good she was.
I am not even sure hat she is written as a supporting actress. Yes, her character is very passive, but a lot of scenes are done from her perspective and her being a prisoner of sorts is kind of the point.
For Lily, is about making history She didn't count all the buzz and awards she would win for the category she is campaigning She just wanted to make history as the first native american to be nominated for Best Actress
Emma and Rachel were definitely leads of The Favourite. Rooney in Carol had much more screen time than the title character who ended up nominated as lead actress and Rooney in supporting category.... Lily was most definitely a supporting character but the way her screen time was shown through the whole movie she could be considered as a leading lady. I feel like it was the same with Sharon Stone 28 years ago in Casino.
I think it’s highly unfair to call this slotting of an actor in what is judged to be the wrong category “category fraud”. This label becomes attached to the actor who was not responsible for the category in which he or she is submitted since the video says the decision is made by the producers and distributors. The label “fraud” is associated with dishonesty, cheating and deviousness. As in this video, the negative label is attached to the actor’s name and always will be, especially if the person wins the award. No one mentions the people who actually committed the so-called fraud.
I agree with Gladstone and Mulligan being in their categories, because they do lead the events of the story as much as their male counterparts. The worst recent case I can think of would definitely be “Judas and the Black Messiah” when both Kalyuua and Stanfield ended up supporting. I think someone could make the argument that one was the lead while the other supported, but if they both supported who’s the lead 😂
So true. I've been thinking about this for many years. Ryan Gosling in Barbie being supporting is almost as him in La La Land not being lead. Sure Barbie is the protagonist, but a lot of the film is focused entirely on him and we see it from his perspective. He should be lead. Al Pacino in the Irishman as well and let's not talk about The Godfather. 2019 supporting actor category: Pitt (lead), Pacino (lead), Hopkins (big supporting), Hanks (big supporting) and Pesci (supporting). And many people wanted to put DaFoe for the Lighthouse in there as well, as if he wasn't fully lead.
I believe that Carey Mulligan’s performance is lead just like Viola Davis was lead in Fences… I think the worst was Patricia Neal who won for Best Actress even though she was only in the movie for about 20 minutes and the main focus was on Paul Newman’s character mostly compared to a similar case like Anthony Hopkins who even though he’s in the movie a short time, his presence looms large throughout the whole film.
Well in Fences the movie focused on Denzel Washington’s character. I mean yes Viola Davis did won a Tony for the movie in LEAD. She had 53 minutes and of screen time it’s confused me if she’s lead or supporting. Denzel Washington had 1 hour and 33 minutes of screen time.
"Category fraud" in the awards sense is really only when a lead campaigns in the supporting category, thereby securing an arguable advantage over their rivals because they have more screentime. Like, you can debate whether Gladstone is really a lead, but she is not doing herself any favours by campaigning as a lead; it, if anything, decreases her chance of victory. This is also true with Michelle Williams last year, who many people thought would have easily won Best Supporting Actress but she felt it was a lead role and so submitted there.
No. It's always a category fraud when you nominate someone or something in the wrong category. That's what it is, by definition. That however doesn't mean that Gladstone is not A lead (not THE lead) in Killers.
Great video! The biggest "fraud" case in my opinion has to be Hopkins, as having only 16 minutes of screen time in a 2 hour film simply does not make you the lead, and is honestly slightly disrespectful to Jodie Foster who IS the lead and has 5x as much screen time. But of course the Oscars care more about politics than facts.
I couldn’t disagree more. Screen time is not the sole metric and Silence Of The Lambs is a perfect example. The character Hannibal Lector is the LEAD CHARACTER in that he is “spider at the center of the web” - every other important character has their actions influenced by his machinations and he is talked about by them constantly throughout those 2 hours. Lector’s screen time is effectively the entire run time because he’s in everybody else’s head 24/7. Hopkins’ performance is so extraordinary in that the plot is only believable if we see Lector as a man capable of inspiring the fear and fascination of those trapped like moths around his flame and Hopkins absolutely nailed it in those 16 minutes. An actor who so effectively portrays a lead character is justifiably worthy of “lead actor” status.
She won too so who cares really? I'm sure she was elated for Hopkins - their scenes together make the film what it is - wouldn't you agree? I'm 'quietly' confident she didn't feel disrespected. Despite his short screen time - his character looms over the entire picture and that is a big performance
@@chuckmarmo6244Yeah, it's about the aura. Lecter's presence is felt throughout the entire film. Therefore, I think it was a good decision to put both Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins for the lead acting performances
They should expand the number of Lead nomination slots to be more than the number of Supporting, so that co-stars in major contenders don’t fraud their way to supporting. While yes some of them campaign to get that win, I think a lot of them go supporting to get that nomination. Have 6 Lead slots and 5 Supporting and then be stricter on who goes where.
It won change anything, I fear. Because most of the one been fraud in supporting are actually winning, while their "leading" co-stars are losing (Pitt won while DiCaprio lost, Vikander won while Redmayne lost). So, there's no really an incentive for the ones been fraud to move up.
Many, many moons ago, the Oscars made an effort to have deserving nominees that were worthy of wins blended with those who were much less deserving. In the last few decades, nominees are mostly studio/powerplayer choices often bought and paid for with a few sentimental choices tossed in for those few fans who still believe the awards are fair and just. They're not. Sometimes the "winners" are deserving of the win; sometimes wins are more "default"
As of recently, Viola Davis as Supporting and winning for Supporting when she was a lead in Fences still irks me. I know Viola consented to going with Supporting, but I'd choose her over Emma Stone any day. I really don't know about Emma Stone's this time around, considering the film she is in runs the tropes on disability and mental illness to the point of exploitation. Lily Gladstone may be preferable to Emma Stone, but she is a supporting role because the film is about the Osage murderers told from their perspective, not from the Osage perspective. That's like watching Schnidler's List from the perspective of Ralph Fiennes' character, not Oskar Schnidler. I doubt the Academy will look to anything else but box office and restore the studio executive preference. Lily Gladstone has a chance, but if she is like most actors of color nominated for lead roles, chances are far and few between with only two women of color winning Best Actress within a 21 year old gap, and the fact that if the actor is more seasoned, an actor of color has to have consistent box office over a 20 year span for Oscar recognition to come- i.e. Michelle Yeoh, Forest Whitaker, Regina King, Will Smith. While the Academy is getting better with recognizing talent of color, recognition does not make industry gaps in opportunities close faster.
You’re absolutely on point about the framing of the films and how they’d be received. Leo was the obvious lead. Gladstone was for a lot of the film either not present or bedridden at the hands of Burkhart. It’s yet another Scorsese white man lead film trying to masquerade as 2 co-leads and win diversity points.
As mentioned in another comment with Lakeith Stanfield in Judas, this video falsely states that "submitting" a film for a category suggests that distributors have the power to determine in which category a performance will land, which is not the case. They don't submit anything anywhere, they just campaign someone for a certain category and the final say is with the voters of each awards body. Look at more performances who landed in both categories such as Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl, which you fail to mention was nominated as Lead Actress at the BAFTAs, and you also fail to mention that Rooney Mara was nominated for Lead Actress at the Globes. Kate Winslet in The Reader was nominated for Lead Actress at the Oscars and BAFTA, but as Supporting Actress at the Globes and SAG => Especially Winslet's randomness should have been in your video. This means, we can see Lily and Carey in either Lead or Supporting at any awards show, no matter what the distributor/producer wants.
IMO, Bette Davis lost best actress for All about Eve because Anne Baxter put herself in the best actress category. Baxter should have been supporting. Subsequently, the votes were split between the two, and Judy Holliday won instead.✌🏾
They don't want Killers of the Flower Moon to appear like a white saviour movie that uses indigenous people as background actors in a story about them but still mostly centered on the white men, even though that is basically the case here.
I understand the complaint but I really don't get how it is a white savior movie when the whole point of it was how... evil white people were to the osage people. If you're referring to the Jesse Plemons character, the end of the film makes it pretty explicit how futile that whole operation was when it came to bringing justice for the osage.
@@achepe9978 I didn't say the movie is a 'white saviour movie' (although like you said CIA does come in the end to save the day, even if it isn't totally satisfactory to us or the Osage nation in general, there is some semblance of justice as I see it), I said they don't want the movie to APPEAR like a white saviour movie. This is the reason they're heavily promoting Lily as the lead actress despite her being on the screen for less than a 3rd of the 3½ hr movie and having far fewer dialogues than either of the two central male performances.
I see a problem in the acting Oscars that, if you are black, you only have chances of winning in a Supporting category. Mahershala Ali, Regina King, Viola Davis... the best example for me is Daniel Kaluuya winning Supporting Actor for Judas And The Black Messiah. It seems like they never award black people in Lead, as Chadwick Boseman wasn't. Lily Gladstone would be a guaranteed win in Supporting. But now let's see if she can outstand Emma Stone.
Chadwick Boseman didn't win because he was against Anthony Hopkins in The Father which was by all account a vastly superior performance and one of the finest performance in years. We need to stop thinking about an actor being awarded as a necessary disservice to the other actors nominated. Same thing would apply if Emma Stone wins this year, as her performance is one of a kind in film history and very hard one to pull it off. One example I would agree with you though is when Sandra Bullock won over Gabourey Sidibe in Precious. That was outrageous.
@@paolorusso4326 or when Jaime Lee Curtis won against literally any of the other nominees for best supporting actress this past year (don't get me wrong I love her, but she was the least deserving to win out of all of them)
Another "fraud" is in 2004 where Jamie Foxx was put up for supporting actor for Collateral when he had a leading role. I mean it feels weird to downgrade Jamie from lead just cause he isnt as famous as Tom Cruise. However there is another reason why he got nominated there and not in the lead which was because of his lead performance in Ray, so a little more understandable. Regardless I'm still glad he won, cause his performance there is one of the best I've ever seen.
As far as I know its distributors, producers etc who put forward who and what they want for consideration. The actor or actress though can campaign as we have seen with Lily Gladstone. But we all know that they move actors up and down the categories to give them a better chance of winning. That tells us all we need to know about awards and especially the Globes and Oscars. I won't bore anyone by harping on about Viola Davis, Tatum O Neal etc we all know and have opinions about that. I always thought of supporting as the character that supports (or antagonizes) the main character of the film but then look what happens. The WORST category fraud coming up in my opinion is not the Gladstone thing but the May December thing happening regarding the Globes - THAT movie is being put forward in the Comedy/Musical sections - yep the hilarious movie dealing with emotional and sexual abuse, gaslighting and is a deeply uncomfortable experience - I thought it was excellent as are the actors, the script, and I love Todd Haynes anyway but it is NOT a comedy, despite a smart and knowing script, or musical and it's not a matter of opinion. The Martian was not a comedy or musical, neither was Vicky Christina Barcelona - all there just to give it's film more chances of winning something. No way is May December taking away from Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer and I don't reckon it's chances against Barbie or The Holdovers either but just wait for Portman to show in the Comedy Musical categories - at least at the Globes Melton and Moore are supporting regardless of genre.
I disagree about the discourse around killers of the flower moon with indigenous people I don’t believe it’s mixed they love and appreciate the movie for the most part but I understand what you are thinking.
Sandra Hüller is in practically every scene of Anatomy of a Fall and yet will probably lose to Lily Gladstone who is only in 27.29% of the movie with 56.13 minutes of screen time. She is definitely not a lead actress contender.
i've been thinking this but scared to say it. i haven't watched kotfm yet, but the fact that CLEARLY lead (and incredible) performances from sandra, emma stone and carey mulligan are probably going to lose against a performance that it's supporting makes me so mad.
@@Pure_BVery wrong at that.Did you watch the movie?Almost all her family was wiped out by those white men and she was being gas lit by her husband. Yeah sullen like a teenager yeah my ass.
Lily Gladstone is Co-Lead of Killers of the Flower Moon and absolutely deserves to be campaigned at best actress. She holds the soul of the film together.
@@tonyg76Just because you don't like a performance that has been lauded by literally everyone who's seen the movie does not make it 'undeserving' of a nomination.
@@anujpramanik1819 Personally, it does. Also what does not make it worthy is that it is not a lead performance IMO. Plus, laying in bed is not acting. Total diversity win if she wins, not on merit. Don't care how many people say otherwise.
@@tonyg76 You didn't talk about the lead performance, you said ANY nomination, and she wasn't just lying on bed the entire movie. Anyway your opinion doesn't really matter. Most people love her performance and the movie itself.
"Category fraud" is a fraudulent term, but it's certainly click-bait worthy. Studios might engage in awards campaigns, but in the final analysis it is the members of the acting branch who determine who will be nominated in each of the four acting categories -- full stop. They obviously, for example, wanted to nominate Anthony Hopkins ("The Silence of the Lambs") and Patricia Neal ("Hud") as leads of their movies, and they were. And they won. And why should outsiders deem that "fraud"?
This happened many years ago, but I am still surprised by the decision to nominate Tatum O'Neil for best supporting actress for her performance in "Paper Moon." I mean, she's in every scene of the movie, and the decision to move her up a category was basically because she was a little girl and not considered "old" enough to be nominated in a lead category.
This is classic example. Less competition that year in supporting and academy more likely to give Oscar to younger/first time nominee in supporting. She should have been lead and if she was Linda Blair would have won best supporting for the Exorcist (which I think she should have).
Just like how they are campaigning Dominic Sessa from The Holdovers. Chalamet got into lead as a breakout performance. If it’s good enough, it’s possible even if you are an unknown
The same thing Hailee Stanfield who was nominated in Best Supporting Actress for True Grit.
I also believe it’s up to Academy voters to decide whether they actually put actors in lead or supporting. For example, for Judas and the Black Messiah, Lakeith Stanfield was campaigned and submitted by the film producers for the lead actor category but Academy members voted to nominate him in supporting. So sometimes, the members themselves commit category fraud!
Oh interesting! I wonder if it’s because his acting was so good but the lead category was too full?
The funniest part of that story is that Daniel Kaluuya was also (reasonably) nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the film, suggesting the Academy believes there is no actual lead in the film.
@@Tuaronthe reason being is because they are both leads, but awards shows don’t like two of the same gender competing for the lead category, only supporting
@@MrChaseBlueYes, but what they did is instead nominate both for Best Supporting Actor, so they essentially declared the movie has no Lead at all.
The same thing happened to Kate Winslet with The Reader. Winslet won numerous supporting actress awards throughout the season, yet on Oscar nom morning the Acting Branch nominated Winslet in Lead. My understanding is that the Acting Branch ultimately decides which category the performance will be nominated for.
I strongly disagree with category fraud. It should be an Oscar rule. If they have rules for runtimes and percentages, there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a rule for acting nominees. Also, it’s incredibly dishonest and disrespectful to ACTUAL supporting performers.
There is a rule. But it is subjective.
Meryl Streep being nominated as lead for The Devil Wears Prada instead of supporting. Was that a case that she was already too big a name? I think she could have won in supporting category instead of Jennifer Hudson.
Exactly. Jennifer Hudson should’ve been nominated in lead and Meryl Streep should be in supporting. Screen time is everything
@@ReggieWilson-gm5dlno screentime is not everything. That is an outdated idea in film
God I am sick of people saying Meryl was supporting in The Devil Wears Prada. I’m sorry but that is plain idiocy. First of all the film is called The Devil Wears Prada, her literal character is in the film title. Plus the film all revolves around her and her influence. She is the authoritarian boss that Andy has to work for, it is a counter between Andy and Miranda. It’s about Andy’s entire demanding work experience with this fashion conglomerate where Miranda is the literal center point of the entire plot. Anne and Meryl were both leads in that film. When we summarise the film we’d usually say “this is a story about intern Andy navigating her way through the authoritarian and demanding world of her boss Miranda Priestly”, a synopsis where Miranda is supporting is if the film focuses solely on Andy’s entire life and psychological profile in the fashion world and the boss Miranda as one of the figures in it. But no the film was written in a way that surrounds this entire character of Miranda Priestly.
Screen time is NOT the only factor in determining an actor’s category at all. It is about their character’s impact on how they drive the narrative of the film. The entire plot existence of The Devil Wears Prada is dependent on the existence and decisions of Miranda Priestly. Every turn of plot is at the mercy of Miranda Priestly. What moon man world is that supporting when your character literally drives the narrative? There is ZERO way shape or form that Miranda Priestly is a supporting role, period😊
Al Pacino for The Godfather is still the craziest example.
Gladstone is a supporting actress in FLOWER MOON
Yah ... but she actually WON for Lead Actress ... so, Dahh!
@@paulryan2128 not the Oscar
The perception thing is totally true: on the flip side when they nominated Viola Davis for supporting actress in Fences it lead me to feel that the movie had less understanding of Rose’s purpose within the story, turning it from a story about a husband and wife to just centrally about the man of the house and how he intersects with his wife and son equally
Have you seen Maestro? Mulligan is clearly a co lead and should be campaigned as such. Gladstone straddles, neither is "fraud" though like Mara or Hopkins...
I don't think Hopkins was a category fraud considering how much his character dominates the movie.
Viola Davis in fences
SO happy she at least won an Oscar, but totally agree that it was the wrong category!
Lily Gladstone is campaigning in the right category. Lead. I hope she actually wins.
No. She does not even deserve a nomination. That would be a diversity win, not a merit win.
@@tonyg76i would've agreed with you if the performance wasn't good but hers was a stellar performance. Calling it a diversity win is just a lazy way to deny indigenous artists.
@@hikarumurasaki8498 No, it is a diversity win because it was not a lead performance. It was a supporting performance where she laid in bed for half the movie. Has nothing to do with denying indigenous artists. It has to do with it not being an Oscar quality performance.
@@tonyg76 What about Mullighan's character? Montealegre is from costa rica, and lived in chile til age 21. In fact, casting mullighan is pretty much the opposite as diversity. This debate could go on and on.
@@jsalinasbarros If Mulligan gave the best performance, she should win. It is not about diversity, it is about merit. As far as casting goes, movies go for money and awards. If they thought Mulligan would help with either/both, that is why they casted her.
Gladstone would easily win supporting actress this year
Exactly. She should be nominated in supporting. She’s easily the best choice. On Best Actress you have Emma Stone to win the Oscar I mean Gladstone not gonna be her and they both won Golden Globes
I think part of it may be a sense of greater prestige: Lead Actress sounds like a bigger deal than Supporting, so if you expect you can get nominated but not win, push for the bigger category. Additionally, there's something in the terms used: "Lead Actor/Actress" and "Supporting Actor/Actress" is often how they're colloquially referred, which suggests respectively "the lead *actor* or the lead *actress*" (the biggest actor or the biggest actress, which isn't necessarily a lead role) vs. "a supporting role"...which is funny, as it is officially "in a lead/supporting role", so that concept shouldn't play into it, but I think it does somewhat.
That's totally true - and it's already good enough press to be nominated without the full win.
Or even more so the fact that they are even more often colloquially referred to Best Actor/Best Actress (a category that actually does not exist), which makes it sound like it's an award for overall best performance (i.e. better than the supporting ones), which is actually not the case.
This was kind of obvious to me in the recent prediction conversations about the Best Actor and Best Actress awards at the Cannes film festival, where people kept talking as it only lead actors could win this category, which is not the case.
Let's not even talk about Al Pacino in The Godfather. I do think that Marlon Brando deserved the won for best actor however, not nominating Al Pacino in the lead category as well felt a bit odd. I mean, back then it was perfectly fine to nominate both for the lead acting peformance, like in Sleuth where both Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine were nominated the same year as the Godfather. I dunno why but it just feels odd
Ahhh yes great example!! Of course Marlon Brando was great but Al Pacino was deffo a lead - I mean that last scene with the door closing is clearly showing his complete transformation.
@spielsonreels yeah, at least they gave him the nom for lead In 2
btw, it was gladstone's choice to campaign for lead, not the studio's, just saying.
Was it really?? I didn't know! I suppose it's more similar to Michelle Williams from last year then
I had been wondering which category Gladstone would be placed in. Solid video.
This happened last year arguably with Michelle Williams. Lily should be in supporting based on screen time. Overall, interesting points.
Yeah definitely! Although I read that it was apparently her own decision to go for the lead category rather than the filmmaker's choice - so that's why I didn't put her in :)
Screen time doesn't matter.
@@kassiogomes8498 Ok. Nonetheless, she should not be nominated for either category as laying in bed is not acting. Would rather see Emma Stone, Carey Mulligan, Davane Joy Randolph, Emily Blunt win instead.
@@tonyg76 I can't believe you just said that.
@@kassiogomes8498 Why?
Everyone was upset that Riseborough got a nomination and "stole" a nomination from an African American actress, however I say the it was Michelle Williams and the fraudulent best actress nomination she got for The Fabelmans when she was a supporting actress that took away from more talented lead actresses. In my opinion.
✅THIS!
Always thinking of Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People. Like how on Earth is his character support and the mom character is lead, lol
Currently, I have Gladstone winning Actress, not just getting nominated.
Part of it is also context. Gladstone's role, on paper, is written as a supporting role. But when you see what Scorsese does with it and her presence in the film, she's a lead role. That's just how good she was.
I am not even sure hat she is written as a supporting actress. Yes, her character is very passive, but a lot of scenes are done from her perspective and her being a prisoner of sorts is kind of the point.
Gladstone was definitely supporting.
For Lily, is about making history
She didn't count all the buzz and awards she would win for the category she is campaigning
She just wanted to make history as the first native american to be nominated for Best Actress
Screentimecentral lists Hopkins' Silence screen time as 24 min : 52 seconds.
Anthony Hopkins should’ve won easily in supporting, then we could’ve had Arnold won as the Terminator 2
@@ReggieWilson-gm5dl LMAO
Emma and Rachel were definitely leads of The Favourite.
Rooney in Carol had much more screen time than the title character who ended up nominated as lead actress and Rooney in supporting category....
Lily was most definitely a supporting character but the way her screen time was shown through the whole movie she could be considered as a leading lady. I feel like it was the same with Sharon Stone 28 years ago in Casino.
I think it’s highly unfair to call this slotting of an actor in what is judged to be the wrong category “category fraud”. This label becomes attached to the actor who was not responsible for the category in which he or she is submitted since the video says the decision is made by the producers and distributors. The label “fraud” is associated with dishonesty, cheating and deviousness. As in this video, the negative label is attached to the actor’s name and always will be, especially if the person wins the award. No one mentions the people who actually committed the so-called fraud.
I agree with Gladstone and Mulligan being in their categories, because they do lead the events of the story as much as their male counterparts.
The worst recent case I can think of would definitely be “Judas and the Black Messiah” when both Kalyuua and Stanfield ended up supporting. I think someone could make the argument that one was the lead while the other supported, but if they both supported who’s the lead 😂
Carey Mulligan is definitely NOT supporting. She IS 'Maestro'. Much more than Bradley Cooper.
Who’s watching this video after watching Lily Gladstone lose?
So true. I've been thinking about this for many years.
Ryan Gosling in Barbie being supporting is almost as him in La La Land not being lead. Sure Barbie is the protagonist, but a lot of the film is focused entirely on him and we see it from his perspective. He should be lead.
Al Pacino in the Irishman as well and let's not talk about The Godfather.
2019 supporting actor category: Pitt (lead), Pacino (lead), Hopkins (big supporting), Hanks (big supporting) and Pesci (supporting). And many people wanted to put DaFoe for the Lighthouse in there as well, as if he wasn't fully lead.
I believe that Carey Mulligan’s performance is lead just like Viola Davis was lead in Fences… I think the worst was Patricia Neal who won for Best Actress even though she was only in the movie for about 20 minutes and the main focus was on Paul Newman’s character mostly compared to a similar case like Anthony Hopkins who even though he’s in the movie a short time, his presence looms large throughout the whole film.
Well in Fences the movie focused on Denzel Washington’s character. I mean yes Viola Davis did won a Tony for the movie in LEAD. She had 53 minutes and of screen time it’s confused me if she’s lead or supporting. Denzel Washington had 1 hour and 33 minutes of screen time.
Viola Davis should have gone lead in 2017 and won for Fences, while Michelle Williams should have won for supporting.
I will agree. Viola knew Emma Stone would win for La La Land. She should’ve won for the Help
"Category fraud" in the awards sense is really only when a lead campaigns in the supporting category, thereby securing an arguable advantage over their rivals because they have more screentime. Like, you can debate whether Gladstone is really a lead, but she is not doing herself any favours by campaigning as a lead; it, if anything, decreases her chance of victory. This is also true with Michelle Williams last year, who many people thought would have easily won Best Supporting Actress but she felt it was a lead role and so submitted there.
No. It's always a category fraud when you nominate someone or something in the wrong category. That's what it is, by definition.
That however doesn't mean that Gladstone is not A lead (not THE lead) in Killers.
Great video! The biggest "fraud" case in my opinion has to be Hopkins, as having only 16 minutes of screen time in a 2 hour film simply does not make you the lead, and is honestly slightly disrespectful to Jodie Foster who IS the lead and has 5x as much screen time. But of course the Oscars care more about politics than facts.
I couldn’t disagree more. Screen time is not the sole metric and Silence Of The Lambs is a perfect example. The character Hannibal Lector is the LEAD CHARACTER in that he is “spider at the center of the web” - every other important character has their actions influenced by his machinations and he is talked about by them constantly throughout those 2 hours. Lector’s screen time is effectively the entire run time because he’s in everybody else’s head 24/7. Hopkins’ performance is so extraordinary in that the plot is only believable if we see Lector as a man capable of inspiring the fear and fascination of those trapped like moths around his flame and Hopkins absolutely nailed it in those 16 minutes. An actor who so effectively portrays a lead character is justifiably worthy of “lead actor” status.
@@chuckmarmo6244 That's a very convincing argument, you are correct.
She won too so who cares really? I'm sure she was elated for Hopkins - their scenes together make the film what it is - wouldn't you agree? I'm 'quietly' confident she didn't feel disrespected. Despite his short screen time - his character looms over the entire picture and that is a big performance
@@alisdairmckenzie I think you're right, I was probably just projecting.
@@chuckmarmo6244Yeah, it's about the aura. Lecter's presence is felt throughout the entire film. Therefore, I think it was a good decision to put both Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins for the lead acting performances
They should expand the number of Lead nomination slots to be more than the number of Supporting, so that co-stars in major contenders don’t fraud their way to supporting. While yes some of them campaign to get that win, I think a lot of them go supporting to get that nomination. Have 6 Lead slots and 5 Supporting and then be stricter on who goes where.
Ooh that’s an interesting idea.
It won change anything, I fear. Because most of the one been fraud in supporting are actually winning, while their "leading" co-stars are losing (Pitt won while DiCaprio lost, Vikander won while Redmayne lost). So, there's no really an incentive for the ones been fraud to move up.
Many, many moons ago, the Oscars made an effort to have deserving nominees that were worthy of wins blended with those who were much less deserving. In the last few decades, nominees are mostly studio/powerplayer choices often bought and paid for with a few sentimental choices tossed in for those few fans who still believe the awards are fair and just. They're not. Sometimes the "winners" are deserving of the win; sometimes wins are more "default"
As of recently, Viola Davis as Supporting and winning for Supporting when she was a lead in Fences still irks me. I know Viola consented to going with Supporting, but I'd choose her over Emma Stone any day.
I really don't know about Emma Stone's this time around, considering the film she is in runs the tropes on disability and mental illness to the point of exploitation. Lily Gladstone may be preferable to Emma Stone, but she is a supporting role because the film is about the Osage murderers told from their perspective, not from the Osage perspective. That's like watching Schnidler's List from the perspective of Ralph Fiennes' character, not Oskar Schnidler.
I doubt the Academy will look to anything else but box office and restore the studio executive preference. Lily Gladstone has a chance, but if she is like most actors of color nominated for lead roles, chances are far and few between with only two women of color winning Best Actress within a 21 year old gap, and the fact that if the actor is more seasoned, an actor of color has to have consistent box office over a 20 year span for Oscar recognition to come- i.e. Michelle Yeoh, Forest Whitaker, Regina King, Will Smith. While the Academy is getting better with recognizing talent of color, recognition does not make industry gaps in opportunities close faster.
You’re absolutely on point about the framing of the films and how they’d be received. Leo was the obvious lead. Gladstone was for a lot of the film either not present or bedridden at the hands of Burkhart. It’s yet another Scorsese white man lead film trying to masquerade as 2 co-leads and win diversity points.
As mentioned in another comment with Lakeith Stanfield in Judas, this video falsely states that "submitting" a film for a category suggests that distributors have the power to determine in which category a performance will land, which is not the case. They don't submit anything anywhere, they just campaign someone for a certain category and the final say is with the voters of each awards body.
Look at more performances who landed in both categories such as Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl, which you fail to mention was nominated as Lead Actress at the BAFTAs, and you also fail to mention that Rooney Mara was nominated for Lead Actress at the Globes. Kate Winslet in The Reader was nominated for Lead Actress at the Oscars and BAFTA, but as Supporting Actress at the Globes and SAG => Especially Winslet's randomness should have been in your video.
This means, we can see Lily and Carey in either Lead or Supporting at any awards show, no matter what the distributor/producer wants.
IMO, Bette Davis lost best actress for All about Eve because Anne Baxter put herself in the best actress category. Baxter should have been supporting. Subsequently, the votes were split between the two, and Judy Holliday won instead.✌🏾
They don't want Killers of the Flower Moon to appear like a white saviour movie that uses indigenous people as background actors in a story about them but still mostly centered on the white men, even though that is basically the case here.
I understand the complaint but I really don't get how it is a white savior movie when the whole point of it was how... evil white people were to the osage people. If you're referring to the Jesse Plemons character, the end of the film makes it pretty explicit how futile that whole operation was when it came to bringing justice for the osage.
@@achepe9978 I didn't say the movie is a 'white saviour movie' (although like you said CIA does come in the end to save the day, even if it isn't totally satisfactory to us or the Osage nation in general, there is some semblance of justice as I see it), I said they don't want the movie to APPEAR like a white saviour movie. This is the reason they're heavily promoting Lily as the lead actress despite her being on the screen for less than a 3rd of the 3½ hr movie and having far fewer dialogues than either of the two central male performances.
"White savior"?
I see a problem in the acting Oscars that, if you are black, you only have chances of winning in a Supporting category. Mahershala Ali, Regina King, Viola Davis... the best example for me is Daniel Kaluuya winning Supporting Actor for Judas And The Black Messiah. It seems like they never award black people in Lead, as Chadwick Boseman wasn't. Lily Gladstone would be a guaranteed win in Supporting. But now let's see if she can outstand Emma Stone.
Chadwick Boseman didn't win because he was against Anthony Hopkins in The Father which was by all account a vastly superior performance and one of the finest performance in years. We need to stop thinking about an actor being awarded as a necessary disservice to the other actors nominated. Same thing would apply if Emma Stone wins this year, as her performance is one of a kind in film history and very hard one to pull it off. One example I would agree with you though is when Sandra Bullock won over Gabourey Sidibe in Precious. That was outrageous.
@@paolorusso4326 or when Jaime Lee Curtis won against literally any of the other nominees for best supporting actress this past year (don't get me wrong I love her, but she was the least deserving to win out of all of them)
the fact that gabourey sidibe lost against sandra bullock still haunts me
Another "fraud" is in 2004 where Jamie Foxx was put up for supporting actor for Collateral when he had a leading role. I mean it feels weird to downgrade Jamie from lead just cause he isnt as famous as Tom Cruise. However there is another reason why he got nominated there and not in the lead which was because of his lead performance in Ray, so a little more understandable. Regardless I'm still glad he won, cause his performance there is one of the best I've ever seen.
This moderator has truly unacceptable vocal fry. Duh!
Viola Davis in fences.
As far as I know its distributors, producers etc who put forward who and what they want for consideration. The actor or actress though can campaign as we have seen with Lily Gladstone. But we all know that they move actors up and down the categories to give them a better chance of winning. That tells us all we need to know about awards and especially the Globes and Oscars. I won't bore anyone by harping on about Viola Davis, Tatum O Neal etc we all know and have opinions about that. I always thought of supporting as the character that supports (or antagonizes) the main character of the film but then look what happens. The WORST category fraud coming up in my opinion is not the Gladstone thing but the May December thing happening regarding the Globes - THAT movie is being put forward in the Comedy/Musical sections - yep the hilarious movie dealing with emotional and sexual abuse, gaslighting and is a deeply uncomfortable experience - I thought it was excellent as are the actors, the script, and I love Todd Haynes anyway but it is NOT a comedy, despite a smart and knowing script, or musical and it's not a matter of opinion. The Martian was not a comedy or musical, neither was Vicky Christina Barcelona - all there just to give it's film more chances of winning something. No way is May December taking away from Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer and I don't reckon it's chances against Barbie or The Holdovers either but just wait for Portman to show in the Comedy Musical categories - at least at the Globes Melton and Moore are supporting regardless of genre.
I disagree about the discourse around killers of the flower moon with indigenous people I don’t believe it’s mixed they love and appreciate the movie for the most part but I understand what you are thinking.
Sandra Hüller is in practically every scene of Anatomy of a Fall and yet will probably lose to Lily Gladstone who is only in 27.29% of the movie with 56.13 minutes of screen time. She is definitely not a lead actress contender.
i've been thinking this but scared to say it. i haven't watched kotfm yet, but the fact that CLEARLY lead (and incredible) performances from sandra, emma stone and carey mulligan are probably going to lose against a performance that it's supporting makes me so mad.
@@h8tingeverything Lily Gladstone acts like a sullen teenager throughout the movie. There isn't much range to her performance
@@Pure_BVery wrong at that.Did you watch the movie?Almost all her family was wiped out by those white men and she was being gas lit by her husband.
Yeah sullen like a teenager yeah my ass.
Lily Gladstone is Co-Lead of Killers of the Flower Moon and absolutely deserves to be campaigned at best actress. She holds the soul of the film together.
No. She does not even deserve a nomination. That would be a diversity win, not a merit win.
@@tonyg76 racist troll go away
@@tonyg76Just because you don't like a performance that has been lauded by literally everyone who's seen the movie does not make it 'undeserving' of a nomination.
@@anujpramanik1819 Personally, it does. Also what does not make it worthy is that it is not a lead performance IMO. Plus, laying in bed is not acting. Total diversity win if she wins, not on merit. Don't care how many people say otherwise.
@@tonyg76 You didn't talk about the lead performance, you said ANY nomination, and she wasn't just lying on bed the entire movie. Anyway your opinion doesn't really matter. Most people love her performance and the movie itself.
Brad Pitt wasn’t lead.
It’s almost as if popularity contests are a bit arbitrary
"Category fraud" is a fraudulent term, but it's certainly click-bait worthy. Studios might engage in awards campaigns, but in the final analysis it is the members of the acting branch who determine who will be nominated in each of the four acting categories -- full stop. They obviously, for example, wanted to nominate Anthony Hopkins ("The Silence of the Lambs") and Patricia Neal ("Hud") as leads of their movies, and they were. And they won. And why should outsiders deem that "fraud"?
And it's still category fraud when the Academy members od it. Or are you saying that Judas and the Black Messiah is a movie with no lead character?