Agree. Bale and Ruffalo were in support of Wahlberg and Bening/Moore. Steinfeld was clearly the protagonist and lead or co-lead in True Grit.
Kim Darby, who was more or less at the same point in her career as Steinfeld was when she starred opposite John Wayne in the 1969 version was imore appropriately in the running for Best Actress, not Best Supporting Actress, though she didn't make it.
Correcting Oscar 2010
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Correcting Oscar 2010
I see no argument for Steinfeld in Support. She's not even a secondary lead--Rooster Cogburn is. It starts and ends on Mattie, and even though Steinfeld doesn't play her at the end, Steinfeld still has more screen time than Bridges (although yes, it's not always screen time). True Grit is Mattie's story through and through.
The Fighter is a more difficult case. Bale has a lot of screen time for a supporting nominee, but I really do think it is much more Wahlberg's story. I think the fact that Wahlberg plays it so small and Bale (and the others) is so comparatively "big" that makes him more of lead that he is.
Haven't seen The Kid's Are All Right in years and years but I really do remember that being Bening's and Moore's story.
The Fighter is a more difficult case. Bale has a lot of screen time for a supporting nominee, but I really do think it is much more Wahlberg's story. I think the fact that Wahlberg plays it so small and Bale (and the others) is so comparatively "big" that makes him more of lead that he is.
Haven't seen The Kid's Are All Right in years and years but I really do remember that being Bening's and Moore's story.
Correcting Oscar 2010
I'm interested if anybody votes that Hailee Steinfeld was properly categorized as supporting in True Grit. She has 54.76% of the screen-time in True Grit. She is the protagonist, the driver of the plot, there at the beginning, and her character is there at the end. Although she was nominated as supporting at the SAG and the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs nominated her for lead. Had she been played by a more demure presence, perhaps it would've been conceivable to delegate her to just an audience surrogate but her turn as Matty Ross so captivated the commentariat that they convinced themselves she might upset Melissa Leo despite no evidence such a thing could happen whatsoever.
My question is whether she could have been nominated for Best Actress in 2010? Every so often, Best Actress has a habit of producing a lineup that just feels entirely locked in. I'm thinking of 2004, 2006, and certainly 2010. It just feels like a done deal. And child actresses have a notoriously difficult time breaking through. Today, it's surprising to think that Steinfeld was only six years younger than Jennifer Lawrence, both scoring their first nominations that year. It's hard to imagine Steinfeld getting in past Bening or Portman. Maybe Michelle Williams and Nicole Kidman (whose nomination I actually forgot) weren't entirely locked in. But we're talking about a film that picked up ten nominations.
Had Hailee Steinfeld been pushed for lead, I think she could've gotten in over Nicole Kidman or Michelle Williams.
If you were to describe The Fighter, would you only describe it in terms of Mark Wahlberg's character or would you describe it about him and his struggle to keep his family together? Or would you describe it as a story about two brothers? Like many David O. Russell films, proper categorization is a little elusive. Mark Wahlberg's character is clearly the center of the film but could a case be made that there are two protagonists in the film and that everybody else is part of the supporting fabric. Certainly, Wahlberg's performance is subtle enough.
Bale is in the film for 43.76% of the film, while Leo and Adams have 21% and 22% respectively. Bale's character has his own troubles throughout the film, but he probably constitutes the B Story wherein his journey is to support Wahlberg's character. That's ultimately why I think it's okay to leave Christian Bale in supporting.
Finally, I want to talk about Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right. Mark Ruffalo is in The Kids Are All Right for 38.62% of the film. Annette Bening is in the film for 40.00% of the film. I have no metrics for Julianne Moore's performance, which to me was clearly a lead despite the cynical move to push one of her best performances in for supporting. Interestingly enough, Julianne Moore was nominated as a lead by both the HFPA and BAFTA. I don't have metrics for Julianne Moore's screen-time but I'd imagine it's in the ballpark. Why are we considering Bening and possibly Moore leads but not Mark Ruffalo? He has virtually the same screen-time as Bening and Moore (presumably). When we describe the film, his character is essentially the story. If anyone is supporting it's the allegedly all right kids. And yet, nobody cites Ruffalo as a lead for this film. I think there are two reasons for this. The first is that Ruffalo is such a sweet presence that his character never feels like he's grabbing screen-time. The second is that the film ultimately reveals itself to be the story of whether a marriage and family between two women can survive the arrival of this man. This isn't the story of a man who learns he fathered children. It's the story of two women who learn that their children have reached out to their donor.
I haven't seen this film in ages but I think a case could be made that Mark Ruffalo is a lead in the film alongside Bening and Moore, but because he functions so much as the plot I think supporting is okay. But I'd welcome other opinions on this one.
My question is whether she could have been nominated for Best Actress in 2010? Every so often, Best Actress has a habit of producing a lineup that just feels entirely locked in. I'm thinking of 2004, 2006, and certainly 2010. It just feels like a done deal. And child actresses have a notoriously difficult time breaking through. Today, it's surprising to think that Steinfeld was only six years younger than Jennifer Lawrence, both scoring their first nominations that year. It's hard to imagine Steinfeld getting in past Bening or Portman. Maybe Michelle Williams and Nicole Kidman (whose nomination I actually forgot) weren't entirely locked in. But we're talking about a film that picked up ten nominations.
Had Hailee Steinfeld been pushed for lead, I think she could've gotten in over Nicole Kidman or Michelle Williams.
If you were to describe The Fighter, would you only describe it in terms of Mark Wahlberg's character or would you describe it about him and his struggle to keep his family together? Or would you describe it as a story about two brothers? Like many David O. Russell films, proper categorization is a little elusive. Mark Wahlberg's character is clearly the center of the film but could a case be made that there are two protagonists in the film and that everybody else is part of the supporting fabric. Certainly, Wahlberg's performance is subtle enough.
Bale is in the film for 43.76% of the film, while Leo and Adams have 21% and 22% respectively. Bale's character has his own troubles throughout the film, but he probably constitutes the B Story wherein his journey is to support Wahlberg's character. That's ultimately why I think it's okay to leave Christian Bale in supporting.
Finally, I want to talk about Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right. Mark Ruffalo is in The Kids Are All Right for 38.62% of the film. Annette Bening is in the film for 40.00% of the film. I have no metrics for Julianne Moore's performance, which to me was clearly a lead despite the cynical move to push one of her best performances in for supporting. Interestingly enough, Julianne Moore was nominated as a lead by both the HFPA and BAFTA. I don't have metrics for Julianne Moore's screen-time but I'd imagine it's in the ballpark. Why are we considering Bening and possibly Moore leads but not Mark Ruffalo? He has virtually the same screen-time as Bening and Moore (presumably). When we describe the film, his character is essentially the story. If anyone is supporting it's the allegedly all right kids. And yet, nobody cites Ruffalo as a lead for this film. I think there are two reasons for this. The first is that Ruffalo is such a sweet presence that his character never feels like he's grabbing screen-time. The second is that the film ultimately reveals itself to be the story of whether a marriage and family between two women can survive the arrival of this man. This isn't the story of a man who learns he fathered children. It's the story of two women who learn that their children have reached out to their donor.
I haven't seen this film in ages but I think a case could be made that Mark Ruffalo is a lead in the film alongside Bening and Moore, but because he functions so much as the plot I think supporting is okay. But I'd welcome other opinions on this one.
"How's the despair?"