Correcting Oscar 2009

[Sabin]

dws1982 wrote
The Last Station is on Tubi, Sabin. They will drop commercials mid-scene, but for a free service, it's not bad and there are a lot of films there that aren't available anywhere else. (I think they do have a paid tier that is ad-free, but I've never bothered with it.) Been awhile since I've seen it, but I would classify both Tolstoy and Sofya as leads. Probably McAvoy as lead as well, just as one of those who doesn't get enough to do that he would ever get nominated.

Been a very long time since I've seen The Messenger but my memory of it was that Foster was the lead and that Harrelson's character never really has any independent point of view, and while the film has a few long sequences following Foster without Harrelson, it never really follows Harrelson without Foster. Justwatch tells me that it's streaming on a bunch of services (including Tubi) so maybe I'll give it a watch.

Thank you for the streaming recommendations.

I vaguely recall Woody Harrelson having a scenes where he has sex with somebody but maybe I'm misremembering. Still that doesn't constitute a an independent point of view. It sounds like a supporting nomination and I'll vote to keep him as such.

dws1982 wrote
I would include Damon in this poll. Invictus is one of my least favorite Eastwood films--it feels "for hire" in the way that his films almost never do--but I remember it as a mostly bifurcated movie that brings its threads together at the big rugby match at the end: Damon leads one thread and Freeman leads one. And this is where screen time is relevant, in my opinion, although yes, you do have to ask what is happening with that screentime. If the Freeman thread hugely dominated the narrative of the film, it would make sense to split them, but Freeman's thread and Damon's threads are given equal narrative weight, and their respective screen times only differ by about 7 minutes, not much in a 130+-minute movie. This is not a Walter Pigeon in Mrs. Miniver situation where someone with a lot of screen time is sitting around being a totally passive character literally there to offer support to the lead. Damon is the lead of a segment that gets more-or-less equal focus to Freeman's. They are co-leads and Damon should've been campaigned accordingly.

I will add Matt Damon to this poll. I remember being frustrated at Matt Damon's nomination in this film. Besides affecting a reasonably good accent, it just seemed like a case of star power slumming it in a lower category. I don't remember much about Invictus but your recollection squares with what I still have of that film. There's a Mandela plotline and there's a rugby plotline, led by Damon. Seven minutes is almost nothing in a 130+ movie (was it really that long? I remember nothing!) especially with a bifurcated narrative where each is given more or less equal weight. What I do remember of the film is that Morgan Freeman sets a plan in motion early on and doesn't really change much besides being confident that his plan will work, whereas Matt Damon is the one who has to rally the team.

I vote Neither for Matt Damon. It's almost inconceivable he gets one mention for Best Actor in 2009. My vote opens up the category for so many other truer supporting performances that warranted attention like Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles), Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty (The Hurt Locker), Paul Schneider (Bright Star), Peter Capaldi (In the Loop), Alfred Molina (An Education), or others.

Also, thank you for the kind words.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I do think that Plummer should be included here. I bowed to the zeitgeist of the time and placed him in my nominations for Supporting Actor rather than exclude him altogether because he would not have been in my top five picks for lead actor, but I wasn't comfortable doing that.

Plummer has been added as a lead, as has Matt Damon for lead. I've added him to this poll because only the three of us have voted so far.

[dws1982]

I think screen time is a thing worth mentioning here. Sabin never mentions screen time without also mentioning it in context of other things. It's never like, "this guy was in 50 minutes of this two hour film so he has to be lead, no questions asked".

The Last Station is on Tubi, Sabin. They will drop commercials mid-scene, but for a free service, it's not bad and there are a lot of films there that aren't available anywhere else. (I think they do have a paid tier that is ad-free, but I've never bothered with it.) Been awhile since I've seen it, but I would classify both Tolstoy and Sofya as leads. Probably McAvoy as lead as well, just as one of those who doesn't get enough to do that he would ever get nominated.

Been a very long time since I've seen The Messenger but my memory of it was that Foster was the lead and that Harrelson's character never really has any independent point of view, and while the film has a few long sequences following Foster without Harrelson, it never really follows Harrelson without Foster. Justwatch tells me that it's streaming on a bunch of services (including Tubi) so maybe I'll give it a watch.

I would include Damon in this poll. Invictus is one of my least favorite Eastwood films--it feels "for hire" in the way that his films almost never do--but I remember it as a mostly bifurcated movie that brings its threads together at the big rugby match at the end: Damon leads one thread and Freeman leads one. And this is where screen time is relevant, in my opinion, although yes, you do have to ask what is happening with that screentime. If the Freeman thread hugely dominated the narrative of the film, it would make sense to split them, but Freeman's thread and Damon's threads are given equal narrative weight, and their respective screen times only differ by about 7 minutes, not much in a 130+-minute movie. This is not a Walter Pigeon in Mrs. Miniver situation where someone with a lot of screen time is sitting around being a totally passive character literally there to offer support to the lead. Damon is the lead of a segment that gets more-or-less equal focus to Freeman's. They are co-leads and Damon should've been campaigned accordingly.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I do think that Plummer should be included here. I bowed to the zeitgeist of the time and placed him in my nominations for Supporting Actor rather than exclude him altogether because he would not have been in my top five picks for lead actor, but I wasn't comfortable doing that.

Edited to include The Last Station, which perhaps I'll watch now.

[Big Magilla]

It was more of a wish than a complaint. As I said, it's interesting but only part of the story. Sometimes I agree with the choices made, sometimes I vehemently disagree but I consider impact of the characters and billing. For example, Kris Kringle was the lead character in Miracle on 34th Street and in the four remakes thus far, the actor playing the part has always received top billing. That wasn't the case with Edmund Gwenn who was billed below the title in the original while Maureen O'Hara and John Payne were billed over the title. Given the billing, I think the nomination and the win were appropriate, but it was definitely a lead.

I do think that Plummer should be included here. I bowed to the zeitgeist of the time and placed him in my nominations for Supporting Actor rather than exclude him altogether because he would not have been in my top five picks for lead actor, but I wasn't comfortable doing that.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Sabin, I wish you would stop with the screen time quotes.

This is the first I’ve heard you or anybody complain about it. I recognize that they are a flawed metric but my arguments aren’t strictly confined to them.

Also, I haven’t seen The Last Station but if Christopher Plummer should be considered a lead I’d be happy to include him in the poll as only you and I have voted.

[Big Magilla]

Sabin, I wish you would stop with the screen time quotes.

They're interesting but are not, as you know, totally indicative of an actor's impact and importance to a film.

Screen time tells you how long an actor was seen but not whether he had lines in those scenes or was merely background in half of them.

The category fraud in The Last Station was the placement of Christopher Plummer in support. The film was about the last days of Leo Tolstoy played by Plummer who dominated the film even though he had exactly one minute less of screen time than Mirren, 37 minutes to her 38. Mirren was also very strong as Tolstoy's wife who was at odds with Tolstoy's advisors who convinced him to change his will to leave everything to the state instead of to her and deserved her nomination. MacAvoy and Paul Giamatti were also very good in the key supporting roles.

Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson were co-leads in The Messenger but Foster had more screen time and the key romance with Samantha Morton. If you're going to split them up, as they did, Harreslon was the one to go to support. Foster should have been nominated for Best Actor and Morton for Best Supporting Actress along with Harrelson.

[Sabin]

EDITED TO INCLUDE CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER

Quick this time as we're now dealing with entries I barely remember or haven't seen.

I haven't seen The Last Station, although Helen Mirren's 33.86% screen-time marks her as having .01% more screen-time than Kate Winslet in The Reader, behind only Sissy Spacek (In the Bedroom), Nicole Kidman (The Hours), Samantha Morton (In America), Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada), and Kate Winslet (Little Children) for least screen-time of a Best Actress nominee this decade. My understanding of the film is that James McAvoy is certainly the lead but in one of those audience surrogate parts. I haven't seen the film so I'll defer to others.

Woody Harrelson is in The Messenger for 48.27% of the film. My vague memory of the film is clearly Ben Foster's movie but it felt like a two-hander. Foster has more depth and subplots, but Harrelson has his share of subplots as well and the eventual question is whether or not they two of them will be okay. It's been ages since I saw the film but I remember thinking that Harrelson felt like a co-protagonist who was shuffled off to supporting status to get a nomination. I'll vote Neither because I doubt he would've managed a nomination in that category.

I haven't listed Morgan Freeman for Invictus even though he has just 34.77% screen-time in his film because if he isn't the lead, who is? Matt Damon has comparable screen-time at 29.45% but he's largely enforcing Freeman's plan. If memory serves. I... have almost no memory of Invictus.