Correcting Oscar 1998

[Reza]

Maybe Joan Allen for Pleasantville simply because she got nominated all the time back then and although Pleasantville ultimately under-performed it did pick up some nominations.

Yes, Joan Allen for sure.

[Sabin]

dws1982 wrote
Streep - Support. Zellweger is the sole Lead, and honestly, this could've been her first nomination and in my opinion, it would've been well-deserved. Streep does not exist in this film independently of Zellweger. She would've been nominated easily in Support, I think, although a leading lady like Streep dropping to Support was less done then (and it only happened in 2002 out of necessity, when she had a competing performance). I remember Streep being very good in One True Thing although I haven't seen it in ages.

I think you're right about Meryl Streep and the prospect of her campaigning as supporting in 1998. It just wasn't really done at the time.

But had Meryl Streep dropped out of the Best Actress race, I think it easily would have been Jane Horracks who took her place. Also, had Michael Caine been campaigned for Best Supporting Actor (where he belonged) for Little Voice, I think he would've won that year.

Had Rachel Griffiths given up her spot, it's really hard to say who might have taken the fifth slot for Best Supporting Actress. As I've written early, the Golden Globes and SAG both agreed on Bates, Blethyn, Dench, and Redgrave. Back then the BAFTAs only gave our four nominations and those were their four. Maybe Joan Allen for Pleasantville simply because she got nominated all the time back then and although Pleasantville ultimately under-performed it did pick up some nominations. But it's really hard to say. I vaguely recall Entertainment Weekly predicting Julia Roberts for Stepmom.

[Sabin]

dws1982 wrote
Streep - Support. Zellweger is the sole Lead, and honestly, this could've been her first nomination and in my opinion, it would've been well-deserved. Streep does not exist in this film independently of Zellweger. She would've been nominated easily in Support, I think, although a leading lady like Streep dropping to Support was less done then (and it only happened in 2002 out of necessity, when she had a competing performance). I remember Streep being very good in One True Thing although I haven't seen it in ages.

I'll take your word for it. You've probably seen it more recently than me. I also remember thinking at the time that William Hurt would've been a worthy nominee.

Big Magilla wrote
I somewhat remember the discussions about Brenda Blethyn at the time, but I seem to recall that the outrage was directed at the absence of Joan Allen in Pleasantville and Lisa Kudrow in The Opposite of Sex as well of the failure of Jane Horrocks to be nominated in the lead category.

I recall the Best Actress race largely being forecasted as Blanchett, Montenegro, Paltrow, Streep, and Watson based on Globe and SAG nominations. SAG had Horracks instead of Montenegro. EW had Sarandon (Stepmom) instead of Horracks and Watson in their Oscar issue (which mattered at the time) but Sarandon's chances largely evaporated by Oscar morning. The only question was whether or not Horracks would make it in instead of Montenegro and Watson. I remember thinking that Horracks would miss out.

I recall Brenda Blethyn's nomination being largely expected and reviled. The Golden Globes and SAG all chose Kathy Bates, Brenda Blethyn, Judi Dench, and Lynn Redgrave, with the former choosing Sharon Stone for The Mighty and the latter going with Rachel Griffiths for Hilary and Jackie. I had very little doubt in my mind that Griffiths would make the final five because Joan Allen and Lisa Kudrow both stiffed in both places. I honestly couldn't tell you who the the fifth nominee would be if Griffiths wasn't in the hunt.

[dws1982]

Griffiths - She is Lead, I think, but she was too unknown to to get a nomination there so she would've not gotten nominated there, although she might make my personal top five. Co-lead, but the film is structured in such a way to give both characters fairly equal point-of-view and narrative weight.

Streep - Support. Zellweger is the sole Lead, and honestly, this could've been her first nomination and in my opinion, it would've been well-deserved. Streep does not exist in this film independently of Zellweger. She would've been nominated easily in Support, I think, although a leading lady like Streep dropping to Support was less done then (and it only happened in 2002 out of necessity, when she had a competing performance). I remember Streep being very good in One True Thing although I haven't seen it in ages.

Thornton - Support. This may be harsh but I think the fact that the qualitative gulf between Thornton and Paxton is so great, it makes Thornton's role, which is a fairly classic supporting one, seem larger than it is. (Although his screen time percent is bigger than I would've expected.)

[Big Magilla]

I agree that Rachel Griffiths was a co-lead but wouldn't have nominated in lead given the competition.

Streep's role was somewhere between lead and support but she was at the height of her popularity so it would probably have unthinkable to nominate her in support at that time.

Thornton I don't remember much about in A Simple Plan.

I somewhat remember the discussions about Brenda Blethyn at the time, but I seem to recall that the outrage was directed at the absence of Joan Allen in Pleasantville and Lisa Kudrow in The Opposite of Sex as well of the failure of Jane Horrocks to be nominated in the lead category. I thought at the time that Blethyn's shrill, over-the-top performance was a hoot and deserving of a nomination, but she was much better in other things from A River Runs Through It to Atonement. She is great in the long-running British murder mystery series, Vera, where she was past retirement age when the show began 11 years ago. Amazingly, she's doing churning out episodes at 76. She could probably still do it until she's 98, but at some point, they need to turn her from an active copper to a consulting retiree.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
You didn't ask, but Blethyn would have been my loudest "Wouldn't nominate her for either" vote in this entire set of polls. Blethyn has, remarkably, turned into a far more subtle actress as she's aged -- her work on Vera is an exemplary demonstration of restraint -- but, back then, she never met a piece of scenery she wasn't happy to chomp on.

I was going to say I'm not sure I've seen Brenda Blethyn since but that's not entirely true. She's apparently been in Pride & Prejudice, Atonement, and Lovely & Amazing. Not that I recall her presence.

I think Brenda Blethyn's nomination for Little Voice was the most universally despised nomination I encountered by that point in my tracking the Oscar races. I recall dissent for Sharon Stone (Casino), James Woods (Ghosts of Mississippi), but pretty much every outlet described this nomination as "blowzy," "over-the-top," or '"shrill," as if the bugs of her Secrets & Lies performance became a feature. Even more distressing was how her nomination (clearly at the apex year of Miramax's Oscar influence) came at the expense of so many more deserving alternatives both likely and long-shot like Joan Allen for Pleasantville, Lisa Kudrow for The Opposite of Sex, Patricia Clarkson for High Art, Laura Linney for The Truman Show, and Kimberly Elise and/or Thandie Newton for Beloved among others.

In retrospect, Little Voice deserved to be remembered for two footnotes that have nothing to do with its nomination for Brenda Blethyn or for its intended purpose of showcasing Jane Horracks' unique talent set. Little Voice showed audiences a warmer Ewan McGregor than they had previously experienced in Transpotting, which was utilized to greater function in other films. And it was the Golden Globe-winning comeback role for Michael Caine that directly led to his Oscar the following year with an even better speech at that. Miramax may have totally botched his chances by submitting him for lead in 1998 but they made up for it the following year. Had they submitted him in support for Little Voice, I can't imagine he would've lost given the state of that race.

[Mister Tee]

It's interesting to see that numerical stat on Rachel Griffiths, since she was someone I recall a lot of people screaming had to be a lead. I think the supporting placement is also defensible based on the Hillary-was-the-famous-one/reason-the-film-exists/showy-part. Plus the fact that Watson was, at that moment, pretty celebrated (coming off the amazing Breaking the Waves performance), and seemed like she might be a best actress winner in the near term, where Griffiths was mostly unknown (unless you'd seen Jude or Muriel's Wedding). (Kind of disheartening that, while both have had impressive careers, they seem to have receded in the past decade.)

Billy Bob not only had a smaller part than Paxton, it was a classic supporting kind of character -- the guy there to make things more difficult for the protagonist.

You didn't ask, but Blethyn would have been my loudest "Wouldn't nominate her for either" vote in this entire set of polls. Blethyn has, remarkably, turned into a far more subtle actress as she's aged -- her work on Vera is an exemplary demonstration of restraint -- but, back then, she never met a piece of scenery she wasn't happy to chomp on.

[Sabin]

I think this was my first Oscar race on the board. Maybe I started on here shortly after the dust settled. Anyway, we’re in the territory of films that it’s been close to a quarter century since I’ve last seen. Yikes.

In the leading categories, I can only see one contender that makes sense to question and that’s Meryl Streep for One True Thing. It’s a largely forgotten film and probably the least remembered of her nominated performances but it was my introduction to her as an actor so it’s always held a warm place in my heart. It very much feels like the kind of film that would be an HBO Original within a couple of years. Anyway, it’s the story of a young writer lady (Renee Zellweger) who is forced to put her life on hold due to her mother’s cancer diagnosis and along the way Learns Things. Meryl Streep is only in the film for 34.09% of the screen-time. It’s Renee Zellweger’s characters’ story. I would imagine with another actor at the wheel it might be a clearer cut case of the mother as a supporting role. At the very least, she’s the deuteragonist. But Streep has so much oomph as a performer and so much of the film pivots around what the mother knows and a choice she may or may not make later in the film that I think leading citation probably makes sense. I’ll defer to anyone who’s seen it more recently of which I can’t imagine there are very many but because she defines so much of the world of the film I think it makes sense for her to stay in lead.

That’s exactly why I think it makes sense for Billy Bob Thornton to stay in supporting for A Simple Plan despite being in the film for 40.13% of the film. The film is about the money and what it does to all of them. The late Bill Paxton is the film’s clear lead and even though Thornton is in the film for quite a bit of screen-time, I’m not sure he has a scene to himself. He doesn’t define the world of the film like Streep does in One True Thing. He’s just alongside Paxton on his journey. Again, I’ll defer to anyone who’s seen it more recently but I think it makes sense for him to be in support. Quick note, I never quite understood why this film didn’t do a bit better with Academy voters. I remember it being very effective.

Brenda Blethyn is in Little Voice for 40.36% of the film, more than anyone else in her category, which I’m sure would surprise many people. I don’t think anybody would consider her a lead so I’m not going to list her.

But I am going to list Rachel Griffiths for Hilary and Jackie who is in her film for 36.10% of the time contrasted to Emily Watson who is in Hilary and Jackie for 54.94%. That’s a substantial difference between the two. Griffiths is clearly the more supporting role, the long-suffering, ignored sister who never got the spotlight. It’s been ages since I’ve seen the film. I recall the film feeling like the relationship between the two sisters was a main story driver but the more I think about it I wonder how much Watson’s character really gave that relationship much thought, whereas Watson’s character’s spotlight and her lack thereof defined Griffith’s character’s focus. That said, she does have quite a bit of off-screen autonomy and there are clearer supporting performances in the film. A more recent viewing might clear things up but I’m inclined to say that Griffiths has enough going on as a character to be considered a lead in contrast to what are more clearly supporting roles in the film.

I vote lead but I don't think Rachel Griffiths would manage a nomination in the leading category. The 1998 Best Actress lineup wasn't incredibly crowded. I don't think the candidacies of Ally Sheedy (High Art) or Christina Ricci (The Opposite of Sex) were that strong, but Jane Horracks probably came very close to a nomination for Little Voice and I don't see Griffiths getting past her.