Correcting Oscar 1987

[dws1982]

Been a very long time since I saw Cry Freedom but my memory is that Washington is a co-lead for about half of it, but he leaves relatively early, and Kline is the sole lead for the rest of the film, so I would say Washington was correctly placed.

Douglas is support, although I can see the argument for Lead; he dominates the parts of the film that he's in in way that Sheen could never even dream about. But the character is mostly a static villain and I don't think his character has enough point of view to really be a lead. Could've won Support. I'm guessing his extra credit in Fatal Attraction helped out here.

Streep is technically support--I think Nicholson is probably the sole lead--and now I think she would definitely be pushed in support, especially in a supporting race that weak. But in 1987 and actress like Streep wouldn't go support, and I don't know that I would want her to because Ironweed does have a couple of excellent but small supporting performances from Diane Venora and Carroll Baker that never get nominated when the bigger name drops down to supporting. But Ironweed was so gloomy and audience-unfriendly that they never had a chance even in that supporting actress race.

Would probably lean towards lead for Brooks, although like Douglas I wouldn't be dogmatic about it, and have not seen Gaby.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
You're missing the year's biggest category fraud of all - Denzel Washington in Cry Freedom, but it's understandable that he was placed in support where he was a much more likely winner than he would have been against Michael Douglas in Wall Street, Jack Nicholson in Ironweed, and William Hurt in Broadcast News.

Thank you for pointing this out. Washington is added. Somehow I missed that Washington was nominated for Best Actor: Motion Picture-Drama at the Golden Globes (along with three others including Picture and Director).

Please re-vote, Magilla.

[Big Magilla]

You're missing the year's biggest category fraud of all - Denzel Washington in Cry Freedom, but it's understandable that he was placed in support where he was a much more likely winner than he would have been against Michael Douglas in Wall Street, Jack Nicholson in Ironweed, and William Hurt in Broadcast News.

Douglas was borderline lead but his charismatic performance in Wall Street is so strong that no group considered him a supporting player.

Albert Brooks shared star billing in Broadcast News with Hurt and Holly Hunter in her star making role. Some organizations including the Globes considered him a lead, but most considered him supporting. Either placement would have been fine, but I veer more toward support than lead.

Hurt was clearly the male lead in Broadcast News even if he was outacted by Brooks.

Meryl Streep's role in Ironweed was clearly supporting but the film was sold as a Nicholson-Streep film. That's the reason people went to see it. On that basis, and that basis alone, I'm okay with nomination in lead.

Norma Aleandro had a clear supporting role in Gaby - A True Story.

[Sabin]

We're really getting into territory where I haven't seen all of the films.

I haven't seen Gaby - A True Story but Norma Aleandro is in it for 45.14% of the runtime so... maybe?

Meryl Streep is only in Ironweed for 31.83% of the time in contrast to Jack Nicholson who is in it for 63.73% fo the time (more than twice). I don’t see any precursors that listed her. I’ll defer to others re: her involvement. My understanding is she is more of a B story character. Maybe if she wasn’t Meryl Streep she'd be regulated to supporting, but if she wasn't Meryl Streep maybe her role wouldn't feel like a lead. I'll defer to others.

Albert Brooks is an interesting case. Interestingly, he wasn’t nominated for lead or support at the Golden Globes. The only group that agreed that he was supporting (interesting) was the American Comedy Awards. He won the Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actor. The National Society of Film Critics cited him in both categories, which basically means he couldn’t win one round of voting in Supporting so his fans pushed him again for leading to no avail.

Let's look at the numbers. Brooks is in Broadcast News for 32.93% of the film (more than Douglas in Wall Street). William Hurt is in it for 39.86% of the film and Hunter is in it for 53.98%.

I think an argument could be made that Broadcast News is a reasonably evenhanded love triangle between all three of the leads. On a script level, William Hurt represents the A plot as he enters Hunter's world whereas Brooks is more the B story who tries to steer her in the right direction. But really, it's Hunter's story. In the hands of somebody else, I could see Hunter being the lead and the other two characters being supporting, but James L. Brooks is nothing if not a generous spirit with his characters. What tips Brooks into leading consideration for me is how much inner-life he is given and how much spotlight he is given with his ambitions to be an on-air anchor ("Nixon didn't sweat this much."). It's a real setpiece and a real satisfying one. Also, the film's concluding scene (which I don't love) is a triumph of the Hunter-Brooks relationship over the Hunter-Hurt one.

I'm going to view Broadcast News as a love triangle and vote that Albert Brooks is a lead who would not be nominated.

Finally, there's Michael Douglas who is in Wall Street for 32.18% of the time. This is such a terrific example of something looking supporting on the page but feeling like a lead on the screen. It's been ages since I've seen the film but the more I think about it it's an interesting contrast to Platoon. Both are films where Charlie Sheen is torn between two father figures. The difference is that in Wall Street, Sheen enters into a world that is so thoroughly defined by the Michael Douglas character that it's hard to think about anything else, certainly not Sheen's relationship with Hannah or his father. I see that everyone agreed. Douglas picked up no mention for support anywhere.

I vote to keep Michael Douglas in lead.

ADDED: Denzel Washington for Cry Freedom, who is only in the film for 18.93% of the film, but it's 18.93% of a two and a half hour movie so it's about a half hour of screen-time. I haven't seen the film but (NO SPOILERS) I can imagine why his running time is cut short.

Not going to vote.