Most Egregiously Left Out - Roles that fell between Lead & Support

[Big Magilla]

Wendy Hiller is leading with 5 votes to 3 for Myrna Loy, 2 for Tony Curtis and 1 each for Edward G. Robinson, Rosalind Russell, John Kerr and Marlene Dietrich. Helen Hayes, Patricia Neal and Fredric March have no votes, though Hayes would have had one were it not for Reza's confusion.

Interestingly, Loy was my second choice basically because she was never nominated for anything, though if she had received just one nomination in her long career it should have been for The Thin Man, with The Best Years of Our Lives a close second.

Hiller was my first choice. A lot has been written about Timothy Hutton winning a supporting Oscar for Ordinary People when he was the protagonist of the film. I've defended that choice because Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore, who play his parents, were big stars at the time and Hutton was basically an unknown. It made perfect sense at the time.

Ironically Sons and Lovers was the Ordinary People of my generation. Dean Stockwell was the protagonist. Trevor Howard and Wendy Hiller, who played his parents, were well regarded character actors with name recognition. All three were apparently listed by Fox as leads though Howard and Hiller's roles were substantially smaller than Stockwell's.

Not knowing anything about the mechanics or the politics of the Oscars back then I was shocked that Mary Ure, a fine actress who died too young, but who was clearly less commanding than Hiller, was nominated in support for playing Stockwell's older, married lover while Hiller was ignored. But then I realized Hiller would have been eligible in the lead actress category where her chances at a nomination would have been a lot tougher.

Howard, who I thought a leading contender for supporting actor, was in my estimation at the time not as impressive as either Stockwell or Hiller. I was just as shocked that he managed to secure a best actor bid over the likes of Robert Mitchum in Home From the Hill and The Sundowners; Anthony Perkins in Psycho and Fredric March in Inherit the Wind, which makes Hiller's omission even more glaring.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1257424144

[Uri]

But I wonder: how is Tony Curtis not the main character in Sweet Smell of Success? He's in more scenes than anyone else, we see the world through his eyes, etc. Do you think he really was left cold on nomination day because his part was seen as questionably 'lead'?

Though a far better film, it appears to be in the same scenario as Training Day – the older, more established star it the smaller but showier role promoted as lead, the younger, up and coming one as support although he clearly was the protagonist of the story.



Edited By Uri on 1256577465

[Reza]

I didn't really get this. Are we voting for the performance that we think should have been nominated in the lead category?

No, the performance that you think should have been nominated period - it doesn't matter which category you think it belongs in.

I guess I really didn't get this and voted for Wendy Hiller before your response. I should have voted instead for Helen Hayes.

[Big Magilla]

I didn't really get this. Are we voting for the performance that we think should have been nominated in the lead category?

No, the performance that you think should have been nominated period - it doesn't matter which category you think it belongs in.

[Reza]

I didn't really get this. Are we voting for the performance that we think should have been nominated in the lead category?

[Big Magilla]

I have not voted because there are still too many performances here I have not seen.

But I wonder: how is Tony Curtis not the main character in Sweet Smell of Success? He's in more scenes than anyone else, we see the world through his eyes, etc. Do you think he really was left cold on nomination day because his part was seen as questionably 'lead'?

He was co-lead with Burt Lancaster, a much bigger name who had not yet won an Oscar and in fact had only one nomination to his name. It was more a case of does he deserve one first.

[rain Bard]

I have not voted because there are still too many performances here I have not seen.

But I wonder: how is Tony Curtis not the main character in Sweet Smell of Success? He's in more scenes than anyone else, we see the world through his eyes, etc. Do you think he really was left cold on nomination day because his part was seen as questionably 'lead'?

[Big Magilla]

I'm curious to know on what planet is John Kerr in Tea & Sympathy considered a Supporting performance or Helen Hayes in Anastasia considered a Lead performance?

Planet Hollywood?

For John Kerr, see Timothy Hutton.

Helen Hayes had equal billing with Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia. Fox considered her lead and listed her as such for Oscar consideration - under rules in place at the time, the studios, not the Academy, decided on category placement. The Globes, who had their own rules, also considered her lead.

[Penelope]

I'm curious to know on what planet is John Kerr in Tea & Sympathy considered a Supporting performance or Helen Hayes in Anastasia considered a Lead performance?

[kaytodd]

This is a fun idea for a poll. Thanks.

Almost all of us are familiar with the story of why Rosalind Russell was not nominated for Picnic. She refused to allow Columbia to promote her for a supporting Oscar nomination. She had been a major star for a long time and nominated for lead actress at least three times before. She referred to campaigning for a supporting Oscar as "carpetbagging."

Interesting attitude and, why I do not agree with her opinion, I find it sort of admirable. A carpetbagger is defined as "a capricious and avaricious outsider." Sounds like she saw the supporting nominations as an opportunity for character actors to get their place in the sun and actors who have already achieved fame as leading actors should stay away from them. But I think all supporting performermances should be judged on their merits regardless of the actor's past career. And I think supporting performances are as important to the quality and success of a film as leading ones and her statement smacks of elitism. But her heart was in the right place.

Roz was terrific in Picnic and she certainly would have gotten a nomination and her showy role probably would have beaten Jo Van Fleet's better performance. A lot of voters would have voted to give her an Oscar after three losses. And she would have knocked deserving newcomers Natalie Wood or Peggy Lee off the list. But I think Roz's performance deserved to be judged on its merits.



Edited By kaytodd on 1256485509

[Big Magilla]

OK, this is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but if we can get so hot and bothered about roles we consider lead being nominated in support and vice versa, what about those roles that fell somewhere in the middle? Roles that are secondary to the main character or clearly supporting roles that are played by stars too big to be considered support, or too new or "less important" than the actors billed above them to be considered lead?

I stopped with the 1960s because after that performances of note tended to get shoehorned into one category or another regardless of importance to the story or length of time the character is or isn't on the screen.