Thank you for the streaming recommendations.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.
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.
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.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 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.