Correcting Oscar 1996

[mlrg]

My take at the time was, it was Out of Africa, but written by Milan Kundera.
.

Best description of The English Patient I’ve ever read.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I'm so pleased you posted this. I've spent much of the past quarter-century making the same argument. I feel like many male critics (which is to say, most critics) reacted to this film like the Twitter user who never reads the article but responds to the headline. This movie looked, on surface, like a swoony epic romance, so they treated it as such, despite its having incredibly dense characterization and thematics. My take at the time was, it was Out of Africa, but written by Milan Kundera.

Incidentally, even at the time, Julie Louis-Dreyfus said she, in fact, loved the movie. The whole "this is so boring" reaction strictly came from the (wouldn't you bet male?) writers.

Thank you for your quarter century of service.

[Mister Tee]

It's a shame that movie's cultural imprint now is mostly just the punchline of a Seinfeld episode. It may be an Oscar-bait epic, but it's just about the best version of that. I think it's an incredibly smart and an incredibly rich film. BBC was supposed to be doing a new adaptation of this as a miniseries, but I don't know if that's still on the table or not.

I'm so pleased you posted this. I've spent much of the past quarter-century making the same argument. I feel like many male critics (which is to say, most critics) reacted to this film like the Twitter user who never reads the article but responds to the headline. This movie looked, on surface, like a swoony epic romance, so they treated it as such, despite its having incredibly dense characterization and thematics. My take at the time was, it was Out of Africa, but written by Milan Kundera.

Incidentally, even at the time, Julie Louis-Dreyfuss said she, in fact, loved the movie. The whole "this is so boring" reaction strictly came from the (wouldn't you bet male?) writers.

[dws1982]

I think there is not a definitive "right" answer about the ladies in The English Patient. Both in support makes the most sense to me, but I can understand the other arguments because part of those Lead/Support arguments on Binoche and Scott-Thomas will come from what part of the film resonates most strongly with the individual viewer.

The thing about The English Patient--and this speaks pretty highly of it, in my opinion--is that it's not hard to imagine alternate versions of it that center the post-war storyline with Binoche's Hana as the clear female lead or one that just uses the post-war setting as a framing device to center the romantic storyline with Scott-Thomas' Katharine as the clear female lead. It's a shame that movie's cultural imprint now is mostly just the punchline of a Seinfeld episode. It may be an Oscar-bait epic, but it's just about the best version of that. I think it's an incredibly smart and an incredibly rich film. BBC was supposed to be doing a new adaptation of this as a miniseries, but I don't know if that's still on the table or not.

[Sabin]

dws1982 wrote
First, The English Patient ladies:
In my opinion, they go together in Support. If a distinction had to be made, despite the slight screen time difference, Binoche should've been in Lead. She does exist independently from Fiennes, and she does have her own point of view. Not enough, in my opinion, to rise to the Lead level, because hers is essentially a side story, but Kristin Scott Thomas is not seen outside of the flashback and not afforded any point of view outside of the story that Fiennes tells. I get that "not seen out of a flashback" is not a foolproof argument: Leonardo DiCaprio does not exist outside of the flashback structure of Titanic; Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep both does not exist outside of the flashback of The Bridges of Madison County; all of them are unquestionable leads. Those are also essentially framing devices to get the story going whereas The English Patient has parallel narratives.

Had they put Binoche and Scott Thomas both in Lead, I don't know what happens. I think only one gets nominated but I'm not sure which one. Both had been in fairly high-profile art-house hits within the past few years. Both in Support, I think they both get nominated. If they split them both with Binoche in Lead and Scott Thomas in Support, I think they both get nominated and Scott Thomas possibly wins in the sweep.

The notion of Fiennes, Binoche, and Scott Thomas all being leads is why I started this project in the first place. I think both Binoche and Scott Thomas in supporting probably makes the most sense, but I kind of like the notion that this film is about all of them. One of the most successful parts of it is how in the "present" with Binoche the film feels like it is entirely about her and the effect that Fiennes has on her but in the past all of that goes away and it's about Fiennes in love with Scott Thomas.

[dws1982]

Fun year to deal with from this perspective.

First, The English Patient ladies:
In my opinion, they go together in Support. If a distinction had to be made, despite the slight screen time difference, Binoche should've been in Lead. She does exist independently from Fiennes, and she does have her own point of view. Not enough, in my opinion, to rise to the Lead level, because hers is essentially a side story, but Kristin Scott Thomas is not seen outside of the flashback and not afforded any point of view outside of the story that Fiennes tells. I get that "not seen out of a flashback" is not a foolproof argument: Leonardo DiCaprio does not exist outside of the flashback structure of Titanic; Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep both does not exist outside of the flashback of The Bridges of Madison County; all of them are unquestionable leads. Those are also essentially framing devices to get the story going whereas The English Patient has parallel narratives.

Had they put Binoche and Scott Thomas both in Lead, I don't know what happens. I think only one gets nominated but I'm not sure which one. Both had been in fairly high-profile art-house hits within the past few years. Both in Support, I think they both get nominated. If they split them both with Binoche in Lead and Scott Thomas in Support, I think they both get nominated and Scott Thomas possibly wins in the sweep.

Fargo
Both Lead. Kind of a similar structure to No Country for Old Men, in that it has leads who the film intentionally keeps apart for most the runtime, although unlike No Country, where the three leads never actually share screen time (No Country flirts with it at times, but they, McDormand and Macy do have those two scenes together. I believe McDormand holds the record for the latest entry into the movie for a Best Actress winner. It is already almost 1/3 over before she appears. But their roles are equally prominent; in the story, these two characters are played off of each other; they both affect the narrative and its outcome in major ways. They should be categorized together, and that's as Lead in my opinion. Macy probably wouldn't have made the Best Actor lineup though although I would've taken him over all of the actual nominees.

Secrets and Lies
It's both of their story and Blethyn and Jean-Baptiste should've both been in Lead. Jean-Baptiste was probably the most obscure of a pretty obscure group of actors nominated that year, so she probably wouldn't have had a shot in Lead though. And while she hasn't come within any distance of a nomination since then, she has worked consistently since. She took advantage of that nomination in a way that some performers don't.

[Sabin]

Magilla, I agree with a lot of your points but I wanted to emphasize this one in particular.

Big Magilla wrote
Why Geoffrey Rush dominated the lead actor race I still don't know but he was his film's lead even if Noah Taylor was his equal if not his better as the younger version of the character. Taylor's lack of a nomination may have been because they didn't know quite where to place him. NBR winner Tom Cruise was my personal choice.

You raise an interesting point about Noah Taylor and why he wouldn't be considered a lead in Shine for his portion of the film. I would absolutely consider Dev Patel a lead for Lion because he's a continuation of the same character journey. Why should Noah Taylor be any different? I think the chief difference is that Rush is there are the beginning of the film as well as the end while Taylor exists only in the first half of the film. That said, this kind of division between actors playing the same part is pretty subjective and probably warrants an entire post of its own. Why can't Noah Taylor be considered a leading performance?

Incidentally, I haven't seen Shine in ages but my recollection of it is that mileage of the Geoffrey Rush bits varies but the stretch with Noah Taylor is a pretty terrific portrait of young genius helped in no small part by how Taylor plays Young David without indicating any of the trauma that's going on underneath.

[Big Magilla]

1996 was quite a mess.

Why Geoffrey Rush dominated the lead actor race I still don't know but he was his film's lead even if Noah Taylor was his equal if not his better as the younger version of the character. Taylor's lack of a nomination may have been because they didn't know quite where to place him. NBR winner Tom Cruise was my personal choice.

William H. Macy was as a much a lead in Fargo as Frances McDormand but he wasn't yet a star so his chances at getting nominated in lead were iffy at best. The placement makes sense as it's the only category he would have gotten enough votes at the time. It made more sense than Nathan Lane who had also been shoehorned into support for his co-lead in The Birdcage for his SAG nomination.

Secrets and Lies is told mostly from Brenda Blethyn's perspective so if they were going to play the one is lead, one is supporting game, she was the one to go lead, but Marianne Jean-Baptiste is half the storyline so, yeah, she's a co-lead but probably wouldn't have been nominated if she had been campaigned in lead.

Debbie Reynolds' portrayal of Albert Brooks Mother was really supporting but it had been her biggest role in years, and she was consequently campaigned for lead. I suspect that she got votes both for lead and support but not enough in either to make the top five. She should have been nominated in place of Kristen Scott Thomas whose role struck me as clearly supporting. Scott Thomas should have been nominated there in place of Joan Allen. Barbara Hershey, having been passed over for Hannah and Her Sisters, The Last Temptation of Christ, and A World Apart wasn't about to be brushed aside again this year.

Renée Zellweger and Courtney Love were also in the running for the fifth slot with Jean-Baptiste.

[Sabin]

I’m skipping over 1997 as I don’t see anyone who’s even a borderline case for being a lead in a supporting role or supporting role in a lead role. Anyone who feels otherwise is welcome to ping me.

I’m not going to include Geoffrey Rush for Shine even though he is on-screen for 29.80% for Shine, roughly two percentage points higher than Armin Mueller-Stahl (27.07%). I wish I had stats on Noah Taylor for Shine but unfortunately we can’t have the conversation about whether or not Taylor should be considered a co-lead. We also don’t get to chat about whether Renee Zellweger should qualify as a co-lead for Jerry Maguire. I’m still not sure how she didn’t get nominated for Jerry Maguire. We also can’t discuss one of the more borderline cases (Courtney Love for The People vs. Larry Flynt) either.

Instead the conversation is largely going to revolve around two pairs and Marianne Jean-Baptiste and I suppose I’ll just start with the latter. It’s been ages since I’ve seen Secrets & Lies but Marinne Jean-Baptiste is on-screen for 42.78% of the running-time, almost twice that of her competition in the category (only Binoche comes up a bit short — we’ll get to her) and half a percentage short of Brenda Blethyn in the same film (43.23%). Could we consider Jean-Baptiste a co-lead along with Brenda Blethyn? My recollection is that the story is largely about the convergence of Blethyn’s family life and Jean-Baptiste’s quest to discover her birth family and up until the point where Blethyn and Jean-Baptiste meet they exist largely as co-leads but as the film goes on Jean-Baptiste becomes more and more a fly on the wall, observing with a mix of understanding and a little disappointment. But she is there at the end isn’t she?

I don’t recall her role in the third act at all. I’ll defer to those who have seen the film a bit more recently but this strikes me as a film with clearer supporting roles than Jean-Baptiste. Because the nature of Mike Leigh's work is so ensemble-based and because I recall her in the backseat of so much of the rest of the film, I think supporting is the right category although I'll defer to anyone else with a clearer memory. Marianne Jean-Baptiste is probably the most forgotten nominee in that category of the decade although she’s worked steadily since in low profile film roles and slightly higher-profile television work.

Ironically, the case for Jean-Baptiste as supporting is pretty identical to the case for Macy as supporting. But I’m thinking he’s a lead because he retains so much more off-screen life as the film goes on. My memory is that Jean-Baptiste disrupts much of Blethyn’s life and leaves her own life behind. Macy has plenty going on from beginning to end. I think Macy is a lead but I don’t think he would’ve gotten a nomination. Despite the fact that Best Actor seemed pretty shaky going into fall, voter enthusiasm for Sling Blade became a real thing and even though they were pretty divided on The People vs. Larry Flynt, I think Woody Harrelson’s performance was too baity to ignore. So, I vote that Macy should’ve been considered a lead but wouldn’t have gotten a nomination.

He’s on-screen for 27.07% in contrast to the 27.01% that McDormand has. McDormand qualifies as a lead because ultimately this film operates as a procedural and she’s our detective on the case. She has plenty of off-screen life (including that much debated dinner with Mike Yanagita) which marks her as a different breed than Tommy Lee Jones’ detective in The Fugitive, whose has zero off-screen life. Beyond that, we’re meant to identify with her in Fargo. Goldman wrote that this was the first character the Coen’s had written that allowed him to relax because at last he could place his trust that Joel wouldn’t kill his wife. I think McDormand more than deserves her place as a lead. I remember being more in the Emily Watson camp at the time but I have nothing but warm feelings for Frances McDormand’s win at the time.

Then we come to Juliette Binoche and Kristen Scott Thomas for The English Patient. First, the stats:
*Ralph Fiennes: 50.92%
*Juliette Binoche: 26.03%
*Kristen Scott Thomas: 29.48%

It’s worth noting that Juliette Binoche was considered supporting actress the board. Kristen Scott Thomas was largely considered a lead save for The National Board of Review which awarded her Best Supporting Actress tied with Juliette Binoche and the National Society of Film Critics which gave her a runner up status to Barbara Hershey (The Portrait of a Lady) and Renee Zellweger (Jerry Maguire).

Obviously, Ralph Fiennes is the lead of the film. Thomas and Binoche are both roughly equal in screen-time. The question is whether or not Thomas is a lead or if both of them are supporting. Why should Thomas be considered a lead while Binoche is supporting? The biggest difference is that Thomas is central to the film’s A Story (in flashback) whereas Binoche is largely an inactive character (present), processing, deliberating, the B Story. But is The English Patient about the life of Ralph Fiennes or is it about this romance in the past? I think we all know it’s about this romance in the past, which is brought to life in adaptation work by Anthony Minghella (how was that the one award it lost?). But to contrast this, does Kristen Scott Thomas have any life off-screen without Ralph Fiennes? A bit. A few scenes are from her POV like when she deliberates before meeting him for a tryst during a party. But mostly, this part is told through Ralph Fiennes’ POV. Juliette Binoche has plenty of off-screen life apart from Fiennes.

This is a case where I think either read is appropriate. The best case I can make for Thomas as a lead is that she is the romantic lead. And what a romantic lead she is! Thank God Minghella won out over studio insistence to cast Demi Moore. I might be inclined to push Thomas to supporting because 1996 was such a robust year for leading actress performances. But I think there are enough truly supporting performances in The English Patient to ultimately agree with the Academy’s placement and keep Thomas where she is.

So, I am opening up one spot for Best Supporting Actor (minus Macy) where, like I said, there’s a bevy of contenders. SAG nominated Nathan Lane and Hank Azaria from The Birdcage, as well as Noah Taylor for Shine over Armin Mueller-Stahl, Edward Norton, and James Woods. Ironically, they ignored Norton outright. The Golden Globes nominated Samuel L. Jackson for A Time to Kill and Paul Scofield for The Crucible instead of William H. Macy and Armin Mueller-Stahl. The critics gave their awards to Martin Donovan for The Portrait of a Lady, Tony Shalhoub for Big Night, and Harry Belafonte for Kansas City. That’s… a lot to choose from. I’m torn between Noah Taylor for Shine and Paul Scofield for The Crucible. I’m going to predict Noah Taylor despite the fact that Shine doesn’t strike me as the kind of film to pick up dual nominations. I probably would’ve predicted Taylor going into the season so why not now? I'll just add that I've always found it a bit curious that Leonardo DiCaprio didn't register a stronger contender for Marvin's Room. He was a hot young star playing a variation on his then-popular troubled youth character in a movie that voters clearly enjoyed enough to nominate Diane Keaton. In hindsight given the popularity of Sling Blade, I could also see Dwight Yoakum or John Ritter.

Best Supporting Actor:
*Cuba Gooding, Jr., Jerry Maguire
*Armin Mueller-Stahl, Shine
*Edward Norton, Primal Fear
*Noah Taylor, Shine
*James Woods, Ghosts of Mississippi

For anyone who thinks that Kristen Scott Thomas is supporting like Juliette Binoche, I would imagine she would have taken Barbara Hershey's spot for The Portrait of a Lady if only judging from her lack of a SAG nomination and for how much the critic's groups' supporting performance picks were off-kilter from Academy tastes that year. There are a bevy of Best Actress contenders that might have swept in like Debbie Reynolds for Mother, Gena Rowlands for Unhook the Stars (still haven't seen), Courtney Love for The People vs. Larry Flynt (whether she's lead or supporting), Gwyneth Paltrow for Emma (never will understand how she even missed out on a SAG nomination), and Meryl Streep for Marvin's Room. I think it was most widely predicted that Debbie Reynolds would have made the cut for Mother but I do wonder if Albert Brooks was in the Academy's wheelhouse at the time. I'd probably bet on Reynolds but I wonder if Gena Rowlands might have had the inside track considering she had Miramax in her corner.

For anyone who thinks Marianne Jean-Baptiste is a lead (and that Thomas belongs in lead), I think most would agree that she wouldn't register a nomination in the category of Best Actress. I have to imagine that that would have gone to Renee Zellweger for Jerry Maguire who was a SAG nominee. Like with Best Supporting Actor, SAG only lined up 2/5 for their Supporting Actress nominations, also picking Gwen Verdon for Marvin's Room and Marisa Tomei for Unhook the Stars. The HFPA went with Marion Ross for The Evening Star. I have to imagine the Academy would have rewarded Zellweger considering their existing affection for Jerry Maguire and how clearly this was a star-making role. This is one category that's always been friendly to ingenues.