Category Fraud Alert (2023) -- Correcting Oscar

[Sabin]

New year, new fraud!

Picking up where I left off. The rules are simple. This isn't about whether or not you think a performance is worth nominated or saving. This question is just about whether or not a performance should be nominated for lead or supporting based solely on its appropriate placement.

Usually, I'll mention screentime not as an overall judge on whether a performance is lead or supporting but it's something to take into consideration. Jodie Foster is on-screen in Nyad for 49.75% of its runtime. While that isn't going to end up being more than every other performance in her category, it's going to be close. And yet, I think she's where she needs to be in supporting because she has zero life outside of Bening's orbit. Critically at the end of the second act when she complains that she has a life outside of Bening and Bening asks what she replies "I don't know! But something!" or something like that. In that moment, I was with both of them. I have no idea who this human is when she's not supporting Bening. I think she's appropriately listed as supporting. I vote to keep her where she is. Currently, I'm torn between her, Brooks, and Randolph for who deserves to win.

Similar to Foster, Ryan Gosling only has 25.42% screentime in Barbie but I'm really torn between whether he's leading or supporting. For context, Hopkins had 21% screentime in The Silence of the Lambs so we are in that territory. Gosling makes such a fantastic splash in Barbie it's hard not to want the film to circle back to him.

Here's my argument for lead: there are plenty of significantly more supporting characters in the film besides Gosling & Robbie, both male and female. While Gosling is going on this journey with Barbie to "support" her, he's not just supporting her. It's his own quest for meaning he just doesn't know it. Just as quick, he learns about patriarchy (lol -- every time I think about it, lol), breaks apart from Barbie and turns Barbieland into the patriarchy where he becomes her antagonist. While Ken is hopelessly co-dependent to Barbie, in the scheme of this film he absolutely exists outside of her. He spends all of the second act doing his own thing and while the third act is all about Barbie's plan to defeat him he's center stage for most of it.

My argument for support is that everything I laid out is in support of Barbie's journey. That's just the makings of a three-dimensional character.

I can see a case for either one but ultimately the reason why I'm going to move him to lead is because Ken's journey is more than just an extension of Barbie's. His journey begins less than five minutes into the film and it takes the whole movie to conclude. Really, the film is Barbie & Ken. And Gosling's fabulous comic timing helps it transcend screen-time.

So, here's the question: if Ryan Gosling was nominated for lead, would he avoid the same fate that befell Margot Robbie? Honestly... I'm not sure. Gosling has a more standout performance but also tougher competition. I think Colman Domingo & Jeffrey Wright (guessing) as well as DiCaprio & Scott are a more crowded pack than Annette Bening and (looks at list) Greta Lee. But what Gosling has going for him instead is that he's been Best Actor-nominated twice previously. I'm probably delusional but I think Ken being such a ubiquitous, almost Jack Sparrow-like character has to count for something. I think he gets in.

For reference, Gosling is in Barbie for 25.42% of Barbie while De Niro is in it for 23.12% of Killers of the Flower Moon.

Which brings me to Lily Gladstone who is in Killers of the Flower Moon for 27.29% of its runtime. But how much in bed? I'm going to rewatch Killers... at some point soon but my feeling about the film is that category placement in this film generally is a bit awkward. There's two interpretations I've seen about this film and how it could relate to category placement. It's either a movie about a stranger in a strange world, or rather one stuck between two worlds: his white capitalistic world and the Native American world (and his world of love). From a very top-level, that interpretation makes sense for how we/DiCaprio pivot from one story beat to another. Although there are scenes without DiCaprio, we almost always move through the story with him and the third act pivots around his choice. Anyway. The other interpretation of the film is that it's a two-hander marriage story between DiCaprio and Gladstone and whether it will survive DiCaprio/De Niro/etc. By that definition, Gladstone works more as a lead because even though her character doesn't have much agency, quite a bit of the film is about her creeping awareness of what is happening. She also has more family and backstory than either De Niro or DiCaprio.

She spends a third of the movie in bed. But then it's a three hour movie and I think a case could be made that DiCaprio, De Niro, and Gladstone are all leads. They represent three pillars in this epic canvas. That's ultimately what I keep coming back to. It doesn't feel right for De Niro to be considered as a lead in this film. And Gladstone is the other side of it. That's where screentime plays a fun barometer. Did I mention that Gladstone is on-screen for 27.29% of Killers of the Flower Moon? That's the lowest amount since Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, another performance that I consider supporting but not just that. Another performance that exists to teach a protagonist a lesson. Killers of the Flower Moon subverts expectation by having DiCaprio be so cruel and evil he's almost incapable of learning. The one performance that comes closest to Gladstone in Best Actress in screentime is Viola Davis in The Help, a performance which I also have a difficult time figuring out what to do with.

Ultimately, I'm going to leave Gladstone in lead because so much of the film's dramatic question revolves around "What happens to Mollie Burkhart?" more than anything else. But a rewatch will definitely help me.

Anyway, if we're interested, I'll say let the conversations begin. Definitely on the fence about Gosling & Gladstone.