Oscar Fraudulent Activity: Wrong Category Nominations

Just finished watching Carol (2015) and I'm honestly left a bit stunned. I knew Rooney Mara was up for a Supporting Actress nomination, but let’s be real—she is 100% the lead in Carol. It’s the exact same situation as Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl.

I don't get why the Academy keeps pushing these choices and embarrassing itself in the process. Who actually decides these nominations? Who gets to determine who the "lead" is?

Now, look, some performances are so borderline that you could argue either way (like Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal or Marlon Brando in The Godfather), but if someone is the central figure of the story, they are the lead, regardless of who the bigger star in the cast might be.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'll throw out a few Oscar nominations that, in my opinion, were put in the wrong category:
Al Pacino in The Godfather. This one is obvious; everyone agrees Pacino is the lead, and even Pacino himself said so.
Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York. That role could go either way, but to me, DiCaprio is the lead since we're viewing the whole film through his perspective.
Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption. He’s the Narrator film, but there’s no way he’s the lead. Even if he carries the movie for the last 20 minutes, he belongs in Supporting.
Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. He’s on screen for maybe 16 minutes total, and the character is practically incidental to the plot. You couldn't ask for a more supporting role if you tried.
Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects. If Spacey isn't the lead, then who is?
Eva Marie Saint in On the Waterfront. Brando is the lead, period.
Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People and Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon. Both were clearly the leads, but they were likely shoved into Supporting just to snag an Oscar because they didn't stand a chance in the Lead category.
William H. Macy in Fargo. I have no clue what they were thinking moving him to Supporting. The entire movie revolves around him.
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. This is, in my view, all-time ridiculous. He is the lead from start to finish.
Nicole Kidman in The Hours. A very toss-up situation, but personally, I'd say she was more supporting.
Kristin Scott Thomas and Juliette Binoche in The English Patient. Swap them and you'd have the right flow.
Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. It’s Meryl Streep, after all; of course we should give her a Leading Nomination. Paff.
Michael Douglas in Wall Street. The whole movie centers on Sheen, so I don't see the point of labeling Douglas as the lead.
Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy. Voight is the lead, Hoffman is supporting.
Louise Fletcher and Anne Bancroft in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and the equivalent of a diplomat role. Just because they are the primary female roles doesn't mean they are the leads of the film (Bancroft isn't even the main female lead). Like Clark Gable in a classic era drama—definitely supporting. In some cases, even the other actors feel more central than Gable.

Anyone else have any glaring examples?

hollowsailor19 said:Just finished watching Carol (2015) and man, I'm stunned. I knew Rooney Mara was up for Supporting Actress, but honestly, she is 100% the lead in Carol. It’s the exact same deal with Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl.

I don't get why the Academy pushes this stuff and basically embarrasses itself with these picks. Who's actually calling the shots on these nominations and deciding who counts as the lead??

I don't think it's the Academy forcing it; it's more likely the producers. For instance, with Brie Larson being such a lock for Lead this year, the producers probably pushed for Mara and Vikander to be put in Supporting just because they figured those were their best odds at a win.

silentsurfer2 said:I don't think it's really the Academy pushing this, but rather the film producers. For instance, it seemed almost certain this year that Brie Larson would take home the statue for Best Actress, so the producers likely lobbied to have Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander nominated in Supporting roles instead, figuring they’d have a much better shot there.

It all makes sense to me. It's just blatant rigging. Honestly, seeing how obvious it is is pretty pathetic.🙄

If they don't mind it, why should I? 😁

But you've already listed quite a few incredible examples.

Here’s one you missed... River Phoenix earned a Supporting Nomination for Running on Empty. The guy is practically on screen every single second of that movie; he's essentially the heart of the whole thing. It feels just as absurd as when they put Daniel Day-Lewis up for supporting for TWBB. 😁

Jack Murphy5 said:If they don't care, why should I? 😁

But there are some truly wild examples out there, and you’ve already listed quite a few.

Here’s one you missed... River Phoenix landed a supporting role nomination for Running on Empty. The guy is practically in every single frame of that movie; he’s essentially the heart of the whole thing. It feels just as ridiculous as when they put Daniel Day-Lewis up for supporting in TWBB. 😁

I agree. Maybe it's because they were just kids. Same goes for Timothy Hutton and Tatum O'Neal.

If it were up to Lupita Nyong'o for the next
, she’d probably hand it to Sarah Paulson... but then everyone would start screaming about "racism!"

Rachel Young3 said:For the next
nomination, I’d personally go with Sarah Paulson, but... "racism!"

You've posted this in the wrong thread.

goldendrifter19 said:Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. She got the lead, but honestly, the role was about as minor as you can get while still being called a lead.

I have to disagree there. She’s actually the lead alongside Billy Bob Thornton in that one.

Listen to this: Pacino claims he was the lead, so apparently that’s just fact now. 🤣 Brando was the lead and the heavy hitter there, and he earned that Oscar because his performance was simply better.

bluenomad2 said:Listen, if Pacino says he’s the lead, then it’s gotta be true. 🤣 Brando is the star there, but you earned that Oscar because your performance was just better.

If you ask me, Brando could be the lead or supporting for all I care. But the whole movie—the entire trilogy, really—is about Michael Corleone. Besides, Pacino actually gets way more screen time than Brando does. After those first 25 minutes, Brando basically vanishes until he dies. Pacino is the lead. Brando fits into any category, but to me, that's definitely a supporting role.
It's pretty much the same situation as Albert Finney in Miller's Crossing. Almost identical.

How exactly does one exclude the other? If he’s the lead, does that automatically make the other guy a supporting player? There is no way Al Pacino was just a supporting actor in The Godfather. My guess is they figured they couldn't cram both into the leading category at the Oscars, so they just pushed a relatively unknown Pacino into the supporting slot.

Edit: I was replying to bluenomad2's post.

I honestly feel like Casey Affleck and Brad Pitt are pretty much on equal footing in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained?

In my opinion, screen time isn't really about whether someone is a lead or a supporting actor; it’s more about where the "weight" of the performance actually sits.
For instance, if Hopkins won an Oscar for a role where he was only on screen for maybe 20 minutes, I’d still argue he was absolutely the lead.🤷

As for Marlon Brando and Al Pacino, I honestly feel they both should have been considered for the lead together.🤷

Thinking about who else fits that mold...🤔
Timothy Hutton for Ordinary People.
Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.
Daniel Day-Lewis for Gangs of New York.
I’d personally swap out Juliette Binoche and Kristin Scott Thomas for The English Patient.
And River Phoenix for Running on Empty.

hollowsailor19 said:Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991). He’s onscreen for maybe 16 minutes, and honestly, the character himself is almost incidental to the plot. It's about as supporting an acting role as you can get.

Wait, what? And who exactly was supposed to be the male lead here? Aside from him showing Foster how to track down Bill, he’s practically irrelevant to the narrative progression. I completely agree—he's totally inconsequential.

Peter Finch serves as a prime example of an actor who secured an Oscar for his leading role in the film Network. Some might argue whether that was truly the central performance of the movie, though. It is quite fascinating that alongside Peter, two other actors actually earned Leading Nominations for their work in that same film, specifically William Holden.
Then we have Ned Beatty and Robert Duvall in the mix; while Beatty received a nomination for a supporting role, Duvall managed to pick up a few awards for his supporting work. To my eye, Duvall’s screen time doesn't seem any less significant than the roles played by Finch or Holden.

goldendrifter19 said:Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. She won an Oscar for it, even though her role was incredibly minor.

And who exactly played the female lead in that movie???

frozenskipper12 said:Huh? And who exactly is supposed to be the male lead here?

brighteagle39 said:And who played the female lead in that movie???

Movies don't work if you force them into that rigid formula where you absolutely need a lead guy, a lead girl, and then a supporting guy and girl to round it out. It’s a tired template.

I haven't seen Monster's Ball, and in The Silence of the Lambs, Foster is the lead female, while both men play supporting roles. There isn't a main male lead in that movie, nor are there any major female supporting roles.

silentsurfer2 said:Movies don't necessarily function by following a rigid formula where you absolutely need a lead male and female role paired with supporting male and female roles.

I haven't actually sat down to watch Monster's Ball yet, but looking at The Silence of the Lambs, we have a clear leading woman, while both of the men serve in supporting capacities. There isn't really a primary male lead in that film, nor is there a significant supporting female role.

What you mentioned is spot on. Kramer vs. Kramer serves as a perfect example; Meryl Streep delivers the most vital performance, yet her role isn't quite large enough to be categorized as the singular lead—and as I recall, she actually took home an Oscar for a supporting role for that specific film.
As for Halle Berry in Monster's Ball, I would argue that alongside Billy Bob, she carries the weight of the film; it's hard to imagine a role being any more central than that.

For me, there are a few specific criteria used to distinguish between lead characters and supporting roles:
Whose story is it?
2. How much did we actually find out about any single character?
3. Whose perspective are we actually seeing this movie from?

Peter Finch in Network is definitely just a supporting role. I mean, look at that opening—his legendary scene basically sets the entire tone for the film. I'm mad as Hell. It exists solely to drive the plot forward. Basically, the movie is an exploration of viewership and why that matters in general. If you ask me, Faye Dunaway and William Holden are the ones carrying the whole thing.

I agree that Brando's role in The Godfather is actually just a supporting one. Just because someone is the titular character doesn't mean they're the central focus of the story. If we were using that logic, Van Cleef would be considered the lead in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly too.

And if we’re following that logic, does that mean Diane Keaton is the lead in The Godfather??!

The importance of the roles in The Silence of the Lambs:
1. Foster, 2. Glenn, 3. Hopkins, 4. Levin

I should probably add one thing for my colleague regarding Django Unchained... Foxx and Waltz are both co-leads. We’re essentially watching the movie through two equally important perspectives.