Make Room For Pearce

Michael C. here from Serious Film to file a complaint.

If I were to name the biggest problem currently facing the nation today that problem would be category fraud. Okay, maybe not, but it still irks the hell out of me. Not because, like some political press release, this Oscar-grubbing is treated completely legit despite everyone knowing it's total bull. That's no biggie. No, what bugs me is the way this screws over the guys and girls this category is there to honor in the first place: the supporting players who show up for two or three scenes and absolutely kill it. Not only are the leads hogging the precious few slots, but they're overshadowing the real supporting players from their own films. Look no further than this year's The King's Speech to see this problem in action.

If it was called The King's Therapist would this even be an issue?

By pushing Rush as supporting they're sidelining the real standout supporting turn in the film, Guy Pearce as King Edward. With just a few well-chosen strokes Pearce deftly suggests his rebellious, feckless character. The audience's immediate reaction is, "Jesus, don't put that guy on the throne." The performance supports the movie perfectly, setting the stage for the main conflict. Yet Pearce can't get any oxygen because Rush is sucking it all up. What's the point of having a supporting category if major screen time is practically a requirement? The same thing happened when Jamie Foxx was laughably crammed into the supporting category for Collateral despite being in literally every scene in the movie. Barry Shabaka Henley's unforgettable seven minutes as the jazz club owner with regrets and secrets never had a chance.

Spot the supporting actor. Hint: It's not the guy in 99% of the film.

I don't see how anyone could classify Geoffrey Rush as supporting and keep a straight face since the whole movie is a two-hander between him and Firth. Listen closely, Academy: Just because one character is royalty and the other is a commoner doesn't mean the actor playing the king is somehow more important. I feel like this should be a simple concept to grasp.

Actressing, Swag, Oscar Updates

Heads up: I interviewed Juliette Lewis (!) a few days ago and that piece will hit on Thursday. In November... TILDA. Stay tuned. The fall film season always brings fresh golden excitement to The Film Experience.

Speaking of pick-me-ups...

This T to your left, is my favorite piece of swag for precursor season thus far. They passed some law that bloggers are supposed to tell you what gifts they get, right? It's really not complicated in my case. I get what other members of certain critics groups get (I'm a member of the BFCA): some screeners, the occassional film book, random infrequent goodies such as this. It's a little hard to see but basically it's a Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom) bust with her sure-to-become classic line "You've done some bad things, sweetie." scrawled under her face.

The Supporting Actress Race is, as you've presumably surmised (being the smarty that you are) unpredictable at the moment. Almost everyone who people think might be in the running is an uncertainty.

The obstacles to certainty

• Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech) AMPAS has resisted all but one of her worthy perfs. And even that one time (The Wings of the Dove) when she absolutely deserved the actual win, she lost.
• Dianne Wiest (Rabbit Hole) has a small film emerging in the annual December glut.
• Miranda Richardson (Made in Dagenham) is fun but the role is kind of easy, if you will. If they're in the mood to hand her a career acknowledgement, it's a go but otherwise...
• Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom). Hollywood doesn't know her and might not see her film.
• Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit). The actors branch is, for whatever reason, semi-resistant to Coen Bros pictures.
• Melissa Leo & Amy Adams (The Fighter) are in the same film that few have yet seen.
  
  

• Sissy Spacek (Get Low) is in a film where the men get almost all the attention.
• Barbra Hershey & Mila Kunis (Black Swan) are in a film that might be too outre for the acting branch and one in which the lead actress is hogging all the attention anyway. Weirder still: though Hershey and Portman are the ones with the nominatable roles, Kunis is the only one to win anything thus far (Venice by way of Quentin Tarantino).
• Kristin Scott Thomas (Nowhere Boy) has the Bonham Carter problem, doesn't she?
• Saoirse Ronan (The Way Back) has a small film with a huge cast in the annual December glut.
• Rosamund Pike (Barney's Version & Made in Dagenham) is quite a good actress but she never seems to generate buzz. Incidentally, she gets two of the very best moments in Made in Dagenham but still people aren't talking about her and you only hear "Miranda & Sally".
• Dale Dickey (Winter's Bone) is in a small film where the lead actress hogs the attention.
• Marion Cotillard (Inception) is in a movie that's not exactly an "actor's movie"
• Loretta, Whoopi, Janet, Kerry, Thandie, Phylicia, Anika, Macy, etc... (For Colored Girls) They have the internal competition problem times infinity. For any traction whatsoever one or two of them will have to steal the entire show.

And so on and so on. DISCUSS.

Incidentally, at least one film writer wants Annette Bening to move to supporting for The Kids Are All Right. While it's true that she could probably win the category with ease were she to be nominated there, I doubt the Academy would buy the classification. For one thing, she's top billed, which has not been the case in other instances where they've demoted a co-lead to supporting. And they don't always buy the ridiculous re-classifications, anyway. I mean, trying to sell The Bening as supporting Julianne Moore would as foolish as trying to sell the idea that Jamie Foxx was supporting Tom Cruise in Collat--- oh f***, never mind.

 Best Actress has also been updated

Oscar Prediction Index

DC...even the movie awards bow to politics

When I first heard the good news that the Washington DC Film Critics had finally given "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" the BEST PICTURE crown that it has deserved all along I wanted to cheer.

But then the rest of the list shut me up immediately. So much for discernment or a change in the precursor wave.

It's the same old same old with Jamie Foxx as best actor for his outstanding mimicry in Ray, Imelda Staunton as Vera Drake, and --wait, what's this??? JAMIE FOXX again (!!!) as supporting actor in Collateral...

pardon my french but FUCK. THAT.

I like Jamie Foxx. I loved his performance in Collateral but there is no possible reading of that film which makes him the supporting actor. The film begins and ends with him --and wow, look at that --the middle is also entirely about him. We see the story through his eyes. He's never off the screen for more than a minute or two.

It's obvious that the DC critics are just bending over and letting the studios plow them with category fraud. Which would be fine if they were, I don't know, the National Board of Review or the Golden Globes both of which are clearly, in one way or another, playing the studio's whore. But critics are, theoretically, supposed to be removed from all of that. Critics are supposed to comment on, analyze, critique, and remain objective. They aren't supposed to be PR hacks for the studios.

If 1939 were 2005 we would see "FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION... Vivien Leigh, Best Supporting Actress for Gone with the Wind" If 1991 were 2005 we's see "FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION... Geena Davis for Best Supporting Actress "Thelma & Louise" --See, how ridiculous that sounds? With the Globes I'm like "whatever. they're silly sometimes" with the BFCA I was furious. They continue to call themselves "critics choice" and are clearly not made up of critics but of various columnists, gossip columnists, junket whores, and entertainment news reporters, etc... and they went there too. And now DC critics...who to my understanding actually are critics.

Nobody has any integrity. And here's another thing. If everyone agrees why are there so many groups? If you don't have your own opinion... and you can't untangle yourself from Dreamworks campaign wishes, why are you a critic? And why do you have awards?

All that said as a reminder: I loved Jamie Foxx in Collateral. This is not about him.

People say I'm taking this too seriously but my opinion is that if it's not meant to be taken seriously we should all just watch "The People's Choice Awards" and call it a day. If they're giving awards that are called "best" and have other defining words like "original" (screenplay) or "supporting" (actor) than they ought to follow the definitions of the words. The best part I realize is subjective. But the "supporting" part is rather definitive. This is not a gray area in Collateral's case.

If the award was called "Movie Star Whose Ass We Most Want to Kiss Because He's Hot Hot Hot This Year" than by all means, shower Jamie Foxx with that prize.