12 Days Till Oscar. What Happened to the Juvenile Oscars?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 7:00PM Remember when... Okay, scratch the "remember when?" question this time. Unless there are some really really ancient AMPAS members reading. The Oscars weren't televised yet so nobody could remember this one unless they were there.
What was Judy Garland so happy about at the 1939 Oscars? (circa February 1940)
I mean besides sitting with 'The First Lady of MGM' Norma Shearer which would obviously make anyone euphoric.
Judy G was having a good night because The Wizard of Oz was up for six Oscars including Best Picture. It won two music prizes (Best Score and Best Original Song to the very nearly cut "Over the Rainbow"). Judy also won a special juvenile Oscar, presented to her by her frequent co-star Mickey Rooney who had won the year before.
One wonders why they don't still award those. They weren't annual so it took a special performances for the Academy to go there. They only did so 11 times in their first 33 years ending with Hayley Mills for Polyanna (1960)
I can think of several people through the years who would have been relieved if they passed those out instead of letting the kids compete with the grownups. Every time a child is nominated an adult gets bumped out of the shortlist. I mean would Winona Ryder be an Oscar winner today if Anna Paquin had been given a miniature Oscar instead? Would Madeline Kahn have been an Oscar winner for Paper Moon (1973) if Tatum O'Neal hadn't committed category fraud and won doing so for the same film?
Do you think child acting should be judged separately?
If they were still handing them out do you think Thomas Horn would've been the recipient this year since they obviously liked Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close more than critics did?
Perhaps I should have a child acting category at the Film Bitch Awards. I never know who to nominate at the BFCA "Critics Choice" award in their "young actor" category because I always forget to think about child performances.
Reader Comments (19)
Acting is acting, no matter how old you are. Try to tell me Saoirse Ronan in Atonement is not regular acting and shoulg be nominated for a separate award. That's impossible. Or Jamie Bell in Billy Elliott, that had to dance, a skill that surely helped POrtman last year. So what's the difference.
Of course sometimes child-actors are non-actors, but you also can see adults that are non-actors, and you wouldn't nominate Gabourey Sidibe or Catalina Sandino Moreno ou Haing S. Ngor in a separate category.
I think this is nonsense
What happened?
They realized it was a ridiculous award and dumped it. Good choice.
I'm not really keen on the idea of a kid Oscar, at least now.
Especially if it meant that little Miss Thomas Horn might receive one.
I could not abide by that.
When it comes to Oscars, they definitely should be judged just the same. It makes it seem like kids aren't as capable, like "Here's a small little Oscar! you did great for your age" even though I thought Hayley Mills was soo good in Polyanna when I saw it in second grade lol. And of course Judy Garland was great in Wizard of Oz too.
I actually think it would be interesting if you had a child category, though. Sometimes it helps to show what great work kids are doing, whether they have huge roles or not, which is why I enjoy the category at the BFCA even though they usually make boring choices with winners, like the one that is nominated in a traditional category too.
*I meant to add that not only does it lessen their talent, it is very different than a regular oscar and is hard to know how to judge differently. Did they peak already or are we supposed to expect amazing things out of them from now on? Just...why give out oscars to kids unless it's in a regular category? it just doesn't make sense.
It's too late little girls are permitted to beat grown women (in supporting exclusively). However, it has changed for the better (see Jennifer Hudson '25' and Melissa Leo '50') beating little girls.
The Oscar is the peak of professional recognition. Once in your possession what else is there for you to gain later on in adulthood? You're now a Royal Tenenbaum: Tatum O'Neal.
Anna Paquin turned out to be a wonderful adult actress, but winning as a child prevented her from pulling a return like Jodie Foster. I haven't seen Margaret but my favorite piece of adult work from her is from Spike Lee's 25th Hour.
I think Keisha Castle-Hughes would have been the most recent recipient of the juvenile Oscar for Whale Rider. She split critics with supporting or leading and the film otherwise had no momentum with awards in America. It would have been the perfect way to handle an impressive young performance without bumping out a more substantial performance from the leading short list.
The problem is this: does having a juvenile Oscar mean that no one under 18 can be nominated in a competitive category? Do we really want to exclude great performances due to age?
When making my own ballott, I used to make a "Young Actor" and a "Young Actress" category, because I was often impressed with a lot of child actors every year. I've since dropped it, but it is interesting to see what great work some children are doing. I do agree, though, that giving them an Oscar at those ages can be damaging, especially since the award is so prestigious. With something like the Critics Choice Awards or anything else they make up, it doesn't feel as big, but I don't think the Oscars should give special awards to certain actors just because of their ages (if they're considered good enough, like Abigail Breslin, Saorsie Ronan or Hailee Steinfeld in their films), they'll be nominated with the adults, or like Anna Paquin. even win.
I wonder how many of these winners would have gotten nominated competively. My hunch is that Garner, Jarman or Kalik would have had a shot.
It'd be for the same reason they created an Animated films category: to differentiate one from the other, making it seem like a cartoon could never POSSIBLY win Best Picture, or a child actor could never POSSIBLY beat a veteran, or a documentary or foreign film could never POSSIBLY beat an English language narrative.
But in each case, they very easily can.
And not be lumped into some lesser category that treats it like its a special case.
(Note: the last child actor to win was Paquin nearly TWENTY YEARS AGO, in a huge upset. A cartoon, documentary, and foreign language film has never won the big prize. The Academy woulve never thought to award a Best Supporting Actor trophy to Haley Joel Osment if he found himself in some three-nominee field for Young Actor, handily whooping his competition, if they could still reward Michael Caine.)
((Yes, I know they did the latter anyways, but you can't say the margin between percentage of votes wouldn't have significantly increased had there been a category distinguishing young actors.)
Even thinking about Jarman's performance in The Yearling gives me the hives. Just saying.
But no, I don't think child acting should be judged separately. For example, Ana Torrent in Cría Cuervos is amazing, and not just "for a kid". I hope you see that film one day, Nathaniel - don't remember you writing about Spanish cinema unless it's Almodóvar-related.
I think it should be judged separately although that doesn't necessarily mean to give out more awards. We've got enough!
I don't think they should do a child category. But I do wonder why they don't have a new artist award. The Globes at least should have kept that alive.
I'm feeling another "best" list (juvenile performances) coming on - or have you already done that, Nat? If I were doing it, I would tend to put the age limit at about age 11 or 13; once you're a "teenager" there's a different, heightened sort of self-awareness about oneself (not necessarily to the good). But I may be speaking in idealized terms, and it's probably changed a lot in the last umpteen years? (I'd make my own Best list, but I haven't seen Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver, or Tatum in Paper Moon, for instance.)
Anyway - I still would have given a statue, easily, to Joel Haley Osment. I think he actually contradicts what some folks here are saying. (re: the Royal Tannenbaum reference.) He did not win an Oscar, unlike Tatum, but nonetheless he's not gone on to anything remarkable since then, except perhaps his perf in A.I. So not having the statue is not a lucky charm against later career drought. (We could count on pretty much one hand, couldn't we, the number of child stars who go on to adult success? The Jodie Fosters and Kirsten Dunsts are very VERY rare.)
Hey Nat! Thank you for this piece. You know I am very much in favor of this new category. I admit, though, that it is unlikely that the Academy will reinstate the Special Award for juvenile performances or add a category.
From the reactions of chatty moviegoers I can see that there might even be complaints about it. In any case, the best alternative would be to have just one category with 5 nominees (male or female). They could even apply something like the system they have now to decide the number of Best Picture contenders. And then the category would be for 3 to 5 players.
What I would not do is have it as a Special Award (not voted by members at large). There's be cries of foul play!
BTW, I agree with Jan about Ana Torrent in Cría Cuervos. One of the best ever!
Ana Torrent is still acting. I read many interviews where she openly admits she had no clue of what she was doing back then. That unawareness has a magical effect on us, no doubt about it, but I don't think we can compare it to an adult performer.
"The Jodie Fosters and Kirsten Dunsts are very VERY rare."
To reach that level of success, yes. But there are plenty of child actors that have managed to segue into successful adult actors. Just off the top of my head, there's Natalie Portman (who some would say deserved an oscar nom for her performance in 'Leon'), Kurt Russell, Leo Dicaprio, Jennfier Connelly, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Drew Barrymore, Elijah Wood, Ellen Page, Anna Paquin, Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney...etc.
I think in the cases of Hayley Joel Osment, he went through the awkward teen years and didn't turn out to be a super handsome guy. Not that he's ugly by any means. Also, I think some child actors may not want to pursue acting as intensely once they hit adulthood (which may be the case with HJO). Some don't want to deal with the hollywood politics, the intense media scrutiny...etc and just want to enjoy their life in peace. Given that these kids likely made huge fortunes in their youth, they're now old enough to go out and enjoy life without the worry of financial constraints/issues.
Personally, I don't believe that child actors should be judged seperately from their adult colleagues. We often don't take into account that they work as hard and as professionally as adults. Indeed, one could even make the argument that they work harder. Child actors still have to keep up with their education, and when not working on set are studying with an on site tutor. I've heard of child actors arriving on set at dawn, going into makeup...etc. working there after. And while not filming, going to class on set. Then once their work day is done, they go home, hit the books and do homework, study their new lines for the next day, and then finally go to bed.
On a related issue, there really are some child actors that are freakin' amazingly gifted. Just in the past few years we've got Abigail Breslin, the Fanning sisters, Hailee Steinfeld, Sairose Ronan, Josh Hutcherson...etc. I think this bunch will likely continue with acting, and probably a few will go on to even greater success (my money is on Ronan and Dakota being the first to get their AMPAS noms as adults).
If they ever do this, I hope they do it like they did in the past, i.e. singling out a great "child" performance and letting everyone know that person will be getting an award, i.e. don't nominate that kid anywhere else!
I for one don't want to see child actors pitted against each other, and I really don't want to see the likes of Justin Henry bursting into tears when he doesn't win. Five or ten of those per years (if they divide between boys and girls) would be, well, uncomfortable.