Meryl Goes "Supporting" - The Scare Quotes Are Mandatory
Monday, August 12, 2013 at 9:16PM 
Ever since I first fell in love with the Oscars as a young boy, I declared the Oscars my Christmas. Of course as my Oscar obsession grew I had to adjust. Nomination Morning became Christmas (full of sleepless night, early morning thrills, and a few dud gifts) and the Ceremony itself became New Year's Eve (rambunctious, noisy, equal parts exhilarating and disappointing, and usually causing a hangover).
Santa (aka The Academy) thinks I've been naughty every year.
I must've been because they always throw a giant lump of Category Fraud coal in my stocking. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences added the supporting categories in 1936 when they realized that they hadn't accounted for honoring character actors who bring so much to the industry and to each movie and their current awards only honored movie stars. 77 years later they no longer care about their intentions and now all the acting categories are designed to honor movie stars. Which leaves character actors to just do their work (its own reward, sure) in their former thankless way. They are, after all, very low on Hollywood's totem pole and Hollywood is a place where power matters.
I wasn't at all surprised to hear that August: Osage County, which has in every incarnation had two leads (Barbara & Violet), suddenly only had one for its future Oscar campaigns according to Gold Derby.
I am, however, a bit surprised that that it's Violet/Streep who all the action centers on who has mysteriously becoming a "supporting" character. [more]
Meryl is such a big star that she became the defacto lead of The Devil Wears Prada as soon as she first uttered two quotable syllables ( "that's all") despite far less screen time than her assistant/victim/toy Anne Hathaway. But then, that's a two leads of same gender films and no one can fathom that these exist anymore (even though they come out in movie theaters all the time. Like just last week: Two Guns!).
Frankly, if the rumor proves true, I expected more from Meryl Streep. She's one of the few people in the industry who could actually make a difference in reversing this cancer that has eaten away at the Oscars and steals dozens upon dozens of opportunities away from the less famous all the time. Meryl Streep of all people, who has been more rewarded than anyone (17 nominations, 3 wins) and who is in general a very thoughtful charitable person, should have drawn the line in the sand and made the industry rethink its star worship. Think how much she could have done if she had just said:
"You know what. that's totally not right. I've been so enormously rewarded in my career. I'm just not going to lie about the fact that I'm STARRING in this movie and destroy the opportunity for a character actor whose career might totally benefit from Academy recognition -- like say ANY of the women in my film -- for their hard work supporting movie stars like Julia Roberts and myself . They help our work feel fuller. This is what character actors do all the time, adding beautiful grace notes, fascinating reactions, and interesting variations to scenes while the star at the center gets all the spotlight and all the glory."
Meryl with Misty Upham, who she will help to sideline if her 'Supporting' campaign is true.Since Streep did not say this and has agreed to campaign as a Supporting Actress this will shake up the Oscar charts in both categories so I'll need some time to adjust them. While it's true that Oscars are not required to follow the fraudulent campaigns when it comes to their voting, they rarely resist the Fraud. And they have never resisted it in modern years in the case of a Two Lead Same Gender film. They only ever cry foul when the fraud is patently ridiculous (The Reader and Whale Rider) and there's not a same gendered actor to pick up the 'but who is starring in this thing' slack.
The only solution I can see at this point to combat this disease is for a big star like Streep to speak out against it on behalf of the hordes of actors who worship her OR for the Academy to have a committee which makes rulings about whether someone is a lead or a supporting player like the Tony Awards do. A committee which I should clearly be elected the Emperor of.
I'm waiting right here by the phone, Cheryl Boone Isaacs!
like this post? like the film experience on facebook
Reader Comments (104)
Well put, Nathaniel.
I wonder if Streep agreed to this because of The Hours' campaign. It was Weinstein that was behind her back then too.
And he probably thinks he has a bigger shot with her than with Oprah and Octavia. And this way he can build a narrative around Judi Dench or Julia Roberts (or Nicole Kidman).
Now that she's won her third I'm hoping Meryl campaigns for her former co-star Amy Adams to get one, à la Jack Nicholson in 2002.
If Sup. Actress doesn't get more interesting, she'll probably wipe the floor with the rest of the nominees and win again (not that it's a bad thing but she already has a supporting statue and she is not a supporting actor at all - or at least she rarely is).
I feel so sad for Margo Martindale who could pull off a win (she's beloved enough in the industry) if the part is good. She's probably get nominated but will not win.
I wonder what Tracy Letts thinks of all this.
The news is from GoldDerby though so I don't 100% believe it.
P.S. - At In Contention they mentioned a final decision is not made but by all means every article I've read says Meryl already agreed to it.
So it's up to Harvey then. Lol.
I tried to give Harvey the benefit of doubt and think maybe this adaptation is Barbara's story. But then I looked t the poster and Meryl has top billing. Clearly then it's a strategic decision otherwise ehy give a "supp" player top billing.
I find it alarming that you would attack Meryl for an unsourced story on Gold Derby.
I put the blame on Harvey, honestly. I think he concocted this whole plan in his head now that he's realizing what an idiot he is for having so many contenders in the Best Actress category. And how can he guarantee he gets a win? By putting Meryl in supporting, where no one, even Oprah, is likely to touch her.
It'd be interesting to hear if Meryl put up a fight. I'd almost guarantee that she did, so I think it's a bit unfair to blame her when this guy is literally breathing down her neck and probably threatening her if she doesn't. Who knows.
Regardless, I'm sick of this category fraud and one of my favorite things about Nat and TFE is that he always makes such a big deal of it. More Oscar pundits should take after him. We can defeat this together, people!
Stitch & Jordan -- i do not think it unfair to blame Meryl Streep if she agreed to it, which people are saying she did. I did soften the language to "if true".
But here's the thing: Harvey has no gun to her head. Meryl Streep is complicit in all promotion she does. She is too big of a star to be forced into anything. Nobody can tell her "i'll destroy your career" or ANYTHING like that. She is way too powerful. She should use her power for good as she has in many instances before.
Also, I think the main factor here is Cate Blanchett. Harvey probably knows he'd have a tough fight convincing people to vote for Meryl over Blanchett, no matter how great Streep turns out to be. Much easier to argue for a leading lady only winning one Oscar for a supporting role than a thrice-winning goddess winning yet again right after she won for a dare-I-say not so memorable role.
It's extremely stupid, but she probably just wants her fourth statue and then to just not worry about Oscars ever again lol. Unless then she wants a fifth so she's the biggest winner ever...I don't know. Eh. I'd be more okay with this if she didn't just take home Viola's Oscar recently.
That's a lot of if's. Say, for example, Meryl wins a best actress prize at a film festival. All of this then goes out the window. Harvey eats his hat once again and says of course Meryl is going lead. It's only August. I blame Kevin Huvane because he reps Oprah, Nicole, Meryl, Julia, Sandra, etc. and he is trying to get a pony for every girl.
Jon -- well, sure. but that only underlines my point that the Academy hasn't worked out its priorities and they are letting the powerful dictate the shape of their awards which were created to honor the artistry. If you really want to just honor movie stars expand the acting categorie to 10 nominees and just get rid of the supporitng categories.
I'm being absolutely serious.
that's basically what the agents and the distributors and powerplayers want. It sucks for the actors which is why i wish that some powerful stars would speak out against it. Where is their camaraderie for the working actor?
Oscars can still promote her to lead if they choose. Honestly, I think Meryl probably does not care as much as the rest of us... ??? Was Harvey afraid Julia and Meryl would cancel each other out in lead? I thought Julia would go to supporting? What about Margo??? If Streep goes supporting, don't they cancel each other out there.... Not sure what Harvey or Streep are thinking.. But the Oscars are a complete game!
In the grand scheme of things, I can't imagine Streep caring much either way, but I agree with the sentiment Nate.
I was (and still am) hoping for a nod for Margo Martindale. I have no clue if it will be a worthy performance, but I love her. I show her short from Paris je T'aime to everyone I know and, more recently, she did magnificent work on both Justified and The Americans--arguably the highlight of both series. I have a feeling she'll get one eventually, but I want to see it happen now dammit.
"She's one of the few people in the industry who could actually make a difference in reversing this cancer that has eaten away at the Oscars and steals dozens upon dozens of opportunities away from the less famous all the time..."
I love The Film Experience and I think you're such a fabulous writer, but, come on, tone it down. This is, when it comes down to it, an awards show and thus category fraud is a given. It's tactical, not rational, and it happens every single year. To expect anything less is really quite pointless. I too all but live for the Oscars and I'm pretty sure this category "demotion" is bullshit, and yes, I am quite unhappy for Julianne, Juliette, Margo, Abigail, and Misty. However, I'm willing to delay any final judgment until I can actually see the damn thing. Yes, Violet is second to no one other than maybe Barbara in the play, but none of us have seen the final product and thus none of us know for certain just how centralized Violet is within this particular version. Granted, I'm not expecting Violet to be even remotely sidelined, especially not with Meryl on deck. But still, aren't we jumping the gun, just a little? Can't we let the performance speak for itself, politics aside, before we all start flying off the handle?
Matthew -- but this is part of the problem. everyone being complacent about it and saying "it has always been this way". But it hasn't. IT DID NOT USED TO BE THIS WAY. Nobody pretended that Geena Davis was "supporting" Susan Sarandon in Thelma & Louise. or that Tom Hulce was "supporting" F Murray Abraham in 1984... although today F Murray woulda totally swept the supporting prizes or they would do something stupid like saying Amadeus was a supporting character in Amadeus.
if August is great and Julia and Meryl are great in it there is no reason why they both can't be nominated.
I don't know about all this uproar. Where was the indignation when Catherine Zeta-Jones and Julianne Moore both went supporting for Chicago when the true supporting nomination was Queen Latifah? Or for that matter, when Nicole Kidman won for a supporting role over Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven the same year? This has gone on since the start of the Academy, and I don't think it is Meryl Streep's obligation to steer a campaign course. Especially when Harvey is the machine driving it. I could go on and on about this but I feel there is no way Meryl is going to escape being the scapegoat for a system that has allowed this sin for decades. So many cases - Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit. Geena Davis in The Accidental Tourist. Jack Nicholson in Terms of Endearment. It seems a double standard is at play here, with Meryl taking the brunt of the criticism.
I was waiting for this post.
Oh my.
Granted, I thought it was BS for Julia having to submit her character as supporting but Deanna is a LEADING ROLE. One of the best leading actress roles in play in the last 25 years.
Harvey have too much on his plate. Between supporting and lead, he seems almost willing to stuff a category but not with the two juiciest parts in the same movie.
Maybe this mayhem is all for naught and we got a turkey with the supporting players of Martindale and Lewis rising above it. Nah, Harvey will stick pull out 10 nods.
If Tracy Letts changed his screenplay that much to where Barbara is the sole lead, I will be a little skeptical of how the movie does. I don't want to get PTSD in remember what John Patrick Shanley did to his own work in the Doubt adaptation.
And I'm sorry, everything in Harvey's whole history points to him doing category fraud and getting push-back on it on occasion.
I think the lines between Lead and Supporting have always been more than a little blurry, especially in the Actress categories. Yes, it's pretty hard to argue against a film whose heroines' monikers serve as the title of their film. But for every Thelma and Louise, there have been numerous blatantly tactical demotion like Jessica Lange in Tootsie, Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker, Geena Davis in The Accidental Tourist, Louise Fletcher in Cuckoo's Nest, or Tatum O'Neal in <Paper Moon. I think you're severely misjudging category fraud as a particularly recent occurrence. Category placement is clearly something more subjective, and I think cases of fraud can be made for any number of nominations that are fittingly placed to most, yet seem like dubious, could-be-here-or-there categorizations to others (i.e. Viola Davis in The Help, Frances McDormand Fargo, Patricia Neal in Hud, among many others).
I disagree with everyone who is saying that the reason Harvey wants to do this (if he indeed does) is to avoid competing with Blanchett in the lead category. I mean, if you were to more broadly say that he realizes the Best Actress category is unusually crowded this year and doesn't think Streep would win considering she just won 2 years ago, that's one thing. But to pinpoint the reason specifically to Blanchett implies that Blanchett is already a sure thing for the win. I mean, she's definitely the frontrunner from what's been seen thus far, but are we really going to say that she's already in a nearly unbeatable position in this race? If she'd never won before, I'd be more inclined to say that it looks really good for her, but the love for her movie probably won't extend to too many other categories (maybe Original Screenplay, but that's probably it), and no matter how good the performance is, I can't imagine they're in a rush to give her a second Oscar when there are likely to be at least a few other worthy contenders this year. This race is far from over, so I just don't get why people are already acting like Blanchett has it wrapped it.
Perhaps Meryl Streep is looking for a way to differentiate herself even further. She would be the first person to win both acting categories twice.
But, yeah, this is ridiculous. I feel sorry for presumed supporting actress fringe contenders like Sally Hawkins...
This is gross. This movie has five supporting actresses in it, and none of them is Meryl Streep. The best actress race is looking crowded now, but we haven't seen many of the performances yet, and it's not out of the question to get two leads nominated.
This could also just wind up confusing things and squeezing Meryl out entirely. Isn't that kind of what happened with The Hours?
I honestly don't think Meryl cares as much as most of you. Sometimes I wonder do you guys love films or the Oscars. I would be perfectly fine if they canceled the Oscars.
Nat, I read this blog as much for your enjoyable writing as for the info. Another fun read (and I love the poster art.
I don't think Streep has a chance regardless of category. She just won and it was a so so perf in a so so role in a so so film and more or less a consolation prize for so many noms, being old(er), being Streep, being........... Unless the nominees are so pathetic (which I cannot see happening with the talent in play) everyone will give the prize to some other deserving actress. I'm not saying she won't get the nomination---she seems to be nominated for washing her hands after the loo, but I can't see her winning. Especially if the other women in the film (and there are some great actresses in there with her) give terrific perfs and don't get nomed, not to mention the other films and perfs out there that might be passed over for her.
Has anyone who's gotten top billing on all promotional materials ever gone Supporting? That is fraud of the highest order.
Yes, it's true we haven't seen the film yet, but it would have to be pretty significantly altered to make Violet a supporting role. And yes, the timing is a bit suspicious, coming as it does shortly after Blanchett got rave reviews and frontrunner status for Blue Jasmine.
All of which is to say, I don't buy this for one second. And if the Academy is stupid enough to fall for it, then yeah, the rules need to be rewritten.
I'm surprised. The role is so juicy that I think she could give Cate Blanchett and Amy Adams a run for their money in lead.
Aw, I wanted Margo Martindale to get a supporting nomination.
But I kind of agree with CMG. This makes me suspect the movie version is a bit of a dud, so Harvey figures he can at least get a little mileage out of it by appeasing Julia Roberts, running her as the star. Robert's chances are slim though as there are a dozen leading performances potentially better than hers.
Streep is extremely astute regarding her career. If she thought she had a decent shot at it, she'd go for it. Maybe the film turned out to be too talky, so Streep thought she'd go for looking gracious and letting Roberts be the lead.
I don't know, I remember reading the play and being surprised that the Violet character wasn't in it more. I feel like it could definitely be a case of the sort of borderline performance that could go either way. How about we wait until we see the movie to start freaking out?
Matthew -- perhaps i overstate. Let me rephrase: it didn't used to be this way so BLATANTLY to the point where film fans and industry people are like "what's the big deal?" but again. I really wonder why actors -- the people this really hurts -- aren't more vocal. The only people this system benefits are the movie stars. So it's another case of redistribution of wealth (in this case gold statues) upward.
i get sick of arguing about this and i do try to keep quiet but then i get mad again :)
Matt S -- trust that Violet is focal in any production of the play.But it's true that she has less "screentime" (aka stage time in that case) than one might expect.
Denny -- i don't actually think so but i could be wrong. Every example i can think of the person who went "supporting" for their lead role (Steinfeld, Affleck, Foxx) etcetera were second billed.
I would like to point out that according to reports nothing has been "finalized" as of yet... Weinstein is pitting Blanchett's must win narrative against Dench's must win narrative it seems? Since Streep already won in lead recently, maybe he views her placement there as a waste of space...or is this all a ploy to have us rally Streep into the lead nomination?
No actor wants to look like they care about Oscar enough to point out its flaws.
I think that especially for actresses, who already get such a bad rap when they show even the slightest interest in winning, to complain about something like category fraud would be considered unseemly and almost relentlessly trophy-hungry. They'd be caught caring too much and nobody, nobody wants to be Melissa Leo standing poolside in a fur coat.
matthew -- Joe does! #itsallaboutJoe
although... i'd argue that complaining about this might have the opposite effect of looking trophy hungry. it might make you look altruistic if you're a movie star and say "i am not going to steal a hard working character actors category to shine in!"
Lange was blatantly lead in "Tootsie"? Really?
Lange's screen time and scenes:
29 minutes and 35 seconds on-screen
19 scenes
27% of film's total screen time
Garr's screen time and scenes:
15 minutes and 17 seconds on-screen
15 scenes (11 of which clock in at less than 1 minute)
14% of film's total screen time
Lange had 12 more minutes of screen time, so I'd consider them both supporting.
You fanboys really need to stop picking on other actresses just to justify your own shit. You have an opinion? Have the balls to validate it w/o recourse to insulting someone else's work and career.
"In the grand scheme of things, I can't imagine Streep caring much either way, but I agree with the sentiment Nate."
Except if she's locking herself in to four months of awards campaigning you;d better hope to get something out of it, I guess.
It's a shame considering she kept saying through her IRON LADY wins that there were so many great women people weren't acknowledging. This'll just make it easier, I fear.
Lange being placed in Supporting for Tootsie was not a crime. The fact that she won .... well, that is a crime.
Once again, film blogs - including Awards Daily - constantly use Meryl Streep for attention. She's amazing.
based on the screenplay, roberts has more screentime. streep only kicks in during the second half. that said, the dinner scene is hers. roberts has the catfish scene. and those who have seen the film (it was screened in march) have said that while the whole cast delivers, they are finding it hard to imagine anyone other than those two being nominated.
anyway, let's wait for the toronto film festival buzz before we demonize streep or roberts just because they're famous.
Yes, it's a two-lead film, but Barbara is the protagonist and Violet is the antagonist. They should both be in lead, no doubt about it, but if you have to pick a "true" lead, it's really Roberts, not Streep. It would be more criminal to see Roberts in supporting.
Also, I vaguely remember Christoph Waltz being announced as a lead contender (because it was a lead role, but let's be honest...Harvey didn't want Leo and Christoph competing against each other) before he won a critics prize in supporting, and Harvey immediately shifted focus and put him back in supporting where everyone had assumed he'd be anyway. Maybe I'm making this up in my head? Fingers crossed that I'm not...
I don't think the Academy will buy this. This is totally Kate Winslet is SUPPORTING in The Reader type nonsense. Violet Weston may have less stage time than Barbara but she is such a dynamic character that it's virtually impossible to imagine her has supporting. Barbara is more of a subdued character, but so what? Can a film not have two leads of the same sex anymore? I'm very curious to see the reviews out of Toronto now, particularly if they single Streep out more than Roberts and perhaps influence Weinstein to reverse his decision.
My thoughts are that Weinstein just isn't confident in his best actress contenders this year. Philomena looks a bit more lighthearted than previously thought (and Oscar likes their actresses serious), Grace of Monaco frankly looks terrible, The Academy is anti-James Grey and anti-Marion (now) so she's not getting nominated for The Immigrant, and will they really reward Julia Roberts again over the more acclaimed and Academy-friendly Cate Blanchett? I don't think so.
And I just can't imagine a world where Amy Adams is a Best Actress winner.
I'm expecting her to bust out the "ensemble cast" talking points and still be nominated lead.
Robin Williams was first-billed in Good Will Hunting, and yet he won Best Supporting Actor. That's the first example I could think of (and I think it was just right, even though his character carried a lot of weight, he was still supporting). Actually, there used to be a rule that if you were top-billed, you were automatically competing as leads, which led to many arguably supporting performances competing as leads just because the actors were more famous (the most famous case is Marlon Brando in The Godfather, who is in no way the lead of that film, and I find it even more egregious that Al Pacino was pushed to Supporting when he is the film's protagonist). Of course, you could still be fifth-billed and get a lead nomination (e.g. Maximilian Schell in Judgement at Nuremberg).
Do not argue as Cate Blanchett will surely win for Actress, and Amy Adams for Supporting, if Amy opts for the Supporting category. These will be the winners. Either category Meryl could be nominated.
Richter Scale: Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting is the only example I can think of too. But there is also the odd example of Working Girl, where Sigourney Weaver (supporting) was billed higher than Melaine Griffith (leading).
Re: The Godfather, I agree that Al Pacino is clearly a lead and should have been nominated in lead, but I think that Marlon Brando is also a lead, and that it's a two-lead film.
Streep ignoring Davis and Close in her speech and remarking that half the audience is rightfully upset at her victory should get over it — whatever! Yeah whatever at her caring at all about category fraud Nathaniel — she's the goddamn queen (Kramer, Ironweed, One True Thing, Adaptation, Prada). She doesn't care about anything but her Academy record.
I don't care about category fraud because the whole what about character actors — is the reason why nobodies have Oscars and just fill in the name major legends are Oscar less.
Catherine Zeta-Jones was first-billed in Chicago
@3rtful I am sorry, but she was lead lead lead in Ironweed, One True Thing and Prada. Assuming those were supporting performances is to deny the very concept of co-lead, and then to deny the fact this particular case of August: Osage County is category fraud.
This could actually be the start of a brilliant strategy. Come guys and gals, think about it, in the scenario of leads Julie would be the most vulnerable one between the two August women. If they could solidify her placement through the BFCA, Golden Globes, and Screen Actor's Guild Awards, it would be hard for her to not make the big gold man's list. However, Streep will always have a place in his, so getting her in would be an easier task. By making sure Roberts is without danger in securing her nomination in leading, Streep will eventually take the place of the wobbliest member of the potential nominees once the academy decides to go against the campaign placement, thus having our first film duo nominated since Thelma and Louise.
I seem to remember reading somewhere - about 15 years ago ago, back in my early Oscar-watching days so I can't remember the source, that when the supporting categories were devised back in the 30s, it was exclusively for the below-the-line actors - meaning that, for example, if your name is even on that compressed credits bit at the bottom of a poster, you're not supporting, and any of those names above the house on the August: Osage County poster is a lead performer - so even Emily Blunt in "The Devil Wears Prada" would have been lead back then.
didn't expect that.
btw, I love that everyone assumes lots of different things about the academy.
"they are actually embarassed for rewarding meryl in the iron lady!"
"they feel blanchett should have won for elizabeth!"
"they feel ____ is due because he/she didn't win/wasn't nominated for___!"
and has blanchett already won next year? ok then...
Goodie Goodie, The Lead Actress Door opens wider for Cate Blanchett :)
Wow, this news was unexpected.
Comments weren't so kind and exculpatory when it was Roberts the one rumored to go supporting. It was basically labelled as Oscar whoring. Now, it's Harvey Weinstein fault...
Anyway, I wonder if AMPAS will buy it. They didn't buy Winslet in The Reader as supporting, and she was overdue, but they did buy Waltz in Django Unchained and gave him a second Oscar. I'll say it again, a second Oscar.
I think this is the case where they should stop and do something about it, can there be a bigger category fraud with a bigger star? I doubt they will, though.
Maybe the rest of the women in contention should do the same, all of them go supporting as some kind of protest to shake the categories once and for all.