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)
If I remember correctly, Barbara has more screentime than Violet in the play so even if Violet is not really supporting, it's not the most absurd thing ever.
And I think actors who play supporting roles don't always fit the description you gave. Mo'Nique for example. You made it seem, to me, like actors who play supporting roles don'r create unique, independent characters but rather help the leads do their job.
And even if Streep ends up campaigning as lead, it doesn't mean a talented, hard-working actor will take her spot. It could easily go to another star who just happened to play a supporting role.
James T -- that's fine if it's a true supporting role but why support fraud just because of a) it happens and b) it's hard for true character actors to get nominated. My point which is a very basic one is that it shouldn't be this difficult to be recognized in the category designed to recognize you
I love Streep way more than Roberts in all ways but either one of them agreeing to go supporting is Fraudulent and Awards Whoring (I wonder if Winslet's win would be hated as much if she hadn't so shamelessly tried - unsuccessfully thank god -- to be labeled as supporting for The Reader so that she could get two nominations in the same year?) unless they have greatly changed the play on its journey to the screen and from the early buzz from test screenings I don't believe it has been greatly changed.
Academy committee is the only solution for this. And even then there would be a lot of disagreement with their choices.
I like Meryl Streep, I really do but I hope this bites her in the ass and she goes unnominated in any category. It comes across as a power grab and unworthy of her. Three Oscars is more than enough for any one performer especially when one of them was awarded for a fussy, lesser performance.
Hailee Steinfeld. That´s all I am saying. The most fucked up thing. Gladly the Baftas got it right.
maybe meryl should excuse herself from the competition, like katharine heighl did.
people liked that.
Considering that the heart of the story is the volatile relationship between Violet and Barbara, I can't imagine that the film adaptation would be so different as to reduce the former role to supporting, especially when Meryl Streep is in it. If she indeed had a large part in guiding this decision -- as opposed to Harvey, who would sell out his mother for an Oscar -- I will have lost a great deal of respect for her.
AMPAS needs to grow a pair of balls and put an end to category fraud once and for all. It's grown so egregious over the last decade that it would almost be laughable if it weren't so tragic. And the guidelines for covering the instances that result most in the practice would be simple:
*A minor in lead is still lead.
*Two actors of the same sex who headline a film are lead.
*An actor who appears in half or more of a film, whose character arc takes precedence of those of most other characters in the film, is lead.
See, not laborious at all.
Meryl's chances are definitely better to win in supporting than lead, just after her last leading win. Can you really blame Harvey or her for seeing that chance?
Or maybe she actually doesn't care at all, said "whatever" to Harvey, because I really can imagine arguing with him must be exhausting. Or she actually IS supporting, at least Julia Roberts to hit big again.
A fourth nom and now very likely win in supporting won't break her neck.
But in the end, no matter how much they campaigned her in supporting or how much awards she might have won by then, the Academy has the last word. And when they say Meryl's lead, she'll get nominated in lead. Period.
In light of this news, here's where I see the affected categories.
Supporting Actress Top 10:
1. Meryl Streep, August: Osage County
2. Amy Adams, American Hustle
3. Cameron Diaz, The Counselor
4. Carey Mulligan, Inside Llewyn Davis
5. Sally Hawkins, Blue Jasmine
6. Rosamund Pike, The World's End (yes, I'm smelling potential Oscar breakthrough...for a sci-fi comedy that's also about rampant alcohol consumption)
7. Octavia Spencer, Fruitvale Station
8. Margot Martindale, August: Osage County (this could wind up being the double dip, but I don't really like double dips, so I keep this safely here for now)
9. Jennifer Garner, Dallas Buyer's Club (I don't necessarily buy this, but she was the probable 6th place in 2007.)
10. Scarlet Johansson, Her (Critics have got to start jumping on this thing eventually, and I accept that the breakthrough ISN'T going to come in lead, even if this looks to be the lead based on the trailer.)
Lead Actress:
1. Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine
2. Greta Gerwig, Frances Ha
3. Julie Delpy, Before Midnight
4. Brie Larson, Short Term 12
5. Shailene Woodley, The Spectacular Now (I'm only predicting these four because your predictions seem WAY too old for this category, in general. The system is generally balanced toward those who haven't won before getting most of the noms and your current predictions would have it be the second field in history entirely composed of former winners and I DOUBT it'll happen again this soon. If that means they have to go uber young, well...they'll go uber young.)
6. Sandra Bullock, Gravity (she's won before, and that's a distinct DISadvantage in this category)
7. Kate Winslet, Labor Day
8. Judi Dench, Philomena (The question is this: Is she really a "two win" performer? I know that didn't stop last year's FARCE of a pick, but I somehow doubt anyone's going to be too interested in getting her win #2, this time in lead, which, when combined with the tone of the trailer makes #1 votes fairly unlikely.)
9. Nicole Kidman, Grace of Monaco
10. Julia Roberts, August: Osage County (She's not young, not really loved by the Academy, is competing to get under Streep's shadow and has won before.)
On that comment I made, let's go through the last 10 fields for former winners for both lead categories.
2012: 0 former winners
2011: 1 former winner (Streep)
2010: 1 former winner
2009: 2 former winners
2008: 1.5 former winners (Streep Lead, Jolie Supporting)
2007: .5 former winners (Blanchett Supporting)
2006: 1 former winner (Streep)
2005: 1.5 former winners (Theron Lead, Dench Supporting)
2004: 1 former winner
2003: 1 former winner
Lead Actor:
2012: 2 former winners
2011: .5 former winners
2010: 1.5 former winners
2009: 1 former winner (constructed of 2 supporting wins)
2008: 1 former winner
2007: 2 former winners (constructed of 1 lead win and 2 supporting wins)
2006: 0 former winners (though there should be 1)
2005: 0 former winners
2004: 1 former winner (in directing, but still)
2003: 2 former winners
Supporting Actor:
2012: 5 former winners (really?)
2011: 0 former winners
2010: 1 former winner
2009: 0 former winners
2008: 1 former winner
2007: 1 former winner
2006: 0 former winners
2005: 0 former winners
2004: 0 former winners
2003: 1 former winner
Supporting Actress:
2012: 2 former winners
2011: 0 former winners
2010: 0 former winners
2009: 1 former winner
2008: 1 former winner
2007: 1 former winner
2006: 1 former winner
2005: 1 former winner
2004: 0 former winners
2003: 1 former winner
And you think a field of 5 former winners is going to happen in different categories 2 years in a row, even though the trend is typically for only 1 or 2 (3 only on rare occasions) former winners to bust in? Trends are trends FOR A REASON. Your other lists are plausible, but your actress list is in need of some HEAVY revisions.
agent69 -- totally agree. But disagreeing with the committee's decision would be fine. it would still feel like a system that is trying to protect the definitions of each category. I mean the Tony committee gets flak for their decisions on occasion but it's not anything like the shitshow that happens at the Oscars & the Emmys each year (rose byrne as "supporting" in damages -LMFAO)
Maybe Harvey is trying to devise a whole "Welcome back to the Oscars!" narrative for Julia, I mean it's been a while since she's been in the conversation. And he knows that the actors wouldn't choose Julia over Meryl even if they're both good.
But it does seem like Harvey doesn't know what to do with so many contenders in his hands. And it looks like he's trying to push Grace of Monaco pretty hard too (judging from the Cannes thing), even if just for a Best Actress nom.
Honestly I'd be pretty happy if both Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock give great performances and end up nominated, that would shut up all the haters.
Arguably, Streep was not supporting in Kramer vs. Kramer or even Adaptation... Ultimately the goal for Harvey is to WIN, everything else is secondary... Actually this morning, after thinking about it, Streep could win her 4th here and, depending on how they have cut the film, be a true scene stealing supporting role. After watching the trailer again, it does seem to be from the POV of Julia Roberts...
This is absolutely, completely, and utterly ridiculous - and all Harvey's design for getting Meryl out of the way of Judi. I don't care about how good she might be in this, I hope she misses a nomination (actually not, dark comedy Meryl is my favorite Meryl, and Violet is made for her).
First of all, I love your August Christmas poster.
If Violet is a supporting character then I know nothing anymore. I really hope the Academy ignores it. I love Meryl, but when it comes to the Oscars, she totally bends forward and does whatever Harvey wants. Have you forgotten the "It's been 29 years" adds for the Iron Lady?
Ever since I started the Muriel Awards back in the day, my policy with the lead/supporting debate has been to let the voters decide. As I tell the voters, if you think someone is supporting, vote for him or her as supporting; if you think it's a lead performance, vote that way. Then when I'm tabulating votes, I'll check to see which category the performance received more votes in, then lump all of his or her points into that category.
For example, back in 2009, Melanie Laurent's performance in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS was seen as kind of a borderline case, and when the votes came in, she got 55% of her points in lead and the other 45% in supporting, so we counted her as a lead. It was somewhat trickier the next year with Lesley Manville, whose points were split exactly 50/50, but because she appeared on more ballots as a lead, that's where we put her.
Of course, it's not a perfect system, and in these borderline cases there's invariably a bit of griping by those who voted differently than the group at large ("whaddya mean Matthew McConaughey in KILLER JOE is supporting? He only PLAYS Killer Joe!"), but I prefer it to the Academy's method because it places the decision on the voters themselves rather than having the group rely on studio marketing flacks to make the determination for us. Which is kind of the idea of the Muriels anyway, come to think.
All I can say is this really put some 'hmph' in the Oscar conversation. We've been all waiting for some wrinkle to befall the race and it has happened months before any of these movies get a wide release. Even my mother is talking about this.
Blergh, I said Deanna instead of Violet (Deanna Dunnigan set the stage ON FIRE when I saw as Violet) w/r/t Meryl's character in A:OC.
It's funny the Emmy movie/minis don't have a problem with category fraud. (Though sadly this year they almost got rid of the supporting categories altogether).
I wonder if Matt Damon would submit in supporting if BTC was Oscar eligible with Douglas in lead?
The only category fraud in recent years I can remember was Angels in America. The big names went lead and the rest went supporting. Emma Thompson should have been in supporting. And Justin Kirk should have been up in lead. I don't watch AHS so don't know if Paulson was category fraud this year. But it rarely happens.
In the Supporting Actress category, I think Viola Davis has an excellent chance at a nomination this year.
Davis gives great well-thought out performances of depth and energy. This year, she has Prisoners, which is getting a higher regard than I would have expected, given the genre. Davis also has the duet of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (His & Hers). So she'll play 2 variations on the same character which I expect will be fascinating, and a real awards magnet.
So if Viola Davis is nominated in the Supporting category, the odds are tiny that Meryl Streep would win in this category.
Joseph -- of course he would.that's how big stars play it now if they're working with their same gender (even though the story is his based on the autobiography of his character)
Jamie -- Julia's character is the pov / audience entry point in some ways, yes. but that doesn't make Meryl's character supporting. If that were so, Leo would be supporting Tobey in The Great Gatsby :) They're both leads
Agree with the overall point, but you should really see the movie, and see how it has been pruned down from the stage version (the movie is going to be at least an hour shorter than any stage version I've heard of) before you start blasting away. It is conceivable, if unlikely, that Viola's presence has been cut back enough to make it a true supporting part.
This is getting serious. All I can think of, after reading certain things, is that all these recent years of category fraud are distorting the audience's notion of what is a lead and what isn't.
You're very right to point out that this didn't happen nearly as often in the past, but I think you have to go farther back than the Thelma Amd Louise era to see why. When the Oscars created the supporting categories, it was virtually impossible for a star to take on a supporting role. Studios controlled casting, production, and marketing, and the whole kit and kaboodle was working to create a recognizable, functional body of work that operated to sell tickets. This meant that actors were brands. You had te Cary Grant brand, the Marilyn Monroe brand, etc. Actors played similar roles in similar films, and it made films easy to consume and easy to reward. You knew going in to a movie that Walter Brennan was supporting. There were no questions.
But as the studio system fell apart and actors began to get autonomy over their own careers, these lines blurred. We dont have supporting actors anymore, we just have supporting roles. Sometimes they are filled by character actors but increasingly supporting performances are being given to movie stars. We even have movie stars like Amy Adams who have built their whole careers in supporting roles. This is why category fraud happens. It's not just that movie stars are taking up nominations, it's that they're taking up the roles too. Forget about rewarding character actors, we're barely even hiring them anymore.
I'm pretty surprised at how often people (across the film sites) are suggesting this will pitt Streep against Oprah in supporting. Having seen the Butler, I can say it would be just as ridiculous to consider Oprah as a supporting character. She is definitely a co-lead in the film. From my perspective, Harvey is clearing space for Oprah in lead, not pitting her against Meryl in supporting.
James Mason top billed in Georgy Girl was nominated in the supporting category.
Barry Fitzgerald must be the first example of category fraud as he was nominated as both lead and supporting!
This is my humble opinion:
a. There's a strong possibility Meryl will win the NYFCC award for Best Actress. They adore her more than Oscar does.
b. Just look at the way her Oscar track records parallels that of Katharine Hepburn. After one Oscar and then losing 9 times she won three awards with her last three nominations.
This might indicate that Meryl has one or two more Oscars waiting for her. And it's not like she'd not deserve them!
I saw the film at a screening in March. When I saw that they were putting Meryl in Supporting, I screamed in rage. It's not a supporting role in the slightest unless Wells has done some SIGNIFICANT editing...
My thoughts on the screening are here, if you are interested: http://tinyurl.com/m2bo7eo
Paul C -- but that's actually how Oscar does it too. They aren't required to vote any particular way. It's up to the voters. But they rarely try and buck the campaign system... and neither, unfortunately, do critics who really ought to have more respect for the definition of words like "supporting" and "leading"
Streep has a mind of her own and will do what she feels is right... I have never seen her as an actress who does movies "for awards".... look at some of her filmography...
I could see, if this becomes too explosive, her dropping out of any competition this year..
and going with her new roles!
Bravo Nate! I worship Meryl Streep and want her to get at least 5 Oscars in her lifetime BUT I HATE THIS! And yes - now I hope she DOESN'T WIN her 4th for this category fraud - and believe me - that is a HUGE statement for me to make.
I agree and appreciate what you wrote to Matthew both times. Complaceny is not justifiable. Everyone in this goddamn society seems to worship complaceny - just let it slide - it's no big deal - but then everything becomes valueless (this is the point I was trying to make weeks ago about the "who is most deserving of an Oscar" discussion).
And by God Nate - you're right - actresses like Margo Martindale are EXACTLY the sort of actors who need and deserve the recognition from the Academy in this category. Look at Melissa Leo and how the Oscar changed her career.
Oh I HATE this.
I recently finally got around to seeing Paper Moon. And all I could think of was--damn, Tatum was the main character! How she won a supporting actress Oscar is ridiculous. Another example is Timothy Hutton. Here he was clearly the lead but won in supporting. Both were young people, and that was a major factor. But fraud is clearly more prevalent. I know many are still smarting from Watlz's win last year. To me, his award was a little more justifiable because he wasn't the main character but a co-lead who also supported the lead. A little fuzzier but still category fraud. Meryl should be above this kind of thing. I am so fed up with Harvey's stupid games.
I believe one of the first major cases of category fraud was with Jack Albertson in The Subject Was Roses in 1968. I believe he was very much a co-lead with Patricia Neal and Martin Sheen (although he also won Featured Actor for the same role on Broadway so maybe there's category fraud there too).
Love how you (no sarcasm) make this one of your causes. I wish more bloggers and online critics would do the same. Instead, it seems like people go to ridiculous extremes to try and justify the fraud if it happens to be a horse they're backing. I remember Ryan Adams doing this a bunch over at Awards Daily with Steinfeld, others were doing it last year with Waltz. I agree that respected actors need to step the fuck up and say something.
I was actually a bit surprised you kept attacking Amy Adams recently for "stealing" Kidman's spot, when you had Helen Hunt over there committing a serious case of category fraud. She's the culprit, if you ask me.
I just want to add that I think the nomination that made them create the supporting awards in the first place was Franchot Tone for Best Actor in Mutiny On The Bounty. I think at the time they only had four nominations for Best Actor and three of them were from Mutiny On The Bounty and Franchot's role was very obviously Supporting by today's standards.
So it wasn't really created as a way for a STAR to double dip in two categories but rather as a lesser award for minor players allowing more room for the true stars to get their leading nominations. I think the supporting Oscar in the first few years wasn't even a real Oscar, right? Wasn't it a plaque or a scroll or some sort of "lesser" object for "lesser actors? :-)
They didn't buy Winslet in The Reader, but they had no other option for that film. The leads of that film were not the same gender so it doesn't quite work.
Of course, people keep mentioning Winslet and The Reader, but what about Naomi Watts and Mulholland Drive. Yes, obviously much different circumstances, but lest we forget that category confusion (will the critics agree she's supporting like they sometimes do and sometimes don't) can lead to never getting a foothold in the race to begin with.
The first year of te supporting Oscars already had two category frauds, so this is kind of a tradition
Spencer Tracy in San Francisco
Louise Rainer in The Great Ziegfeld
Schiesser -- better moving on up than moving down :)
This only makes me want to see AOC. Seems like a bunch of huffing and puffing by the truly uninformed.
This is disappointing and odd. If Julia is being pitched as the lead, shouldn't the trailer feature her? What's sad is that they didn't even commit to the fraud.
I'm wondering if this is more than just a Harvey move, but one on Julia's behalf as well? Maybe it was in their contract's or in Julia's contract, so Streep had to step down. I don't imagine that Streep - at this point - cares about winning a fourth Oscar just yet, so maybe she just shrugged and went along with it.
Or maybe she just doesn't care about the industry as much as I would hope. But she has always been such a supporter of less famous female actresses, that it's hard for me to see why she would go along with this.
Marla -- actually it's the opposite. The "informed" know about August: Osage County and its plot and characters and Violet & Barbara are the very center of the story and conflict. It's all about them.
But you have not seen the movie or talked to Meryl Streep, correct?
Marla -- this is true. I have not seen the movie or talked to Meryl Streep. So we'll see. But early test screenings confirm that Violet is still the lead. And early reports suggest that Meryl has agreed to a supporting campaign though the decision is not "finalized"
I see this as an obvious Harvey tactic. He's clearly politicking, he's up to something. We'll have to wait to see the film and critical reviews (who's lead, who's not lead). Precursor awards will tell a lot too.
Could care less about Streep's insatiable appetite and greed for plaudits and awards, all I know is that Nicole Kidman now has a fighting chance to land a nomination.
Harvey hates losing and now he has two giants( Oprah and Meryl) in pole positions for BSA. Even though he screwed over Margo, Juliet and the rest, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Harvey's running scared of Godgend Cate. That's all this is. He knows that selling Julia and Meryl both in lead actress is a no-go, and after the ridiculous ploy to get Meryl her third for the awful "The Iron Lady," this has to be the next best thing. Position Julia as the sole lead, and then ensure Meryl that supporting nod and easy win. I can't say enough what bullshit it is that anyone would consider Violet Weston to be a supporting character, but maybe voters will right the fraud come next January and place Streep in lead where she belongs. It was always something that was in the ether, I guess, and now it seems to be a reality. I really don't see them placing both in lead. Either Streep or Roberts in supporting is godawful, but that's the game as its played now. Live it, learn it, love it.
Why would it be assumed that Meryl Streep is in any position to deny Harvey Weinstein his wishes? Especially after she owes him big time for her third Oscar. This is all his doing in the end. And I wouldn't be surprised if this also opens the door for Nicole Kidman and "Grace of Monaco" in lead actress (knocking out her bestie Naomi Watts in the process too). It's all political maneuvering in the end, and Weinstein is an ultimate genius at it. Gotta tip my hat to the man, disgusting pig that he is.
the complacency of everyone when it comes to this topic enrages me. There is no reason why a double lead campaign couldn't work today EXCEPT people's belief that it coudln't. and this belief stems from nothing. No case evidence but for Frost/Nixon ;)
anyway... it worked in the past and double nominees happen in supporting categories still and that uses the same system of voting so there's no reason why you cant have two leads from a film nominated.
@Nathaniel... I do not think this is complacency ... sadly, it has to do with winning... Who wins by making Streep and Roberts co- Best Actress nominees? Tracy Letts? Blanchett? Probably not Streep or Roberts... Where are the statistics of nominees in same category same movie actually winning and not canceling each other out??? Weinstein is keeping his options open for Dench or Kidman or even Winfrey in lead.... He is after the win! And who knows? streep and Roberta may STILL end up in lead... Still very early for a movie most of us have not seen... Hence the complacency you may be feeling from us?
And Streep probably cares less about her placement if she thinks she is helping Roberts... And Weinstein is not going to have Streep pull out and not be nominated for anything...
It's not complacency. It's just accepting reality for what it is. This is Oscar Campaigning 101. Nothing should be a surprise to anyone at this point who's been doing this for any amount of time, especially with King Weinstein positioning his actress contenders like pretty pieces on a chess board.