Modern musicals and the supporting actresses we give Oscars to
Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 12:24PM by Jorge Molina
During the 85th Academy Awards, there was a somewhat arbitrary musical tribute to three modern musicals in between Seth MacFarlane's sexist monologue and Jennifer Lawrence's fall: Chicago, Dreamgirls, and Les Misérables. Besides being the soundtrack of my college experience, I noticed that all three had one thing in common: they had all won Oscars for their Supporting Actresses.
This threw me into a rabbit hole of IMDb pages, Wikipedia charts, and showtune playlists to look into the historic relation between movie musicals, supporting actresses, and the Academy Awards. If I’d put this much effort into my thesis, I might have graduated in time...
Once upon a time, Oscar was in a passionate love affair with the musical genre. At its peak, between 1958 and 1972, twelve musicals were nominated for Best Picture and five won (Gigi, West Side Story, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Oliver!). But the Academy was also in love with their leading ladies: Barbra Streisand, Liza Minelli, and Julie Andrews (twice) all got nominations for belting out in their respective movies during that time.
The musical was well-respected and beloved by audiences and critics alike. It won awards, money, and hearts; it was embedded in the fabric of American film culture. And the musical actress was a goddess. Few roles got to showcase the talent of a performer more than those which embody emotion through sing and dance.
Then the love for the genre began to dwindle; or others took over (namely grittier and more naturalistic dramas; the reason behind that switch is for another piece). Besides All That Jazz in 1979 and, to a lesser extent, Beauty and the Beast in 1991, there were no musicals nominated for Best Picture until 2001 with Moulin Rouge! Until then, only Julie Andrews (yet again; queen) was nominated for Victor Victoria. Lesley Ann Warren (for that same film), and Amy Irving (for Yentl) had slots in the Supporting Actress category.
With Baz Luhrmann’s pastiche extravaganza in 2001 and, more formally, Chicago’s award mini sweep in 2002, the musical seemed to have somewhat found its way back into the good graces of audiences and Oscar voters. But not completely. It hasn’t come back with full force again (we’ll revisit after February). Maybe it’s more cynical audiences, or a generational loss of appreciation for the genre that holds it in a perpetual state of "comeback" rather than a permanent address in movie theaters.
But as a way of tipping its toe in the musical pond again, the Academy seemed to have found a sweet spot in supporting actresses. Of all the major films nominated for awards since Moulin Rouge!, most have gotten their principal acclaim for those performers.
Only Moulin, Chicago and Les Mis have been Best Picture nominees, but six actresses have garnered supporting nominations for musicals: Catherine Zeta Jones and Queen Latifah for Chicago, Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls, Penelope Cruz for Nine, Anne Hathaway for Les Miz, and Meryl Streep for Into the Woods. Three have won (Zeta-Jones, Hudson, and Hathaway; all performers in the proverbial homages in 2012).
Awarding the modern efforts of a genre that used to do so much in years past in the hands of a supporting female seems to have become a bit of a trend. But what is it about these actresses in these films that make them good for such a gesture?
In musicals, a supporting female role tends to be the flashiest; it gets away with enough powerful, emotional, showtopping scenes to be memorable, and still doesn't have to carry the weight of a whole film (see “I Dreamed a Dream,” “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going” and “I Can’t Do It Alone”). They may appear sporadically, but leave a lasting impression. They get the big notes, and the complicated choreography, and the emotional catharsis, and only have to worry about becoming all-talented, all-powerful beings for four minutes at a time, not two hours. As a point of comparison, no female lead in a musical has won since Liza in 1972.
Maybe it will change with Emma Stone in a couple of months. Maybe then, with La La Land becoming such an endearing hit with both critics and audiences, the Oscars will be ready to move into the leading categories by giving Best Actress to a musical with no supporting roles.
But until the envelope is opened, I am grateful that these women, these girls that quite literally stop the show and make us cry and applaud, are responsible for slowly bringing musicals back into the forefront of popular media. Sorry Velma, but no one can do it alone.
Reader Comments (22)
In musicals, a supporting female role tends to be the flashiest; it gets away with enough powerful, emotional, showstopping scenes to be memorable, and still doesn't have to carry the weight of a whole film...
Catherine Zeta Jones and Jennifer Hudson are really category fraud though. Both are lead roles.
Hathaway's win seems premature and rather silly to me in hindsight.
Love this piece. Here's hoping Emma wins it.
Ready - I can see your point with Hudson, but Chicago (at least the film version) is told through Roxy's point of view, and she's really the lead. Velma supports that performance and journey.
Ready, one could make a case for CZJ either way in my estimation, but citing J. Hud as supporting forever will be a clear case of category fraud.
As much as I appreciate La La Land, especially as a performer myself, I find it to be much more a marvel of directing than acting. Years down the line I don't see the performances of the two leads standing among the true musical greats.
Hathaway's win seems premature and rather silly to me in hindsight.
It was her second nod and she hasn't been nominated since. How was it premature?
Jorge - It just struck me that as originally conceived both Velma Kelly and Effie White are leads and the songs were written for leads. I agree with your point that Velma was forced to take a step back in the film version (although if Effie White isn't the lead of Dreamgirls, who is?).
Because I think she has that 1 great musical performance in her and this was not it,just my opinion.
MacFarlane's sexist monologue? Do you mean the hilarious song about women taking their tops of for Oscar baiting? No need to be so offended by comedy.
Ready: I agree completely with Effie. I guess my intention was to highlight how the Academy has been showcasing modern movie musicals through the Supporting Actress category, regardless if the nominees deserve to be there or in lead. That may be a separate analysis.
Time to vindicate "Hairspray" once more. I still can't get over the fact, the best film of 2007 (only "No Country for Old Men" was so close that it's a toss up, and I would change among them any day you ask me about it) was nominated for ZERO Oscars. In my book, No Country and Hairspray should have shined at Oscar night like this..
Picture: Hairspray
Director: the Coens (even thought Shankman's directing was top notch and fully deserving, too)
Actor: Javier Bardem
Supp. Actor: John Travolta
Adapted Screenplay: No Country for Old Men (Hairspray shouldda been nominated)
Song: Hairspray, that song made people come out of the theater, literally dancing... Come so Far (Got so far to go), catchy one.
Costume: Hairspray
Art Direction: Hairspray
Film Editing: Hairspray
Cinematography: No Country for Old Men
Sound x 2: Hairspray
Make Up and Hairstyling: No Count... no, I'm kidding, Bardem's hair was cringe-worthy... Hairspray
No Country for Old Men: 4 - Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography
Hairspray: 8 - Picture, Supporting Actor, Song, Make Up, Art Direction, Costume, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing
Hairspray was universally acclaimed and became instantly one of the highest grossing musicals ever, it had even an important subject matter handled to perfection... it's amazing how the AMPAS avoided the unavoidable in such a cruel way.
The thing about DREAMGIRLS is that it gets it in its mind that Beyonce is the lead from the outset, even though she isn't in terms of story or eventual screentime/narrative. They genuinely believe Effie is a supporting character because how could Beyonce not be the lead?
Chinoiserie: It would be funny, if it were even particularly accurate as a general statement. In the 2008-2012 ceremonies? 3/25 nominees (and 1/5 winners) had nude moments. Kate Winslet in The Reader, Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine and Rooney Mara in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I'm not sure of Albert Nobbs or The Iron Lady, but even if both of those do, that still puts us at only 5/25. The kind of epidemic that would justify a "nude = Oscar baiting" joke song would require, at MINIMUM, double that count.
Surely, the MVP o Chicago is Zellweger? I wld,ve switch the wins, Zellweger takes best actress for Chicago n Moore takes best supp for The Hours.
Kidman shld've won the previous yr for her iconic role o Satine in Moulin Rogue!
@ Jesus Alonson : I agree with you about "Hairspray"- I enjoyed the movie too.
I just need to mention Rita Moreno winning a Supporting Actress Oscar for West Side Story in 1961 when mentioning actresses in musicals. She was fierce.
Hard to believe that before Chicago, Rita was the only actress to win Best Supporting Actress in a musical. Of course, she was so vivacious and so powerful that she deserves every bit of that Oscar.
M.S should have won for Adaptation & NOT C.ZJ. Period.
Ethan: I agree re: CZJ and her win. I thought she was perfectly good in Chicago but not particularly inspired - there was nothing in that performance that made me think, "Wow!" though she's a good hoofer! But early on her win seemed preordained with the voters.
Don't even get me started (yet again) on Jennifer Hudson's win.
Jennifer Hudson's win was category fraud and undeserved.
Why wasn't Kay Thompson nominated for Funny Face? She should have won.
Troy H. - totally agree about the leads in La La Land. They were both charming, and boy can Stone sell the material and choreography she's given, but they were both mediocre-to-competent singers at best which is just not good enough for a musical.