|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 26, 2020 9:37:32 GMT
Charlie Sheen is the main character, Michael Douglas is not. He is very important to the story, but has noticeably less focus than Sheen's character. All recognition he was given for the role, made him lead and I know I have never questioned his status as a leading presence here. His lead Oscar win even confirms that. He was more support in Wall Street Money Never Sleeps. Would you say Hopkins was lead or support in Silence Of The Lambs? Supporting. A performance doesn't just become lead because of the recognition and how memorable the performance is. Is Heath Ledger lead in The Dark Knight? Is Christoph Waltz lead in Inglourious Basterds? That is the same exact situation for the argument you are making. I don't have this hang up about category placement that other people have, unless it is something that isn't even remotely debatable like Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People. There is no argument that can be made for him being supporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 26, 2020 10:14:56 GMT
All recognition he was given for the role, made him lead and I know I have never questioned his status as a leading presence here. His lead Oscar win even confirms that. He was more support in Wall Street Money Never Sleeps. Would you say Hopkins was lead or support in Silence Of The Lambs? Supporting. A performance doesn't just become lead because of the recognition and how memorable the performance is. Is Heath Ledger lead in The Dark Knight? Is Christoph Waltz lead in Inglourious Basterds? That is the same exact situation for the argument you are making. I don't have this hang up about category placement that other people have, unless it is something that isn't even remotely debatable like Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People. There is no argument that can be made for him being supporting. Category fraud regarding awards can often rear up its confounded contentious head, and I get where you are coming from in terms of how you view the performance in context of a film, but it can be very much be a technicality though that can cause a shift in perception though. For Douglas in Wall Street, he was very much the driving force and mentor behind what made Bud Fox tick, his presence was also very much strongly felt, even when he wasn't on screen, which wasn't that often. To my mind, this is what makes him a leading role. Hopkins in Lambs similar. The manner in which his screen time was slotted into the narrative and again, his strong dominant presence, I respectfully have to disagree with your assessment of support in these instances. Lead was more than an appropriate category.
Sutherland in Ordinary People could be considered support, but had he been nominated, which he deserved, I would have slotted both him and Hutton in lead, with Sutherland taking the pip. Sutherland was grossly snubbed here for one of his finest performances, but those are the breaks.
Now, Rain Man, I tend to slot Hoffman into support, because this was Charlie Babbit's story and Raymond was more peripheral to Charlie's character arc, even though Hoffman did share a lot of screen time with Cruise. I also believe that Cruise gave the better performance, yet Hoffman got all the accolades for how genius his characterization was. Cruise was a whirlpool of emotion.
|
|
