Blacnhett’s “bird in hand” being fucked with
Cate Blanchett‘s I’m Not There performance seems an extremely safe bet to win a Best Supporting Actress trophy or two from critics groups later this year (perhaps even a bagful), and is a near-certain lock to be Golden Globe- and Oscar-nominated in this category. And the category itself is correct because she’s part of a six-actor Dylan ensemble. But now, according to David Poland, certain parties want to mess with this groove and reset the table.
Even the clueless Academy types who aren’t fans of the film (exemplified by that woman who told Pete Hammond “the only people who’ll like this film are those who like this guy’s music“) will most likely vote for Blanchett’s “Jude” — not only the greatest cross-gender inhabiting in motion-picture history, but a curiously moving portrait of a soul in torment.
But I’m Not There director Todd Haynes, bless him, won’t leave well enough alone. He’s told me twice that Blanchett’s performance should be pushed in the Best Actress category, and now Poland is reporting that “after much discussions — weeks of discussion — and the flop of Elizabeth: The Golden Age, the decision has been made to put Cate Blanchett into Best Actress for I’m Not There and not in Supporting.”
You’re killing the olden goose, guys. Electric and arousing as it is, Blanchett’s I’m Not There performance is not a lead role. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. If various supporting actress awards from critics are almost in the bag and a nomination from the HFPA and AMPAS fuddy-duds close to assured, why mess with a good thing? As Richard Burton‘s Thomas Becket said to Peter O’Toole‘s Henry II, “My lord, I beg you….do not do this.”
The Envelope‘s Tom O’Neil has called Poland’s rumor into question, saying studio sources have told him that “there’s [a] possibility that the switcheroo may be made after all principals discuss the issue further, but as of now Blanchett remains in supporting.”
I can see why, it’s not a strong field at all. Adams for Enchantment and Knightley for Atonement– beyond that, they’ll be scrambling to fill it with movies no one saw.
Supporting? Been there, done that. She’s Hollywood’s best leading actress, without the trophy to prove it. So why not take a shot? Simply leaving well enough alone is so unamerican.
They’ll have time to switch back presumably, but it may simply be the case that they’re seeing a weak field out there and exploiting it to their best advantage. Lead acting awards gain a lot more exposure (and presumably b.o.) than supporting ones, and Blanchett’s only competition in Best Actress would be Marion Cotillard. Cotillard deserves an award, but the I’M NOT THERE folks (among whom I’m assuming we can count Harvey Weinstein) are probably thinking a foreign language winner in this category will be a long shot, especially for a film that was released back in the early Summer.
And who knows? Maybe they can feel Amy Ryan breathing down their backs in Supporting.
I know Oscar strategy from Shin-ola, but from a technical standpoint I would say an argument could be made for it being a lead performance. Anthony Hopkins won for lead in Silence of the Lambs, no?
I’m not saying it’s a good decision or a bad one, I’m just saying the Academy makes its own rules and they get to decide.
Kidman, Michael Douglas, and Louise Fletcher all won for what are essentially supporting roles.
Blige, La Vie En Rose was not chosen by France as their Foreign Language pick. They went with Persepolis. So Cottillard is pretty much a lock for a Best Actress nomination. Add Julie Christie and Keira Knightley and that leaves two open spots. I think I’m Not There is the best film of the year. But Blanchett still belongs in Supporting, where she’d be hard pressed to lose.
In 1995, Nicolas Cage won Best Actor for a supporting role and Kevin Spacey won Best Supporting Actor for a lead.
In 1996, Geoffrey Rush won Best Actor in a movie where he didn’t even have the most screen time of the three actors playing his character. (Poor Noah Taylor.)
There’s no logic, they might as well chase the higher award.
When I saw this movie, my reaction was “best actress” all the way. She’s in the movie way, way more than the other Dylans and I think she would have a realistic chance of winning… if not for the movie’s unconventional, Oscar-unfriendly spirit.
Are you kidding, Mgmax? In what way was Cage supporting in Leaving Las Vegas? Just because Shue is the one being interviewed in the “analyst” sections doesn’t make Cage’s character a non-lead. He was the male lead of the film, and received top billing. The film is more about his downward spiral than her salvation, or whatever happens to her (it’s not made clear that she’s even stopped being a prostitute). You’re looking for a supporting role, that would be Julian Sands.
I don’t get your logic here at all. Plus, while Keyser Soze was what the film revolved around, Spacey was still part of an ensemble, which makes a better case for dropping his status to supporting.
Putting aside all the inside-Oscar strategizing — which might include the Weinsteins floating this rumor strictly as a trial balloon, to see how people react — this seems simply wrong to me.
A supporting role and a lead one are completely different animals. Supporting players get to come in, knock off two or three great colorful scenes, and leave. Leads have to run through a complete emotional arc, drive the plot and often carry the entire film. (Which is why truly serious actors love doing occasional supporting work.)
What Blanchett did in “I’m Not There” was terrific. But comparing it to, say, Cotillard in “La Vie En Rose” is like having a race between a marathoner and a four-minute-miler.
Are you kidding, Mgmax? In what way was Cage supporting in Leaving Las Vegas?
Total screen time. The movie’s point of view. Whose journey in life it’s about, ultimately.
This of course is part of the problem with the whole system– a co-star is rarely easy to pigeonhole. Still, it’s clear to me that Cage was nominated for Best Actor because he was a male star then, while Spacey was nominated for Best Supporting Actor because he was a character actor then, and no real thought was given to the logic of who, exactly, Spacey was supposed to have supported, for instance.
“a co-star is rarely easy to pigeonhole”
That was incoherent. I mean, it’s rarely clearcut whether a co-star of the opposite sex is an equal one or a supporting one; which category they fall into often has more to do with how the studio chooses to play the field than an obvious distinction.
Not only is this year’s lead actress category weaker than Wells’ resolve when it comes to hack-directed studio garbage, but Blanchett’s dominance in I’m Not There (having essentially the biggest part, or at least toe to toe with Heath Ledger) makes her a lead as far as I’m concerned. This makes plenty of sense to me. If they can give Frances McDormand a Best Actress Oscar despite having about 30 minutes of screen time in Fargo, they can do it here too.
That said, I found Blanchett’s performance to be strikingly one-note not at all in the spirit of the film itself. Worse, the attention afforded this performance is seriously detrimental. Let’s be clear – this is an impersonation she’s doing, not a performance. It’s fantastic and all that a woman can do Dylan so well, but Jude Quinn being a “fictional” version of the character actually makes it more disappointing that Blanchett is so on-target with the voice and the mannerisms because, much like the film, she never illuminates anything about Dylan beyond the obvious. I applaud Haynes for taking the road less travelled with his conceptual approach to Dylan’s life, but to single out Blanchett and Blanchett alone typifies the worst tendency in the Hollywood game, which is to reward mimicry and not a fully fleshed-out characterization because said mimicry is dead-on to the real-life counterpart.
If anything I admired Ledger’s performance the most in I’m Not There because he was the only actor who took an approach to Dylan other than imitating his look and speech patterns. THAT’s the kind of performance that always gets overlooked, and to ride the Blanchett train keeps the same turds a-floatin’ in the cinematic cesspool.
errolmorrisfan: I wasn’t talking about nominations, I was talking about winning the award outright. I’m pretty certain Blanchett will be nominated whether her category is supporting or lead.
Gabriel Byrne is the lead in the Usual Suspects. There’s no doubt about it. Spacey was the secondary lead and had the cooler role, but come on.
Personally, I am pulling for Keri Russell in “Waitress” in the Best Actress category. I think she has a great shot along with Keira Knightly and Amy Adams. Also, what about Julie Christie? She’s a lock as well right?
Gabriel Byrne is the lead in the Usual Suspects. There’s no doubt about it. Spacey was the secondary lead and had the cooler role, but come on.
He’s the head of the gang, but he’s not the lead of the picture. Which of course is part of the switcheroo the movie plays on us– it encourages us to pigeonhole Spacey as a secondary character, only to reveal that he was the main character all along, and nothing he said that made himself subsidiary can be trusted.
Marlon Brando. The Godfather.
…but yet ANOTHER award for an impersonation? I’m not an actor but I can do wicked impersonations…ask me to “act” like a regular guy and you I probably wouldn’t even get a callback from Brian DePalma. It seems to me like there is so much more skill in the subtlety of real human emotion, while the oscars have gone to impersonation, after impersonation, after impersonation for a few years now. What gives?
“He’s the head of the gang, but he’s not the lead of the picture. Which of course is part of the switcheroo the movie plays on us– it encourages us to pigeonhole Spacey as a secondary character, only to reveal that he was the main character all along, and nothing he said that made himself subsidiary can be trusted.”
Your view of what makes a character “main” is odd, and seems to be based largely on who is narrating the story. Verbal has no journey, no arc, and his emotions never change. The movie is about the undoing of Gabriel Byrne, who had made himself legit but was dragged back in for “one last caper”. He is the main character in the movie in every way.
Spacey is the narrator, and the final twist tells you that the whole story was in his head, but he is not the main character of that story, even though it took place in his head. Spacey supports Byrne and Palmenteri.
Seems like a potentially bad move. Does Blanchett have any say in the matter? If so, the question is whether she would rather have a Supporting Actress Oscar or a Lead Actress nomination. If Cotillard doesn’t get enough support to win Lead, then it will probably go to Julie Christie, no?
That said, if the studio nominated Javier Bardem for lead actor for ‘No Country’, he’d probably win (given the abscence of any serious contender).
I hope Nicole Kidman is nominated for Margot – lead actress. She’s so bravely unlikable in this movie.
For supporting, I’m a Leslie Mann pusher. The more I watch the film (Knocked Up), the more she resonates as the standout actor. She plays sexy, insecure, confident, brittle, vulnerable. She rocks it. Seriously.
Sean, you don’t think Daniel Day-Lewis is a serious contender for Best Actor?
The movie is about the undoing of Gabriel Byrne
Who is a fictitious character invented by Verbal Kint.
Or perhaps Charles Kinbote.
Ahh, another day, another picture of Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan on Hollywood-Elsewhere.com.
For supporting actress: they don’t have a chance with the Academy (Independnt Spirit Awards are more likely), but in a perfect world it would be nice to see Emily Mortimer and Kelli Garner shown major love for their work in LARS AND THE REAL GIRL.
Javier Bardem should be thrown into the lead category. Why aren’t more people talking about him? He might have a better shot at winning a supporting category, but he is all over the place in No Country (he’s got tons of screen time).
I know he isn’t the heart of the film, and goes through no real arc, but his deliberate defiance to not “arc” if you will, is what makes him a great character.
It seems a lead push for him would make more sense than one for Blanchett.
Mgmax, your point is inconsistent re: Kinbote. In Pale Fire he has an arc and a thorough sense of development. Verbal Kint is the lead character of Usual Suspects as much as Clarence the Angel is of It’s a Wonderful Life or whathisname the reporter in Citizen Kane. They set the plot in motion but the movie’s focus isn’t on them for most of the length of the film.
It didn’t occur to me until Walter’s comment…
Bob Dylan with a vagina: Jeff’s wet dream come true.
The Kinbote reference was a throwaway joke. However, I still feel like everyone’s missing the point of the movie! Let’s take your example of Citizen Kane. Say the reporter of Kane puts all the pieces together– and Rosebud proves that he’s Kane’s son, who didn’t really die in the crash but was spirited away by the first wife. Suddenly it’s a whole different movie, and who’s it really about? At the minimum, it becomes a movie about a father-son relationship, no?
Something like that happens in Usual Suspects, where the movie is narrated by a guy who gives off all the usual signs of being a supporting character– but it turns out at the end that all of it was probably a lie, and he bears the name of the mysterious character he told a story about. So it was all about him, and he hid himself in one corner of his own story, and we have no idea what the real story was. Who the hell else is the movie about than the guy who starts it, ends it, and plays two different characters in it?
The movie you’re positing is a different movie from The Usual Suspects, which is the story of Byrne’s character plus a switcheroo ending.
Except Byrne’s character doesn’t exist, so far as we know. (A body was found at the scene, but we can be sure about nothing about how that man got there.) So it’s the story of the guy pretending to be a supporting character and pretending Byrne, who’s dead, was the ringleader. Apparently he’s still got you fooled a decade later.
Just because Byrne’s character turns out to be a fictional construct doesn’t mean that we’re not invested in him. If Citizen Kane pulled out to reveal a frame device in which the story of the reporters was actually a dream that Agnes Moorehead had about her little boy’s future, would that mean she would suddenly be the story’s protagonist?
If she was in practically every scene, it would.
Good point, but even though Spacey’s in a lot of scenes, he’s not doing protagonist stuff. He’s telling someone else’s story and none of it is revealing about ‘himself’ the same way your Kinbote example was. The movie doesn’t function on that level.
If anyone besides Byrne is the protagonist of that movie, it’s Dave Kujan/Chazz Palminteri. He’s in the whole movie from beginning to end and he has an arc that matches the rise and fall of the central issue of the movie (who is Keyser Soze). Verbal Kint is his antagonist.
jeffmcm is right…Byrne serves as the tragic hero…however you want to define it, he’s the lead.
Uh, you guys need to watch USUAL SUSPECTS again. Dean Keaton is very much a real person. Kujan’s obsession with him is the whole reason he leans on Verbal so hard and is so convinced that Keaton is Keyser Soze at the end. Byrne is very much the lead. And don’t even get me started on saying Cage is supporting in LEAVING LAS VEGAS. I’m assuming Mgmax is not a screenwriter, but even so, he’s got a very shaky idea of character.
Of course it’s a lead performance. At the very least, it is certainly not a supporting performance. When she’s in the film, she’s clearly the center of the story. I mean, who is she supporting. This is like saying that Geoffrey Rush was a supporting actor in Shine.
Geoffrey Rush WAS a supporting actor in Shine. He was supporting Noah Taylor, the star of the film.
Dean Keaton may be a real person, but nothing of the caper as we’re shown it in the movie can be assumed to have happened the way Kint describes it.
BurmaShave, the original point about Cage has gotten twisted here. I think you could argue Cage is either a lead or supporting, where you couldn’t argue that Shue is supporting– it’s her story (the whore redeemed by pure love amid degradation) more than it’s his (drunk spirals downward). But okay, say they’re co-stars. Fair enough.
The point was that by the one objective measure available to us, on-screen time proportionate to running time, I would bet that Spacey has more of it than Cage does. Now you could argue that just because he’s on screen, he’s not leading except in the narration sections, and that’s a fair point. But that just demonstrates that there are no reliable rules, and it has a lot more to do with vague perception of what’s leading and what’s supporting– and if you’re going to rely on Hollywood screenwriting pseudoscience about story arcs and such to make the call, you’re missing the fact that this particular screenplay is deliberately playing with those conventions to deceive us. Much as David Chase gave us the buildup to a hit, just to say “Did you think there was a hit coming? Maybe yes, maybe no!”