Affleck's staying in the supporting race
Even though Ben Affleck just won best actor at the Venice Film Festival for "Hollywoodland," he'll continue to campaign in the supporting slot at the Oscars.
"We've talked it over with Ben and he agrees that's best," says a Focus Features rep. "We're thrilled that the Venice jury recognized his performance in a big way, but, considering his amount of screen time and other issues, everybody thinks he should remain in supporting."
Technically, it doesn't matter what an actor or his studio wants: Oscar voters can put him in either race, but when a role straddles both lead and supporting, it's best to guide academy members in "For Your Consideration" ads. The Golden Globes decide the issue themselves, too. Their qualifying committee makes that determination, but they appreciate input from contenders.
Lots of this year's notable roles straddle the line and some contenders have come to a different conclusion than Affleck in terms of what to do about it. Meryl Streep's decided to shoot for lead even though she has less screen time in "The Devil Wears Prada" than Anne Hathaway. (Streep's the title character, after all, and who's got the guts to top the devil?) Forest Whitakerportrays another real devil, Idi Amin, in "Last King of Scotland," but he's upstaged on screen by James McAvoy as his Scottish doctor. However, as things currently stand, Whitaker is shooting for lead, but naysayers within the film's Oscar ranks worry that there are already two African-Americans up for best actor (Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness," Derek Luke in "Catch a Fire"), so Whitaker's best chance to win might be in supporting. No one admits publicly that the issue's been discussed, of course, because they don't want to admit to sizing up the contest in racial terms.
"Hollywoodland" is really all about Affleck's role as TV Superman George Reeves, even though already Oscar'd Adrien Brody gets the most attention from the camera while trying to solve the mystery of how Reeves died.
No one was more stunned by Affleck's Venice victory than the winner, who heard the news one day early while at home in California . Last year director Ang Lee was at the Toronto film festival when he got tipped off that "Brokeback Mountain" would win the Golden Lion the next day. Scrambling to the airport immediately, Lee managed to get to Venice in time to accept it in person. But in Affleck's case, things were different.
"With Ben being out in California, he didn't have time to get to Venice," the Focus Features rep says. "We tried to make it happen, but we couldn't."
When I asked the rep if execs at Focus were surprised by their best actor win, too, she gasped, "Are you kidding? Oh, my God! Oh, yeah!"
CLICK HERE to Continue Reading!
Photo: Ben Affleck (shown here with "Hollywoodland" costar Diane Lane) regrets not being able to be in the audience when his best-actor triumph was announced.
(Focus Features)





Why are there so many actors and actresses insisting on campaigning in improper categories? At least Ben Affleck is smart enough to realize that he'd lose-out in lead. But let's see...Meryl Streep as lead? Horrible. I hope some people vote for Anne Hathaway to cancel her out. She's not getting in, unless she switches--as she should. Forest Whitaker as lead? He MIGHT get in, but I'm hoping he's smart and sticks to supporting, because it'd make more sense. Especially because this way, the REAL lead, James McAvoy, won't be robbed of a possible nom either. And if he's going supporting, then he, Ben, and Eddie Murphy should make for an incredibly interesting race--it'd spice up the category a bit.
There are some others you forgot to mention though, some more sensible than others. Annette Bening wanted to go lead (although I hope she's changed her mind, or will soon). However, Best Actress is looking TOO good this year and her chances of beating Kate Winslet and/or Helen Mirren don't look too favorable. She'd probably get in, but lose again. If she went supporting, I think she'd be a practical shoo-in! But I think she'll wise-up. But Judi Dench going lead? Unbelieveable. What about her co-star, Cate Blanchett? Does she just not care? Or does she not realize they'll be cancelling each other out? I'd hate to see that happen to the poor dame--unless she just doesn't care about making it in at all, haha.
Are there any others that I've neglected to mention?
Posted by: James | September 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Is the Academy and the movie industry showing its true colors?...tsk, tsk!
Posted by: Frankie R. | September 13, 2006 at 02:37 PM
"naysayers within the film's Oscar ranks worry that there are already two African-Americans up for best actor (Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness," Derek Luke in "Catch a Fire"), so Whitaker's best chance to win might be in supporting."
So...only 1 black person a year can be nominated for an Oscar? Did I miss something? Whoever these "naysayers" are they need to get with it. There are already so few QUALITY roles for African-American actors today. Those "naysayers" should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: A.J. | September 12, 2006 at 03:14 PM
I can't believe I'm reading this!
"...but naysayers within the film's Oscar ranks worry that there are already two African-Americans up for best actor...:
Oh no! We can't have a large number of African-Americans in any Oscar race, can we? What freakin' year are these people stuck in? After Brokeback Mountain lost Best Picture last year, obviously because of the gay slant, I was hesitant about the Academy members - and the movie industry as a whole. Now with this, I've reached a point where movies aren't worth it anymore. Who cares about awards.
I hope every cast member from "Dreamgirls" gets nominated as does Forrest Whittaker and Derek Luke and any other deserving African-American actor.
It shouldn't be about a person's ethnicity that determines whether they get nominated. If the performance rates it, do it!
How sad, how very sad.
Posted by: Anthony | September 12, 2006 at 10:47 AM