No consolation Oscar for Cate or Roger
Oscar voters usually reward multiple nominees with at least one win -- or three out of four in the case of the Coen brothers. But poor Cate Blanchett and Roger Deakins proved to be the exceptions rather than the rule tonight.
While such artisans as writers, directors and cinematographers can have more than one nomination per category, actors cannot. Even with this restriction, 11 have managed to earn nods in both the lead and supporting races in the same year. While no one has been able to bat a thousand, a lucky seven of these double nominees have managed one win.
This year, Blanchett joined the ranks of the doubly disappointed alongside Sigourney Weaver, who lost same-year bids for "Gorillas in the Mist" and "Working Girl" in 1988, Emma Thompson, who went down in defeat in 1993 for both "The Remains of the Day" and "In the Name of the Father," and Julianne Moore, who went home empty-handed in 2002 despite dual noms for "Far from Heaven" and "The Hours."
Four of the seven who won did so for their supporting bid, while the other three won their lead race. The supporting winners were: Fay Bainter ("White Banners," supporting win for "Jezebel," 1938); Teresa Wright ("The Pride of the Yankees," supporting win for "Mrs. Miniver," 1942); Barry Fitzgerald (nominated in both categories for "Going My Way," 1944; won supporting); and Jessica Lange ("Frances," supporting win for "Tootsie," 1982). [After Fitzgerald's double nod, the rules were changed to one role/one nom.]
The lead winners were: Al Pacino (lead win for "Scent of a Woman," "Glengarry Glen Ross," 1992); Holly Hunter (lead win for "The Piano," "The Firm," 1993); and Jamie Foxx (lead win for "Ray," "Collateral," 2004).
For three years running, from 1995 to 1997, actors who wrote themselves Oscar caliber roles won for their scripts but lost for their acting: Emma Thompson ("Sense and Sensibility," 1995); Billy Bob Thornton ("Sling Blade," 1996); and Matt Damon ("Good Will Hunting," 1997).
The lead winners were: Al Pacino (lead win for "Scent of a Woman," "Glengarry Glen Ross," 1992); Holly Hunter (lead win for "The Piano," "The Firm," 1993); and Jamie Foxx (lead win for "Ray," "Collateral," 2004).
For three years running, from 1995 to 1997, actors who wrote themselves Oscar caliber roles won for their scripts but lost for their acting: Emma Thompson ("Sense and Sensibility," 1995); Billy Bob Thornton ("Sling Blade," 1996); and Matt Damon ("Good Will Hunting," 1997).
And in 2005, George Clooney won best supporting actor for "Syriana" as a consolation prize for losing the director and screenplay categories for "Good Night, and Good Luck".
Three stars who were nommed for the triple crown of writing, directing, and acting reaped at least one win. Orson Welles proved victorious for his "Citizen Kane" screenplay in 1941. Woody Allen won laurels for writing and directing "Annie Hall" thirty years ago. And Warren Beatty was honored for directing "Reds" in 1981. That win for Beatty made up for losing triple bids in 1978 for the comedy "Heaven Can Wait."
A bias against comedy explains, in part, why Charlie Chaplin lost those same triple noms for "The Great Dictator" in 1940. The other reason was that the academy was fiercely jealous of Chaplin's artistic freedom and popular and critical success, so much so that, back at the very first Oscars race, they threw out his trio of bids for "The Circus." Just out of meanness. Then they relented and tried to pay him off with an honorary award, but the Little Tramp got the last laugh. He refused to show up to accept and it would not be till 1972 that he attended to receive another honorary award.
Did the Academy ever toy with the idea of making splitting the "supporting" actor/actress category - one for drama and one for comedy, but leave the lead actor/actress categories the way it is.
The Tony's, the Emmy's and the Golden Globes celebrate lead and supporting acting in multi-categories and is the better for it. For the Oscars, perhaps its time to increase the playing field in the supporting acting categories or at least extend the nominees from 5 to 7or 8 and have two supporting winners from each gender. We are talking "supporting" here, and a nomination alone, would give exposure to a lot of talent that should be recognized, but aren't. Two winners from each gender supporting category? Why not? Food for thought, thank you!
Posted by: SimpleRep | February 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM