Sh emay have been in alot of he film, but the film is mostly about Johnny Cash, he gtes a full back story and we actually se ehim with ihs wife and rising to fame. Reese in alot of scens, but she enters and leaves or comes in late.

I contend Phoenix is the true lead, and Witherspoon is supporting.

it reminds of In the Bedroom, when Wilkensen was clearly the lead and Spacek supporting, but spacke was nominated in the lead category and lost to Halle Berry.

being the lead is screen time/writing.

If Reese is a lead, then so Gyllenhal for Brokeback Mountain, he's in the movie just as much, Rachel Weisz is a lead, and Maria Bello would also be considered a lead.

The most laughable thing was nominating Jamie Foxx last year as supporting for Collateral.

By that account, Bruce Willis is also supporting in Die Hard, while Alan Rickman is the lead.

Yeah, really, supporting, apparently now supprting means your name is not big enough to go above the Marquee. There is no way Cruise was the damn lead, give me a goddamn break.

but in addition to the screen time > look at how RW dominated those scenes half of the scenes JP couldn't even talk and RW was telling him...........

IMO, compare that to say Maria Bello in History of Violence, she had a couple of scenes but to me there is a clear difference in the nature and time of those 2 roles. I say Reese Lead and Maria Supporting. Just IMO, of course.

Anyway, that is only my impression as I have never matched what the actuals have been in the past.

I agree with the Foxx / Cruise answer above.

I disagree with the Willis / Richman one > Willis was the lead.

She her character often had ot be strong and her scenes Phoenix's character was in a vulnerable position,but I don't think it makes her character a lead, it makes her performance good. Almost everything we learn about June is vis Johnny. Does Reese even have a scene in the filmt hat Phoenix does not appear in, all of "her scenes" like the women insluting in the store, Phoenix appears in. I think witherspoon deserved an Oscar nom, but I don't buy her as a lead. A lead character is lead because they get more screen time and character development then other characters, Johnny Cash gets ALOT more back story then June Carter, its not even close,a nd scren time wise, Carter's screen time is mostly devoted to Cash related things.

I think Bello was supporting, but I think Reese was to, its just that Bello's chracter goes from being very strong to being almost submissive, whereas Reese gets to be more spunky. They are still both supporting roles, as their females chracters are not developed the same way there male counterparts are.

That supporting/lead thing is really frustrating. I was on the fence all the time whether Witherspoon was supporting or lead when I saw Walk the Line. I mean, normally, she is a lead. But if he is a lead, then Jennifer Connelly in A Beautiful Mind and Maria Bello in AHOV are leads as well.

Exactly, which is why Irefuse to buy her as a lead, and as long as we keep nominating supporting female roles in the lead cateogry its ahuge problem and it happens with the women alot more then men, Foxx is the only male example I can think of in the last few years. maybe it says something about the lack of good lead female roles.

For a counterexmaple both Clint Eastwood and Hillarty Swank were leads in MBD, why, because they both got equal screentime and backstory and scenes completely without the other character, very different from WTL or AHOV or ABM. Seank characters is given equal footing in the way Connelly, Bello, and Witherspoon weren't.

Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs is one example on the male side. The story is told from Clarice Starling's point of view, and Hopkins had fewer than 30 minutes of screen time total, but the performance is so good and shook people so much that the dynamic changed during award season.

I agree Jennifer is clearly lead in ABM.

Biggest example for me on the lead/supporting controversy has to be Marlon Brando in The Godfather.

Yeah, he get it, he did a great job. But he is never even CLOSE to the lead character. The entire movie revolves around Al Pacino/Michael, everything. The movie is basicly from his point of view, and all the events and plotlines are always touching on him. Vito is the fatherly character in the movie, but not much more. As if that wasn't enough, he only appears in about 30% of the film(if I remember correctly). After his leading opening, he gets shot and he's out of the movie for about 1 and a 1/2 hours. When he wakes up, he has a few lines that basicly all revolve around Michael. Then he dies, and for the last 1/2 to 1 hour he's gone completley. Nothing lead about that, at all. It's an iconic performance, but there's no way he should've won in that category. Hell, I'd say James Caan and Diane Keaton are almost more leads in that film than him. I believe they're both in more scenes.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/mov ... ucer_x.htm



YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despite the noms being some of the worst for me personally in recent years, the show is shaping up to be a good one, with Jon Stewart at the helm, and Cates thankfully do no more craptacular presentation formats.

PEACE, Mike.

Well, he said that he won't repeat it...


I hope he doesn't think of anything worse than that.. bathrooms can give you excellent ideas, but that one was not one of them...

In case anyone is wondering, MSNBC has an online poll up for who should win Best Picture. After 82000 votes, Brokeback Mountain is in the lead with 39%. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10928492/#a ... re_Oscar06


There's a lot of brouhaha about who's hosting. Here's a chart I compiled (I'm sure some chart like this exists somewhere).

Oscar struggles with ratings
Year Viewers...Host.........BP winner

2006 .............Stewart
2005 42.1......Rock...........Million Dollar Baby
2004 43.5......Crystal.......RotK
2003 33.0......Martin........Chicago (TTT was nommed)
2002 41.8......Goldberg....A Beautiful Mind (FotR was nommed)
2001 42.9......Martin........Gladiator (Crouching Tiger was nommed)
2000 46.3......Crystal.......American Beauty
1999 45.6......Goldberg....Shakespeare in Love (Saving Private Ryan was nommed)
1998 55.2......Crystal.......Titanic (surprise surprise)
1997 40.1......Crystal.......English Patient
1996 44.9......Goldberg....Braveheart (Apollo 13 was nommed)
1995 44.9......Letterman..Forrest Gump (The infamous Oprah-Uma was because Uma was nommed for Pulp Fiction)

*The year applies to the ceremony date, ratings, and host. The BP winners were released the year before. Viewars are in millions.

If I may say, it looks to me the ratings depend on the movies far more than the host. Crystal got lucky with the movies that were nommed. A dead guy could host the Titanic year and get ratings. And for all of the criticism of Letterman, he about tied with the popular Goldberg.

The ratings have been trending down for some time too. Celebrity fatigue, maybe? Stewart is in a tough spot. This year's ratings will probably be bad and it won't be his fault. They will blame him for having ratings only on the first floor, while they should praise him for keeping the ratings out of the basement.

Wow....2003 was insanely low. Because of the war?

Yep, the war started a week before the Oscar, I think, and the news coverage was at a high intensity. They were discussing if the show should be postponed at the time.

I know we're expecting pretty low ratings, but if it dips under 30 million, that would just be pathetic. I'm expecting around 2003 numbers, hopefully at worst!!

Just saw Transamerica.. Felicity Huffman is extraordinary as I knew she could be (from the clips and trailer) and reminded me so much of Charlize and Hilary... in fact, the movie is like Boys Don't Cry and Monster in a way - the female performances turn these 3 potentially decent/good movies into great ones (B+-worthy).. and the dialogue in this movie is actually very quotable?


too bad she'll propably lose the Oscar...


oh, and yeah.. Kevin Zegers is hot

Agree with everything.

Difference probably is, both "Boys don´t cry" and "monster" were important dramas, where "Transamerica" is a light dramedy. And SPOILERS the main charcter doesn´t die at the end, and It´s not tragic at all END SPOILERS I guess that in the mind of an Oscar voter - of almost everyone, really - that makes it less "weighty".

Now that ballots are out, do all Academy members vote for all main categories? (with an exception to the docs and shorts)

Or is it still actors voting for acting category?

What I'm trying to get at is... are only actors voting for Best Actress or is everyone in the Academy voting for Best Actress?

I think everybody votes for everything (except foreign language films and shorts, methinks)

Yes, everyone votes for all categories. For foreign language and documentary short, one needs to attend special screenings and be confirmed to have seen all five nominees before they are eligible to vote.

I don't know if anyone posted this, but I thought it was a good article on the subject:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

If Paradise Now takes home the little man, I'll stand by voters still not having seen all five nominees.

Lions Gate president Tom Ortenberg, regarding Crash, says, "The reason we believe we have a great chance of actually winning the best-picture Oscar is because people are passionate about the movie."

http://channels.netscape.com/news/story ... PO&coview=

Ebert is now comparing Paul Haggis to Charles Dickens...