Plan B Forum

Hailee Steinfeld, the 14 year old actress who is in pretty nearly every scene of the movie True Grit, was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Award.

Why not Best Actress? Because of her age?

I don't think they count screen minutes when looking for the top billing - I have seen a few films where the top billing went to the top name, even though they had relatively minor roles. Thus I suspect she will remain a "supporting actress" until her name becomes known.

I have seen a lot of actresses refer to themselves as "actors". What's your view on that?

I have seen a lot of actresses refer to themselves as "actors". What's your view on that?

Personally, I think it's silly PC pseudo-feminist bullshit, that provides no benefit and creates confusion....

Got any other really easy questions?

Jim - that made me chuckle I have to agree ...

BSG may be on to something about the ageism, however....

I thought that Tatum O'Neal had won best actress as a child for Paper Moon, but I just looked it up, and she too had received the supporting actress award....

That's ridiculous. There's no way anyone could argue that her role was anything other than the female lead.

I actually drafted my post with '14 year old actor', then revised when I realize it seemed incongruous in reference the 'Best Supporting Actress' award.

I don't care if they call themselves actors regardless of gender; I believe in the original Latin there would not be a feminine version of the word, but someone who knows should correct me if I am incorrect on that point.

Obviously the Academy makes a distinction.

Who cares. A bunch of self important people patting each other on the back for some movie they filmed which in the big scheme of things meant nothing.

PS
I don't go to the movies and most movies I "have" seen that won awards, sucked. (especially The Piano and The English Patient)

(Unforgiven was probably the best movie that won an award IMHO)

I don't think minutes of screen time or number of lines are the determining factors in whether someone is nominated in a leading or supporting role. On one of those bases, Geoffrey Rush could easily have been considered to play a leading role in The King's Speech, for example, along with Colin Firth, and there are lots of similar examples. But it is true that child leads have largely been overlooked in the leading role nominations (Jackie Cooper and Keisha Castle Holmes are the only under 18s ever nominated).

From here

The fantastic box office performance of the Coen brothers’ True Grit only helps its Oscar chances. At this point I’d call the critically-acclaimed Western a great bet for nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay. The question mark for me is 14-year-old breakout Hailee Steinfeld, utterly delightful as the film’s precocious heroine, Mattie Ross. Steinfeld received Best Supporting Actress nominations from the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the Screen Actors Guild Awards, but despite Paramount’s supporting campaign, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association put her in their Best Actress category, and she missed out on a Golden Globe nomination altogether. Now I’m hearing of more and more members of the Academy’s actors branch that plan to vote for Steinfeld in the lead category as well.

This of course has happened before: Two years ago, AMPAS ignored Kate Winslet’s supporting campaign for The Reader and nominated her in lead. And before that, another teen breakout, Whale Rider‘s Keisha Castle-Hughes, became the youngest Best Actress nominee in history after voters failed to heed her supporting campaign. When it comes to Steinfeld, I actually understand the arguments for placing her in either category. As the film progresses, True Grit does feel more like Jeff Bridges’ story with Steinfeld supporting him, but there’s no denying that Steinfeld dominates the first half.

Steinfeld actually could end up in the Best Actress race after all, since that category seems to have four sure things (Black Swan‘s Natalie Portman, The Kids Are All Right‘s Annette Bening, Winter’s Bone‘s Jennifer Lawrence, and Rabbit Hole‘s Nicole Kidman) and no clear contender for that fifth slot. There’s Michelle Williams from Blue Valentine, but some voters I’ve talked to are turned off by the film’s darkness. There’s Lesley Manville from Another Year, but not everyone has even seen that late-year release. And there’s Julianne Moore from The Kids Are All Right, who seems to have faded from the picture while her onscreen partner picks up all the accolades.

Could Steinfeld take advantage and steal that last spot? Quite possibly. We’ve seen in the past that no studio campaign (or Oscar blogger, for that matter) can really influence the Academy when it comes to voting for a performer in lead vs. supporting. My only fear is that Steinfeld will get as many votes as her competitors but that they’ll be so evenly divided between Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress that she’ll end up getting nominated for neither. In a letter accompanying their ballots, members of the actors branch are encouraged to vote a performance in both categories if they’re not sure where it belongs. Maybe Steinfeld’s Academy-member fans should do that just to be safe.

Frankly Christian Bael should have been nominated for Best Actor (lead) for The Fighter because he stole the entire movie (and was in almost every scene). But because of perception that it was Marky Mark's film (who was not nominated) he settles for supporting. He could give Colin a run for the win in the lead category.

Older, I loved English Patient--the book was also extraordinary -- and found The Piano quite good. Movies are art, to each his own.

For example both Rocky and Schindler's List won for best picture in different years. Certainly Rocky was a great movie and enjoyable but Schindler's List blew me away. Rocky was no Schindler's List for sure but each has it's place. I saw The King's Speech and liked it,( I would run away with Colin Firth if he asked me to) but liked Secretariat better.

To each his own I guess.

Lord Jim wrote:

I have seen a lot of actresses refer to themselves as "actors". What's your view on that?

Personally, I think it's silly PC pseudo-feminist bullshit, that provides no benefit and creates confusion....

Got any other really easy questions?

It's just the developmental path that English has been on for a long time. "Poetess" is rapidly fading from common speech. "Operatrix" and "tutrix" have effectively vanished.

I think that a good thing. When one identifies a person as a poet, precisely the relevant point about her or him is the fact of authoring poetry, not the person's configuration of bodily organs. Calling female actors "actresses" is a way of saying that there is something about them that is more important, no matter how irrelevant to the quality of their acting, than the quality of their acting. Why should we focus our attention on their sex? At least at an occasion such as the Academy Awards, should we not focus on the performances rather than the physique?

Well said, Andrew.

Andrew D wrote:"Operatrix" and "tutrix" have effectively vanished.

Ah - but dominatrix is still used

Andrew D wrote:Why should we focus our attention on their sex? At least at an occasion such as the Academy Awards, should we not focus on the performances rather than the physique?

Well the academy awards does focus on their performance, yet still calls them actresses. I think the distinction is important. A good actress, such as Meryl Streep (imo) will bring something to the screen that no man could. Women are different to men - it is why women don't play men in world tennis tournaments (I wonder if anyone would disagree with that). I don't hear women saying "I am a man", so why say "I am an actor"? I just don't see why it is a big deal. Why can't we celebrate the fact that women are different and bring different things to the party, rather than assuming it is a sordid, non-PC degradation that needs to be stopped?

Well, yes, seeing a man in the title role of Sophie's Choice would almost certainly be less than satisfying. But seeing Meryl Streep in the title role of Gandhi or Amadeus wouldn't be my idea of a good time either. (Except maybe on Saturday Night Live or some such.)

But that is simply because the person doing the acting does not line up with the character being portrayed. I mean, John Wayne wasn't exactly a model of realism as Ghengis Khan, but I don't think that we should start giving out an Oscar to the "best Caucasion in an Asian role".

(And, yes, "dominatrix is still used. But it seems to me so obviously a matter of affectation that I thought I'd let it pass unremarked.)

I don't hear women saying "I am a man", so why say "I am an actor"?

And that is rather the point. One often hears women saying "I am a human being." Which is the core meaning of "actor": a human being who acts.

Distinguishing between "actors" and "actresses" serves no purpose that I can see other than to elevate the sex of the performer -- be it male or female; this cuts both ways -- to a matter of at least equal significance as the acting. I fail to see how that is in any way good.

-------------------------

By the way, I would love to see the men and women compete against each other in singles tennis. (And I am a hardcore tennis fan: dgs49 observes that one must be a real fan to watch a five-set match; I just finished watching eight matches in two days.) I would like to see a tournament whose organizers bring together the sixty-four highest-ranking players of each sex, draw their names randomly for the first-round draw, and go from there.

And before anyone brings up tennis's so-called "Battle of the Sexes," be aware of the actual results. Bobby Riggs beat Margaret Court, Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs (which, considering that she was 26 years younger than he, does not strike me as among her great achivements), and the third match contemplated to involve Bobby Riggs was never played. So the "Battle" involving Riggs was a draw.

A third match, not involving Riggs, was played between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova. The rules were rigged against Connors: He was allowed only one serve per point, whereas Navratilova was allowed the customary two; and she was allowed to hit into part of the doubles alley, whereas he was not.

He still beat her in straight sets, 7-5, 6-2. I doubt that I am going out too far on a limb by suggesting that if the rules had been fair, he would have crushed her -- something more like 6-1, 6-0.

I think that in today's game, the results would not look like that. I still think that, overall, the men would win. Power has become increasingly important over the years, and the men are still more powerful than the women. (For example, although the reported numbers vary somewhat, the fastest serve by a man is still some 25 mph faster than the fastest serve by a woman.)

But the overlap is significant: Venus Williams can still crank out serves as powerful as those of many of the top-ranked men, and many of the women can hold their own (or close enough -- the difference between 120 mph and 125 mph matters nowhere near as much as does precise placement) with many of the men.

Moreover, it seems to me that the women have been getting more powerful at a faster rate than have the men. They started well behind, and they have yet to catch up entirely, but they're getting closer all the time.

Also, the rise of the importance of power has been slowing lately. Finesse is regaining currency. Which I think is a fine thing. One never knows in advance, obviously, how the matches will go -- how many people would have picked Schiavone vs. Kuznetsova as the match of the tournament (thus far) at the Australian Open? -- but if I had to pick, at the beginning of the year, the only day of tennis I could watch, I would choose women's quarterfinals day at the French Open.

Of course, I would be pleased if we made them all go back to wooden rackets.

Pardon me whilst I wet my quill ....

thestoat wrote:"...
I have seen a lot of actresses refer to themselves as "actors". What's your view on that?

That transition was made decades ago. "Actor" has been accepted as referring to either gender for more than 20 years. The question is how long will people keep using the archaic formulation "actress"; like "negress" the utility of the word has disappeared. Identifying the gender of someone in a profession is of no meaning if both men and women in that profession are seen as doing essentially the same thing. I have never heard anyone use the term "doctoress" and "lady doctor" disappeared generations ago when women in the profession ceased to be rare and surprising.

There are two major forces driving this, in my opinion. The first is for language to become more streamlined, useless suffixes prefixes &c are dropped. And the second is for language to reflect our emotional understanding of the world. If there is no need to assert that men and women are fundamentally different then our use of language will evolve to reflect that.

I suspect that "actress" will gradually disappear as the generations whose ability to learn new things have declined with advancing age, dies off.


yrs,
rubato

Would you have male actors and female actors compete for a single Best Actor Award, then?

Or would it be, 'Best Actor in a Female Role' and 'Best Actor in a Male Role'?

In which case in which category would Dustin Hoffman and Hillary Swank have been nominated (for Tootsie and Boys Don't Cry, respectively)?

Perhaps Best Male Actor in a Leading/Supporting Role, and Best Female Actor in a Leading/Supporting Role, if the intent is to separate them by the gender of the actor, rather than the gender of the role they play.

Nice idea Scooter. Or, to shorten things, how about

Best Actor in a Leading/Supporting Role, and Best Actress in a Leading/Supporting Role

Sounds strangely familiar.