Oscars - Why Two Awards For Best Actor?

[Vlad Soare]

Hi guys,

There's something that's always intrigued me about the Oscars.
There's an Oscar for the best actor. And then there's another Oscar for the best actor in a supportive role.
Why this dichotomy? A good actor is a good actor. Why should it matter whether you did a wonderful job as an actor in a lead role, or you did the same wonderful job in a supportive role?

I have seen movies in which an actor appearing for merely two minutes was absolutely marvellous, so that it would have been worth seeing the whole movie just for that particular scene and that particular actor (for instance, Danny de Vito in "Mars Attacks!"). And then I've also seen lead actors win an Oscar for an easy, boring role that any housewife could have handled easily (e.g. Helen Hunt in "As Good As It Gets"). So, why do they award Oscars for the best actor according to how important the character happens to be in the script, when in fact the act of... er... acting has nothing to do with that?
It's not as if there's a specific art in acting in a lead role, and a different kind of art or skill for acting in a supportive role. Acting is acting. When you go to an acting school, you're not taught to behave in a specific way depending on the length of the role. You're just taught how to act. You're an actor, period. You can be a good one or a bad one, but if you're good in lead roles, then you must be good in supportive roles, and vice versa. There's no such thing as "lead acting" and "supportive acting". Acting is acting.

So, what's the deal? Why do they treat supportive roles differently?

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

So, what's the deal? Why do they treat supportive roles differently?

Hello; To me it is the "star system". A big name gets folks to buy tickets. Some lesser name carries the show.
Bruce Willis in his last few movies is a prime example. His name sold tickets even though he was already suffering from stages of dementia. Someone else had to carry the scenes of the movie.
Another big star whose skills faded in their old age, in my view, was Anthony Quinn. He simply shouted a lot in the last movies.

Sadly, I cannot think of a supporting actor Oscar winner who carried a movie when the big-name star was a dud. Anyone.

EDIT- after thinking a bit I may have one. The movie which won some Oscars ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER maybe. That DeCaprio guy did a mediocre acting job. I do not know what the Oscars were for in that movie. I happened to see it during a free movie weekend on direct TV. I was around during the 1960's & 70's and that movies got it wrong.

OH OH, another one comes to mind. MASH. The movie was set in the Korean war but was not about the Korean war.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Sadly, I cannot think of a supporting actor Oscar winner who carried a movie when the big-name star was a dud. Anyone.

Not necessarily a dud, but an easy role that didn't require any special talent, and which any other actor could have handled. I'll give you one example - "Ghost". Whoopy Goldberg easily surpassed both Demi Moore and Patrick Swayze, in my opinion. And not because they were lesser actors, far from me to imply that. but because their roles were simply not demanding enough to make them shine. Just a soppy love story to make housewives cry, nothing special. Whereas Whoopy was fanbloodytastic.

Anyway, why should it matter whether a particular actor carries the show or not, or whether they attract a big audience or not? The Oscar is for the best actor. Best actor means the one that is best at acting. If you're a nobody in a small role, but you perform that role in an extraordinary manner, then you should win. If you're a big name who attracts millions of viewers, but you play a boring role in a casual manner, then you should not win.
Otherwise they should call it "best money earner" or something, not "best actor".

 

[sk47]

Otherwise they should call it "best money earner" or something, not "best actor".

Hello; Yes, best income or money earner would fit. In a real way the Oscars is a money grab. Such does not offend me anymore. I stopped watching Oscar shows many years ago for some reason.

I will make a wild guess with only half the needed information. I have not seen the F1 movie yet so cannot say it is a better movie than the Oscar winning "battle" movie. But let me assume it is the better movie. I predict such after having seen the "battle" movie which i did not like. I suspect the "battle" movie checked off more boxes that other movies rather than being better made or acted.
I picked up on the message quick enough, but the movie was a disappointment.

Now that i think on it there was a movie which became intriguingly better as it progressed. That was SINNERS. I do not recall if the movie had a message to pummel me with, but I was impressed with the acting and the plot twists did surprise.

 

[Paul McWhiskey]

IMHO the Oscars is just a love fest for Hollyweird. They all get together, slap one another on the back, and tell each other how bitchin they are.

The last time that I watched the Oscars? I think it was back in nineteen hundred and never.

Sponsored