Is there a fix for category fraud? And more in the Oscar Experts Mailbag

Welcome to Oscar Experts Mailbag, a rebranded version of Oscar Experts Typing and a spin-off of Awards Magnet, in which Gold Derby editors and experts Joyce Eng and Christopher Rosen answer your burning questions of the week. Questions have been edited for length and clarity. Email your questions to slugfests@goldderby.com.

Jeff writes:

Chris and Joyce,

I have seen Emilia Pérez twice. Both times, I felt it was Rita’s story more than Emilia’s. This is why I think the campaigns for Karla Sofía Gascón and Zoe Saldaña are strange. Why push for Gascón in lead and Saldaña in supporting when Saldaña has more screen time? As much as I am behind Saldaña winning whatever awards she gets this season, I don’t think they should be for a supporting performance. This feels like a Susan Sarandon/Genna Davis situation: Both are leads.

But I didn’t write to you to talk about the campaign. I wanted to ask you about a thought I had regarding future Oscars. Should the Academy make a rule for eligibility in the lead and supporting categories that require supporting characters to appear in no more than a certain percentage of the movie, and for lead characters to appear in more than a certain percentage of the movie? I wonder if the Academy has discussed this over the years, particularly after Anthony Hopkins won for The Silence of the Lambs. The fact that such a rule is not in place now means it’s not an easy solution. I noticed the Emmys don’t give a percentage requirement for lead and supporting performances either. Would this be a good idea?

Chris: Would this be a good idea? No. Do I think they should do this idea? Yes. The easiest way to short-circuit category fraud arguments would be to establish guardrails. Because while performance and art are subjective, time is not. I’d be all for something like this: Maybe a percentage of a film’s running time in comparison to the other cast members in the film. We could go back to Lily Gladstone last year: She was only in nine more minutes of Killers of the Flower Moon than Robert De Niro and just 27 percent of its running time overall. So while she was a driving force of the narrative and the main actress in the film, I don’t think she had a lead actress role. If that makes sense. (Pause here for the Flower Moon fans to get mad at me.) So what’s the threshold? Maybe 35 percent (a figure that would have left Michelle Williams in Best Supporting Actress for The Fabelmans by just 0.25 percent), maybe more? I don’t have the answers, Jeff, but I like how you’re thinking out of the box.

Joyce: I’m gonna say nay because category fraud does not bother me and people will still find something to be mad about if this were enforced. Like Bruce Banner, the internet is always angry. If someone flirts with this imaginary threshold like Williams does, there’ll be a contingent who’ll call for an exception or an appeals process. If there is an appeals process, that’ll open up a whole other can of worms when some appeals get approved and others don’t. Time is not subjective, but there’s more nuance to it because it’s about how that time is used. Someone could have high screen time merely because they’re in a lot of scenes with a few lines here and there but is not actually driving the story. And while category placements in general are strategically devised by studios, actors still have a say, and some like Gladstone and Williams have explained why they went lead. No one has to agree with them (for the record, I consider both characters supporting myself), but it was their choice. And their reasons have little to do with what fans care about: winning. In Gladstone’s case, if she were forced to go supporting, she would not have been able to make her larger point about advancing roles for women of color — not to mention, the choice also positions her to be seen as a lead actress now for roles. But neither Gladstone nor Williams nor Hopkins are category fraud to me because they did the harder path of an arguable supporting performance going lead; category fraud is when a lead performance goes supporting because those performances have an advantage in the category. I also don’t think any voter lies awake at night regretting their vote for Hopkins, especially for a performance as iconic as his Hannibal Lecter, or fretting over what it means for the future of the Oscars that a “supporting” turn prevailed in lead — they just vote for what they like and move on.

SEE What if Demi Moore and Nicole Kidman swapped roles? And more in the Oscar Experts Mailbag

Josh writes:

Hi Joyce and Chris,

I’m a longtime listener/viewer of your slugfests and a first-time caller! I want to get your thoughts on The Wild Robot. I know there’s a definite bias from Academy voters, but what would The Wild Robot need to do to be part of the awards conversation in other categories? That it hit the shortlists several times, including in the sound category, gives me hope for a potential slot in the Best Picture field. Or is predicting animated films in other categories — including Best Picture — just a lost cause?

Chris: I’ve been thinking more seriously about The Wild Robot for a while as a Best Picture contender. It is a beloved film. It is a weak year overall for Best Picture contenders. There is plenty of room at the bottom of the field for it to grab a spot. That the industry went for it on the shortlists was not totally unexpected, however, and the biggest hurdle for its Best Picture inclusion remains the Best Animated Feature category. The Academy doesn’t need to reward The Wild Robot in the main category because they’re already going to reward it in the other one. In fact, as we’ve discussed previously, I’m not even sure a nomination for score is a lock. We’ve seen the Academy discount some great animated film scores in recent years. But this year is also strange, so I won’t rule anything out. I just won’t predict it.

Joyce: The Best Animated Feature category does give voters an out, but I think the bigger issue is that a lot of people view animation as a children’s genre, much to Guillermo del Toro‘s chagrin. A lot of voters probably don’t even watch animation unless they have to with their kids, which could also explain why animated film scores have been snubbed recently. I do think The Wild Robot‘s score has a shot, but I would not be the least shocked if it’s paid dust. I’m much lower on its Best Picture prospects, unfortunately, because it probably needed to be way more zeitgeist-y to break through even in such a soft year. There’s a reason the only animated films to be nominated for Best Picture are from the Disney umbrella.