Kate Winslet's Best Actress Nom for 'The Reader' Sure is Fishy
This has nothing to do with deserving
Photo: Courtesy of Awards Daily
UPDATE: You are going to want to read my latest article either before, after or instead of reading this editorial as I detail the way Oscar votes are counted and it is not as I assumed in this piece. Click here for the updates.
Okay, I need you to work with me here because I am eternally confused as to how Kate Winslet earned a Best Actress nomination for The Reader and not for Revolutionary Road. I am not saying this because I think one performance was better than the other and it has nothing to do with deserving, this is simply based on logic.
As you can see from the scanned For Your Consideration advertisement above that was published in Variety Kate Winslet was being pushed by the Weinstein Co. as a Supporting Actress for her role in The Reader. This was being done primarily because Winslet was being looked at as a serious contender for Best Actress for her role in Revolutionary Road. This comes as a result of the Academy's rule saying, "In the event that two achievements by an actor or actress receive sufficient votes to be nominated in the same category, only one shall be nominated." Basically it would be either Winslet for The Reader or Winslet for Revolutionary Road, but not both. Therefore, let's go for one for Supporting and the other for Lead.
This is not rocket science, but it helps me prove my point, which is coming shortly. First, let's take at rules #4 and #5 in the Rules for "Special Rules for the Acting Awards":
4. The leading role and supporting role categories will be tabulated simultaneously. If any performance should receive votes in both categories, the achievement shall be only placed on the ballot in that category in which, during the tabulation process, it first receives the required number of votes to be nominated. In the event that the performance receives the numbers of votes required to be nominated in both categories simultaneously, the achievement shall be placed only on the ballot in that category in which it receives the greater percentage of the total votes.
5. In the event that two achievements by an actor or actress receive sufficient votes to be nominated in the same category, only one shall be nominated using the preferential tabulation process and such other allied procedures as may be necessary to achieve that result.
I have read, and re-read, had others read and discussed the two rules above and have come to the conclusion that the Academy's nomination process is SERIOUSLY flawed. Here's how I read the rules as stipulated above.
Photo: Courtesy of Awards Daily
As votes are being counted if Winslet's Reader performance received enough votes in the Best Actress category to be nominated based on the number of ballots left to be counted it would instantly become a nominee therefore eliminating her Revolutionary Road performance. However, based on that logic it means that the Reader performance may have only been nominated because the first ballots counted for more whereas the later ballots may have all read Revolutionary Road. Basically, it sounds like Revolutionary Road could have had more votes but just didn't get enough of them first.
That is just point #1.
Next we take Rule 5 into consideration and perhaps Winslet's role in Reader was doing well there too, but as it turns out it earned the nomination for Best Actress first and was therefore instantly dropped from Best Supporting Actress, since you understandably can't be nominated for the same performance in two categories.
With how insane it is to believe an Oscar nomination doesn't seem to be determined by how many votes a performance received, but rather by which one got to what percentage first, is crazy, but it still doesn't explain how so many Academy members decided to nominate Winslet as a Lead Actress for The Reader and not a Supporting Actress.
Rule #3 in the Acting Rules says, "The determination as to whether a role is a leading or supporting role shall be made individually by members of the branch at the time of balloting." Sorry, I find it to be impossible for this to be true.
Harvey Weinstein is well known within the industry for being a great influencer and it is one of the reasons Miramax saw so much success over the years when Harvey was head of the indie studio. In this case Harvey was pushing for a Supporting nod for Winslet for this role and you better believe he would want to make sure that was understood. The last thing he would want is for Academy members to get confused, split the votes between Lead and Supporting and end up with zilch. His For Your Consideration ads read "Supporting" as I am sure did all the screeners for the film. Considering the Academy's rule saying the determination is left to the individual voting members seems unlikely. And for anyone thinking Harvey somehow wined and dined 5,810 voting members into voting Winslet for Lead and not Supporting on the side I can't imagine that being remotely true or even possible. On top of all that, if there were still confused voters wouldn't it be likely there would hardly be enough confusion to swing the vote this far?
The only thing I can even begin to consider happening here is some sort of memo sent out to Academy members or some kind of "hush-hush on the QT" chain mail telling folks to vote for Winslet's Reader performance as a Lead Actress. The idea of such a thing would be quite a scandal, but I personally don't believe it would be a problem. I do think the roles should be defined beforehand and I also think it is ridiculous to have a rule where one person can't be nominated twice in the same category.
If there ever was a time for a vote count to be revealed it is now.
REMEMBER: Read this article now before coming to an opinion on this matter.
Showing 34 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
at first i was COMPLETELY shocked when i saw this but I've warmed up to the idea and i now see Kate as the front runner in the best actress category
hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm…I smell foul play…maybe Weinstein bought his way into the Oscars…TDK could have gotten pushed out by that odd nod for the Reader b/c of money…what a shame. STOP DARTH WEINSTEIN!!!
@joker47: The point I am primarily making is not about Weinstein spending at all, it is with regard to odd rules.
People have said that this happened before (even before the nominations.) Don't ask me what performance, cuz this was a couple of months ago (they talked about the exact same thing).Some people speculated that the Academy may vote for her for lead for The Reader even though the studios pushed for supporting.I wish I can find the blog ( I think it was the Awardsdaily forums), but a lot of people were saying that this might happen and that the Academy will ignore The studio wishes and nominate her for lead. Since I knew that, I was secretly hoping that this would happen. A lot of people didn't know she was supporting in The Reader I guess (before the Globe and SAG nomination). One critic even said which one will they nominate her for RR or The Reader and someone informed her that she was going supporting for the Reader and she was shocked (On the Reelz ChanneL).So I don't get what you are saying?
@beautifulm: Are you asking me what I am saying at the end there? :)
Yes.lol Not trying to be mean though, but I don't know what you think fishy about it.
Very good points, I hope that other blogs catch on and demand some sort of reform (especially regarding the rule that says the first role to qualify is the one that gets the nomination). And while we're in the mood for switching rules around, can somebody please make some changes to the MPAAs rating system? They are a good example of what happens when your rules are too subjective.
@beautifulm: Well, first off the fact that as soon as a movie has enough votes to be nominated it is considered a nominee hurts Revolutionary Road due to the no duplicates rule. So, the minute The Reader performance had enough votes it would have instantly disqualified Revolutionary Road even though RR could have ended up with more overall votes, but just wasn't first to the punch. It is speculative, but worthy of discussion.
Also, the fact people are wondering if The Reader will get a Best Actress push and the truth that it was being pushed for Supporting Actress is a wide disparity. It is an idea that actually would have hurt The Reader's chances for a Best Actress nom, not helped it since it should be assumed the majority would be voting for it as a Supporting Actress candidate.
Okay I get what you are saying. They should've wait until all the votes were counted, maybe RR would have won in the end. I'm obviously happy about this outcome, cuz I didn't think her performance in RR was outstanding. But yeah that's a dumb rule.
As for the second part, yeah I see what you're saying. Did everyone come together and decide that we're going to push Kate lead for The Reader or something. That is weird. I don't know I haven't been Oscar watching long and this is my last time ( hopefully) so when people discussed that this may happen, I didn't think it was that strange.
I mean look at what Nathaniel (from the filmexperience blog) had to say about it:
" Thank you to the Academy for rejecting Winslet's category fraud."
I mean he's been doing it a lot longer than I have and I guess he doesn't find it weird that they would do this.
I know you are probably happy about Michael Shannon and The Reader (haven't seen it yet). I remember The Reader being in your top ten.
Whether or not this was fishy and whether or not Kate deserved it for this movie or that the fact is IT'S A REALLY, REALLY DUMB PROCESS. Also, I don't understand why an actress can't get nominated for more than one performance in the same category. Steven Soderbergh was nominated Best Director for both Erin Brockovich AND Traffic back in 2001. Did they change it since then for directors too?
The rules are certainly stupid. A matter of timing? Despite what Harvey thinks, there should be some rules as to what constitutes a supporting role and a primary role. Since I have not seen "The Reader" yet, I can't say what type of role it is. Or were they trying to prevent dear Kate from pulling a double whammy like at the Golden Globes? I think she could have done it. She's becoming the female Peter O'Toole which is a shame.
The rule reads this way to me:
Winslet's performance in The Reader was deemed leading because it was eligible for a nomination in the leading category first, therefore it was taken out of the supporting category.
Votes for her performance in Rev Road were still counted, but since now The Reader also qualifies for leading, the votes were counted against each other and The Reader had more votes.
But w/e, The Reader was a leading performance, the better performance, and I'm glad she's nominated for that one and hopefully she'll win.
The story didn't follow Kate Winslet, there weren't scenes with her in it without David Kross, so I thought that it was a clear choice for her as supporting actress. This is the first year….. ever…. that I've prefered the Golden Globe nominations to the Oscar nominations. And I hated some of those Golden Globe nominations (Tom Cruise, Ralph Fiennes, anyone?)
@Scott: See, the only place I disagree with you is in the part where it says the Revolutionary Road votes still counted. I read it as saying once a film reaches the necessary amount of votes to be a nominee it is considered one and as a result I see RR getting knocked out.
It is definitely up for interpretation, but it shouldn't even need to be interpreted, it should just say "the most votes wins".
Now that Kate was not nominated for RR and the Academy picked the Reader over it, I am now convinced more than ever that she won't win. Too me, this shows the Academy's lack of confidence in Winslet. The front runner is Hathaway: the all American,young, fresh face with the stellar performance as a drug attic, exactly what the Academy likes to honor. Streep is next because of her past works, and then Winslet.
Should have stuck with supporting category Kate, sorry, maybe next time
@Brad Brevet: I guess once The Reader got enough votes for Winslet, there could only have been so many other votes for Revolutionary Road, and that wouldn't have been enough to qualify it. I don't know. I'll have to look over these rules a little more closely.
I actually think this makes Winslet the frontrunner for Best Actress.
Many actors in the past have won not because of the film they are nominated in, but for their work in general.
And not many actors have been in two films in the same year where both films are strong contenders for best picture and both performances are strong contenders for acting.
So I think there will be a lot of support for Winslet this year in general, and now there is only one category to reward her in. I think those who would have voted for her in RR would still vote for her in Reader.
"As votes are being counted if Winslet’s Reader performance received enough votes in the Best Actress category to be nominated based on the number of ballots left to be counted it would instantly become a nominee therefore eliminating her Revolutionary Road performance."
I think I'm reading rule #4 differently. It's not Reader vs. Revolutionary Road — it's Reader as Lead vs. Reader as Supporting. At this point they're still counting Revolutionary Road ballots. If both her performances get enough votes to qualify for Lead, Rule #5 kicks in.
Rule #4 I believe is the Barry Fitzgerald rule — he's the only actor to receive both Lead and Supporting nominations for the same performance. Kind of makes sense — how can Winslet's Reader performance be both Lead AND Supporting?
What a great year to make the voting tabulations public, no?
OMG!!! i was seriously shocked as well….what are her chances of winning now???? They did the same thing to Leo Dicaprio with blood diamond and the departed…He was nominated for the onw he was most likely not to win….Blood diamomnd….????
I still can't belive that curious case got so many nods….cause I didnt find it that good….I perefer rev. road to it….than its just my taste…..
I know that the rules aren't perfect, but I think this is a good thing–her getting nominated in Best Actress in a Leading Role for "The Reader." First of all, I think "The Reader"–both the movie and her performance in it–was stronger than the dull "Revolutionary Road" (finally showing that super-dramas don't equal Oscar success…they still need to be good). It seems in some of the things I've read that you really enjoyed "Revolutionary Road," which is fine, but it may be impairing your judgment on the bigger picture of what this nomination means.
Oscar campaigns have often arbitrarily thrown actors in supporting or leading depending on where there is a stronger chance at getting nominated, as opposed to the performance itself. I'm glad someone was finally caught on it…it isn't fair that Winslet has to be made the example, but it needed to happen to show people they can't just throw her in supporting so she can get two nominations, or put Philip Seymour Hoffman in supporting so he doesn't have to go against a strong Best Actor race (although I feel there were better supporting actors this year, just not enough that got Oscar buzz to make the category more competitive). Winselt's role was definitely not supporting in that movie, no matter which way you look at it (neither was Hoffman's, but his was even more supporting than Winslet's).
Despite all the rules, maybe enough people, like me, thought her performance in "The Reader" was just better–that "Revolutionary Road" was OK at best (not her, but the movie, which would detract some votes), and that this is the strongest Best Actress race in years and it doesn't have room for two Winslet movies.
@Chuck: I also think this is the correct reading of Rule #4, the other way wouldn't make sense (even for the Academy). But if she gets enough to be nominated for Lead before Supporting, it makes some sense (for an attempt at saving some time) to drop the other one right away.
the rules are very….strange? something that shouldn't be THAT complicated is. the main character in the movie isn't kate, it's the ralph finnes/david cross person. she is SUPPORTING. yeah, she is the heart of the movie, but, lets be honest, in Doubt, so is viola davis and she's on the screen for 10 minutes, so it's stupid to say the "most important" person in the film is the lead. yes, she is the biggest star of the film & was used to sell it, but that doesn't make her lead. but this does effectively put her in first, this year was very weak for actresses in my opinion and she was the best of the five of them (except maybe anne hathaway & cate blanchett).
@Brad: Don't you think, considering the fact that Kate Winslet shares about as much screen time in "The Reader" as a certain Clown Prince does in "The Dark Knight," the Academy should have nominated Heath Ledger for Best Actor.
As one of the people who read these rules along with Brad I'll mention my logic… but man, he is right these rules are completely screwed up if you figuring them out is this hard.
My interpretation is that three things were happening at once.
Rev Road Lead Votes
Reader Lead Votes
Reader Supporting Votes
Let's further stipulate the BEFORE the Reader was "officially" supporting (and before the Globes came in) that Reader Lead received X amount of votes (where X is the correct percentage).
At that point two things happened. First, RevRoad Lead was knocked out, even if it ended up getting more votes. Two, Reader Supporting was knocked out.
Because an actor can't get two noms in a category (rule 5) OR get two noms for same role (rule 4). So we have a situation here where the least popular thing (Reader Lead) may have gotten the nod simply by getting there first.
That's insane… and pointless… and arbitrary.
Rule 4 makes sense because you shouldn't win a Lead and Supporting for same role. Fair enough. But you should get the nom where you get the MOST votes, not the FIRST votes. Rule 5 flat out doesn't make any sense these days. We're getting to the point where all Oscar films are saved up. Last year Downey was scheduled to be in Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, and Soloist (before it was delayed… and hey, was it delayed because he couldn't get supporting anymore??)
That's three major studio projects, because things are easier to make and harder to schedule these days. So it's just a matter of time before an actor really deserves two noms in a category.. which means Rule 5 is now a bad rule. Instead of pushing roles into Lead or Supporting based on artificial means why not just fix the problem?
Rant over…
If you guys want to get even more frustrated read Variety's breakdown of how the votes are counted… It's a VERY interesting read… Here's the link.
All these discussions about the rules are disregarding the way Oscar ballots are counted. I used to remember this in more detail, but essentially the vote-counting process involves the "preferential tabulation process" (see rule #5) so that votes are cast in terms of #1 preference, #2 preference, and so on. A potential nominee needs relatively more #1 preferences to garner a nomination slot first. Those nominees that follow may include those whose strength was based more in #2 preferences.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not a simple matter of counting up "x" number of votes in a pool of "x" number of votes. Votes earmarked as #1 preference are given, well, preference. So, when we're talking about the votes remaining to be tabulated, those are votes likely to have been cast for a potential nominee but with a lower preference level.
Such vote tabulation procedures, by the way, are being used and considered in various political elections around the USA as a means of improving the election process. Whether this represents an improvement perhaps is a matter of opinion. Either way, this is the system that AMPAS uses.
Academy rules still allow nominations for more than one achievement by the same individual in categories other than acting. For example, last year Roger Deakins received two cinematography nominations (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and No Country for Old Men).
Regarding the issue of whether a formal or informal whisper campaign upgrading Winslet's The Reader role from supporting to lead, that appears to be the case — and I for one don't see anything wrong with it. A potential nominee, as well as those standing to experience financial gain or prestige from awards consideration, may want to maximize the chances for such consideration. In this case, the initial strategy appears to have been to push Winslet's Reader performance as a supporting role to enhance the chances for one or more nominations. This happens all the time — remember Javier Bardem, Jennifer Connolly, Benicio del Toro?
It just so happens that, in the case of Winslet, the prospect of submitting her The Reader performance as a lead became a more attractive proposition given the weak critical and awards response to Revolutionary Road in general. Rather than risk the ill results of category confusion, it seems evident to me that Mr. Weinstein or other interested parties — one way or the other — changed minds midstream and decided to push the Reader role as a lead. This could as easily have backfired by leaving Winslet empty handed in both categories. Fortunately she was able to preserve a nomination in the lead category.
Prior to the nominations announcement, I read reports that just such a tide was forming — that "the word" within the Academy was to vote for Winslet's Reader role as a lead performance so that category vote splitting wouldn't deprive her of a nomination. Apparently, enough people found her work worthy enough, became aware of the scoop, and ensured a lead nomination.
I have no problem with this. It's called working the system. No rules appear to have been broken. I mean, look at how conscious the Obama campaign was last summer about "the numbers." Knowing how to play the game can get you elected — and get you an award and all the ensuing honor and monetary benefits. And why not in a capitalistic society?
I agree with Chuck's interpretation also. Rule #4 applies to one performance only, in this case, for The Reader. It has nothing to do with two performances competing for a nomination in one category. That's where rule #5 comes in, of which is stupid anyway.
There's another possibility which simply is Oscar voters found her role in "The Reader" is better and has more chances of winning her an Oscar. After all the Academy loves her and judging by the nominations, there is a lot of love for "The Reader", too! They might just have went with the baitier role collectively!
@Pierre de Plume: Yeah, the "preferential tabulation process" is what the Variety article I just linked to discusses, and it opens up even more discussion. You don't have a problem with it, but as you say, it's a matter of opinion and I don't really like it at all. I see how it can be considered the fairest way to determine the nominees, but it just seems wrong to me in some way. Hard to argue one way or another, but the process of starting with the #1 picks and pretty much never even getting to picks #4 and #5 just doesn't sit well with me.
Andre, you may be right in that enough voters simply preferred Winslet's performance in The Reader to that in Revolutionary Road — and considered the former to be a lead role.
Brad, the preferential tabulation process is generally considered to be an appropriate option in a variety of settings. An individual if free to prefer — or to not prefer — this particular voting process. My point is that there's quite a difference between not liking the process and calling it "fishy," a term that suggests impropriety.
Maybe they just thought " The Reader" was better. Rev Road is one long boring assed overrated flick in which Winslet plays a dipshit character whos's annoying. The reader is a tighter, better story, and besides she does quaility nudity as well. Just my two cents.
Hmmm…I saw the Reader and yeah it is better than Rev. Road….even her performance was twenty thousand times better! I really really hope she wins…..what do others think? she got a chance…cause Streepwas fantastic in Doubt as well…and so was hathaway!
My theory: AMPAS voters just don't use internet. Either because most of them are old and rusty, or because they're too busy. That's why they snubbed TDK and didn't care about the supporting campaign for Winslet in "The Reader": they just saw her as a lead.
i fully agree with u