Two of the year's best performances are being pushed for the wrong Oscar categories
Film Features Oscar ThisWhen Debra Granik’s touching and truthful Leave No Trace premiered at the Sundance Film Festival one year ago today, a few writers and media outlets began loudly asking a leading question: Was Thomasin McKenzie, the film’s largely unknown 17-year-old star, “the next Jennifer Lawrence?” It was a reductive and imperfect comparison, not to mention an impossibly high bar to set for any young actor, but you could understand why folks were asking. Lawrence, after all, had made her big breakthrough in Granik’s previous drama, Winter’s Bone, when she was just a hair older than McKenzie, playing a not-so-different character: a tough teenage girl living on the cultural fringe, worrying about her father and wondering about a world beyond the boundaries of her isolated existence.
Unlikely though it may seem, McKenzie’s even more understated, more free of affectation, than Lawrence was. She plays Tom, who lives with her dad, military veteran Will (Ben Foster), in a large public park outside of Portland—that is, until the pair’s illegal encampment is discovered by the park rangers, and the two are dragged back into civilization. A Kiwi actor whose most prominent previous role was probably a stint on the New Zealand daily soap Shortland Street, McKenzie delivers the kind of naturalistic, unstudied performance whose strings don’t show—she never seems to be acting, which of course is untrue, given how much Leave No Trace actually asks of her. As Tom begins to wonder if being part of a society wouldn’t be so bad after all, McKenzie quietly but forcefully internalizes the film’s conflicts: independence versus belonging, autonomy versus community, her own needs versus those of her traumatized, introverted father. Her work turns on a realization so gradual it only becomes fully clear in the film’s devastating final minutes.
J-Law, of course, would end up scoring her first Best Actress nomination for Winter’s Bone. In that respect, at least, McKenzie deserves to follow in her footsteps. But her name isn’t especially likely to be called on Tuesday, when the Best Actress candidates, along with the rest of the Oscar nominations, are announced—and not just because McKenzie’s work, which rarely announces its brilliance, doesn’t really fit the mold of what Academy voters generally honor. As it turns out, the film’s distributor, Bleecker Street, isn’t even campaigning for Best Actress. They’ve decided, instead, to push McKenzie for Best Supporting Actress, even though she appears in nearly every scene of Leave No Trace.
“Category fraud” is the expression often used for this kind of award-season con. It describes the practice of mischaracterizing a lead performance as a supporting one. (Technically, it can go the other way, too, as when Anthony Hopkins scored a Best Actor nod for his 16 minutes of screen time in Silence Of The Lambs. But that’s much less common.) It’s usually the studio that makes this call, in a blatant attempt to add to a film’s nomination count or smuggle a performer into a less competitive race. Academy members aren’t forced to stick actors in the categories for which they’re campaigning—they resisted in 2009, for example, when Kate Winslet ended up winning Best Actress for The Reader, even though The Weinstein Company insisted it was a supporting performance. But they usually defer to the studio, resulting in head-scratchers like Rooney Mara getting nominated for Best Supporting Actress in Carol, despite having more screentime than Cate Blanchett, or Ethan Hawke showing up in the supporting category for Training Day, as though he were someone less a lead than his Oscar-winning costar, Denzel Washington.
This year, most of the talk of category fraud has centered on Yorgos Lanthimos’ darkly comic The Favourite, and how Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz have been relegated to the Supporting Actress race, despite occupying roles no less prominent than the one that’s made Olivia Colman a Best Actress contender. It’s a case where category placement is genuinely tricky—as far as this critic is concerned, all three are leads—but also a perfect example of why category fraud happens: Studios will do it to prevent vote-splitting and get two performers of the same gender nominated by pushing them into different categories. Other times, it’s a way for actors who have big years to avoid competing with themselves. Jamie Foxx, for example, probably insisted on being pushed for Supporting Actor in Collateral, even though he’s clearly that’s film lead, so as not to steal votes from his work in Ray.
There’s also the matter of star power, which counts more than you might think. One of my least favorite cases of category fraud was Casey Affleck getting nominated for Supporting Actor for his superbly craven (and clearly leading) performance in The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, even though his much more famous costar, Brad Pitt, is plainly in the subordinate role. Some version of that is probably playing out with Leave No Trace’s campaign. Relative to his costar, Ben Foster is a movie star, which may be why they’re running him as the lead. It can be harder, in general, for relative unknowns to break into Best Actor or Best Actress. Though the dichotomy is nowhere near as extreme as it used to be, the Academy has often treated the supporting categories as a good place to honor not just character actors but also promising up-and-comers; recent winners that fit this bill include Alicia Vikander and Lupita Nyong’o.
Nonetheless, calling McKenzie’s performance “supporting” is still egregiously misleading—it distorts the very notion of a hierarchy of roles in drama. It’s not just that, scene for scene, McKenzie’s in more of the film than Foster. It’s that this is Tom’s story more than it is Will’s. Though built on a powerful father-daughter relationship, Leave No Trace subtly privileges the daughter’s perspective. There aren’t many scenes that unfold solely from Will’s point-of-view—with only a couple of exceptions, Foster shares his screentime with McKenzie, his performance largely defined by the interaction between the two. By contrast, Granik gives us lots of scenes with just Tom—little peeks into the new life she’s trying to build—or ones that pair her off with the various strangers that drift into her orbit. That’s because Leave No Trace is really about her journey. While Will remains static in his introversion, Tom changes—the film, at its core, is about her slowly connecting to a world from which she’s been long removed. McKenzie, then, is the only actor who has a full arc to play.
None of which should diminish Foster’s work, which is just as necessary, as integral, to Leave No Trace. In my review of the film last summer, I wrote that “One wonders, at times, if it’s too distant a performance: However accurately Foster has captured the emotional remove of someone rocked by trauma, his Will remains a ghost, difficult to connect to in any meaningful way.” On further reflection, though, that’s actually a big part of what makes Foster’s turn here such an exemplary supporting performance. “We should try to adapt,” Tom tells Will when he begins to reject the new life that’s arranged for them on a farm outside of the city. But as someone who can’t adapt, whose PTSD has made it impossible for him to change, Will is the constant against which Tom reacts. When we see her reaching out for connection—for a sense of community—we understand that it’s at least partially a rebellion against the quarantine her father has arranged for them. By extension, Foster’s total remove works perfectly as a foil for McKenzie’s emotional growth spurt; his monolithic shell shock throws the nuances of her slow-motion blossoming into sharper relief.
Truthfully, there’s a very good chance that neither Foster nor McKenzie get nominated, even in the “wrong” categories. They’re just too restrained and subtle—the Academy, generally speaking, goes for broader dramatic work and more ostentatious transformations. If they did manage to squeeze in, that would probably best be seen as a victory, given that the greatest function that the Oscars serve is pointing people towards movies they may not have seen. In other words, it’d be nice if more viewers found Leave No Trace, regardless of how voters classify its two tremendous performances. Still, wouldn’t it be so typically Oscar to misconstrue one of the year’s most effective, affecting acting showcases?
28 Comments
This article should have mentioned that this film is streaming on Amazon Prime.
Thanks!! I’m laid up in bed this weekend and looking for a new drama to watch.
Fuck Amazon! Learning that makes me dislike this movie even more.
Not on Prime in Canada, apparently. I hadn’t realized there was a difference until I made that disappointing discovery just now.
Since this article is about a young actress and Oscar category fraud, I’m surprised they didn’t use Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit” as one of their examples. She’s the film’s lead, is in nearly every scene, and still ended up in the Supporting Actress category.
Still steamed about that one, glad it hasn’t totally vanished into the depths of collective memory. On her current trajectory, I’m sure she’ll get another shot soon enough…
‘Ken oath:
Tatum O’Neal is clearly the protagonist of ‘Paper Moon’ [”I want my two hundred dollars”] yet she won Best Supporting Actress.
I cannot fathom how they could justify, even after reading this, pushing McKenzie in to the supporting actress category. Like that is bonkers, especially since the Favorite is already going to make that a harder category to compete in.Fantastic performance by both of Foster and McKenzie, but this leaves a sour taste in the mouth. On a related note, people should genuinely watch this movie.
And read the book it was based on: Peter Rock’s “My Abandonment”. Although the book and movie end up going a different direction after being quite close for three-fourths of the story.
A cursory reading of the academy’s rules indicates none of this is “fraud.” Per the documents, Rule 6.2: “A performance by an actor or actress in any role shall be eligible for nomination either for the leading
role or supporting role categories. If, however, all the dialogue has been dubbed by another actor,
the performance shall not be eligible for award consideration. Singing that is dubbed will not affect
the performer’s eligibility unless it constitutes the entire performance. 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.” https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/91aa_rules.pdf
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct…
Yeah, this seems like semantic hair-splitting.
It really doesn’t. It looks like the clear letter AND INTENTION of the rules that members of the academy can vote for performers in whichever category they prefer – and therefore strategic campaigning doesn’t seem even a little bit odd.
I was agreeing with the OP, sorry if I was UNCLEAR.
Did we read the same article? Dowd seems perfectly aware of the rules. “Fraud” is a hyperbolic criticism of the rules manipulation.
“Fraud” is a hyperbolic criticism of the rules manipulation.Yes, I think we read the same article? He uses “fraud” hyperbolically, but then explain that it is rules manipulation. I use “fraud” as shorthand to refer to rules manipulation, but then cite the actual rules of the academy to illustrate that no manipulation is taking place (therefore, no “fraud.”) The rules of the academy state that “A performance by an actor or actress in any role shall be eligible for nomination either for the leading role or supporting role categories… 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.” I guess I’m not sure how anyone can be accused of manipulating rules when they specifically allow for the described behavior? (In the article, Dowd uses “screen time” to determine whether someone is a leading or supporting actor, which is an odd and arbitrary choice — people can be onscreen for a long time as an extra or as a background player and not carry a film.)What I was trying to say in my original post is that “there is no rule manipulation (fraud) going on, and there doesn’t need to be. The academy openly acknowledges that this is a subjective decision (not one determined by screen time), so everyone can use their best judgment.” In the end, I feel like two reasonable people can read the same article and come to different conclusions.
His point, in contrast to yours, is that often (and in this specific case) the people submitting aren’t actually using their “best judgment”. They are submitting the actors not based on artistic criteria but rather on political or game theory or however best expresses it criteria. So in this instance, the concern (reasonable and defensible IMHO) is that McKenzie has been pushed into Supporting because of non-performance or artistic reasons. Weisz and Stone may very well split votes for The Favourite. She has a better chance against two supporting actresses in the same highly regarded movie than she would against one lead. (And a HELL of a lead! Colman was fucking amazing…)
More like, Leave No Trace of the White Privilege Keeping These Two Characters Alive and Relatively Unharmed Every Step of the Way. The movie was fine, and I went in asking the same question regarding if the director had a magic touch when it comes to finding the “Leading Lady of Tomorrow.” The answer: probably not, but the actor is fine. I’d much rather see newcomer Helena Howard whose role in Madeline’s Madeline was far more visceral and accomplished get some award show buzz, but alas that movie is probably too weird to gain any sort of traction.
This is tangential to the article but if you had told me 10 years ago, when I was watching Look Around You on Adult Swim and obsessively looking for episodes of Peep Show on YouTube, that Olivia Colman would one day be an Oscar front runner… I would have been shooketh.
She totally deserves it, though. Perhaps not for Favourite, but throw a dart at a list of most anything else she’s been in, and that’ll do.
Let’s call what’s happening to her a case of “being Timothy Huttoned.” And he won Best Supporting Actor for his lead role.
I’m surprised you brought up Vikander, because her Supporting Actress win was also something of category fraud, as she was definitely a lead in “The Danish Girl,” and was nominated for the Golden Globe as such, but was shunted to Supporting for the Oscars so she could win without having to compete with Brie Larson in “Room.” It’s not as egregious as some others, as she also got the SAG and Critics Choice in the Supporting category, but it was definitely a case of the studio shifting to avoid a competitive category.
Leading doesn’t mean “most screen time.” “Silence of the Lambs” is a perfect example of the influence and prominence of Anthony Hopkins’ performance. Ethan Hawke did great work in “Training Day,” but his performance was clearly in support of Denzel’s electrifying performance. Now, Leave No Trace was two co-leads, in support of each other. And frankly, they can nominate Thomasin McKenzie for whatever they want, as long as best actress goes to Regina Hall for “Support the Girls.”
yeah she was great and has no chance of getting in either category.
How can you have this story and not mention Fargo? We can argue about whether McDormand or Macy is the ‘star’ of the film, but given the difference in screen time it’s impossible to argue that he’s a supporting player and she’s a lead. (Personally I would argue that both should have gotten lead noms)
What are you talking about? She won Best Lead Actress.
I think they were saying that Macy should’ve been nominated for lead and not supporting.