___ Item 1: COUNT THE DAYS...
...until the annual celebration of The Sophia Sisterhood. Of course, that leaves you with only 23 days to shop for the perfect gift. But not to fear, lovely reader, StinkyLu's made up this handy little list to aid in your purchasing pursuits. You know how I like to be helpful that way...
___ Item 2: CONTEMPLATE...
.....the curiously apt logic of this commentary on the whole "another RepubliChristian drops trou for cop" trend. First it was childstarlets not wearing underpants. Now it's Republican lawmakers with viciously anti-gay voting records wagging their willies at plainclothes cops on the potty. What's next? Nuns Gone Wild?
___ Item 3: FOLLOW...
___ Item 4: CONSIDER...
..little Lulu for being so late with this "To Dos Day" post. But, more importantly, I's sorry for falling behind on the 1971 profiles, especially the "overlooked" ones. (Which, I fear, have permanently fallen off the back of the Stinky truck.) I'm hoping to get Ellen Burstyn's up tomorrow/Wednesday but...see, the semester started over the last coupla weeks and, well, who knew there would be so many f'n meetings?!? Kawowie. So, I ask your patience, lovely reader. Especially cuz MrStinky & I are doing our annual mountain retreat this weekend, which may both quieten postings for the weekend AND possibly delay the first 1990 profile (though I really hope not). So your patience is appreciated...
___ Item 6: REVEAL...
...whether or not you are you a "size queen" when it comes to matters of Supporting Actressness. In the recent 1971 Smackdown, Rita Moreno's non-nominated 1-scene-wonder of a performance snagged some lovin' - 'specially from the Lulu. Though I sent the dvd back before I timed it, I suspect Moreno's appearance is within range of the 5minute & 27second precedent set by Maria Ouspenskaya in 1936, the category's very first year. Nonetheless, it all gets me to thinking about that perennial supporting actress question: how small is too small? And, conversely, how big is too big? (See StinkyLulu's running stat count here.) What do you think, lovely reader? And would it be worth running a theme competition for the October or November roster among the years boasting the "shortest" nominated performances (ie. 1958, 1960, 1975, etc)?
...until the annual celebration of The Sophia Sisterhood. Of course, that leaves you with only 23 days to shop for the perfect gift. But not to fear, lovely reader, StinkyLu's made up this handy little list to aid in your purchasing pursuits. You know how I like to be helpful that way...
___ Item 2: CONTEMPLATE...
.....the curiously apt logic of this commentary on the whole "another RepubliChristian drops trou for cop" trend. First it was childstarlets not wearing underpants. Now it's Republican lawmakers with viciously anti-gay voting records wagging their willies at plainclothes cops on the potty. What's next? Nuns Gone Wild?
___ Item 3: FOLLOW...
...Fabulon's most excellent advice and remind yourself that this sweet, strange genius existed. If you haven't seen the movie, or if you just welcome a giddy refresher glance, see StinkyLulu's favorite clip. One of my favorite entities ever...
___ Item 4: CONSIDER...
...Samurai Frog's bold rendering of The Devil Wears Prada as "The Best Movie Ever About Putting Women In Their Places," his contribution to the fascinating Bizarro blogathon at Lazy Eye Theatre...
___ Item 5: FORGIVE.....little Lulu for being so late with this "To Dos Day" post. But, more importantly, I's sorry for falling behind on the 1971 profiles, especially the "overlooked" ones. (Which, I fear, have permanently fallen off the back of the Stinky truck.) I'm hoping to get Ellen Burstyn's up tomorrow/Wednesday but...see, the semester started over the last coupla weeks and, well, who knew there would be so many f'n meetings?!? Kawowie. So, I ask your patience, lovely reader. Especially cuz MrStinky & I are doing our annual mountain retreat this weekend, which may both quieten postings for the weekend AND possibly delay the first 1990 profile (though I really hope not). So your patience is appreciated...
___ Item 6: REVEAL...
...whether or not you are you a "size queen" when it comes to matters of Supporting Actressness. In the recent 1971 Smackdown, Rita Moreno's non-nominated 1-scene-wonder of a performance snagged some lovin' - 'specially from the Lulu. Though I sent the dvd back before I timed it, I suspect Moreno's appearance is within range of the 5minute & 27second precedent set by Maria Ouspenskaya in 1936, the category's very first year. Nonetheless, it all gets me to thinking about that perennial supporting actress question: how small is too small? And, conversely, how big is too big? (See StinkyLulu's running stat count here.) What do you think, lovely reader? And would it be worth running a theme competition for the October or November roster among the years boasting the "shortest" nominated performances (ie. 1958, 1960, 1975, etc)?
Have at it, lovelies...
8 comments:
I'm not entirely sure exactly what perfs are too short. The shortest I've ever seen, as I've mentioned here before, was Hermione Baddeley's in Room at the Top, and that was bizarre for two reasons, partially because there was a much more Oscarbait (albeit, not as good) performance higher up in the billing from Heather Sears, and two, because her brief appearance onscreen really does stick with you just as long as Harvey's and Signoret's performances (as long as you don't get up to put popcorn in the microwave during her brief appearance). I don't know if I'd have voted for her, but I could certainly see why others did.
However, even though the shortest I've seen I probably wouldn't have voted for, there are others that definitely would be on my ballot: Marlene Dietrich (Touch of Evil), Cate Blanchett (Fellowship of the Ring), Barbara Harris (Nashville), Diane Keaton (Godfather, Part II), and possibly even Agnes Moorehead in Citizen Kane (I've seen very little of 1941, however) and I'm willing to bet that very few, if any of these perfs, exceed ten minutes. I think it partially comes down to impact-if they can truly impact the audience in a noteworthy performance, I don't think a time limit is in order. That said, I'm aware that the Moorehead nomination would be a stretch, but can anyone possibly imagine Citizen Kane without her?
The longest perf is equally difficult-clearly, there was a problem with performances like Mary Badham (I don't recall properly, but doesn't she have more screentime than Gregory Peck?) and Cate Blanchett getting in this category, but I think that I'd commit the same error with certain performances as well. I'd certainly vote for Pamela Franklin in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (one of my all-time favorite villain performances) and Claire-Hope Ashitay (Children of Men) in the supporting category, but I could totally understand someone claiming that both perfs were leads. I think part of it comes down to whether or not the person is actually supporting the main storyline, or if in fact the main storyline is there's. Mockingbird is just as much Badham's journey of self-discovery as it is Peck's, and Blanchett is the mouse to Dench's cat in Notes on a Scandal. There are clearly problems with that argument (ensemble films like Traffic & The Hours come to mind), but it's probably one of the best ways to define it.
Ultimately, I think the best way to explain categorizing someone as an actress on the edge would be to paraphrase Potter Stewart, "I can't define supporting, but I know it when I see it."
I'm baffled by the praise for Moreno. She barely registered for me. Isn't her screentime more in the range of 45 to 60 seconds?
It might be as little as 3 minutes, but no less. Would likely not pass the new "5% of total screentime" test for supporting noms, but it's definitely more than a minute.
Yeah, you need to do 1959 and 1976 soon.
'59 because as was said Baddeley is on screen for about 3 minutes, if that.
'76 because of Beatrice Straight being the shortest winner so far at about 6 minutes.
But I'd like to have the actual screentimes according to Stinkylulu's criteria.
I thought the 5 percent rule was for the Emmy's, or am I just completely imagining things there? Could someone explain the ruling there, whichever awards show it may be?
It is the Emmy's new rule. And only theirs.
So far as I know, there are no quantified terms of eligibility for Supporting Oscar noms.
That said, I find the five percent notion interesting, as one of the more intuitively sensible approaches to category angst. Much better than simple screentime.
but the thing that is maddening about that screentime rule is the problem is really NOT too little but too much.
cameos can be every bit as well acted as major supporting roles. But lead roles have an unfair advantage when they're classified as supporting.
anyway i realize EMMY and OSCAR. two different things.
and i've said this before but i'll say it publicly again. i hate the voting on the years. maybe because i like assignments and i hate rushing to see five movies in a very limited time span in order to play along. wouldn't readers be able to see more of the nominated work before the smackdown if you just announced which years were coming next. just my 2 cents.
because i can't shut up today apparently ;)
I just saw another incredibly brief performance, that of Ethel Barrymore in The Paradine Case. She was onscreen for no more than five minutes tops, and while she's brilliant during this sequence (she is, after all, Ethel Barrymore) it was insanely brief and a bit of a shock for a nomination, particularly since there are at least three other women who have more screen time than she (and two of those women, according to newspaper reports, received more flattering reviews).
Post a Comment