Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress?
Well, Pat Neal must be the lady who won the Best Actress Oscar having spent the least amount of time on screen. Still, good movie, great performances by the four main actors.
shareYep... and the only female part in the film of any note.
As it often happens with acting awards.... It's the 'Lead' female part, therefore they get put into the 'Best Lead Actress' category... though in reality, it's a supporting part (see Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). Back in that day, a major and established actress like Patricia Neal would never be considered as a 'supporting' anything.
The 'rule' has a lot of exceptions too. Take To Kill a Mockingbird. Mary Badham, as Scout, is undeniably a 'Lead' in that movie. I'd venture to say she may even have more screen time than Gregory Peck. The entire movie is essentially about her (and her relationship with Brother and Dad). Yet, a
newcomer like Mary Badham, and a child, is not going to be considered seriously for 'Best Actress'... but can win in the supporting category.
Other perfect examples.... Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker. Why is she considered 'supporting' to Anne Bancroft. If the Oscars were truly equitable, both Anne and Patty would have had 'Best Actress' nominations.
Also, Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon. Supporting? hunh???? she is the star and core and center of that movie.
Oh well, awards... actresses... producers.... PR guys... go figure.
I fully agree, even if Pat Neal's career was somewhat languishing at the time and she had taken up roles that were, indeed, supporting as in "Breakfast in Tiffany's". I guess Hollywood decided to award her for all the Gary Cooper story and her somewhat "tough" life. It's amazing how miraculously she recovered after her serious stroke in 1965, came back strong with "The Subject Was Roses" and is still alive and kicking nowadays.
Many people argued Anthony Hopkins' or Nicole Kidman's roles in "Silence..." and "The Hours" respectively were also supporting. As for the other way around, apart from the great examples you mention, some other evident examples were Timothy Hutton in "Ordinary People" (a newcomer who could not be considered the leading actor in the movie), Jessica Lange in "Tootsie" (the easiest way to award her for "Frances" without depriving Meryl Streep of the Oscar), Peggy Ashcroft in "A Passage To India"...
[deleted]
Well written eddy and I agree. I guess also the Academy sometimes has a fine line with what is supporting and what is lead. But some young actors and actresses have been overlooked and sometimes I think it is the case of we still have some older boys or girls to take care of.
If you ever see A Tree Grows in Brooklyn you will be seeing one of the greatest performances by Peggy Ann Garner who was 13 at the time and she is really the lead role and in nearly every scene of the movie. She didn't even get nominated for that great performance in either catagory which was a shame even though the Academy gave her a special award. It is the same case with a young Haley Mills in Pollyanna. This was a great performance and she was really the lead role and the center of the movie as Peggy was plus she was in nearly every scene. I think she also got a special award but I feel she was also deserving of an oscar nomination in the lead role as Peggy was yet like Peggy no nomination. In fact she was great in the original Parent Trap in which she played the twins.