Size Queen: Supporting Actress Style

StinkyLulu here:

As some of you know, StinkyLulu's a little obsessed with the Supporting Actresses. And while Lulu's no size queen, the question of "what's too big" and "what's too little" pops up again and again in deciding what performances should count as "supporting." In Oscar's history, at least three performances have taken the trophy with approximately 10 or fewer minutes of screentime. They are:

the most recent "small wonder"

the micro-Oscar among the boys

and the current title-holder

But.
Leave it to Emmy to take this to a whole 'nother level of absurdity... Witness the emerging controversy about the 2006 Emmy nominations for "Best Supporting Actress in a Movie or Mini-Series"...

O'course, LaBurstyn has not won. ('Twill be interesting to see if the nomination even stands, or whether it instigates further Emmy-rule tweaking.) Anyway, comparing Oscar winners to Emmy nominees is like comparing apples to raisins. Though all of this does seem to underscore the relevance of clocking screentime for the nominess. (Certainly, Una Merkel's 1961 nominated performance clocked in right at or below the 10 minute mark...) But Emmy's recent shenanigans have nonetheless rustled the film obsessive questions that often haunt StinkyLulu on cold dark nights...

• Are there really no small parts? Can a cameo warrant a trophy?
• And, on the flip, how big is too big for a supporting actress nomination?
• Are promotional, nomination-mongering maneuvers a constitutive part of the category?
• Is StinkyLulu a loon for thinking so much about this?
  

What do y'all -- devotees of the FilmExperience -- think?

Thanks, Nathaniel, for sharing the platform. (And happy vaycay.)