data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e624b/e624b78b594797ba832f2d2197c965569077b93b" alt=""
Previously: The Michael Clayton Fix
A truth as I see it: There is never a shortage of quality “for your consideration” candidates for any acting category at the Oscars. The truth as other people see it: There is often a shortage of viable contenders in one acting category or another at the Oscars and that shortage usually occurs in the actress categories (This year, the age old “empty!” gripe is aimed at the Supporting Actress category).
These truths may seem contradictory but they’re not. The variable that causes the disconnect is this: Though there is never a shortage of quality work there is sometimes a shortage of stock roles that are typically deemed worthy of attention. When this disconnecting factor occurs people say a category is empty. But the category is never empty. You just have to look beyond the usual suspects; Actors do award worthy work in non-traditional roles and less “baity” genres frequently.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13299/13299adb5c7f720033465043e4ecbf8e584d5291" alt=""
I recently chatted with Supporting Actress expert and archivist Stinky Lulu (who hosts monthly “smackdown” retrospectives of his favorite Oscar category –this month: 1940) and asked him to help me identify the five most commonly Oscarable “types” within this particular category. We came up with the following “perfect” (i.e. most traditional) Supporting Actress Shortlist. It would consist of these five character blueprints in descending order of nominated frequency:
Read the rest ...for Oscar's 5 favorite supporting actress "types" and thoughts on the women of Atonement and other golden hopefuls
*