Paul Mescal appears in less of Hamnet than Jessie Buckley, but that hasn’t stopped some from screaming “fraud!” at his Golden Globe nomination for supporting actor.
Though the fictionalized telling of the death of William and Agnes Shakespeare’s eponymous son finds both parents wading through their grief, the mother carries more of the emotional weight. Yet Matthew Stewart, whose Screen Time Central website lists the exact amount of time of every actor’s Oscar-nominated turn, posted on X recently that the Mescal bid “is one of THE most absolutely ludicrous supporting campaigns I’ve ever witnessed.” Cue the replies eagerly concurring, firmly disagreeing or pointing out the real cases of system-cheating now unfolding. (Stewart’s data is cited throughout this story.)
Every year, studios, publicists and talent huddle to determine categories for the acting contenders on the bubble between lead and supporting. And a lot of film fans step in to disagree, believing that the stakes are nothing less than the integrity of film itself. They argue “category fraud” — forming online blocs and endlessly debating how the system has been unfairly gamed, the category designations dishonored. Oscar thirst, they cry, has outweighed common sense.
But of course this kind of strategizing is what the Oscars are all about — they’re best enjoyed at their frothiest, embracing every trick and sneak in the book. And have been for a long time. So I’m here to say let’s stop worrying about category fraud and let the machinations fly.
It’s not even Christmas and the controversies are already multiplying. Wicked: For Good is pretty inarguably Ariana Grande‘s movie, at least as much as it is Cynthia Erivo’s, but the former is still competing in supporting categories. Another mini-furor has arisen over the Norwegian family drama Sentimental Value, which finds Stellan Skarsgard similarly avoiding the best actor race despite the size of his patriarch role.
The fraud debaters offer many preferred litmus tests. Some say screen time, but that gets complicated in large ensembles. Some point to being No. 1 on the call sheet — it’s why Michelle Williams campaigned that way for The Fabelmans despite only appearing in about a third of that movie (she lost for lead actress, but many believe she could’ve won her first Oscar in the supporting field). And others look at whether the character has a main POV in the storytelling (this is Stewart’s argument on Mescal).
Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t — when I first saw Hamnet, I considered Mescal supporting without a second thought. There’s no science to this. But I’ve covered enough awards seasons to believe these arguments are a waste of time. The Oscars rarely recognize the quote-unquote “best” because it’s a massive machine driven by money, relationships, trends and, yes, strategy. Categorization is usually the least of it — and yet it sucks up so much of the oxygen.
Last month, Stewart posted the screen time breakdown for current frontrunner One Battle After Another, revealing lead actress Globe nominee Chase Infiniti is in less than 20 percent of the movie (supporting nominee Sean Penn has more time). “This shows how silly it was for Infiniti to go lead,” said one comment (echoing many others).
But does it? Infiniti’s placement gives her more clearly supporting co-stars Teyana Taylor and Regina Hall a better shot. It elevates her own profile as the breakout of an otherwise veteran-dense cast. And it allows Warner Bros., juggling an unusual volume of players this year, to make more room for the likes of Sinners‘ Wunmi Mosaku and Weapons‘ Amy Madigan. Strategy, baby.
Consider last year’s supporting actress winner, who battled “fraud” allegations for months. Zoe Saldaña appeared in more of Emilia Pérez than any other actor, including Karla Sofía Gascón, who had the title role. Yet Saldaña went supporting and Gascón lead. Netflix’s decision to center its trans star and tease a potentially historic nom (which happened) defined the film’s overall campaign — lifting all of its boats. Sure, this strategy went down in spectacular flames when said trans star turned out to have a long history of posting hateful messages (and lost). But, hey, at least Saldaña, isolated from the mess, won.
Many also lamented the likes of Saldaña and Wicked‘s Grande snagging a slot from true supporting standouts like Dìdi’s Joan Chen, who had less screen time in their films than those actors. But it’s not like Conclave‘s Isabella Rossellini or The Brutalist‘s Felicity Jones, who were nominated, appeared in more than a small fraction of their movies, either. And strategy aside, there’s something to be said for quality over quantity. Who would deny Anthony Hopkins’ best actor win for The Silence of the Lambs, even though he appeared in less than a quarter of that movie?
Campaigners don’t have the final say, anyway. If voters disagree with a studio’s pitch, they go their own way. Kate Winslet campaigned in the supporting category for The Reader in 2009 to keep her best actress bid for Revolutionary Road alive that year — but the Academy called B.S., nominating her in lead for Reader instead and neglecting Road. She won the Oscar.
That’s one last element to keep in mind — studios often have broader slates to worry about than one movie’s roster. Netflix, always working with a wide range of contenders, puts a great deal of thought into that every year. (I shiver to think of the category-gaming rage that might emerge out of movies from a combined Netflix-WB.)
Which reminds me — this stuff can feel awfully minor amid the larger, scarier industry forces hovering this season. Who among us is above getting their faves in? On a related note: Please keep voting for Sentimental Value’s Skarsgard, now a Golden Globe nominee for best supporting actor. Yeah, he’s in most of the movie. Yeah, he’s arguably a lead. But this guy deserves an Oscar, and supporting is his best chance. Time to bring on the fraud.
This story first appeared in a December stand-alone issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.