On 2/15/96, Richard C. Cante wrote:
 
>2.  Speaking of CASINO, I think that Gloria Monti's question--Why is
>Sharon Stone an "actress," whereas Joan Allen is a "supporting
>actress?"--is much more important than it may initially seem.
>
>Perhaps this answer is already implied in her question, but I'll
>articulate it anyway:  because Joan Allen's performance, while technically
>unimpeachable, is based on a REAL HISTORICAL FIGURE.  In other words,
>Allen had a clearly defined "direction" in attacking the role--documents
>to go to, etc.  Thus, Stone's work, which is far from "technical," is taken as
>being somehow more creative in its "perceptiveness."  I also think it's
>significant that the Queen of Technical Perfection--The Lady Streep--was
>also nominated for best actress this year, and for playing a "fictitious"
>character to boot.
 
More to the point is how a studio presents a performer to the Academy
voters.  "For Your Consideration" ads in the trade papers will state the
acting category being sought for a particular performer.  Sometimes someone
who should be in the Actor or Actress category based on the amount of
screen time or the relative importance of the character in the plot will
wind up in the Best Supporting Actor or Actress category because the studio
thinks their chances for an Oscar are better there--especially if there are
two strong contenders for the main category in the same film.  Voters are
not bound by these suggestions but they do tend to go along with them.
 
--Richard J. Leskosky
 
Richard J. Leskosky                     office phone: (217) 244-2704
Assistant Director                      FAX: (217) 244-2223
Unit for Cinema Studies                 University of Illinois
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]