Well...so long, Richard...
Searchlight's pushing Griffiths back into the lead category for his performance in "The History Boys" pretty much knocks him out of the race at this point. With Forest Whitaker and Peter O'Toole looking strong, and Jack Nicholson looking steady (should Warner Bros. stick with a lead decision...I expect they will), throw in George Clooney in a Best Picture contender, Leonardo DiCaprio in a duet of high profile flicks, Ryan Gosling in one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year...there's just not enough room. Given the role's large size, a supporting mention would have been a lot more likely for Griffiths in that weaker category. Ah well...I'm not in the business of Oscar campaigning - what do I know?
Comments
My biggest reservation with regards to The History Boys in general is its ability to generate love in the States...especially given Searchlight's packed slate.
Though I'm not so sure about lead being more competitive than supporting. I still feel Best Actor is very open beyond O'Toole and Whitaker (I can see the case for Jack in lead but it strikes me as a stupid thing to do, practically ending both his bid for a win and Leo's for a nod).
Posted by: Gerard Kennedy | October 14, 2006 01:44 PM
Jack would not win in supporting either. I don't get why people think that he would. It's Don Logan, cut and dry...they're just going to try and make him Bill Cutting.
The lead race is a specific assortment, about 8 names that really has no room for anyone else, all in play having definitive shots. The supporting race has a lot more names, yes, but none with any real grasp on the category, seemingly. By default that places that race much more up in the air.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | October 14, 2006 03:54 PM
Nicholas Cage in World Trade Center is a very strong contender in the Lead Actor too.
Posted by: numberina | October 14, 2006 07:25 PM
I do not think Jack would win in supporting but I think he could. It's Murphy's to lose but if he manages to lose it, then the race becomes very open as far as I'm concerned.
At least he'd have much better chances than in lead.
Posted by: Gerard Kennedy | October 14, 2006 07:47 PM
Murphy ain't losing.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | October 14, 2006 08:18 PM
I saw the trailer for History Boys last night when watching The Last King of Scotland. I was underwhelmed with the trailer and I have no desire to see it.
The real sleeper surprise of the fall is The Illusionist and I'm thinking Edward Norton will catch a buzz after all the hype with the other movies have fallen on the way side. I'm talking of Jack Nicholson in The Departed.
Posted by: RichardA | October 16, 2006 08:54 AM
I don't see how you've got it in your head they'd make such an assinine decision to place Jack in lead. He had plenty of screentime, but would OBVIOUSLY fare better in supporting. Besides, that's where he himself is campaigning--because he's smart. He wouldn't wreck his co-star Leo's chances of getting a nom by trying to wiggle into Best Actor. He knows where he belongs and I'm sure it's going to stay that way. And once you realize that, hopefully you can replace Ryan Gosling back on your list where he belongs.
Posted by: Cinemaniac | October 16, 2006 10:05 AM
Edit: asinine*.
Posted by: Cinemaniac | October 16, 2006 10:06 AM
I have my reasons, Cinemaniac. Things you see on this site aren't always based on gut feelings. Sometimes, you know, I hear things I can't TALK ABOUT.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | October 16, 2006 11:41 AM
As a Brit, I needed to comment that the critical reception for 'The History Boys' has not been particularly glowing - 'too stagey' being the main criticism. I'd count out Richard Griffiths as a contender in either category.
Posted by: kermit_the_frog | October 18, 2006 05:24 AM