Last month, the first trailer for Fences came out and many people were like “welp, I guess Denzel Washington and Viola Davis are going to win all the Oscars!” Fences is a film adaptation of the successful August Wilson play, and both Denzel and Viola performed in the Broadway version six years ago. Both actors won lead-actor Tony Awards for their performances too. Here’s the trailer:
It feels so Oscar-baity! And that’s a good thing. Considering we’re about to enter November, it’s time for all of the Oscar-season positioning from the studios, and what’s surprising to me is that there really are only a handful of people consistently being mentioned. I keep hearing about Moonlight and Loving, I keep hearing about Natalie Portman in Jackie and Emma Stone in La La Land. And now it’s pretty much guaranteed that we’ll be hearing A LOT about Viola Davis. She’s just decided that she wants her performance to be considered “supporting” not lead.
It hasn’t just been Oscar-watchers on the sidelines paying close attention to the campaign details of Viola Davis’ “Fences” performance this season. Rival campaigns have had their eyes glued to the scenario as well. The lead actress contest is incredibly competitive with performances from Emma Stone (“La La Land”), Natalie Portman (“Jackie”) and Annette Bening (“20th Century Women”) considered top-tier players, and everyone from established perennial Oscar favorites (Meryl Streep in “Florence Foster Jenkins,” Amy Adams in “Arrival”) to impressive newcomers (Ruth Negga in “Loving”) clamoring for a seat before the music stops.
Any of the campaigns behind those contenders would be eager to see Davis, who won the lead actress Tony for the play’s revival six years ago, vacate the category. They got their wish over the weekend. After finally seeing the film herself last week, Davis felt her performance as Rose Maxson was a supporting one, and Paramount is respecting her decision. On Monday, the studio will submit her in the supporting category for Screen Actors Guild Awards consideration. The same is expected with the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. for the Golden Globes.
There had been some debate both online and off (and internally) about how this performance would be positioned. Sometimes the smallest things spark a little drama on this beat. But as ever, it will be up to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ actors branch to determine where to nominate the performance when it comes to the Oscars; unlike SAG, the Academy (and the HFPA, for that matter) is not bound by category placement.
Oscar voters have reversed category submissions before (Benicio Del Toro in “Traffic,” Kate Winslet in “The Reader”). HFPA members have as well (Rooney Mara in “Carol,” Alicia Vikander in “The Danish Girl”). Generally speaking, though, everyone falls in line. And should Davis go on to win the supporting Oscar? She’ll join “The King and I” star Yul Brynner as one of only two actors to win a Tony and an Oscar in two different categories for the same performance.
I’d like to make several points all at once. One, the fact that Viola Davis still doesn’t have an Oscar is a f—king absurdity. Two, one of the big reasons why Viola agreed to How to Get Away with Murder was because she was tired of fighting for good roles in films, roles that were at her talent level. Three, I sincerely hope that there won’t be a lot of conversation about “category fraud” in this case. That was a consistent criticism around Alicia Vikander’s awards season last year/this year: that Vikander was really the co-lead in The Danish Girl and she was merely positioned as supporting so that she would win awards (which really did happen). Even if Viola is category-frauding, who gives a sh-t? Why shouldn’t she have a leg up? As I said, it’s a travesty that she hasn’t already won an Oscar. Besides, if she had been nominated in Best Actress and they had given the Oscar to Natalie Portman, I would have to burn the place down.
Photos courtesy of WENN, stills from ‘Fences’.
“Category fraud” at the Oscars? Nooooobody cares.
Will Kanye rant about that?
The Oscars are pretty much a fraud themselves so…
She probably has a better chance to win in supporting. If Natalie Portman gives the best performance of the year then what’s wrong with her winning?
I havn’t seen “Fences” but I did see “Jackie” and Natalie was outstanding. I’ve never seen her that good and she will absolutely be the one to beat come February.
Cuz that isn’t how the world works. No black woman has won best actress since Halle Berry and before that it was 1940. She has a lot better chance of winning supporting
You’re forgetting about the “Oscars so white” backlash from this year. In 2017 the Academy is going to be hyper aware of the color of the actors they nominate and I guarantee they will be encouraged to vote for a POC even if it’s undeserved, purely to avoid backlash. Now if Viola Davis gives the best performance of the year (let’s face it, she will) then there is no way she will be overlooked. Imo this is her year.
This is why I don’t think Natalie will win. Yes she was great but because of the Oscarsowhite backlash. they will have to give it to a black woman/
I think Ruth Negga will be the main front-runner. Loving is getting rave reviews.
This year is going to be crazy competitive in Best Actress, but Davis is a lock in Supporting Actress.
And I would be amazed to see Annette Benning lose a 3rd time.
This sort of thing is done all the time. I don’t know why we should start calling it a fraud all of a sudden. It is unfair (in general, not in just Viola’s case) towards those who actually play supporting roles, but it has been like this for a long time.
Also, if she feels it’s a supporting role, then it’s not a problem anyway.
The term “category fraud” has been around for a while, and you’re right, people do it all the time. Alicia Vikander and Rooney Mara did the same thing last year. If there is tough competition for Best Actress/Actor, then studios push for supporting Oscars because it’s their best chance to win one. I remember reading an interesting screen time comparison article one year, and one of the supporting nominees had more screen time than some of the leads.
Yep!! Happens all the time. It’s a consideration in Oscar strategies.
It’s strategic and ensures the person wins ( or receives a nomination) something instead of being overlooked because the academy darling made a film this year and has to be nominated over your more deserving talent.
Um no… if Alicia gets accused, then so should Viola!!!? I read sooo much crap about how Alicia was scamming the system. Either you are fair game or noone should get questions at all.
No, it depends on whether you like the actress or not!
Exactly. Last year Vikander and Mara were so obviously in the wrong category, and they were criticised for that , like each time this thing occur. If the same thing happen with Viola this year, she would have the same treatment, especially on cinema / awards forum where people care about this things.
But if the criticism is harsher on Viola then that’s BS. Frankly I believe Alicia should’ve won for Deux because it was her better performance but again she had better chances at supporting. But the establishment do this ish year after year so I didn’t care that Alicia gamed the system and I won’t care if Viola does it.
i really don’t think that it should be harsher on Viola , beacause she ‘s more respected and liked that Vikander and Mara for example.
But sometimes the voters don’t go with the placement studio go for, like when the academy placed Winslet in lead for the Reader, while she had win some prizes in the best supporting category.
Maybe than Viola being more established than Vikander or Mara , they will go the same route than with Kate in 2009.
It is not harsher on Viola, it was really bad for her while people seem to really want Viola get a nom so they do not care. This is annoying trend and nobody should do it. But lets wait to see how big her role really is.
Does Viola need help?
I have a few weeks vacation I can use up!
Ironically, this may not be category fraud….but it may have been when she won the Tony!
In the original version of the play the actress who played the role of Rose was submitted for and won best featured actress (the supporting actress Tony). There’s talk that when Viola won in the 2010 revival for lead she had submitted in the lead category because it was less competitive that year.
Interesting story but as others have said, either way who cares. If it bothered the organizations they would tighten the rules (and Alicia Vikander won with BLATANT category fraud).
From what I’ve heard the film version changes just enough to make her a definite co-lead (tbh the character is in the play too, it’s just that old thing of the male lead being considered THE lead and the woman lead being considered supporting because obviously if there’s a man in the story, it’s his story).
The Oscars are never about the work. There are so many other factors involved and rarely does quality have anything to do with it. That’s why I don’t care who wins.
It could be the studio’s decision rather than Viola’s. But I can imagine actresses in actual supporting roles not liking when someone in a lead role gets submitted as supporting. But this has been happening forever, I’m sure, so why not just go with it?
I don’t even think it’s category fraud at all. In the original play I’d definitely call Rose a supporting role. Obviously I haven’t seen the film yet, but Vikander (and even more egregiously, Mara- she had more screen time than Blanchett!) seem like much more obvious cases. And she’ll most probably win in Supporting, so why not go for it?
PS. I think it’ll be weird for Portman to have 2 Best Actress Oscars seeing as her filmography really isn’t great, but I got to see Jackie recently and she was incredible.
I think she’s better than needing a ‘leg up’…but if she wants that statue and the Academy doesn’t see her performance as the ‘best’ in the lead actress category…then she’s just playing the game that her career requires I guess…
I guess I’d be afraid of winning then people saying “oh, well she won because of the category she was in”…and diminishing the win somehow.
Is the validation of an oscar truly worth it?? Regardless, viola is a terrific actress but like someone stated above. If Natalie or Emma did put on a better performance that just how it works. I also see the frustration that viola is basically the only poc in these categories
This year Ruth Negga, Lupita, Taraji, Gugu Mbatha Raw , Naomie Harris, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monae are all in with a chance of nomination along with Viola.
Also Denzel, Mahershala Ali, and Dev Patel. Plus Barry Jenkins and Pablo Larrain for directing, possibly Denzel there too.
Are you saying Lupita for Queen of Katwe? I like her and all…but I think that is a very very slim chance.
Lupita is supposed to be fantastic, but the movie needed to be a commercial hit in order to be a contender. However, there are a lot of great performances from people of color that will hopefully be honored this year.
I don’t see why she should get a pass. Last year Rooney Mara and Alicia got dragged through the coals for committing category fraud, and I still see people saying they don’t consider Alicia’s win legitimate. Viola’s role in Fences is even more of a lead role than Alicia’s.
The Oscars has a long history of this, and if you don’t care that’s fine, but don’t be a hypocrite. Either it’s fine for all or fine for none, not terrible of some who we hate and a brilliant choice for some we love.
If there’s a long history of this, then I don’t think it’s unfair at all. Winning Oscars is a game to a certain degree, so why not play it strategically? But I’m coming from the perspective of someone who enjoys watching the Oscars, but doesn’t get all wrapped up in anticipating who will win what.
Personally, I think they should just do away with the “supporting” and “lead” categories all together, and simply have best actor and best actress, whether in a lead or a supporting role. There’s no “Best Assistant Director” award, after all, so why “Best Supporting Actor/Actress”? The ceremony is way too long, they could afford to trim it down a bit.
Agree. People have to be consistent. I didn’t care last year and I don’t this year. I get a pass. I know Oscars are like a political campaign. It is not fair. People do what they have to do to win.
But those who criticized Vilkander and Rooney last year – no pass for them. ))
She was the best thing about Suicide Squad. And she never wore a costume. Her scenes were the most chilling.
She may have actually made a mistake here. The lead actress race is so tight because some voters are going to be split between Emma and Natalie, and others split between Annette and Amy. If Viola joined that race and campaigned well she could cut right through that.
Supporting is a bit trickier. Michelle and Naomie are in the better films, always a factor for supporting. Nicole and Lupita are in the kind of feel-good films voters will actually watch. And then there’s Greta Gerwig coming in with two possible contenders, not to mention Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monae.
I could be totally wrong, but I think Supporting is much less tricky this year and she’ll win the televised awards in a landslide- Michelle and Naomie are in great films, but have about 8 minutes screen time each. Viola’s got a much bigger part with a really dramatic arc and a couple of killer monologues. In Lead, Natalie has raves and Emma is in a film that’ll probably win Best Picture, and Viola wouldn’t even be considered most overdue (that’d be Annette or even Amy). I think it’s strategically a good decision.
I don’t think Natalie Portman will win another Oscar, not after she won so soon for Black Swan (which was then controversial because of the dancing) and later said that she doesn’t care about Oscars and doesn’t even know where her first one is; Amy Adams has yet to win one, and I don’t see Portman winning her second before they give Adams her first. Emma Stone, a previous nominee, has the lead at this point, especially if Viola Davis goes Supporting. The Oscars are all political. It has little to do with the actual performance. How can we effectively/objectively judge a subjective art form anyway?…
The fact that all the other actresses mentioned (annette, Natalie, Amy, Meryl and emma) are all white just pisses me off… why can’t both the leads from loving and fences just be nominated in the best actress category? I’m sick of it being full of mediocre white performances!!! But I guess those changes will come with time. I guess they’ll have to play the system until then. And good on them. I want loving and fences to win all the acting categories. Im so sick of white washed hollywood.
I don’t think Viola’s race has anything to do with it. I think Emma and Natalie are too strong for Viola to have a chance at winning. Whereas, she will probably win in supporting.
I don’t think Emma’s and Natalie’s performances are necessarily stronger (though admittedly I haven’t seen either of their films yet). I think the problem is that Natalie, Emma and Amy got a head start given that their films were screened in Venice and Toronto. So they are the front runners, not necessarily because their performances are stronger, but because their performances have been buzzed about since September. No one has seen Fences yet, and the reviews won’t be in until what, December? By then, it will be too late for Viola to build momentum in the lead actress category. For the past few years (with a few exceptions, like Leo D. last year, who was campaigning even while he shot The Revenant), it has seemed as though studios *have* to screen their films early in order to have a shot at winning any awards, because all of the categories are locked up by November/December. I don’t think this is fair, and the Oscars in general are pretty meaningless at this point given that politics and campaigning seem to be more important than the actual performances, but if the studio wanted Viola to have a shot at lead, they should have screened the film sooner. I honestly think if they had, she’d be the one to beat. And that makes me sad, because I love Viola and want her first win to be a lead actress Oscar.
Annette, Emma, and Natalie are locks. Viola would have been a lock for a nomination had she submitted as Best Actress, but is now gunning for supporting and is already the frontrunner to win. Ruth Negga has a great shot at Best Actress. Meryl isn’t happening. Amy Adams might, if everything goes right.
The other name being mentioned a lot is Ruth Negga, from Loving. The film is apparently very good and her performance is apparently stunning — and she’s Black, and the story is about the interracial couple who went to the Supreme Court to break down the legal barriers to interracial marriage in Virginia. So not just Black, but a good story.
I hope Negga gets a nomination: given how political the choice of actual winner is, I feel that getting the recognition of the nomination is more worthwhile than the win. If Davis moving to Supporting leaves a gap that Negga can take and join Stone/Benning/Portman/Adams in the Lead nominations, maybe Negga can sneak through and win? (I agree that Meryl Streep is probably not a contender this year.)
Oh my gosh!!! No one has ever done anything like this in the history of the Academy!!! I have never…
….I’m sorry but the outrage rousers will have to work a bit harder than this. It *is* an election year after all. My GAF is limper than Trump’s groping excuses.
Go Viola!!!!!
Girl yes! We’re on the same page! I can’t get upset about “fraud” in the Oscar race like c’mon! Nobody really cares! But she better win one soon cause it’s really a crime that she doesn’t have one yet and she’s hands down one of the best actress alive. Same for Amy Adams.
Nobody cares. Well, obviously apart from those people who have a potential to get a spot in that category.
I didn’t care with Vilkander last year and I don’t care with Viola this year. It seems that is how it is done when there are 2 leads. It is movie politics.
Well, without having seen the film we don’t know if it’s category fraud. If she genuinely feels she’s supporting or if it’s borderline I’m cool with it but if it’s her agent advising her she can’t win in Lead (Bening seems to be an early fave and she’s even more overdue) but can in Supporting then urgh. I hope it’s the former because this game has become too common recently and it isn’t really fair when it knocks out genuine supporting players.
Sorry but there are a number of amazing actresses who have never won an Oscar: Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Amy Adams to name three. I don’t see outrage over them. Why not? I have a huge problem with category fraud. It is absolutely unfair for a lead actress to compete in a supporting category. It’s called SUPPORTING for a reason and it is most unfair to those actors who DID play a supporting role in a film to have to compete with a lead actor.
If you read film and awards message boards, people are constantly championing Bennington, Close, and Adams, and rooting for them to finally win an Oscar.
Julianne Moore is another one who was seen as overdue for an Oscar before she won last year. Viola is hardly the only one to get that kind of support.
Goldie, I meant on this site. I’m responding to the original posting.
I guess she feels like she has a better shot of winning in supporting rather than lead.
But yeah..definitely not the first time thats happened. I personally think Julia Roberts was more of a lead in August : Osage County but she went into supporting as well.
Eh, it’s better than the insane Emma Rice drama that the industry press and more or less every single person I know has been almightily losing their shit over all day.
If it’s such a big deal, why don’t Oscar rules address this? Number of minutes, or percentage of film equals supporting role, etc.
If you know the history of the play, you know the answer is no, this isn’t category fraud because this is indeed a supporting role. The actress who played the part in the original 1987 production, Mary Alice, won a Tony as best FEATURED actress which is the Tony’s equivalent of BSA.
Even though Natalie Portman was good, I don’t think she will win. Due to the Oscarssowhite backlash. They will have to give it to a black woman. I don’t think Viola will get it either, My money is on Ruth Negga for Loving.