The Oscars—Hollywood’s annual celebration of cinematic excellence, glamour, and enough drama to rival a telenovela.
This year’s awards season has been particularly chaotic, with scandals ranging from actors’ questionable social media histories to directors dabbling in AI (because apparently, robots are now gunning for Best Director).
But amidst all this chaos, one topic has taken center stage: category fraud. Yes, folks, it seems like everyone is up in arms about who belongs where on the nominee list—and whether some stars are pulling a fast one by sneaking into categories they don’t quite fit.
For those unfamiliar with the term, “category fraud” isn’t about forging ballots or bribing Academy members (though that would make for an excellent plot twist). Instead, it refers to the practice of studios strategically placing actors in lead or supporting categories to boost their chances of winning.
Think of it as Hollywood’s version of musical chairs—but instead of chairs, we’re talking golden statuettes. And boy, does this year have plenty of examples.
Take Kieran Culkin, for instance. Nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in A Real Pain, Culkin finds himself at the center of controversy—not because he gave a bad performance (quite the opposite), but because many argue he should’ve been slotted into the Best Actor category.
After all, his character shares nearly equal screen time with Jesse Eisenberg’s protagonist. It’s almost as if they were co-leads… oh wait, they are! Some critics compare this situation to Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon’s iconic pairing in Thelma & Louise, where both actresses competed in the same category.
So why is Culkin playing second fiddle here? Well, according to industry insiders, it’s simple math: splitting votes between two co-stars in the same category can be disastrous. By positioning Culkin as a supporting actor, his odds of taking home an Oscar skyrocket.
Call it gamesmanship, call it strategic brilliance—or call it cheating, depending on your perspective.
Then there’s Zoe Saldaña, whose nomination for Best Supporting Actress in Emilia Pérez has raised eyebrows faster than her character’s eyebrow-raising decisions.
According to data crunched by Screen Time Central, Saldaña actually spends more time on-screen than her co-star Karla Sofia Gascón, who was nominated for Best Actress. If you’re keeping score at home, that’s 57 minutes and 50 seconds versus 52 minutes and 21 seconds.
Sure, numbers aren’t everything, but when someone literally spends more time on-screen, shouldn’t they at least get credit for showing up to work longer?
And let’s not forget Wicked, the big-screen adaptation of the beloved Broadway musical. Back in its theater days, Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth—the original Elphaba and Glinda—both earned Tony nominations for Best Actress in a Musical.
Fast forward to today, and guess what? Cynthia Erivo (Elphaba) is up for Best Actress, while Ariana Grande (Glinda) is relegated to the supporting category. Cue the collective gasp from fans everywhere. Was this decision based on artistic merit, screen time, or just plain old-fashioned strategy?
Who knows! But one thing’s for sure: Grande’s powerhouse vocals probably deserved more than a sidekick label.
Of course, none of this would matter if the Oscars had clear rules about what constitutes a “lead” versus a “supporting” role. Spoiler alert: they don’t.
As Michael Schulman, author of Oscar Wars, explains, “There are no official rules delineating a lead versus supporting performance.” Translation: studios can pretty much do whatever they want.
Want to market your star as a supporting player even though they’re clearly carrying the film? Go ahead! Need to split your co-stars into separate categories to avoid vote-splitting? Knock yourself out! The only real guideline is whether Academy voters buy it—and sometimes, they don’t.
Case in point: Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith Stanfield in Judas and the Black Messiah. Originally marketed as lead and supporting actors, respectively, both ended up competing in the Best Supporting Actor category in 2021.
Confused yet? Don’t worry; so was everyone else. Somehow, Kaluuya walked away with the Oscar, leaving audiences scratching their heads over who exactly he was supposed to be “supporting.”
The truth is, defining a supporting role is trickier than explaining quantum physics. Is it based on screen time? Emotional journey? Perspective? Or is it just a gut feeling?
Rich Cline, chair of the London Film Critics’ Circle, sums it up perfectly: “The word ‘supporting’ often feels inadequate to define a performance.” From ensemble casts to brief-but-impactful cameos, the spectrum is vast.
Take Isabella Rossellini in Conclave, for example. Her role may have been short, but her impact was anything but. How do performances like hers stand a chance against actors hogging the spotlight for entire films?
Speaking of hogging the spotlight, let’s talk about Al Pacino. Poor guy didn’t win an Oscar until decades after The Godfather, thanks in part to being miscategorized as a supporting actor despite having more screen time than Marlon Brando.
Meanwhile, Brando snagged Best Actor for his smaller but flashier role. Talk about unfair! And then there’s Viola Davis, whose Oscar-winning turn in Fences sparked debates about whether she was truly a supporting character. Spoiler alert: she wasn’t. In fact, she won a Tony for the same role in the lead category. Irony much?
So, is category fraud a harmless quirk of the awards circuit, or a slap in the face to genuine supporting performances? That depends on whom you ask.
For every critic crying foul, there’s a fan cheering on their favorite star. Social media is ablaze with comments like, “Kieran Culkin doesn’t belong in that category, but honestly, I’m too busy admiring his talent to care.”
Others take a harder stance, lamenting how category shuffling robs lesser-known actors of recognition. As one Twitter user put it, “Guy Pearce, I’m so sorry that category fraud is about to rob you of your Oscar.”
At the end of the day, the Oscars remain as arbitrary as ever—a mix of artistry, politics, and good old-fashioned showbiz magic. While stopwatches might help clarify things, they’d also suck all the fun out of the debate. So, let the games continue, and may the best (or most strategically placed) actor win!
Leave a Reply