January 7, 2007

I Can't Believe It's Not Lecter!

Good job on Adam for spotting this! And, of course, it totally answers the question of "Lead or Supporting" for the big M.


Ali said...

I wonder if anyone cried out "fraud" back in '92 when Hopkins was placed in lead. It helped that the pairing was not same-sex, so they could each get their own categories.

Unlike recently, where Collateral, Brokeback, Last King of Scotland and Prada show that no one can make room for two same-sex leads. One always has to be demoted to the supporting race.

adam k. said...

I don't think it's ever as fraudulent to call yourself a lead when you're not as it is to say you're supporting when you're not. If people love you enough to think you're a lead, then hey, you kind of are. But if they love you enough to want to give you two different noms just cause you gave two performances, even if they're both totally lead, then, well... that's just stupid.

And yeah, actually, proving Meryl a lead is kind of what I was going for with that post, now that I think about it. It's amazing that the framing of those two shots was literally exactly the same. And the relationships in the two movies really are, too.

Kamikaze Camel said...

I bet that was the director's intention all along*

*okay, so it probably wasn't, but let's imagine it was okay?