First of all, why was Tatum moved to supporting role in the first place?
And If she was to never have moved, would Linda Blair have won the Oscar?

Just imagining...

Wasn't Glenda Jackson a surprise best actress winner that year? Wasn't the race supposed to be between Burstyn and Streisand? Therefore I would assume O'Neal was moved to assure an Oscar for her since she couldn't compete in the main category. Blair quite possibly would have won had O'Neal not been there, but I feel had she been absent, her much-deserving costar Kahn would have taken the prize.

(I have nothing to back this up; it's just what I imagine might have happened. )

I think Sylvia Sidney would have won supporting had Tatum been nominated in lead. The Mercedes McCambridge thing took a lot of steam out of Linda Blair's campaign, and Sidney had a huge silent career that wasn't recognized when the Academy started up.

I'm glad someone mentioned this race. I saw Paper Moon for the first time last year, and absolutely loved Tatum O'Neal's performance. Such a sarcastic little punk, but you loved her to death. Too bad her real-life father and co-star was a jealous pr***.

For those who can't recall immediately who was in the Actress and Supporting Actress races for 1974, here are the lists:

BEST ACTRESS
Ellen Burstyn, "The Exorcist"
Glenda Jackson, "A Touch of Class"
Marsha Mason, "Cinderella Liberty"
Barbra Streisand, "The Way We Were"
Joanne Woodward, "Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Linda Blair, "The Exorcist"
Candy Clark, "American Graffiti"
Madeline Kahn, "Paper Moon"
Tatum O'Neal, "Paper Moon"
Slyvia Sydney, "Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams"

*** NOTE: Jackson and O'Neal won in their respective categories ***

I haven't seen "Summer Wishes," but if O'Neal were not in supporting that year, I probably would've voted for Linda Blair. Again, it's such a tough category, because some of the performances were so Right in their own fashion; Kahn played the foul-mouthed sleaze with ease, Clark was wonderful as the buxom blonde with brawn, and Blair soared once the transformation of her character began. That would've been tough for me.

I don't know if O'Neal would've won if she were pushed lead (though there is no way her character should've been supporting, AT ALL). I have seen Jackson's performance in a long time, but I can tell you that Burstyn's wouldn't have impressed me enough to get my vote. It probably would've been between Streisand and O'Neal for me, considering that -- again -- I have not seen "Summer Wishes".


I still don't understand how they could justify O'Neal as Supporting. That's one of the biggest category frauds I have literally ever encountered in any ceremony. Ever.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dr. McPhearson,

Tatum O'Neal was great in Paper Moon and was a worthy oscar winner however....like Timothy Hutton's win it was definitely category fraud.

By the time the oscars rolled around Linda Blair had no chance to win. The whole Mercedes McCambridge thing had come out after the nominations and she had no chance after that. Really anyone could have played Linda Blair's part in The Exorcist as she basically just laid in bed with a bunch of make-up on.

Sylvia Sidney was good in SWSD but not oscar worthy still I guess its possible she could have won since most academy members were familiar with her work and career.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Stinger,

Tatum was probably placed in supporting b/c of her age, like Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker. It was a common practice back then.

Joanne Woodward and Marsha Mason were also in the race for Actress. Joanne won the NYFCC award, totally deserved for her performance as the "ice queen". Mason won the Golden Globe for her film debut in "Cinderella liberty".

Many experts believe that the reason Jackson won was the result of a four way vote split. Woodward, Mason, Streisand, Burstyn all split the vote and Jackson won. Burstyn rode the "Exorcist" wave, Streisand was riding her box office and her reviews, Mason her recent globe win, Woodward not only her NYFCC win but her great reviews. Woodward would have been my pick. Take into account though that the film itself didn't get spectacular reviews, but the performances did.

In the race for supporting actress I don't believe Kahn would have won because if O'neal won then that means Kahn didn't get enough votes to have them split the vote, so i don't think she got enough to be in second place. I do believe however that Blair was in second place because of her golden globe win, Sidney was in third, Kahn in fourth, Clarke in fifth.

What do you guys think?

I thought Woodward and Sydney were a little actressy myself, although Sydney was a scream. But so much screeching and angst. Got a little tiring after awhile. I preferred Joanne in her previous oscar nominated turn, Rachel, Rachel directed by her husband where she played an innocent old maid type. As a depressed, complaining haus frau, Missy was much less engaging.

I loved "Rachel, Rachel", you know that was just released on DVD.

I was just wondering though, do you guys agree with the four women splitting the vote and it going to jackson for the win?

quote:

Originally posted by moviebuff144:
I loved "Rachel, Rachel", you know that was just released on DVD.

I was just wondering though, do you guys agree with the four women splitting the vote and it going to jackson for the win?

I can definitely see the seas parting voter-wise, leaving the one with just over 20% majority for the win. If ever a race was that close, this could have been one of those years.

^^ How else could it have happened. Mason shouldve definitely won, imo.

quote:

Originally posted by rockstitution:
^^ How else could it have happened. Mason shouldve definitely won, imo.

I was saying that this year didn't have a clear frontrunner, leaving everyone to go with their personal choice (you'd think that people choose their favorites every year, but an Oscar voter I spoke with last January said that he almost felt like he HAD to vote for Rourke despite preferring Langella). Instead of someone shooting out ahead, I can see someone winning with barely more than a 1/5 of the voting pool.

Yep. That pretty much what I was saying. I think it's the same thing that happened to Marisa Tomei actually. It being a comedic performance probably helped it stand-out from the pack as well.

This whole thing about "vote-splitting" always makes me crazy.

How can 4 women from 4 different movies "split votes" so that a fith women wins? You could just as easily say "I think Glenda Jackson won because she got the most votes".
Could it not be that 20,1% of the Academy members actually thought that Glenda gave the best performance? Sure, that would mean that the remaining 79,9 "split" the votes between the remaining nominees, but something like that can always happen. Again, it simply means that one candidate got the most votes and won.

You can say that always the five nominees split votes because everyone of them gets votes. And in the end, the person with the most votes wins. Nobody says "Helen Mirren won because the other four split votes".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fritz,

Had I a vote to cast for the actual race, it would have been for Madeleine Kahn who was the true supporting actress of the year, and maybe of the decade. It is a damned shame that she died without an Oscar.

I would probably give it to Kate Reid for her excellent work in A Delicate Balance.

OK, Fritz let me try to explain to you the meaning of the term "vote splitting". Usually, the term refers to two performances in one category, but can include more.

Let's take any year, let's say 1973 Best Actress.

Let's say that Marsha Mason and Joanne Woodward won the majority of the awards. None of the other three ladies won any awards. This would lead most people to assume that one of these two ladies would win the Oscar. But, if when the academy goes to vote, the voters aren't sure who to vote for, some may change their minds and vote for Marsha or some for Joanne, or some may decide that one of them is going to win so they put their weight behind someone else.


Let's say:

Marsha got 31% of the vote
Joanne got 30% of the vote
Glenda got 31.1% of the vote
Barbara got 5.9% of the vote
Ellen got 2% of the vote

Clearly the two "leading contenders" together had the majority of votes together, but neither won because they "split the votes", leaving room for Glenda to win.

I hope this makes some sense to you.

I take it you didn't mean to be quite as patronising to Fritz as you sound. Especially as not only is he entirely correct but neither your original post or explanation make any sense at all.

A vote split can only really happen if 2 or more of the leading contenders have something in common which means their likely supporters would be split between them thus allowing a 3rd less favoured candidate to win.

For example in 1950 big, showy, iconic performances by legendary mature actress' on the comeback trail, split the vote and allowed a Judy Holiday to win. It's very likely that the same audience would have appreciated both Bette or Gloria. If either one of them had been nommed alone there is no doubt they would have won but the vote was split.

This also happens frequently when 2 people are nommed for the same film. I suspect that either Geena Davis or Susan Sarandon may have won if they had been the single nominee from Thelma and Louise. This is the reason we have so much category fraud these days.

This is not the case in '73 (I wish people would stick the year in which the perfs were given rather than the awards handed out. I thought we all agreed on that years ago).

To me this year seems to be one of those completely unaccountable wins that we will never know the real reason for although it's my theory that she won because she was AMAZING!!!

I hadn't seen A Touch of Class for years before catching it again a while back and Glenda Jackson was a revelation. You wouldn't think comedy would be her forte but she was hilarious. I haven't seen Joanne Woodward (Who I've always assumed should have won that year) but of the others Glenda would deffo get my vote.

Although I'm a Labour Part supporter I'm almost looking forward to the next election and their inevitable defeat as it may mean Ms Jackson will return to acting!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Baby Clyde,

quote:

Originally posted by moviebuff144:
OK, Fritz let me try to explain to you the meaning of the term "vote splitting". Usually, the term refers to two performances in one category, but can include more.

Let's take any year, let's say 1973 Best Actress.

Let's say that Marsha Mason and Joanne Woodward won the majority of the awards. None of the other three ladies won any awards. This would lead most people to assume that one of these two ladies would win the Oscar. But, if when the academy goes to vote, the voters aren't sure who to vote for, some may change their minds and vote for Marsha or some for Joanne, or some may decide that one of them is going to win so they put their weight behind someone else.


Let's say:

Marsha got 31% of the vote
Joanne got 30% of the vote
Glenda got 31.1% of the vote
Barbara got 5.9% of the vote
Ellen got 2% of the vote

Clearly the two "leading contenders" together had the majority of votes together, but neither won because they "split the votes", leaving room for Glenda to win.

I hope this makes some sense to you.

Um... that's not what vote splitting is. What you've described is called a "plurality". I've always assumed winning an Oscar without attaining a majority vote is what happens more often than not.

I'm skeptical vote-splitting happens at all, or at least not as often as people claim it does. But that's a whole other issue.