Talk:Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor

Article Stripped Bare
Someone has single-handedly decided to delete a great deal of important information (to say nothing of contributors' hard work) from this article. What can be done? (JosephASpadaro 05:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Take Off The Flags
I suggest we take off the flags. It makes the whole article messy and confusing with the colorful flags all over the place. The flags overshadows the names of the nominees and winners, in my opinion. Besides this is the Oscar not the Olympics.

Leading versus Supporting Roles
I am curious. Does anyone know what "defines" or delineates a leading role from a supporting role? Are there any defined criteria? Or is it a "loose" / common sense definition? I assume that the Academy has some guidelines on this issue? Does anyone have any information? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC))
 * It is a loose term, sometimes a bigger supporting role is described as "SECOND LEAD" or "co-star" opposite the main lead. Timing is less important than quality of acting. Example: Anthony Hopkins was awarded for his role in Silence of the lambs, although he had much less screen time (about 15 minutes total)than his co-stars. His solid acting is the core of the film's success.


 * I would have thought it's related to the importance of the character's role to the story, not necessarily to the length of the character's screen time, or the quality of the acting. In a decent movie, all actors - no matter whether they're the main stars, or those with a walk-on-walk-off role in which they say twenty words - have to provide solid quality acting, or they won't make it to the final cut.  No matter how well the actor may play his role, and no matter how much screen time they may have, if the role itself is basically of little significance to the movie, there's no way the actor is going to be nominated for a Supporting award (let alone Leading).  As the significance of the role increases, so would the chances of the actor being nominated for a Supporting award.  But even where an actor playing a lower-than-major role acts better than stars in major roles, they stand little or no chance of being nominated for a Leading award, which are basically reserved for the actors with the top billing.  The basic rule of thumb is that there's a one-to-one relationship between the level of billing an actor gets and the importance of their role to the story depicted in the movie.  That rule doesn't always work exactly that way, but it's a broad guide.  --  JackofOz 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominated in first/first two etc roles
I recently became aware that Peter Falk received BSA nominations for his first 2 movie roles. I can do the research myself if necessary, but is there already a list of other such actors? Or people who were nominated for their first role? Of their first three (if any)? etc etc.  --  JackofOz 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I've just looked Falk up on IMDB and they weren't his first two roles after all.  But I'd still like to see if anyone else has achieved this.  --  JackofOz 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Superlatives
Just a quick note that it says Ralph Richardson was 82 when he was nominated. He actually died when he was aged 80 and the nomination wast posthumous. Not sure how you want to deal with this, but currently it's inaccurate. Cheers. Poker Flunky 08:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for posting that comment.  It's not actually inaccurate per se -- but I guess that it's probably very confusing and perhaps misleading.  And, as such, should be fixed.  Just so you know, here are the relevant dates and calculations for Mr. Richardson.


 * * Date of Birth: 12/19/1902
 * * Date of Death: 10/10/1983
 * * Age at Death (that is, his age on 10/10/1983): 80 years, 315 days
 * AND
 * * Date of Birth: 12/19/1902
 * * Date of Nomination: 02/06/1985
 * * Age at Nomination (that is, his age on 02/06/1985): 82 years, 70 days


 * As you pointed out, Mr. Richardson’s nomination was posthumous. In the case of a posthumous nomination, the Academy Award officials at AMPAS employ the following convention.  They calculate the "the elapse of time" between the date of the actor's birth and the date of the actor's nomination.  Normally (if the actor were still alive), the phrase "elapse of time" would mean the same exact thing as the actor's "age" (chronological).  However (if the actor has already passed away), the phrase "elapse of time" simply means "how much time has passed from the beginning date to the ending date" (that is, from the date of his birth until the date of his nomination), regardless of the fact of his intervening death.  So, in that case, the phrase "elapse of time" has a different meaning than "the actor's chronological age".  Or, another way to think about it: the word "age" here is a fiction to mean "his age if he were to have lived that long".  In any event, normally this type of oddity should and would be explained in a footnote or such.  I believe that I did not do so in this particular chart due to the lack of space / formatting / etc.  For example, see: List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees.  I simply lifted Mr. Richardson's "age" of 82 from that chart, without lifting the corresponding notation about the nomination being posthumous (again, due to space limitations).  Quite coincidentally, I was planning on fixing / redesigning / changing / reformatting these Superlatives tables and charts in the very near future.  When I do so, I will definitely take this into account.  Thanks again.  I appreciate your bringing up this apparent error / discrepancy … and I just wanted to let you know how it came about.  I will try to address it in a way that makes it more understandable and clearer to the reader.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Follow up: When the 80th Academy Awards nominations were announced for 2007, Hal Holbrook received a nomination for Best Supporting Actor at the age of 82. Holbrook thereby became the oldest nominee ever in the category, surpassing Ralph Richardson.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Another superlative
There's an error in the "Film" line - is it 3 or 4 nominations for Waterfront/Godfather..? ntnon (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that there is an error ... I suspect that you may be reading the Chart incorrectly. The films that you mention each have 3 Best Supporting Actor nominations.  Also, these films each have 4 total Actor nominations (that is, combining the nominations for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor).  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Nationalities of winners table
I have some concerns about the "Nationalities of winners" table that was recently added to this article along with the Best Actress, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress articles – many of them regard issues similar to what are raised WP:MOSFLAG.

What is the primary reason and basis to determine nationality or citizenship of the winners? Is it the nationality or citizenship of each actors' birth? Is it the nationality or citizenship when their specified film was released? Or is it their nationality or citizenship today?

There are many actors and actress like Oscar winners Anthony Hopkins, John Houseman, Elizabeth Taylor, and Charlize Theron who have changed their citizenship during their career. So unless there is some sort of standard, I am afraid I will have to remove the table. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is it that you are ultimately looking to achieve ... removing the tables ... or establishing a standard? Those are two very different objectives.  If it is the latter, I am sure that some standard can be derived through consensus. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Please centralize discussion at Talk:Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor to avoid repitition'''. Cop 663 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dating issue
''Prior to the 16th Academy Awards ceremony (1943), however, they received a plaque. The first recipient was Walter Brennan, who was honored at the 9th Academy Awards ceremony (1936) for his performance in Come and Get It. The most recent recipient was Alan Arkin, who was honored at the 79th Academy Awards ceremony (2006) for his performance in Little Miss Sunshine.'' etc.

Comment: I understand that the dates in brackets refer to the years of release of the films, not the actual years in which the awards ceremonies were held, which is the following year. For example, the 79th Academy Awards ceremony at which Alan Arkin won his award was held in 2007, not 2006. But many readers would not understand this. Maybe we need a box that could go at the head of all these related articles that explains the convention we're using. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point ... and the inconsistency of dates is always an "issue" when dealing with Academy Awards. As you mention, the year of the ceremony is always "off" by one, in relation to the year of film being honored.  However, I would say that this is not our (Wikipedia) convention ... isn't this really simply an Academy / AMPAS convention that we are mirroring?  Also, doesn't the wiki link to, say, 79th Academy Awards pretty easily clarify whatever confusion might lie in the reader's mind?  Those articles usually say, in the very first line ... "This ceremony was held on April 20, 1952, to honor the film year 1951" ... or some such.  To be honest, I think that adding yet another one of those dreaded "boxes" to all of the (dozens of) Academy Award articles would look silly.  There is enough of that "bureaucratic" nonsense that detracts from (not adds to) the article flow.  Every article I read has 8 gazillion boxes / tags that pretty much say nothing, and are pretty much ignored by most readers.  ("This articles needs clean up" ... "This article does not cite sources" ... "This article does not conform to Wiki standards" ... "We discourage the use of Trivia sections" ... ad nauseam.)  All of these boxes are distracting and add little for the reader.  Sure, they help bolster the ego of some Wiki editor who likes to exert some, uhhhh, "control" --- but they really serve no purpose to the reader.  I say less is more, when it comes to these distracting boxes.  Specifically, with regard to the Academy Awards ... if a reader can't click on the link (if/when he needs clarification), that's his issue, not ours.  And I think that, after a moment or two, the designation of years becomes apparent and obvious --- if indeed a reader takes that moment or two to read the articles, notice the formatting conventions, etc.  Those are my two cents.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC))


 * By the way, I just realized ... it's very odd and curious that you would pose that question on this page ... ?!?!?! Best Supporting Actor is one of the more "obscure" articles, if you will.  The issue you mention is more global to the Academy Awards in general.  So, I am just surprised to find it on an article as obscure as Best Supporting Actor.  You'd probably get more feedback on Academy Awards, or even Best Picture, Best Actor, etc.  Just a thought.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

The Table
The table is confusing as hell. Is this showing wins and nominations for Lead Actor as well? If so, why? And am I correct in thinking that I have to do some mathematical calculations to figure out who's got how many?

I'm going to delete this table if it's not made clearer. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Academy Award winning performances of non-fictional characters
Another editor brought to my attention the following list of (acting) Academy Award winning performances of non-fictional characters. I will leave it to others to ascertain whether or not this information belongs in the main article. I am posting it on the Talk Pages of the four acting Academy Awards in the event that someone wants to add in the information, as appropriate. I am also posting it for general information, in the event that a reader would like to know these facts. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Best Actor: Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland; Robert Deniro for Raging Bull; Philip Seymore Hoffman for Capote; Jamie Foxx for Ray; Geoffrey Rush for Shine; Sean Penn for Milk); Daniel Day-Lewis for My Left Foot; Adrien Brody for The Pianist; F. Murray Abraham for Amadeus; Ben Kingsley for Gandhi; George C. Scott for Patton; Gene Hackman for The French Connection; Paul Scofield for A Man for All Seasons; Yul Brynner for The King and I; James Cagney for Yankee Doodle Dandy; Gary Cooper for Sergeant York; Paul Muni for The Story of Louis Pasteur; Charles Laughton for The Private Life of Henry VIII; George Arliss for Disraeli; and Jeremy Irons for Reversal of Fortune.


 * Best Actress: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side; Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line; Helen Mirren for The Queen; Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose; Charlize Theron for Monster; Nicole Kidman for The Hours; Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich; Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry; Susan Sarandon for Dead Men Walking; Jodie Foster for The Accused; Sissy Spacek for Coal Miner's Daughter; Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter; Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker); Susan Hayward for I Want to Live!; Joanne Woodward for The Three Faces of Eve; Ingrid Bergman for Anastasia; Jennifer Jones for The Song of Bernadette; and Luise Rainer for The Great Ziegfeld.


 * Best Supporting Actor: Chris Cooper for Adaptation.; Jim Broadbent for Iris; Martin Landau for Ed Wood; Haing S. Ngor for The Killing Fields; Jason Robards for Julia; Jason Robards for All the President's Men; Peter Ustinov for Spartacus; Anthony Quinn for Lust for Life; Anthony Quinn for Viva Zapata!; Walter Brennan for The Westerner; and Joseph Schildkraut for The Life of Emile Zola.


 * Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett for The Aviator; Jennifer Connelly for A Beautiful Mind; Marcia Gay Harden for Pollock; Judi Dench for Shakespeare in Love; Angelina Jolie for Girl, Interrupted; Brenda Fricker for My Left Foot; Maureen Stapleton for Reds; Mary Steenburgen for Melvin and Howard; Vanessa Redgrave for Julia; Estelle Parsons for Bonnie and Clyde; Patty Duke for The Miracle Worker; Shelly Winters for The Diary of Anne Frank; and Alice Brady for In Old Chicago.

Max Von Sydow
He was 82 years old when he was nominated for Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208011732/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021054540/http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf to http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021054540/http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf to http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120905/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/55th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1983

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting table by decade
Left a note at User talk:Michael 182 about his changes to the 4 related AA acting articles. Do any other editors/readers care about keeping the list as one continuous sortable table, or do you prefer a split by decade, and if so, why? Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No comments in a week, so nobody seems to care. Leaving it split is ok with this editor. Isn't anyone else watching this 'featured' list? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move most of the images to a Wikimedia gallery?
Please see explanation and make any responses at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor#Move_most_of_the_images_to_a_Wikimedia_gallery? best actor talk page]. Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Anthony Quinn signed.JPG

Awards by Genre
Backup data for Number of awards by genre of the film - ties count equal

Sidebar images & captions ~ Please discuss here FIRST to prevent edit warring!
Hello! Opening up this talk space (in response to dilemmas—that are now resolved thankfully) as per the lead acting pages, so that if anyone would like to dispute or discuss the people chosen to be represented on the sidebar, or discussing together to reach a compromise together, here's the place. We can also work together to find better free images of certain actresses. Also, if you want to include infobox captions with wikilinks, or have an issue, please talk about it FIRST. Thanks.

P.S. Idk who created that chart above, but I love it. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 03:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)