Zoe Saldaña (left) appeared in more of Emilia Pérez than Karla Sofía Gascón (right); Kate Winslet campaigned in the supporting category for The Reader but won the Oscar for lead actress; Paul Mescal has a supporting actor Golden Globe nomination for Hamnet. Illustration by Pixel Pushers; Courtesy of Studio (3) Share on Facebook Share on X Google Preferred Share to Flipboard Show additional share options Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on Reddit Share on Tumblr Share on Whats App Send an Email Print the Article Post a Comment Paul Mescal appears in less of Hamnet than Jessie Buckley, but that hasn't stopped some from screaming "fraud!" at his Golden Globe nomination for supporting actor. Though the fictionalized telling of the death of William and Agnes Shakespeare's eponymous son finds both parents wading through their grief, the mother carries more of the emotional weight. Yet Matthew Stewart, whose Screen Time Central website lists the exact amount of time of every actor's Oscar-nominated turn, posted on X recently that the Mescal bid "is one of THE most absolutely ludicrous supporting campaigns I've ever witnessed." Cue the replies eagerly concurring, firmly disagreeing or pointing out the real cases of system-cheating now unfolding. (Stewart's data is cited throughout this story.) Related Stories Movies Vin Diesel Says He "Wrote a Role" for Cristiano Ronaldo in Next 'Fast' Movie Movies Turning Dwayne Johnson into 'The Smashing Machine' Required a New Brow Bone, a Prosthetic Eyelid and a Whole Lot of Tattoo Removal Every year, studios, publicists and talent huddle to determine categories for the acting contenders on the bubble between lead and supporting. And a lot of film fans step in to disagree, believing that the stakes are nothing less than the integrity of film itself. They argue "category fraud" - forming online blocs and endlessly debating how the system has been unfairly gamed, the category designations dishonored. Oscar thirst, they cry, has outweighed common sense. But of course this kind of strategizing is what the Oscars are all about - they're best enjoyed at their frothiest, embracing every trick and sneak in the book. And have been for a long time. So I'm here to say let's stop worrying about category fraud and let the machinations fly. It's not even Christmas and the controversies are already multiplying. Wicked: For Good is pretty inarguably Ariana Grande's movie, at least as much as it is Cynthia Erivo's, but the former is still competing in supporting categories. Another mini-furor has arisen over the Norwegian family drama Sentimental Value, which finds Stellan Skarsgard similarly avoiding the best actor race despite the size of his patriarch role. The fraud debaters offer many preferred litmus tests. Some say screen time, but that gets complicated in large ensembles. Some point to being No. 1 on the call sheet - it's why Michelle Williams campaigned that way for The Fabelmans despite only appearing in about a third of that movie (she lost for lead actress, but many believe she could've won her first Oscar in the supporting field). And others look at whether the character has a main POV in the storytelling (this is Stewart's argument on Mescal). Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't - when I first saw Hamnet, I considered Mescal supporting without a second thought. There's no science to this. But I've covered enough awards seasons to believe these arguments are a waste of time. The Oscars rarely recognize the quote-unquote "best" because it's a massive machine driven by money, relationships, trends and, yes, strategy. Categorization is usually the least of it - and yet it sucks up so much of the oxygen. Last month, Stewart posted the screen time breakdown for current frontrunner One Battle After Another, revealing lead actress Globe nominee Chase Infiniti is in less than 20 percent of the movie (supporting nominee Sean Penn has more time). "This shows how silly it was for Infiniti to go lead," said one comment (echoing many others). But does it? Infiniti's placement gives her more clearly supporting co-stars Teyana Taylor and Regina Hall a better shot. It elevates her own profile as the breakout of an otherwise veteran-dense cast. And it allows Warner Bros., juggling an unusual volume of players this year, to make more room for the likes of Sinners' Wunmi Mosaku and Weapons' Amy Madigan. Strategy, baby. Consider last year's supporting actress winner, who battled "fraud" allegations for months. Zoe Saldaña appeared in more of Emilia Pérez than any other actor, including Karla Sofía Gascón, who had the title role. Yet Saldaña went supporting and Gascón lead. Netflix's decision to center its trans star and tease a potentially historic nom (which happened) defined the film's overall campaign - lifting all of its boats. Sure, this strategy went down in spectacular flames when said trans star turned out to have a long history of posting hateful messages (and lost). But, hey, at l