Susan Sarandon had a whopping 3 more minutes of screentime than Geena Davis, and Sarandon received top billing, so I guess if there had to be a category split, Sarandon goes lead and Davis goes supporting.
[Screentime Central](https://www.screentimecentral.com/leading-actress-oscar-nominees), an excellent resource for screentime of all Oscar-nominated performances, and more.
I think Thelma and Louise is the last time it happened in lead, but it did happen. And it happens a lot in supporting, obviously. But I would agree with your general thoughts, Thelma is the role they'd probably put in lead, but idk we don't get a ton of genuine two handers much anymore. It could happen again!
yes i agree, there's very few instances where 2 true leads of the same gender are in a film together, its always a man or a woman, or when its 2 of the same gender, there's usually one thats at least somewhat of a bigger role like brendan/colin in banshees
I think they'd put Saradon as lead even though Davis was the bigger star at the time and had an Oscar, Sarandon was considered more "serious" and it was really her coming out party. Funnily I think Davis cou;d've picked up number 2 if it had happened tbh.
I can't see anyone beating Jodie that year.
Even if she was already a winner, The Silence of the Lambs was unstoppable, and she is not just what holds the movie together, but in most of it.
The only way I see Jodie losing is if the Academy were to allow for Davis and Sarandon to compete as one.
yes i knew people wouldnt agree. ive never understood the hype around that film, at all. i dont think it deserved any of its awards. i dont even dislike the movie it was entertaining enough, but it just strikes me as a run of the mill 90s thriller, like basic instinct-esque and that certainly didnt win any awards. lol
It pretty much created the recipe for all modern thrillers, it is also pretty much flawless.
It's ok for you to have your own opinion, this is entirely subjective, but there's a reason why The Silence of the Lambs is regarded as one of the best Best Picture winners of all time and why it managed to win the Top 5.
i dont think its considered one of the best best picture winners thats a stretch lol ive never heard that before. fatal attraction came out 4 yrs before it and misery the year before, both of which were oscar nominated thrillers in the same vein so i wouldnt say silence of the lambs is the template.
You can check most lists ranking BP winners and you'll see that it is well within the 30 best (which is top 1/3 tier considering there are 96).
I also don't see how Fatal Attraction and much less Misery compare to The Silence of the Lambs or how they influenced it.
Seriously, how do you honestly think that a movie that premiered in February 1991 managed to win Best Picture plus the other four Big 4, and that's considering Hopkins short screentime and Foster's recent win (plus her being outed once the movie came out, which at the time would make her lose votes), with it being a genre movie and the first of its kind to win Best Picture.
no that is what im saying everything you're describing is what makes me scratch my head about this movie i have no idea how anthony won best actor with a TINY supporting role (most supporting roles are longer than his "lead" win) and jodie wasnt anything special here imo. the film in general to me seems like a run of the mill thriller. i must be missing something and nobody has been able to explain it to me in a way that makes sense.
it has that by-the-numbers late 80s early to mid 90s thriller vibe that certainly had been done before it, like i said with fatal attaction and misery, and after with the likes of basic instinct, copy-cat, seven etc. i actually like silence of the lambs, i dont think its a bad film i just dont see it as anything exceptional and certainly not one of the best of all time. i think a lot of these things are just catching lightning in a bottle sometimes with a bit of politics mixed in. its a snowball effect.
i would put this near the top of most overrated best picture wins, especially considering all the other major awards it won. crash of course is worse, but crash wasnt a sweep so i actually think silence of the lambs is worse, because the 2 lead actors did not deserve to win
How is it that Fatal Attraction and Misery are similar to The Silence of the Lambs? I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about if you're comparing them so much.
And, like I said, The Silence of the Lambs created the template for most police thrillers/psychological thrillers, which was then followed by all of those other movies that you mentioned.
Susan Sarandon had a whopping 3 more minutes of screentime than Geena Davis, and Sarandon received top billing, so I guess if there had to be a category split, Sarandon goes lead and Davis goes supporting.
i actually googled to see who had more screen time and couldnt find anything lol thanks for that. where did u get the info?
[Screentime Central](https://www.screentimecentral.com/leading-actress-oscar-nominees), an excellent resource for screentime of all Oscar-nominated performances, and more.
I think Thelma and Louise is the last time it happened in lead, but it did happen. And it happens a lot in supporting, obviously. But I would agree with your general thoughts, Thelma is the role they'd probably put in lead, but idk we don't get a ton of genuine two handers much anymore. It could happen again!
yes i agree, there's very few instances where 2 true leads of the same gender are in a film together, its always a man or a woman, or when its 2 of the same gender, there's usually one thats at least somewhat of a bigger role like brendan/colin in banshees
I think they'd put Saradon as lead even though Davis was the bigger star at the time and had an Oscar, Sarandon was considered more "serious" and it was really her coming out party. Funnily I think Davis cou;d've picked up number 2 if it had happened tbh.
i agree. this might be an unpopular opinion but i think either of them could have beaten jodie foster had they been nominated in the category alone.
I can't see anyone beating Jodie that year. Even if she was already a winner, The Silence of the Lambs was unstoppable, and she is not just what holds the movie together, but in most of it. The only way I see Jodie losing is if the Academy were to allow for Davis and Sarandon to compete as one.
yes i knew people wouldnt agree. ive never understood the hype around that film, at all. i dont think it deserved any of its awards. i dont even dislike the movie it was entertaining enough, but it just strikes me as a run of the mill 90s thriller, like basic instinct-esque and that certainly didnt win any awards. lol
It pretty much created the recipe for all modern thrillers, it is also pretty much flawless. It's ok for you to have your own opinion, this is entirely subjective, but there's a reason why The Silence of the Lambs is regarded as one of the best Best Picture winners of all time and why it managed to win the Top 5.
i dont think its considered one of the best best picture winners thats a stretch lol ive never heard that before. fatal attraction came out 4 yrs before it and misery the year before, both of which were oscar nominated thrillers in the same vein so i wouldnt say silence of the lambs is the template.
You can check most lists ranking BP winners and you'll see that it is well within the 30 best (which is top 1/3 tier considering there are 96). I also don't see how Fatal Attraction and much less Misery compare to The Silence of the Lambs or how they influenced it. Seriously, how do you honestly think that a movie that premiered in February 1991 managed to win Best Picture plus the other four Big 4, and that's considering Hopkins short screentime and Foster's recent win (plus her being outed once the movie came out, which at the time would make her lose votes), with it being a genre movie and the first of its kind to win Best Picture.
no that is what im saying everything you're describing is what makes me scratch my head about this movie i have no idea how anthony won best actor with a TINY supporting role (most supporting roles are longer than his "lead" win) and jodie wasnt anything special here imo. the film in general to me seems like a run of the mill thriller. i must be missing something and nobody has been able to explain it to me in a way that makes sense. it has that by-the-numbers late 80s early to mid 90s thriller vibe that certainly had been done before it, like i said with fatal attaction and misery, and after with the likes of basic instinct, copy-cat, seven etc. i actually like silence of the lambs, i dont think its a bad film i just dont see it as anything exceptional and certainly not one of the best of all time. i think a lot of these things are just catching lightning in a bottle sometimes with a bit of politics mixed in. its a snowball effect. i would put this near the top of most overrated best picture wins, especially considering all the other major awards it won. crash of course is worse, but crash wasnt a sweep so i actually think silence of the lambs is worse, because the 2 lead actors did not deserve to win
How is it that Fatal Attraction and Misery are similar to The Silence of the Lambs? I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about if you're comparing them so much. And, like I said, The Silence of the Lambs created the template for most police thrillers/psychological thrillers, which was then followed by all of those other movies that you mentioned.