Jamie Lee Curtis and the Curse of Campaigns
By Yaa Mensah-King
When Jamie Lee Curtis’ name was called out as the Best Supporting Actress at the 95th Academy Awards, I was truly baffled. In a stacked category next to Angela Bassett, Kerry Condon, Hong Chau and Stephanie Hsu, I didn’t even consider Curtis to be a threat, and yet, she rose above the rest when it mattered most. How?
Hollywood has always been a game of who’s who, and naturally, so are the award shows that celebrate its best and brightest. Jamie Lee Curtis being the daughter of prominent actors Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis is not a secret, and she herself acknowledges that she "had a leg up." However, despite descending from Hollywood stars and giving multiple outstanding performances during a career that spans over four decades, the Oscar somehow eluded her. It becomes apparent that it’s not just about possessing star power; it’s about how you utilize it.
The second-ever Academy Award for Best Actress went to Mary Pickford for her performance in her first sound film, Coquette (1929). Prior to Coquette, she had established herself as one of the biggest stars of the silent film era. By 1915, she had earned the nickname "The Queen of the Movies," and by 1927, she and her husband, Douglas Fairbanks, were founding members of the Academy itself. One would imagine that this is the height of power one can have in the film industry, and yet, Pickford is regarded as the pioneer of Oscar campaigning. The general feeling was that the performance was not award-worthy at all, but in those days, voting was done by a board consisting of five judges. All five were invited to Pickford and Fairbanks' estate, and one can imagine that after being invited into the home of Hollywood royalty and catered to, the board was extremely appreciative and showed their gratitude in the form of the golden statuette Pickford desired. It wasn’t her best work; she’d done so much better before, so why not just give it to her now?
One of the biggest issues with awards campaigns is that in their razzle-dazzle, great performances are often overlooked, and only much later, even decades later, as is the case with Curtis, does the Academy seem to remember the great performances and give out an award, not necessarily because of the strength of the nominated performance but as consolation for overlooking the actor. Curtis simply joins actors like Al Pacino, Whoopi Goldberg and Kate Winslet who had career highs overlooked and lesser performances gilded, and because the Academy Awards would not be complete without campaigns. This overlooking of actors is also used as a campaign strategy. Quite often, there is a nominee who is touted as being long overdue for an Oscar, and newer talents are often overlooked in favor of the veteran sucking everyone back into an endless cycle of being overlooked and, then overlooking others in the future.
As much as I personally feel as though Jamie Lee Curtis’s performance was nowhere near the strongest in the category she was nominated for, I understand why she won. Voters weren’t just looking at the IRS auditor; they were looking at so many great characters she has embodied throughout her career. I don’t particularly believe it’s fair, but as campaigning has been deeply ingrained into the awards structure, a complete restructuring would be needed if anyone wants change. Until then, the sad truth of it is that the performance might win you the public, but it won’t get you the gold. It's the campaign that seals the deal. ♦