worst leading actor oscar nomination EVER!!!

anthonty hopkins had a role for around less than 20 minutes and won an oscar for silence of lambs...its not the lenth but he impact one has on the proceedings and please remember brando was the star after streetcar and zapata

"Im just a bum sitting in a motor home on a film set, BRANDO said, and they come looking for ZEUS".

It happens all the time. Around thirty years ago, there was a movie called Ordinary People. Tim Hutton was in almost every scene, there were maybe ten, at the most fifteen minutes when he was off screen. In the same movie, Mary Tyler Moore was on screen for maybe ten, at the most fifteen minutes. But she was the star, and he was an unknown kid. So he was nominated for Supporting Actor, which he of course won, since his part was much larger than any of the other nominees. Meanwhile, Moore was nominated for Best Actress, and of course had no chance, since her supporting performance couldn't measure up to the true lead performances she was up against. There are many other examples, I like this one because there were two mis-nominated performances in the same flick. But that's what happened with Brando in Caeser, he was the big star, had the best known scene, played it brilliantly, and got mis-nominated. After all, how could they nominate Brando for supporting actor at that point in his career?

They truly screwed up that year.

Alan Ladd gave one of the most iconic performances ever in a beloved movie that quickly became an enduring American classic, Shane. He was denied credit for a nomination, even though undeserving costars Jack Palance and Brandon de Wilde were recognized. And of course, Brando got the prestige treatment just because he was Brando.

Brando should have taken de Wilde's spot in the supporting category, while Ladd would have snugly filled in that vacancy.

Of course, then there's always the matter of fixing the winner, which is a whole other story.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

Back in those days if you were a star you could only be submitted in the leading category.

Really?

1. Did he not act before the speech but after the murder?

2. The speech was the biggest event. If you only thought of it as just a scene, I think you missed the point of the entire play, the significance and deliverance of the contents of the speech. And I will not write them.

3. You don't recognize leaders. Antony was Ceaser's protege. He cleverly fought the conspiracist and persuaded the massed. If it wasn't for his character, Brutus would've been appointed. This would mean no person or hero stood for tyranny. Hence, he got the right nomination for the leading role.

[deleted]