Every Supporting Oscar Nominee Who Had More Screen Time Than the Lead

About this gallery:

For this list, we rounded up all the times a movie had both a lead and a supporting actor nominated for an Oscar – but, well, maybe not in the right categories. That’s because the so-called “supporting” actor actually had more screen time than the so-called “lead”! To highlight just how much the lines were blurred, we’ve included the screen time difference in percentages and ranked the list from smallest to largest gap.

Which of these movies is your favorite? And do you think any of these “supporting” actors should have been considered the real lead? Drop your thoughts in the comments!

22. Fargo (1996) – William H. Macy over Frances McDormand

(Screen time difference: 0:38 / 0.65%)

If Fargo taught us anything, it’s that sometimes, the best performances don’t need the most screen time. Case in point: Frances McDormand’s iconic turn as Marge Gunderson, which won her the Best Actress Oscar – despite the fact that William H. Macy actually had slightly more screen time. Playing the desperate, bumbling car salesman Jerry Lundegaard, Macy spends much of the film setting off the tragic chain of events that Marge ultimately unravels. But while Macy’s performance was stellar enough to earn him a Supporting Actor nod, it’s McDormand’s sharp, kindhearted, and wonderfully quirky police chief that left the strongest impact. The Academy made the right call here – screen time be damned, Marge is the heart of Fargo. | © PolyGram Filmed Entertainment

21. Sons and Lovers (1960) – Mary Ure over Trevor Howard

(Screen time difference: 0:50 / 0.81%)

For a film titled Sons and Lovers, you’d expect the “sons” and the “lovers” to get equal attention, but when it comes to screen time, Mary Ure edged out lead nominee Trevor Howard by just under a minute. Playing Clara Dawes, a strong-willed woman entangled in a complicated love affair, Ure brought depth and intensity to the role, making her a compelling presence throughout the film. Meanwhile, Trevor Howard, as the emotionally distant father, was positioned as the film’s lead, despite having slightly less time on screen. Ure’s performance was powerful enough to earn her a Supporting Actress nomination, even if she technically had more to do than Howard. Ah, the classic case of category gymnastics! | © 20th Century Fox

20. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) – Kim Hunter over Marlon Brando

(Screen time difference: 0:59 / 0.79%)

It takes a special kind of actor to slightly out-screen Marlon Brando in one of his most iconic roles, but Kim Hunter managed to do just that in A Streetcar Named Desire. As Stella, Blanche DuBois' loyal sister and Stanley Kowalski’s conflicted wife, Hunter plays a crucial role in the film’s emotional stakes. While Brando’s volatile, scene-stealing turn as Stanley became legendary, Hunter’s quieter, more grounded performance gave the story its heart. Yet, despite appearing on screen more, she was (correctly) placed in the Supporting Actress category, while Brando – who somehow didn’t win – was recognized as a lead. At least Hunter’s Oscar win for Supporting Actress softened the blow. Sometimes, playing second fiddle in screen time still pays off. | © Warner Bros.

19. Training Day (2001) – Ethan Hawke over Denzel Washington

(Screen time difference: 1:11 / 0.97%)

If Training Day is remembered for one thing, it’s Denzel Washington’s electrifying, Oscar-winning performance as the corrupt, larger-than-life Detective Alonzo Harris. But fun fact: Ethan Hawke, playing the naive rookie Jake Hoyt, actually had more screen time. That’s right – the film’s supposed supporting actor spent more time navigating the treacherous streets of L.A. than its lead. The Academy, however, clearly saw who commanded the film’s energy. Washington’s magnetic, unpredictable performance dominated every frame he was in, making his Best Actor win feel like a no-brainer. Meanwhile, Hawke’s quiet, slow-burn performance got him a Supporting Actor nod, despite technically being the protagonist. Moral of the story? It’s not about how long you’re on screen – it’s about how hard you own it. | © Warner Bros.

18. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) – Brad Dourif over Louise Fletcher

(Screen time difference: 1:31 / 1.13%)

If you’ve ever wanted proof that screen time isn’t everything, look no further than One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Brad Dourif’s tragic portrayal of Billy Bibbit gives him slightly more time on screen than Louise Fletcher, yet it’s Fletcher’s cold, calculating Nurse Ratched who leaves the most lasting impression. While Dourif’s heartbreaking performance helped set the emotional stakes of the film, Fletcher’s terrifying control over the patients – and her chilling dynamic with Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy – cemented her as one of cinema’s greatest villains. Maybe Dourif technically had more screen time, but there’s a reason why Fletcher walked away with the Oscar for Best Actress while he had to settle for a Supporting Actor nomination. Sometimes, impact outweighs minutes. | © United Artists

17. August: Osage County (2013) – Julia Roberts over Meryl Streep

(Screen time difference: 3:07 / 2.58%)

If there’s one thing the Academy loves, it’s a dramatic family feud, and August: Osage County delivers one for the ages. While Meryl Streep’s powerhouse performance as the venomous, pill-popping matriarch Violet Weston earned her a Lead Actress nomination, it’s actually Julia Roberts, playing her embattled daughter Barbara, who spends the most time on screen. And let’s be honest – Roberts felt like a lead, matching Streep’s intensity beat for beat as their mother-daughter clashes explode in the film’s most unforgettable scenes. But, whether out of deference to Streep or category politicking, Roberts was slotted into Supporting Actress instead. The irony? She still lost – to Lupita Nyong’o in 12 Years a Slave. Maybe playing second fiddle to Streep isn’t always the best Oscar strategy. | © The Weinstein Company

16. Agnes of God (1985) – Meg Tilly over Anne Bancroft

(Screen time difference: 3:34 / 3.62%)

A psychological drama wrapped in mystery and faith, Agnes of God is anchored by Meg Tilly’s haunting performance as a young nun accused of a shocking crime. Yet, despite having more screen time than Anne Bancroft, who played the stern yet conflicted Mother Superior, Tilly was pushed into the supporting category. Maybe the Academy thought the role of an older, more commanding presence naturally signaled “lead” status, but Tilly’s fragile, mesmerizing portrayal is the real standout. The good news? She still managed to secure an Oscar nomination – though she lost to Anjelica Huston in Prizzi’s Honor. A divine performance, just not divine intervention from the Academy. | © Columbia Pictures

15. The Subject Was Roses (1968) – Jack Albertson over Patricia Neal

(Screen time difference: 3:44 / 3.46%)

When it comes to dysfunctional family dramas, The Subject Was Roses delivers some of the best performances of the era. Jack Albertson plays a complex father dealing with a troubled relationship with his wife and son, yet somehow, he was considered a supporting actor – despite having more screen time than lead nominee Patricia Neal. Sure, Neal’s role as a weary, emotionally drained mother is a standout, but Albertson’s presence is just as commanding, if not more so. At least his category placement worked out in his favor – he won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, while Neal went home empty-handed. Sometimes, being supporting is the better play. | © MGM

14. The Hours (2002) – Julianne Moore over Nicole Kidman

(Screen time difference: 4:11 / 3.65%)

The Hours is all about interconnected narratives, but if we’re talking sheer screen time, Julianne Moore’s section lingers the longest. Playing Laura Brown, a 1950s housewife suffocating under societal expectations, Moore delivers a heartbreaking performance that carries much of the film’s emotional weight. And yet, when it came time for Oscar nominations, she was placed in supporting, while Nicole Kidman, playing Virginia Woolf (complete with a prosthetic nose), was positioned as the lead – despite actually being on screen less. Maybe it was the transformative nature of Kidman’s role or the prestige of portraying a literary icon, but Moore arguably had the tougher, more nuanced arc. Either way, neither won, making the category debate all the more moot. | © Paramount Pictures

13. The Turning Point (1977) – Leslie Browne over Anne Bancroft

(Screen time difference: 4:51 / 4.06%)

A ballet drama filled with passion, rivalry, and graceful pirouettes, The Turning Point positioned Anne Bancroft as its lead, while Leslie Browne was categorized as supporting. But when it comes to actual screen presence, Browne, playing a young ballet dancer navigating the high-stakes world of professional dance, had the upper hand. Sure, Bancroft’s performance as a retired dancer wrestling with regret is the emotional backbone of the film, but Browne’s journey – and literal screen time – steals more of the spotlight. The irony? Browne, a real-life ballerina, wasn’t even an actress before this role. Yet, she still managed to dance circles around the category placement game. | © 20th Century Fox

12. Emilia Pérez (2024) – Zoe Saldaña over Karla Sofía Gascón

(Screen time difference: 5:29 / 4.15%)

In Emilia Pérez, Zoe Saldaña’s screen presence is undeniable, but when it comes to category placement, things get a little murky. As Rita, a lawyer caught in a web of crime, power, and transformation, Saldaña is the emotional anchor of the film, navigating the moral complexities of her journey. And yet, her screen time still edges out Karla Sofía Gascón, who plays the titular Emilia Pérez, a cartel leader undergoing a dramatic personal reinvention. The Academy might have decided that Gascón’s role was the “lead” based on narrative weight rather than minutes on screen, but Saldaña’s presence is felt just as strongly – if not more – throughout the film. In an awards season filled with surprises, this one definitely makes the list. | © Pathé Films

11. Carol (2015) – Rooney Mara over Cate Blanchett

(Screen time difference: 5:52 / 4.96%)

If Carol was a love story told through the eyes of one character, that character was Rooney Mara’s Therese. And yet, somehow, it was Cate Blanchett’s enigmatic and alluring Carol who landed the Lead Actress nomination, while Mara was bumped down to Supporting. The irony? Not only does Therese have more screen time, but she also serves as the audience’s window into the film’s world, observing and reacting to Carol’s every move. The movie’s dreamy, melancholic atmosphere thrives on Mara’s subtle, restrained performance, making her the film’s quiet yet undeniable center. The Academy, however, seemed to think Carol was the true lead – proving that sometimes, the title of a movie does influence Oscar placements. | © The Weinstein Company

10. The Killing Fields (1984) – Haing S. Ngor over Sam Waterston

(Screen time difference: 6:05 / 4.31%)

Haing S. Ngor’s Oscar-winning performance in The Killing Fields is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking in film history. A real-life survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime, Ngor brought unparalleled authenticity to the role of journalist Dith Pran, whose harrowing journey through Cambodia’s war-torn landscape is the film’s beating heart. Despite this, Sam Waterston, playing American journalist Sydney Schanberg, was considered the lead, even though Ngor had more screen time. While Waterston’s character narrates much of the story, it’s Ngor’s journey that drives the emotional core of the film. But hey, at least Ngor still got his well-deserved Oscar – no small feat for a non-professional actor in his very first film role. | © Warner Bros.

9. The Favourite (2018) – Emma Stone over Olivia Colman

(Screen time difference: 7:32 / 6.31%)

The true favourite of The Favourite when it comes to screen time? Emma Stone, apparently. While Olivia Colman delivered an Oscar-winning, scene-stealing performance as the eccentric and volatile Queen Anne, it was Stone’s Abigail – scheming, seducing, and manipulating her way to power – who actually spent the most time on screen. Yet, in one of the Academy’s most eyebrow-raising moves, Stone was shuffled into the Supporting Actress category while Colman took the Lead nomination (and the win). With a film full of power struggles and shifting allegiances, maybe it was only fitting that the awards placement felt like a game of political maneuvering itself. | © Fox Searchlight Pictures

8. True Grit (2010) – Hailee Steinfeld over Jeff Bridges

(Screen time difference: 10:38 / 9.65%)

The Coen Brothers’ True Grit might have been all about Jeff Bridges' legendary turn as Rooster Cogburn, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that Hailee Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross practically carried the film. While Bridges’ gruff performance certainly earned its place in the limelight, Steinfeld, as the determined young girl seeking justice for her father’s murder, had more screen time and arguably more emotional weight to bear. As a first-time Oscar nominee, Steinfeld’s maturity and presence overshadowed even the seasoned Bridges. The Academy put her in the supporting category anyway – and she more than held her own. The true grit in this movie? It was Steinfeld’s remarkable performance. | © Paramount Pictures

7. All the King’s Men (1949) – John Ireland over Broderick Crawford

(Screen time difference: 10:57 / 9.98%)

In All the King’s Men, a political drama about corruption and power, Broderick Crawford’s role as the charismatic and manipulative politician Willie Stark was certainly the spotlight performance. Yet, it was John Ireland, playing the more subtle and calculating Jack Burden, who ended up with more screen time. Ireland’s stoic portrayal of a man caught between morality and ambition made him a constant presence on screen, even as Crawford raged and ranted through his lead performance. The irony? Ireland’s performance – though brilliant – was placed in the supporting category, while Crawford took home the lead actor nomination. Some might say the real king here was Ireland’s performance, even if the Academy didn’t agree. | © Columbia Pictures

6. Peyton Place (1957) – Diane Varsi over Lana Turner

(Screen time difference: 11:31 / 7.34%)

In the world of 1950s melodrama, Peyton Place was the talk of the town – and for good reason. However, while Lana Turner’s glamorous and scandalous portrayal of the town's leading lady got her a nomination for Best Actress, it was Diane Varsi’s role as the rebellious, yet deeply vulnerable, Allison MacKenzie who had more time to truly shine. Her portrayal of a young woman trying to escape the shadow of her troubled family demanded more screen time, giving her a significant edge over Turner. The Academy decided to ignore that and put Varsi in a supporting role, even though her emotional journey really was the heart of the film. You know what they say: the Academy loves a good twist. | © 20th Century Fox

5. Stalag 17 (1953) – Robert Strauss over William Holden

(Screen time difference: 19:02 / 15.81%)

Stalag 17 is a classic World War II film, but let’s just say, Robert Strauss didn’t quite get the memo that he was supposed to be a supporting actor. While William Holden, playing the suave and gritty American POW, got the lead nod, it was Strauss who ended up stealing the show as the wise-cracking, shady character known as "Shapiro." In fact, Strauss has more screen time than Holden, proving that sometimes, the actor with the juiciest lines and biggest presence can get relegated to the background in the awards world. Strauss’ performance was so captivating that it almost made the lead role feel secondary. Who needs a “lead” when you’ve got a supporting performance this strong? | © Paramount Pictures

4. Hud (1963) – Melvyn Douglas over Patricia Neal

(Screen time difference: 19:30 / 17.47%)

Melvyn Douglas strikes again! This time, he actually was in a supporting role, but the Academy still decided to play games. Hud may be named after Paul Newman’s rebellious antihero, but the heart of the film arguably belongs to Douglas as Hud’s morally upright father. His presence looms large, serving as a stark contrast to Newman’s self-absorbed cowboy. Yet, despite appearing on screen more than actual lead nominee Patricia Neal, Douglas was shuttled into the Supporting Actor category – where he won the Oscar. Meanwhile, Neal took home Best Actress for a true supporting performance. Go figure. The 1960s were wild when it came to Oscar categorization, but this one still raises eyebrows. | © Paramount Pictures

3. I Never Sang for My Father (1970) – Gene Hackman over Melvyn Douglas

(Screen time difference: 24:00 / 26.07%)

Talk about an ironic title – because the Oscars clearly never sang for Gene Hackman in the right category. In this emotionally charged father-son drama, Hackman plays a middle-aged man struggling to navigate his complicated relationship with his aging, domineering father. And while Melvyn Douglas is excellent as the gruff patriarch, it’s Hackman who carries most of the film’s weight – both emotionally and in sheer screen time. Yet, somehow, Douglas was nominated as lead, while Hackman was put in supporting. The Academy loves a good sentimental choice, and Douglas’ veteran status may have tipped the scales, but let’s be honest: Hackman was doing the heavy lifting here. | © Columbia Pictures

2. The Godfather (1972) – Al Pacino over Marlon Brando

(Screen time difference: 26:12 / 14.95%)

Marlon Brando may have had the most quoted lines and an Oscar-winning performance, but let’s not kid ourselves – this is Michael Corleone’s story. Al Pacino spends more time on screen, undergoes the most dramatic transformation, and, by the film’s end, is the godfather. And yet, the Academy somehow deemed him a supporting player, while Brando, with his (admittedly iconic) performance, walked away with the Best Actor trophy. Perhaps it was Brando’s legendary status or his infamous refusal to play the awards game, but in hindsight, it’s hard not to see this as a major case of category shenanigans. At least Pacino got his due two years later in The Godfather Part II – where he was finally recognized as a lead. | © Paramount Pictures

1. Ordinary People (1980) – Timothy Hutton over Mary Tyler Moore

(Screen time difference: 32:18 / 26.05%)

Let’s be real – calling Timothy Hutton a supporting actor in Ordinary People is like saying a quarterback is just part of the team. The entire emotional core of the movie hinges on his performance as Conrad, a teenager grappling with grief, trauma, and the weight of his family’s unraveling. Yet, for some reason, he was pushed into the Supporting Actor category, while Mary Tyler Moore – brilliant as the emotionally distant mother – was slotted as the lead. It’s category fraud at its finest, but hey, at least it worked: Hutton won the Oscar, while Moore didn’t. Maybe that’s justice? Either way, Hutton’s presence dominates the film, making his “supporting” status feel almost laughable. | © Paramount Pictures