Post-SAG Predictions

[flipp525]

You'll most likely be able to come up with a few more exceptions, but as a general rule, it stands.

Read the above.

[Hustler]

Meryl Streep won her second Oscar for Sophie´s Choice who wasn´t nominated for best picture and Denzel Washington won his second Oscar in 2002 for Training Day. That film wasn´t even nominated for best picture.



Edited By Hustler on 1201816383

[flipp525]

Sorry, you´re wrong. It didn´t happen in all the situations to allow you that conclusion.
sally Field Won her second Oscar for a Film that wasn´t best picture winner. Jane Fonda repeated her trophy in 1979 for Coming Home, a non winner film.
Glenda Jackson won in 1974 fro A Touch of Class, another non winner film.

I don't think that your examples hold much water, Hustler. Coming Home was a huge threat that year with eight nominations, including one for Best Picture as well as in four acting categories. It was every bit of a powerhouse at the time of the awards show and probably only narrowly missed winning best picture. A Touch of Class, while not a winner was at least also nominated for Best Picture. Places in the Heart had acting nods in three categories and was also a Best Picture nominee. I'll extend Akash's original point to say that second Oscars are typically attached to either Best Picture winners or nominees with other multiple nominations across acting, technical and writing categories. You'll most likely be able to come up with a few more exceptions, but as a general rule, it stands.



Edited By flipp525 on 1201816412

[Hustler]

Anyway, I still don't think they're going to give it to Cate Blanchett again this soon for a film that only received one nomination. Recent repeat winners (Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey, Hillary Swank) and even those we all thought could repeat (Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind") received their second Oscar from films that were Best Picture winners, and in the case of Spacey and Swank, much larger than their first film. In other words, the "importance" and "weight" attached to their films made it easier for a voter to ignore the fact that they already won so recently.

I

Sorry, you´re wrong. It didn´t happen in all the situations to allow you that conclusion.
sally Field Won her second Oscar for a Film that wasn´t best picture winner. Jane Fonda repeated her trophy in 1979 for Coming Home, a non winner film.
Glenda Jackson won in 1974 fro A Touch of Class, another non winner film.

[Akash]

I edited my post to include more thoughts on the supporting actress race OG.

To clarify, my original post ended with the assertion that only two accountants know the Oscar winners before hand. Oscar Guy was replying to that line.

He was not in fact claiming to get three laughs out of a potential Amy Ryan loss.



Edited By Akash on 1201811051

[OscarGuy]

Sometimes 3.

[Akash]

Another record that would be broken besides oldest winner in this category would be first back-to-back African-American winners in the same category.

But is she black enough? (I kid, I kid)

And thanks for pointing out precisely what I found so confusing about Van Helsing's assertions Flipp. I'm always exasperated by this idea that a group of people will somehow collude on the voting -- enough to do things like "only one surprise female winner y'all." And there's no way the "surprises come late in the evening" theory makes any sense when the producers of the show don't know who the winners are before they're announced either, so there's no way to line up the order of the categories to ensure maximum surprise. Only two accountants from Price Waterhouse know who the winners are.

Anyway, I still don't think they're going to give it to Cate Blanchett again this soon for a film that only received one nomination. Recent repeat winners (Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey, Hillary Swank) and even those we all thought could repeat (Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind") received their second Oscar from films that were Best Picture winners, and in the case of Spacey and Swank, much larger than their first film. In other words, the "importance" and "weight" attached to their films made it easier for a voter to ignore the fact that they already won so recently.

I see Blanchett as more of a Benicio Del Toro -- a reliable actor/chameleon who won his/her first Oscar for a Best Picture nominee and received a second nomination for a well reviewed performance in a "lesser" film that ultimately does not translate into a second win. Granted Blanchett won the Globe but Del Toro's film also had more than one nomination, and the HFPA was also the group that didn't honor Blanchett for "The Aviator" (while SAG and the Academy did) -- her first Globe was almost a decade ago and for a group that doesn't mind repeat winners within a short time frame (Nicole Kidman, Renee Zellweger, Jim Carrey, Jack Nicholson), this win for "I'm Not There" might as well have been her first Globe. Notably SAG, one of the groups that DID honor her just three years ago, didn't feel the need to honor her again so soon for this role. I suspect the Academy will do the same. Note that the other actor I mentioned, Russell Crowe, won an Oscar in the year that the HFPA and SAG passed him over, and the following year, both groups played catch up while the Academy passed him over for an African American acting veteran in a record breaking moment. This year, Ruby Dee fills that role (and gets to slap the aforementioned black acting vet), and Amy Ryan has the critics prizes if anyone is looking elsewhere to place their vote.

But since Ryan is also the lone nominee from her film, my money is on Oscar Guy...er, I mean Ruby Dee (seriously dude, I can't believe you're gonna get the last laugh on this one! :p )



Edited By Akash on 1201810804

[Mister Tee]

Never say never, but, as much a fan as I've been of Swinton's over the years -- she was my choice for best actress in 2001 -- I didn't find her Clayton work terribly impressive (certainly not in Ryan's or Blanchett's league). I think the nomination itself is the career recognition of which everyone speaks; a win would be hugely excessive.

As it would be for Ruby Dee. Not only is her role small, a good portion of the performance is disgracefully hammy. I said when I originally wrote about Gangster, she definitely nails her big scene, but that doesn't quite negate all the scenery chewing she did earlier in the film.

What I think we're seeing, both in the SAG result and in the sudden flutter of frantic new prediction, is what happens when the front-runners in a category are from financially unsuccessful films. Davis and Richardson in '92, Allen and Sorvino in '95, Broadbent in '01 -- all won some measure of early season prizes, but seemed iffy because of their films' low-ish profiles. In both cases from the SAG era, a contender from a box-office success emerged to win the Actior trophy (Winslet in '95, McKellen in '01), but Sorvino and Broadbent both came back to win at the Oscars. Davis and Richardson, of course, were blindsided by the Tomei shocker. My bet is Dee is more in the ephemeral tradition of McKellen/Winslet than a re-definition of the competition; my money is still on Ryan.

But of course I could be wrong.

[OscarGuy]

There's another factor that could swing a victory to Swinton. She's given several well receive performances in smaller films and could be recognized for a bountiful career as a character actress...of course being Michael Clayton's best shot or an Oscar win may also help her pick up a trophy...

[Hustler]

I'm actually starting to think Tilda might pull it off, based on popularity for Michael Clayton as well as a "you've been doing good work for a while" gesture.

I´m also starting to think that Tilda has lot of chances.

[The Original BJ]

A lot of people have rather suddenly rallied behind Ruby Dee as a likely victor, and while I think it's certainly a possibility (actually, I think ANYONE winning this category is a possibility), I'm not quite ready to jump on that bandwagon yet. Given her performance, it would be safe to say that a vote for her would be ONLY a sentimental gesture.

Of course I don't mean to suggest that the Academy hasn't and doesn't do that. But recently, when voters have given sentimental trophies, the paucity of competitors has seemed a major factor. Say what you will about the performances of James Coburn and Alan Arkin, they weren't exactly competing against world-class slates. I guess you could argue that Judi Dench beat a couple of terrific performances, but even that was a more specific case of "you lost LAST year" (as well as riding Best Picture coattails) than a general sentimental vote.

In other words, given how great the other four actresses are (and they're quite a fine quartet), I'm having difficulty seeing a ton of voters cast a vote for Dee merely on sentiment.

I'm actually starting to think Tilda might pull it off, based on popularity for Michael Clayton as well as a "you've been doing good work for a while" gesture.

[OscarGuy]

I still feel that they're setting up the Best Actress category for an upset win by Cotillard. The Supporting Actress category winner will be announced first and surprises are usually kept towards the end of the show.

Not so accurate. In 2001 Marcia Gay Harden emerged as the surprise winner in that category.

And then there's Marisa Tomei.

[Hustler]

I still feel that they're setting up the Best Actress category for an upset win by Cotillard. The Supporting Actress category winner will be announced first and surprises are usually kept towards the end of the show.

Not so accurate. In 2001 Marcia Gay Harden emerged as the surprise winner in that category.

[flipp525]

Ruby Dee was on my list of potential nominees back in late December, not quite earlier in the season, but hardly late in the season.

Well then that would qualify you as one of the "very few radars" I referenced, wouldn't it?

And I didn't "discount [statistics] entirely" as you've stated. I've said this numerous times in the past: statistics are a great place to start in Oscar prognostication, but the tendency to overly-rely on them while conveniently disqualifying more important factors makes one's predictions and statements carry less and less weight. This becomes especially true when folks cherry-pick or hunt down the statistics in order to discount a movie they already have some sort of sight unseen bias against.



Edited By flipp525 on 1201793192

[OscarGuy]

Ruby Dee was on my list of potential nominees back in late December, not quite earlier in the season, but hardly late in the season.

And perhaps statistics can prove sticky, but there's one statistic that we didn't pay attention to that could have pointed us to Brokeback Mountain's loss and that's the Editing statistic. We are loathe to admit certain statistics do play themselves out. We have 80 years of Oscar history as a guide, plus histories of guilds and critics awards and whether we like to admit it or not, sometimes those statistics DO point us in the right direction. There are always derivations to statistics, but in the end, they are an excellent guide, so I wouldn't discount them entirely.