Critic's Choice Awards

[Sabin]

MaxWilder wrote
Supporting actress is frustrating to me. There’s a perfectly good, unobjectionable winner right there: Amanda Seyfried. In the business for over 16 years, has been in some hits, has been in several misses, but keeps working (and lives 3,000 miles from Hollywood). An A-list director gives her a chance to show she’s more than a pretty face, and she walks away with the movie. People are seeing a familiar face in a whole new way. This is what the supporting actress award is meant to recognize. It’ll be a damn shame if she’s forgotten because people have cooled on Mank.

Who’s a more defensible winner? Colman doesn’t need a second this soon. No one should win for Hillbilly Elegy. Foster doesn’t need a third for The Mauritanian. Giving it to Zengel, a child, would not be good for her. If Youn wins, does she suddenly have a high-profile career in character parts? I’d like to see the award go to someone who exceeded everyone’s expectations of her and will greatly benefit from the award and the doors it will open up. That’s Amanda Seyfried.

I thought this was Seyfried’s to lose. Then I saw Mank. She’s excellent and then disappears for the second half of the film and ends up feeling unimportant or secondary to the overall narrative. That’s Mank in a nutshell. It — and she — hints at a better film. But maybe she’ll end up winning the BAFTA (if she’s nominated). I just think Olivia Colman already has hometown advantage there. But I could be wrong! Maybe she takes the BAFTA and the Oscar from there. I just think she already has half a deck stacked against her.

This isn’t a bad race but it’s a mess of a race. There’s no clear front runner and we’re going to be guessing until the big night. Maybe we will end up with the most indefensible candidate we’ve seen in years and y’know what? For 2020, I hope so. In at least one of these categories, we should see one of them, right? Maria Bakalova? Sure. Glenn Close for the worst film of her career? Why not? Or the granny from Minari, probably the classiest move they could make tbh.

[flipp525]

Very compelling case, Max. I thought Seyfried was going to easily walk away with this at the beginning of the season after I saw Mank. She really was excellent in it.

I guess I’ll just wait to see The Father. I don’t feel terribly anxious to see it at the moment.

[MaxWilder]

Thank you, Sabin, for talking sense into me. I feel good about Mulligan again. I had thought Viola Davis was going to win, just so we’d get to see her eulogize Chadwick Boseman with the eyes of the world on her. Now that Boseman’s widow has proved herself equal to the task, that reason to vote for Davis isn’t so compelling.

Supporting actress is frustrating to me. There’s a perfectly good, unobjectionable winner right there: Amanda Seyfried. In the business for over 16 years, has been in some hits, has been in several misses, but keeps working (and lives 3,000 miles from Hollywood). An A-list director gives her a chance to show she’s more than a pretty face, and she walks away with the movie. People are seeing a familiar face in a whole new way. This is what the supporting actress award is meant to recognize. It’ll be a damn shame if she’s forgotten because people have cooled on Mank.

Who’s a more defensible winner? Colman doesn’t need a second this soon. No one should win for Hillbilly Elegy. Foster doesn’t need a third for The Mauritanian. Giving it to Zengel, a child, would not be good for her. If Youn wins, does she suddenly have a high-profile career in character parts? I’d like to see the award go to someone who exceeded everyone’s expectations of her and will greatly benefit from the award and the doors it will open up. That’s Amanda Seyfried.

[Sabin]

More thoughts on Andra Day...

Over the course of the last ten years, it's important to remember that we've only seen two performances have won the Oscar without a SAG nomination:

2018: Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk
2012: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

I knew there was some story about why Christoph Waltz wasn't nominated for a SAG award, like maybe the screeners didn't go out in time, but I didn't know about this. He was submitted for Best Actor for Django Unchained. Also, Harvey Weinstein has admitted he made a mistake by sending out the DVD screeners of the film five days after SAG nominations were announced on Dec. 12: https://www.goldderby.com/article/2013/ ... -13579086/

So, considering that Best Actor 2012 was such a crowded field that Joaquin Phoenix couldn't get nominated for The Master, I think Christoph Waltz's SAG snub should have an asterisk by it. His lack of a SAG nomination didn't matter.

Why he won is another matter. He was a recent winner who happened to be in a lineup of previous winners with no real standout performance. My only point is that in retrospect there was no reason to assume he couldn't have won.

Regina King is a whole different story. Without a SAG or a BAFTA nomination, Regina King should not have been in the conversation to win. So, why did she end up winning?

She had historically weak competition:
- Marina de Tavira was a coattails nomination for Roma, nominated and winning no other place.
- Amy Adams was certainly seen as due for Vice but despite being nominated everywhere, she didn't win a single award for the film. Why would her first win by the Academy Award? Also her role wasn't that great.
- Rachel Weisz won the BAFTA for The Favourite. She had hometown advantage. But her role in The Favourite isn't a showy one and not really the type that wins. She also was up against her co-star.
- Emma Stone likely had the role more likely to win the Oscar (between her and Weisz) but she just won for La La Land and was up against her co-star.
And when given the choice to vote for Adams, Stone, or Weisz, SAG voters went for Emily Blunt for A Quiet Place which could be read as a vote of no confidence. Now, a vote of no confidence is tricky because in 2015, SAG voters went for Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation in a Sylvester Stallone-less field. However, that would assume an identical set of criteria, namely was there anybody else nominated that had the kind of role that could conceivably win and Mark Rylance certainly did.

Basically, Regina King could only win for If Beale Street Could Talk if she was up against a field as tricky as Amy Adams for Vice, Marina de Tavira for Roma, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz for The Favourite. By no means should Regina King have been considered a shoo-in but considering how weird her race was, she had the ability to win.

But Andra Day won't be up against a field like that. Andra Day will be up against a field that includes Viola Davis for Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Frances McDormand for Nomadland, and Carey Mulligan for Promising Young Woman.

Which brings me to my last point: why wasn't Andra Day nominated for a SAG award? Did voters have time to see it? Yup! The United States vs. Billie Holiday opened first day of voting: https://variety.com/2021/film/awards/th ... 234882495/

Do voters not like Lee Daniels? Just the opposite. SAG has voted for Lee Daniels disproportionately more than any other voting group out there. Precious was nominated for Best Ensemble, Actress, and Supporting Actress, The Butler was nominated for Best Ensemble, Actor, and Supporting Actress, and The Paperboy was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. There are only two films of his they have not honored: Shadowboxer and The United States vs. Billie Holiday.

Why didn't they nominate Andra Day? I'm sure there are many reasons but one of them is they already had some contenders in mind that they wanted to vote for, including Davis, McDormand, and Mulligan. Pieces of a Woman's hot moment was back during that voting window so that certainly helped Vanessa Kirby's chances. And... I don't know, a lot of people worked for Imagine Entertainment so Amy Adams got in.

My point is everybody is talking about Andra Day's Golden Globe win as a possible sign that she might change up the Best Actress race. I think there is certainly a chance that she gets nominated but this has more to do with the fact that Best Actress only has three heavies locked in (Davis, McDormand, and Mulligan) and several other people circling the last two slots.

All of which to say, I would rule out a win for Andra Day. I could be wrong but if she isn't up for a SAG Award there had better be a good reason. Especially considering that this group loves Lee Daniels. Even if there isn't a good reason, she would need a weak field to compete in. And she is up against a strong field.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
This startled me so much I had to go look it up, and, I regret to tell you, your memory is faulty. Mulligan WAS nominated by SAG in 2009. (The reason it startled me was, BAFTA had not nominated Sandra Bullock, and I thought it would have been wildly off-the-beam for the two primarily predictive awards to have each not nominated the other's winner.)

I'm not in disagreement with most everything else you wrote, though I'd probably say best supporting actress is not so much a weak category (there are solid performances from Seyfried, Colman and Burstyn -- Minari as yet sight unseen by me); it's that no one jumps out as clear winner-level, the way contenders in other categories do. (In best actor, I'd say there are multiple such candidates.)

I was writing during work. I meant to say they'd never honored her.

And to your point, no, the field isn't weak. It's actually quite interesting. There are candidates like Maria Bakalova and Youn Yuh-jung in competition. But there isn't a classic frontrunner and at the end of the day there were multiple opportunities with contenders like Glenn Close in Hillbilly Elegy and Amanda Seyfriend in Mank.

[Mister Tee]

MaxWilder wrote
I still think Carey Mulligan is going to end up winning. Let's consider what she has going for her:

1. Whatever happens at the Critic's Choice will happen. Who knows?
2. The SAG nomination is her next real battle. They have never nominated her.

This startled me so much I had to go look it up, and, I regret to tell you, your memory is faulty. Mulligan WAS nominated by SAG in 2009. (The reason it startled me was, BAFTA had not nominated Sandra Bullock, and I thought it would have been wildly off-the-beam for the two primarily predictive awards to have each not nominated the other's winner.)

I'm not in disagreement with most everything else you wrote, though I'd probably say best supporting actress is not so much a weak category (there are solid performances from Seyfried, Colman and Burstyn -- Minari as yet sight unseen by me); it's that no one jumps out as clear winner-level, the way contenders in other categories do. (In best actor, I'd say there are multiple such candidates.)

[Sabin]

MaxWilder wrote
I have nothing against Andra Day but her win annoyed the hell out of me. If Carey Mulligan or Viola Davis loses the best actress Oscar because the HFPA's chaos/panic pick actually changes the race, I'll be appalled. (I'm also worried that Jodie Foster will supplant Amanda Seyfried.) This is not the time to validate the Globes by following their lead.

RE: Andra Day,
At this point, Viola Davis is probably done. Which is a shame because I think she's excellent in the film and should be more in the conversation. I might consider her my favorite of the likely nominees at the point. I still think Carey Mulligan is going to end up winning. Let's consider what she has going for her:

1. Whatever happens at the Critic's Choice will happen. Who knows?
2. The SAG nomination is her next real battle. They have never nominated her. I have to believe that SAG voters (who have been so engulfed in the MeToo movement and the Times Up initiative) will go for this performance, especially considering they've never honored her before. Her competition is Amy Adams (not in the running), Viola Davis (just won for Fences and again for The Help), Frances McDormand (just won for Three Billboards...), and Vanessa Kirby (not in the running). Promising Young Woman isn't a SAG Ensemble nominee but of the last ten winners, only four were (McDormand, Lawrence, Davis, Portman). She won't be up against Andra Day. Her win will create buzz.
3. The BAFTAs are her next real battle. Carey Mulligan already won for An Education but that was a long time ago. The nominations haven't come out yet but they've already honored Frances McDormand (Three Billboards) and Viola Davis (Fences) recently. Maybe they'll nominate Andra Day but we really don't know. They like honoring their own there. She has the hometown advantage.

I still like Carey Mulligan's odds.


RE: Jodie Foster, let's not forget that Critic's Choice isn't even nominated. The BAFTA nominations haven't come out yet (and that group matters) but Jodie Foster didn't get a SAG nomination and she didn't get a Critic's Choice nomination. And these jokers nominated 8 Best Actor nominees, 7 Best Actress nominees, and 6 Best Supporting Actor & Actress nominees. The last time somebody won an Oscar without a Critic's Choice nomination was Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained. Which is interesting because he also won a Golden Globe but wasn't a SAG nominee.

If Jodie Foster gets a BAFTA nomination, then there's reason to be wonder if she pulls off an upset but that is entirely due to the fact that this year's Best Supporting Actress race is weak and desperately looking for a front-runner.

[MaxWilder]

But they're really in a bind for best actress. I think they were probably already having some difficulty deciding between Mulligan and McDormand, but leaning Mulligan -- till last Sunday, when Day unexpectedly entered the picture. What to do? -- try and get on board with Day? But she's not available at SAG, so the engineered landslide can't work, regardless. If they announce a tie in the category -- and who would bet against it? -- we all have the right to laugh out loud.

I have nothing against Andra Day but her win annoyed the hell out of me. If Carey Mulligan or Viola Davis loses the best actress Oscar because the HFPA's chaos/panic pick actually changes the race, I'll be appalled. (I'm also worried that Jodie Foster will supplant Amanda Seyfried.) This is not the time to validate the Globes by following their lead.

[Mister Tee]

I of course don't deeply care about who these guys choose, and I wouldn't put myself through the agony of watching their show. But I do find it interesting to watch the gyrations they'll go through to try and maintain their "we predict the Oscar winners" claim.

First thought: they'll almost surely vote Nomadland best picture and director. Despite their annoying attempts to outguess the academy in the acting categories, they have rarely dissented from a major critics' consensus when it comes to best picture -- Sideways, Brokeback Mountain, The Hurt Locker, The Social Network, Boyhood, and Roma all took their top prize. This should not lead anyone into thinking Nomadland is thus a lock for the best picture Oscar; as you can see, many films on that list flatlined at the Guilds and AMPAS, despite winning both the Globes and here. Going with the widely-held critics' choice for best picture is pretty much the group's only sign of integrity.

They will surely pick Chadwick Boseman for best actor. Bandwagons are their favorite thing.

But they're really in a bind for best actress. I think they were probably already having some difficulty deciding between Mulligan and McDormand, but leaning Mulligan -- till last Sunday, when Day unexpectedly entered the picture. What to do? -- try and get on board with Day? But she's not available at SAG, so the engineered landslide can't work, regardless. If they announce a tie in the category -- and who would bet against it? -- we all have the right to laugh out loud.

I think they'll probably try to sign on to the Kaluuya express. Only because I don't see any really strong alternative. But maybe I'm wrong, and they'll push Sacha Baron Cohen.

I imagine they have no frickin' idea what to do in supporting actress. A 6-wide field wasn't enough to fit Jodie Foster in, so they can't echo the Globes, much as they'd like to. Are they as committed to another Glenn Close run as some seem to be assuming? Might they feel like they did their duty re: Close two years ago, and move on to someone else? But who? This might be one of the few categories where they just vote their consciences and let the result speak for itself.

The other categories I care about even less -- though I expect they'll go with the clear favorites in tech categories: Nomadland for cinematography, Mank for production design, Soul for score.

[nightwingnova]

This list is a mess.

[gunnar]

I love movies and watch a ton of them, but I'm also a fan of tv shows. The episodic nature can be a bit tiring at times for some of the shows, but I find that I either will get into a show and bingewatch it for a period of time before tiring of it and moving on to something else or will watch a couple of episodes and come back a few weeks later for another episode or two.

There are a few shows that tell one long story in a season. I loved The Queen's Gambit on Netflix and also love The Expanse on Amazon Prime (formerly on SyFy). The Queen's Gambit adapts a book from the 1980s relating to chess and The Expanse adapts a series of science fiction books where each season essentially adapts one book, though that formula didn't quite hold during the first two seasons.

I have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ for streaming. I have no plans to add Hulu, HBO Max, or Apple TV. The upcoming Foundation series on Apple is tempting, but I'll wait and hope for dvd/Blu-Ray releases. I don't begrudge anybody who wants to stay away from streaming services. There are getting to be way too many of them.

In previous years, I would usually see around 15-20 films in the theater, though many of these would not be the serious Oscar contenders. The nominees from last year's awards that I saw in the theater were Joker, 1917, Little Women, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Knives Out, Frozen II, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Ad Astra, Avengers: Endgame, and Toy Story 4. I also saw all of the short films from the three categories in the theater at the Detroit Institute of the Arts. I watched the rest of the nominees via a streaming service (The Irishman, Les Miserables, The Two Popes, etc.) or on dvd/Blu-Ray from one of my local libraries (or a friend who still buys a lot of movies on Blu-Ray).

[Okri]

a) I think something like 33 movies were nominated below. If you dropped that down to 25 - pretending that you just won't see some of them, I'm curious if seeing them in theatres is really that much more expensive than using streaming services simultaneously, to be honest - especially if you just do the fall/winter season anyway. That stated, I'm a streaming curmudgeon anyways, but for other reasons.

b) I wholeheartedly love television. Heck, even this group gives us good television nominees that aren't emmys-adjacent. I love the longform experience of it. I echo Tee's desire for an ending and given just how many shows completely biff the landing (and then come back to screw it up all over again, coughcoughTheX-Filescough), I don't blame the reticence. But the best screenwriting, as mentioned before, is being done for television. And a long-form story, well told, that nails the landing? Just a lovely feeling, to be honest.

[Reza]

Of course, I don't like television in general. I like things that have closure; I don't want to have to come back indefinitely. Hell, I just went through Unorthodox, and was half-bothered I had to watch four episodes, rather than a single sitting.

I can so relate to this. I just cannot sit through endless seasons of television comedies or dramas. The only ones I can think of which I actually looked forward to were "Downton Abbey" and "Game of Thrones". Even the episodic miniseries take a huge toll on my time. Most just go on and on and could be wrapped up quicker with less episodes. Yesterday binge watched the 8 episodes of "The Night of" to check out Riz Ahmed - watched the first episode in 2016 when it first came out but never managed to continue. With renewed interest all over now in the actor I thought let me sit through it. While good it could easily have been brought in with fewer episodes. It just dragged on and on with its prison part reminding me of the old Eleanor Parker film "Caged". "Orthodox" is another one I've avoided because of its 4 episodes.

[OscarGuy]

Apple TV+ is a streaming service operated by Apple. It's no different than Disney+, Amazon Prime, or Netflix except in that it's a newer service than two of those three and might actually pre-date Disney+ by a little iirc.

[Big Magilla]

Big Magilla wrote
Tee is absolutely correct. You have to have more disposable income than most of us have to keep up with all the disparate venues.

Just ask a friend or someone in your family to give you their account password. It's literally fine. Everybody does it. I cannot stress enough: somebody has one. I haven't seen The Morning Show but Ted Lasso is charming.

Again, I have no idea what Apple TV is, but I assume it is accessible only on Apple products, none of which I own, nor do any of my family members.