SAG Nominations

[MovieWes]

We have no consensus frontrunners in most categories, yet no one seems very excited about this Oscar season. After all these years of pre-determined conclusions, we don't have one mid-December yet and there's still grousing it seems.

I'd say that The Social Network is as close to a sure thing as we've seen this season.

[Big Magilla]

No one is excited because despite the lack of front-runners in most races, there's a ho-hum predictability about the nominees. Most of us haven't seen all the nominees, or have seen them, and aren't all that excited about what we've seen, so we have no real rooting interest in who wins or loses.

[OscarGuy]

We have no consensus frontrunners in most categories, yet no one seems very excited about this Oscar season. After all these years of pre-determined conclusions, we don't have one mid-December yet and there's still grousing it seems.

[dws1982]

I do believe that if Lesley Manville gets nominated in the supporting actress category (i give this a 20% chance), she will be the frontrunner especially after all these snubs.

These kinds of statements get made every Oscar season and they still don't make any sense.

[Cinemanolis]

Weaver's performance isn't about fireworks, Oscar Guy - it's actually quite low-key, very good but more on the subtle side, so no, if nominated she won't be the front-runner I'm afraid.

I agree with Italiano. Weaver's performance is a very good. It's very interesting what she attempts to do with her character, but for me her character in the end wasn't believable. I do believe that if Lesley Manville gets nominated in the supporting actress category (i give this a 20% chance), she will be the frontrunner especially after all these snubs.

[ITALIANO]

this race will be tight at least until the SAG Awards, and maybe even up until Oscar night.

Definitely - especially if Bening DOESN'T win the SAG (which could be attributed at least partly to her having won before twice - personally and as part of an ensemble).

Weaver's performance isn't about fireworks, Oscar Guy - it's actually quite low-key, very good but more on the subtle side, so no, if nominated she won't be the front-runner I'm afraid.

As for Swank, I sometimes wonder if her fans here have seen - like I did - her in more movies than those two famous Oscar winners. This is the only way I can explain - and even understand - such love. By European standards, but even I hope by American standards, most of her performances have been frankly very bland. I'm glad that she's pro-gay, but can I be honest? I'd still vote for a homophobe if the performance is great.

[The Original BJ]

OscarGuy, I think we just see the Supporting Actress race very differently, and that's fine -- at this point, we're still very early in the race, so who knows how things will turn out.

But, right now, I don't remotely rate the win chances of Weaver and Steinfeld above the Fighter pair. (Haven't seen Steinfeld yet, but have seen the other three.)

As much as I liked Jacki Weaver, I think if she gets the nomination, that will be as far as she goes. I'm hard-pressed to come up with a precedent for a virtually unknown actress winning an Oscar for a film as little-seen as Animal Kingdom. And for me, the "people will see her film and see how great she is" argument seems like wishful thinking -- does it really happen THAT often? Throw in the fact that I don't think Weaver is necessarily heads-and-shoulders above her competition -- she's not remotely the kind of nominee who would inspire Mo'Nique-level adoration -- and you've a got a candidate whose nomination will probably be seen as reward enough.

As for Steinfeld, I'm handicapped by the fact that I haven't seen her performance yet. And perhaps if she's as great as some have said, and with a big lead role, she could become a contender. But as for fitting the Supporting Actress "mold"...I really have to disagree there. How often do really little girls win this prize? Not all that often. And as for True Grit being a "big Best Picture nominee"...well...in a five-wide field it wouldn't be nominated, and I'm not even positive it will be in a ten-wide field. It's, at best, a mid-range awards contender.

The Fighter, on the other hand, has become one of this year's big guns, and I can't imagine the popularity of the film won't help everyone associated with it. In Adams's corner, there's a fairly strong precedent for honoring actresses her age who have recently achieved or seem on the cusp of big stardom/acclaim -- Jolie, Connelly, Weisz, Cruz. And in Leo's corner, there's also a decent enough precedent for picking hard-working actresses like Harden or Swinton who have been giving solid performances for years and have only recently achieved mainstream awards attention. I think both are certain nominees, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the race came down to these two.

[Big Magilla]

If Weaver's nominated, people will go see her performance and if it's the fireworks everyone declares (still haven't seen it), then she could be the real threat.

Nah, they'll just rent the DVD which comes out January 18th.

[Damien]

And since Penelope is not so often around here, i thought that someone should start the i HATE/LOVE Hilary discussion.

[Cinemanolis]

Hilary Swank (The bitch is back)

Insult her all you want. But not only do I think Hilary Swank is a wonderful actress, she has also been committing a lot of time and money to the Trevor ("It Gets Better") Project and other programs designed to help out gay kids. I love her.

Damien i don't really hate her, i really dislike her. When i watch one of her interviews she comes off as very phony IMO. And she is not a bad actress. Both of the times she won the Oscar, i had her in my top5. But apart from these 2 performances, i never liked her in anything else.
I didn't know about her involvement in the Trevor Project. Good for her!

And since Penelope is not so often around here, i thought that someone should start the i HATE/LOVE Hilary discussion.

[OscarGuy]

Re: Amy Adams. My estimation of her demise was largely that I have seen her co-start Melissa Leo mentioned more frequently, but most of us had thought Amy Adams to be a stronger contender. But let's not over-state Adams' appeal. The talk was heavy that she would be nominated for Enchanted and most were a bit surprised she didn't make it. Just because she's a semi-hot property does not make her an Oscar contender. And since Leo's also a recent nominee, I think their chances are about even, though I agree that Adams (if nominated) has a good shot at a win, but let's look at two other candidates with better shots if they are nominated.

Hailee Steinfeld and Jacki Weaver. If Weaver's nominated, people will go see her performance and if it's the fireworks everyone declares (still haven't seen it), then she could be the real threat, but Hailee Steinfeld fits the Supporting Actress winner mold better than Amy Adams, IMO. She's a very young actress, starring in a big Best Picture nominee who's been getting strong notices in a heavily dramatic role.

Sure Adams has the same qualities, but I don't know that Academy members would consider her overdue after two nominations in a way that would eclipse a strong showing by Steinfeld. And remember how long it took Kate Winslet to pick up an Oscar despite being constantly labeled as due.

Right now, I'm just expressing my impression that she seemed to be paling in comparison to Leo and that sometimes being overshadowed can lead to being forgotten. But with a SAG mention, her nomination still seems fairly certain. And I am also not partial to any one nominee this year, so I'm just trying to look at things objectively.

[The Original BJ]

Yet another slightly disappointing side effect of the ten-wide Best Picture slate: watching something comparatively crazy like Black Swan do so well with the precursors, and no longer wondering if it will hang on to get that Best Picture nod. With the rule change, it's a certain nominee; under the old system, I'd imagine many of the film's fans would find a nomination a real pleasurable reward.

At first, I assumed the Blue Valentine pair suffered from underexposure; but on second thought, it's not like True Grit has opened either. Perhaps it's just a case of different strokes for different groups.

I'm surprised Duvall has been greeted with such antipathy here. I thought this was his best performance in some time, with that last-act monologue very well played. I put Get Low about on par with Winter's Bone -- they're both very small movies that I admit aren't really my thing, but both had some pleasurable details, and, above all, strong central performances. I wouldn't go in expecting the moon, but I didn't find the film a total waste. (And, seriously, Magilla? You're going to dismiss Duvall's performance because you saw the TRAILER?)

OscarGuy, you really think Kidman is in the race as a possible winner? Based on the early reviews, she seems like a very strong nominee, but I see very little possibility for a recent winner to triumph for a film that isn't getting much attention in other categories...especially when Bening and Portman are such strong candidates in films with far broader support. I'll continue to argue that Portman's credentials make her a VERY possible winner -- she's the type of glamorous Hollywood princess that Oscar loves to crown Best Actress, and in a film that's generating real excitement, despite some detractors. Bening is a strong candidate, too, and I agree with Mister Tee that this race will be tight at least until the SAG Awards, and maybe even up until Oscar night.

I don't have much of a problem with Renner's awards-run. Yes, it's definitely carry-over affection from last year, but I thought he was best in show in The Town, and think we've had worse nominees filling up the final spots in this category in recent years. (I'll change my tune, though, if he costs Garfield or Ruffalo an Oscar nod. I was sad to see the former excluded this morning, but thrilled for the latter.)

I'm not as certain as some that Jacki Weaver couldn't still be excluded from the Supporting Actress race. Numerous supporting performances in indies have won critics' awards and Globe nominations (Steve Buscemi, Peter Sarsgaard) only to stumble with SAG, and then with Oscar. I still hold at hope, though, and think she's very much in this race...

...as is, surprisingly, Mila Kunis. I thought she was very effective in Black Swan, though I agree with most that this awards attention seems to be stemming from the fact that she's hot rather than that her work was anyone's idea of "best." But, unlike Diaz in Vanilla Sky, she's part of a major awards player, and she wouldn't be the worst nominee to have ever been carried along by affection for her film.

More disagreement -- OscarGuy, you really think Amy Adams was fading? I think she could WIN. It will be her third nomination, she's a popular AND acclaimed actress, and she's got a memorable role in a film that's racking up nominations left and right. Her biggest competition may end up being her costar, but I would be floored if Adams were denied a nomination.

[Big Magilla]

I also wouldn't worry much about Jacki Weaver, who's unlikely to have been widely seen. A few years back, she might have scored based on her critical support -- but here and now, SAG ballots were in the mail before those critics' prizes were ever announced, so she had no hope of benefitting from the attention. Oscar voters will be more alert.

Might she also not be an SAG member?

I'm sure she isn't, but that stopped being an issue after the first SAG awards when non-SAG embers were allowed to compete.

Still, this is the most baffling retro bunch of nominations they've come up with in years.

The Globes, except for the embarrassing comedy nods, look like a list of Pulitzer Prize candidates in comparison.

Swank instead of Williams, Hawkes and Renner instead of Garfield and Rockwell, Bridges and Duvall instead of Gosling and Wahlberg or Eckhart are absolute head-scratchers for me.

Swank without Rockwell is totally ridiculous. Rockwell has been giving outstanding performances in films for close to two decades now, yet has never received major awards recognition. Instead they nominate Renner, an actor who has also deserved belated recognition, but who got it last year. Then they turn around and nominate Rockwell's co-star, Swank, in a very competitive category, which might have been OK if she hadn't already won two Oscars and a previous SAG award for much stronger performances.

I'm less upset over Hawkes' nomination over Garfield. Garfield will survive, he's already landed Toby Maguire's role in the re-boot of Spiderman. Hopefully the awards exposure Hawkes is getting will allow him to play something other than crazed dope-heads.

Now, I haven't seen True Grit, Get Low, Blue Valentine, Rabbit Hole or The Fighter, so I may be all wet here, but I've seen the trailers for the first two enough times to be annoyed by what I see from Bridges and Duvall, two actors who have been awarded heavily in the past. The last two slots are fillers anyway, so why not fill them with actors who bring something new to the table?



Edited By Big Magilla on 1292529534

[Damien]

Hilary Swank (The bitch is back)

Insult her all you want. But not only do I think Hilary Swank is a wonderful actress, she has also been committing a lot of time and money to the Trevor ("It Gets Better") Project and other programs designed to help out gay kids. I love her.

[OscarGuy]

One impactful scene does not sympathy make. She may have been good in that one scene and developed a measure of sympathy, but the overall arc of her character very much feels unsympathetic to me. But that's my impression of her.

Before you said that there was "nothing at all sympathetic" about her character. Now you concede to the fact that she does, in fact, garner sympathy in that dinner scene, but her overall arc is unsympathetic. Your impression seems to change from post to post.

Words into mouth. You're good at that. A measure of sympathy does not make a character sympathetic. So, my original statement stands, but apparently needed clarification.