Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

For the films of 2020
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by dws1982 »

Sabin wrote:
Reza wrote
Sabin wrote
Generally speaking, I think films that win Best Picture tend to have lots of actors in them. A SAG nomination isn't needed but if a film is never in the running for a nomination, that's not a great sign.
I don't think that's necessarily true. All films have different characters who are part of the story. Actors happen to play those parts. Nomadland may not have many "actors" but there are enough characters who make the story tick along just fine. So I don't think a lack of a SAG nod for Nomadland gives it less of a chance at winning Best Picture.
Apparently, I'm the only one who feels this way but that's okay. We'll ultimately find out. But my reasoning is that Nomadland is less a road movie like Sideways and more Into the Wild where a protagonist in an existential crisis encounters people along the way for one-off epiphanies. In Nomadland, we basically get one character that Fern encounters more than once (David Strathairn). I'm not sure that the Academy likes those kinds of films.
I didn't notice it until I saw it the second time, but she actually encounters several characters multiple times--Linda May, Bob Wells, Derek, and a few others--which is part of the whole "no final goodbyes" theme.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Sabin »

Reza wrote
Sabin wrote
Generally speaking, I think films that win Best Picture tend to have lots of actors in them. A SAG nomination isn't needed but if a film is never in the running for a nomination, that's not a great sign.
I don't think that's necessarily true. All films have different characters who are part of the story. Actors happen to play those parts. Nomadland may not have many "actors" but there are enough characters who make the story tick along just fine. So I don't think a lack of a SAG nod for Nomadland gives it less of a chance at winning Best Picture.
Apparently, I'm the only one who feels this way but that's okay. We'll ultimately find out. But my reasoning is that Nomadland is less a road movie like Sideways and more Into the Wild where a protagonist in an existential crisis encounters people along the way for one-off epiphanies. In Nomadland, we basically get one character that Fern encounters more than once (David Strathairn). I'm not sure that the Academy likes those kinds of films.
flipp525 wrote
The Trial of the Chicago 7 was flat-out boring. It took me several weeks to get through that movie. No one has any real passion for it. I’m also surprised that Frank Langella was not the supporting nominee out of the cast. SBC had a big year obviously, and he’s not unworthy of citation, I was just not as impressed as I was with Langella and Mark Rylance. Even Eddie Redmayne, I thought, was unusually impressive (and I generally do not enjoy him at all).
1) I agree with all your points. And yes, it is flat-out boring. My least favorite of the nominees for sure.
2) Someone must have passion for it because it won the SAG Award. They could have easily gone with Minari, a much better film, but instead went with it.
"How's the despair?"
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10216
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Reza »

Sabin wrote:Generally speaking, I think films that win Best Picture tend to have lots of actors in them. A SAG nomination isn't needed but if a film is never in the running for a nomination, that's not a great sign.
I don't think that's necessarily true. All films have different characters who are part of the story. Actors happen to play those parts. Nomadland may not have many "actors" but there are enough characters who make the story tick along just fine. So I don't think a lack of a SAG nod for Nomadland gives it less of a chance at winning Best Picture.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6197
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by flipp525 »

The Trial of the Chicago 7 was flat-out boring. It took me several weeks to get through that movie. No one that I’ve spoken with about it has any real passion for it. I’m also surprised that Frank Langella was not the supporting nominee out of the cast. SBC had a big year obviously, and he’s not unworthy of citation, I was just not as impressed as I was with Langella and Mark Rylance. Even Eddie Redmayne, I thought, was unusually impressive (and I generally do not enjoy him at all).
Last edited by flipp525 on Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Sabin »

Generally speaking, I think films that win Best Picture tend to have lots of actors in them. A SAG nomination isn't needed but if a film is never in the running for a nomination, that's not a great sign.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19608
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Big Magilla »

Yes, and yet some persist in thinking it means more than it does.
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

Big Magilla wrote:As I've said many times, the SAG ensemble award is not a Best Picture award, it's a Best Ensemble Award and often goes to the film with the most actors among the nominees
Very important to keep in mind.

La La Land’s BP loss was a fluke. It was not foretold by the lack of a SAG ensemble nom. It was close to a two-hander. (The winner was Hidden Figures, never a threat to win BP.)

Just as best editing might as well be called most editing, the SAG ensemble award might as well be called most ensemble. Every male actor and a few women were in that movie. Nomadland wasn’t nominated and Minari had a cast of basically five. I don’t think Chicago 7 is any more a front runner today than it was a week ago.
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

I know this belongs in the TV department and speaks to how all the TV winners were white, but congrats to Catherine O'Hara for her spectacular year: she becomes just the fourth person to sweep all 5 major TV acting awards (TV Critics Association, Critics Choice Awards, the Emmys, the Golden Globes and now the SAG) in one season for the final season of Schitt's Creek. In the words of Moira: how whimsical!
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8783
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

MaxWilder wrote:Let’s not forget, Emma Stone was announced as the best picture winner. Her support was that deep!
In fact, she made that indelible moment possible. If the envelope they opened had said Natalie Portman for Jackie or Isabelle Huppert/Elle, even Beatty/Dunaway would have caught on something was amiss.
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

Let’s not forget, Emma Stone was announced as the best picture winner. Her support was that deep!
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
I agree with this. I think they made the decision to push her into supporting (a defensible move, seeing Mary Alice won the Tony in that category) at a time when it seemed like Natalie Portman's Jackie performance might run away with the race (something the Broadcasters presumably thought, when they chose her as best actress).

The critical sweep for Isabelle Huppert changed that calculus -- Huppert's enthusiasm for the race made her a popular choice, even getting her the Globe, which pushed Portman aside. But a foreign-language performance in an audacious movie was always going to be a tough sell to a mainstream Academy, which opened the way for Emma Stone in a more popular film. I have little doubt Viola Davis would have topped Stone -- for a far more serious, moving performance -- but, by then, the die was cast.
It's pretty remarkable how the 2016 Best Actress race went from a pretty stacked lineup of contenders to a true cakewalk for Emma Stone. I remember in the summer of that year thinking she had a better chance than some were estimating but I didn't think it would be so easy. First, Viola Davis was pushed for Supporting. Then, Amy Adams missed out on a nomination for Arrival (clearly, an admired film among voters) striking her due narrative from the race. Jackie was clearly underperforming during awards season but losing the Golden Globe to Isabelle Huppert certainly felt like her chances were dashed. But Isabelle Huppert missing out on a SAG pretty much ended her chances as well. It was just over and considering the amount of talent that either was in that race or could have been, that's very surprising.

Truly, Emma Stone was one of the few things that went as planned for La La Land that night...
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8783
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote: In retrospect, they should have pushed her for lead in Fences because I suspect she would have won there over the competition anyway.
I agree with this. I think they made the decision to push her into supporting (a defensible move, seeing Mary Alice won the Tony in that category) at a time when it seemed like Natalie Portman's Jackie performance might run away with the race (something the Broadcasters presumably thought, when they chose her as best actress).

The critical sweep for Isabelle Huppert changed that calculus -- Huppert's enthusiasm for the race made her a popular choice, even getting her the Globe, which pushed Portman aside. But a foreign-language performance in an audacious movie was always going to be a tough sell to a mainstream Academy, which opened the way for Emma Stone in a more popular film. I have little doubt Viola Davis would have topped Stone -- for a far more serious, moving performance -- but, by then, the die was cast.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
The night Halle Berry broke through the barrier for black actresses, my thought at the time was, Angela Bassett should have been first -- she was the one at the time who'd racked up the credits to make her a worthy holder of the crown (as Poitier and, decades later, Denzel were, on their side of the aisle). I feel the same about Viola Davis -- her career clearly merits a best actress win somewhere along the line.

I certainly understand people feeling there should be more black lead actress wins...but the idea that the only two would be Halle Berry and Andra Day (when Bassett, Alfre Woodard and Viola are right there) in some ways feels even more diminishing.
There's a tragic quality to both Halle Berry's role in Monster's Ball and Andra Day's in The United States vs. Billie Holiday. While Andra Day doesn't do anything as degrading as having sex with the white racist who executed her husband (Berry), she gets naked, has sex, spirals into drugs, breaks down, lays on a deathbed... what else do you need?

But yes, I feel the same way. In 2001, it felt like it should have been Angela Bassett. And this year, it should be Viola Davis. At least, she already has one Oscar. In retrospect, they should have pushed her for lead in Fences because I suspect she would have won there over the competition anyway.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8783
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

The night Halle Berry broke through the barrier for black actresses, my thought at the time was, Angela Bassett should have been first -- she was the one at the time who'd racked up the credits to make her a worthy holder of the crown (as Poitier and, decades later, Denzel were, on their side of the aisle). I feel the same about Viola Davis -- her career clearly merits a best actress win somewhere along the line.

I certainly understand people feeling there should be more black lead actress wins...but the idea that the only two would be Halle Berry and Andra Day (when Bassett, Alfre Woodard and Viola are right there) in some ways feels even more diminishing.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10216
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Winners

Post by Reza »

MaxWilder wrote:What’s bizarre to me is that a lot of people think the second should be Andra Day, not legend-in-the-making Viola Davis.
Its about time a second black actress is crowned in the lead category and I agree it most certainly should be Viola Davis. She deserves it over Day. After her surprise SAG win I think she is going to take Faye Dunaway's route and be crowned right next to her posthumous winning co-star on Oscar night.
Post Reply

Return to “93rd Academy Awards”