Screen Actors Guild Nominations

[Penelope]

So, either the majority of nominators were worn out from the earlier screeners and didn't bother to watch Atonement, had already made up their minds to vote for who they voted for, or just plain didn't like it.

It was probably a combination of all three.

[Big Magilla]

A couple of things to keep in mind about the SAG nominators. First off, only a mere 2,100 memebrs of the 100,000 (?) membership are on the rotating nominating committee each year so it's quite possible that this year's slate of nominators have entirely diffferent tastes than last year's. Secondly, most of the SAG membership is comprised of waiters and gas jockeys and the like who rarely get to act in films and are not that much different in their tastes than the general public.

According to Gold Derby, the Atonement and Great Debaters screener DVDs went out toward the end of the voting period. Sweeney Todd and Charlie Wilson's War did not send out screeners. The nominations went to the films that were in release earlier in the year and/or from films like There Will Be Blood where the screeners were sent out early.

So, either the majority of nominators were worn out from the earlier screeners and didn't bother to watch Atonement, had already made up their minds to vote for who they voted for, or just plain didn't like it.

[Akash]

I have no idea of knowing whether enough SAG voters got a chance to see these films or not (and neither do any of you!) It does seem logical though that a December 7th release date for Atonement may not help the film with an awards group that announces its nominations on December 20th.

That being said, can we really assume that Guild and Oscar voters actually vote on films they've SEEN only?? I find it hard to believe that these people aren't often swayed by hype and publicity when it comes to nominations. They're certainly swayed by hype and publicity in every other way! Why should that change when it comes to nominating a film? A couple of years ago, a number of Oscar voters admitted they hadn't seen (and weren't going to see) Brokeback Mountain, and that didn't stop them from voting for Best Picture. All I'm saying is, I don't think SAG voters necessarily had to see Atonement to vote for it. I think Steph is correct that the only thing we can really deduce is that they really enjoy crap like Hairspray. It's not like the choice was only between Atonement and Hairspray right? They could have chosen any other worthy film but they chose this one.

To paraphrase Eric from a while back (and my favorite quote from this board in 2007): "For some people it's more important to register an opinion than to actually have one."



Edited By Akash on 1198202176

[Steph2]

Do you really think that they, en masse, refused to see Atonement? Please.

Exactly, Italiano! I always wondered this too when people made these grand assumptions about an entire voting body (over at Goldderby, Tom O Neil asserts these silly opinions as truisms). Atonement has been in theaters enough for many of us to see it and dislike it, it's possible enough SAG voters also saw it and disliked it. And even without the videos, there are always free screenings at different times for Guild and Academy members.

I just think enough SAG voters are idiots and actually prefer crap like Hairspray. I mean an exclusion is one thing but look at what they included in its place! Shouldn't that give us some insight into the cognitive majority of this voting bloc rather than our own hypothetical theories of who may or may not have seen a film?

[OscarGuy]

Penelope, on the screeners front, it's unlikely they didn't get Atonement. The OFCS has one of the latest dates for awards and we all got screeners about a month ago. That's plenty of time for them to have seen it. There Will Be Blood and Sweeney Todd have NOT come in.

Penelope, I said that very same thing about the non-showiness of the performances in Atonement earlier in this thread. I think that's far more likely the reason than they didn't get screeners...

[Penelope]

Marco, I believe the argument is that SAG members didn't get their screeners for Atonement in time; considering that Atonement still hasn't gone into wide release, yet, I suspect that lack of viewers may be the reason--as it clearly is for Sweeney Todd and There Will Be Blood.

Having said that, Atonement doesn't feature the type of acting that would appeal to SAG voters anyway--oh, the movie itself is "showy"--all that impressionistic photography and complex editing--but the acting is by and large subdued; even McAvoy has only one really "baity" scene (when Robbie is reunited with Cecilia at the restaurant, and he can barely hold back his tears). Plus, these are characters whose appearance and behavior is generally "normal"--unlike Gosling (emotionally retarded in Lars and the Real Girl) or Mortensen (a violent Russian gangster in Eastern Promises).

[rolotomasi99]

it cannot be mere coincidence three films with several precursor nominations -- SWEENEY TODD, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, ATONEMENT -- but shut out at the sags were released in december. the only other nominations for films released in december were two performances which honestly could have been nominated sight-unseen, just based on all the excellent buzz. september and october are the busiest months in terms of nominations: released recently enough to not be forgotten, but long ago enough for people to actually have had the chance to see the movies.


MAY
Away From Her -- 1 nomination

JUNE
La Vie En Rose -- 1 nomination
A Mighty Heart -- 1 nomination

JULY
Hairspray -- 1 nomination

SEPTEMBER
3:10 To Yuma -- 1 nomination
Eastern Promises -- 1 nomination
Into The Wild -- 4 nominations
The Assassination Of Jesse James -- 1 nomination

OCTOBER
Michael Clayton -- 3 nominations
The Golden Age -- 1 nomination
Lars And The Real Girl -- 1 nomination
Gone Baby Gone -- 1 nomination

NOVEMBER
American Gangster -- 2 nominations
No Country For Old Men -- 3 nominations
I'm Not There -- 1 nomination

DECEMBER
There Will Be Blood -- 1 nomination
Juno -- 1 nomination

[ITALIANO]

The reason why I'm not writing them off is because they may just be victims of an organization getting their picks out much too soon. And if this is the case, the studios will do whatever it takes to make sure these films are screened to the fullest for all the Academy members. The SAG voters may very well love these two films, once they've finally seen them. Absent that, the SAG voters picked a few other films in their place.

Does this mean Atonement and Sweeney Todd aren't hurt? Of course it doesn't. If a film and its actors aren't nominated for anything, no matter the reason, it certainly doesn't help. And any film that suddenly appears on the landscape hurts any omitted film merely by its presence. And if Atonement's and Sweeney's studios are going to try their level best to get these films nominated by the Academy, so are Into the Wild's and 3:10 to Yuma's and even Hairspray's producers.

Now, had this been the very slate announced on Jan. 4th, 2008, rather than on seven-days-to-Christmas-2007, I'd say it was a very telling statement and possibly a harbinger of things to come. And that may be true now. But because of this much earlier date, I'd be a little wary to draw such definitive conclusions yet. PGAs and DGAs will tell the tale.

Mister Tee's school of writing.

Do you really think that they, en masse, refused to see Atonement? Please.

[Penelope]

HAIRSPRAY ?!

Man, actors are dumb.

Tell me about it! I just watched Hairspray a couple of nights ago and it contains two of the worst performances by actors capable of much better things I've seen this year: John Travolta and Amanda Bynes--the former was hopelessly miscast while the latter seemed to be tripping out on some really weird drug.

At least Michelle Pfeiffer, James Marsden and Nikki Blonsky were around to provide some quality acting.

[Steph2]

HAIRSPRAY ?!

Man, actors are dumb.

[ITALIANO]

[Akash]

- and this ages ago, before you were even born.

you know what I'm going to call you.



Edited By Akash on 1198190082

[ITALIANO]

Well, I said that it won't win and that its director won't be nominated - and this ages ago, before you were even born. I guess I do make choices, and strong ones.

I was being sarcastic about the "period" piece. But I still think that at least one traditional, "pleasant" movie will be nominated as always, and Atonement could easily be that.

[Akash]

Marco, you are forgetting that you yourself refused to write off Atonement in this very thread, when you wrote

I still feel that it will get nominated for Best Picture - there MUST be a nod for a traditional, well-made, well-written period piece - and at least one from the cast should also get there.

But I guess you can do this since you are not an all-American straight male :p

And can I just ask, why you think there must be a period piece? Last year's list didn't exactly include one.



Edited By Akash on 1198188940

[Sonic Youth]

So, I'm not going to write off Atonement or Sweeney Todd just yet.

Sonic Youth, welcome back but... just a simple questions... why don't you ever "write off" a movie till after the nominations are announced? You are a straight all-American male - my god, show it sometimes!

The reason why I'm not writing them off is because they may just be victims of an organization getting their picks out much too soon. And if this is the case, the studios will do whatever it takes to make sure these films are screened to the fullest for all the Academy members. The SAG voters may very well love these two films, once they've finally seen them. Absent that, the SAG voters picked a few other films in their place.

Does this mean Atonement and Sweeney Todd aren't hurt? Of course it doesn't. If a film and its actors aren't nominated for anything, no matter the reason, it certainly doesn't help. And any film that suddenly appears on the landscape hurts any omitted film merely by its presence. And if Atonement's and Sweeney's studios are going to try their level best to get these films nominated by the Academy, so are Into the Wild's and 3:10 to Yuma's and even Hairspray's producers.

Now, had this been the very slate announced on Jan. 4th, 2008, rather than on seven-days-to-Christmas-2007, I'd say it was a very telling statement and possibly a harbinger of things to come. And that may be true now. But because of this much earlier date, I'd be a little wary to draw such definitive conclusions yet. PGAs and DGAs will tell the tale.