Screen Actors Guild Nominations

[ITALIANO]

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

Sonic Youth, welcome back but... just a simple question... 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!



Edited By ITALIANO on 1198189451

[ITALIANO]

Yes, Flipp has changed alot lately. I mean, on the board. And for the better.

Every year, when a movie doesn't get any nomination from a certain group, this board's explanation is: They couldn't see it! They weren't sent screeners! Well, let's face it once for all: they saw it, they were sent screeners. Atonement, Sweeney Todd, etc, were seen and - unfortunately, maybe - not liked, or not liked enough. This is a fact.

But I mean, even some of the SAG nominations (Viggo Mortensen, for example) show that this is going to be a different year.

[Sonic Youth]

Well, now...

First off, thanks to SAG, for taking the rapidly gelling consensus and taking a heavy mallet to it.

However...let me expand a bit on what pstough just said, and put this in larger perspective. When you look at this list, what one word jumps out at you? For me, it's "December". As in, practically nothing for December films -- Daniel Day-Lewis and Ellen Page are it (with Juno missing a fully-expected ensemble nod).

Then think back to last year: what was the big difference....

Hooray! Back home! Woo-hoo!!

If I may cut off your question right there, Mister Tee, and mention what the REAL big difference is between last year and this year, and it's one I'm surprised you haven't mentioned (unless I somehow missed it due to my jet lag.) What is the REAL difference?

Answer: this year, the SAG nominations were announced on Dec. 19th, 2007. Last year (or rather, earlier this year), they were announced on Jan. 4th, 2007. There's a big difference between the third week of December and the first week of January... especially since the former comes in the middle of everyone's hectic pre-holiday schedule.

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



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1198187952

[Akash]

The less said by you, the better. You haven't seen the film and therefore really have nothing of any substance to say about it, or what awards it does or doesn't deserve. I find it ridiculous that people can speak so authoritatively about movies they haven't even seen.

You've been a top lately haven't you Flipp?

[OscarGuy]

It's always been my theory that the film that employs the most people has the advantage in the best picture race. That does't mean that any big budget film can win, just that if nominated, the biggest one will usually out.

Producers and other hangers on who only vote for best picture want to do what they consider best for the industry as opposed to awarding the film they genuinely consider superior. The technical branches want to do what they consider best for their branch which why more often than not the film with the most nominations wins. No Country, Atonement and Sweeney Todd all employed a lot of people.

If the reason Atonement and Sweeney Todd were shut out of the SAG nominations is indeed that their porudcers didn't send screeners, chances are the AMPAS actors' branch will not shun them for the same reason. What is likely to happen, though, is that they will see all the SAG nomianted performances, some of which they may otherwise hasve shrugged off, and could end up liking those performances better.

A stand-off between those three films could result in a genuine sleeper like Into the Wild becoming the biggest little movie that could since Marty.

I'm doubtful that Atonement wasn't screened. Focus is fantastic about getting screeners out (I got mine almost a month ago). I think Atonement was screened, though whether Charlie Wilson's War or Sweeney Todd were, I don't know. But I still think the smaller the selection committee, the more niche the choices will be. They'll adhere to the smaller body's tastes as opposed to a large group (when the SAG voters ALL chime in or the entire Academy votes) which tends to skew more populist and whichever one employs the most people in the industry.

Of course, SAG skews even more towards the populist as evinced by their selections of Jodie Foster, Ian McKellen (for Rings) and Johnny Depp. Occasionally, they'll go with he flow, but more often than not, they go for the performance they've heard most about...since I really doubt that many people watch every single movie that's nominated.

[Eric]

and citing your own source of "important" critics' opinions on the top films and you'll find There Will Be Blood and Zodiac both placing above No Country for Old Men.

As Aakash said yesterday, you are moving the goal posts again.

But I'll play along: You got me now! You got me now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwsWskgKe5E

[Akash]

I'm not even touching this new mess o' crap that is Oscar Guy versus the board...again.

I'm going to echo Mister Tee's sentiment that I'm just glad the SAG nominations threw SOME suspense into the proceedings. My god, the Oscar race has been downright dull the past three years in terms of the acting winners, with the Best Picture prize yielding the real suspense. The acting winners may still become easily defined by the time the Globe and SAG winners are crowned, but at least the inclusion of things like Hairspray -- which surely has no chance at an Oscar Best Picture nomination -- and the question over whether Atonement and Michael Clayton can score Best Picture nods without a SAG Ensemble nod, leaves us with something of an open race. I say, yay to that.

And yay to the Coens brothers whose lovely film is becoming the most reliable and stalwart nominee with all these groups. If the film is nominated at the Producers, Directors and Writers Guilds, I'd say it has a decent shot at riding a "respect" sentiment to a Best Picture win, without having to actually win all the Guild prizes (kind of like The Departed last year which only won the Directors prize).

Oh and you know who else has been a consistent presence among critics awards, Globe and now SAG? Amy fucking Ryan. You go girl.

[OscarGuy]

There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men have shown up equally on lists.

And your point about No Country being critical concensus, so were:

2006: United 93 (10) to The Departed (6)
2005: Brokeback Mountain (17) to Crash (1)
2004: Sideways (16) to Million Dollar Baby (5)
2003: The Return of the King (15) - Actually Won
2002: No Critical Concensus
2001: No Critical Concensus
2000: No Critical Concensus
1999: American Beauty (8) - Actually Won
1998: Saving Private Ryan (9) to Shakespeare in Love (3)
1997: L.A. Confidential (9) to Titanic (6)
1996: Fargo (7) to The English Patient (4)

That's as far back as my records go, but only twice has the critical favorite (when there's been something of a concensus) actually won the Oscar. American Beauty would be the closest comparative you could use for No Country for Old Men. For critics prizes that year, though, you had only The Insider as a real competitor critically, but it wasn't as universal a praise as There Will Be Blood is getting...and citing your own source of "important" critics' opinions on the top films and you'll find There Will Be Blood and Zodiac both placing above No Country for Old Men.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1198185731

[Big Magilla]

It's always been my theory that the film that employs the most people has the advantage in the best picture race. That does't mean that any big budget film can win, just that if nominated, the biggest one will usually out.

Producers and other hangers on who only vote for best picture want to do what they consider best for the industry as opposed to awarding the film they genuinely consider superior. The technical branches want to do what they consider best for their branch which why more often than not the film with the most nominations wins. No Country, Atonement and Sweeney Todd all employed a lot of people.

If the reason Atonement and Sweeney Todd were shut out of the SAG nominations is indeed that their porudcers didn't send screeners, chances are the AMPAS actors' branch will not shun them for the same reason. What is likely to happen, though, is that they will see all the SAG nomianted performances, some of which they may otherwise hasve shrugged off, and could end up liking those performances better.

A stand-off between those three films could result in a genuine sleeper like Into the Wild becoming the biggest little movie that could since Marty.

[Eric]

Based on past experience with the Coens, I find them highly overrated.

We're not arguing the Coens' worth on a personal, individual basis, tho. We're only arguing their chances on an Oscar win based on precursors. As Italiano suggested, there has been but ONE FILM that has ALWAYS shown up to the table at EACH precursor thus far. (Go ahead and dig up whatever third-rate critics' or guild award you wish to disprove this.)

[Eric]

My mistake. I'd erroneously remembered Heaven as nominated for techs and Moore and nothing else.

[rolotomasi99]

I see the comparison, but I don't think the history of the Academy lines up with it. The Coens have already won an Oscar and been nominated since, and PTA has also been nominated in the past. Todd Haynes has never been nominated.

uuummmmmm....FAR FROM HEAVEN?

[OscarGuy]

Eric, I'm just tired of Flipp finding any reason he can to trash my opinion on the matter.

Based on past experience with the Coens, I find them highly overrated. I think Fargo is probably THE most overrated film of the last twenty years. So, based on my past experiences, I probably won't like No Country for Old Men. I may. Who the hell knows? I won't know until I see it.

[rolotomasi99]

I couldn't think of any other director better suited to transfer this material to the screen than Tim Burton. The material fits right into his oeuvre.

I thought Johnny Depp's version of "The Barber and His Wife" and "My Friends" are both better than Michael Cerveris'.

so....johnny depp was lying when he said he cannot sing? he clearly does not seem impressed with his own voice, and not in a false modesty sort of way.

i was not being facetious when i said the guy playing sweeney in the community theatre production i saw really did have a better voice than depp...which i am assuming johnny would agree with.

i did not realize you were a tim burton fanboy. i am sorry to insult him. i just wish he went back to being the great director he revealed himself to be with ED WOOD, rather than just the visual genius he usually is (SLEEPY HOLLOW, BATMAN, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, etc).

the musical is a tricky genre. far greater directors than burton have fallen prey to it: scorsese, coppola, altman, etc. tim burton capturing the gothic terror of SWEENEY TODD is perfect. tim burton capturing the sadness of this bloody revenge tale seems a misfire.

[Eric]

If you're discounting the opinions of anyone who thinks highly of No Country, now is probably the time to puncture your eardrums.