‘Air,’ ‘Basterds,’ ‘Precious’ lead the way with SAG

Posted by · 6:01 am · December 17th, 2009

Diane Kruger in Inglourious BasterdsThere wasn’t much in the way of a surprise with this year’s Screen Actors Guild announcement.  The nods that are least likely to translate to Oscar, if I were a betting man, are Diane Kruger’s supporting actress bid for “Inglourious Basterds” and (I guess I just have a feeling) Matt Damon, supporting for “Invictus.” The rest seem like safe bets on down the line.

I wouldn’t read too much into the ensemble snub of “Up in the Air,” though it’s curious to nominate three actors from the film and then ignore it in that field.  The ensemble category is also where “Nine” got its expected attention, though Penelope Cruz also showed up in supporting for the film.  The BFCA, you’ll recall, went for Marion Cotillard instead.

“Precious,” “Inglourious Basterds” and “Up in the Air” had the most nominations, with three apiece.  I would have expected “An Education” to have that designation, too, but somehow Alfred Molina was ignored.  Maybe that won’t be the case with Oscar, maybe it will.

On to the next thing.  Check the full list of nominees after the jump.

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney, “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth, “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman, “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner, “The Hurt Locker”

Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side”
Helen Mirren, “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan, “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe, “Precious”
Meryl Streep, “Julie & Julia”

Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson, “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer, “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci, “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, “Nine”
Vera Farmiga, “Up in the Air”
Anna Kendrick, “Up in the Air”
Diane Kruger, “Inglourious Basterds”
Mo’Nique, “Precious”

Best Ensemble
“An Education”
“The Hurt Locker”
“Inglourious Basterds”

Best Stunt Ensemble
“Public Enemies”
“Star Trek”
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”

→ 161 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

161 responses so far

  • 1 12-18-2009 at 5:43 am

    Glenn said...

    Hans, “Nine” hasn’t even been released yet.

    “Can someone explain that to me?”

    Danny King, it means that there are three great performances in “Up in the Air” that they felt the need to nominate, but three performances doesn’t make an ensemble (I haven’t seen the film, but Kendrick and Fermiga don’t have scenes together, right? Making it even LESS of an “ensemble”).

  • 2 12-18-2009 at 7:22 am

    Paul Outlaw said...

    Kendrick and Farmiga have several–one very important–scenes together.

    UITA missed the ensemble nod because big, shiny Nine got in. Trust me, that’s the only reason.

    Nine would have to have been a complete disaster not to get nominated, and on “degree of difficulty” alone (they sing! they dance! they emote! there’s a lot of them onscreen!) it succeeded for the 2100 members of the SAG Awards nominating committee.

  • 3 12-18-2009 at 7:30 am

    JJ said...

    I think NINE is getting awards buzz because:

    It’s a musical. Academy likes musicals.
    The insanely talented cast.
    The insanely talented filmmaking crew.

    Reviews cite the good performances, the technical prowess, and a poor narrative.

    Acting and technical guilds matter A LOT within the Academy, not reviews.

  • 4 12-18-2009 at 7:33 am

    JJ said...

    Meanwhile, a smaller film that’s made on $12 million (like The Hurt Locker) HAS to get good reviews for the Academy to wake-up, realize that they should watch the film (theater or screener), and say, gee, what a good movie, I have to nominate it.

  • 5 12-18-2009 at 7:35 am

    JJ said...

    only, not ‘on’.

  • 6 12-18-2009 at 8:29 am

    Craig said...

    Danny King:

    I think the problem I had with Dent doing all that was that he wasn’t satisfactorily developed (for me) in the first half, especially his “romance” with Rachel which I’ve already stated I didn’t buy for a second. What you said is true to an extent, and it sounds good on paper, but I felt it was poorly executed on film.

    I’m sure Nolan didn’t intend to write cheap thrills. I just felt like he didn’t quite know where to go after the thrill midpoint climax. As a result, the second half drags senselessly, never reaching the peak of that first climax, and then it just crashes into an abrupt (and for me, unsatisfying) conclusion.

    Having two villains in this film seemed so pointless to me, as it made Ledger’s Joker far less effective and rushed Two-face to a point where he became a laughable villain. And once again, the overcrowding rendered supporting characters essentially useless. Obviously this is all opinion, but if you can honestly tell me you enjoy the second half over the vastly superior first half, then I have no idea what you’re thinking.

  • 7 12-18-2009 at 11:20 am

    McAllister said...

    I think this season is open to an enormous amount of upsets and surprises… because we don’t know exactly what to expect with 10 slots in Best Picture, we very well could all be mistaken with Nine and Invictus. Maybe the lot of the Academy won’t just go with those because they are safe choices that won’t offend anyone because they are being predicted by all of us. Stuff like “Star Trek” or even “(500) Days of Summer” could EASILY sneak in… and great if they do.

  • 8 12-18-2009 at 11:43 am

    Brian said...

    If Avatar had gotten an ensemble nom, then UITA might have to worry. It didn’t, so it doesn’t.

    Hurt Locker has gained a lot of steam, sure, but I’m not sure how much it will translate to a BP win rather than Bigelow taking a more commanding lead.

    Basterds is looking like a great bet for original screenplay.

  • 9 12-18-2009 at 4:51 pm

    Danny King said...

    Glenn: Yes, Farmiga and Kendrick do have scenes together.

    Craig: I never said I enjoyed the second half more than the first half, I was simply defending the second half in response to your earlier comments. And it seems like you are using the oustanding first half to criticize the second half rather than look at it in it’s own light.

    I’m also not quite sure how Two Face made The Joker a less powerful villain. If anything, it only reinforced how dangerous of a force Ledger’s character really was.

  • 10 12-18-2009 at 5:08 pm

    Craig said...

    I never said I thought you liked the second half more, just that if you had, I would see no point in continuing this argument. Obviously I’m using the first half to criticize the second, as any film with such a vast drop off of quality is incredibly flawed (and only an OK film overall). If the whole film was of the quality of the first half, it would be worthy of all the praise it received and probably my favorite superhero film. If the whole thing was as bad as the second half, it would be mediocre at best and would sit, in my opinion, among the lesser comic book adaptations. As is, it’s a 2 or 2.5/4 AT BEST.

    The entire second half made the Joker a less powerful villain because he lost the mysterious, unpredictability he had in the first half. When he was flitting in and out of the shadows, wreaking havoc suddenly and out of nowhere, he was among the most frightening villains of this era of cinema. When he moved to the forefront, he just became another comic book villain to me. Not scary, not unpredictable. And his latter “villainous plots” were stupid. Two-Face took the emphasis off the Joker even though he clearly should have been saved for the next movie. I don’t even know how that’s arguable, but obviously, we agree on nearly nothing.

  • 11 12-18-2009 at 8:23 pm

    Danny King said...

    Craig: Ha, I guess I agree on the last part: that we agree on nearly nothing. Still a good discussion though, I think we are both too convinced in our own opinions to change them at all.