There 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”
“Nine”
“Precious”
Best Stunt Ensemble
“Public Enemies”
“Star Trek”
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”
Comments
161 responses to “‘Air,’ ‘Basterds,’ ‘Precious’ lead the way with SAG”
I’m kinda with you, JP–I mean, this year is phenomenal. But, 2008 doesn’t get the credit it deserves.
It may have been a sucky year for OSCAR nominations (BP, mostly, and Pitt, Jolie, Hoffman); but there were a slew of exquisite films to behold. This is my Top 20:
01) Boy A
02) WALL·E
03) Frozen River
04) Love Songs
05) Snow Angels
06) Rachel Getting Married
07) Milk
08) Slumdog Millionaire
09) Revolutionary Road
10) Pineapple Express
11) The Black Balloon
12) Waltz with Bashir
13) The Dark Knight
14) Happy-Go-Lucky
15) The Wrestler
16) In Bruges
17) I’ve Loved You So Long
18) The Visitor
19) Eden Lake
20) Tropic Thunder
And there are still a few I have yet to see. Also, I consider The Class and Hunger 2009, based on NYC release dates. But I may reverse that decision.
@Leone: Yeah, all those things got nominated for Ensemble and didn’t get nominated for Best Picture, but No Country for Old Men was nominated, and it still won.
And true, what matters most is not the SAG nominating committee, but the SAG voting body at large–that will give us a much more accurate view of a potential outcome. The winners will be the important ones to watch in the race, moreso than the nominees. Precedents are set and records are broken all the time, and it’s entirely possible that Up in the Air will do just that. Whatever, awesome, I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I have no reason to campaign for or against it. Plus, the SAG as an awards-giving body has only existed since 1994 (interesting that the only Best Picture winner without an Ensemble nod happened in their second year of existence), so there’s another grain of salt.
All I’m saying is that there are two sides to our scale. On one end, you have all the reasons that the snub could not matter. On the other end, you have the history of the organization, their track record of predicting nominees and winners, and the fact that, with the nominating committee leaving Up in the Air off of ensemble when it nominated it for three individual awards, the snub looks oddly intentional. People think “Oh, well, it’s a small cast, not really an ensemble piece.” But you need only look back to 2004 when Sideways won Ensemble with a cast of four. It’s not like Sideways even had the addition of some well-known comic actors in (I can only presume) smaller parts the way that Up in the Air has, even just with the presence of Zach Galifianakis and Jason Bateman.
Just try to take everything into account. Don’t scream that the sky is falling because you feel a couple sprinkles, but don’t say it isn’t raining either.
I guess this means I’ll have to go see “The Blind Side” after all. That’s too bad.
Kris and Guy, have either of you seen this yet? I don’t remember reading any comments about this film at all. Does Bullock’s performance actually warrant a nomination, or is this one of those body-of-work culminations?
I haven’t seen it.
Heh, f they’d really wanted to make a splash with the Best Ensemble nom, they’d nominate Antichrist and include the fox.
I was kinda hoping Charlotte’s snatch would snatch that 5th supporting actress slot *sigh*.
I think what’s weirdest about UITA’s absence in ensemble is that it is absolutely an ensemble piece, just as Juno was (also not nominated). The big moments are nearly all set between several characters talking. Anyway, Kris is right to point out that “best ensemble” typically means “most in the ensemble” for SAG: this year especially, the films that did get nominated had significant speaking parts for at least a half dozen actors.
Silencio, are you crazy? The deer had a much more demanding role! Fox just had the best line :p
By modest I’m talking like three or four people, folks.
Really glad to see Jeremy Renner get a nomination.
Sandra Bullock was good in The Blind Side and I am happy that she is getting the attention, even if I feel a part of the recognition is b/c of her body of work and the general public liking her a lot and recognizing her very strong year. The movie itself was really dull and the actor that played Michael Oher was really bland – but her performance was great!
I still doubt that Bullock will get nominated, mainly because she won’t have any British votes [The Blind Side doesn’t even have a release date in Britain]. That can play against Precious’ Sibide and Mo’Nique as well.
And, I think the Best Actress race will be Streep vs. Mulligan, with Streep winning.
Somehow, I’m expecting Christian McKay to pull the same stunt that Michael Shannon did last year, at the cost of Matt Damon.
Yes JP, I think mediocre is the only way I could ever describe The Dark Knight as a whole. Sure, the first half is damn good, maybe even great, but the arrival of the second half (after Rachel dies) is, imo, one of the worst quality drop offs in the history of cinema. Character development is sacrificed for convenience or cheap thrills (most drastically with Harvey/Two-Face, who morphs from what could have been a great villain into a predictable, not entirely sensical revenge side plot), but even Ledger’s Joker becomes a far less effective villain when he moves more into the spotlight. I will say however that Ledger and Eckhart still did their very best when the script became weak.
The villainous situations were far less effective in the second half because they were either rushed (blowing up the hospital) or dragged out (the almost painful situation with the boats). Even the final encounter with the Joker felt entirely anticlimactic to me, and I didn’t believe a moment of the Two-face storyline because it was way underdeveloped, just like the “love” between Harvey and Rachel that supposedly sparked his breakdown).
And since there’s so much going on, character development is diminished all around, and supporting characters, like Caine and especially Freeman, get shafted entirely. The scenes between Caine and Bale are my favorites in the film, because there’s just an honesty and believability there that the rest of the movie lacked for me. Freeman’s entire storyline revolves around the undeveloped “sonar” object, which might have been cool if they had explained it, but instead just feels like it was thrown in at the last minute for convenience.
It’s not a bad film, just a very flawed one, and I don’t feel it deserves half the praise it receives. In no way did it deserve a Best Picture nomination (though The Reader definitely didn’t either), and next to this year’s best, that film is nothing to me. In my mind, this year is miles and miles better than last, and I haven’t even seen half of the films likely to be up for BP.
Why are Vera Farmiga and Jeremy Renner Oscar- worthy? Yes, they were perfectly cast and played their parts believably and effortlessly (particularly Farmiga)…I just don’t see the level of difficulty required to be “Oscar-worthy.” Can someone please enlighten me?
As odd as it is for Up in the Air to be snubbed despite its support in individual categories, it’s actually less of a blow than if Up in the Air had been nominated and lost, which would have led to people buzzing around saying, “Up in the Air is losing buzz to [fill in Precious or Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds here]” right at the ballot deadline.
Now, if Up in the Air also walks away empty-handed at the Globes, we might be talking about some buzz-loss. As it is, this is a bump in the road for a major contender.
(Which, of course, isn’t to say there aren’t other major contenders. Hooray, Basterds!)
anyone who ever said anything negative about Guy Lodge because he didnt like Precious should apologise now, cause i’ve just seen Precious, and in retrospect he was being very kind to the film.
it doesnt deserve to win anything.
also the fact that Up In The Air was snubbed just shows that the acting community was not that impressed with it and called BS on it.
omg, doesn’t ‘Up in the Air’ have, like, only 3 principle actors, plus Zach Galifannakis (sp), and then a ton of hired extras?
No duhhh, it wasn’t gonna get in Best Ensemble.
This does not mean it isn’t a Top 3 front-runner, at all.
mike: More stupidity. Not that impressed with it, so they gave it more acting nominations than any other film.
Jesus. I guess this is the time of year this backward-ass analysis kicks in. I feel like I could fill a book with all the non-starting arguments against films for flimsy reasons over the years, arguments conveniently forgotten when the season is over, of course.
Kristopher: I don’t know… After Oscar season’s over, I’ll remember you frantic attempt to revive The Lovely Bones’ Picture chances long after it had turned blue. I’m generally of a mind that favoritism and self-delusion aren’t the same thing, except when Tapley’s in the mix!
It wasn’t a frantic attempt, actually. It was called leaving my predictions alone because I wanted to see how things played out and more people saw it during that first week. I did, after all, take it out of a number of other fields. No one really knows what a field of 10 might mean. Yeah, I probably held out on Basterds a bit too long. It happens.
By the way, you’re boring.
Guy’s comment #22 is spot-on. Moore was fine but let me tell you, I didn’t come away from A Single Man (which is EXCELLENT) thinking about Julianne Moore AT ALL.
Yeah, Moore may not be in the movie long enough for substantial impact.
And some critics have pointed out a ‘bad performance’, while most praise her in the ‘cameo’. I don’t think it’s a home run. But then, I haven’t seen it yet, either.
I also think it’s interesting to take into account WHEN the nominations were filled out/when they had to be in by/when they were tabulated, etc..
I think these tabulations were made before any kind of random Blunt push/buzz. And I think they may have been made before a Christian McKay push/buzz. And they definitely may have been made before Cotillard was getting any major Supporting Actress buzz (as she has been); and as compared to her early Best Actress campaign.
No?
And given NINE’s Ensemble nomination, I think that Cotillard either just missed Actress and/or Supporting (6-8th place). I think DDL must have just missed out on Actor (6-7th), and I think Dench just missed out, as well (SAG loves her).
I guess the lesson with “Nine” is that if you have a bad movie with Oscar buzz, release it as late as possible and you’ll still get some nominations. If this movie had been released a month earlier, it wouldn’t have a single nomination.
So Nine and An Education both get ensemble nominations, but only one actor from each film is being singled out for an individual nomination…and Up in the Air has three individual actors nominated, but no ensemble recognition…Can someone explain that to me?
I think Renner is vulnerable and his nomination depends completely on how much love there is for “The Hurt Locker” If Renner gets the nomination, I think “The Hurt Locker” is on the way to win best picture.
Just to add something else to the pile, to consider when talking about what the SAG nominations ultimately mean. Note that I’m not offering up my opinion on what this means for Up in the Air’s chances as a whole, just a simple fact of the process to consider.
The box office manager of the theatre where I work has been on the SAG nominating committee for the last two seasons (he was not on the committee this year, however). The size of the entire nominating committee is 1,000. This 1,000 is split equally in half, 500 nominating for television, and 500 nominating for film. The entire voting body of SAG is about 100,000. Therefore, the actual nominating body is only about 0.5% of the entire organization. As my co-worker’s position on past SAG nomination committees also proves, not all members of the SAG nomination committee are members of AMPAS. By comparison, 1,205 actors will ultimately vote to nominate for the acting awards, as well as Best Picture. By comparison, the actors are 20.9% of the nominating committee for Best Picture.
Do with that what you will.
Renner could be this year’s Dev Patel. (with SAG). And Slumdog won BP with no acting noms.
Credit for those statistics go to my friend and co-worker Harold Jurkiewicz, and Sasha Stone of awardsdaily.com
Very good analysis on TDK Craig. Completely agree with you.
Indeed, Adam (Smith). Indeed.
Craig: Yes, I’m sure Nolan wrote the third act of his script thinking cheap thrills were more important than character development…What cheap thrills are you even talking about?
JJ: Moore’s role in “A Single Man” is small, but it’s certainly more than a cameo. And it’s by no means a bad performance. But she’s not stretching herself. At all.
haven’t been on the boards in a while. i was kinda hoping this would just find its way out of the conversation naturally but it appears Invictus has some legs. does anyone honestly think there was anything about that film that was award worthy? Freeman gave a good physical performane but theres next to no character arc. nothing happens.
also having been away im just picking up on this but Andrew and Jeremy really seem to be pretentious asses. Making blanket statements about the negativity of UITAs bp chances are clearly just based in dislike for the movie. its ridiculous to think this film doesnt have as good a chance as any
Thrilled for Bullock… she’s on a roll and she’ll keep going.
Thanks Guy for the Moore insight. :-)
Regarding ‘Invictus’: I saw it, I liked it. It’s thr perfect “pop it into your dvd player when you’re sick and want to chill out to it” type of movie.
But I agree, if Eastwood’s name weren’t attached. It would not be getting much buzz. Freeman is good, as is Damon. Nothing spectacular.
Again, I liked it. But there’s just very little to the directing, acting, writing, editing, & other technical work to garner Top 5 or even 10 consideration. But it will probably get in.
Wow, Kris, did you wake up too early today? Let the good folks have their fun, and let’s see how it plays out. What good is this discussion board, anyway, if you can’t make bold predictions like “UITA is on life support”? Would you call me stupid if I made an equally bold prediction, such as “IB for BP”?
By the way, I’m not sure how relevant it is, but “Erin Brockovich” won two SAGs (of course, this was the year Del Toro accidentally got submitted in Lead Actor) without an Ensemble nod. It got a BP nomination, but not the win. You could argue that it didn’t have any shot anyway, just like “Clayton” didn’t. Maybe the bottom line here is: it’s silly to draw any conclusions from an organization that has only been handing out awards for the last 10 or so years. That’s not a large sample size.
Joe: The last bit is kind of the point I’ve been trying to make. Not to mention the various other factors that both Adam Smith and I laid out above.
Hey Kris:
Went to Crazy Heart yesterday and personally, I thought Bridges gave the worst performance of his career. When he was singing, I thought he was going to pass out. His chemistry with Gyllenhaal was one of the worst things I’ve seen on screen this year.
I listened to your interview with him and it was one of the worst interviews I’ve ever heard. Clearly Bridges isn’t going to get an Oscar nomination, he hasn’t even been nominated in any of the critics groups yet. Your prediction that he will win the Oscar couldn’t be further off. The Best Actor race is obviously a two horse race between Edward Norton and Nic Cage.
Obviously.
Poor Michael Stulhbarg. Hell, his eyebrows alone should get a best actor nomination.
Everyone talking about “Up in the Air” not really being a big ensemble… “The Hurt Locker” anyone? I am baffled how that gets nominated here. WHAT ensemble, exactly? Three main actors and Guy Pearce/Ralph Fiennes popping up for a couple minutes? Clearly a case of SAG voting in favor of the movie and not the ensemble itself.
@135
I thought I made that very clear. Everything. The ridiculous “someone needs to kill this man or I’ll blow up a hospital” plot point, the entire situation on the boats, Batman fighting the cops AND the bad guys to save all the hostages dressed up as clowns, Harvey going apeshit and killing everyone, especially when he shoots the driver in the car or when he randomly goes after Gordon’s family and shoots Batman. I think the real question is “what character development are you even talking about?”
Craig: I came in on the discussion a little late, so sorry if I missed some of your earlier comments. Here are some of my thoughts….
Harvey Dent before accident: Young, energetic, handsome, in a serious, loving relationship, and on the cusp of (if not already) becoming a hero for decreasing the enormously high crime rates in Gotham.
Harvey Dent after accident: Still young, but his face is half-skin, half-flesh, the woman he loved is dead, and the town he fought so hard to protect is going up in flames.
You better believe that this guy is going to go apeshit, what would you do? If you’re trying to look at Harvey’s third act actions in a completely logical way, then I think you are mistaken. He is a broken man, and that’s why he gave into the Joker so easily.
And as for the Joker, he wanted Reese dead so that the real identity of the Batman wouldn’t be released. He explained his entire logic behind that in the memorable interrogation sequence.
And I’m not sure character development is the best way to evaluate the second half of the script. I already described how Dent changed, but the Joker is created as an indestructible criminal, and as a result, he isn’t supposed to change. As for Batman, we have come to know him as an honorable, selfless vigilante who cares about the people of Gotham more than anything else, and the ending only reinforces that.
To say that the finale of this script was written for “cheap thrills” is a shocker to me. It’s not as much as an insult to the Nolans as it is just a complete misread of the film and its intentions. It’s your opinion whether the film failed or not in its execution, but to say that Nolan only wanted to create “cheap thrills” with this film is borderline absurdity.
Very disappointed that Cornish again snubbed for Bright Star. This film has been almost universally snubbed despite critical acclaim and all the features of an award calibre film
Someone please explain to me how Nine seems to be barrelling toward a Best Picture nomination with a 38 on RT, 51 on MC, when even The Reader managed upwards of a 62/58 on those sites. And especially when great stuff like “Star Trek” have to play second fiddle to the priority-first Oscar bait.
I do have to say, though, that I highly doubt that these will be the same nominations for the DGA, or any other guild for that matter. I’m sure everyone remembers the guild season sweep of Slumdog/Button/Frost/Milk/Knight. Now that AMPAS made it 10, it’s definitely a lot tougher to pin down the “5 true” contenders than everyone thought it would be, methinks. And it’s certainly making for a great Oscar race this year.