SAG wins for ‘Basterds,’ Bullock, Bridges

Posted by · 3:53 pm · January 23rd, 2010

Sandra Bullock at the 16th annual Screen Actors Guild AwardsGotta love all those B’s, right? Overall, no real surprises — we knew Best Actress was going to be a close-fought contest between Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock, and it’s entirely likely that Streep’s win last year tipped it towards Hollywood’s new golden girl.

While the widely anticipated ensemble win for “Inglourious Basterds” makes no real difference to the Best Picture race, I think it’s safe to say three of the acting Oscars can practically be engraved already.

This was George Clooney’s last opportunity to stake his claim in the Best Actor race, but the perfect-storm combination of Jeff Bridges’s shaggy likeability, overdue status and (lest we forget) a damn fine performance in “Crazy Heart” was too much to overcome.

Best Actress, as I said earlier today, will remain a mystery right up until the envelope is opened on March 7. The season’s one remaining acting precursor, the BAFTA, won’t reveal anything, given Bullock’s ineligibility there.

So, for the next six weeks, we’re left to ponder whether Academy voters actually buy the “Streep is overdue” story, or whether Bullock’s unflappable charm on the campaigning circuit can push her across the finishing line. (Her heartfelt, goofy speech this evening was another home run.) But for the first time this season, I’d say the “Blind Side” star is out in front.

Other than that, nothing else from the proceedings stands out. Well, Marion Cotillard’s dress, perhaps. Right now, it’s 3:30 AM and my bed looks like a good place to be. Talk amongst yourselves, and play nice.

Best Ensemble: “Inglourious Basterds”
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side”
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, “Precious”
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”
Best Stunt Ensemble: “Star Trek”




→ 141 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

141 responses so far

  • 1 1-24-2010 at 5:48 am

    Sky said...

    why is everybody so desperate to see Meryl winning a 3rd oscar? She doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. Unlike Bullock, who seems she can only get credibility as an actress winning the gold.

  • 2 1-24-2010 at 6:44 am

    JJ said...

    Me on Sandra:

    I love her. I liked her in ‘The Blind Side’. I’ve liked her performances for years, even in fluff.

    But this is Meryl’s year. Nearly every year it is Meryl’s year and someone comes up with an insane performance and takes it from her. Meryl’s Julie & Julia was not an ‘incredible’ performance, but it had heart, intelligence, sophistication, highs, lows, & everything in-between. No one else could have nailed that like Meryl. No one.

    It was a better performance than Sandra’s. And every other nominee gave a better performance (haven’t seen Mirren yet) than Sandra’s this year.

    I think the big problem is that Sandra could win the Julia Roberts/Erin Brokovich award while not even being half as good as Julia Roberts WAS in that — plus taking away another chance for the great, revered Meryl Streep to take home her deserved 3rd.

  • 3 1-24-2010 at 7:21 am

    jay said...

    It seems that all of you that want Streep to win is just because you don’t want Bullock to win — which is crazy. Bullock shot to stardom because of her great performance in Speed and with her and Keanu Reeves made it the box office hit that it was. She has been in two box office hits in one year that has made over 160 million and the blind side, which many thought would make what extraordinary measure is now, has been in the top 10 since November and makes her the first female led movie to make 200 million. Audience love the blind side and Sandra Bullock, why can’t more of you Bullock fans speak up. I love Meryl Streep and yes, she should get a third Oscar, but not this year — it’s bullocks year. In what universe did Carey mulligan give a better performance than Sandra Bullock? Sorry there is nothing great about mulligan in that performance.

  • 4 1-24-2010 at 7:40 am

    JJ said...

    In response to Sandra supporters surfacing:

    I think Sandra winning BFCA, GG, & SAG, and getting nominated (most likely) for that Oscar is MORE than enough given the very good (not great) performance she gave in a mediocre movie.

    MORE than enough. She’s had more recognition & accolades than ever. I’ve always loved Sandra as a person and in her movies (even when I found them wretched).

    But I don’t think it’s right, honestly, that her performance should beat Meryl THIS year. I really don’t think it’s right. Just because some people claim that it’s “Sandra’s Year” doesn’t mean she sould and could win.

    Hell, Meryl is 60, had a huge hit with ‘Mamma Mia!’, and a milder hit with ‘Doubt’, & 2 more hits this year with ‘Julie & Julia’ and ‘It’s Complicated’.

    That’s 4 movies in 2 years. Sandra’s accomplishment with ‘The Proposal’ and ‘Blind Side’ (ugh, and ugh) is insanely impressive, and are bonafide hits. Very happy for her. But then she’s always gone and done the abysmal ‘All About Steve’s’, too – and will probably continue to.

    Someone asked if the Sandra supporters will surface to negate all the Meryl love. I am someone who happens to love them both equally. I really, honest to God do.

    But when you look at Meryl’s work this year (twice), as well as over the myriad of years and see that she hasn’t won in 27 or so years, and you look at Sandra who has 2 hits this year, and may win. To me, there is just no contest and to who should/deserves to win.

  • 5 1-24-2010 at 7:59 am

    Erik 815 said...

    Just a question, does everyone in SAG get to vote, and is (nearly) every working actor in SAG? In other words: Does it include just about every single actor regardless of their tastes, intelligence, and the quality of their own work, who get to fill out a voting ballot, while waiting tables in L.A. in anticipation of that big break (which they’ll never get) so they can be a big moviestar? A big moviestar like Sandra Bullock…

    btw… I like Bullock. She’s an incredibly gifted comedy actress who shown talent for drama before, without overreaching. She couldn’t pull a “Revolutionary Road” (I refuse to acknowledge that schmaltzy torture-porn other Winslet film), and she won’t try, and Kate Winslet has displayed much less depth as a comedy actress (“the Holiday”? *shudder*).

    I like Bullock, she deserves her oscar nod. If Sharon Stone can get one, heck, if Julia Roberts can get three, she can have at least one. But not yet a win; not for this in a year wher Streep gives one of her best performances.

  • 6 1-24-2010 at 9:17 am

    Joey said...

    I will come clean and say this: I like Sandra Bullock and I didn’t mind The Blind Side. It’s a very safe movie for people to watch. But it wasn’t HORRIBLE. Was it An Education or Precious or even Inglourious Basterds? Hell no!

    But can someone honestly say that Bullock’s performance in TBS was the best female performance of the year. Definitely not. No. So if Bullock takes the stage on March 7, it will be one of the biggest evidence that performances don’t really matter. Bullock is having a banner year and they want to award her for it. Two box office success does NOT equal the highest award in filmmaking!

    I’m on Team Streep.

  • 7 1-24-2010 at 9:23 am

    Colin said...

    To all of you who haven’t watched Tilda Swinton in Julia: Shut. up. about whether Meryl OR Sandra deserving it more because they gave the “better performance”.

  • 8 1-24-2010 at 9:24 am

    Colin said...

    Meaning: If either Meryl or Sandra win, it’s because they’re Meryl or Sandra. The performance has very little to do with it, insofar that it doesn’t actively suck.

  • 9 1-24-2010 at 9:26 am

    cineJAB said...

    Kris & Guy: what do you think of Kruger’s chances at a nomination post SAGs? even without the win I think it was a really helpful night for her campaign. I’m still really hopeful that her and/or Melanie Laurent can get into the Best Supporting Actress category. They’re probably fighting with Gyllenhaal and Moore for those last two spots. At this point I think both of them get it along with the Up In the Air ladies, and Mo’nique gets the win of course.

  • 10 1-24-2010 at 9:31 am

    McAllister said...

    Much worse things have happened than if Sandra Bullock wins the Oscar. Meryl Streep was perfectly charming and spot on as Julia Child, but I don’t think there was any more emotional depth than in Sandra’s performance. If anyone had more depth, it was Carey Mulligan and even Gabourey Sidibe.

    We should not be complaining if Sandra takes the Oscar from Meryl. We should be complaining that Carey Mulligan is not the frontrunner she should be… or that Melanie Laurent is probably going to be forgotten from the race.

  • 11 1-24-2010 at 9:37 am

    cineJAB said...

    also Kris: who ya got in the games today? I’m think it’s gonna be a Jets-Saints Super Bowl

  • 12 1-24-2010 at 9:48 am

    JJ said...

    Colin?

    I’ve seen ‘Julia’. So no, I won’t “shut. up.” And I thought Tilda overacted. She was much better in ‘Michael Clayton’ and ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’.

    And I DON’T think Meryl or Sandra gave the best performance this year; I just think Meryl was considerably better.

    The Best Female performance this year, for me, was Abbie Cornish.

  • 13 1-24-2010 at 9:55 am

    McAllister said...

    I thought she was good, but Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton winning the Oscar over Cate Blanchett in I’m Not There is much, much, much worse than Sandra Bullock winning over Meryl Streep this year.

  • 14 1-24-2010 at 10:01 am

    James D. said...

    Yea, Tilda Swinton was pretty poor in Julia. One of the worst overall movies of 2009.

  • 15 1-24-2010 at 10:13 am

    CSM said...

    some very interesting reading here…(one of those comments should really be removed…sick), but I liked Bridges, loved Firth. Loved Waltz, but even more so, LOVED Tucci (in two very different films)! I’m good with either Streep or Bullock…loved them both! I think it will be refreshing if there were some upsets this year…

  • 16 1-24-2010 at 10:19 am

    entertainmenttod said...

    I like Bullock but I dont think her work in The Blind Side is quite Oscar worthy. Its solid but can’t see Oscar for it.
    Talk about acceptance speeches- I was cringing when Drew Barrymoore spoke.

    Chuck

  • 17 1-24-2010 at 10:36 am

    The Joneses said...

    To say that “the acting Oscars can already be engraved” is really unfair to the actors who will be vying for the award. I hope everybody who reads that reconsiders who they are voting for! Why? Because THE NOMINATIONS AREN’T EVEN OUT! What’s the pointn if the award is just going to be picked by popular consensus and not by the AMPAS voters themselves!

  • 18 1-24-2010 at 10:39 am

    anonymous said...

    How to decide between Bullock and Streep:

    Easy. Imagine each trying to play the other one’s character. Bullock could never play Julia Child. She couldn’t have played that nun in Doubt either. Streep can play ANYTHING.

  • 19 1-24-2010 at 10:44 am

    Chad Hartigan said...

    It is truly amazing and depressing that 100,000 actors voted for the exact same winners in every award as 95 foreign journalists last week.

  • 20 1-24-2010 at 11:01 am

    leonardo said...

    For me Meryl is still the frontrunner to win the oscar next march, in some point is logical that she didn’t win, because she won last year.
    And don’t worry people, all that Sandra Bullock madness gonna end in february, when “All about Steve” lead the nominations at the Razzies Awards, including worst actress.
    The oscars need to recognize the talented of the actress, is not a popularity contest. The problem with the SAG awards is that all the members vote, that includes Pamela Anderson, Rob Schneider, Paris Hilton, etc. Do you see my point ? The Academy is a little bit more selective, so Meryl is still the one to beat for me.

  • 21 1-24-2010 at 11:03 am

    Sam said...

    There seems to be a lot of talk about Meryl winning because she is Meryl. Her body of work is one of the greatest ever, but her body of work before “Julie and Julia” should not determine whether she should win the Oscar. Bullock gave a good performance, and critics are recognizing it over her somewhat, no-so-spectacular, but box-office brilliant body of work. The AMPAS hopefully will look at this year’s acting, not the years before, not the movies of each actress before this year.

    I hope Bullock can win…hell just being nominated is great. I don’t get this hate for her possibly winning…it’s obvious we are not members of the voting body of the AMPAS. If Bullock wins, it’s because they think she gave the best performance.

  • 22 1-24-2010 at 11:20 am

    tony rock said...

    @ Guy Lodge. I was mainly referring to Kris and Sasha over at AwardsDaily.

  • 23 1-24-2010 at 12:07 pm

    JJ said...

    OMG, all this talk of ‘hate’. No one hates anyone. No one hates Sandra Bullock because she’s winning awards and beating Meryl, Mulligan, etc.

    They’re annoyed that she’s winning for a solid, but inferior performance.

  • 24 1-24-2010 at 12:16 pm

    Ted said...

    When the Oscars went to a 10 picture race, they made it clear that they were doing everything they could to make room for popular films. The emergence of Bullock as front runner in the actress race is simply following suit with what the Oscars will be all about this year….popular movies.

  • 25 1-24-2010 at 1:00 pm

    JR said...

    Thank you, JJ, @ 102!!! Maybe Meryl isn’t winning her third/fourth/fifth Oscars because – fine as she is – she isn’t giving mind-blowing performances.

    I know I’m going to get a lot of hate here, but I simply do not see Streep disappearing into roles. Whether it’s Doubt – which irritated me – or Julie & Julia – which I enjoyed – I never forget it’s Meryl Streep. Of her peers, I’d dare say that Jessica Lange gave a stronger performance this year in Grey Gardens.

    In film, I go so far to say that two of the finest performances were ignored: Tilda Swinton in Julia and Michelle Pfeiffer in Cherie. Both films had flaws, but these women were wondrous. More nuanced than Streeo or Bullock… Box office, though, was lousy, so these performances aren’t deemed worthy of award-recognition.

    That reminds me of a comment at Awards Daily. At the Globes, the winners mostly came from the films in the category that did the biggest box office (Bridges and Monique, excepted). That seemed to hold true last night at the SAGs.

  • 26 1-24-2010 at 4:05 pm

    Kate Winslet said...

    30 – Jen

    You made my day. Thank you for the laugh.

    I adore Sandy but honestly, she has come from about the bottom of the pack to the top not on her performance, but on likability. We all like her. We liked Sally Field. If you take every other deserving woman out of the field (like, I don’t know … let’s say Carey Mulligan, who actually gave a very strong performance) and force a situation between Meryl or Sandra, I am still going to give it to Meryl. Her Julia Child is iconic for actors and cinema lovers.

  • 27 1-24-2010 at 4:11 pm

    Steven Kane said...

    I don’t “hate” Sandra Bullock at all, I thought her performance in The Blind Side was enjoyable, filled with heart, and well above average in a movie that was decent, a level higher than TV Movie, and overly sentimental. As a matter of fact the only movies I saw with the lead actress nominees were An Education, Precious, and The Blind Side. But I can’t for the life of me see how Sandra’s performance was better than Carey Mulligan’s or Gabby Sidibe’s, even the small clips for Meryl and Helen seemed better than most of Sandra’s in the whole movie.

    I believe that Sandra has some great performances left in her, like better than the romcom or sentimental stuff she normally does, but she’s getting the top awards for the wrong movie.

  • 28 1-24-2010 at 5:19 pm

    jay said...

    All I can say to all of you is REESE WITHERSPOON who gave a nothing performance, if that was a performance at all and a supporting one at that and won every single award out there when Felicity huffman gave the better performance. I love Reese but this was not her best performance and many actors don’t win for their best performance. But Bullock’s performance is strong, moving and superb.

    someone mentioned about box office not meaning that you should win — then why is Avatar so UNJUSTLY being crowned the one to beat when so many great movies are out this year — Inglorious Basterds, the hurt locker run circles around Avatar

  • 29 1-24-2010 at 5:20 pm

    Kay said...

    Carey mulligan should not even be nominated. I kept waiting for something to great to come from her performance but nothing materialized.

  • 30 1-24-2010 at 6:19 pm

    Steven Kane said...

    Kay: I felt the same way for a while and then around the time the movie finished I found her performance on line with Jeremy Renner’s in The Hurt Locker, we were barely watching performances but instead they were inhabiting their roles with nothing showy. Just pure realism. I find both of their works to be amazing.

  • 31 1-24-2010 at 7:31 pm

    The Other James D. said...

    Chad: Even the TV awards, with the singular exception of Tina Fey (Toni Collette should’ve won here, too).

  • 32 1-24-2010 at 8:23 pm

    Glenn said...

    “How to decide between Bullock and Streep:

    Easy. Imagine each trying to play the other one’s character. Bullock could never play Julia Child. She couldn’t have played that nun in Doubt either. Streep can play ANYTHING.”

    That’s a stupid reasoning. Sandra Bullock wouldn’t have played those characters because she’s not the right age. It’d be like saying Sandra couldn’t play the parts Keira Knightley has. Like… obviously! jeez.

    I actually think Sandra’s speech might have gone a good way to getting her over that final speedbump on her way to Oscar. Acknowledging that she’s made bad movies and then bringing up “Crash”. Make Oscar voters go “yeah, she was good in that!” and so forth.

  • 33 1-24-2010 at 9:18 pm

    Jason Travis said...

    So Glenn, Sandra should win because she gave a nice speech and mentioned “Crash”? Right.

    Meryl Streep is still taking this one. And no one will complain when she does.

  • 34 1-25-2010 at 12:55 am

    revoir said...

    This is not an issue of being desperate to give Meryl her third Oscar..

    The issue here is who deserved it more or BEST since the category is BEST Actress in a Leading Role… JJ is right about Meryl’s performance in Julie & Julia…

    I like Sandra and I think her role in The Proposal was really good… Very good comedic timing. Actually, all the contenders this year for Best Actress gave a remarkable performances, Gabourney Sibide as Precious, Helen Mirren as Sofya, Emily Blunt as Queen Victoria, Saorise Ronan as Suzie, Meryl Streep as Julia, Sandra Bullock as Leigh and Carey Mulligan as Jenny. But the question is, who among these performances has the “longevity”? I say it’s Meryl’s Julia Child.

  • 35 1-25-2010 at 1:11 am

    matsunaga said...

    I refuse to agree with Sandra giving a nice performance at The Proposal..

    The movie was funny, yes, and humorous, but we should also give credit to Ryan Reynolds and Betty White for that..

    Sandra deserves a nod but NOT a win…

    Plus, her role as a magazine editor was a TH-Rate trying hard Miranda Priestly… That’s all…

  • 36 1-25-2010 at 4:47 am

    Eunice said...

    I agree with JJ, at least for some of those who don’t enjoy seeing Sandra Bullock win. It’s not that she’s winning over Streep or Mulligan or Sidibe, or even Mirren. It’s just that she’s winning for a performance, which to many people, can be replicated by any actress in her age group. Some people can even argue that there are actresses who step into the same role and do it better. What I think, we’re looking for here, is the role, that turn that will be associated solely with the actor, the turn that will make you go, “Nobody else could’ve done that,” just as Fredo Corleone will always be John Cazale’s, or that Maria von Trapp will always be (at least in film) Julie Andrews’.

    The problem, at least in my point of view of things, with Sandra Bullock’s turn in The Blind Side is that it’s such a stereotype that’s been done millions of times before, and with the genre of the movie–the sports film–it’s expected that the waterworks will be turned on, no matter who the source is, because that’s what we’re supposed to feel with that kind of movie. It’s probably the reason why we so rarely honor actors in rom-coms, unless both the story and the acting have been well-executed to the point that we just can’t ignore it. I guess, for some people, Bullock’s turn, is something that we can pass on or something that we can give to some other actor and get the same result. Just my two cents on the matter.

  • 37 1-25-2010 at 9:30 am

    med said...

    I see 99% of the Oscar pundits have already given the win to Bullock. This really pisses me off. There is over a month before Oscar and the nominations are not even out. Things change so quickly (Bullock became the pundits frontrunner in a day after SAG). There is still a race between Streep and Bullock and no one knows who the ultimate victor will be.

  • 38 1-25-2010 at 10:10 am

    Devany said...

    Oh goodness. Winning awards are not based solely on good performances. It does matter how well liked a star is and how they’re campaigning. It’s naive to think otherwise.

    I also find it funny, because some people here are so annoyed that Bullock, who no one was predicting, has swooped into the race as the frontrunner. I’ve got news for you, Carey Mulligan and Abbie Cornish don’t have her kind of clout. Mulligan’s campaigning has not been going well, and why should it really. Not many people have seen An Education. On the other hand, Sandra has had a very successful year in various roles. The Blind Side made a bajillion dollars, obviously the film and her role are really resonating with people. Plus she’s very well liked and she’s campaigning well. It’s Sandra’s year. Meryl is great in Julia and Julia but it’s not her best ever performance. A nomination is award enough. She already has Oscars. If Bullock doesn’t win Best Actress I’ll be shocked. Momemtum is very much in her favor right now.

  • 39 1-25-2010 at 10:31 am

    med said...

    Bullock performance was simply awful in BS. If AMPAS is stupid enough to give her the gold then Academy history will show this as the biggest award miscue ever made to show for it (worst than Renee in Cold Mountain which is really, really bad.) I guess if AMPAS doesn’t care about their image go for it but they must know it will come back and bite them in the ass!

  • 40 1-25-2010 at 11:08 am

    med said...

    And Streep has 27 years of momentum…

  • 41 1-25-2010 at 8:03 pm

    Judy said...

    No surprises about Bridges even when I think that who really deserves it is Firth, but this is his year and the Oscar will be for him.

    About Waltz I always thought that the Golden Globe would be for him but I had hope on Woody Harrelson for the SAG, I still hope that the academy gives the Oscar to him for his performance in The Messenger genuine and deep not as the cartoon character of Waltz, I mean Waltz was so showy but Woody´s performance is even better.

    And I completely agree about Waltz’s speeches, are terribles.