“It” girl of the year, Sandra Bullock, was feted here in Santa Barbara last night. The two-hour celebration of her career, a Q&A moderated by Pete Hammond with clips of her work thrown in here and there, was, to be perfectly honest, one of the better tributes I’ve seen, culminating with Forest Whitaker’s presentation of the American Riviera Award to the actress.
The award is given to an actor or actress who has made an indelible mark on American cinema, and regardless of the prescience of festival director Roger Durling’s choice (the invitation was extended back in September, before anyone would have dreamed Bullock would be the frontrunner to win the Best Actress Oscar), it’s an undeniable pick given Bullock’s status in the industry.
Hammond began his introduction by noting the annual Quigley poll, which charts the success of movie stars and “is usually dominated by male actors,” he said. “Johnny Depp, Matt Damon, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr.,” he said. “But guess who’s at the top?”
The tribute began with a wonderful (as always) warming up to Sandra, the person, her family life, raised by two artists (her parents were both opera singers) between Virginia and Germany, etc. Her transition from a failed television series, “Working Girl,” the producers of which held her back from her passion and where her instincts wanted to take the material: comedy.
Then it was on to features, of course, auditioning for and getting a role in the romantic comedy “Love Potion No. 9,” half of which Bullock says is “a good movie.” There was a clip of “The Vanishing” tossed in, featuring Bullock alongside Santa Barbara’s own Jeff Bridges. The two have been reunited consistently on the circuit this year as they continue to win awards for “The Blind Side” and “Crazy Heart.” It prompted Bullock to note how “cyclical” the industry can be and how things have a tendency to come back around, “if you stick to it long enough,” she noted.
From there we know the trajectory. Blockbuster success in “Demolition Man” and “Speed” followed by mid-1990s romantic comedy pigeonholing. She revealed how difficult it was to watch Warner Bros. unravel Denis Leary’s “baby,” the 1996 romance “Two If By Sea,” which the studio wanted to morph into another “While You Were Sleeping.” The entire conversation was delightful and engaging. Bullock made Hammond’s job easy with her array of interesting stories and asides.
Personal highlight: “People’s 50 most beautiful list is a publicist’s wet dream,” Bullock said of one of her many accolades. “You ever notice how they coincide with when someone has a movie out? Hmmmm…”
Everything obviously was leading to 2009, a year that saw Bullock join an elite list of just eight women to have ever topped that poll, as “The Proposal” and “The Blind Side” have combined for over $500 million worldwide and now Bullock seems primed for an Oscar for her work in the latter, which also received a surprising Best Picture nomination last Tuesday.
Bullock actually mentioned the “year of the woman” thing at an after party at the Montecito home of Jeff Barbakow, head of the festival’s board of governors. “Everyone keeps saying this is the year of the woman,” she said. “But guess what? We’re here. We’ve been here.” The indication was that the insistence on the story in the media, no matter how attractive the headline, has become tired.
Getting back to the tribute, it was again such a delight to listen to such a successful, attractive, genuine and honest-to-God NICE person discuss her career and be honored in this fashion. I was just as struck when I got a few minutes with her a last month. “I want you to know that I hate you,” Durling said to Bullock with a laugh before introducing Whitaker (to whom Bullock presented the American Riviera Award in 2007 — again, cyclical) and his heartfelt award presentation, humorously noting “your hair is perfect” among the list of things that seem to have fallen perfectly into place for the actress, leaving no room for disapproval.
But yet, disapproval runs amok. An Oscar season draws out passion, and from that woodwork comes unbalanced vitriol. “The Blind Side” is not the most beloved film on the circuit, to put it mildly, and the idea of Bullock winning the lead actress Oscar over other favorites such as Carey Mulligan and Meryl Streep has stuck in many a craw. But the distaste has become, to be perfectly honest, embarrassing.
I can’t help but think many need to come to grips with the fact that, as time capsules go, an award for Bullock isn’t the worst thing in the world, and certainly it indicates a tip of the hat to her endurance and savvy, not to mention her talent (because at the end of the day, her work in “The Blind Side” is anything but a “bad” performance).
For Bullock, it really is all a surprise. The highlight of the year, she says, was sharing the stage and the Best Actress honor with Streep at this year’s Critics’ Choice Movie Awards. She plans on attending the Razzies to celebrate her “worst actress” nomination for the crash-and-burn comedy “All About Steve.” She couldn’t be more gracious and more — to steal a most overused cliche — down to earth.
Let the girl have her year.
(Photo courtesy of Hollywood-Elsewhere.com)
Comments
53 responses to “SANTA BARBARA: Bullock receives the American Riviera Award”
Every single one of those films mentioned in her acting catalog is so sub-par, that I’m still having a hard time accepting the fact that this actress may win the award. Bullock has no range. Putting her mediocrity aside, and just looking at her performance in The Blind Side: I just don’t see the appeal. Yeah, it’s an inspirational story, but Bullock didn’t stretch as an actress. If she wins, this is going to rank up there with Crash and Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich as being one of the worst decisions by voters. Actually, it may be the worst if it happens.
I appreciate that she’s very likable Kris, but I think that’s exactly why she’s going to win. I haven’t met anyone that thinks it’s a great performance, but everyone just likes the girl so damn much.
That’s *supposed* to be the difference between the MTV awards and the Oscars, but alas, they really aren’t that different.
I actually think she’s a fantastic actress, Sam. You’re letting your opinion of her populist project choices impede on your judgment of her work. 28 Days, Hope Floats, Crash (another figment of the season met with embarrassing vitriol), and yes, The Blind Side, all films where she has shown that she has chops.
Whatever. You all had your say on this in the Oscar nominations post (ad nauseam) and will likely have it again here. I’ve had mine.
And I have said many times that I think Gabby’s is the best performance of the year in the category, that Meryl or Carey would be my pick over Bullock, etc. But I just can’t take the ugliness toward this film and this actress anymore. I hope it reaches a breaking point soon. It would be nice, and certainly novel.
I’ve always liked Bullock (While You Were Sleeping has been one of my not-so-guilty pleasures ever since it came out), and while I don’t think she truly deserves to win an Oscar for The Blind Side, if it does happen it happens to a genuinely nice person who is impossible to dislike.
Maybe even more importantly too, it happens with a performance and film that wasn’t meant as an Oscar vehicle/bait. It may not be masterclass cinema, but at the same time it feels very unpretentious and refreshingly free of the usual biopic-Oscar stuff that can be far worse if it misfires (a la Amelia).
I’d like to see Streep or Mulligan win the Oscar, but if it happens to Bullock I certainly won’t be sour about it, and it may be worth it for Bullock’s reaction alone.
I absolutely agree and I am one of the biggest, drooliing Steepoholics in the world – but, thank God, I’ve liked Bullock from the beginning – loving her presence in SPEED and thinking she was great in CRASH and I adored many of her rom-com excursions. So, even before this well written account of another evening for Bullock, I am at peace with Bullock getting the Best Actress Oscar over Streep. Yes, I wrote it and I meant it. I might even cheer a little bit when it happens. Besides, it’s kinda reassuring that real people can win over a goddess. It makes the world seem that much more amenable.
The thing is…Oscar voters clearly liked the movie. People will always complain, but the public at large will love Bullock winning. Since it looks like Avatar might not pull off Best Picture–Bullock’s win will be something the public at large can relate to on that night. Besides, what a great surprise to see that the Oscar race can still be shaken up…she entered late and charmed everyone with her personality and her performance.
God help us all if Bullock wins.
Let’s hope that Carey Mulligan can pull a “Cotillard” she soooo deserves to win, as much as Streep and waaaaaaaaaay beyond Bollocks..sorry..i mean Bullock!
I also feel Streep should win. And don’t think Bullock’s is anything like the best performance of the year. Nonetheless I like Bullock, and am not interested in getting negative and nasty over the situation.
Like I said: This year’s Ginger Rogers.
(Although Kitty Foyle also managed to snag an Adapted Screenplay nomination in addition to the one for Best Picture in that year’s field of ten.)
She’d actually be my 2nd choice; however, any option other than my 1st choice, Streep, will still make me angry.
I’d only be truly disgusted if Mulligan won. Do not see the appeal at all.
I’m right there with you, Kris. These people are embarrassing themselves.
I’ll chime in.
I’ve always really enjoyed Sandra Bullock and her movies. I think she’s handled her success (so far) wonderfully. I am happy for her. And if she wins … I’ll be very happy for her; and will probably beam, a bit.
If I blame anyone, I’ll blame the voters who somehow reward a “good” performances in a thoroughly mediocre film over Meryl who gave such a wonderful performance, & who hasn’t won in 27 years, & whose talent is always, always taken for granted (as many people have mentioned on this site recently).
So, again, her movie was ok, the performance good, & if she wins, I’ll cheer for her. But I will completely disagree with the result; and it will be slightly souring for me.
I’m sorry but there’s something very odd about complaining that they’re going to reward a “good” performance in a mediocre film and then saying they should give it to Meryl for JULIE & JULIA. Not to mention what is this argument she hasn’t won in 27 years, as if she’s entitled to another Oscar…
Well, sorry, that’s how I feel. And yes, Meryl is consistenly great & deserves her 3rd by this point. It was her year til 1 month ago when all this hysteria occurred.
I do think Meryl gave the better performance in a slightly better movie. If she wins I’ll be ecstatic. And if it’s Sandra, I’ll be very over the moon for her because I love her. I’ll just be irked at the “outcome”.
Reasonably and graciously said, Kris. Would that more people would follow your lead.
By the way, was any mention made in the tribute of “Wrestling Ernest Hemingway?” That’s the first film I ever saw her in, and I still love her little performance in it.
If Sandra wins, then it’ll make answering the question “What’s the worst Best Actress choice of all time?” very easy.
Actually, that probably is Elizabeth Taylor’s win for Butterfield 8 (1960.) When Liz saw a screening of the movie, reportedly she threw a shoe at the screen and yelled: “This movie stinks! And I stink in it!” LOL.
Sandy B.’s seemingly newlyfound respect as a thespian is though, all due respect to Kris’ opinion, pretty embarrassing.
I guarantee she is not going to the Razzies
I think Elizabeth Taylor is campily fantastic in Buttterfield 8, actually. Actors can be the least well-qualified people to judge their own work.
Chad: Why wouldn’t she go to the Razzies? As Halle Berry proved, it can be a good PR move.
The silliest thing about all these things is that people get so riled up about who wins what, as if Bullock winning an Oscar is on the level of her breaking into your house and raping your family.
Is Bullock my first choice? No. But it’s not like my whole life is going to be ruined, or that the world isn’t going to end if she wins. She wins an Oscar, okay, move on.
There are more great films and performances that haven’t won Oscars than there are that have, and they aren’t any less stellar because they didn’t win.
I just saw An Education and Precious again and boy I will scream when Sandra pick up that trophy. The sad part is that I can easily see Mulligan having a long carrer in Hollywood and she will probably get another Oscar nom but Sidibe????? Thats a big no.
Guy- only when you are in sore need of good PR
Cuba Gooding Jr. – has an Oscar (worst Oscar win ever) – leave Sandra Bullock alone
Gary Oldman – has never been nominated
Katharine Hepburn – has 4 Competitive Oscars (including one tie) All Lead wins and nominations
She’s never cared about the Oscar and she hates Meryl Streep
Jack Nicholson – has 3 Two Lead/One Supporting
Ingrid Bergman – has 3 Two Lead/One Supporting
After 16 nominations it’s about time to give Meryl her 3rd – and why should it be a Sophie’s Choice level performance – most people don’t win Oscars for their greatest or best work to begin with – why should Streep be any different?
Oh, why haven’t they done this tribute of her career last year?If she’s been such a great actress all this time , why just this year she’s being bestowed all these awards? Critics have been blind all this time, alas! Good thing their eyes suddenly opened, just in time for the Oscars…
Guy: It was mentioned and Bullock waxed on about how fortunate she was to be working with actors of that caliber right out of the gate in her career.
George: It’s not “newfound” on my part. I’ve always thought she was an exceptional actress who happened to work on more populist and, therefore, more “mediocre” films. So the embarrassment is yours alone.
Chad: Yes, you hold the answers to all. She seemed pretty game by my measure. We’ll see if she makes good.
adelutza: Sorry, you’re either a child or that’s just the dumbest comment I’ve read today. The tribute is happening this year because — wait for it — this is the year that Bullock has dominated commercial cinema as an actress. Come on. Dig deeper and try harder if you’re going to make an underhanded swipe.
Thanks Kris for clarifying it for me
I think she’s razzie worthy in Crash, and had little reaction to Hope Floats or 28 Days. I haven’t seen TBS yet, but I will before the big show.
Crash is just incredibly divisive. I don’t get it. I’m fine being a fan of the film and have been since day one but so much of the distaste reads as backlash and reactionary to me that, forgive me, it’s always difficult to take too seriously.
Sacrilege. But whatever.
LEAVE HER ALONE! LEAVE BRI— SANDRA ALONE! LEAVE HER ALONE! YOU GUYS ARE SO MEAN TO HER!
Seriously. All the Sandra hate is getting BOR-RING.
I’m trying to remember – if Bullock wins the BA Oscar, has there been an example in the last 20 years where an obviously less challenging role has won the Oscar? I mean, I am not one of those people who thinks SB is a bad actress – far from it – but it is very difficult to see the role in BLIND SIDE as being an Academy Award winning role. It just doesn’t seem to have any of the usual trappings except the “real person” aspect and, of course, Streep trumps that big time. I mean I ‘m sort of resolved to it happening but I’m honestly trying to remember if there has been another clear example of NOT one of the best of the year winning? I mean, even the 13 times Streep has lost, a real argument could be made on behalf of the performances that won. But this one? I just don’t feel it. It just seems to me when they make that choice this year the Academy will be very clearly stating, without equivocation, that they do NOT necessarily choose what they think was the “best” performance, they clearly choose for other reasons (being overdue and likability seeming the most usual). I know I’m sounding naive here – in fact, I was makng the same argument last year on behalf of Meryl over Winslet BUT this one just seems so obvious. I’m sincere here – NOT trying to bash SB who is great in the part BUT, really? The best over Streep, Sidibe and Mulligan (I haven’t seen Mirren yet)? Really? The majority of the Academy will feel comfortable making that claim and standing by it? No wonder some people are getting anxious – it may be an example of one of the most obvious non-best choices in the Academy’s history. Again – NOT BASHING BULLOCK WHO IS WONDERFUL!
And yeah – and at the time I thought CRASH was a more provocative and accomplished film that BROKEBACK. BROKEBACK was boring a few times and disappointing (I had very high expectations). So I do NOT think this is an example of an obvious less accomplished movie winning over a far better one. That’s what I mean – most of the time the choices seem defensible but this one…
After all the comments regarding Sandy Bullock on this post, when is the Oscar Guide: Best Actress post coming? That’s sure to be a firestorm…
billybil, well said. No Sandra bashing, and I completely agree with you.
billybil: Imagine that. A well-reasoned argument.
I agree that she is not the best actress this year, but I also agree that if/when she wins, it would be deserved nonetheless – if that makes any sense. Simply because she has been toiling for so long and has been under appreciated for so long. Unlike Mulligan and Sidibe, Bullock has pulled out pitch perfect comedic performances for more than a decade.
So, it is disappointing, but I’m okay with it at the end of the day.
It sure does make Oscar night a little boring.
Wouldn’t it just be fantastically amazing if Streep and Bullock canceled each other out and produced Mulligan for the win? Seriously, I would simply explode with happiness.
Fingers crossed, miracles can happen — I remember Tilda Swinton’s win..and Alan Arkin’s win — See? There’s hope!
Whoooo. I’m so glad I don’t give a fuck about the Best Actress race this year.
You guys are going to give yourself stomach ulcers.
LOL Megan – LOL. Truth is – every year. Best actress is THE Oscar award! Nothing else compares!
xo Kris.
#30 Maybe a lot of the pans are reactionary, as in, post-Brokeback’s loss (is that what you mean?), but many of us didn’t like it well before that. Many didn’t like it long before it was an Oscar contender, too. Hate to be useless stats guy, but it did get a 69 on Metacritic, with a lot of straight up Ds and Fs (more than its A+s, but it got those too), at the time of its release.
I’d put it in about the same class as The Blind Side: neither is terrible, both are competently if a bit blandly made, and both have some fine performances. But they are also eerily and, I think, undeservedly self-confident about their view of race as something that can be transcended by good deeds, skewed on the side of white folk, with a sliver of pie for Ludacris. After all, who gets redeemed in Crash? Primarily Bullock and Dillon; Ludacris’s moment of cross-cultural kindness is muted somewhat by the fact that those on the receiving end are nameless all-purpose Asians. And the schematic racial pentagon (white, black, Arab, Latino, Asian) falls even farther apart when one considers that said all-purpose Asians don’t get their own protagonist, with his/her own complexities.
In short, about a 69 indeed.
I think healthy skepticism is always worth kicking around when thinking about a film that takes on race in schematic, position-paper ways (e.g. we are all racist but also morally good; sometimes we just need to clasp hands with our other-coloured neighbours in grace at the dinner table). I don’t know what’s difficult to take seriously about that contention, which is the one advanced by a lot of Crash detractors who find it unfulfilling.
I don’t think Crash was ever meant as a sincere depiction rather than a dramatic and abstract cross-section, so I’d say you’re already coming at it from the wrong point of understanding, personally. But then again, you’re free to expect what you will of a film that takes a subject like that on.
I think Crash is extremely undeserving, and I’ll admit that the Oscar win makes me look back at it more unfavorably than I would have under other circumstances, but I wouldn’t call it an outright awful movie or anything. I was mixed positive after seeing it for the first time, back before it even looked likely for a nomination. But Bullock’s performance is one aspect of the movie that I do think is terrible. Nobody seemed to be singling out her work as particularly good at the time, either, something I believe Guy pointed out on this site not too long ago. I just feel like it’s grasping at straws to use her Crash performance as an example of how she’s done strong, serious work before.
As for the rest of her work….I guess you could say nobody does the romcom thing better. But then there’s shit like Lake House, Premonition, Murder by Numbers. She hasn’t exactly pushed herself as an actress.
People obviously like her, and I guess the outrage at the movie and her precursor success might seem tacky since it’s directed at what appears to be a genuinely nice person in a fairly innocuous movie, but I don’t think it’s fair to give her a free pass just because she’s so damn charming. Not a bad performance, but not really an accomplishment worth awarding.
Who ar the worst best actresses winners.
“I just feel like it’s grasping at straws to use her Crash performance as an example of how she’s done strong, serious work before.”
Not if you believe the performance is just fine. I was fine with everything you said until this blatant presumption. I think her work is unfairly viewed because, in many ways, it is the character that grates detractors most. But I think she handled it with grace, frankly.
At the end of the day, as someone above made mention, I think too much credence is being lent to the actual award itself. People bitch every year as if the Oscars will someday reach the bar they think they should, and they never do. We cover them here as they are, after all, the Super Bowl of a film year. But jeez, a little levity.
“Nobody seemed to be singling out her work as particularly good at the time, either, something I believe Guy pointed out on this site not too long ago.”
I did point that out, but not quite in the negative way that you imply. Rather, I expressed surprise that she didn’t benefit at all from the film’s awards heft, given that I’ve always thought she’s the best thing in it.
Guy – I wasn’t trying to twist your words, I remember the context in which you brought it up. I suppose I should have clarified that we came at it from different angles. My point is that it wasn’t a performance that ever generated much discussion until Bullock starting catching some heat during the current awards season.
Kris – you take issue with my “blatant presumption,” alright. Scratch the “strong” part of the statement then, and ignore anything I said about the quality of the performance. I think it’s still worth noting that she’s stuck to the middlebrow stuff for most of her career. Crash is one of the few exceptions.
If there’s ad hominem hate being thrown her way, I haven’t seen it. There’s no Wells-on-Monique style takedowns going on. It seems most of the haters are upset at the prospect of her winning at the expense of other nominees. Yeah, nobody should take the awards THAT seriously, but isn’t the kind of passion that would lead one to be upset that Bullock will probably beat Streep the reason people spend so much time each year following these awards anyway?
Half: Clearly you missed the posts threatening harm and rape. However insincere the threat though, I have to say, that’s not the kind of passion I appreciate, nor should anyone.
Honestly, I enjoyed “The Proposal” more than “The Blind Side”…
The sad thing about this issue is that the Academy is supposed to award the Best Actress…. Just like what they did on the recent years, I haven’t questioned it, even last year when Meryl deserved the win more than Kate Winslet, nevertheless, Winslet’s performance in “The Reader” was award-worthy…
I’m really rooting for Streep here, next will be Mulligan…. And I’m not against Sandra Bullock winning an Oscar Best Actress. I just want her to get it on the right role that… A performance and a win that we can say that she didn’t robbed the Oscar to any actress because she was the BEST the year… And that’s not her performance for “The Blind Side”.
Meryl deserves it for “Julie & Julia” all the way….
Considering the current, verbal vitriol being lobbed at Bullock due to the possibility that she may win Best Actress, what will happen if she does win? I can’t actually expect that the vitriol would decrease. I think it would increase exponentially and be remembered scathingly for years afterward. As billybil said, “Really? The majority of the Academy will feel comfortable making that claim and standing by it? No wonder some people are getting anxious – it may be an example of one of the most obvious non-best choices in the Academy’s history.” Getting an award that was, at one time, title an award of merit should be awarded as such. Honorary awards are given for career achievement such as being consistently charming on film. Just ask Cary Grant.
“I don’t think Crash was ever meant as a sincere depiction rather than a dramatic and abstract cross-section, so I’d say you’re already coming at it from the wrong point of understanding, personally”
That’s precisely my point when I say it’s a schematic, position-paper approach to race, and refer to its racial pentagon. Of course it’s an abstract cross-section — why else would I describe it in geometric terms and speak of it as a conceptual model? I get its abstraction just fine. My point is that model is creaky. While the film gestures toward this liberal, multicultural map of LA by schematically cutting across these points on the diagram, the structure is flimsy: only a couple of points in the representative sample resonate, while the Arab and Asian characters, who of course get abstracted into their respective races, come off as token inclusions. There’s a marked imbalance there, and as weighty approaches to Race in LA go, it’s troubling.
In other words, if this is a model of LA rather than a hyper-naturalist portrayal, why are the Asians nameless lumps who don’t get invited to the ‘sometimes we’re good/sometimes we’re racist’ party? Let’s say it isn’t a sincere depiction (meaning, a shot at realism?): what then is the message, if it’s not meant to capture how things are but convey an abstract idea? That everyone is good and bad, except for these guys, who get ferried around in trucks?