Siding with Sandy

Posted by · 1:22 pm · February 27th, 2010

Sandra Bullock at the 2009 SAG AwardsNathaniel Rogers’s annual Oscar Symposium wrapped last night over at the Film Experience, and I must say I had a great time taking part. The final day’s conversation wandered all over the map, taking in the original score race (I’m not alone in my love for “The Hurt Locker” there), the merits of The Ten and visions of Mo’Nique in “Nine.”

But it had to end with this year’s most discussed Oscar duel: Bullock versus Streep. And between us, support was fairly evenly split. As a taster, here’s Tim Robey’s reluctant case for the “Blind Side” star:

Don’t we want Meryl to win her third for a truly epochal performance? … (Make no mistake — I’d happily watch Meryl take the garbage out daily, I love her so, but I really want her to win this thing for absolute top-drawer work.) I don’t think Carey Mulligan is ready to be crowned just yet, and I don’t think it would actually do her career any favours if she was. Sandy, on the other hand, has just the one shot at this, and I say why the hell not. I’ve always liked her. I’d have nominated her for The Lake House! (I’m not joking.) And I agree that her Blind Side performance, while entire skyscrapers away from the Brockovich league her spin-meisters would have us believe, is pretty nimble and watchable, and the only thing that got me through that numbskull movie alive.

Good stuff all round. If you haven’t been keeping up with the Symposium, read the rest here.

→ 59 Comments Tags: , , , | Filed in: Daily

59 responses so far

  • 1 3-01-2010 at 6:38 am

    JJ said...

    ^ The last few commenters have nailed it on the head.

    I don’t think people are upset/mad at Sandra Bullock.

    I think most people actually really, really like her as a person and as an entertainer. And I think a lot of people feel she will win, at this point.

    That doesn’t negate the feelings of most people – like me – who feel that Meryl Streep deserves her 3rd Oscar this year (where many lesser actresses have won 1, or tied her with 2), and that Sandra should never have been considered for a nomination for this particular role in the first place.

    That’s where the feelings lie; not the Sandra sucks, or that she won’t win. She’s well liked, and she probably will win. Grr.

  • 2 3-01-2010 at 6:48 am

    JJ said...

    And I still don’t see 100% evidence that it’s Sandra’s for SURE when the only real thing we can go by is her SAG win.

    I don’t believe she won it by a huge margin (aren’t there thousands in SAG, and only a couple hundred of ’em in AMPAS)?

    Who’s to say that the SAG members who are “in” AMPAS aren’t more in favor for Meryl, or that it’s more tied between the two of them in the end?

    Meryl winning SAG last year probably hurt her a bit this year, but just for the SAG award/ceremony.

    And the whole BAFTA thing. I always thought Carey would get it, and I’m sure Meryl came in second. A lot of the Brit block within AMPAS may still be voting for Meryl (BAFTA have always liked her – win, lots of noms, etc.).

    And I think a lot of Meryl’s close friends in the acting, directing, producing, executive, writing, & filmmaking fields would like to give it to her. I think a lot of voters know about the 2 wins/out of 16 ratio.

    We’ll see. I just don’t see the race as dead & buried.

    Sandra winning: yes, I definitely see it. But it’s not over til it’s over. Oscar predicters beware. ;-)

  • 3 3-01-2010 at 7:06 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    “And I still don’t see 100% evidence that it’s Sandra’s for SURE when the only real thing we can go by is her SAG win.”

    I’m certainly not calling it based on her SAG win … it’s that tell-tale Best Picture nom for The Blind Side that I find more meaningful. I discuss that further in the Symposium.

  • 4 3-01-2010 at 7:56 am

    Joe said...

    I’m fascinated that a large argument for Sandra winning is that “The Blind Side” was nominated for Best Picture, and nothing else. Yes, but why is nobody saying the same thing about “A Serious Man” and its screenplay nomination? Given that the Original Screenplay competition is all over the place right now (“The Hurt Locker” is the favorite, and nobody came out of “The Hurt Locker” remembering any of the dialogue or plot points), why can’t “A Serious Man” come in and take it?
    One can hope, huh, Kris?

  • 5 3-01-2010 at 8:17 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    The argument isn’t quite that “The Blind Side” only has the two nominations — the argument is that the Best Picture nomination came entirely on the coattails of a Best Actress campaign. “A Serious Man” isn’t quite an equivalent example.

  • 6 3-01-2010 at 8:36 am

    Joe said...

    Guy – I’m not sure why they can’t be equivalent. What else does “Serious Man” have to point to besides the screenplay? You could argue that just like “Blind Side”, it wasn’t anywhere near close to any other categories. (As much as I would’ve liked to see Stuhlbarg, Editing, etc.) So something had to propel it to Best Picture Nominee status. I’m just saying… what’s to stop a member from saying, “Serious Man probably won’t win Picture, and I want it to win something, so I’ll vote it for Screenplay”?
    Again… shoot me down for wishful thinking.

  • 7 3-01-2010 at 9:15 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    No one should EVER be shot down for wishful thinking. My highly doubtful fingers are crossed with yours.

  • 8 3-01-2010 at 9:30 am

    Jessica said...

    I don’t really buy the “Best Picture” argument when it comes to the Best Actress race & Sandra. The Blind Side only made Best Pic as one of 10. If there were 5 nominees this year, we know The Blind Side wouldn’t be in there (just look at the editing noms) and no one would be using this rationale. The previous data for making the argument for a correlation between a Best Picture nom helping out in the Best Actress race was when there were 5 nominees. A vastly different level of support within the Academy.

  • 9 3-01-2010 at 9:34 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Fair point.