Will SAG winners repeat at the Oscars?
Hmm. What should we make of the SAG results? It looks like Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Capote") must now be considered a lock for the best actor Oscar. He repeated his Golden Globe victory just like supporting actress champ Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener"), who sure looks like a good Oscar bet too. But she's no slam-dunk.
Voters often like to give away at least one acting award with best picture. Usually, it's in a lead acting category — Hilary Swank in "Million Dollar Baby" or Russell Crowe in "Gladiator" — but failing that, voters often target that supporting actress slot (Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago," Jennifer Connelly in "A Beautiful Mind," Juliette Binoche in "The English Patient"). So if "Brokeback Mountain" trots across Oscar's best picture finish line as expected, it may very well take Michelle Williams along for the ride, even if it does leave those gay cowboys stranded back in that chilly pup tent where, come to think of it, they may not mind a bit.
Reese Witherspoon's ("Walk the Line") triumph over Felicity Huffman ("Transamerica") pushes her ahead in the best actress contest, yes, but both stars won lead actress Golden Globes (Felicity for drama, Reese for comedy/musical) and SAG voters had an option this year that academy voters don't: they gave Felicity awards in their TV categories for "Desperate Housewives."
Photo: "I can't believe you just asked that!" Sandra Bullock yelled at a reporter backstage when he asked her, "Who are you wearing?" when the cast of "Crash" met the press to discuss their SAG victory for best ensemble. Upon finishing their remarks about the film, Sandra added, "Are there any more clothing questions?"
(Tom O'Neil / The Envelope)
Reese has another advantage at the Oscars: the babe factor. She's young, cute and sexy just like most of the women who the academy's Golden Boy usually embraces — Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, etc. Wrinkles are fine for guy winners in the lead and supporting races (Sean Penn, Morgan Freeman), but women over age 40 rarely win and only one gal over age 50 has triumphed in the last 15 years (Judi Dench, best supporting actress for "Shakespeare in Love").
Lucky for Felicity she's lovely to look at, but she's still over age 40. A problem? Perhaps. She has several things going for her that Reese doesn't though: she gives — let's be honest — a superior performance, she's considered a more serious actress in general, she has a higher cool quotient among highbrow Hollywooders and the fact that her movie is an obscure indie actually helps her chances.
Here's why: Have you ever noticed how little art house flicks like "Iris," "Pollock" and "Monster's Ball" pull off surprising wins in the gold derby's home stretch? It's widely believed among Oscar experts that the reason for that is because those are the DVD screeners that voters get around to seeing last.
Scads and scads of academy members haven't seen "Transamerica" yet. It was only sent to a few academy branches. Unlike "Walk the Line," it wasn't considered a serious candidate for best picture so that sly Oscar puss Harvey Weinstein didn't blitz the whole academy. He deliberately held back and now will blanket the rest of AMPAS with one of the last DVD screeners shipped to voters.
A shrewd strategy? Probably. Nobody knows his Oscars like Harvey. If there's a significant number of voters who still haven't seen "Transamerica," they're about to get a wallop to the head that could leave them dazed and gasping, "Reese who?"
Hey, where was all the love we expected for George Clooney ("Syriana"), eh? The one big jawdropper among the SAG film awards was the upset for best supporting actor by Paul Giamatti ("Cinderella Man"). It might just be a case of everybody feeling sorry that Paul got shut out last year during the big "Sideways" hug-a-thon, but what if Oscar voters feel the same way too?
The victory of "Crash" for best ensemble over "Brokeback Mountain" wasn't a shockeroo. I saw that coming. Not only does it have more of an ensemble format in terms of its dramatic structure, but Lionsgate just did something that no other studio ever did in the past: it sent DVD screeners to all 100,000 SAG members. Surely, that helped. Besides, that award is not the Oscar best picture forecaster that many people think. Only four times in the past decade has it correctly predicted the top Academy Award.
But the fact that "Brokeback" got completely shut out by voters of Hollywood's largest guild is what is most surprising. Its best chance was probably in the supporting actress race for Michelle Williams, but even that didn't pan out. Why? It can't be a gay backlash. SAG is easily the most gay-friendly of all showbiz organizations. Could it mean — egads — that there's less "Brokeback" love than everyone assumes?
I really don't think the SAG award for ensemble cast can be used to predict the Oscar win for best picture. Brokeback Mountain has a great story, great acting, great directing and great cinematography which is why it is going to win the Oscar for best picture. And even though it has great acting, I think there are two major reason why it won't win any acting awards at the Oscars: one, there are some amazing acting nominations from other movies that are truly more deserving such as Rachel Weisz and two, the Academy doesn't seem to be able to give out Oscars to young good looking men. Plus, there has to be a few best movie winners out there that didn't win any acting awards. I'm pretty sure Titanic, which won 11 awards is one of them. A movie can be great and win without winning an acting award. So even though Crash won the SAG for ensamble cast, I don't think they have much of a chance of winning best movie at the Oscars.
Posted by: Anna | January 31, 2006 at 06:43 PM
Dudes, the SAG award for Ensemble Cast is NOT the same thing as Best Picture! It id not literally the same thing, nor has it ever been a virtual substitute. The SAG Ensemble Award usually goes to what is generally the favorite ENSEMBLE film, and Brokeback isn't an ensemble film. Even though the supporting performances are good, they're very brief, and the overwhelming focus is on the two main characters. It was no surprise that Gosford Park won over Beautiful Mind, because it was the same deal, the movie was almost exclusively about two main characters, while Gosford had 20+ characters of relatively equal screen time. And did anybody think that Gosford Park might win Best Picture over Beautiful Mind just because of that win? Hell no. Same with Traffic over Gladiator, Full Monty over Titanic, Birdcage over English Patient, Apollo 13 over Braveheart. The four movies that did win Best Picture and Best Ensemble Cast -- Lord of the Rings, Chicago, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love -- had genuine ensembles. So the Crash win has nothing to do with it's Best Picture chances -- they just voted for the largest cast to honor as many of their peers as possible.
Posted by: Brian | January 31, 2006 at 03:23 PM
I can't see by now, any possibility of BBM losing the academy award. But i guess the acting awards are quite undefined. I guess anything can happen and i´m quite sure BBM wil win at least one acting award? Which? By now i'd say jake Gyllenhall.
Posted by: André | January 31, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Though despite the flops I have thought for a long time that Heath Ledger's an excellent actor. He doesn't seem to know how to pick scripts though. I would say he should fire his agent if not for Brokeback Mountain was a coup for him. Jake Gyllenhaal I'm not so sure about. He doesn't seem to me as if he has as wide a range, but maybe that's just me. Anyhow, I have a bit of tough time getting into his characters because we look like identical twins. Even my mother has a hard time telling photos of us apart. Heck, even I do!
As for Philip Seymour Hoffman, I've never really noticed him much before, but he was phenomenal as Capote, though the movie itself was way too dark and morbid for me. I don't seem to like those much anymore. But I actually think Joaquin Phoenix is more of a threat to take the Oscar from Hoffman than is Ledger (that's not saying much - Hoffman's a lock I think). Phoenix is more seasoned than Ledger and has a better track record of films/roles, and he sings Johnny Cash!
No one else is a threat for Best Actor in my opinion (and Best S. Actor is just a Clooney/Giamatti duel I think - though I'm hoping Dillon can pull an upset). David Strathairn's a very solid actor but I don't see anyone raving over this role, and it seems people are getting a bit tired of Russell Crowe, though he's a top-notch actor. Terrence Howard deserves the nom more anyway I think, but I think he's definitely too new to be any kind of threat to win it. A nom would be achievement enough.
Just my two cents on the actors! It would be cool if Ralph Fiennes can sneak in.
Posted by: stevie b | January 31, 2006 at 03:50 AM
"But the fact that "Brokeback" got completely shut out by voters of Hollywood's largest guild is what is most surprising."
I really enjoy reading your opinions, but I think it's lines like this that have some people jumping down your throat. You yourself were predicting a shut-out for Brokeback at the SAGs! To then call it surprising that it got completely shut out seems like you're trying to garner interest in the race more so than tell it like it is.
Posted by: Soulsword | January 31, 2006 at 01:05 AM
Come to think of it, Michelle Williams has transitioned from TV to movies since a few years now, just not in anything memorable until now.
Posted by: stevie b | January 31, 2006 at 12:42 AM
Meant to say that I don't *know* why anyone is calling Crash winning the SAG an upset.
Posted by: stevie b | January 31, 2006 at 12:39 AM
One thing that seems to be a bit ignored is that the Best Actor and Best S. Actor categories tend to go to actors who have put in their dues. The youngest winner for Best Actor was Adrien Brody at 29 for The Pianist (2002 Awards). The youngest for S. Actor was Timothy Hutton at 20 for Ordinary People (1980 Awards) but the next two youngest were Cuba Gooding Jr and George Chakiris, tied at 28, for Jerry Maguire and West Side Story (1996 & 1961). Heath Ledger is only 26 and Jake Gyllenhaal is only 25. Not just that, but they've both been in a series of films that have fallen short of expectations, if not outright flops, so there's none of that sense of them having been passed over unjustly or built up a body of Oscar-worthy performances.
Michelle Williams is in better shape at 25, so far as the age thing, because the Best Actress and Best S. Actress categories have tended to go much younger. Best S. Actress has been won by a 10 y.o. (Tatum O'Neal 1973), an 11 y.o. (Anna Paquin 1993), and a 16 y.o. (Patty Duke 1962). I don't know if it matters that she's still in effect making the transition from the small screen to the big screen. If Brokeback Mountain picks up momentum, which I think is actually far more likely than that it'll lose momentum, Williams is the first one that will get steamrollered in, followed by Ledger. But if that was going to happen, I think we likely would've seen it at the SAGs first, and that didn't happen.
So, it seems the predictable thing will happen, just like the predictable thing happened at the SAGs. I don't why anyone is calling the Crash win an upset when that's what virtually everyone was predicting beforehand.
Posted by: stevie b | January 31, 2006 at 12:37 AM
You know, I'm not that surprised by the SAG awards. They go to best acting by an ensemble, not best picture. So while Brokeback may be the best picture, SAG voters may have felt that overall, they preferred the acting in Crash (and they have a tendency to want to go against the flow). I agree with other posters, however, in that Brokeback's excellent production and direction will do better at the Oscars than they would at the SAGs. And really, BBM's losses at the SAGs aren't terribly shocking, considering that Weisz and Hoffman both have the awards momentum, and Gyllenhaal hadn't been getting the noms even before the SAGs.
Am I sure it will win? Not entirely, but I don't think Crash would win either, even with marketing at the last minute. Granted, there's time between noms and awards to pick up momentum, but at some point, 'best movie' becomes rather fixed for many people, and undecided voters, I suspect, are rarer than those with opinions. That's why I used to worry more about Brokeback, given the Academy's sometimes conservative streak, but the PGA and the DGA wins made me breathe a little easier. True, Walk the Line could be a 'safer' pick as some have said, but I think this year many of the major awards are going to be split among these movies.
I do get vaguely annoyed by the Brokeback 'provocative' headlines of doom, but I can understand how prognostication demands that even a heavily favored candidate has to have some suspense, or the awards become a roll call, as in the case of people who were not heavily invested in either Titanic or LOTR.
Posted by: Jen | January 31, 2006 at 12:03 AM
I keep asking myself over and over again, what is Tom O' Neil's problem with Brokebaack Mountain? Tom you certainly are very pessimistic about Brokeback Mountain. I would say that the victory at the Golden Globes, Producers Guild (one of the best predictors of who will win Best Picture at Oscars), Directors Guild (another good predictor), New York Film Critics, L.A. Film Critics, and Broadcast Film Critics Association makes Brokeback an almost sure thing come Oscar night. If Brokeback is not the Best Picture come March, which film will it be? I can't think of another film that could carry Best Picture.
Posted by: richmeisterg | January 30, 2006 at 11:21 PM
Tom o"Neil needs to stop being a snide drama-queen when makeing references to Brokeback Mountain "pup tent scenes" and the like. Go and comment on the heterosexual sex scenes in Walk The Line or other heterosexual-themed movies, Tom. You're showing a level of immaturity which is astonishing.
Posted by: art | January 30, 2006 at 10:15 PM
Clarity doesn't seem to be my strong point. What I was saying before is that I can see why someone might think that Crash or GN&GL or Walk the Line are the best made film of the year, but definitely not that any of them would be the overwhelming favorite. That is clearly Brokeback Mountain. In fact, I have not seen anyone on any awards site say that Brokeback Mountain would not win Best Picture if the Oscar were handed out today. All I've seen is a few arguments on why the momentum could turn. And most of those do not seem to have anything to argue in favor of another film, but instead argue in some way against Brokeback Mountain (that voters might get bored with it or decide it is too controversial or whatever).
Like I said before, this past year generally sucked for movies in my little opinion (and the same for the previous year). The biggest reason I think Brokeback Mountain is so favored is because there just isn't anything much to compete with it. I was looking at the Oscar nominees for the past 25 years the other night, and I don't think any of this year's films except Brokeback would even be likely to get nominated in about 20 of them, just based on film quality. The only years where I could see Brokeback seriously in the running for the award itself are 1980, 1981, 1996, and 2004.
That's not so much a statement on Brokeback Mountain as it is on the overall quality of movies in my view these past couple years. I don't know why Hollywood isn't coming up with better quality fare in general. I don't buy into the whole stupid "liberal bias" argument. Hollywood's always been liberal for the times. Nothing's changed about that.
Posted by: stevie b | January 30, 2006 at 10:01 PM
One should not be surprise that if many people voted for a movie they hadn't seen but did so because someone said it was good. I bet you my watch (really cheap one) that many people did exactly that at SAG.
I'm quoting this from PEOPLEAGAINSTMIMIC:
SAG happens to have this weird tradition or should I say track record of disagreeing with Oscar on best picture every other two years. Whoa, how odd but it's true, see it for your self:
1996: English Patient (SAG: Birdcage) X
1997: Titanic (SAG: The full Monty) X
1998: Shakespeare in love (SAG: Shakespeare in love) V
1999: American beauty (SAG: American Beauty) V
2000: Gladiator (SAG: Traffic) X
2001: A beautiful mind (SAG: Gosford park) X
2002: Chicago (SAG: Chicago) V
2003: LOTR return of the king (SAG: LOTR) V
2004: Million $ baby (SAG: Sideway) X
2005: Brokeback Mountain (SAG: Crash) .......X ?? your call
Crash never attracted any attention when it was in the theatre and now suddenly it's supposed to be the best picture on this beautiful planet. I think voters in SAG voted on sentiment in their own awards but go for the real front runner in Oscar race because people tend to want to vote for the likely winner, and hopefully also the best."
End quote.
Voting with eyes closed and homework not done is OK if you are voting for president of this country. But for god's sake, we are talking about the Oscar here :)
And if you are truely a movie lover and a grown up, you can disagree with other's opinion respectfully. Or it can only back fire on the movie you are trying to support. And I really don't want that to happen to BBM which I truely believe is the best movie of 2005.
Tom, I do have a suggestion for you. David Poland at MCN did a graceful and smart thing to handle a very similar situation by creating a separate forum for anyone who only have good thing to say about a movie and let them say their heart out. Problem solved.
Posted by: oscarpdx | January 30, 2006 at 09:46 PM
And it's a mystery to me why Munich and King Kong aren't more in the running.
Posted by: stevie b | January 30, 2006 at 09:41 PM
Hi Tom,
I've been looking around your blog and I think I overreacted yesterday, as I think others have at times. You were right, I read your blog heading as if it were a statement, without the question mark, but when I read it as if it were a question it didn't seem like any big deal.
If anything bothered me personally it was the idea that someone had to be fanatic about a movie or whatever to support it. I watch between 30-40 movies in theater a year, and that's not counting DVDs. I'm just a movie buff. I watch almost everything sooner or later. A lot of Oscar winners in the past have not been my type of movie, but I could see the quality of the film and why it won. Take Capote. I thought Capote sucked, but I can see why it has support.
Brokeback Mountain is not my type of film really. Neither was English Patient (boring as hell!), American Beauty (way overblown and self-important), Chicago (whatever), or Million Dollar Baby (stereotyped and preachy). But I could see why they were in the mix, and I can see why they won.
So, I guess all I want to say is that I think Brokeback Mountain is clearly the best-made film this year, and I think it's an overwhelming favorite without question. That being said, I can see why someone might say the same for Crash or Good Night and Good Luck or even Walk the Line. I actually enjoyed Crash and Walk the Line more. I can't see Capote really at all, but thankfully it has no chance to win, and might not even get a nom!
And I don't think your blogs have been unreasonable. Sorry for overreacting! I was surprised by how intense things seem to be, thinking you all need to lighten up. But then I got to thinking of how intense I was over ROTK. I would've been eternally bitter if that hadn't won!
And as you've said many times, this isn't about fandom but about awards guruism. So keep doing what you do, I think you're very good at it from what I've seen.
Posted by: stevie b | January 30, 2006 at 09:28 PM
I am totally, utterly, completely baffled by these accusations that I'm anti-Brokeback. I keep saying over and over that it's way ahead for best pic and director, but GAWD HELP ME if I point out any omen from past awards that might suggest otherwise. You folks gotta stop rooting for contenders at this website. That's not what we do here -- that's not what we're SUPPOSED to do. Our collective job is to carefully scrutinize every possible twist in the derby track ahead, however ridiculous it may seem because this is, after all, showbiz kudos that we're tracking. Is anything more ridiculous than Hollyweird? Shockeroos keep popping up all the time and we've got to be ready for them.
And always remember, please: just because I point out various possibilities does NOT mean that I'm saying that they WILL happen. Why do you keep assuming otherwise? CALM DOWN, PLLLLLSSSSSSSSSS.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 30, 2006 at 09:05 PM
To all of you who think that Tom is not a BBM backer, I have to say take a deep breath and respectfully back off. Tom isn't. He's just simply pointing out the great outside chances of Crash of becoming their greatest competition. But let me point out that yes indeed the SAGs are not a great barometer of what's going to happen at the Oscars. They never were or are. Remember that Sideways won for last year's Best Ensamble and they had no chance of outright taking the Oscar statute home. Neither does Crash, IMO. It appeared to me last night that the only reasons why Crash won is because it was very much a Popularity contest. Not to say that the actors in the movie didn't do well, because they did. Come Oscar time, the Best Picture will go to BBM Rightfully so because it takes into account not only the acting but the entire production/direction of the movie. And BBM soars above all others in that.
And I also have to point out what happened to LOTR when they finally won. None of the actors were specifically honored in Oscars. This might be the very case this year. Let's just hope that Universial's Focus Features aggressively campaigns for BBM.
It took so long to actually create this masterpiece of cinema, that I don't think that Hollywood will run away from honoring this ballsy film further.
Posted by: Catesa | January 30, 2006 at 08:43 PM
Consitering the fact that Rachel Weisz won both the Globe and the SAG award, she's more of a sure bet to win than Michele Willaims who lets face it, her performance was overrate. Just like her movie.
Posted by: Sam | January 30, 2006 at 08:37 PM
I don't think that Brokeback getting shut out really means much, especially since up to this point, outside of a handful of critics awards, Brokeback hasn't won anything for its actors. The DGA and PGA awards point towards the idea that it's more about the movie itself than anything. And other films in the past (Titanic, Gladiator, The English Patient, Braveheart), also failed to score anything at SAG before going on to win the Oscar.
And as recently as 2003, they've awarded a Best Picture without acknowledging a cast member -- in fact LOTR didn't even have a nomination for its cast. Braveheart, Titanic, Schindler's List, Dances with Wolves, The Last Emperor, Platoon -- not an acting Oscar among them.
It's also hard to read too much into Crash's victory since there is no ensemble award at the Oscars, and the ensemble award has had a dubious record in terms of predicting the Best Picture Oscar.
Iris wasn't really a suprise since Jim Broadbent had picked up a Golden Globe that year long before the home stretch. Halle Berry had won the SAG award and I think Hollywood sensed a historical opportunity more than anything. I'll grant you Pollack though. That one really did come out of nowhere.
I think the best example of what you're trying to say was The Pianist. That was one few had seen when nominations came out, and had not won a Globe or any of the Guild Awards beforehand. Suddenly it had won 3 Oscars and Chicago wasn't the lock it had been just 3 hours before...that was great award show drama.
Posted by: rjnick | January 30, 2006 at 08:09 PM
You know, Tom, I understand you have to provide parallels to other Oscar races, but you simply must admit -- Brokeback Mountain is looking all but unbeatable for Best Picture right now. Of course it could lose, but the fact of the matter is that the only possibility is that Crash upsets, and I don't think a SAG win is going to give it enough momentum. Also, in regards to your comment about BBM not winning a single SAG meaning there isn't as much love for BBM as everyone thinks: No. Not one of the three acting nominees (Or the ensemble) was the predicted favorite going into the awards ceremony and they have won very little individual awards. The SAGs changed absolutely nothing and signaled absolutely nothing, except that the only film now left to challenge BBM's Best Picture Oscar is Crash, and that's a long shot. Reminds me of the 2003 race where people thought Mystic River might be able to trump ROTK. Possible, but highly, highly unlikely. Just admit it, Tom: BBM is the clear favorite and it looks very unlikely that that's going to change.
Posted by: Nate | January 30, 2006 at 08:03 PM
can all the Heath Ledger Fans unite and start talking to newspapers and everyone that you can think of that he should win the oscar for best actor? Letters@ew.com and editor@usatoday.com.
heath and jake should win the oscars this year and I think it's unfair that they of all the people are not getting rewarded -- they make the movie believeable, they give the movie the star quality, they give the movie the success it has been receiving.
Heath Ledger for Best Actor!!!!!
Posted by: john | January 30, 2006 at 07:47 PM
God Tom, what is your damn problem with Brokeback!? Always finding a reason for it to not win the Oscars. Can't you just accept the fact that this is a very good movie that is highly Oscar deserving from all aspects and there is not even one movie that comes close to beating it this year!? The fact that there were 4 nominations in the SAG acting categories from Brokeback said it all. Tell me if any of these other movies you so raved about had more than 3 nominations in the acting categories? Spare me your stupid speculations, Tom!
Posted by: Ethan | January 30, 2006 at 07:28 PM
No, it's not a mistake. That sentence already says "lead and supporting races," but since you're confused I'll repeat the info a second time in that same sentence to hammer home the obvious.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 30, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Not sure if this is the error you're referring to, Tom, but Judi Dench hasn't won Best Actress--she just has a supporting for Shakespeare in Love....
Posted by: robert | January 30, 2006 at 05:55 PM
kcholt68, thanks for the catch. Yes, our copy editor is out today (getting lots of rest in advance of an early day tomorrow), so you got drafted. Much appreciated.|
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 30, 2006 at 05:33 PM