Globe + SAG = Oscar Game Over?
Statistically speaking, the odds are overwhelming that the four recent winners of Screen Actors Guild Awards and Golden Globes — Forest Whitaker, Helen Mirren, Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson — will repeat their victories at the Oscars on Feb. 25.
Over the past 12 years of the mutual existence of SAG and Globe kudos, there have occurred only 3 cases of a star winning both prizes, then failing to go on to nab Oscar gold next.
One case: Russell Crowe ("A Beautiful Mind") probably would've won the Oscar after sweeping those earlier kudos except for that, well, little, you know, incident at the BAFTAs where Russell got all physical with a TV producer who had the nerve to cut short his gawdawful recital of Russell-written poetry at the podium after winning another best-actor award that year (his last).
Another case — Lauren "Betty" Bacall ("The Mirror Has Two Faces") — can be explained away several ways. One possibility: Oscar voters actually watched the movie. Another: Betty's tabloid reputation for being something that rhymes with witch finally caught up with her after traveling 3,000 miles from New York (where she lives) to L.A. (where she started to win awards that year).
The third case is Renee Zellweger in "Chicago." Does the Golden Globe for comedy/musical really count in this equation? Nicole Kidman ("The Hours") won the drama Globe in 2002, then lost to Renee at SAG, but rebounded at the Oscars.
All of these other stars won Oscars after sweeping up Globes and SAGS: Martin Landau ("Ed Wood"), Tim Robbins ("Mystic River"), Dianne Weist ("Bullets Over Broadway"), Kim Basinger ("L.A. Confidential"), Angelina Jolie ("Girl, Interrupted"), Renee Zellweger ("Cold Mountain"), Rachel Weisz ("The Constant Gardener"), Jack Nicholson ("As Good As It Gets"), Tom Hanks ("Forrest Gump"), Nicolas Cage ("Leaving Las Vegas"), Geoffrey Rush ("Shine"), Jamie Foxx ("Ray"), Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Capote"), Helen Hunt ("As Good As It Gets"), Gwyneth Paltrow ("Shakespeare in Love"), Julia Roberts ("Erin Brockovich"), Charlize Theron ("Monster"), Hilary Swank ("Million Dollar Baby"). Benicio del Toro ("Traffic") won supporting at the Globes, then lead actor at SAG, then the Oscar for supporting.
the absolutely talented Helen Mirren wont be at a loss for words. she deserves every win and every nomination she receives. It is very possible that people win and keep winning because they deserve to. some appear to relish ridiculing gifted actors simply because they win and keep winning. and this thing about clint not winning because he "just won" and stuff like that; why that should matter i just dont get. This is what happened to Tom Hanks for Cast Away, imo. also, if Hollywood is so in love with itself, so glad handing and so self-agrandizing, what is so wrong with "a hollywood ending"?? there have been and always will be, some absolutely great Hollywood endings; predictable, surprising, feel good, provocative, shocking, and all else in between. Kudos to Hollywood. Besides, how boring would it be to hang out with the always perfect?
Posted by: teri | February 01, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Okay, so off on the Oscars. Dullsville. The only thing remotely interesting at this point is whether or not the bigguns will donate their SWAG bags to charity, or try to sell them on eBay.
Perhaps we should all just look at the IFTA's. Pierce Brosnan is up for best actor in The Matador? Will he triumph over Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrel or Cilian Murphy (who is running against hmself?).
Yes, at least with the Irish Film and Television Awards, there might be a little time left for a recitation of "Sanctity" by Patrick Kavanaugh.
Posted by: callie | February 01, 2007 at 09:37 AM
Well it will be interesting to see who wins Best Song, come on you know its supposed to be dreamgirls but which people which, and we all know in the end neither will win, oh wait if "listen" wins will they thank beyonce or be uppity.
Yeah for the most part oscars will be a snooze but we can always pretend and hope Kate Winslet, the lovely japanese flower, marky mark and will smith will win oscars and a gobsmacked presenter announces Dreamgirls best picture while the academy head sends dirty looks to ernst and young.
well a boy can dream cant he?
Posted by: Usman | February 01, 2007 at 12:23 AM
The only reason I'd suffer through an interminable three hours is to see Peter O'Toole. However, he might not be there.
So I will turn on the last half hour and make sure just to see that portion when his name is mentioned for his nomination, and call it a night.
The rest is simply a repeat. And like I've said before, withering proof that there are no independent minds in the land of movie awards. Only those solid Swedes at the Stockholm Film Feset were gutsy enough to break the mold and give Best Actor to Ryan Gosling. (God bless the Swedes, all hail meatballs and IKEA).
Let's hope at the very least, FOX TV runs a new edition of "24" so the evening isn't a total TV waste.
Posted by: callie | January 31, 2007 at 01:31 PM
It was not Russell-written poetry, but a poem, "Sanctity," by a brilliant Irish poet Patrick Kavanaugh. He also recited it at Richard Harris's funeral. Let it rest, Tom
Posted by: James Rossi | January 31, 2007 at 01:03 PM
Gee, let's count the falsehoods in the paragraph about Russell Crowe:
1. There were no reports that Russell Crowe punched the director, much less in the face.
2. The poetry that Crowe recited upon winning the BAFTA was not written by him. The verse was written by the Irish poet, Patrick Kavanagh, and recited by Crowe in honor of Richard Harris.
3. The BAFTA award was not the last award won by Crowe that year. He received the SAG award for Best Actor subsequent to that event.
Do facts or truth mean anything in journalism any more?
Posted by: Faye | January 31, 2007 at 12:01 PM
For me, I'm just tired of knowing who's going to win the Oscar more than a month in advance. There seem to be more "locks" going into the Oscars each year than ever before. There's almost no suspense. Best Director and Best Picture are always up in the air it seems, but for whatever reason, the acting categories are usually solidified by the beginning of February. This is the first time I can remember when all four acting categories were locks going in. It seems even the people winning the awards get bored with continuously winning them. I mean, what do Helen Mirren and Jennifer Hudson have left to say once they win Oscars? And it's a certainty now that we'll have to sit through another awkward Forest Whitaker acceptance speech in 26 days.
Posted by: Brendan | January 31, 2007 at 10:54 AM
I agree that the winners are pretty much locked in for those categories. But, here's two things to consider:
1) There's always that second of doubt before the name is read where you think "Oh my God! It's going to be someone else!" So for a brief moment, your stomach does a somersault.
2) There are 20 other categories where the winners have not been locked in. Surely all eyes will be glued to the screen to see if Scorsese wins, if "Borat" wins Adapted Screenplay and if Kevin O'Connell finally wins (OK, that last one was just for us Oscar addicts). So the show will be predictable for about 20 minutes out of three hours. Unlike the years of "Titanic" and "Return of the King."
Posted by: Jeff | January 31, 2007 at 10:44 AM