Some SAG surprises indicate unexpected currents in the season

Is Nicole Kidman really in the hunt? Did Joaquin Phoenix take too much damage?

<p>Nicole Kidman in &quot;The Paperboy&quot;</p>

Nicole Kidman in "The Paperboy"

Credit: Millennium Entertainment

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

The awards-obsessive corners of the web were all abuzz this morning with murmurs of a supposed "leak" of the 19th annual SAG nominees. Intrepid net hounds had apparently gone into the guild's website and done some choice searching to turn out what ended up being, indeed, the full list of nominees. So what were they and what do they mean? Let's take a look.

The immediate surprise of note is Nicole Kidman's nomination in the Best Supporting Actress category for "The Paperboy." The actress's PR wing engaged with a slew of interviews with the press late in the game, but then screeners came late, so that she managed to rally enough support to push out an apparent favorite like Amy Adams in "The Master" is hugely surprising, particularly for a film this divisive.

And indeed, "The Master" itself was only embraced in one instance, for Philip Seymour Hoffman's supporting performance. Joaquin Phoenix was snubbed outright just days after the Los Angeles Film Critics Association appeared to blow wind into his sails. Despite that, I don't know that the snub will translate to the Academy's actors branch. People will blame it on his recent bad-mouthing of awards season, but he said nothing that many say in private. If he continues to be left out by his peers, it will simply be because the industry has not responded to the film. And that notion is not entirely a shock: it was my instinct after first seeing it. Nevertheless, both he and the unceremoniously snubbed Emmanuelle Riva ("Amour") still have an angle on the Oscar race, I think.

Speaking of Riva, the lead actress category kept Helen Mirren's hopes alive as the actress landed a spot for her performance in "Hitchcock." Ditto Naomi Watts in "The Impossible." Remember that "Beasts of the Southern Wild" was not eligible for these awards so young Quvenzhané Wallis was never going to pop up. Marion Cotillard (putting in a lot of work while, for instance, Riva can't be here for the face time) made the cut for "Rust and Bone," while frontrunners Jessica Chastain ("Zero Dark Thirty") and Jennifer Lawrence ("Silver Linings Playbook") filled out the category.

Another happy surprise was Javier Bardem finding a spot for his villainous turn in "Skyfall" a day after the BFCA chalked him up for same. For a race that has been looking for some shape, it seems to have it now. "Django Unchained" was snubbed completely, but there's still a chance Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson or Christoph Waltz turn the trick, depending on whether the campaign shows any real interest in getting them there.

Bardem's "Skyfall" co-star Judi Dench did not get cited for the film, but she gets to be a SAG nominee nevertheless as part of the ensemble of "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel," bringing the film back around and making it clear that it resonates with actors in the industry (Maggie Smith also picked up a nomination for her supporting performance). Does this mean it's in the Best Picture hunt? Yes, but it has always been lurking as a possibility because it's a film Academy members haven't stopped talking about since its Spring release. Now Searchlight really has something to build upon if they want to put it through the campaign ringer.

Filling out the ensemble category was the expected: "Argo" (also picking up a mention for Alan Arkin's performance), "Les Misérables" (an unexpected nominee for stunt ensemble), "Lincoln" and "Silver Linings Playbook." Those four along with "Zero Dark Thirty" are clearly the frontrunning Best Picture possibilities, with "Life of Pi" (which was completely snubbed by SAG, but that was to be expected) on the outside of the quintet looking in.

The thing about the SAG nominations announcement is that, while they often offer up surprises to the season, those surprises and whatever snubs they produce cannot be overlooked. They indicate rhythms in the industry, an overall current. It's times like these that you can't just chalk up, say, a snub for Shailene Woodley as an anomaly. Nevertheless, the abbreviated phase one timeline ought to be taken into account, too. There will be less than a week between this announcement and the mailing of Oscar ballots, rather than two. Will the immediate aftershock of these yield anything reactionary from the Academy?

Well, one can only hope. One can only hope that Emmanuelle Riva's fellow actors understand why what she's done in "Amour" is sublime, or that, if there IS bristling at his comments, that Joaquin Phoenix's work matters, not his attitude. These won't match up 100% with Oscar so we'll have to see how it pans out. If I were to guess, I'd say Kidman, Mirren, Watts and Bardem are the most vulnerable, for a variety of reasons. But Bardem is beginning to feel solid, and Watts could be firming up, too ("The Impossible" has been dogged on the guild screening circuit).

The 19th annual Screen Actors Guild Awards will be held on Sunday, January 27, 2013.

Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca._article_story_main_primary

Everything: Academy Awards

Latest news, photos, reviews, interviews, videos and more.

Kristopher-tapley-sm
Kristopher Tapley
Editor-at-Large
Kristopher Tapley has covered the film awards landscape for over a decade. He founded In Contention in 2005. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Times of London and Variety. He begs you not to take any of this too seriously.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew Starr

    Man how are the actors of all people gonna go ahead and hate on Phoenix and Riva who arguably gave the best performances in their respective categories this year?

    Also does the lack of a nod in best ensemble mean Zero Dark Thirty's best picture chances are weak?

    December 12, 2012 at 11:05AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley No it just means the ensemble is a bit invisible. Not a lot of big highlights.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:06AM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS like I said in another post, "Zero Dark Thirty", despite having a large ensemble, is being talked about more as Chastain's movie then as an ensemble piece.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:18AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Evan See also: the SAG-snubbed Hugo, Avatar, Up in the Air, There Will Be Blood, Michael Clayton, Juno, Atonement...

      Most of those had more an 'ensemble' feel than ZDT and yet still were snubbed, only to do just fine at the Oscars.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:30AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Freddy Almonte @Evan....And all of them went to lose Oscar night.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:56AM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS "Zero Dark Thirty" is more of a Critics film, I highly doubt it'll ever be in the position to actually win Best Picture.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr No Country and Hurt Locker did well with critics no?

      December 12, 2012 at 1:00PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley Hurt Locker was a specific case. It needed Avatar to be in the race to win, IMO. That helped its narrative. No Country came in a year where many of the nominees were critical darlings, so, it was one of the lot.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:26PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw Zero Dark Thirty just hadn't been seen by enough members of the Nom. Comm. is my guess. I try to see everything, early (if possible) and often (ditto), and the first screening of ZDT I can attend is on December 29...

      December 12, 2012 at 1:27PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Luis I would argue that DDL gave a better performance in his category (or any category) but it's not a knock o Phoenix.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:03PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    tonyr

    Why does Dicaprio keep getting snubbed?

    December 12, 2012 at 11:07AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley A) I really don't know how much of the nominating committee saw the film. B) It's a brutal film. It wouldn't be surprising if the whole thing was just too much for voters.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:09AM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS I still think DiCaprio gets in. "Django" was late to the party, so they might have had to look elsewhere (and Bardem seems like that kind of pick to me). I don't think the SAG snub was all that telling, however, if DiCaprio gets snubbed by the Globes, then that would be a bit telling.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:21AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      The Dude Waltz, Jackson, and DiCaprio may all be stealing votes from one another. If the movie campaigned only one for supporting actor then I think whoever it was would have a strong shot...but right now they've got three contenders, and they may all cancel each other out.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:32AM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS That's why I don't get moving Waltz back to supporting. The only thing it does it make it less likely that DiCaprio can get in, as I think he was the only real shot the film had at an acting nomination. And on most accounts, Waltz is a second lead to Foxx, who doesn't really have a shot anyway.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:40AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 I keep hearing/reading that Waltz actually WAS Lead until recently where nominating deadlines were hovering. Do we know for sure if that's true or not?

      December 12, 2012 at 12:03PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Helena3 I've seen the film , and Waltz's screen time is clearly that of co lead not supporting.

      To me he is no more a supporting player than DDL was to DiCaprio in "Gangs" ; they were both considered leads

      Personally I'm puzzled as to why Harvey himself wouldn't realize that not placing Waltz in the category ,where his screen time shows he belonged ,wouldn't ultimately impact any chances Leo or Sam had of a nod ??

      I saw one Oscar blogger claim it was because he felt Harvey thought Jamie had better chance for lead nod, but I find that hard to believe based on review comments I've seen regarding the two men's performances.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:56PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      A Keeps getting snubbed in what sense? He was nominated by SAG last year for J. Edgar and that performance had mixed reception.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dana Actually, the film got a mixed reception but the reviews of the performance were pretty much all "sensational", "exceptional". I remember, because I was thinking "he can´t get any better reviews than this, ever. If he doesn´t get in this time, what will it take?"
      And when he was snubbed by AMPAS, people were writing in discussions fora, "He´s too serious, he should do a comedy, play a villain, show more range."

      December 12, 2012 at 2:55PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw "Keep getting snubbed"? He has eight SAG nominations (as lead, supporting or cast member) to his credit. Plus, he's been nominated for the Golden Globe eight times, and won it for The Aviator. Not to mention the two Oscar nominations. Leo's doing just fine.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw I mean, THREE Oscar nods for the snubbed one.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:12PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt I think it's pretty clear Tonyr was referring to DiCaprio constantly getting snubbed for "Django Unchained" this season, not everything he's ever done.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:23PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Miley

    A lot of my friends in SAG have actually said they thought Phoenix's performance in THE MASTER was 'grossly indulgent' -- given the divisive nature of the film itself, I think Adams and Hoffman remain that film's best shot at nominations.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:13AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley I've heard this, too.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:18AM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS I think we have our "How did THAT not get nominated?" performance of the season. Much like the SAG snubbed Albert Brooks last season.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:22AM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart SAG plays it so safe. Except the real head scratcher here is Kidman. That is not a safe performance.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:23AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw The comparison is being made between the contrasting substance abuser performances of Washington and Phoenix, and (SAG) actors love both performances: Some just think that Washington's director served him better, in terms of focus and shape. I wouldn't call Phoenix "grossly indulgent," just off the leash. Inspired, fun to watch, amazing...but under-directed perhaps.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:35PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chris138 Honestly, I thought Phoenix was good in the film, but Hoffman was the real standout to me so I can understand why they went with him instead.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:28PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      RichardZ The character is actually over indulgent--so it had to be played as such. Phoenix is the ID. Hoffman is the superego. In the end, who was the real Master? The id or superego?

      December 12, 2012 at 10:06PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Kane

    There's no denying the other lead actors probably gave great performances (I haven't seen The Sessions or Les Mis and I really want to) but, outside of Denzel, they all had preexisting material to work off of. Phoenix's performance was completely organic, raw, a powder keg, complex when dug deep, simple on the surface. How he was passed over I'll never know.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:16AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    anonymous

    Phoeinix was indulgent much like the compltetely boring and pointless film he was in.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:21AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart I like your consistency. You have managed to drop a stupid comment in almost every post!

      December 12, 2012 at 11:24AM EST
  • Images_talkback_profile

    Laura Stewart

    Dear lord, this is my worst nightmare. No Phoenix, Adams, Jason Clarke, ZDT for Ensemble? Get out of here Cooper, Kidman, and the whole cast of Best Exotic Hotel! You can go too, Les Miz.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:23AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 Sheesh, I was ALL aboard the Laura Stewart train last year concerning Charlize. She was SO robbed. But I can't get behind your ill feelings towards Kidman, Les Miserables, or your stumping for Adams. Wah. ;)

      December 12, 2012 at 12:06PM EST
    • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

      Mykill Oh I remember last year - all are hopes and dreams were crushed when Charlize Theron and Michael Fassbender failed to even get nominated :,^(. I didn't feel like this year would follow suit...until today (in terms of random, middlebrow, unexciting work getting nominated.) The SAG and Oscar nominees rarely match up exactly, but if there is even a chance that films like Hitchcock and Best Exotic Marigold Hotel get nominated over films like Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild (not eligible for SAG), and The Master, then that is such a major bummer. I am pretty sure Amy Adams will definitely get nominated for the Oscar, since she is really well liked, but I will keep my fingers crossed for Joaquin Phoenix since it now seems he has a much more precarious slot then I would've thought so before....

      December 12, 2012 at 1:36PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart Hehe JJ1- I'm sorry! And yes, she was robbed! And it seems like SAG hates HATES hates actresses who take on daring roles i.e. Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine, Charlize in Young Adult, and now Amy Adams in The Master. I can't get behind Lez Miz b/c I absolutely loathe Hooper's directing style and The Paperboy was just... bad. I love Kidman and I will stand behind her performances in To Die For, Moulin Rouge, and The Others (and on some days "Birth")... but I'll pass on The Paperboy.

      To be honest- Julianne Moore in Game Change puts most of the actresses who were nominated this year to shame (minus Chastain b/c I have not seen ZDT yet).

      MyKill- Here's hoping!

      December 12, 2012 at 4:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 It's okay Laura, I still like ya :)

      December 12, 2012 at 5:22PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    B

    Nicole Kidman is clearly respected by her fellow actors, so I think she may be in. She's been riding the comeback wave ever since Rabbit Hole. And, like you mentioned, she really worked it. I think she talked to practically every blogger with a film website.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Hans

    Interesting stat I saw pointed out on Twitter: 9/10 supporting nominees already have Oscars.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt And 18/20 of all the acting nominees have been Oscar nominated. Really amazing.

      December 12, 2012 at 11:21PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    HoustonRufus

    I hate to be overly dramatic, but it's hard for me to take this list seriously without Riva and Phoenix on it.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:37AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Poo_talkback_profile

    Andrej

    I wonder if these SAG nods could give away that Quvénzhane Wallis might end up going for Best Supporting Actress, taking Nicole Kidman's spot. Emmanuelle Riva, Naomi Watts, Rachel Weisz, Helen Mirren AND Quvénzahne! way too many viable candidates for just a couple of open spots, and the Academy has never been too sure of what to do with child actors.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:57AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 And yet, Best Actress is weak, right? I feel like the work this year has been strong, and at last 9-10 deep if not more ( as far as contenders).

      December 12, 2012 at 12:08PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw Quvenzhané Wallis (as well as Dwight Henry) wasn't eligible for a SAG nomination because she wasn't paid as a SAG actress, to put it simply. She's lead all the way in terms of Oscar, but I still doubt she'll get in.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:39PM EST
    • Poo_talkback_profile

      Andrej Yeah, but in the end it's the Academy voters who decide whether Quvenzhané is leading or supporting, unlike at the Globes or the SAGs, in which the studios submit actors individually for their respective category; and with this category in such a flux with this many contenders, I wonder if she'll be safer by pulling a Helen Hunt and aiming for a Supporting Actress nod instead.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:05PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CaptainCanada They've been campaigning her as a lead. And while category fraud is expected, I think suggesting she'd not a lead there would be a bridge too far even for the Oscars (with Steinfeld there was at least an older male movie star sharing the screen with her).

      December 12, 2012 at 2:39PM EST
    • Poo_talkback_profile

      Andrej But there's been talks of Quvenzhané's performance is more of a directorial acheivement rather than something unique of her, so they may feel a best supporting nod could be more appropiate for her.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:56PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CaptainCanada That's a logical leap I do not see people making. Why would the director's involvement turn a lead role into a supporting one?

      December 12, 2012 at 3:10PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw Exactly.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:14PM EST
    • Poo_talkback_profile

      Andrej Because she's a six year old, and how could possibly she got such a presence on screen without a exceptionally strong guidance and support from the cast and crew, which would be unlike her would-be fellow nominees in leading categories, who are all long-time professionals.

      Besides, studio campaigns often turn leading roles into supporting ones, especially if they're children, so why wouldn't something similar happen for Quvenzhané at this point? The point they're making is a fairly valid one, though I agree with you, she should be a lead actress nominee as the movie places.

      December 12, 2012 at 6:01PM EST
    • Poo_talkback_profile

      Andrej ... as the movie narratively places her as such.

      (forgot this last bit. oops).

      December 12, 2012 at 6:02PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge This is silly. Quvenzhane Wallis is an inarguable lead being campaigned for Best Actress, and that is where voters will consider her. End of. Her ineligibility at the SAG Awards is a non-factor.

      Also, on the rare occasions that the Oscar nominations overrule campaign categorisations, it's generally to correct the studios' iffy placement, not the reverse -- see Kate Winslet in "The Reader" or Keisha Castle-Hughes in "Whale Rider." Voters don't tend to demote actors to supporting, and they certainly would see no logic to doing so in Wallis's case.

      December 12, 2012 at 9:16PM EST
    • Poo_talkback_profile

      Andrej Yeah, it's a silly, overcomplicated situation. But if anything, there's Haing S. Ngor, who won awards for lead and supporting alike. I don't know how his campaign was handled, though, so I can't say if it's something attributable to his non-pro status and the voters's perception of it.

      December 12, 2012 at 10:57PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Gautam

    Kris, just for information, are all SAG members AMPAS member too ? What's the overlap ?

    December 12, 2012 at 12:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley No but all AMPAS acting branch members are presumably SAG members.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:43PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley Also, it's not the whole of SAG that nominates here. Just a smaller nominating committee.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:43PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Gautam

    Kris, just for information, are all SAG members AMPAS member too ? What's the overlap ?

    December 12, 2012 at 12:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      LAE There are like a hundred thousand SAG members. I believe there are around 2K actors in the AMPAS.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:24PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Squasher88 I would think of it the other way round. All AMPAS members in the acting branch are probably SAG members too. That's where they overlap.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:37PM EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher Tapley Ah, covered.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:44PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Rick

    Can we talk about the fact that with regard to Zero Dark Thirty, no film has ever won BP without a SAG ensemble nom? Don't know what to make of this.

    December 12, 2012 at 12:10PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Rick Edit: except for Braveheart.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:23PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Liz Not true. Braveheart won the Oscar without a SAG nomination.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:28PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Liz Beat me to it.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:28PM EST
    • Stats like this are somewhat meaningless since the SAG Awards have existed for less than 20 years.

      December 12, 2012 at 12:46PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Rick Loyal: feel free to place as little weight as you want on this, but to say it's "meaningless" when it has happened 17 out of 18 times is a bit off the mark, I think.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:02PM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS Like I said before, I don't think it matters, I don't think it was, is or ever will be the frontrunner. I'd argue that both "Lincoln" and "Les Mis" are still ahead, as they have more appeal for the Academy. I'd even suggest that "Silver Linings" could become the third option, if it does well when it expands.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:49PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    brace

    About Riva snub - maybe Hollywood dares to embrace only one French actress: SAG Cotillard and Academy Riva this time.Though I'd wish to see both over Mirren.

    December 12, 2012 at 12:19PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ashwin Pinto

    When was the last time a film won the best picture Oscar without getting nominated for the Sag ensemble?

    That would be ‘Braveheart’ in 1995 in the Sag Awards’ first year. That is the only time it has happened. Even ‘The Hurt Locker’ got an ensemble nomination. Where does this snub leave ‘Zero Dark Thirty’?

    December 12, 2012 at 1:02PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ashwin Pinto

    When was the last time a film won the best picture Oscar without getting nominated for the Sag ensemble?

    That would be ‘Braveheart’ in 1995 in the Sag Awards’ first year. That is the only time it has happened. Even ‘The Hurt Locker’ got an ensemble nomination. Where does this snub leave ‘Zero Dark Thirty’?

    December 12, 2012 at 1:03PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Logan Smith

    It's a sad trend that all the "supporting" acting noms are filled with big-name movie stars, not the true supporting players the category was created to recognize.

    December 12, 2012 at 1:08PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw The AMPAS category was created for that. The SAG Supporting category has always been star heavy. Hell, you can't even be nominated as part of the cast unless you have top billing.

      December 12, 2012 at 1:43PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Teegray That's actually a complaint that's been around since AT LEAST the '50s, when Charlton Heston publicly made an effort to keep big stars out of the category.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:12PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt Heston wanted to preserve the star system where only "leading actors" could receive wins in the top categories.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:27PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Joe S. What /3RT said. I think part of what you might be objecting to, Logan, is not so much that the focus of the category has shifted, but that the overall studio system itself has changed. In the days when the category was created, there was a pretty clear line between A-list stars who got lead parts and supporting actors who didn't. Big movie stars simply weren't appearing in supporting roles. Nowadays, however, big stars like Anne Hathaway or Nicole Kidman or Philip Seymour Hoffman are much more willing to take supporting roles, and do so with much more frequency. So it's not that the supporting acting categories have stopped honoring supporting actors; it's that the definition of what a supporting actor is or can be has changed.

      Which isn't to say, of course, that supporting actor categories nowadays don't have an unfortunate tendency to gravitate towards stars giving quasi-lead performances. It would be great if the categories recognized smaller character actors with the frequency they used to. But the entire landscape of which actors get which roles is much different.

      December 12, 2012 at 3:18PM EST
  • Yeah-yeah-yeahs_f8p9_talkback_profile

    LaHaine

    If history taught us anything, its that a movie won't be winning best picture at the Oscar if it doesn't have a best ensemble nomination here. So that eliminates Zero Dark Thirty. Best Picture Contenders:
    1. Argo (I'm still nervously keeping it at the top for now)
    2. Lincoln (This just might be our winner)
    3. Les Miserable (The reviews seem a bit too mixed, but hey... who knows)
    4. Silver Linings Playbook (it seems wonderful, but it might be a bit too light and for a best picture win)

    December 12, 2012 at 1:12PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Pic_talkback_profile

    forg

    I was hoping for a Demian Bichir "out of nowhere" nod but I guess Nicole Kidman's nod is the equivalent this year.

    December 12, 2012 at 1:35PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt Ann Dowd would've been Bichir because she's an unknown in a little scene film getting major recognition by the nomination alone.

      December 12, 2012 at 2:29PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Guesto

    They really could have included more actors in Lincoln's ensemble nomination. It feels like a great ensemble because there are literally dozens of actors delivering fantastic work.

    December 12, 2012 at 2:05PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Holy Votors

    If Supporting Actor stays the same or Crowe or Waltz get in at the Oscars, we'd have our first ever Tournament of Champions category with all former winners. This might be interesting because none of them would be "overdue" for an Oscar so they might have to base their vote on the best performance. And if it ends up being four former winners and one who hasn't like Leo, then the one whose never won might win based purely on that fact.

    December 12, 2012 at 3:38PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jasper

    Does anyone think this hurts Matthew McConaughey? I was thinking SAG would nominate him for sure.

    December 12, 2012 at 3:49PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chris138 Yeah, I think it does. I've said lately that he might get the same treatment Albert Brooks did last year for Drive. He could very well get a Golden Globe nod tomorrow but I don't think he's a lock for a supporting nod at all. It's too bad, I was hoping his chances would be better but we'll have to wait and see.

      December 12, 2012 at 7:26PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    CaptainCanada

    http://www.sagaftra.org/nominations-announced-19th-annual-screen-actors-guild-awards

    SAG Ensemble Award comprehensiveness evaluation:

    Argo (A) - has pretty much everyone you'd expect to be here (Affleck, Goodman, Arkin, Cranston, Garber, the hostages). In a perfect world add Sheila Vand (Sahar, the Taylors' housekeeper), who has a pivotal bit in the film.

    The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (A-) - all the big names. Key absences being the two Indian actresses playing Sonny's mother and girlfriend, the kind of billing-related absences you'd expect from how this works.

    Les Miserables (A) - drink for the other Friends of the ABC, but otherwise you've got all the important roles covered.

    Lincoln (F) - every year there's at least one ensemble film that exposes the painful shortcomings of how actors are chosen for inclusion on these nomination lists, and this year that's "Lincoln", whose behemoth ensemble is cut down to only Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Hal Holbrook, James Spader, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. In a film with a screenplay noted for its terrific use of actors for one- or two-scene roles, this is utterly inadequate. By what logic is Spader included, but not John Hawkes or Tim Blake Nelson, the other thirds of the trio? Gloria Reuben? Lee Pace and Peter McRobbie? Jared Harris?

    "Silver Linings Playbook" (?) - haven't seen this one yet, so I can't grade it. I notice the cast includes Julia Stiles, who isn't listed. Someone else care to offer an opinion on this one?

    December 12, 2012 at 3:50PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Paul Outlaw John Ortiz, Julia Stiles, Shea Wigham and Dash Mihok should all be on the Silver Linings cast list.

      December 12, 2012 at 5:10PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Mike in Canada Yep... SLP is a C at best for missing those four, plus Paul Herman.

      December 13, 2012 at 1:33AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Steve G

    With BEASTS' ineligibility announced quite early, looks like Fox Searchlight pushed hard for recognition for some of the other ponies in their stable: HITCHCOCK and MARIGOLD HOTEL.

    I suspect BEASTS will still score with AMPAS in Actress and maybe Picture, and that Mirren and Maggie Smith are vulnerable and MARIGOLD is still only an outside Picture possibility.

    December 12, 2012 at 11:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    dmknyc

    Is the Academy still using the same voting rules as last year, whereas it only takes a small number of passionate people to push a film into a Best Picture nom? (Extremely Loud...) If this is the case, why aren't Moonrise & The Master talked about more as best Pic nominees, or do you think they truly don't have enough support?

    January 4, 2013 at 2:57PM EST Reply to Comment
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
UPDATED: FEB 25, 2013

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

News From Our Partners