The Annual SAG Awards - General Discussion

[MicheleinPhilly]

26 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

@NUguy514 Thank you SO much for your insights on your SAG Awards ballot. Each year prior to the Oscars, I read several of the ballots of AMPAS members from the various branches, that are published in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter  and I'm always left wanting more info on their thought process. Your in-depth analysis gave me everything I needed. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I found it fascinating. 

I used to love reading those anonymous ballots. But then I read far too many that just came across as petty and bitter so I stopped. 

Hey @NUguy514even if you're not a member of a particular guild or organization, can you do this for all award shows? Please and thank you. 😊

[sugarbaker design]

59 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

If I had a vote, I probably would have gone the same way as you, except I would vote for Kerry Condon is the supporting actress category. I've watched the nominees' movies except for The Whale (will watch soon), and while Angela was the initial frontrunner for me, and I liked both ladies in EEAAO (who knew an IRS auditor can be a pretty compelling movie character!), I was really floored by Kerry's performance, which I just watched last week. She grounded all of those guys who were behaving immaturely around her. And I know Barry gets a lot of love for that "rejection" scene by the lake, but Kerry's "Oh Dominic, no, I don't think so love..." also tugs at the heartstrings the same way, sincere, truthful, but not condescending. 

Totally agree about Kerry Condon, she was the lone light in a dark movie.  I'm hoping for a feckin' upset!

[MerBearHou]

11 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

The one true stinker here is The Fabelmans, an overlong, boring mess of a film with an obnoxiously on-the-nose title. Aside from Gabriel LaBelle as the teenage Spielberg avatar, I thought the acting was pretty dreadful by all.

I am in almost total agreement with this -- what an overrated film, totally because of the Spielberg name.  Michelle Williams was godawful; I too thought Gabriel was excellent but I also thought Paul Dano did a good job with the material and role.  "Overlong, boring mess" are perfect descriptions of The Fabelmans.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by MerBearHou

[Zella]

Jamie Lee Curtis has also said the only fatherly advice her dad ever gave her was "Never let them shoot you with anything less than a 50."

[shantown]

I'm amazed how fast these were! Aside from the Steve Martin/Martin Short skit and the montage of nominees at the beginning, there weren't any other bits that I remember. I guess the montages in place of commercial breaks of past winners and moments, but I kind of enjoyed those as a bit of history. But these really zipped along - I think they were only a bit over two hours, instead of the 3+ most award shows go. I found myself not even minding the presenter banter, since it was really the only "down time" during the show.

[slowpoked]

The good thing about it being on YT and Netflix is you can easily go back to it, to rewatch your favorite moments, and look at little things here and there that you may not have noticed during the live telecast because you're busy looking at something else.

And so two things stood out to  me - when White Lotus won ensemble and got up on stage, most of the ladies started tugging at their dresses, afraid of some wardrobe malfunction happening. I was actually afraid for Aubrey there for a second, because the way she was tugging at her teeny boob covers, she might accidentally reveal instead of covering up.

Another is Danielle Deadwyler had a bitch face going for the entire two hours. I mean, I can understand  her disappointment at not making the Oscars, but she's an actor, pretend to be happy for your peers. These little things are always remembered down the road, and while she's rightly disappointed, goodwill among your fellow actors still go a long way. I would think both Ana and Viola know they didn't have a feckin' shot at winning last night, but at least they were genuinely (or at least looked to be) happy and excited for Michelle's win.

[truthaboutluv]

20 hours ago, slowpoked said:

And even Best Picture also seems to be up in the air, and even though EEAAO has the momentum now, it doesn't feel as if it is a foregone conclusion winner at this point, like Titanic was.

The days of Titanic like award season dominance are fairly long gone, in my opinion. But I would say Everything Everywhere is as close to a lock for Best Picture as any film has been in awhile. 

Many pundits were focused on PGA, because PGA uses the same preferential ballot that the Oscars do, to see if there was any potential threat to an Everything Everywhere eventual Best Picture win and there wasn't. Many thought if Top Gun had any chance of asserting itself it would be there and it didn't happen. 

We have seen close Best Picture races in the past - I believe Gravity and 12 Years a Slave tied at PGA. So there really was no consensus on which one would win the Oscar. And there have been many two-way races that typically by Oscar night is cleared up - The Power of the Dog versus Coda last year for example.

And Coda too won PGA. The last time a PGA winner didn't win Best Picture was 1917 that lost the Oscar to Parasite. But again, Parasite didn't just randomly pop up out of nowhere on Oscar night and it did win Ensemble at SAG. This year there is no clear second to Everything Everywhere, which is what makes its win all but a sure thing. 

I mean what's the other potential winner -  Banshees? Banshees didn't even win Best Film at BAFTA where they were clearly in love with it. They obviously loved All Quiet more, which yes, is nominated for the Oscar but that's unlikely to happen unless there is some crazy and intense love for it by Academy voters that's so far not been obvious.

Granted, Best Picture is a preferential ballot, so a film just needs to be solidly top 3 across everyone's ballot to win but I think that more than likely sums up Everything Everywhere. The consensus seems to be many loved or at least liked the film. 

 

20 hours ago, slowpoked said:

The suspense from genuinely not knowing who the winners will be until announced, because the precursors have been all over the place (in a good way), should help Oscars viewership and interest. 

Doubt it. Because it still comes down to people even caring who wins and two, caring about any of these films and nominees.

And the biggest problem the Oscars has had for years, is many average moviegoers who don't see or didn't like or care about most of the top nominated films. 

Well that and with the million viewing options available, the Oscars is no longer this "event" it once was as in the days when people only had cable. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[aradia22]

Quote

It's kind of shocking that they chose Mark Wahlberg to present an award that was very likely go to to a majority Asian film.

For those not aware, as a teenager, he brutally attacked two Vietnamese men specifically for their race.

It's picking up attention now.

[ProudMary]

3 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

I mean what's the other potential winner -  Banshees? Banshees didn't even win Best Film at BAFTA where they were clearly in love with it. They obviously loved All Quiet more, which yes, is nominated for the Oscar but that's unlikely to happen unless there is some crazy and intense love for it by Academy voters that's so far not been obvious.

I'm in complete agreement with your entire post. 👏

As to which other film could possibly win Best Picture at the Oscars over EEAAO, my opinion is that All Quiet On the Western Front is the only potential competitor and I don't really see it happening. I do think AQOTWF will win at least a couple of the below the line awards and almost certainly, it will win Best International Feature. It's definitely not going home empty-handed.

I believe that Banshees may be shut out completely. I would say that Martin McDonagh could possibly get a win from the Academy over the Daniels for Original Screenplay, but even that's a longshot in that the Writers Guild didn't even give him a nomination. The WGAs are this weekend. If EEAAO does not win there, it might be an indication that one of the other Oscar nominees could take the prize here, and it would be the category where Academy members could award McDonagh for a film they appreciated.

Just my opinion.

 

[truthaboutluv]

3 hours ago, ProudMary said:

I do think AQOTWF will win at least a couple of the below the line awards and almost certainly, it will win Best International Feature. It's definitely not going home empty-handed.

Oh for sure. All Quiet is a lock for Best International and the heavy favorite in Cinematography. There's even the very real possibility of its winning Sound. However many believe that Top Gun is still the favorite there, with All Quiet maybe a strong second. So yes, they're certainly not going home empty handed. 

On the flipside, yes sadly, Banshees may be looking at The Favorite type situation where were it not for Olivia Colman's surprise win, would have been 0/10 that night. I still think with the Supporting Actress so up in the air, Kerry Condon has a very strong chance of winning Supporting Actress. 

The Supporting categories in particular is where we've seen many winners who maybe only won one major award or hell sometimes nothing (hello Marcia Gay Harden) in the lead-up to the Oscars. So Condon's definitely in the mix. I'm also still holding out hope for Original Screenplay.

Yes, I know they weren't nominated for WGA, but WGA has done some wonky shit in the past that didn't repeat at the Oscars. The most recent example I can think of is when Eighth Grade won Original Screenplay at WGA and wasn't even nominated for the Oscars and Can You Ever Forgive Me? won Adapted Screenplay at WGA and BlacKKKlansman won the Oscar. 

eta: So here's a crazy stat I just recently learned. Many often talk about SAG being super important as an indicator because it's actors voting for actors and the Acting branch is the largest branch of the Academy. Very true. 

However, SAG voters total something like 130,000 versus the Acting branch of the Academy, which is like 1,300 total. That means there's A WHOLE LOT of SAG voters who aren't members of the Academy.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. Someone can earn their SAG card for a small walk on role on a television show and that automatically makes them a SAG voter. Not the case for becoming a member of the Academy.

Edited February 28, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[ProudMary]

@truthaboutluv I'm going to quote and respond to your post over in the Academy Awards thread because my response is more about the Oscars than the SAG Awards.

 

[NUguy514]

5 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

eta: So here's a crazy stat I just recently learned. Many often talk about SAG being super important as an indicator because it's actors voting for actors and the Acting branch is the largest branch of the Academy. Very true. 

However, SAG voters total something like 130,000 versus the Acting branch of the Academy, which is like 1,300 total. That means there's A WHOLE LOT of SAG voters who aren't members of the Academy.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. Someone can earn their SAG card for a small walk on role on a television show and that automatically makes them a SAG voter. Not the case for becoming a member of the Academy.

This is exactly right.  I got my SAG card through extra work.  I will say, though, that my anecdotal evidence tells me that the percent of SAG members who actually vote for the awards is small.  Of the people I know in SAG (who run the gamut from complete unknowns like me to very recognizable people), I'm the only one I know who votes (and, as you can see, I think about it wayyyyyy too much!).  Now, do I know all 130,000~ active members?  No, obviously, but I'd honestly be surprised if even 10% of them vote.

As it relates to the SAG Awards being a predictor for the Oscars, there is a wrinkle this year: the Oscars are only two weeks after the SAG Awards, when there is usually about a month between them, and voting for the Oscars opens this Thursday and ends a week from today.  SAG momentum might play a bigger role than usual since the SAG wins will be much fresher in the minds of Oscar voters and might influence their votes more than usual.  That also might be completely not a thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see all four SAG winners win Oscars.

[slowpoked]

9 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

This is exactly right.  I got my SAG card through extra work.  I will say, though, that my anecdotal evidence tells me that the percent of SAG members who actually vote for the awards is small.  Of the people I know in SAG (who run the gamut from complete unknowns like me to very recognizable people), I'm the only one I know who votes (and, as you can see, I think about it wayyyyyy too much!).  Now, do I know all 130,000~ active members?  No, obviously, but I'd honestly be surprised if even 10% of them vote.

Nonetheless, I love reading your insights, @NUguy514, and I appreciate the amount of effort you put into it.

9 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

As it relates to the SAG Awards being a predictor for the Oscars, there is a wrinkle this year: the Oscars are only two weeks after the SAG Awards, when there is usually about a month between them, and voting for the Oscars opens this Thursday and ends a week from today.  SAG momentum might play a bigger role than usual since the SAG wins will be much fresher in the minds of Oscar voters and might influence their votes more than usual.  That also might be completely not a thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see all four SAG winners win Oscars.

This is a good point. Doesn't SAG usually happen in mid to late January? It's usually the next big event after the Globes or CCs. From what I remember the last few years, it's BAFTA that's the last event before the Oscars, and I vaguely remember some nominees in the past skip BAFTA because of the jetlag, and they'd rather stay fresh for the Oscars if it's only a week away.

Edited March 1, 2023 by slowpoked

[truthaboutluv]

8 hours ago, slowpoked said:

This is a good point. Doesn't SAG usually happen in mid to late January?

Yes, SAG Awards for a long time took place late January, maybe the first week of February. Last year though, they took place the same night as BAFTA and this year, after. I don't know if it's the pandemic somehow still wreaking havoc with schedules, though I can't see why or if they've just decided they prefer it later and this will become the trend moving forward. 

 

10 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

SAG momentum might play a bigger role than usual since the SAG wins will be much fresher in the minds of Oscar voters and might influence their votes more than usual.  That also might be completely not a thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see all four SAG winners win Oscars.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting SAG is not a strong predictor of the Oscars. The stats and history speak for itself. As I've said, despite 1917 winning PGA, which should have been the sure thing for its winning Best Picture, my gut said Parasite would win largely based on the reaction to the cast at SAG that year. You could just tell that there was an energy shift and an excitement about the film, the cast, etc. 

That's why I've said that sure, crazier things have happened, but the SAG ensemble win, coupled with the PGA win makes Everything Everywhere winning Best Picture a done deal at this point. In terms of the acting, we've seen years where categories weren't locked in, where the SAG winner predicted the eventual Oscar winner.

In fact that happened just last year with Jessica Chastain. There was no clear frontrunner for Best Actress last year. Certainly not when you compare it to the Best Actor category. BAFTA was a total WTF with their nominees for Best Actress that didn't align with the Oscars or SAG at all. Jessica Chastain only won Critics Choice and SAG and it was enough for her to win the Oscar. 

This year is significantly different and it's why I am hesitant to believe what happened at SAG is an indicator of what will happen at the Oscars, outside of Ke Huy Quan winning Supporting Actor. Supporting Actress is a wide-open field at this point and we've seen many instances where when that's the case the BAFTA winner prevails - think Mark Rylance winning over Sylvester Stallone, Tilda Swinton winning for Michael Clayton, etc. Which would suggest this may be Kerry Condon's to lose.

The Best Actress has been solidly Cate Blanchett this whole season. I actually was genuinely surprised the critics went for her over Michelle Yeoh. And so I'm just not ready to believe that the one SAG win will be enough to sway all that momentum away from Cate. Again, especially when we remember that the entire Academy votes on the eventual winner, which means all the various branches are voting. As I said before, it's giving me shades of Viola winning the SAG but Meryl still winning that third Oscar.

Best Actor is close between Brendan Fraser and Austin Butler. I did see someone say it'd be awesome if it's so close that they split votes and Colin Farrell ends up winning. Hey, many have said it's partly how Adrien Brody ended up winning over the heavy favorites Jack Nicolson and Daniel Day Lewis that year.

But if it is between Austin and Brendan, I cannot ignore the long history of the eventual Best Actor winner being in a Best Picture nominated film. And it's not just Elvis' being nominated for Best Picture. Its 8 nominations suggest that there was genuine appreciation of and love for the film by the Academy. And then there is the history of close races where the BAFTA winner ended up winning. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[slowpoked]

On 2/26/2023 at 11:18 PM, NUguy514 said:

Plus, the glimpses we get of all the other Evelyns are so distinct but also very clearly different versions of the same woman. It's a fabulous performance, and I'm overjoyed to see her finally get these nominations and awards she's deserved for so long.

Just want to give a special shoutout to his part of review of NUguy. This encapsulates exactly how I felt about watching MY when I watched the movie 2 times. It's amazing how she took on different "Evelyns" but the root core of it all is the Earth-world Evelyn, the unglamorous laundromat owner, wife and mother.

My favorite Evelyn by the way is movie star Evelyn. That was a fantastic gown Michelle wore and a fantastic sequence calling back In The Mood For Love (which coincidentally stars another great legendary Asian actress, Maggie Cheung).

My second favorite was martial arts expert Evelyn - another great callback to an early MY movie - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - which I still think to this day should have netted a Best Actress nomination for MY.

As for JLC, I think she won the SAG award due to the hotdog fingers. Anyone who can do and pull off hotdog fingers deserve an award and are on a league of their own.

Edited March 1, 2023 by slowpoked

[Avabelle]

Anyone watching tonight?

[ProudMary]

20 minutes ago, Avabelle said:

Anyone watching tonight?

👋

I'm watching the Red Carpet on the People YT feed right now. I'll be switching over to Netflix at 7 to see what their coverage is like.

Evidently, Netflix is also live streaming their Red Carpet coverage on their YouTube channel.

 

[NUguy514]

I watched.  Of the film winners, Randolph is the only one I voted for; her speech was also my favorite.  I didn't like Oppenheimer much, so all of those wins were annoying (but totally expected).  I will be really bummed if Lily Gladstone wins the Oscar (I wouldn't have even nominated her or anyone from that abominable film), but she does at least give good speeches; Emma Stone was robbed, but whatever.

[slowpoked]

On 2/24/2024 at 10:18 PM, NUguy514 said:

I watched.  Of the film winners, Randolph is the only one I voted for; her speech was also my favorite.  I didn't like Oppenheimer much, so all of those wins were annoying (but totally expected).  I will be really bummed if Lily Gladstone wins the Oscar (I wouldn't have even nominated her or anyone from that abominable film), but she does at least give good speeches; Emma Stone was robbed, but whatever.

Curious about your thoughts and votes @NUguy514, whenever you have time. 
 

It looks like we will have a predictable Oscars, although I still feel Actress is up for grabs. I was hoping for a Paul Giamatti win last night, but Cillian has it in the bag.

[NUguy514]

6 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Curious about your thoughts and votes @NUguy514, whenever you have time. 
 

It looks like we will have a predictable Oscars, although I still feel Actress is up for grabs. I was hoping for a Paul Giamatti win last night, but Cillian has it in the bag.

Of course, @slowpoked!  Here's the more than full breakdown of my film votes/thoughts this year:

OUTSTANDING CAST: American Fiction.  I loved American Fiction and thought the cast was stellar all the way around – not a bad apple in the bunch.  What I loved about this ensemble is that everyone brought something unique, a different energy, to the film, and the way these different approaches came together really elevated the film as a whole.  I did think about voting for Barbie, which I loved and whose cast I loved, and I think there's a very decent chance this cast will win.  Everyone was having a blast, but there were a few moments of real depth (mostly provided by Margot Robbie).  I didn't love Will Ferrell (to be fair, though, I've never loved – or even liked – him in anything), and that was enough to tip me to American Fiction since all of that film's actors were fabulous. Oppenheimer is not an acting achievement, and that's because Christopher Nolan is most interested in films that showcase Christopher Nolan.  The characters are a means to an end, and the last movie of his that I thought had multidimensional characters in it was The Dark Knight.  The characters in Oppenheimer are more of the same: ciphers that exist to allow Nolan to show off the technical prowess he loves.  I didn't hate the movie, but I thought it was trying to be three movies in one, which diluted everything.  Also, Nolan has no interest in telling stories about women: to wit, you could lift Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh right out of this film, and no one would notice.  I would actually say Josh Hartnett was my favorite, which kind of shocked me: he's become a total DILF, and he actually had this delightful enthusiasm, which absolutely no one else had.  And yet again, Rami Malek gives a horrible performance in his thirty seconds of screen time; no one else stood out as being terrible, though, so I guess that's something.  Similar to Nolan, Martin Scorsese is not interested in stories centered on women.  Actually, he's really only interested in telling stories about violent white men, and that just really didn't work for me in Killers of the Flower Moon.  The book actually centers on the investigator who uncovered the atrocities inflicted upon the Osage people, but of course Scorsese chose to center it on the monsters who committed these atrocities.  I found the movie offensive in that way; it would've been so much more interesting to see this film centered on the people (and the women, especially) who were the victims of these crimes.  I think because of how Scorsese framed the story, the acting suffered.  Leonardo DiCaprio is just completely miscast (he's way too old), Brendan Fraser has about two minutes of screen time in a 3.5-hour film and is horribly over the top, and Robert De Niro just doesn't register and feels out of place in this film.  Jesse Plemons and Lily Gladstone are good, but not amazing.  The Color Purple...OK, so, the 1985 film is one of my top five favorite movies of all time.  I LOOOOOOOOOVE it.  So, the 2023 version was starting at a deficit with me, and it's just such a cheap imitation.  It's an amalgam of the original film (a lot of dialogue was transposed verbatim from the original) and the musical (I'm not familiar with the musical, but I do know the movie excised thirteen songs from the musical) and seems hellbent on making everything feel lighter and more fantastical.  The end result is that the events of the movie seem to happen without any sense of time and without any real stakes because the depth of the story has just been completely flattened.  None of the actors particularly resonated with me, except for Corey Hawkins, whom I would watch in anything.  No one other than Hawkins is able to give much depth to their characters because the story has been thinned out so much.  Nowhere is this more apparent than at the end: the original film's ending is one of the most emotional of any film I've ever seen because the whole movie built to it so beautifully while this version's ending just kind of...happened and didn't really affect me because the rest of the movie felt like a series of vignettes without any emotional stakes.  For what it's worth, had Poor Things or The Holdovers been nominated, I would've voted for either of those casts.

1. American Fiction
.
2. Barbie
.
.
.
Whatever. The Color Purple
I Don't Care. Oppenheimer
Do You? Killers of the Flower Moon

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR: Paul Giamatti.  I am on record as finding Paul Giamatti a completely ridiculous actor who often says every line.  As if it's.  The MOST important.  Line.  Any actor.  Has EVER said.  It's so pretentious.  However, he was fucking wonderful in The Holdovers.  Seriously, this was the perfect role (a fucking classics teacher whose name is also Paul) for him because it not only tapped into that incredible pretension but also forced him to engage with these two other characters in very, for lack of a better word, human ways.  Paul the character really gave Paul the actor an opportunity to play these wonderful, funny, heartbreaking moments without having to try too hard; he could just be in the moment, and he really moved me so unexpectedly.  I loved him.  Jeffrey Wright is the only other nominee I loved.  One of my favorite qualities about Wright is how brilliant he is; his intelligence comes through in all of his characters, but Monk's whole thing is that he fancies himself to be so much smarter than everyone, which really allows Wright to play with so many facets.  He has a hard time connecting with anyone because he has this veneer of superiority that is really a defense mechanism, and even when he does connect, he can be so cruel.  His incredulity (bordering on rage) throughout the film when he has to play into the false narrative he's created is also really funny.  He's really wonderful.  I don't really have much to say about the other three here.  Cillian Murphy sort of stares blankly into space for three hours; again, that's more because Nolan isn't interested in Oppenheimer as a fully dimensional character, so it's not really Murphy's fault.  Still, he has nothing to work with.  I read this quote about Colman Domingo's performance in Rustin: Domingo gives a Tony-worthy performance.  Unfortunately, he gives it in a film.  Throughout Rustin, I kept wondering why Domingo kept acting to the third balcony.  When I saw that George C. Wolfe directed the film, it all made sense: that man absolutely CANNOT direct for the medium of film.  He is always directing his actors as if they're on stage, it's terrible, and Domingo suffered because of it.  Bradley Cooper had exactly one authentic moment in Maestro: after Bernstein lies to his daughter about his cheating (with men), Cooper has this moment where he lets the lie affect him.  And that's it.  Everything else is completely inauthentic and hammy, and I would say that one authentic moment is serendipitous because it's something I think Cooper himself has done.  A lot.  In general, though, he almost always plays at a character, rather than just reacting in the moment.  Also, fuck him for this awful vanity project that was such an obvious ploy for Oscar.

1. Paul Giamatti
2. Jeffrey Wright
.
.
.
3. Cillian Murphy
.
.
.
I would like to thank the American Theatre Wing. Colman Domingo
.
.
.
GIVE ME OSCARS. Bradley Cooper

OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS: Emma Stone.  There was no decision to be made here.  Poor Things is my favorite movie of the year.  It's hilarious and moving and gorgeous and imaginative and batshit crazy in the way I love, and the success of the film rests largely on Stone's shoulders.  When she won her Oscar for La La Land, Stone said she was going to take her Oscar as a symbol to keep growing and learning, and I love that those were not idle words.  She has challenged herself as an artist since that win, and she's found an incredibly symbiotic artistic partnership with Yorgos Lanthimos.  Bella is just an incredible character for an actor to play, but she could go horribly wrong with anything other than the perfect calibration of wonder, self-confidence, abandon, sense of play, and willingness to try anything.  Stone didn't just walk that line perfectly: she danced it.  It's an astonishing performance, and it is such a pleasure to watch her embrace the challenges that are helping her grow so much as an artist.  She's truly the preeminent actor of her generation.  Margot Robbie really has not gotten enough credit for her work in Barbie.  She has a wonderful sense of comedy and a great touch, and this is one role for which her otherworldly beauty is an asset.  However, she's SO much more than a gorgeous face.  She brings real depth and poignancy to Barbie, and she brought tears to my eyes a few times during the movie.  Ryan Gosling has the flashier role, but I think Robbie gives the deeper, more interesting and nuanced performance.  It's just a shame she hasn't received the recognition for it, although I sort of think she might win this award.  Annette Bening's performance in Nyad is very good.  The real Diana Nyad is, to be euphemistic, a bit of a pill, and I really appreciated that Bening fully embraced how unlikable Nyad is.  The physical aspect of her performance is also impressive, but I think the success of her performance hinged on her commitment to Nyad's unlikable traits because it explained her laser focus and the reason why these other characters were willing to go on this journey with her.  It's a fairly typical, middling movie (that elides the controversy of Nyad's achievement), but I enjoyed Bening in it.  Lily Gladstone is good in Killers of the Flower Moon given what little she has to work with.  Her character (a real woman) really exists in this film to be the avatar of the great suffering of the Osage people, and she doesn't have any dimension beyond that.  That's due, as I said above, to Scorsese's inability to tell or his disinterest in telling stories about women.  There is one brief exchange between Mollie and her mother in which Mollie references how her wild and reckless sister is their mother's favorite, and I wanted to know so much more about that, about these women and their relationships; THAT movie could've been incredible, but that's not the movie we got.  Instead, Gladstone gets to play suffering for almost the length of the film and to spend half of it sick in bed.  Also, she's a supporting character in this film.  I'd say that's also an issue for Carey Mulligan in Maestro.  Cooper makes the completely obnoxious move of giving Mulligan top billing, but make no mistake: this is Cooper's movie.  Mulligan is such a talented actor, but she has to say some truly awful lines of dialogue that no one could make work and to tie a character whose motivations are all over the place together.  I actually thought she was kind of bad in this, but that's not her fault as much as it's just how bad the movie is and Mulligan kind of goes down with the ship.  I'd have replaced Mulligan and probably Gladstone with Sandra Hüller and Greta Lee in a heartbeat, and I'd rank Natalie Portman higher, too.

In a galaxy far, far above. Emma Stone
.
.
.
2. Margot Robbie
.
.
.
3. Annette Bening
.
Suffering. Lily Gladstone
.
.
.
I'm sorry your gay husband is gay. Carey Mulligan

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR: Willem Dafoe.  I was really torn between Dafoe and Sterling K. Brown, but I ultimately went with Dafoe for a few reasons.  His character so easily could've been reduced to a one-note monster or caricature: Dr. Frankenstein.  However, he really does a wonderful job of giving Godwin this soft, sweet, paternal heart.  He has a moral code, and he really does want his creation to learn and to grow and to be safe and taken care of.  He also grounded some of the more surreal aspects of the film and his character with these very human qualities.  What tipped me toward Dafoe were that I could vote for Brown as part of the ensemble of his film and that Dafoe has never won a SAG Award before while Brown has four.  Brown, though, was an utter delight in his film.  He's this wonderful agent of chaos and brings this vital energy to the film at the precise points the story needs it.  I also loved how Brown played Clifford as a total mess who didn't give a shit that he was a total mess.  Also, not for nothing, in this movie, he is basically the hottest man I've ever seen, and when he talked about all the twinks he's fucking to make up for coming out late in life, I was like:

Ryan Gosling is great in Barbie.  He is completely in on the joke and leans into the ridiculousness of Ken at the beginning of the film, which makes his total embrace of the patriarchy later on really funny and incisive.  Robert Downey Jr., like the rest of the actors in Oppenheimer isn't given much of a character to play.  He is a wonderfully charismatic, improvisational actor, but I thought his film's complete lack of humor and its overly self-serious tone really boxed him in.  It gave him no space to do what he does so well, and so his performance as a one-note villain wasn't anything more than that; I don't even remember anything about his performance, and I watched the movie three weeks ago.  He's had all of these awards in the bag since his casting in the film was announced, but this specific performance has been, in my opinion, wildly overpraised and doesn't deserve them.  Robert De Niro is also just playing a one-note villain in Killers of the Flower Moon: he pretends to be a friend and an advocate of the Osage, but he's really trying to kill and steal everything he can from them!  I suppose that could've been interesting to watch, but it's not in this movie because De Niro's performance is just so listless.  I would've nominated Mark Ruffalo (who'd have been my winner) and Dominic Sessa over Downey and De Niro; Charles Melton, whose performance I also thought was overpraised, would've been more deserving than these two as well.

1. Willem Dafoe
DILF. Sterling K. Brown
.
I can feel the Kenergy. Ryan Gosling
.
.
.
You won't be the worst winner ever. Robert Downey Jr.
You were at least better than Leo, I guess. Robert De Niro

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Da'Vine Joy Randolph.  Randolph's work in The Holdovers is beautiful.  It's not flashy, but it feels very real.  She never loses this vague whisper of grief Mary always carries, nor does she dwell on it and let it be the only thing about Mary.  She has this wonderful rapport with both Giamatti and Sessa, and she is funny and heartbreaking in ways that she always, always grounds in something human and real.  I feel like I've met Mary, and that's because Randolph makes such subtle, specific choices at every turn.  Jodie Foster is wonderful in Nyad.  Like Randolph, Foster grounds Bonnie with choices that feel effortless and real.  She also feels like someone I've met.  I went with Randolph because I think there's more to her performance than there is to Foster's (which is really because Randolph's script gives her so much more to work with), but Foster is so wonderful.  It's awesome to see her back and to remember why she already has two Oscars.  Penélope Cruz really tries in Ferrari.  She really does.  There is nothing to her character other than spurned wife, and she's acting opposite a completely miscast Adam Driver; because she's such a good actor, she does find a few really interesting moments, but her spot is just a placeholder because this category is really pretty weak aside from the top two.  Danielle Brooks really, really, really suffers from the comparison to Oprah as the OG Sofia.  Oprah was able to run the gamut because that version of this story gave her and the other actors space to deepen their characters.  Brooks' version of this story does not.  Everything seemingly happens so quickly that there is no sense of how the weight of time is its own form of oppression and torture.  Danielle Brooks, like the rest of the actors, is also directed to be big and broad in a way that sacrifices emotion.  I was actually really surprised by how little I was moved by her performance because Sofia's plight just seemed kind of incidental and short-lived and Brooks wasn't able to overcome that with the more theatrical performance she gave (or was directed to give).  I honestly would not notice if I watched Oppenheimer a second time and Emily Blunt were cut out of it altogether.  Her performance does not register in the slightest bit because, as I said, Nolan doesn't care about female characters, and Kitty does not matter in the slightest to bit to the story.  Blunt is a good actor, but she has absolutely nothing to do here.  This is the very definition of a coattail nomination.

1. Da'Vine Joy Randolph
2. Jodie Foster
.
.
.
3. Penélope Cruz
.
Oprah was robbed. Danielle Brooks
Wait, she was in Oppenheimer? Emily Blunt

[slowpoked]

Thanks for indulging me @NUguy514.

I agree with you on Nolan, and to a lesser extent, Scorsese, on not knowing how to write or use female characters. The last consequential female character of Nolan that I can remember was Anne Hathaway as Selena/Catwoman. Or maybe Marion Cottilard. I remember thinking Scorsese wasting Vera Farmiga in The Departed. It’s a travesty because directors of their caliber can get the best actresses they want (Blunt, Farmiga, Pugh, etc.), and yet they end up wasted.

It’s funny how you describe Paul Giamatti because that’s how I see him in Billions, but I will forever love him in Sideways. I do think Davine was the weakest link in The Holdovers, but Supporting Actress feels to me the weakest category overall. I love Emily and I’m happy she finally got an Oscar nomination, but I think she had much more to do in a meatier role in the otherwise awful Pain Hustlers than in Oppenheimer. I would have loved for Rosamund Pike to sneak in there for Saltburn, but I know the film itself was quite polarizing and didn’t really gain much traction.

I’m glad you mentioned Greta Lee - one of my favorite performances in one of my most favorite movies of the year (it was actually a masterclass between all 3 of them). But as much as I would like to think that Actress is still competitive (Sandra can sneak a win with the international votes factoring in), Lily has the Oscar narrative down. I liked Emma’s performance in Poor Things very much, it’s a highly unusual role in very physical performance, and I’ve always said it’s damn time we reward more comedic performances, but I can already read the Monday morning QB’ing about how after the Oscars seem to be finally moving “forward,” with MY’s win last year, it’s now two steps backward with a white woman winning over a Native American. 

[NUguy514]

6 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I can already read the Monday morning QB’ing about how after the Oscars seem to be finally moving “forward,” with MY’s win last year, it’s now two steps backward with a white woman winning over a Native American. 

I've yet to hear anyone say they want Gladstone to win for the quality of her performance alone (to be fair, though, almost no actor wins an Oscar for the performance alone – take all four of last year's acting winners, for example).  If they do mention her performance, it's always after mentioning how historic her win would be, which feels like trying to justify it.  Don't get me wrong: she's good in the role.  She's just nowhere near as impressive (to me) as Emma Stone, Sandra Hüller, Greta Lee, Margot Robbie, Natalie Portman, or even Annette Bening, and she's not a lead in the film.  I won't be super annoyed if Stone doesn't win because she does have an Oscar, but I also don't think that should be justification for not voting for her.  I doubt Academy members think even 1% as much about these things as I do, though, so chances are whoever wins will win because voters just check boxes on their ballots based on their own personal caprices.

I had such an amazing Oscars outcome last year (giant EEAaO fan here, and I LOOOOOVED the sweep) that the karmic Oscar scales will inevitably be balanced.