Hitchcock doesn't have much worse reviews than Iron Lady and they gave Streep A WIN for that. I think they'll be fine nominating a British acting legend for playing a British legend period regardless of reviews.Originally Posted by Moviefreak
Hitchcock doesn't have much worse reviews than Iron Lady and they gave Streep A WIN for that. I think they'll be fine nominating a British acting legend for playing a British legend period regardless of reviews.
Yeah, but Streep also won the Oscar so it's not the same thing. I just feel like Hopkins might not happen anywhere. I'm considering removing from my GG nominations too. I don't even think Mirren is getting a BAFTA nomination.
I read this really interesting article from the Guardian that shed light on the reasons why The Master was snubbed by the SAGS. The author suggests that Phoenix’s past comments may have played a part in his snub, but that it’s highly unlikely. Amy Adams, who is beloved by the Guild, was not nominated either. That in itself speaks more to how the film was generally received than Joaquin Phoenix’s comments.
The author also suggests that the reason Joaquin Phoenix may have been snubbed was because the actors were uncomfortable with the performance – that it bordered on being “exploitative” in its possible depiction of a real damaged person. According to the author, Phoenix’s performance is the kind that makes people wonder “how much of this is acting and how much is he going through a breakdown?”
I think that’s a really interesting way of looking at it. The argument may not hold any weight (after all, they probably just hated the film) but it does make you wonder how they consider the nominations.
The author goes on to state that there’s a good chance Phoenix (and Adams) will receive Oscar nominations since, with ballots being mailed in less than a week, actors will feel compelled to stand up for his performance even more.
We’ll see what happens. I hope Phoenix gets nominated but you never know… You can find the article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...nix?CMP=twt_fd
In any case, he should be nominated tomorrow and that will make me happy
I was reading the comment thread on Incontention and apparently a lot of actors find Phoenix's performance "too indulgent"
Weird how the category with the fewest feasible contenders is the one with a realistic chance at 2 first-timers.
Ang Lee - The only 2x Bafta/DGA/Oscar-Winning Director!
Meryl on Oscars: Y’see these little babies? These are my best f***ing friends
and they never let me down. Try to get ‘em away from me and I’ll eat you alive.
Joaquin missing SAG is not surprising. They are the most vanilla of the precursors.
Vanilla? They nominated Nicole Kidman!
Vanilla with lemon then?
Yeah, but she's Nicole Kidman. In the worst category. They're like desperate for stuff to nominate in Supp. Actress.
The role and film make it weird, but it's Nicole Kidman on the other hand, so it's hard to say.
Also I promised myself that every time I made a post about supporting actress I would promote Emily Blunt. So...remember to vote Emily Blunt, Best Supporting Actress, Looper, at the INOCAs.
An argument can be made for Hoffman deserving accolade in 67 and 69. However, there were strong competition and more deserving winners. Hanks's 1st win was definitely unworthy. Hopkins and DDL were both superior in not only one but two performances. A case can be made for Hanks in 2000 but Crowe was due and could have won the year earlier for the best performance among the nominees.
I think a better case might be made for Brando and Nicholson. Even if we ignore Streetcar, Brando really gave the best male performance in 73 in Last Tango in Paris. I guess that the unlikable chanracter plus the drama at the Oscar in 72 prevented him from winning. Nicholson deserved a win in 74 for Chinatown (even over Pacino in Godfather 2) but that was partially cancelled out by his unworthy win in 97.
For DDL, at least all his wins are in years when he clearly gave the best performance among the nominees and was the consensus of best actor among the critics circle. He literally earned all his wins.
The Phoenix SAG snub reminded me of the Emily Watson snub in 96 for "Breaking the waves". Difficult roles that potentially polarized voters. Watson should have won in 96 in a sweep. Phonexi should finish as a runner up.
Watson didn’t polarize anything. Everyone who saw her, raved her. It was a problem of there not being many more precursors than her LAFCA win back then to put her on the map. It still was a Danish obscure film. You can't compare an underseen Danish obscure film to one of the most hyped American films of the year.
She won best actress from NY and NSFC outright and won the New Generation Award from LA. And she was the BUZZ from New York Film Festival.
So she was like Emmanuelle Riva or Liv Ullman in her first snub. Not Phoenix.
She got critics awards + Globe. So is Phoenix. Both were snubbed by the SAG.
Riva missed both SAG and Globe.
Posting Permissions
