Make Your Picks

SAG Awards 2021

Tools    





After this weird pandemic year, tonight are the 27th annual Screen Actors Guild Awards, broadcast on TNT here is the United States. A shortened, one-hour ceremony airs live at 9:00pm EST.

The nominees in the feature film categories...

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
Da 5 Bloods
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Minari
One Night in Miami...
The Trial of the Chicago 7


Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role
Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal
Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Anthony Hopkins, The Father
Gary Oldman, Mank
Steven Yeun, Minari


Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role
Amy Adams, Hillbilly Elegy
Viola Davis, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman
Frances McDormand, Nomadland
Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman


Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
Chadwick Boseman, Da 5 Bloods
Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7
Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah
Jared Leto, The Little Things
Leslie Odom Jr., One Night in Miami...


Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role
Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy
Olivia Colman, The Father
Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari
Helena Zengel, News of the World


Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture
Da 5 Bloods
Mulan
News of the World
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Wonder Woman 1984


__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



My predictions:
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Chadwick Boseman
Carey Mulligan
Daniel Kaluuya
Maria Bakalova
Wonder Woman 1984



For those who didn't watch, the winners were

ENSEMBLE: The Trial of the Chicago 7
LEAD ACTOR: Chadwick Boseman
LEAD ACTRESS: Viola Davis
SUPPORTING ACTOR: Daniel Kaluuya
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Yuh-Jung Youn
STUNTS ENSEMBLE: Wonder Woman 1984

Winners accepted via teleconference.




As a predictor for Best Picture, SAG's Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture is not an especially useful corollary. In the twenty-five years since they started handing out this trophy SAG's Cast and the Academy's Best Picture have only matched twelve times, and never more than two matches in a row. They only matched in two of the past five (Parasite and Spotlight).



For those who didn't watch, the winners were

ENSEMBLE: The Trial of the Chicago 7
LEAD ACTOR: Chadwick Boseman
LEAD ACTRESS: Viola Davis
SUPPORTING ACTOR: Daniel Kaluuya
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Yuh-Jung Youn
STUNTS ENSEMBLE: Wonder Woman 1984

Winners accepted via teleconference.

All these winners could be very worthy...but this is what happens when these award shows got so politicize. I don't trust them anymore. I probably shouldn't have trusted them before but gave the illusion it was merit based. Feel like they just won to fit a diversity quota to appease twitter. And that's a shame I shouldn't feel that way because those people are talented.

Obviously Boseman was going win. If he doesn't win the Oscar I'd be dumbfounded. (haven't seen the role just it's predictable) I thought he should have been showered with awards and nominations for his James Brown portrayal, the movie was forgettable but he was unreal as Brown. Got so much respect for that dude for keeping that illness to himself and still working. So glad to see him get his due even if he isn't here with us.
__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)



Welcome to the human race...
I mean, they've always been at least somewhat politicised - such is the nature of art, really (especially the kind that draws critical acclaim and awards attention). That's what makes up a good chunk of jokes about Oscar bait, that they deal in subjects of overt political importance as a means of seeming "important" without really earning that importance through actual craftsmanship - just because they're acknowledging more works by/about minority groups than they used to doesn't really seem to make it more or less different to what they've always done, but at least it's sort of a change away from the more homogeneous work they lauded before. Still, at least you acknowledge that there's only so much you can judge these films without having seen them, I suppose.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



All these winners could be very worthy...but this is what happens when these award shows got so [politicized]. I don't trust them anymore. I probably shouldn't have trusted them before but gave the illusion it was merit based. Feel like they just won to fit a diversity quota to appease twitter. And that's a shame I shouldn't feel that way because those people are talented.
Right, one of the points of #OscarsSoWhite was that the results in generations past shouldn't have been "trusted" when four out of the four acting winners were almost always white. That was seen as just "normal" and non-political but if the winners are non-white all of the sudden it must be political considerations that got them to that result and not the quality of the work?

Sixty and fifty years ago, much less twenty and thirty, there simply weren't many prominent roles for actors of color. At least not in English speaking features, which get the overwhelming amount of attention from organizations like the Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, etc. I think a lot of the backlash against #OscarsSoWhite was a very shallow, knee-jerk, 'Oh, what do they want, quotas?' kind of B.S. No, nobody every wanted that. What was wished for were more diverse projects and roles. When say Selma is really the only prestige project that year that features strong African American roles, if that one movie doesn't sweep all the categories then there doesn't seem to be much diversity. The point wasn't you have to pick from that one movie that manages to get made every other year but to make many multiple prestige projects per year so diversity in the nominees and winners is simply a result of the varied pool of eligible films. And here we have a year that Judas and the Black Messiah, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Minari, One Night in Miami..., and Sound of Metal were all vying for high profile nominations. Thus it shouldn't be all that surprising that those titles and performers nabbed many nominations and have been getting wins at the various other ceremonies leading up to The Academy Awards.

But if anyone wants to not even see many or any of the nominated movies and say, oh, I guess they got all political and chose a bunch of non-whites to make a point...I mean...enjoy?



Anyone else think Viola Davis belongs in the supporting category? Not to discount her performance, which is very good, but considering the nature of her role and her screen time, which only lasts a third of the movie, the supporting actress category seems like a better fit for it.
__________________
Last Great Movie Seen
The Seven-Ups (D'Antoni, 1973)



All these winners could be very worthy...but this is what happens when these award shows got so politicize. I don't trust them anymore. I probably shouldn't have trusted them before but gave the illusion it was merit based. Feel like they just won to fit a diversity quota to appease twitter. And that's a shame I shouldn't feel that way because those people are talented.
...
I agree. One can see instances of Hollywood rising to causes since the 1950s. But in recent times the award shows have degenerated into such a dominant PC/SJ dogmatic love-in that the lion's share of the winners are useless to the public as recommendations for excellence in films.



I've seen most of the nominees at this point and they all seem pretty deserving to me. Perhaps some skepticism could be warranted from a distance, but I'd recommend watching the films before passing that kind of judgment. Some really good stuff in there.

But are their political considerations? Sure, of course. Duh. Still a lot of good movies involved.



Anyone else think Viola Davis belongs in the supporting category? Not to discount her performance, which is very good, but considering the nature of her role and her screen time, which only lasts a third of the movie, the supporting actress category seems like a better fit for it.
Once actors reach the point where they are stars or hugely known qualities, sometimes that reputation dictates which category the performance lands in. Dustin Hoffman does not have all that much screentime in Wag the Dog and there is no way structurally you could call him the main character. But he's Dustin Hoffman so he wound up being nominated as Best Actor. There also might have been odds consideration there, that it was obvious Robin Williams (Good Will Hunting) and Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights) would be fighting it out for Best Supporting Actor, thus he may have a better shot of actually winning in the other category.

Unfortunately there are no strict rules about what constitutes a lead vs. a supporting role. Anthony Hopkins is on screen for only sixteen minutes in The Silence of the Lambs, but his presence looms over the entire film. He was nominated and won as Best Actor. Frances McDormand's character doesn't even show up until about thirty minutes into Fargo. William H. Macy has much more screentime. Steve Buscemi has more screentime. But Fran was nominated and won as Best Actress, Macy was nominated (and lost) as Best Supporting Actor.

As for Viola in this particular case, for me it's like Hopkins in Silence (and she has more screentime). Her presence is always there, even when she is not, and not just because she is the title character. For those who thought Boseman might be considered Supporting Actor for Ma Rainey, his character has the most screentime, by far. Maybe if it was titled Ma Rainey's Trumpet Player the perception would be different? But he was clearly the male lead if not THE lead.



Once actors reach the point where they are stars or hugely known qualities, sometimes that reputation dictates which category the performance lands in. Dustin Hoffman does not have all that much screentime in Wag the Dog and there is no way structurally you could call him the main character. But he's Dustin Hoffman so he wound up being nominated as Best Actor. There also might have been odds consideration there, that it was obvious Robin Williams (Good Will Hunting) and Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights) would be fighting it out for Best Supporting Actor, thus he may have a better shot of actually winning in the other category.

Unfortunately there are no strict rules about what constitutes a lead vs. a supporting role. Anthony Hopkins is on screen for only sixteen minutes in The Silence of the Lambs, but his presence looms over the entire film. He was nominated and won as Best Actor. Frances McDormand's character doesn't even show up until about thirty minutes into Fargo. William H. Macy has much more screentime. Steve Buscemi has more screentime. But Fran was nominated and won as Best Actress, Macy was nominated (and lost) as Best Supporting Actor.

As for Viola in this particular case, for me it's like Hopkins in Silence (and she has more screentime). Her presence is always there, even when she is not, and not just because she is the title character. For those who thought Boseman might be considered Supporting Actor for Ma Rainey, his character has the most screentime, by far. Maybe if it was titled Ma Rainey's Trumpet Player the perception would be different? But he was clearly the male lead if not THE lead.
That all makes sense. Like the other examples you mentioned, it's one of those occasions where the characters and the award categories don't match up neatly. In Network, for example, you could argue that Robert Duvall or William Holden are playing the lead role and Peter Finch is playing a supporting role.