Team Experience SAG/Globe Reactions Pt 1: Dark Thoughts & Unsurprising Surprises
Friday, February 5, 2021 at 6:30PM Hey hey. So we polled Team Experience about this week's barrage of honors to see where their heads and hearts were at (though you know some of their loves if you checked out the Team Experience Awards). So let's start with less thrilling questions like ...
- Which SAG or GLOBE nomination left you cringeing or shaking your head?
- Which "surprises" were not actually surprises?
- Any theories about the ___ snub?
Read their answers and supply yours in the comments, please...
Which nomination left you either scratching your head or cringeing?
CLAUDIO ALVES: Jared Leto in The Little Things because it's a legitimately awful performance in a movie that's even worse.
ERIC BLUME: Jared Leto of course...it brings me back to that painful year when everyone was pretending he and Matthew McConaughey were great actors.
NICK TAYLOR: I have yet to read a positive review of Trial of the Chicago 7 that makes me understand why this dull, hollow, poorly constructed, badly Sorkin'd project has become such an awards darling. Every cast member looks at least ten years older than their characters and are barely able to make this restaging of historical events seem even a little bit believable.
BEN MILLER: I'm sure Rosamund Pike is wonderful in I Care a Lot, but I truly believe she was nominated based solely on that spectacular trailer. I refuse to believe the Globe voters have actually seen the film. Aaron Sorkin is not for everyone, but most still respect his writing style and distinct voice. That being said, he is a director that has gone 0-2 and people can't stop themselves from giving him accolades. In a banner year for female directors and directors of color, Sorkin is going to poke his head in a race he doesn't deserve to be in.
NATHANIEL: Since most of the best answers have been taken, I must admit that each and every nomination for Ratched -- particularly Best Drama Series -- makes me uncomfortable. It's truly a mess from start to finish, with nonsensical characterizations and born of a dreadful impulse (origin stories to remove all mysteries from art!) and basically no more than a season of American Horror Story (the subheader "Asylum" was already taken) and an excuse for gargantuanly production design budgets (I'll admit I did frequently giggle that they kept claiming to have money problems when the asylum always looked so high-tech, spotlessly clean, and state of the art furnished. Ryan Murphy exhausts me and I am fed up with how much people embrace and reward his fetish for grisly violence.
JUAN CARLOS OJANO: Two nominations for Music. I thought I had an internet problem, but then I heard it right. They snubbed longtime favorite Meryl Streep over a film that was not yet released.
MARK BRINKERHOFF: Amy Adams for Hillbilly Elegy. The SAGs giveth (Minari), the SAGs taketh away—oy.
Glenn Close and Amy Adams Arguing About Who is Going to Win the Oscar First: The Movie (2020) pic.twitter.com/VDZgSVjQze
— Nathaniel Rogers (@nathanielr) October 15, 2020
What did other people find surprising that didn't surprise you at all?
JUAN CARLOS: Amy Adams in Hillbilly Elegy. Again, Film Twitter is a bubble.
BABY CLYDE: I never crossed my mind that I May Destroy you was getting in at the Globes. It couldn’t be any less Globes Bait if it tried.
CLAUDIO: Amy Adams getting into the Best Actress lineup at SAG. Honestly, I was expecting her to be honored by the Golden Globes, too.
NICK: Mank doing so well at the Globes, and Gary Oldman showing up. It's a plum role, and an easy role for voters to recognize. I'm a bit shocked it missed the SAG ensemble list, but Oldman's presence was only a gut-punch because I expected to hear Lindo's name read first.
BEN: I've been calling for a surprising Best Actor snub all year. Apparently Delroy Lindo caught what I thought was going to happen to Gary Oldman. That race felt too easy and there was always going to be a painful omission.
NATHANIEL: Helena Zengel's double at SAG & Globes. I had been predicting her for several months and stupidly let others convince me I had overestimated her a couple of weeks ago, dropping her down to #8 on the chart. She'll be back in the next prediction list once I update (All charts will be updated Monday). Tom Hanks has always been a good luck charm for his co-stars. And it's really a leading role and you know how addicted they are to those in the supporting categories.
MARK: Jared Leto’s noms. His is a scenery-chewing performance in a recent film.
GINNY O'KEEFE: There are plenty of shows that deserved it more than Emily in Paris but the Globes love shows that are popular versus “good” and it’s set in a romanticized major European city. Winner winner chicken dinner.
CHRISTOPHER JAMES: Emily in Paris IS the story of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. There was no way they wouldn't go for that show.
TONY RUGGIO: Seyfried snub at SAG. She's very pretty and bubbly in Mank, adorned with exquisite costumes, but the performance itself pales in comparison to a more notable supporting turn by Arliss Howard.
Do you have any theories as to the surprising omission of ___?
MARK: Amanda Seyfried’s SAGs miss seems like a blip—the SAGs clearly didn’t think much of Mank overall; It's not a Jennifer Lopez-caliber Oscar snub in the making.
NICK: I have no theories on Delroy Lindo, because his omission feels inexplicable and strange. I don't love Paul Raci in Sound of Metal as much as other folks do, but I honestly wonder - do actors remember how to nominate smaller performances in the supporting categories? His absence over so many co-leads - Murray, Cohen, Odom Jr. - just feels weird, especially given that Riz Ahmed looks like he could be sailing to a nomination of his own. Why not include the film's best, most bracing asset? Where are the supporting men actually being recognized this season?
EUROCHEESE: I was worried about Lindo when the movie first came out, fearing he'd be forgotten. I guess the memory of Boseman has convinced people he was the one to nominate for Da 5 Bloods. They need a rewatch.
GINNY: I think “I May Destroy You” got omitted at the Globes because society as a whole doesn’t want to embrace stories about sexual assault and the real life consequences of it all. When you have a show like Emily In Paris that is all fanciful and fun with little to no stakes. It also shows how stories with Black women are easily expendable when it comes to award shows.
CLAUDIO: Meryl Streep. Maybe they all thought she was a shoo-in already and decide to throw votes at some presupposed underdog. Either that or the HFPA has finally grown tired of Meryl? I'd be sad if she hadn't already amassed such a mountainous amount of Globe nominations.
BEN: If you try to understand the motives and voting tendencies of less than 100 people, you will always find yourself confused. The HFPA is too small a sample size to be taken this seriously, so I just blame their worst decisions on recency bias.
YOUR TURN, DEAR READERS. Answer those three questions in the comments.
Reader Comments (57)
Amy Adams is the biggest cringe for me. Her worst performance, and one that feels actively irresponsible and offensive too. I’m not surprised that she’s been embraced, but the lack of pushback to what is, for me, comfortably her worst and least thoughtful performance is a little astonishing.
James Corden surprised me when he got in, but after I thought about it a minute, it made sense. It's a broad turn in a terrible film, but he's pretty good anyway, and it seems like the kind of thing the Globes would go for. The fact that he's a Brit who's made it in LA (I'm thinking of his television show here) probably helped.
Weird to single out Rosamund Pike - you know it’s a Netflix number so they’ll definitely have the screener and they paid $20 mill to get it so you know they’d be pushing it and all reviews single out her brilliance and the Globes adore her - remember that nomination for A Private War?
Leave her alone - there’s so much worse to cringe over 😂
The cringe was probably Sasha Baron Cohen when Rylance and Abdul Mateen were far superior.
The surprise that wasn't Andra Day after the reviews but she's playing a legend.
The snubs Lindo and i just can't explain it and maybe Burstyn.
Why the repulsive Jared Leto has any sway over voters is a mystery to me.
Kate Hudson was only nominated because someone threw cash in for "Music" and for her to be nominated. It's embarrassing they nominated a film that has not even been released, and one that has been panned for having a normal person play an autistic person … in 2021.
Streep in The Prom is so fun and up there with other great musical comedy film performances. Now we are stuck with Kate Hudson.
I also think the Spike Lee snub was another embarrassment for HFPA.
The cringe: Baron Cohen for Chicago 7 (Langella and Abdul Mateen are better), the “out of nowhere” Sia movie with that annoying girl dancer, and Bridgerton. Not surprised by Glenn, but shocked with the absence of Seyfried at the SAGs and Lindo on both.
What I want is for everyone to rank this year's 3 controversial supporting actress contenders in order of best performance: Glenn Close, Amanda Seyfried, and Meryl Streep. I have a feeling the rankings would be all over the place.
Which nomination left you either scratching your head or cringeing?
CORDEN, OMG that was painful to watch,, was expecting to see Adash Gourav ( sooooo good in The White Tiger) on that spot; I don't have an opinion about LETO cause I haven't seen his film yet but he's a good actor giving the right material so I'll just go with it; BOSEMAN a double nominee ? I mean Aldis Hodge, Bo Burnham and Paul Raci were right there; DAVIS in LEAD? She's clearly supporting but she was lead in Fences and went supporting, guess star power works that way. MANK didn't do anything for me and Oldman is tedious, again Delroy Lindo and Mads Mikkelsen were right there.
What did other people find surprising that didn't surprise you at all?
Well, I knew ADAMS would get in and I knew Zendaya wouldn't; As Supporting Actress goes, not so shocked with the Burstyn snub, I agree with whom says that she's too old for the part, the mpvie belongs to Kirby and when I watched it I was imagining that Annette Bening, Michelle Pfeiffer or especially Sharon Stone would've been great in that part, plus they're all the right age and actually Burstyn played Stone's mother in All I Wish (2017) also it would've been a deserved comeback for Stone, the Academy overlooked her work way too many times.
Seyfried snub doesn't bother or suprises me at all, she's just serviceable and I was really not expecting to see Streep nominated for the atrocious The Prom, maybe a Razzie is in her way.
Do you have any theories as to the surprising omission of ___?
Not really, but I do love the mess.
I haven't seen Music yet so I don't want to diss what I haven't seen yet. We always say that we want left-of-field choices to disrupt the expected and unsurprising list of nominees but we also kvetch when an unknown movie or actor gets nominated. And diss it/them just because our favorites were not on the list of nominees. Just saying.
Amy Adams and Glenn Close deserve better than being in a shit film like Hillbilly Elegy. Jared Leto can go fuck himself. Fuck Music as I am not interested in seeing a young woman going full-retard to play an autistic teenager.
I like the though of Stone in Burstyn's role whom I thought handled her scenes like a pro would.
Cringy/confusing nominations: Music and its GG nomination haul. Like, given the controversy surrounding Sia's comments about the casting, and the fact that it wasn't out yet and people also forgot....
Surprises that weren't surprises: The Mauritanian getting in Actor - Drama and Supporting Actress. Totally seems like it's a Globes movie, just from the trailer.
Snub Theories: The Globes can usually be answered with "recency bias" and "star-fucking". SAG, however...I highly doubt the people who voted even WATCHED at least half of the screeners they got, which is sad. Most actors aren't willing or in some cases are not capable of giving good usable feedback to each other. ESPICALLY their friends!
It's sad that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler will be the biggest stars in the room. Who is going to present to Jane Fonda? Kate Hudson?
it would make my day to see Meryl get a Razzie!
Anyhow, I don't think many would take the Globes seriously.
SAG on the other hand is more of a pre-cursor to the Oscars.
Which SAG or GLOBE nomination left you cringing or shaking your head?
Best Actor/TV Drama: Regé-Jean Page. Yes, he's hot AF; yes, he's good in the role (and totally different than in Sylvie's Love; but no, he's not best in show of the Bridgerton men (hello, Jonny Bailey); and no, no one in that cast should be anywhere near any SAG award for that series.
Which "surprises" were not actually surprises?
Best Actress/Limited Series: Nicole Kidman. Yes, she seemed to be sleepwalking through the role; yes, there were any number of better candidates (like Naomie Harris, Zoe Kazan or Reese Witherspoon); but HFPA has nominated Kidman 13 times before this, so...
Any theories about the Paul Raci snub?
SAG just prefers de-glamming pretty boys to unglamorous character actors.
@ Minerva: Will *anyone* be "in the room" on February 28?
Rosamund Pike deserves a bigger career after Gone Girl.
Amy and Glenn will show up also at the Oscars.
Fuck Jared Leto. Him over Lindo?!
Leto, of course. I don't get the SBC in Chicago 7 love other than he's been campaigning like crazy.
Mank doing well with the Globes
I think Burstyn role is too short for today's standards with lead and co-leads making it into the supporting category.
Great opinions. Leto getting in at Oscars would be such a great representation of the year 2020 in general. If I have to hear Nathaniel moan about his charts one more fucking time I'll hit him with a steel chair! (Still love ya though)
So it looks like Glenn Close is going to win the Oscar this year. The big question is if Amy Adams gets nominated too, will they give her the award too? Like Close, she is respected and considered way overdue. No one seems overly fond of either of their performances but most seem to be ok with them winning.
Nathaniel, I feel completely the opposite about Ratched. It drew me in in a way I didn't expect at all, and I'm happy to see it getting accolades since I worried it wasn't going to happen. But I know that it's not for everyone.
Seyfried can still win the Globe. She's the prototype of the Golden Globe winner.
Tom G. Adams ain't winning this year even if she gets nominated. She gets nominated (or nearly, damned Arrival snub) every couple years so they'll feel no urgency to give her a win for this Hick trash. Although Bullocks Win and Blanchett's Elizabeth Golden Age nomination will both look less shitty in comparison.
"It's embarrassing they nominated a film that has not even been released, and one that has been panned for having a normal person play an autistic person … in 2021."
Really? A "normal" person? And you're saying this in... 2021?
I wish Judy Davis had gotten in for Ratched!
Getting Jennifer Lawrence "Joy" vibes with Amy Adams this year
I didn't write those last 2 comments. Who the fuck has been using my username?
I truly don;t understand the vitriol towards Hillbilly Elegy and by extension, Glenn Close but especially Amy Adams. I watched the film last month expecting a trainwreck according to some people at this site, however I found the film engaging and poignant.
Amy Adams gave, for me, one of the strongest performances of her career and with the exception of The Fighter, I've never seen her approach this type of character before but even then I am stretching a point. I can only assume that the vitriol comes from some form of Gay Twitter/Gay Critical Gate Keeping which absolutely exists. Amy Adams has been the recipient of some seriously bitchy sentiments from 'The Gays™' throughout her career, especially on this site.
It's also evident that many of you simply didn't' like Hillbilly Elegy because it humanizes the struggles of poor white people, and with how cultish Intersectionality has dominated the discourse, it seems as if we cannot have that. Objectively, Close and Adams are giving excellent performances. Let's stop with the bs groupthink.
Oh boy, April 25 is still a long way off and it's already getting all kinds of ugly up in here.
Who's pretending to be me with only the last comment? Your plays at confusing Nathaniel are fucking pathetic but they work.
Thank you, Paul. Totally agree!!!
Geri and Paul.. just because you like a movie doesn’t mean others don’t like it because they’re too woke.
Paul I don't pay much attention but could you tell me a couple examples of The Gays/this site being bitchy towards Adams? I can only think of her always being on the Actress roundtables and not really adding much of interest to the conversation, or so this site said. Thanks in advance.
I agree with you, Paul. I too found the performances of Close and Adams as excellent and they maintained the emotional tone of their characters throughout the film.I was engrossed with the film and although not perfect, it wasn't the stinker that critics made it out to be. The drama was skillfully directed well by Ron Howard. I also don't know where the source of the vitriol comes from but my guess is: it is not necessarily from people per se but a collective and deep-seated resentment for Trump and how Vance's book was linked to Trump's ascendancy in 2016. It certainly did not help that Vance is leaning conservative (or is one himself -- I don't know his political affiliation), and his book and the film that adapted his story became easy target to the already-angry crowd. I know there are others who really did not like the film and the acting based on how they write their critique but the intensity of the hatred especially online seems to come from some place. Some even said they hated it with no intention of watching the film but has a thing or two to say about the worst acting coming from Adams and Close. The trailer is not the whole film - watch the entire movie and say why you (dis)like it so much. And have you met these people in real life and know Appalachia. Maybe I will be convinced that way.
@LSS
The roundtable criticisms were fair enough as objectively speaking she didn't add much to the conversation especially after appearing multiple times. But I've noticed a general snide back-handed attitude from some people about her ever since American Hustle. There is a sense of actress worship where some hold these women to a higher standard which to be honest I don't think is fair. I find people are unnecessarily, overly critical of her when she makes films that don't turn out the way we would like (Big Eyes, Sharp Objects, Nocturnal Animals). Which to be honest is totally fine, I would normally roll my eyes and chalk it up to a difference of opinion and leave it at that. However I genuinely wasn't prepared for the level of meanness until she made Hillbilly Elegy which is were most of my frustrations come from, so I will admit a bit of hyperbole on my part with the 'entire career' comment. It's ironic, because if the critical consensus wasn't politically skewed against J.D Vance himself, everyone would be calling this her best work. It's very obvious that there's a political bent to the unjust criticisms this time around.
@Sheridan
Thank you for your comment. Your observations about Trump are spot-on.
@Paranoid Android
You know as damn well as I do that that is not the case; Hillbilly Elegy has a 26% Critics Rating and an 85% Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes and the level of hatred for this film is significantly disproportionate to the quality. There is an echo chamber in film criticism and film twitter because, God forbid, a film is made about the struggles of white people that are not confluent with discussions about 'white privilege'.
@LSS
The roundtable criticisms were fair enough as objectively speaking she didn't add much to the conversation especially after appearing multiple times. But I've noticed a general snide back-handed attitude from some people about her ever since American Hustle. There is a sense of actress worship where some hold these women to a higher standard which to be honest I don't think is fair. I find people are unnecessarily, overly critical of her when she makes films that don't turn out the way we would like (Big Eyes, Sharp Objects, Nocturnal Animals). Which to be honest is totally fine, I would normally roll my eyes and chalk it up to a difference of opinion and leave it at that. However I genuinely wasn't prepared for the level of meanness until she made Hillbilly Elegy which is were most of my frustrations come from, so I will admit a bit of hyperbole on my part with the 'entire career' comment. It's ironic, because if the critical consensus wasn't politically skewed against J.D Vance himself, everyone would be calling this her best work. It's very obvious that there's a political bent to the unjust criticisms this time around.
@Sheridan
Thank you for your comment. Your observations about Trump are spot-on.
@Paranoid Android
You know as damn well as I do that that is not the case; Hillbilly Elegy has a 26% Critics Rating and an 85% Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes and the level of hatred for this film is significantly disproportionate to the quality. There is an echo chamber in film criticism and film twitter because, God forbid, a film is made about the struggles of white people that are not confluent with discussions about 'white privilege'.
Apologies for accidentally posting that twice.
Are there any actor or actress of color nominated for a horrific reviewed film? How many actor or actress of color got snubbed for great reviewed films? How many white actors and actresses got nominated for dreadful reviewed films this year? How many people on internet (especially this site) are investing their life to make Hillbilly Elegy meaningful and all the one-dimensional performances awards worthy? Celebration of white midiocity and morbid obcessssion of oscarless actresses are a problem here, and I am not going to tone down on it. No, it's not hyperbole.
I completely agree about Hillbilly Elegy being unfairly rated by the critics, or at least compared with some other movies. For me is more like a 6 or 7 out of 10 rather than a 3 come on.
Ron Howard's direction is not very coherent plus the screenplay suffers as it tries following too many storylines. And I know it would've been too much of a departure from the autobiography but it would have made for a much more interesting film if it had mainly focused on Mamaw's difficult life and her story. How she basically had no chance for herself, then failed with her children but eventually was able to push for a better chance in life for her grandkid. Movie fails in this regard, more of a case of how much better it could have been rather than it actually is.
Great performances, with both Adams and Close being perfectly "Oscar worthy" for whatever that means. Adams took on a different and intense role that's a departure from her regular ones and this versality and risk taking should be applauded.
And Close's Mamaw definitely is the heart and soul of the movie, a hero and a very memorable character. More importantly her portrayal has brought memories back for many about their own Mamaws and the universality of trying to protect ones family and break the life's cycle of poverty. Is this personal connection and investment that give her the edge to overcome the film harsh reviews. Plus, in Glenn Close's particularly case, there's also the overdue factor and the still fresh defeat memory of just two years ago.
I know several people who're not invested in film twitter criticism or awards seasons at all, that have mentioned to me in completely non movie related conversations, that I should watch this movie that they loved and they're not even the kind of people watching new movies in general or would know who the film cast and crew necessarily are. Just a case of a movie resonating with a broad regular folks audience and, if my personal experience happened to others, then it's clear that it could very well attract a great deal of passionate popular vote and this I believe will be reflected by the broad Academy votes.
The scene where Mawmaw portions the meal rang true to a lot of people in a way that's rarely seen in easy available contemporary movies nowadays and reminiscent of their own parenthood or childhood experiences that might be very different to others. But weather a hillbilly or not there's no joke about these sacrifices and nothing to ridicule or laugh of, just like in real life tragedy has many shapes and forms.
The film overall might be polarizing but this also means there are plenty that love at least some aspects of it and if given the chance will support it. Much better to have a film generating passionate votes that kind of indifferent and out of respect ones, especially in this year that seems rather lackluster for I suspect both casual movie viewers and industry voters .
Regardless of what happens next, it already overperformed in terms of industry recognition based on these nominations compared to the reviews based expectations. Lesson here being that reviews in general are quite irrelevant outside of film twitter bubble and what the film critics and the industry/general public likes or decides to watch can be sometimes very different. This is such a case this year imo.
Some film passion from a big chunk of popular base >>> Plenty of bad film reviews by studio paid critics & pundits
I am less bothered by nominations for great actresses in subpar roles (Kidman, Paulson, Adams) because it's proof of deserved success. They can do NO wrong even when they do some wrong. Kidman particularly has proven her reign over prestige TV with The Undoing. How to make kind of a meh show and still achieve wide awards and monetary success. You have to love it.
I am baffled by Jared Leto and Kate Hudson. Who is currently cheering for them? Are they bankable stars? Are they particularly beloved and the general public (and critics) are missing it? I am BAFFLED by these nominations. Same for James Corden and his continued casting in prominent productions. Cats, Ocean's 8, The Prom... No one is cheering. He is generally disliked. I feel bad for him (though I really shouldn't given the money and fame he's amassing) but who keeps casting him? who is watching these movies because James Corden or Jared Leto are in them? Actually asking.
Some of the craziness I saw constantly in this thread:
"The drama was skillfully directed well by Ron Howard.” "Great performances, with both Adams and Close being perfectly "Oscar worthy" for whatever that means. ”
Again, how many people on internet (especially this site) are investing their life to make Hillbilly Elegy meaningful and all the one-dimensional performances awards worthy? Celebration of white midiocity and morbid obcessssion of oscarless actresses are a problem here.
Not my comment above.
I’m never too wound up about TV “omissions.” There is so much TV out there, more than any single voter for any awards group could ever watch and evaluate. Of course that gives more widely viewed stuff the edge over less widely viewed stuff.
Even back when The Americans was getting snubbed every year, the explanation was simple: Industry people just weren’t watching it, they were watching other things. It’s not a moral failure that people were enjoying The Good Wife, or whatever.
Maybe we need a TV version of the Independent Spirit awards that focuses on “smaller” shows.
What a bad year for movies and film criticism. The only truly excellent film I saw this year was Mank. Hillbilly Elegy is better than it was reviewed. It received bad reviews because of political correctness. The Prom was horrible. A bad Broadway musical made into a worse film. Chicago 7 was like a bad 1970s TV movie. Ma Rainey's Black Bottom was a tiresome, tedious movie with people yelling and a character we're supposed to feel sorry for who kills a man for stepping on his new shoes. Film criticism was even worse. It all became racial. Black was excellent and white was mediocre. Since when did race become a marker for excellence in film making? I read a review on Daily Beast by a young Black critic about the Zendaya movie who couldn't admit the movie is bad because it involves Black characters, so she attacked the white writer/directors as a privileged scion of Hollywood. What a bunch of BS.
I think when someone (Close or Adams) gets nominated frequently but never gets past the post that there is something in the community that we are unaware of that the people in the industry dislike.
@Sam
I am not 'investing my life to make Hillbilly Elegy meaningful' (??) I am simply pointing out the ridiculous double standard and political bias involved in the trashing of a perfectly good movie.
I don't consider this to be merely a 'Celebration of white mediocrity'
"Again, how many people on internet (especially this site) are investing their life to make Hillbilly Elegy meaningful and all the one-dimensional performances awards worthy? Celebration of white mediocrity and morbid obcessssion of oscarless actresses are a problem here."
Sorry but why are you commenting on this site and particular this article then if not invested in this too? You probably are, but with a different perspective which is perfectly fine and valid. But don't think people with a different opinion should be valued less or considered invalid.
It was a point being made as there are reactions now about movies with "surprise" nominations (like Hillbilly Elegy) when the reality is that a lot of people liked it, it always had industry support, and they were quiet or their opinion not reflected by the critics the movie got. And the pundits that should just evaluate on awards chances based on film pedigree/who's playing the role/what studio is from... ignored all this for some reason which proved wrong.
Winning an Oscar doesn't mean being the "best" as art rewards is not the same as a sports racing that has measurable goals and who performs best is the winner (unless is People's Choice Awards). So is all very subjective. Being rewarded with a Best Actor Oscar just means you're the one that Oscars voters liked and felt good about voting the most. It can be that they worked together at some point, it can be they really like their movie, it can be last chance/posthumous, it can be liking them s a person or can just be as a joke for some I guess. So a multitude of reasons but almost never just critics review.
So sorry, but why would Glenn Close's performance be considered "one-dimensional" over the top and ridiculed when this is exactly what the script and character nature asks? An actor's job is to reflect just that and not to judge their characters/screenwriters reasoning.
They modulate each role to a spectrum ranging from grounded naturalistic to theatrical grand-guignol. And Supporting Actress is the category that awards plenty of times the latter from veteran character actresses that are not love interests/ingenue figures. Allison Janney in I,Tonya, Melissa Leo in The Fighter, Mo'Nique in Precious, Renne Zellweger in Cold Mountain and so on all the way to classic Hollywood years. Where was the general outrage and film bashing for them then?
Which SAG or GLOBE nomination left you cringeing or shaking your head?
--- James Corden. You'd think they'd recognize, or at least avoid the controversy of a performance that has been widely labeled as offensive to gays.
Which "surprises" were not actually surprises?
--- As the above posters note, Glenn Close and maybe Amy Adams. Hillbilly Elegy felt all along like this year's Green Book -- catnip for the "average" movie viewer, but sophisticated/snobbish (take your pick) critics see through the pander.
Any theories about the ___ snub?
---I was expecting a Vanessa Kirby snub, given how difficult the film was and how the film was so rooted in a woman's experience (and these organizations are so very male). And I loved her in it. Delroy Lindo: Too many strong Black leading roles in films about Black people's lives for the White voters to process? Or just too much scenery chewing? I'm also continuously baffled by how awards bodies avoid Tom Hanks, America's Favorite Uncle.
Wow, I've never seen as high a volume of comments as this. Just general comments from me.
I didn't get to Jared Leto in Little Things, but you could say he only won for Dallas Buyers Club because he played a crossdresser.
I'm tired of Meryl getting to play parts in musicals because she wants to. She lacked the strength of voice for IntoThe Woods, and neither her singing or dancing is good in the Prom. I don't even count the Mamma Mia franchise because it's so horrible.
I found Trial of the Chicago 7 very interesting and well done. I'm Aaorn Sorkin's bitch. All of the movie work he's done has been excellent IMHO. In addition to grabbing you from start to finish, the movie accurately depicts history, and has value for that also.
I found James Corden boorish in The Prom - a movie I had strong reservations about at first, but have grown to like based on some musical number. I guess because on the Late Show he salutes so many musical performances, the industry likes him?
Finally, about ratings and Hillbilly Elegy, I wish I hadn't heard it was a major film before I saw it, because almost every time a film is touted as important, I expect too much. Both Glenn and Amy were good, and I'd be happy for either of them getting a GG or an Oscar. But the movie as a whole seemed empty and rather pointless.
I am no fan of Hillbilly Elegy but it's obvious (in these divisive times) that a large portion of the hate it gets is rooted in its perceived politics. Not sure why people argue against this. Almost of the pundits were blindsided by the political angle when they dismissed Close's chances. I think the mediocre reviews mean less and less these days - just look at Bohemian Rhapsody, which incidentally was another film vastly underestimated by the pundits. The audience score on RT for those movies is telling.
I personally disliked I, Tonya and Allison Janney's performance within it, and yet I didn't bother me when she took the Oscar. I'd wager Close is far more effective nuanced in Hillbilly Elegy, who is also propping up an (IMO) turgid movie.
MO , I agree with your thoughts, but if the only excellent film you saw this year was Wank then you should never speak of fucking 2020 ever again.