Saturday, February 05, 2005

SAG predictions

So... I'd rather use the time I have to comment on the awards themselves later tonight than update my SAG page today so here are my PREDICTIONS

Cate Blanchett -The Aviator. If Cate loses here it's over for her. She's been called the frontrunner for a while but she has yet to win anything significant. Surprising, no? She's seated without a seatbelt with a malfunctioning overhead bin on that Aviator plane... she needs to win this.

spoiler: Virginia Madsen. If she wins this I think the Oscar is hers and it's a Jennifer Connelly sweep type of thing. (Only with a deserving performance this time)

Thomas Haden Church -Sideways. The reason I'm going with Church over Freeman is the makeup of the SAG voting body which encompasses a far wider membership than the Academy and includes boatloads of television actors and Church has a firm foundation there and has crossed over without getting too popular. There won't be any envy. There'll only be congratulations. That's my theory at least. Plus he's hilarious and they have to reward at least one comedic thing, right?

spoiler: Morgan Freeman -Million Dollar Baby. Could begin his Oscar run here because he, like Blanchett, is a frontrunner without a lot of steam.

Hilary Swank -Million Dollar Baby. This will cause everyone to say "she's locked to win the Oscar!" But she isn't really. The competitors may be the same but the issues and the voting body are different. The SAG seems to go about 50/50 with their four winners in terms of the Oscars. I can't really see Hilary losing here but if she does she's definitely NOT winning the Oscar. She should be able to take this easily given the current Swank-a-thon in the media despite being the least deserving of the five nominees. And the SAG voters usually go for the totally in-the-moment thing (think Renee Zellweger for Chicago instead of Nicole Kidman for The Hours.

Spoiler: None.

Jamie Foxx -Ray. It's a Julia Roberts type of juggernaut. There's no stopping him.

Spoiler: None.

Sideways. I know it's out of vogue after a great December followed by backlash. But I think the actors will probably be drawn to the film that relies most on its actors to deliver it's laughs and heart. And that has more than three cast members: see below.

Spoiler: This category is a tough call. If they use it to reward the "ensemble" like it's called the spoiler is probably the Aviator. If they're thinking of it as best picture which they often do, they might ignore the 3 people don't really make an ensemble problem and give it to Million Dollar Baby.


Anonymous said...

One more reason Hilary will probably win...

she lost in 2000 to, none other than, Annette Bening.

I really do hope Imelda or Kate can pull an upset, although if Imelda wins either this OR the Oscar it really shouldn't be called an upset. It'd be like saying Clive Owen winning the Oscar would be an upset. He wouldn't because he's won quite a few awards. Imelda has won more than Swank, anyway.


Anonymous said...

Why does an ensemble require many roles? Sideways and Million Dollar Baby both have tiny ensembles, but they are by far the best and most natural of the nominees. Why punish them for having so few roles?


It's not about 'punishing' it's about what the word "ensemble" means. For instance you wouldn't use the word 'several' to describe a group of three or four things. You'd call that a 'few'

ensemble in my dictionary says is:
"the united performance of an entire group of singers, musicians, etc"
and when discussing acting it says:
"a group of supporting perfomers in a theatrical production"

when two people perform together they call it a 'duet' or a 'duo' for three 'a trio' you rarely hear of groups that small referred to as an 'ensemble' the word implies a larger group.

Anonymous said...

Somebody wake me when the Swankathon is over. Okay bawss?

Anonymous said...

Wow - I can't remember a red carpet fashion disaster like this. Everyone is dressed in the most hideous clothes imaginable. Anna Wintour save us!!!

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting site... » »