The Satellites have announced their nominations for this film year that's still in progress. As per usual there are so many nominees that it's hard to be generous about their award meaning much of anything to anyone outside of the actual nominees. With 12 nominees for both Actor and Actress there's room for everyone (including a double nomination for Mark Ruffalo??? I wasn't even truly cognizant that he was in two movies this season and I pay attention) When they get to the supporting categories that's where things get really wacky. Beyoncé Knowles for Cadillac? Really? Does this mean she agreed to show up? Penelope Cruz for Elegy (a lead role) instead of Vicky Cristina Barcelona in which she's the obvious and truly supporting highlight. Strange. Frozen River and The Visitor, two early-ish releases that will probably do well at the Indie Spirits scored big too.Next up: The National Board of Review kicks things off all official like (at least in terms of standard Oscar precursor chronologies) this Thursday.
Posts
30 comments:
are we sure the satellite voters didn't get confused with cruz? Like they all meant to say "Vicky Cristina.." but put down "Elegy"?
I was really into these until they stopped splitting the supporting categories into comedy/musical and drama. That was their only value to me. Now they're just a second-rate version of the Globes that mean virtually nothing.
The truly weird part about that is that they nominated VCB for best comedy, so it was certainly on their radar screen - they liked it even. So why the category fraud?
Every year these nominations get more and more ridiculous, in terms of category fraud. I know it's just the satellite awards, which never make any sense, but just in general the level of fraud and nonsensicality just reaching new height year... more and more things I never thought I'd see. Jamie Foxx in Collateral was the beginning of the end, but in truth it's been a steady trend downward into absurdity.
And I'm very okay with the "on the line" roles that sorta push the definition of supporting. I was very okay with Julianne Moore in The Hours and Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, for example. Even PSH in Doubt I think I could be okay with.
And I sense that I'll be okay with Winslet in The Reader. It seems like a defensible choice, from the plot description, and if supporting is passable, they'd be crazy to go for lead. But of course they had to go the extra mile with the fraud and throw Kross in supporting, too, even though there's no chance he'll be nommed. If they'd put him up as the sacrificial lamb with lead status, they'd have silenced the accusations of fraud (he seems like the true lead). I just hope Winslet's nom doesn't go awry as a result.
And I also hope this supporting nom for Elegy is not the beginning of a trend. Not when she has an ACTUAL supporting role out this year that's even better.
And then of course there's Dev Patel.
It never ends.
And I agree about the category splitting. I loved that. It finally gave supporting players their chance to shine.
I see why they ended it - often the supporting actors in a drama are the comedic relief, or vice versa, so honoring them in the category the film's in wouldn't make much sense.
Kathy Bates - best supporting acress, drama, for About Schmidt?
She-who-must-not-be-named, best supporting actress, drama, for Cold Mountain?
Helen Mirren, best supporting actress, comedy, for Gosford Park?
etc.
But it was still the only thing that made the satellites relevant or interesting. So it's sad that it's gone.
I think my favourite example of category fraud remains Casey Affleck.
Or, remember when they tried to push Naomi Watts for supporting. For Mulholland Driver. You know, the film she was the star of? Wasn't that fantastic? Maybe we should get rid of the leading categories.
City of Ember! There's a lot of craziness present, but that's my favorite. ♥
The Casey Affleck thing was stupid, sure, but if we're being very generous, I can KIND of see how they might have possibly justified it to themselves - the film starts with the Jesse James character, and everything Robert Ford does revolves around Jesse. Again, I don't agree that he's supporting, but I can see how they justified it.
However, the most ridiculous example of category fraud has to be Jamie Foxx in 'Collateral'. You know, the film that started with his character, followed his character and his character's arc through the entire story as he tried to overcome his conflict (Tom Cruise), and then finally ended with his character having triumphed. Yep, sounds like a supporting role to me.
Even though Cruz was fantastic in "Elegy," this nomination sort of pisses me off. I don't want anything to jeopardize her chances with VCB this year. With that said, I don't think anyone takes the Satellites seriously, so that shouldn't be a problem. I mean, they nominated 2 adapted screenplays (Elegy and Benjamin Button) in the Original Screenplay category.
I'm also miffed that "Burn After Reading" was completly snubbed. Not one nod. I mean why the hell wasn't it up for best Pic Musical/COmedy? Or For McDormand? Or Original Screenplay? I guess I'm just putting too much thought into the ever ridiculous Satellites.
I use to like the Golden Satellites, or the Satellites as they are known now, when they split the supporting categories up because it did make them stand out. Plus, it seemed like even though they were all over the place then, their decisions usually made sense.
Today's nominations just make it even harder to take this group seriously. Two of their original screenplays are adapted, and one of the writers didn't even write the original really adapted screenplay that he's nominated for. Now they've revoked poor Viola Davis's nomination because I guess they couldn't count before and didn't realize until later on today that there were 7 nominees for supporting actress instead of 6. Those are just the major things that stick out.
Wow for frozen river and the visitor. I haven't seen frozen river yet but I think that the praise for The Visitor is too much, despite the fact that I loved Jenkins and Abbas in it.
I hope the Joker wins
They revoked Viola Davis??
Geez, of all the ridiculous nominees, why her? Oh I know. Because it's an actual supporting performance, that's actually good, that will actually be nominated for the oscar. Can't have that in this group now, can we?
The only thing the Satellites are good for is to look back on and go "wow, Rosario Dawson won her Best Supporting Actress in Rent!"
It all seems very farcical though.
Anyone notice that Kung Fu Panda was NOT nominated for Best Animated Feature... with 6 spots available? What do these people think when they vote?! It's amazing. Viola Davis, Penelope Cruz, no Burn After Reading, Beyonce, hardly any Benjamin Button. Truly amazing.
And how do they order these nominees? That's not alphabetical by actor/director/artist, or by film, or by production company, or anything! Has it finally been revealed that IPA just draws names out of a hat?
Adam K-
Some people from IMDB Oscar Buzz actually called the Satellite to see what really happened to Davis. One lady that a bunch of people talked to said that the group didn't count all their ballots before they posted their nominees. So when they actually did, Davis was snubbed!
^^^Excuse my language, but that is fucking ridiculous.
"Australia" for Original Screenplay?
As much as I loved the film this one's just ridiculous, considering they didn't even give it a Picture nod.
am i missing something? or does anyone else think its weird that Benjamin Button was nominated under original screenplay???
I don't know the rules for the Adapted/Original screenplay. Syriana was adapted from a book but nominated in Original Screenplay at the Oscars. It was nominated for Adapted at the WGA Award and USC Scripter Award.
WTF??? It's weird.
Based on some late 90s and early 00s selections (Kimberly Elise, Edward Norton, Brian Cox, Ewan McGregor), I've been chronicling the Satellite winners on my website pages, and I've followed the Satellite noms pretty closely. But I agree with everyone else here: they've become pretty absurd, and the factual errors in their nominations (original vs. adapted, etc.), even more than their errors of taste and categorization, prove how ridiculous they've become.
Then again, I'm always glad to have one less "group" to pay attention to.
My favourite nomination here by far is Philip Roth's, for "writing" the "original screenplay" for "Elegy." He must be so pleased.
I should note that i thought CRUZ was excellent in ELEGY... so my complaint was more based on arguable category fraud when there was a way to honor her with non-fraudulent categorizations ;)
I don't understand why rachel getting married is in the drama competition(although it truely is drama).then,the best actress(musical or comedy) will not be hathaway.too bad.this category is too boring this year except Hawinks.and drama is too crowded.
Really, noticing the whole adapted/original screenplay fiasco should be the point at which we stop discussing these awards and move on to other topics. So let's.
I'm surprised that Kate Winslet went lead while Penelope Cruz AND Philip Seymour Hoffman ended up in supporting. And I'm confused because I always thought that Rachel Getting Married was more of a comedy while In Bruges more of a drama...
Don't know if you watch Dr. Who, but I thought it was really cool that David Tennant got a nomination.
I've seen The Reader and Kate Winslet in supporting is category fraud at its most prominent.
i have read in another website that not all films for 2008, such as Valkyrie, have yet to be screened. if this is true, would you think these nominations would be credible? i mean, how can you come up with a list of the best when you have yet to see everything? strange to me.
Post a Comment