BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / SAG Awards 2014

**Posted by REReader** January 26, 2015 9:07 pm

I believe that category-specific voting (actors for actors, writers for writers, etc.) is only part of the Oscar nomination process; for the actual awards, everyone in the Academy votes.

(I could be wrong, though!)

**Posted by miriel68** January 27, 2015 7:49 am

SolarSystem wrote:
I have seen "The Theory of Everything" and Eddie is really good in it. And not only when it comes to the physicalness of the role. There also is a very nice chemistry between him and Felicity Jones. The film as a whole however isn't really my cup of tea, for various reasons.So. Eddie certainly deserves awards for his performance.

Eddie Redmayne does an outstanding job in imitating the stages of Hawking's illness. I have seen actors win awards for less domanding performances.
My issue with him getting all the accolades and awards is that TTOE itself is a particularly poor and conventional film, "even" for a biopic. It doesn't tell us anything about Hawking as a human being, other than what we can read in Wikipedia summary: namely, that he is the genius, that he has neuro-moto disease, that he was married and had kids and then married again with his nurse. The whole film reads like one of these sweet divulgative biographies for young adults, so popular nowadays.The critics know it - you read it between the lines in the reviews - yet no one has the guts to say it, they prefer raving about how uncannily Hawking-like ER is in it.
Now, last year Benedict pulled off an impressive performance as Assange, but once the film was deemed disappointing no one ever dreamt to nominate him for any award. And now TIG is labelled as "inaccurate", "conventional", "formulaic", while TTOE gets away with its cringeworthy dialogue and cliched scenes. It rubs me wrong way.

Also, Michael Keaton is truly excellent in Birdman, but - to be honest - his performance is hyped by how showy (and shouty) his part is. I enjoyed the movie very much and I intend to see it again, but even during my first vision I could see some mannerisms in Keaton's performance (he doese this thing with opening his eyes wide) and beneatch the flashy direction and great chemistry between the actors the actual message of the film is pretty thin and the dialogue more spectacular than clever.

**Posted by SusiGo** January 27, 2015 8:13 am

Of course Keaton and Redmayne both deserve awards. I think no one of the inner circle of nominees is undeserving. And usually no one wins all the awards. There all always nominees who do not win. And Benedict does not do what he does in order to win awards.
However, what annoys me in his case is the blatant disparity between nominations and wins. I took the effort to count:
22 best actor nominations for TIG so far (most decisions have already been made) - 1 win.

**Posted by SolarSystem** January 27, 2015 8:35 am

REReader wrote:
I believe that category-specific voting (actors for actors, writers for writers, etc.) is only part of the Oscar nomination process; for the actual awards, everyone in the Academy votes.

(I could be wrong, though!)

Maybe they have changed this, but a few years ago it was like I wrote: only actors can vote in the Best Actor category. Only when it comes to Best Film every member of the Academy has a vote.

**Posted by SolarSystem** January 27, 2015 8:42 am

miriel68 wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
I have seen "The Theory of Everything" and Eddie is really good in it. And not only when it comes to the physicalness of the role. There also is a very nice chemistry between him and Felicity Jones. The film as a whole however isn't really my cup of tea, for various reasons.So. Eddie certainly deserves awards for his performance.

Eddie Redmayne does an outstanding job in imitating the stages of Hawking's illness. I have seen actors win awards for less domanding performances.
My issue with him getting all the accolades and awards is that TTOE itself is a particularly poor and conventional film, "even" for a biopic. It doesn't tell us anything about Hawking as a human being, other than what we can read in Wikipedia summary: namely, that he is the genius, that he has neuro-moto disease, that he was married and had kids and then married again with his nurse. The whole film reads like one of these sweet divulgative biographies for young adults, so popular nowadays.The critics know it - you read it between the lines in the reviews - yet no one has the guts to say it, they prefer raving about how uncannily Hawking-like ER is in it.
Now, last year Benedict pulled off an impressive performance as Assange, but once the film was deemed disappointing no one ever dreamt to nominate him for any award.

But that is exactly why I think that it's totally okay to give all these awards to Eddie even though the film itself is not very strong. I recall how furious many of us were when Benedict didn't get any nominations for his Assange - what happens now with Eddie is exactly how it should be. You have to look at the performance of an actor without taking into account the quality of the movie. And yes, it's sad that this didn't happen with Benedict's Assange... but that's not Eddie's fault.

**Posted by miriel68** January 27, 2015 9:14 am

SolarSystem wrote:
But that is exactly why I think that it's totally okay to give all these awards to Eddie even though the film itself is not very strong. I recall how furious many of us were when Benedict didn't get any nominations for his Assange - what happens now with Eddie is exactly how it should be. You have to look at the performance of an actor without taking into account the quality of the movie. And yes, it's sad that this didn't happen with Benedict's Assange... but that's not Eddie's fault.

Well, I wouldn't agree. While Benedict's Assange was awesome and I think it should have been appreciated more than it was, I really don't think he should have won GG, Bafta or Oscar for it. There is no way the quality of the movie would not influence the quality of the performance. Even Benedict couldn't save such a weak script as the "Last Enemy", for example. And while he managed to do an impressive job in TFE, it's still a far less interesting portrayal of Assange that it could have been, if the script had offered him more opportunities.
ER is an excellent actor and I am sure he could have done much more with Hawking, as well, but the way the film is done, he is mostly limited to focus on physical degradation of his body. It's an impressive, but very superficial performance. Not only Benedict, but also Keaton, Cooper and Carell had much more complex roles to deal with, not to mention some of the actors who were discarded in favour of Redmayne more acrobatic and baity role, such as Spall or even Gyllehale.

**Posted by SolarSystem** January 27, 2015 9:32 am

I suppose we just have to agree to disagree then. I can't say anything about the performances of Carell, Spall or anyone else you've mentioned, because I haven't seen those films (yet).
And just in general, something I've said several times before: It's difficult, if not even impossible and a tiny bit absurd to compare the performances of actors who have played such different roles anyway. Comparing arts in general is... weird, if you ask me. But it is done, and if we decide to take part in this, even if only in a passive, fangirlish way, then we have to live with the fact that decisions will not always meet our expectations and that we very likely tend to disagree with a lot of those decisions.

Last edited by SolarSystem (January 27, 2015 9:36 am)

**Posted by miriel68** January 27, 2015 9:51 am

SolarSystem wrote:
I suppose we just have to agree to disagree then.

Let us agree to disagree then . I do think it is difficult to compare excellent films or performances, especially when they belong to different genres. I couldn't honestly say that TIG is a better film than Whiplash or The Grand Budapest Hotel or even Birdman. The same way, while I am rooting for Benedict to win at least something, I couldn't say Keaton's or Bradley's performance are "less" worthy.

But I do have issues with mediocre films winning the awards and awarding an actor for a performance in a forgettable film means legitimizing the movie itself, not something I would like to see happen at major awards. Of course it happens, like Meryl Streep getting Oscar for Iron Lady, arguably the worst film in her career, but I am always frustrated about it.

**Posted by Tinks** January 27, 2015 10:06 am

May I chime in here?
To be honest all we can really do is have an opinion - there's no right or wrong answer to who gives the best acting performance as you could ask several different people and they'd all give a different answer! That's why these awards don't mean an awful lot other than to those who are in competition for them, in fact there are many award winners who haven't done much after, say, an Oscar win, so it's not necessarily even the case that winning awards furthers your career.
But actors being put forward for films that aren't particularly good isn't a new thing - sometimes it works in an actor's favour if their performance has stood out in an otherwise poor movie.
For what it's worth, I don't think Eddie is a great actor (just my opinion) but he performed this particular role very well. I do think Benedict is a fantastic actor, but he doesn't always get the roles that allow him to shine. TIG absolutely brought out the best in him, but if he's up against Eddie then I can understand why judges might feel that Eddie's was the more demanding performance.
I do think it's a shame that Timothy Spall has been overlooked - a truly brilliant and very underrated actor - but he's a very humble man with no shortage of work, so I'm sure he won't mind.
I think when it comes to the Oscars, Michael Keaton might win but certainly it looks like Eddie will pick up the Best Actor award everywhere else!

**Posted by SolarSystem** January 27, 2015 10:15 am

miriel68 wrote:
But I do have issues with mediocre films winning the awards and awarding an actor for a performance in a forgettable film means legitimizing the movie itself, not something I would like to see happen at major awards. Of course it happens, like Meryl Streep getting Oscar for Iron Lady, arguably the worst film in her career, but I am always frustrated about it.

I totally understand that, and I agree about mediocre films. Just one word: "Titanic". Nice SFX, but no content whatsoever. And look how many Oscars that movie took away. It's quite difficult for me to take awards seriously that obviously fall for nice appearances and very often don't look much further than that. On the other hand, I think it might be even more of an accomplishment if an actor manages to give an outstanding performance in a movie that otherwise has its deficiencies.

**Posted by REReader** January 27, 2015 4:02 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
REReader wrote:
I believe that category-specific voting (actors for actors, writers for writers, etc.) is only part of the Oscar nomination process; for the actual awards, everyone in the Academy votes.

(I could be wrong, though!)
Maybe they have changed this, but a few years ago it was like I wrote: only actors can vote in the Best Actor category. Only when it comes to Best Film every member of the Academy has a vote.

i went and looked at the official Oscars website: http://www.oscars.org/oscars/voting. I think it means that the nominations now are by branch (except for Best Picture), but actual voting is general--that's how I understand it? I know tthey changed the rules not so long ago, perhaps that was one of the changes.

**Posted by Russell** January 27, 2015 5:46 pm

REReader wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
REReader wrote:
I believe that category-specific voting (actors for actors, writers for writers, etc.) is only part of the Oscar nomination process; for the actual awards, everyone in the Academy votes.

(I could be wrong, though!)
Maybe they have changed this, but a few years ago it was like I wrote: only actors can vote in the Best Actor category. Only when it comes to Best Film every member of the Academy has a vote.

i went and looked at the official Oscars website: http://www.oscars.org/oscars/voting. I think it means that the nominations now are by branch (except for Best Picture), but actual voting is general--that's how I understand it? I know tthey changed the rules not so long ago, perhaps that was one of the changes.

Pretty sure they did, and you're right, although haven't been to the website or recall exactly (I do remember the number of nominations in some categories was changed?). But funny you mention, was just reading earlier from my Entertainment Weekly about the Oscar insanity and run-down of everything, and it does mention nominations being broken down by section (actors voting for actors, etc), but then the final balloting is a free-for-all where every Academy member casts votes in every category. Which is also partly why the people behind each film go insane getting themselves out there after nominations are announced, to keep themselves in the Academy's memory (annoying skewed views of 'Oscar material' aside that you guys have already greatly discussed, and agree with, and trickiness with getting over-saturated). That said, really wish Ben could win, too.

**Posted by tonnaree** January 27, 2015 6:07 pm

I haven't given up completely. No matter how things look going into the Oscars you never know when you're going to be suprised!

**Posted by REReader** January 27, 2015 6:42 pm

tonnaree wrote:
I haven't given up completely. No matter how things look going into the Oscars you never know when you're going to be suprised!

Yep!

**Posted by josabby** January 27, 2015 7:53 pm

I'm getting bored with the awards asn I do every year when the same people keep winning over and over again, especially since while the performances are very good, they aren't miles above the other nominees so much that they deserve the continual winning streak. I loved "Birdman" and thought Keaton was great, but he seems to be winning more on the fact that it's a "comeback" role and "his last chance" more than on the actual performance. He wasn't better than Jack Gyllenhaal (who should have been nominated instead of Bradley Cooper IMO), Steve Carell, or Benedict. Eddie Redmayne did a pretty good job with the physicality of Hawking's condition, but his performance had no real depth most of the time. this review really shows my feelings about Theory of Everything http://mpmacting.com/blog/2015/1/3/the-theory-of-everything-a-review. Eddie Redmayne's acting is better suited for the stage where he'd have to project to people in the back row, than for the screen where the camera can capture the little things. Yes, I'm bias, but Benedict's Hawking kicked the crap out of Redmayne's. When the condtion first started affecting him, Benedict showed so much anquish. Eddie Redmayne just had a goofy look on his face when he fell or did generic pouting. I think David Oyelowo should have been nominated instead... or Tom Hardy for "The Drop"

Benedict really lost himself in playing Turing. Turing is a super genius, but Benedict managed to play him completely differently from Hawking, Sherlock, Khan, ect.,
It's not just the best actor category. I love Juliane Moore. I have to wait a couple of weeks before "Still Alice" comes to my city so I'll reserve judgement, but Rosumund Pike was awesome in Gone Girl.

JT Simmons was pretty awesome in Whiplash, so seeing him continue to win isn't quite as annoying, but still.
Same goes for Patricia Arquette, though I wish Tilda Swinton had been nominated for Snowpiercer. At least the critics choice recognized her.

**Posted by kaye** January 27, 2015 11:26 pm

Because Eddie has won both the Golden Globe and the SAG Award as Best Actor, I think we can safely say he will win the Oscar too. This just isn't Benedict's year. For what it's worth, Eddie Redmayne is one of the best actor's England has ever produced - everything that I have seen him in has blown me away. He deserves this. At the same time - I know the same can be said of Benedict. It hurts that Eddie is winning for a role Ben also did.

HOWEVER - It has been an honor for Ben to be nominated. That IS something. And let's remember, Ben won an EMMY AWARD for Sherlock. That is more impressive than a SAG honor.

**Posted by miriel68** January 28, 2015 7:49 am

I am glad Benedict has won Emmy, because it is in fact his first "important" award - there are loads of actors who have won GG, Emmies or even Oscars for far less impressive performances and relatively (or objectively, lol) mediocre fims - Downton Abbey, anyone?
I won't be 'disappointed' if Benedict doesn't win (well, of course I will be, in a sense), even if IMO his was the best performance among the nominated. But I admit I WILL be disappointed if the award goes to ER who is - always IMO - the weakest of all nominated. It would mean for me, that all the capacity of appreciating subtle acting is gone and the only thing that matters is how well you are able to twist your body.
I watched "Still Alice" yesterday. Like TTOE it is a very mediocre movie, as well, only saved by Julianne Moore acting. Nevertheless, I would say her performance is much more award worthy, because she has to express her anguish and the slow degeneration of her mind in a not-showy-way, just by subtle changes in her body language and facial expression, which is a far more complicated thing that was ER did in TTOE.

Last edited by miriel68 (January 28, 2015 7:50 am)

**Posted by SolarSystem** January 28, 2015 8:01 am

miriel68 wrote:
But I admit I WILL be disappointed if the award goes to ER who is - always IMO - the weakest of all nominated. It would mean for me, that all the capacity of appreciating subtle acting is gone and the only thing that matters is how well you are able to twist your body.

But that is not a new phenomenon, I'm afraid. It takes a bit more effort to recognize subtle acting, and I think a lot of people who are allowed to vote for awards aren't up for it.

**Posted by SusiGo** January 28, 2015 8:15 am

Tbh, I think the only performance for which Benedict has been appropriately honoured so far was "Frankenstein". In case of all others there is a striking number of snubs and a blatant disproportion of nominations and wins. (Just look at Colin Firth who won everything there was to be won for "The King's Speech", a quieter, more subtle part bearing certain similarity with Turing.)

**Posted by SolarSystem** January 28, 2015 11:00 am

SusiGo wrote:
Tbh, I think the only performance for which Benedict has been appropriately honoured so far was "Frankenstein".

But that kind of proves what has been said above, doesn't it? Playing the creature in "Frankenstein" has been a very physical task (a bit like playing Stephen Hawking, even if the details of the performance are different). But it was impossible to miss how physical that role was - and maybe for a lot of people 'physical' equals 'demanding', and that's what you get awards for. If Benedict had only played Victor Frankenstein and not the creature... what do you think would have happened then, in terms of awards?