2012 SAG Awards -- Tonight! 8pm EST (with a tribute to Mary Tyler Moore)- Page 2

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 10:23am

Mary did the best she could. She recently had surgery and I believe she is legally blind. God bless her for showing up.

I was thrilled to see Davis and Spencer win. There are better performances than that of White and Baldwin. Also, don't SAG members believe in sharing the wealth??

As far as The Descendants-it has to be the most overrated film of the year. It's like a Lifetime movie. I think the best performance in the film belongs to Shailene Woodley who shows more range in this film than Clooney has in his whole career.

I think Hollywood really has really pinned it's "old Hollywood" label on Clooney and will give him awards based on his charisma.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 10:26am

I was thrilled to see Davis and Spencer win. There are better performances than that of White and Baldwin. Also, don't SAG members believe in sharing the wealth??


Not really. I'm pretty sure when WILL AND GRACE was on, Sean Hayes and Megan Mullally won the awards pretty much every year, or every other year. Just like at the Emmys, people tend to start winning and don't stop.

Like I said in an earlier post, I find it rather ridiculous that they don't separate leading and supporting television performances when they do for film.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 10:31am

I think Hollywood really has really pinned it's "old Hollywood" label on Clooney and will give him awards based on his charisma.

Except that this year Jean Dujardin has Clooney down for the count in the charisma match. And it doesn't help that Clooney has shown a resounding lack of interest in these "awards things." He always seems to look like he showed up because he couldn't find anything better to do at the last minute. "Might as well go."

Nothing wrong with that, and it shouldn't play into an opinion of anyone's performance in a film. But for those who are influenced by such things and the red-carpet appeal of movie stars ... Clooney has a direct major competitor this time in Dujardin ... who has him easily beat, IMO.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 12:09pm

Gold Derby has Clooney up over Dujardin by 25 points. That has to be wildly inaccurate.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 12:16pm

I would have possibly agreed ... two weeks ago. They need to update.

The Descendants and Clooney have no momentum or buzz building with them. The Artist and Dujardin are gaining more word-of-mouth raves every day. By the time the ballots are all turned in, I don't think it will even be close.

EDIT: Dare I say it? Harvey Weinstein strikes again! He is the master of the slow burn. He knows how to start early, roll something out carefully, and have it peak just at the right moment. He knows when and how often to tease films to audiences. Then give them a little more. He knows how to do the "limited release" and actually keep it limited, then open nationwide and have it hit with brand-new raves at just the right time.

Damn the man. I've never heard a kind word said about him.

He's very good at his job, though.

Updated On: 1/31/12 at 12:16 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 12:29pm

That was exactly the atmosphere where I saw the film yesterday, besty. I was visiting my boyfriend, who lives in a small college town with a two-screen arthouse, and the theatre was absolutely packed for a matinee showing. We've seen many films at this theatre and this was the first time we'd ever seen it more than half-full. The audience was eating it up and many walked out in tears, while others were just raving about how special it was. It just opened this weekend there and the theatre manager (a friend of ours) told us that nearly every showing has been at capacity. Great marketing, indeed.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 12:31pm

I was just thinking about the difference between The Artist and Hugo.

One is clever and the other is clumsy. Both are cinematic valentines, affectionate nods to film history and the great masters of the past.

One does it by stopping its own story cold and lecturing us on how important it all is in a step-by-step "class." The other leads by example, creating a brand-new work in an entirely historical way.

Both films attract audiences to old genres and will get new people interested in the brilliant works of the past.

One succeeds magnificently, and the other falls short (even in a noble attempt).

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 12:46pm

One lectures about the "Magic Of The Cinema" and the other embodies the magic of the cinema.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 12:50pm

Yes and yes.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 1:36pm

I completely agree, I wanted to love HUGO but ended up appreciating it more than liking it. THE ARTIST is a beautiful film that completely captures nostalgia and magic in equally successful ways while being a contemporary movie in every way. The nightmare sequence alone blew me away, and that ending! (just to highlight a few moments).
I still worry about Clooney, he certainly has enough influence among Academy members but (as Besty said) he clearly doesn't care. He already has an Oscar and he doesn't need another one, he's a bonafide star. I hope they go with Dujardin, Harvey Weinstein got both lead actor and picture last year, I think if anyone can put on a successful campaign for Dujardin it's him.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 1:52pm

Totally agree with besty and Roscoe. To me, Hugo rarely rose above cute and in an effort to do something different, Scorsese attempted to replicate Jeunet, but failed to truly integrate the story and characters or develop any real sense of urgency or suspense. The entire film, I always knew what was going to happen next. Usually, I can let go even in the most cliched of films, but this felt like it was trying so damn hard, I was guessing the next step in every scene simply because there was little to keep my attention. The best scenes involved the career of Melies and I wish he had either just made a movie of only that story or that Jeunet had directed this adaptation.

The Artist started with a premise borrowing from classic films, but took the story in unexpected directions and provided some genuine surprises. Whereas Scorsese was trying to utilize the hottest technology trend (though I saw the film in 2D), The Artist reminded me the true meaning of film entertainment. One tried to teach me a lesson, but the other demonstrated it. A fine example of the lyrics of Lerner...Show Me. That's where The Artist truly succeeded. I truly hope The Artist wins at least 5 Oscars, though I'm hoping it wins for every category it's nominated. The "importance" of Hugo was too deliberate and heavy-handed. The "importance" of The Artist was far more effective and subtle. I think The Artist is a classic in the making while Hugo could be quickly forgotten.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 3:50pm

I would love an "Artist" sweep! I'm sure it won't win everything it's up for, but wouldn't it be nice? And it's certainly deserving in all categories. I wish Berenice Bejo was getting a little more love. She is definitely deserving of the Supporting award, and if I were voting, she'd have my vote.

One of the other things I loved about it ... and this might be a mild SPOILER without giving away any specific plot points ...

Okay, ****SPOILER*****

"The Artist" gets it's "new" plot primarily from two classic films: "A Star Is Born" and "Singin' in the Rain." There are also subtle nods to everything from Sunset Blvd. to Citizen Kane to Broadway Melody of 1940.

But with the main plot, it takes "A Star Is Born" and tells it from HIS point of view rather than HERS. In other words, it's usually Vicky Lester's (aka Judy's or Barbra's or Janet Gaynor's) story of the rise to fame with Norman Maine, the establish star on the downward spiral, as her co-star. In this case, the story is told from "Norman's" POV. And with "Singin' in the Rain" the story of the switch from silents to talkies is told as a "talking picture" from the people who successfully make the switch, not from the POV of the silent stars who are fading away, and told in a silent film.

I love that it takes those two classic stories, combines them, and tells them from a new and fresh perspective. Genius!

Updated On: 1/30/12 at 03:50 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 4:07pm

besty - Those were the same things I noticed while watching the film. It managed to borrow from classics without ever seeming derivative. And while the couple of "twists" that were thrown in could have seemed gimmicky, they somehow raised the artistic level of the film even further by reminding the audience what they were essentially "missing". The first time it happened, the reaction from the audience I attended was so delightful. It was one of those rare moments where it felt like an entire auditorium of kindred spirits and you were all completely engaged and connected both with the film and with each other. That's what made this film magical for me. It wasn't just the content and what was on the screen, but how it affected the audience in a way that I never anticipated. I didn't want it to end. It was just too special. I know that environment can't be recreated in multiple viewings, but regardless, I know I'll enjoy the movie again and again.

Updated On: 1/30/12 at 04:07 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 5:24pm

Those "I'm an actor" speeches get more awkward every year. Why was Emily Watson whispering?

I thought the Modern Family speech with the kids was embarrassing for all involved.

All in all, I thought the show was pretty dull.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 5:43pm

I agree, Mister Matt! The audience when I attended burst into applause at the end and didn't just walk out, but were buzzing with superlatives along the way. I usually hear a few people say things when we all leave a theatre, but not the majority. This was a time where so many people were vocal about what they had just seen and how much they loved it. A very special moviegoing experience.


MINOR SPOILER *********


EDIT: One random shout-out for the talented Missi Pyle playing a "Lina Lamont"-type role at the very beginning. She was hilarious when he wouldn't take her out on stage for a bow. So many good supporting actors in this film!

Updated On: 1/30/12 at 05:43 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/30/12 at 5:53pm

OMG...I loved the Lina Lamont moment! Well, the whole opening was so Singin' in the Rain (my all-time favorite movie), I was worried as to where this film was going and rather than being a rip-off, I was delighted it was an amalgamated homage with its own POV.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 9:28am

"The Help" is the most overrated tripe, and so are Davis' and Spencer's performances. Had it not been a big hit, there wouldn't be talk of Oscar. It would've just come and gone. Clearly, Disney didn't have much hope for it, since it was released in the Dog Days of August, a time when kids are going back to school and studios dump their lesser films between the summer blockbusters and the commencement of the awards season in September. I'm hoping for major upsets.

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 9:41am

Not often I disagree with every syllable of a post, but I have to respectfully disagree with SM2's assessment of The Help. The reviews of the performances were overwhelmingly positive before any box office receipts were counted. As for Disney, they found a slot where it made alomst $170m, and only high-budget action movies or franchise movies made more. No movie is for everyone, so I get that people may like or dislike any movie, but I find trouble giving any sort of credibility when you use the word 'overrated' when referring to a performance by Viola Davis.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 9:50am

Saying that Disney "dumped" the film too is wildly inaccurate. It was one of the most aggressively promoted movies of the year. Television ads started months before it opened. It's a movie based on one of the most popular books in recent memory--they knew there was an audience for it, and who that audience was.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 9:52am

The Help was a thoroughly enjoyable film with a LOT of faults. I thought the performances were excellent, though. The faults were mostly in plausibility in everything from minor gags (the toilets on the lawn? Please!) to more major issues.

Still the movie was highly entertaining and stayed on the light side of this volatile scenario rather than getting much darker with it, as it certainly could have done (which might have made for a more realistic film, but a likely major flop as well). I don't think I would have preferred a "Mississippi Burning" approach to this story. I didn't mind the lighter look at a serious issue. Sometimes the "spoonful of sugar" does help the medicine go down. And it wasn't all sweetness and light, either. But it certainly favored that tone, no question about it.

Hairspray did it. Many other films and stories have, too.

There was enough in The Help to keep me engaged and interested throughout, with only a few moments where I winced from something "off." I think the cast and the spirited direction were the main reasons why I stayed with it and chose to overlook the rough spots.

EDIT: And I think it won a well-deserved ensemble SAG Award. Its biggest asset was the winning cast.

Updated On: 1/31/12 at 09:52 AM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 11:24am

"I find trouble giving any sort of credibility when you use the word 'overrated' when referring to a performance by Viola Davis."

Oh, and is she somehow immune to criticism? I didn't call Davis an overrated actress. She's never really registered in most people's radar until the past year. Rather, I was calling her performance in "The Help" overrated. That's my take. I didn't think it was Oscar-caliber work; none of the performances in that movie were, IMO. That's not to say the cast was bad. They were fine, but I didn't think they were anything exceptional. The movie as a whole was fluff and the actors were adequate. Davis and Spencer are riding high on a wave of sentiment.

P.S. besty, I "Like" your post and agree with it, for the most part.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 12:30pm

I have more issues with Viola Davis' role than I do with her actual performance. She's just such a martyr she becomes almost pitiful. Davis did what she could with it, but it definitely isn't in my top five performances of the year, let alone the top. She'll win because everyone loved the movie, everyone loves her, and it's a nice way for Hollywood to remind themselves of how liberal they are and how far they think they've gone. Davis is a brilliant actress so even if she's not in my top five this year (I still don't understand why Kirsten Dunst and Charlize Theron were snubbed to make way for the likes of Glenn Close in ALBERT NOBBS), it's hard to get mad about her winning; I won't be outraged like I was when Sandra Bullock won one of the most undeserved Oscars in the past decade for that embarrassing movie.
I feel more okay with Octavia Spencer winning, even if I preferred Jessica Chastain (who constantly blew me away with her performances this year). Spencer lit up the screen whenever she was on and you missed her presence when she wasn't.
And while I thought the ensemble of THE HELP was great, my vote would have gone for BRIDESMAIDS, I thought that cast was spectacular, but it was a strong year with the likes of MIDNIGHT IN PARIS and THE ARTIST also in the running.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/31/12 at 2:40pm

"The Help was a thoroughly enjoyable film with a LOT of faults. I thought the performances were excellent, though. The faults were mostly in plausibility in everything from minor gags (the toilets on the lawn? Please!) to more major issues.

Still the movie was highly entertaining and stayed on the light side of this volatile scenario rather than getting much darker with it, as it certainly could have done (which might have made for a more realistic film, but a likely major flop as well). I don't think I would have preferred a "Mississippi Burning" approach to this story. I didn't mind the lighter look at a serious issue. Sometimes the "spoonful of sugar" does help the medicine go down. And it wasn't all sweetness and light, either. But it certainly favored that tone, no question about it.'

Agree with every word, best12. I expected to hate THE HELP but was very pleasantly surprised that for all its faults, it delivered on many levels, not the least of which was the depth of its performances.

Very surprised by Dujardin's win but not at all unpleased. Still, I have to agree with NY and Nat Society Critics that Pitt's performance was award-worthy.


Read more: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?page=2&thread=1041493&boardname=off&boardid=2##ixzz1l4B252y8