Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:01 am
by Akash
I'll cosign everything Flipp just said. A small well acted part can leave more of an indelible impression than a mediocre lead who's in every frame of his/her film. Judi Dench is a good example -- she's so memorable in Shakespeare in Love that you almost regret when her few short scenes are over.
That being said, I still think Amy Ryan and Cate Blanchett are more deserving this year. And wow, isn't it amazing how Amy Ryan went from critical front-runner to almost out of the race? I always said she would have a difficult time being the only nomination for her film, and now the poor thing has to fight off Globe winner Cate Blanchett (also a sole nominee but she's double nominated, which helps her, and her stunt casting is flashier than all the other nominees) and SAG winner Ruby Dee who is darling and has career goodwill and "potential record breaker" status on her side, in a category where they like to give career achievement awards and make/break records. If Amy Ryan wins, it will actually be a shock.
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:49 pm
by flipp525
cam wrote:Mind you it still is ridiculous for someone to receive a best SUPPORTING award for a five-minute performance, IMO.
Okay, well let's not start that argument up again, cam. If a performer is able to make a lasting impression in a limited performance, there's no legitimate reason for them not to be considerd for awards. Beatrice Straight's seven minutes or so in Network is some of the most powerful acting I've ever seen; Judi Dench walks away with every scene she's in playing Queen Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love; Lynn Redgrave is more devastating and poignant in her four-minute scene in Kinsey than several of the actual nominees that year; ditto her sister Vanessa in this year's Atonement. The supporting Oscar was originally intended for character actors and small, supporting performances. Why rally against the Academy for actually recognizing an actor's contribution to a film regardless of their screentime and billing?
The real travesty is the Oscar-whoring trend of relegating obvious lead performances in the supporting category for the benefit of reaping awards which has been discussed here ad naseum.
Edited By flipp525 on 1201546775
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:16 pm
by cam
Truly am tired of the "split vote" discussions which we see every year here. When someone wins, the reason is always given that it was a split vote between someone else, in this case Blanchett and Ryan. It could quite possibly be that Dee outright won--did this occur to those of you who bandy this phrase around constantly at this time of year?
Mind you it still is ridiculous for someone to receive a best SUPPORTING award for a five-minute performance, IMO.
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:31 pm
by mashari
Totally called it early on and another great career tribute. She's a very safe bet for Oscar, another award that's actually younger than her!
Edited By mashari on 1201541712
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:34 am
by ITALIANO
Big Magilla wrote:Either a vote split between Blanchett and Ryan
See what I mean?
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:23 am
by Sabin
This is the strongest lineup in ages, just ages. I declared 2005 the strongest in years but this just dwarfs it. So the idea of Ruby Dee winning is both a little disheartening and I can totally see it happening. She was wonderful in her one scene but beyond that, there's nothing there. Of course she's going to be great, she's Ruby Dee and she's slapping Denzel Washington in the face. I would love to see Ruby Dee win an Oscar but Cate...and Amy...and Tilda...and even Saiorse...did so...much...more.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:48 pm
by Hustler
Her win was not so surprising. Sag members like to honor their honorary members. Anyway, she won´t win the Oscar in that category. It´s a tough race. Ryan, Blanchett and Swinton have chances.
Edited By Hustler on 1201495734
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:17 pm
by Damien
I was thrilled with Ruby Dee's win. For close to 60 years, she's been fighting the good fight: For civil rights, for abortion rights, for gay rights, for unions, against all the United States' stupid imperialistic wars, against nuclear weapons, against poverty. Ant cause that was good Ruby and Ossie were there, standing up bravely, no matter how unpopular. She's a national treasure, and because awards are never based solely on the quality of the performance, I couldn't have been more trilled with her win.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:09 pm
by Mister Tee
My wife and I both said, as they were opening the envelope, that a Ruby Dee win wouldn't surprise us, for all the reasons dws cited. Just because some actors get past the populist-limits of SAG (like Whitaker last year) doesn't mean it's never a factor -- Depp over Penn, Walken over Cooper, back to Winslet over Sorvino are clear cases, all reversed by the Oscars.
It's odd: the one category where a single performer started off sweeping the critics' prizes is now the only one where the populist precursors (Broadcasters/Globe/SAG) have split utterly. It makes it probably the most suspenseful acting category at AMPAS (though I'll still bet on Ryan).
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:07 pm
by Steph2
Big Magilla wrote:Either a vote split between Blanchett and Ryan
Oh good GOD. This theory is used for everything. Maybe vote-splitting is also why Heath Ledger got the most applause.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:49 pm
by dws1982
Big Magilla wrote:Didn't I read an analysis of best actress from you that reasoned Christie wouldn't win because her film didn't make money?
And I also said that Lions Gate did send out screeners to the entire SAG membership, indicating that I thought that Christie still had a chance despite the commercial underperformance of her film.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:39 pm
by anonymous1980
cam wrote:That is patently absurd. Less than ten-minute performance?
I thought it was less than 5 minutes.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:34 pm
by dylanfan23
I thought her speech was great...i think when she went to her husband she kind of lost track of what she was trying to say, which is understandable...i don't think she was trying to plug her deceased husbands book.
And i don't think this was a vote split...they don't go with young unproven very often. I don't think it will go the same way at the oscars but i could see another big surprise with ronan or swinton getting the award.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:33 pm
by Big Magilla
dws1982 wrote:Big Magilla wrote:Either a vote split between Blanchett and Ryan or they really, really like her.
Vote splits again!
Dee was in the highest grossing film--by far--of the lineup. Plus, she's an old veteran actress. I didn't predict it, but I wasn't surprised by it either.
Blanchett was in a movie that tanked, and Ryan is an unknown in a movie that made around $20 million.
Didn't I read an analysis of best actress from you that reasoned Christie wouldn't win because her film didn't make money?
I suspect her veteran status had more to do with it than whether or not the entire voting body saw her performance or those of her competition.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:29 pm
by Cinemanolis
Ruby Dee would have increased her chances for the Oscar with a good speech at the SAGs. Instead she gave a really boring speech, which would make even the cameraman fall asleep and advertised her husband's book. She really blew her chance. She is still a possibility for the Oscar, but now that she has an important award, i don't think they'll feel the need to reward her again.