MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


What to make of the SAG nominations?
Airplanes? Origami? Another Yuletide log on the fire?

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “SAGinations”

  1. Me says:

    With No Country the seeming frontrunner, the question becomes does it have the legs to make it all the way, or is there a dark horse that can overtake it when people start to fall out of love with it? And what could that dark horse be? So far, it doesn’t seem too clear on what could overtake it. Sweeny Todd? Atonement? Into the Wild? Juno?
    In a cool way, this seems like another year where anything in play could pull out the win. Fortunately, the movies seem stronger this year to justify their being in contention (a problem with the last couple of years).

  2. qwiggles says:

    What a strange list. Not bad exactly, but strange.

  3. movieman says:

    Fearless (and probably foolish) early Oscar predix:
    “No Country” for picture, director, adapted screenplay and Bardem
    (it’s the Coens’ year just like last year was Scorsese’s-think of it as a premature lifetime achievement award)
    Depp (SAG be damned) for actor (he’s due)
    Page (feel that “Juno” love)
    Amy Ryan (residual Affleck love)
    “Juno,” original script (but will Diablo burn out as quickly as Callie Khouri, Hollywood’s last femme scripter du jour? To show how far Khouri’s star has fallen, her latest credit is the mortifying-looking “Mad Money” opening next month)
    “Ratatouille” (duh)
    foreign language is a total wild card; the best subtitled flick of the year (“Diving Bell”) isn’t even eligible.

  4. jeffmcm says:

    See, this is what I don’t get about this whole process for the last few years: every post DP makes on the subject of awards groups like this seems to consist of the same two thoughts:
    “What does this mean for the Oscars?” which is then answered, “This doesn’t mean anything.”
    It feels like a refrain.

  5. lazarus says:

    Thank the maker. Now hopefully Depp won’t be in the way of Daniel Day-Lewis picking up another Oscar.
    Although it’s possible Clooney could win here? SAG already awarded DDL recently for Gangs of New York.
    Either way, not good news for Depp, even if he has the Musical/Comedy Golden Globe in the bag. Or does he?

  6. David Poland says:

    J-Mc… do you want me to lie to you?
    This stuff about “why do you bring up the Oscars” is like asking why I relate marketing to the box office success of a movie. NO ONE with a stake in a movie cares much whether the art is beautiful or ugly, smart or dumb, arresting or numbing, so long as it generates box office.
    People who say that all these awards so will not be seen, in the end, almost exclusively in the context of Oscar are either ignorant or self-delusional. Sorry… that is reality.
    I am happy to celebrate the achievements of artists along the way. They should be proud of every honor. And I have encouraged many filmmakers to be happy with what they get from groups other than The Academy, knowing full well that in the end, they will probably not win there. But no matter how disconnected people claim to be from that event… when it comes down to it, they all care A LOT. The journey can be sweet, but no one wants to come in #2, even if being #2 means being ahead of hundreds of other quality films and performances.
    This is the nature of a beat I cover.
    And sorry, Laz… Depp is still in the way at Oscar and yes, you are right in being concerned that Charming George will walk past Method Daniel at SAG.

  7. Umbacka says:

    Why is no one comparing INTO THE WILD with CRASH? Neither got much love from HFPA but got it from SAG. And industry types love this film. Keener was almost absent from all critics list for both CAPOTE and MALKOVICH, so I thinks she is a def. nominee. I’m hoping for an INTO THE WILD upset.

  8. waterbucket says:

    TRASH. TRASH. TRASH. Must it be brought up again and again?

  9. jeffmcm says:

    DP, my point is that what you see as reporting the truth, I’m seeing as familiar schtick. I feel like you could copy the same articles you wrote a year ago merely by cutting and pasting names and movie titles out.

  10. Me says:

    Jeff, I think these articles have a similar feel to them because this year is similar to the last couple. No one is able to discern the tea leaves, because the tea leaves are all over the place. This isn’t a Chicago or Gladiator year, where one movie seems to be a foregone conclusion. So Golden Globes, SAG, etc., don’t really tell us anything foregone, only that there are a lot of films and performances in play. I wonder if we go back and look at Dave’s writings from a Gladiator or Chicago year if they wouldn’t be quite different.

  11. David Poland says:

    I’m sorry to tax your brain, J-Mc.
    I suggest that you look to detail for meaning and not to themes. The awards season doesn’t change from year to year, only the players and the details. This is true of most things in life.
    There are minor chords that change – for instance, the darkness of the films this season and a lack of biopics – but part of my role is to make clear these greater, repeating truths and not to entertain you by pretending that there is a revaltion to be found in SAG nominations this year.
    Of course, when I do get excited, the same people who piss on me for repeating themes crap on me for being too excited. As much as I love being our laxative, it gets boring.
    The difference between us in that regard is that you have not only the right, but the instinct of self-preservation that suggests that if you feel that way you should stop reading the site… whereas I am simply your host, trying to keep the welcome mat clean.

  12. David Poland says:

    And Umbacka… I think the reason is that they are too busy looking at Crash distributor Lionsgate and their 3:10 To Yuma aspirations.
    But the point that Into The Wild is alive, alive should be made… and I made it last week.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    DP, my point is that you don’t tax my brain enough.
    “Self-preservation”? Don’t get it.

  14. Hopscotch says:

    Depp not getting nominated is pretty shocking. The man is loved by his actor brethren. Loved.
    Denzel not getting nominated is showing more people are seeing the movie.
    No Philip Seymor Hoffman, bummer man.
    If I had to make one for sure-pick come Oscar time: Javier Bardem.

  15. Nice to know they actually took “best ensemble cast” to heart and nominated the likes of Hairspray – a true ensemble piece.
    The lack of Atonement nods isn’t very surprising if you’ve actually seen the film. Keira and James aren’t your typical lead performances, Saiorse isn’t likable in the way Dakota Fanning, Jamie Bell and Abigail Breslin were when they were nominated, and the “ensemble” isn’t filled with famous people (ala American Gangster). I still assumed it’d be nommed here and there though.

  16. Me says:

    Kamikaze, the one thing I’ve been shocked by this season is the lack of attention for McAvoy. I thought he stole the show in Atonement, and what worked for that film worked largely because of his terrific performance. I think it’s a real shame he’s getting overlooked.

  17. samguy says:

    Ideally either 3:10 or HAIRSPRAY win the ensemble award WITHOUT a BP nom from the academy. Would finally put some suspense back in the race for the 4 dozen of us that might still care.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon