The Social Network was clearly not in a position to win the Screen Actors Guild "Outstanding Cast" prize despite its glut of young new talent. It's simply not how the SAG awards work and simply not the way voting bodies recognize performances -- a band of young male stars is simply not how the cookie crumbles.
With a quick scan of the cast winners for the past dozen or so years, SAG has its specific taste -- it's either the best picture, or it's the smaller picture with the charming acting. The only two exceptions to this rule seem Traffic and Inglorious Basterds. But even with those exceptions, the only point of note seems their lack of charm. They are, after all, full of great performances and this is the acting award handed out by actors. The trophy itself is called "The Actor" for goodness sake. And the painstaking effort to say things like Female Actor and Male Actor! Is it controversial to use the word "actor" to signify that the person is a male? Has "actress" suddenly become the "male nurse" of the art world? It's not like Josh Duhamel was up there saying "And you're pick for most hip co-ed is..." Anyway... that's an entirely different conversation that's neither here nor there -- well, it's "there" I'm just not going to spend time going into it right now.
The point is that as much as a new crop of actors emerged with The Social Network, it is simply not going to win the SAG award in a room that gives best actress in a Comedy Series to Betty White. It's not going to take down any of its fellow nominees -- whether its The Kids Are All Right -- filled with former nominees and winners, The Black Swan -- same situation applies, or The Fighter -- which seemed the odds on favorite going into the night.
The problem for The Social Network is that the trophy went to The King's Speech -- much as it would have been to Fincher & Co's chagrin should the non-nominated True Grit have stalked in and Murkowski-ed the joint. Back in 1998, when the world was quietly awaiting Saving Private Ryan to storm the beach of Oscar victory, Harvey Weinstein and Ed Zwick's slick yoink of the SAG Award seemed immaterial. Despite the great performances throughout Ryan (which should have won and I'll go ten rounds with anyone who thinks otherwise! Obviously these will be thumb wrestling rounds) was the world honestly going to say that Barry Pepper, Vin Diesel, and the gang were going to take the award over Judi Dench, Colin Firth, Joe Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, and Gwyneth Paltrow?
Cut to Oscar night 1998: was it a surprise when Judi Dench won the Oscar, followed by Gwyneth, followed by Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman -- if Steven Spielberg was still getting up there for Best Director -- after Ryan had already bagged Editing, Sound, Sound EFX Editing, and Cinematography? The Oscar still seemed in The Mission is a Man's favor. Sure, there were schmohawks like Sole down there on Wall Street betting "the field" against a Ryan victory. But even that wasn't a straight up assumption that Shakespeare would take it. No one thought so. No one. People were thrilled afterward and did ample revisionist emotional and predictive history, pointing out the signs -- but even the happy were shocked: it was a stunner. The icing on the stupefying cake was that the best picture presenter was Harrison Ford -- who else do you send out to give Spielberg his picture Oscar? It wasn't like Ben Affleck was doing the honors!
Here we are again 12 Award Seasons later -- Miramax has toppled -- and a charming little British film with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush has steadily increased the mailings getting louder and louder in its victories on the road to Oscar. Last night it had the very same success Shakespeare had: Leading Role (only this time "Male Actor") and Cast.
Is Harvey doing it again?
- Matthew J. McCue
No comments:
Post a Comment