daily life

There were tears (and cheers) for Catherine O’Hara. Rhea Seehorn explained “Pluribus,” or at least tried to. Harrison Ford was celebrated at the “half-point of his career.” And, because the show’s on Netflix, there were a few well-placed F-bombs, not including the swears muttered by the actors who didn’t win.

The 32nd Actor Awards — or the very first Actor Awards, since for the previous 31 years this ceremony has been known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards — went off without a hitch Sunday, and ended with a bang, scrambling a best picture race that felt settled after “One Battle After Another” won the top prize at the Producers Guild Awards on Saturday.

There were TV awards presented too. But we pay attention to the Actor Awards because the show takes place while Oscar ballots are out and are, for the most part, a reliable precursor to the Academy Awards. How trustworthy will they be for the acting winners this year? Let’s take a look.

Cast in a motion picture

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: “Sinners”

The past: The winner of this award has gone on to take the best picture Oscar in 15 of 30 years, making it basically a coin flip and easily the Actor Awards’ least trustworthy Oscar precursor. (The ensemble prize wasn’t awarded in 1994, the ceremony’s first year.) Oscar also-ran “Conclave” won last year, ending a three-year streak — “CODA,” “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and “Oppenheimer” — where the winner of the cast prize went on to take best picture.

Will history repeat itself? If “Sinners” had simply taken this award and nothing else, I would say “One Battle After Another” would still be the overwhelming favorite to win the best picture Oscar. But snagging this prize and Michael B. Jordan winning lead actor gives one pause, doesn’t it? Again, the cast award is not a reliable best picture precursor. A Ryan Coogler movie (“Black Panther”) won in 2019, but lost the Oscar to “Green Book.” And while “Sinners” did haul in a record-breaking 16 Oscar nominations, “One Battle” wasn’t far behind with 13, just one shy of the previous record. It’s easy to get carried away with the way the room exploded when Samuel L. Jackson announced the winner, but “One Battle’s” Producers Guild win carries more weight. I’ll need a couple of days to sit with this.

Female actor in a leading role

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: Jessie Buckley, “Hamnet”

The past: SAG and the academy have matched 21 of 31 years. The last two years have seen the groups split, with Emma Stone (“Poor Things”) winning her second Oscar over SAG winner Lily Gladstone (“Killers of the Flower Moon”) in 2024 and Mikey Madison prevailing for “Anora” over Demi Moore, who won over SAG-AFTRA voters and earned a huge standing ovation when she took the stage for her gonzo comeback turn in the body horror movie “The Substance.”

Will history repeat itself? Buckley has been a lock for the lead actress Oscar since “Hamnet” premiered in September at the Telluride Film Festival, her searching, searing turn as the film’s grieving mother producing the kind of visceral reaction that guts audiences and wins awards. And, boy, has she won awards these last few months, taking pretty much everything save for the major critics groups. The naysayers decried the acting as overripe, sniffing instead of sniffling. Monsters. There’s no denying Buckley goes big with her emotions here, but the magic in her work also can be seen in a much-used still photo from “Hamnet,” the one where she’s resting her elbows on the Old Globe stage, hands clasped, face transfixed, heart opened. You know the shot. And you’re probably getting a little verklempt just thinking about it.

Male actor in a leading role

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: Michael B. Jordan, “Sinners”

The past: This category has been the most reliable indicator of Oscar victory, with SAG and the academy matching 24 of 31 times. There are exceptions, though, such as just last year when Adrien Brody won the Oscar for “The Brutalist,” prevailing over SAG winner Chalamet (“A Complete Unknown”).

Will history repeat itself? Entering the month of February, it looked like Timothée Chalamet was a shoo-in for playing a talented, self-promoting ping-pong player in “Marty Supreme.” In fact, some know-it-all called this race more or less over just a week ago. (That was me.) Chalamet could still win. Maybe SAG-AFTRA voters didn’t want to give him the award again, just a year after they honored him for his lead turn in “A Complete Unknown.” Maybe SAG-AFTRA voters felt he was a bit, shall we say … “brash” in the way he marketed the movie and needed to be taken down a peg.

So now, entering March, it’s looking like “Marty Supreme” could be this year’s version of “The Irishman,” a film that earns a lot of nominations (in this case, nine) and comes away with nothing.

Meanwhile, Jordan’s big swing movie star turn in “Sinners,” playing twin brothers Smoke and Stack, was the best work of his career. That scream that Viola Davis let out when she opened the envelope spoke to the enthusiasm in the room both for the actor and the film. Momentum definitely seems to be on Jordan’s side right now.

Female actor in a supporting role

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: Amy Madigan, “Weapons”

The past: The Actor Award winner has gone on to take an Oscar 23 of 31 times, including last year, when Zoe Saldaña won for “Emilia Pérez,” one of countless prizes she won that season. (Note: One of those 23 winners, “The Reader’s” Kate Winslet, was nominated for — and won — the 2009 Oscar for lead actress for that performance.)

Will history repeat itself? Who knows? This category has been all over the place, but as Madigan said in her speech, she’s been doing this a “long ass time” and there’s a lot of love for this 75-year-old acting great. Teyana Taylor (“One Battle After Another”) took the Golden Globe, and Wunmi Mosaku (“Sinners”) won at the British Academy Film Awards. And the “they’re due” narrative doesn’t always play at the Oscars. (Just ask Demi Moore or Glenn Close.) Will a “One Battle” sweep carry both Taylor and Sean Penn? Or is there room for an outlier? It’s tempting to lean toward Madigan.

Male actor in a supporting role

Winner: Sean Penn, “One Battle After Another”

The past: The SAG winner has gone on to win the Oscar 22 times in 31 years, including the last dozen, the longest streak of any category.

Will history repeat itself? Penn did not attend the Actor Awards, the only thing less surprising than this win. Coming on the heels of taking the supporting actor prize from BAFTA last weekend (Penn didn’t go to that ceremony either), it’s looking likely now that Penn will win his third Oscar. He’s barely campaigned and remains a divisive figure. But his menacing turn as the outrageous Col. Steven J. Lockjaw, a man given to zealotry and tight T-shirts, is the best work he has done in years. Will he go to the Oscars, if only to collect the trophy so he can give another statue to Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky? We’ll soon see.

Final Oscar voting began yesterday. How many of the nominated movies have you seen? Are you doing your due diligence in all the categories before the March 15 ceremony or, given the summer weather outside your window, might the mountains be calling?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. It’s never too early for flip-flops, is it?

Testing out a new mandate

To vote for the Oscars, you have to watch all the nominated movies.

This may seem obvious. But until this year, the motion picture academy operated entirely on the honor system, strongly encouraging members to see everything before voting.

Now voters have to show their work — up to a point.

This year, academy members are required to certify through the group’s screening room portal that they have viewed all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in that category. Since nominations were announced in January, the academy has been emailing voters with updates on their progress, indicating where they’re cleared to vote and where they still have work to do.

One wrinkle, and it’s not a small one: Members can simply check a box indicating that they’ve watched a movie outside the academy’s platform. Perhaps they saw it at a festival, on a streaming platform other than the portal or the place God intended films to be seen — a movie theater.

Whether they actually did watch the movies is left to the honesty of the voter. It’s still an honor system, and members do not need to show movie stubs, tickets or receipts.

Talking with academy members, there seems to be a little wiggle room when it comes to having a clear conscience.

Take the voter who loved Ethan Hawke‘s lead turn as legendary lyricist Lorenz Hart in “Blue Moon,” but hated “Marty Supreme,” turning it off 20 minutes after starting it. Since the academy’s screening room counts a movie as watched only if it’s viewed in its entirety, this voter told me they planned on restarting “Marty Supreme” one night and running it on mute so he could vote in the lead actor category.

“I’d seen enough,” he said. “Watching [Timothée] Chalamet play another pingpong tournament wouldn’t make me change my mind.”

Other academy members told me they were OK marking the “watched” box next to a movie they hadn’t seen, provided they had viewed four of the category’s other nominees. By and large though, they were the outliers. Most voters said they were happy to abstain from voting in a category in which they hadn’t watched all the nominated work. (As academy members may not publicly state voting decisions or preferences, voters spoke on the condition of anonymity.)

“I don’t need to see another ‘Avatar’ movie,” a producers branch member said. “So I’m fine not voting for visual effects or costume design this year. Life is short.”

“I like the idea that I can abstain from categories without any guilt,” an Oscar-nominated writer noted, adding that she thought the new system has been “helpful, reminding me to watch things.”

To that effect, academy members have been receiving a flurry of emails and texts that would give off Big Brother vibes if it didn’t simply boil down to an admonition to watch “Frankenstein” so they could vote in the nine categories where Guillermo del Toro’s monster movie is nominated.

It really isn’t that big an ask, as in recent years the Oscars have become increasingly dominated by a smaller number of movies vacuuming up a greater share of the nominations. This year, the five movies earning the most recognition — “Sinners,” “One Battle After Another,” “Marty Supreme,” “Frankenstein” and “Hamnet” — hauled in 56 nominations.

If an Oscar voter viewed the 10 best picture nominees, they’d be eligible to mark their ballots in best picture and eight other categories — supporting actor, adapted screenplay, casting, cinematography, film editing, production design and original score. Add Hawke’s “Blue Moon” and that opens up lead actor. Make it a double feature with “It Was Just an Accident” and original screenplay becomes available.

“You don’t really need to be much more than a casual moviegoer to knock out most of your ballot,” an actors branch member told me, “except for things like animation and documentaries and the shorts. I don’t know how many people watch all of those.”

Nobody does, save for the PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants counting the ballots. The question vexing both voters and the awards consultants paid to persuade them is how this new, formalized voting will affect the results. As Oscar winners are sometimes the movies that are the most-watched, might requiring voters to see all the nominated work boost less-publicized efforts?

“If ‘Sirât’ wins sound over ‘F1,’ then I think it’s a new ballgame,” one veteran campaigner said. “Right now, though, nobody knows.”

We will soon. In the meantime, with Oscar voting running through Thursday, some academy members tell me their weekend is booked.

“Three nights, three movies,” one voter said. “And then I’m watching ‘Bridgerton.’”

Christopher Nolan gave him a noogie.

Denis Villeneuve wore his movie’s swag.

Elle Fanning looked into the future and saw him winning the Oscar.

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t love Timothée Chalamet? I mean, besides the old-timer Oscar voter who recently told me he doesn’t like the young man’s “shenanigans.”

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. Calico Mine Ride or Timber Mountain Log Ride? That’s a 1A / 1B ranking decision. It all depends if I’ve just eaten a slice of boysenberry pie.

Now … back to Timothée …

Did you catch any of the screenings during the American Cinematheque’s recent eight-film retrospective celebrating Chalamet’s career? Or perhaps you landed at the motion picture academy’s Samuel L. Goldwyn Theater on Monday when Chalamet was mobbed following a Q&A after a showing of “Marty Supreme” for guild voters.

If you witnessed a moment during this weeklong celebration — this Chalamania, if you will — you saw a young man whose talent as an actor is matched only by his genius at promotion.

You probably also came away knowing what has been a foregone conclusion since “Marty Supreme” opened in December: Chalamet is winning the Oscar for best actor.

And yet, there has been a lot of postulating that maybe one of the other nominated actors — Leonardo DiCaprio (“One Battle After Another”), Michael B. Jordan (“Sinners”), Ethan Hawke (“Blue Moon”) and Wagner Moura (“The Secret Agent”) — has a chance. You know … if things fall just the right way, there’s a path!

I get it. This year’s awards season has felt endless, and the Oscars are still more than three weeks away. Stories must be written, possibilities explored, no matter how remote.

But c’mon. Chalamet has this Oscar locked, just like “Hamnet” lead Jessie Buckley has owned the lead actress trophy since her movie premiered at Telluride in September. Admittedly, the lack of drama isn’t fun or exciting. Pine for an upset if you must, though it might be more fun to just surrender and celebrate Chalamet, a gifted actor and certified movie star who has stockpiled a remarkable body of work over the last decade.

This isn’t to say that you can’t make the case about who should win. DiCaprio continues to be one of our great comic actors and deserves attention just for the master class in phone acting he gives in “One Battle.” Moura carries “The Secret Agent” with an intense, brooding charisma that, one year shy of his 50th birthday, should push him to even greater recognition. Playing the desperate, despairing lyricist Lorenz Hart, Hawke empties his soul and his vocabulary, venting his way through the entirety of “Blue Moon.” And Jordan connects on the biggest swing of his career, playing twin brothers in “Sinners.”

So why is Chalamet winning in a walk? It’s a process of elimination. DiCaprio and Jordan are out as “Sinners” and “One Battle After Another” are ensemble films. (Even with the dual roles, Jordan is only in half the movie.) Moura’s work in “The Secret Agent” is sublime, but the Oscars rarely reward subtle acting. (This is a category that has gone to Rami Malek in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” Brendan Fraser in “The Whale” and Joaquin Phoenix in “Joker” in recent years.) And Hawke’s nomination is but one of two for “Blue Moon.” Not enough. Even the execrable “The Whale” managed three.

Chalamet already won the Golden Globe for performance by a male actor in a motion picture musical or comedy for “Marty Supreme.” Our columnist predicts an Oscar is next.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile, Chalamet is Marty Supreme, the undeniably talented, relentless self-promoter careening toward his goals of fame and fortune with little regard to the damage he is inflicting on others. (That’s Marty, not Timothée.) Marty’s despicable, but also, as played by Chalamet, winningly charming.

No, you’re not supposed to like the guy, which, for voters who, say, blanched at supporting DiCaprio in “The Wolf of Wall Street,” might be a problem. But the academy has changed a lot since Scorsese’s wildly entertaining movie screened for academy members at the Goldwyn and an unnamed screenwriter, seeing Scorsese, DiCaprio, Jonah Hill and writer Terence Winter emerging from an elevator afterward, ran over to them and started screaming, “Shame on you!”

It’s true that not everyone embraces the anxiety-inducing cinema that is the brand of “Marty Supreme” co-writer and director Josh Safdie. Not everyone embraces Safdie himself, after a noisy tabloid story resurfaced allegations of a toxic work environment on the set of the 2017 film “Good Time,” which Safdie directed with his brother, Benny.

But that has nothing to do with Chalamet, who did not work on the movie, or his ferocious, frenetic work in “Marty Supreme.” The biggest knocks against Chalamet seem to be the unorthodox ways he goes about promoting his movie (and himself) and his age (he just turned 30). Historically, the lead actor Oscar goes to men with a few more miles on the odometer. Adrien Brody is the youngest winner, taking the trophy in 2003 for “The Pianist” when he was 29.

But, as noted earlier, things have changed since the film academy began greatly expanding its membership over the past decade. This new academy gave its best picture and three acting prizes to “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” a bonkers movie that embraced chaos, fingers made of hot dogs and sex toys used as weapons. The new academy just crowned indie auteur Sean Baker king of the world for “Anora,” a Cinderella story about a stripper and a Prince Charming who knows where to score the best ketamine in Vegas.

You think these voters are going to care that Chalamet hasn’t “paid his dues,” an idea that’s patently silly on its surface anyway as this is his third Oscar nomination? He’s the youngest actor to earn three Oscar nominations since Marlon Brando did it, at age 30, in 1954.

By the way, Brando won the Oscar that year for “On the Waterfront.”

Chalamet has got this.

The Super Bowl is over. Going to Disneyland? Do you have a spare $1,000 to spend?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, host of The Envelope newsletter and the guy wondering about the profit margin on a $6 churro.

In the meantime, welcome back to the newsletter as we push through to the Oscars on March 15. Have you been catching up on the nominated movies? “Sentimental Value” is a delight … though just how delightful has been the subject of some debate.

Are the Actor Awards global enough?

Joachim Trier’s richly rewarding family drama “Sentimental Value” hauled in nine Oscar nominations last month, setting a record for most acting nods for a non-English-language movie.

Its primary quartet of actors — Stellan Skarsgård as a legendary director angling for a comeback, Renate Reinsve and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas as his daughters and Elle Fanning as an A-list actor who becomes entangled in the family drama — all received nods. Fanning’s name was the first called when nominations were announced, signaling that Scandinavian melancholy would be notably absent that morning. Never mind the hour: Champagne glasses were raised.

The celebratory scene stood in stark contrast to the vibe just two weeks earlier when “Sentimental Value” was blanked at the Actor Awards (formerly known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards). And it wasn’t the only international film ignored. The 2,500 SAG-AFTRA nomination committee voters also shunned Wagner Moura, the lead of celebrated Brazilian drama “The Secret Agent.” Moura went on to nab an Oscar nomination, one of four noms, including best picture, that Kleber Mendonça Filho’s drama earned.

The disparity between the choices of the motion picture academy and SAG-AFTRA could be an anomaly. Or it might be the latest evidence of an Oscar trend this decade. As the academy’s membership has become more global — 24% of Oscar voters live outside the United States — the Academy Awards have become increasingly an international affair, leading to a widening divide with the Hollywood guilds.

Is this a bad thing? It depends who you ask. If you queried the actors that SAG-AFTRA nominated who ended up being Oscar also-rans, the answer would be no. Those who believe that cinema is global, particularly now that American studios have largely abandoned making movies geared toward grown-ups, would have a different response.

“The fact that not one international film got in says a lot,” says a veteran awards consultant, who, like others interviewed, requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the industry. Indeed, one journalist tabbed SAG’s Actor Awards nominations the “‘America First’ List,” which, while technically accurate, might have taken the perceived xenophobia a bit far.

“The SAG Awards or Actor Awards — whatever they’re called now — are in danger of looking like a middlebrow affair,” another awards campaigner notes. “I know this is going to sound elitist, but it’s true. There’s a big difference between an organization where you have to be invited or apply to join versus one where, if you’re a disc jockey in Kansas City, you have voting rights.”

To be fair, DJs, Kansas City-based or otherwise, probably don’t vote for the Actor Awards’ nominations — just for the final awards. In the nominations round, 2,500 randomly selected active SAG-AFTRA members make the choices. To serve on the committee, members must be categorized as an actor/performer, dancer, singer or stuntperson in the SAG-AFTRA database. Could a DJ be classified as a performer? Probably not. In the guild’s view, actor and performer are synonymous, encompassing both principal and background players.

And sure, since only 7% of SAG-AFTRA actors and performers earn $80,000 or more a year, that means there are going to be a few full-time waiters on those nomination committees. But as the speeches at the Actor Awards remind us annually, it’s a profession where you’re just one job away from making it. Think of Connor Storrie, who worked at restaurants for eight years before getting his break on “Heated Rivalry.”

There’s still the question of why, say, SAG-AFTRA dancers and singers are voting on the merits of an acting performance, however. In contrast to the Actor Awards, nominations for the Oscars are decided by the academy’s various branches. Actors vote for actors, writers for screenplays and so on, with the general membership voting for best picture.

“Peer groups are deciding what’s worthy, and that’s the way it should be,” says an academy member from the public relations branch. “I’m not voting for visual effects.”

Not initially, at least. Academy members vote for all 24 categories in the final round, provided, per a rule change that went into effect this year, they attest to watching all the nominated work in the category.

SAG-AFTRA voters have rewarded non-English-language work over the years, but usually when a particular film or TV show — Bong Joon Ho’s 2019 masterpiece “Parasite” or Netflix’s “Squid Game” — is undeniable. Voters ignored recent lead turns from Fernanda Torres (“I’m Still Here”), Yalitza Aparicio (“Roma”) and Sandra Hüller (“Anatomy of a Fall”). All three went on to earn lead actress Oscar nominations.

This year’s snubbing of “Sentimental Value” is particularly puzzling as the movie featured well-known actors like Fanning and Skarsgård, an institution from roles in blockbuster franchises like “Pirates of the Caribbean” and most recently the TV series “Andor.” It’s also a film about, among other things, the blurring of art and reality and the challenges of acting. And, in the scenes featuring Fanning, it’s in English.

What gives? Like every other contender, “Sentimental Value” screened four times for voters and was available for streaming.

“I just think people are less inclined to watch a movie with subtitles at home,” says one awards consultant, alluding to the ways that passive, multiscreen viewing has encroached upon our multitasking lives. Maybe that’s why Skarsgård, when he accepted the Golden Globe award for his work in the movie, preached that “cinema should be seen in cinemas” in his speech.

Does that sound elitist? It shouldn’t. But it does seem to be a belief from a time that’s slipping away. One certainty: With the academy nominating two international features for best picture for the third straight year, global cinema is now entrenched at the Oscars. Whether SAG-AFTRA voters decide to join the party is now a question for next year.

What’s your favorite sighting heading into the long weekend?

A rare red fox outside Yosemite? A 3-year-old gray wolf roaming Los Angeles County, the first such visit in nearly a century? Or Kiké Hernández returning to the Dodgers after a long offseason spent waiting for him to resign?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, host of The Envelope newsletter and the guy answering all of the above to this newsletter’s initial question.

Let’s spend a little more time with The Envelope’s latest cover star, “Sinners” scene-stealer Delroy Lindo, this week.

Cover story: Delroy Lindo

(Bexx Francois / For The Times)

Everyone loves a surprise or two on Oscar nominations morning, and this year gave us the gift of Delroy Lindo, 73, finally earning his first Oscar nomination for his standout performance as bluesman Delta Slim in “Sinners.”

Some people are still smiling about the news. Lindo certainly is.

Lindo and I talked about the lessons he has learned as an actor over the course of a career that has spanned a half-century. He recalled the self-doubts that plagued him when he first played the lead in “A Raisin in the Sun,” the story of a struggling Black family dealing with discrimination in 1950s South Chicago, and how he overcame those fears when he revisited the role three years later.

“This was an absolute period of growth for me as an actor all because I learned the most important thing: preparation, preparation, preparation,” he told me.

But even when you exercise that level of care, you still deal with doubt. Actors will be the first to tell you that they’re needy, neurotic.

To play Delta Slim, Lindo read books on the blues, listened to Son House, Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf and immersed himself in the culture of the Mississippi Delta. Musicians helped him hone his harmonica and piano playing. He was ready.

But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t use a little affirmation for a final boost.

Lindo says there were two such “seminal moments” for him while making “Sinners.” The first came when they filmed the scene where Lindo stands as his car passes a chain gang. Delta Slim exhorts the prisoners to “hold your heads.”

“[Director] Ryan [Coogler] was very nervous,” Lindo says. “He didn’t want any accidents.”

Shortly after shooting the scene, the movie’s unit publicist, Anna Fuson, emailed Lindo’s agents, telling them how his work had moved her and the crew.

“That doesn’t happen,” Lindo says, his voice cracking with emotion.

Later they shot Delta Slim’s monologue, in which he recalls the lynching of a fellow musician, ending with Lindo breaking into a guttural humming and drumming, expressing pain that transcends words. That night Zinzi Coogler, Ryan’s wife and a producer on “Sinners,” wrote Lindo telling him how much that scene had meant to her.

“Those two moments gave me a grounding,” Lindo says quietly. “It let me know this work is impacting people. And you can’t put a value on that kind of thing.”