15 Actresses Most Overdue for Oscar

Looking at Hollywood’s Most Underappreciated Actresses When It Comes to the Grand Prize

Photo by Samuel Ramos on Unsplash

1. Glenn Close-To have that kind of streak in the 80s is something few actresses can manage, and she has followed it up with the kind of good female roles that rarely get recognized in old age

2. Annette Bening-She’s been in prestige films A LOT, and had a well-deserved 5th nomination in Nyad. Close and Bening are almost like Bradley Cooper/Leo DiCaprio and that they might give off the illusion of trying too hard to choose films based on Oscar potential at this phase.

3. Naomi Watts-I view her as on part of the Nicole Kidman/Rene Zellweger/Reese Witherspoon generation that just never got her due despite consistently being in great films

3. Sigourney Weaver-Maybe, it’s the ghettoization of her action or comedy roles, but she’s still been around for a long time

4. Amy Adams-Yes, to have 6 nominations without winning puts you at the upper echelon, but I do feel like it’s competitive at the top and while I adore her from an underdog perspective in years like Doubt or Juneburg, I do feel that Goliath Amy Adams is less appealling (like the due narrative that accompanied Vice).

5. Carey Mulligan-Saoisre Ronan was a child star who lucked into her first nomination (so I’d give her 3 noms rather than 4) which is the same as Mulligan who had a little more agency as the lead in education. The Dig and Promising Young Women are complete opposite ends of the spectrum and she can do period pieces

6. Margo Robbie-I don’t love her, but she’s creeping closer to due territory.

7. Scarlett Johansson-She’s never gone a few years without making something noteworthy. Even something minor like Joseph Gordon Levitt’s Don John or The Man Who Wasn’t There, she brings something to.

8. Saoisre Ronan-She keeps making her way into fantastic films. Counting the one she wasn’t nominated for (Grand Budapest Hotel), all her nominations have been in 5 Best Picture nominees, which bodes well for her.

9.Keira Knightley-Personally, I would have had her winning 2 Oscars already for A Dangerous Method . She can do period and she can do comedy, and is ideal for rom-com (Begin Again, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World)

10. Isabelle Hupert-The Oscars show also include international diversity as well as racial diversity, and this French star has had some major hits

11. Angela Bassett-They probably shouldn’t have given her the honorary Oscar so young (she was around 62–63 by my calculations when the Academy announced the award) and I suspect it was wanting to hedge their bets by awarding a Black actor in case the Academy didn’t nominate any. She’s a personal favorite and honorary usually doesn’t affect in-competition voting but I think she’s worth a lead statue

12. Rosamund Pike-Gone Girl was one of the most epic parts ever to lose an Oscar (or at least in the 2010s) and she is always taking prestige roles. You can see her trying to spin Oscar bait out of subpar material like Beirut.

13. Toni Collette-I get the sense she’s more likely in supporting, but she rarely goes a few years without something experimental and wild like Midsomar or I’m Thinking of Ending Things and she’s prolific

14. Michelle Pfeiffer-Here’s the thing: With women, they sometimes drop off in noticeable roles as they age. I don’t like it any more than anyone, and with Stardust, White Oleander, and Hairspray, Pfeiffer fought strong, but it just might be difficult for her to find a good script today

15. Lily Tomlin-I’m not sure how much of a glass cielling voters would consider to have a lesbian win lead actress, but she’d be that and a rare comic actress to win the Award. When she acts in Grace and Frankie or 80 For Brady, it’s kind of sad thinking she’s the only star on screen not to have won an Oscar and only got nominated once.

Personal Wish List: Elizabeth Shue, Charlotte Rampling, Kerry Washington, Keri Russell, Jenny Slate (she has headlined the films before, but her films have been lower visibility, Marcell the Shell might have broken that), Olivia Williams (AKA the other Olivia), Christina Ricci, Kelsey Asbille, Kelly Reilly, Riley Keogh

Oscars Eve 2020 Wish List featuring Adam Spector

What's most revealing about what happens when the Oscar nominations are announced is what we were all thinking the night before. On Oscars Eve, Adam Spector and I discussed how strange it would be if J. Lo was nominated for "Hustlers" and how dismayed I'd be if "Two Popes" got snubbed (it didn't). The dramatic Adam Sandler snub didn't actually register with either of us and we both agreed that we'd be excited for Laura Dern.



Part II is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaqwiTSV34&t=64s


Adam's reaction column is here and I disagree quite strongly but I had a lot of fun with Adam here:
https://www.dcfilmsociety.org/adam2002.htm

Why do honorary Oscars count as less?

Please click on this link

Something that bothers me more than anything else about Oscar Season is the rarely questioned assumption that Honorary Oscars don't count as much as Oscars in competition.

I'll look at one of USA Today's (or one of many other publications) 10,000 pre-Oscar articles (the newspaper's arts section has a policy of milking every major event in the entertainment cycle to death to compensate for lack of original ideas) and their umpteenth event preview will read something along the lines of "Will director Mary Scorsese win an Oscar in competition or will they be relegated to the less prestigious honorary award?"

And this brings me to the troubling question: Who decided that the honorary awards were worth less than the regular Oscars?

The actors who have won honorary awards (except Peter O'Toole), by and large, are happy to have won Oscars and don't really care whether it was in competition or not. In fact, many of the people who won Academy awards (i.e. George C. Scott, Dustin Hoffman, Marlon Brando, Alexander Payne) detest competition to begin with.

It's even a better experience to win an honorary award because you don't have to go through the trouble of competing. Wouldn't you feel much more esteemed to be acknowledged for an entire lifetime of work then have one good performance?

It strikes me that winning an honorary award is a much greater compliment because they determined that it's not just one role but a person's entire body of work to be of the highest standard.
 Besides, Some of the people who won Oscars in competition were only on screen for less than 10 minutes, and some of the people who won an Academy Award for acting weren't even actors to begin with. Haing Ngor was a doctor who was recreating his life experiences in the Cambodian genocie, Jennifer Hudson was an aspiring gospel singer and Jon Houseman was an acting teacher who filled in for one of his former student's when the original guy cast in the role backed out.
If Sidney Lumet, Blake Edwards, Gene Kelley, Lillian Gish and Charlie Chaplin all treasured there awards, who are we to say that there award is worth less?

I think it's part of our obsession with competition and the athletic aspect of it that informs this view of ours.

Predicting the Oscars 26 minutes before they're announced

While waiting for the Oscars to be announced in 25 minutes (and counting), I'm going to post my predictions as I did at goldderby.com via invitation of the LAMB. This is solely so in the case that I'm correct, there's some evidence out there that I was either very right or very wrong.
Eight Questions to Ask Before the Oscar Nominations Are Announced

Picture: War Horse, Moneyball, Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris, Hugo, Artist, Descendants, Help

Director: Bennett Miller, the director of The Artist, Terrence Malick, Marty Scorsese, Alexander Payne

Notes: Can't spell the director of The Artist, and won't even try. Wasn't a big fan of Bennett Miller's work in Capote but Moneyball is all about the director. If Malick doesn't get nominated, that would be tragic.

Actor: DiCaprio, J Edgar, Michael Fassbender, Shame, George Clooney, The Descendants, Brad Pitt, Moneyball, Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Notes: Ewan MaGregor of Beginners is also highly deserving


Actress: Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn, Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs, Meryl Streep, Viola Davis, The Help, Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Note: I would be thrilled if Charlize Theron for Young Adult or Rooney Mara for Girl with Dragon Tattoo got nominated. In the case of the latter, I have no rooting interest for the film, but I'd want to see Mara because heroes and heroines from big blockbuster tent pole films rarely get mentioned

Supporting Actor: Max von Sydow, Extremely Personal and Up Close, Brad Pitt, Tree of Life, Jonah Hill, Moneyball, Albert Brooks, Drive, Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Notes: I'm really holding out hope for Ben Kingsley, but I thought I'd mix it up anyways.

Supporting Actress: Shalene Woodley, Descendants, Carey Mulligan, Shame, Octavia Spencer, Help, Jessica Chastian, Help, Vanessa Redgrave, Corlianis

Notes: Vanessa Redgrave is the actress I have rooting interest for. She's a living legend and it's a field almost entirely composed of newbies

Adapted Screenplay: Moneyball, Help, Descendants, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Notes: Best pictures shouldn't automatically be placed in the screenplay categories (Goodbye Hugo and War Horse). Girl with the Dragon Tattoo had as much pressure as The Da Vinci Code to not disappoint fans of the book. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was also adapted from a well-known source and succeeded despite comparisons to recent movies. A film like Hugo doesn't really stand out for stylized dialogue.

Original Screenplay: Young Adult, Artist, Margin Call, Bridesmaids, Midnight in Paris

Notes: Artist is a silent film, but that can be just as hard to write. Margin Call is wishful thinking, but it's that good. Beginners and Win Win would also be wishful thinking. Bridesmaids would definitely be a unique contender and, what's more, it's pretty probably it will make the cut. I have my personal qualms with Midnight in Paris

Score: Super 8, Artist, Hugo, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Harry Potter VIII

Notes: I listened to about twenty different scores thanks to youtube so I had a lot of samples to draw from.  Artist and Hugo both sound very much alike. Plagarism?






Editing: Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Moneyball, War Horse, Tree of Life, Hugo

Notes: Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy or Drive could easily also fit into here. Moneyball should win this. Tree of Life is an interesting conundrum: It's way too long but you have the feeling that without the editor reigning in Malick's vision, it would have been a much longer film


Cinematography: Super 8, War Horse, Artist, Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy, Tree of Life

Notes: Super 8 has amazing cinematography even if it's not a good film.. I'm not sure why it would be ignored in that category.


Art Direction: Anonymous, J. Edgar, Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy, Hugo, Harry Potter VIII

Note: Anonymous was shot using Roland "I like to blow up the world" Emmerich using mostly green screens. A very interesting and novel way to do a period piece. Harry Potter VIII, I'd put in art direction, because Lord of the Rings won in that category, and the two seem very similar in production values.

Oscar buzz: Is the tail wagging the dog at this point?

I just bought an issue of Entertainment Weekly when I was was on a trip and stressed out and needed to get my mind off things, and it was comfort food to read it.

When I skipped straight to the prediction section, I started to realize a problem.
What I was reading was information I already knew with just minor alterations (i.e. now Steven Spielberg is in the best director category instead of Terrence Malick and Money isn't one of the BP frontrunners).

And then it struck me as ridiculous. I was eagerly wanting to consume information telling me most of what I already know. Then I'll eagerly watch the Oscar ceremony where 70% of the content is what I've already seen before.

The Oscar speeches will be mostly identical to the Golden Globe and SAG speeches and the results will almost be pre-ordained.

Oscar buzz likely started out as a few people wanting to be the guy in their office who says "I know who will win the Oscars," but 80% of the time, we all know who will win the Oscars and 80% of the time, the participants know who will win. How awful is it to invite Jacki Weaver (nominated last year for "Animal Kingdom") or Mark Ruffalo (nominated for "The Kids Are All Right) to the Oscars when they both know it's a practical certainty that they're going to lose. For all, we know the precursor gluttony decides the voting. Someone might have asked themselves in the 2010/2011 race: "Why should I vote for Jacki Weaver when all of the precursor awards show that it's either gonna be Hailee, Amy Adams or Melissa Leo?"

More disturbing is that when we discuss Oscar buzz, we're not actually talking about movies anymore for the most part. We're simply trying to use statistics and such to predict human behavior. Some of the most prominent people in the film criticism community are nothing more than glorified statisticians. Go to Awards Daily and you'll see that most of their articles consist of announcing press releases by various groups giving their awards of the films of the year. Commentary by the webmasters of the commenters will use this information to slightly recalibrate their attitudes about who will be selected as Oscar winners.

Just the other day, we had the Central Ohio Film Critics Awards announcing their picks. Are we now dividing states into latitudinal thirds for the sole purpose of disseminating a list of best films of the year that closely mirrors 200 other such lists?

I've previously written that the winners of the Oscars were originally publicized before the big night. Now, the stated goal of the Academy is to keep the results sealed. Technically, those awards are still sealed but when we have 8 million awards precursors; when they allow directors, actors, writers and producers of the academy to vote in other awards ceremonies; when sites on the internet are dedicated to using every algorithm they have to predict the results, what's the difference?

Four-time Oscar nominees Most Likely to be Five Timers

Here's my list and rankings in order from most likely to least likely
The Actors:
1. Ed Harris (nominated: Apollo 13, Truman Show, Pollock, Hours) He does so many character parts and still is prolific and is gaining a great reputation in Hollywood after having directed more of his own stuff. He still hasn't won and he's historically been able to score noms for very small and minor stuff. He also chooses roles wisely.

2. Ben Kingsley (nominated Gandhi, Bugsy, Sexy Beast, House of Sand and Fog) He's too brilliant, too prolific, and is getting too many juicy parts not to have something happen soon. He doesn't overdo it but he's had a leading rule in at least one film a year.

3. Geoffrey Rush (Shine, Shakespeare in Love, Quills, King's Speech)-There's a big danger of him being overshadowed by other Brits like Collin Firth, Clive Owen, Jude Law or whoever the next big one is but I think he's fairly hot again after being in the King's Speech so in the next year or two he might get #5 (and I say that with no clue what he's doing next)

4. Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, Gangs of New York, There Will be Blood)-He's clearly capable of brilliance that makes everyone's jaw drop. The argument against is he's so sporadic and he can turn in a brilliant performance and just have it be in a highly competitive year or whatever. He's not making as many proverbial plate appearances

5. Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy, Coming Home, Runaway Train, Ali)-He is a little bit over the hill, but I'd say he's one of the 2 or 3 most capable actors over the last decade for someone of his age range. He's in a lot of films and while a lot of them are Blockbusters (i.e. Transformers, National Treasure) I don't see him selling out to the levels of Robert De Niro (unless you consider his comedic acting a virtue). Also, unlike De Niro or Pacino, he doesn't have to fight a former image of himself and run into the wrap that he's doing a caricature of his former self. As a character actor, he gets better as he's less tethered than those two, and on top of that he acts pretty regularly and even in mediocre movies (Enemy of the State, Transformers) he steals scenes.

6. Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs, Remains of the Day, Nixon, Amistad)-I see it as unlikely. Even though he's been prolific and chooses varied roles, he hasn't got any buzz for anything he's done since nomination 4. I suppose it's not his fault that Bobby, Hearts in Atlantis, Proof, or All the King's Men didn't pan out well.

7. Robin Williams-I think he's already done dark performances and comic performances and inspirationally uplifting performances and there's not a whole lot he can do. There's not the same novelty to Robin Williams bringing out his (still incredible by any standard) rapid-fire multiple-voice comic persona that got him his first nod for Good Morning Vietnam.

8. Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde, Heaven can Wait, Reds, Bugsy)-Already had his Oscar and lifetime achievement award and as Bullworth showed, he's more likely to get it in the directing or writing category these days.

Of the Actresses:
1. Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights, End of the Affair, Hours, Far From Heaven)-Way overdue for a nom on top of being overdue for an Oscar. Great actress who is regularly doing quality work and usually one of the 3 or 4 people anyone producing a film with potential Oscar buzz will go to first.

2. Helen Mirren (Madness of King George, Gosford Park, The Queen, The Last Station)-She's highly popular and is still getting prime roles and she's not as old as people think she is (she's just 66). Her being positioned up this high on my list, however, signifies my lack of confidence for anyone on this list other than Moore.

3. Annette Bening (Bugsy, American Beauty, Being Julia, The Kids Are All Right)-She's still due for an Oscar but I don't they'll nominate her unless there's a good chance she'll win. I also don't think it's likely that her next project will get her a nomination. It might might be a couple years before she's on the radar again.

4. Frances McDormand (Mississippi Burning, Fargo, Almost Famous, North Country)-She's still doing really good work and working with lots of inventive directors. She's older but hasn't been held back in any way by aging as some actresses are (i.e. Michelle Pfieffer, Meg Ryan).

5. Emma Thompson (Howard's End, Shadowlands, Remains of the Day, Sense and Sensibility)-Thompson was much bigger in the 90's than she is now but she still does quality level work, although it is now in films that are less visible (see "Brideshead Revisited). If the Academy is all of a sudden willing to go back to women like Redgrave and Close who haven't been considered for an Oscar in years, then there's no reason that if Thompson does something really impressive, it will go unnoticed

6. Holly Hunter (Broadcast News, Piano, The Firm, Thirteen)-She's been nominated far more recently than Thompson and is a favorite of the Coen brothers (who have lately been producing more Oscar nominees) but she works pretty infrequntly and is drawn to indepedent below-the-radar films. It was a wonder many people caught on to her fourth nomination in "Thirteen" at all.

7. Dianne Keaton (Marvin's Room, Annie Hall, Reds, Something's Gotta Give)-She already got her nod for showing that old people can be attractive, sexy, and appealling in movies. She can't play that card again.

Lose an oscar, win a cult following

Tonight in one of the most wide-open races in years, Oscar fans with hopes of what film will join the historic pantheon of Best Picture winners that includes "All About Eve", "Casablanca", "The Godfather", "Gone with the Wind", and "On the Waterfront". But there’s no reason to get nervous about it, because who wins Best Picture is irrelevant. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the Oscars are irrelevant. Every acting and directing award has been paramount to helping that person’s career flourish and the same goes for the other categories.

The nominations for Best Picture are also of the utmost importance. Three years ago, for example, six pictures were considered locks for an Oscar nomination and "Cold Mountain" found itself the odd film out. While "Cold Mountain" isn’t necessarily forgotten in history, its status as a future classic is less assured than "Master and Commander" or "Seabiscuit." The same thing happened the year before with "Far From Heaven". Ask your average person on the street if they have ever heard of "Far From Heaven" and think about how different that answer would be if it was "Best Picture Nominee Far From Heaven." The point is recent history suggests that being the perennial sixth film doesn’t bode well for your legacy. While "Dreamgirls" fans were massively disappointed at the film’s snub this year, I doubt they’ll still be making much noise three or four years from now.

But losing an Oscar in a close race, on the other hand, does wonders for your legacy. Aside from "Schindler’s List", the most loved films of the 1990’s have arguably become "Pulp Fiction", "Shawshank Redemption", "Saving Private Ryan", "Fargo", and "Goodfellas", all losers in close races. The winning pictures of "Forrest Gump", "Dances with Wolves", "The English Patient", and "Shakespeare in Love" get the actual award and a place in the history books, but the losers get a contingent of loyal supporters who will protest the merits of those films and who they thought was the rightful winner for years to come. How many message board threads or articles have you read on the topic? “Greatest injustices the academy has made” and counted the victories of "Forrest Gump" and "Dances with Wolves." Little by little, each of those threads, posts, and articles helps that picture get more action on the DVD shelves at local video stores.


The overkill on this subject comes from everyone from Richard Roeper to the guys posting on the IMDB and OscarWatch message boards. My theory is that it comes from a sense of pride you might have as a self-proclaimed film buff. That losing picture, whether Goodfellas or Shawshank, represents you and your tastes and not only can you take pride in promoting a film as one of your favorites that’s a good film, but you can also take pride in personally promoting a film that the high-and-mighty Academy got wrong. You can go around saying, “Schindler’s List is such a great movie, you’ve gotta see it!” but everyone knows that. Identifying yourself as a fan of these also-rans becomes a calling card of sorts for film snobs who wish to proclaim their tastes superior to that of the mainstream.

With the increase of the prominence of the blogosphere and Oscar sites, it seems only likely that this backlash against a best picture win will grow stronger as evidenced by last year’s win. How many hits are there on a simple Google search for “Brokeback Mountain” and “Crash” proclaiming the Oscar injustice there.

Perhaps, people are forgetting that the films that won aren’t necessarily unworthy films in their own right. For example, back in 1994, "Forrest Gump" had both critics entranced and moviegoers all over America buzzing. It didn’t even finish #1 on its opening weekend at the box office (True Lies did) but through good word-of-mouth it became the highest grossing film of the year and the 4th highest to date. It also won at the WGAs, the DGAs, was nominated at the BAFTAs (where it lost to Four Weddings and a Funeral) and won the National Board of Review’s prize.

Roger Ebert gave it four stars and wrote, “I've never seen a movie quite like ‘Forrest Gump.’ Any attempt to describe him will risk making the movie seem more conventional than it is.” Rolling Stone called it, “A movie heartbreaker of startling wit and grace,” and gave it 3 ½ stars which was the same rating he gave to Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. A look back to reviews originally written in 1994 on rottentomatoes.com, shows that with the exception of the New York Times’ Stephen Holden, most of the reviews were highly favorable. Many of the ones that gave poor reviews were only written years later in retrospect. Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com wrote, “Run, Forrest, run! It sure seemed great at the time, but Gump is aging, and it's starting to show a wrinkle or too….. what a crazy chain of events Forrest Gump has spawned: a poorly-received book sequel, a restaurant chain, and hordes of imitators -- not to mention a critical backlash.”

My theory for the backlash would be that Forrest Gump was a bittersweet emotional ride that resonated with a certain generation at a certain point in time. It’s not something that holds up well to repeat viewings. Pulp Fiction, in contrast, is a revisionist genre film that can be watched over and over again by film students interested in dissecting its film conventions. The same can also be said for neo-noir films Fargo and LA Confidential, which were also best picture losers. "Dances with Wolves", similarly is an emotional epic that swept many viewers away on first viewing and was the first Western with a fighting chance of being honored since "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (the only previous Western to actually win the award was the 1931 film "Cimarron").

As for Shawshank, Tim Dirks at Filmsite.org summarizes its predicament best: “Only through positive word-of-mouth (following cable TV and broadcast airings, and then video releases) did the film do well - although its original reception at the box-office was lukewarm.” Shawshank didn’t even get voted into AFI’s Top 100 Films, but when the Institute rereleases their Top 100 list later this year, rest assured that revisionist history will give Shawshank a place (both the winner Forrest Gump and other runner-up from that year Pulp Fiction are on that list). But as with "Dances with Wolves" and "The English Patient" (I won't say "Shakespeare in Love" was exactly deserving), people fail to acknowledge that at the time those were the most popular films of their year and only through a revisionist tide do those facts get lost. That tide is a powerful one, so let that be a consolation to you if your picture loses tonight.

The falliable link between the SAG Awards and the Oscars

Oscar pundits are always trying to fit square pegs into round holes. One annoying habit they have is trying to take every award ceremony that comes along and use it for some kind of barometer for their predictions of the oscars from which they continually change those predictions with each new incoming set of results. The Oscars are treated like one of these trivia games were clues are slowly being given so that in time you will be able to make deductions and figure out the answers. Entertainment Weekly devotes three full issues exclusively to the Oscars each year (up from two five years ago), message boards swarm with people posting predictions and countless blogs and websites have surfaced that follow the phenemonen. Even the Toronto Star and the LA Times have put up exclusive websites to monitor awards buzz. In all this excitement, it might be lost that not every awards ceremony is a precursor to the Oscars and might not necessarily alter the results of the Oscars.

Take the SAG Awards. One publication noted that Little Miss Sunshine might win an Oscar because it won the SAG ensemble award, which is the "closest thing the SAGs have to a best picture award." Language like "the closest thing there is to _____" is indicative of how much people are trying to stretch things to fit in with the oscar buzz phenomenon. President Bush's line about how sunny skies lie ahead this year can be said to be the closest thing in his State of the Union address to an endorsement for Little Miss Sunshine for best picture, but so what?

The fact of the matter is that by their very definition, the SAG Awards have no award that serves as a vote for best picture and I wish people would stop treating it as such. A best ensemble award and a best movie award are too entirely different things. I personally was severely disappointed by the film Capote and consider it my least favorite Best Picture Oscar Nominee in years. At the same time, I liked the performances of Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, and Clifton Collins Jr. enough to feel like it would be a very deserving best ensemble nominee. I would similarly feel that Batman Begins had the best ensemble of the year last year, but by no means, the best picture of the year or anywhere in the top five. Even great individual acting performances don't necessarily translate to a best ensemble award in my opinion. Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank might have been great in Million Dollar Baby, but can they top the chemistry shared between the quartet of character actors in Sideways?

Any connection between SAG ensemble wins and best picture wins surely must be coincidence and statistically insignificant (scientifically speaking, all Oscar buzz precursors are statistically insignificant since the sample size is 78 at best). Last year, I noticed that in a crowded and somewhat deadlocked field, momentum shifted significantly toward Crash and Capote once they got nominated for SAG awards and once Crash won the SAG, momentum shifted toward Crash for the win. There might even be more dangerous consequences of this if one affects the other. If there's the question of life imitating art vs art imitating life than there could very well be the question of oscar buzz imitating results vs results imitating Oscar buzz. Whether that's the case or not, it would be helpful if pundits would stop making connections that aren't there, like with the SAG awards.