In reviewing how well Michael Fassbender has done in the past 4 weeks with half a dozen critical award wins for his role in Shame. There has been something nagging in the back of my mind since this SAG snub, and hence my tweeted question above that @GeminiNotTwin kindly answered. I've never been fond of the SAGs, but that is not to say that they are not relevant. A lot of my fellow bloggers loathe the Golden Globes for instance, but I like them. And when it comes down to marketing, on this side of the pond, at the end of the day, if a performer wins a Golden Globe and/or an Oscar, those are the two awards that are used for bragging rights. However, we still cannot dismiss the precursor factor of the SAG awards, and that's why it was so alarming to many at first, for Michael Fassbender, of all talked about actors on the awards circuit, to be snubbed, and instead, an actor who has not been a major player in weeks prior, filled the nomination spot that presumably would have been Fassbender's.
I went to wikipedia to find a brief historical statement about SAG, and this is what I found... try very hard to ignore the irony of the description of the award that is bestowed to the winners (sarcasm):
 |
| Michael has a SAG already for Best Ensemble for 'Inglorious Basterds' 2010 |
A Screen Actors Guild Award is an accolade given by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) to recognize outstanding performances by its members. The statuette given, a nude male figure holding both a mask of comedy and a mask of tragedy, is called "The Actor".[1] It is 16 inches tall, weighs over 12 pounds, cast in solid bronze, and produced by the American Fine Arts Foundry in Burbank, California.[2]
SAG Awards have been one of the major awards events in Hollywood since 1995. Nominations for the awards come from 4200 randomly selected members of the union, with the full membership (120,000 as of 2007) available to vote for the winners. The awards have been televised for the past several years on TNT, but now also airs on TBS.
I remember when the SAGs first aired and I was like, 'Another awards show? Yawn'. However in the two decades it has been broadcast, the studios have had a vested interest in the outcome of this ceremony because in many times, strong support here helps at the Oscars - but not always. This is a case of grab as many top nominations and honors as possible, so again, that's why this snub against Michael is of concern. When Lisa told me about the Golden Globe nom and the SAG snub in London, I remember saying, 'Well, I'm just glad he got the GG nom at least!' Had the nomination outcome been reversed, I would have been doubly perplexed. Historically, the establishment of the top awards are as follows: Oscars (1929), Golden Globes (1944), and BAFTA (1947). To many people, these three are the ones that matter. But, being acknowledged by SAG allows a contender to feel more... shall I say, comfortable.
The Screen Actors Guild is SAG, the union that all performers belong to. An actor/actress cannot work on a Hollywood production without a SAG card. Period. The nominations are created by a fraction of the entire membership base, whereby then the whole membership is eligible to vote in the final voting process. This in of itself is why it is of concern that fellow actors did not find anything worthy of Michael's unique, demanding, and brave performance to nominate him. The saving grace is his Best Actor win from the LA film critics association (LAFCA), but he also needed to win others, which he did, and is still winning them as of today.
Like many people have said, every year, so many quality performances are "snubbed", which is a term often misused when even a favorite actor who truly is not a contender is not nominated. But in this case, and with all my personal bias removed, this is a text book definition of a snub! I am hopeful that SAG will look silly from this exceptional case as Michael goes on to win the Golden Globe (fingers crossed), and be nominated for the BAFTA and Oscar - leaving SAG Fassbenderless, and hundreds of thousands of Fassbender fans opting to not watch the SAGs. Why should we? What's in it for us? I'm sure I will be writing a paper for class that night anyway.
So going back to my tweeted question, I believe there is a first time for everything. Since no actor who has gone on to win the Oscar, was also nominated for a SAG, I feel it's perfectly fine to still believe that if Michael is actually nominated for an Oscar, to keep hope alive that he could be the first actor to win it, WITHOUT the help of a SAG nom. Wouldn't that be just desserts? I've never been one of those fence-sitters who say, 'Oh he/she will get nominated, but they ain't winning. The nomination is their reward.' Bullshit! No guts, no glory! We're in for the win!
In the end, even if Michael Fassbender does not have the opportunity to walk upon a stage in the coming seven weeks to accept top industry awards for his performance in Shame, he has won some beautiful praise, collected wonderful honors, and has seen his profile and bankability rise to heights that will make him the envy of his peers. If Michael doesn't win the big ones this time around for Shame, he and his fans should still be proud of the accomplishments he has made from this one career changing role, and one day, Michael will be at a lost as to where in the hell to put his Oscar, Golden Globe, BAFTA, and even, a Best Actor SAG on his mantle.
