Best Picture 1971

Ahhh, I love Best Picture time! I also love when I get to finally cross off films that I've wanted to see for forever from my list. There's a couple in this group where I've only seen one of these films. So I'll get to enjoy crossing some films off my list and hopefully get a good group to go with it.

1971 Best Picture

The French Connection

What I like best about this film is how matter of fact the whole thing is. The film is only one hour and forty-three minutes long and yet it zips along telling a very tight, concise story without any of the extraneous plot threads that can doom other films of this nature. It's a manly New York City cop movie where a narcotics officer foils an international drug ring from France. And I do mean manly. There's barely any women in this film and the two partners (Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider) talk frankly and give each other shit. There's so much tension and edge of your seat thrills that you can cut it with a knife. There's also a ton of action, including what some people say is one of the greatest car chase sequences ever put to film. I was excited to finally watch it and can say that it is exhilarating and the fact that it's a car versus an elevated train, really adds to the dynamic. It ranks up there, for sure. Hackman gives a great performance in a role that really made him into a leading man in Hollywood. But I just love how straightforward everything in this film is. Hackman as Popeye Doyle is just a cop who wants to get his man and will doggedly follow them all over. I enjoyed this film a lot and think it's a deserving winner and is a classic, but I also kinda was expecting to be genuinely wowed because I'd heard so much about this film over the years. I figured it would hit me like an All The President's Men and become an instant favorite of mine. Alas, I think it's awesome but not a top film for me personally. But I do appreciate how to the point the story was and honestly it makes it that much better of a film. My one big gripe is that ending. It's left ambiguous as to did Popeye kill his man and then we get the run down of the criminals and that the main French guy was never found and Popeye and his partner were reassigned. So anti climactic and unnecessary if you ask me. Will this be my winner? I'm unsure as of now but it is a very good film that everyone should see.

A Clockwork Orange

The more I watch this film, the more I appreciate it for different reasons. Yeah, it's a cool film with some provocative images but it's more than just some ultra violent flick you find as a teenager. It's got all the usual Stanley Kubrick director trademarks. The use of classical music with the visceral images on screen goes so well together and is something Kubrick is great at including in his films. There are scenes taken straight from a painting. This film has a scene where prisoners are walking in a circle that is taken straight from a Van Gogh painting, I believe, and just points to Kubrick's attention to detail and his aesthetic overall. So much care and detail put into every scene is clearly evident and makes the film an even better viewing experience. Most of you should at least know what this one is about by now, but it's a near future where we follow a teen who goes off with his little gang committing acts of ultra violence but is caught and then reformed through aversion therapy. It has a ton of memorable scenes that evoke all kinds of different emotions, which is an area where this films excel in. It's got a really great lead acting turn from Malcolm MacDowell who should have been nominated for Best Actor and it's a damn shame he wasn't. This film lives on his smarmy, cocky, self assured, wild character as we experience everything through his mind. Just a really strong performance that buoys the film along with Kubrick's direction. This is one of those films that I forget was a Best Picture nominee every time I watch it because it just seems so out of character for the Academy, but they do get it right sometimes. This is an all time great film and just another feather in Kubrick's cap, which is amazing to think about - and he never even won a Best Director Oscar!

Fiddler on the Roof

Amazing that this musical film about poor Jewish farmers in Russia could become this cultural touchstone and be remembered fondly even today. It's incredible to think that this film did so well and made money and got a ton of awards recognition. One thing I found funny when reading about this film was that the producer's hired director Norman Jewison because they thought he was actually Jewish, which he is not and that was the first thing he told them after he was hired! But I think the film really succeeds on two things: Topol's performance as Teyve and Jewison's direction. The film won the Oscar for Best Cinematography in a really stacked year and it is what really stood out to me about this film. It's painted in these drab, muted earth tones and yet it looks as beautiful as any film or musical has a right to. There are so many fantastic shots including the opening with the fiddler on the roof and the closing of the fiddler walking behind the villagers on the move in a cold, snowy, very gray landscape. There's a lot more in between and it surprised me just how well shot this thing really was. The other reason the film does so well is because of Topol's acting as the main character, Teyve. Topol had originated the role in the London stage production and you can tell he knows that character in and out and brings a certain gravitas to the film. Without his performance, the film fails to connect with audiences if you ask me. It's the role he was born to play and he gives us a memorable performance. I will say my biggest complaint is that the film really starts to drag in the third hour. The memorable, catchy songs almost cease totally and the film goes from a lively, good natured story to a serious, dramatic, sad one when the Russians ramp up their hatred. It at least ends in a very hopeful manner but the last hour felt every bit of an hour as I was watching. But the music is very good and honestly iconic. The songs are mostly catchy and ones you want to hum along to. It looks great, has great direction, and a very good main performance. Fiddler is well worth the three hours, especially if you have been sleeping on it like I was.

The Last Picture Show

I had been wanting to see this one for so long. I had appreciated Peter Bogdanovich's other films I've seen and knew that he was part of that auteur movement in the 70s. You could say this film helped usher in that era for the Oscars because this is totally a film with a certain unique style. The film is shot in a gorgeous black and white that makes the setting of a small West Texas town seem even more bleak and desperate. I love Bogdanovich's use of closeups on his characters as the film is full of the shots and it really lends an intimacy and gravitas to the material. The story is about the town but specifically a couple high schoolers and how life is for a small town in the 50s. It's a coming of age story but not one where we end up happy at the end. It's more true to life that growing up isn't this idealistic thing with happy endings and warm fuzzy moments. Life can be cruel and cold and callous. The performances are the highlight because there are so many really great ones in this film. There's four Oscar nominations from it but also Cybill Shepherd and especially Timothy Bottoms standout as well. Bottoms effectively carries the film as the lead actor and gets screwed by not getting a nomination for himself. The film is a classic for all of these reasons from the acting to the incredible directing and cinematography to the writing itself. I love that a film like this could be nominated for Best Picture because it represents a lot of what I am looking for in my films. I love that depressed sorta feel to a story where you enter people's lives and get the raw and real version of what would really happen. This is an incredible film and one that's definitely going on my list of new favorites.

Nicholas and Alexandra

I kept wanting to call this Fanny and Alexander but that's a Bergman film and this is a historical epic clocking in at over three hours about the Russian Tsar (or Czar, however you want to spell it) and the end of his rule. This is a holdover nominee from the previous decade. By that I mean the 60s had a ton of these grand historical epics that were routinely nominated for Best Picture. This film and nomination feels like the last gasp of that era before the 70s style and attitude fully took over. Is this a bad film? Absolutely not. It has some utterly amazing set production and costumes and the visuals are a sight to behold. There are some very fine cinematography moments where you might mistake you're looking at a painting or a picture taken. The visuals are the highlight of the film. But yes, it is a very long film that covers a lot of actual history and crams it all into a stuffed three plus hours. Rasputin makes a brief entrance and is killed, there are uprisings and revolution, the son is diagnosed with hemophilia, the Czar abdicates, the family is murdered. Everything that you know about the last royal family of Russia plus some other characters like Lenin and Trotsky all make their appearances. The acting is fine enough, though nothing really stands out to me. It is a bit jarring to hear English accents for every character even though they are all supposed to be Russian. That probably bothered me more than it should have honestly. It's also not entirely boring. The first half is somewhat enthralling and zipped right along but that may be due to me enjoying the historical aspect of events I don't really know that much about. I do think it slows down in the second half right when you think it should be picking up steam with the tension and terror of revolution and the end of the monarchy and the eventual deaths of the Romanoffs. The final scene is memorable but the lead up to it is a bit of work. This is clearly a holdover nomination but it is also an interesting film. It has no chance in winning going up against those other four behemoths but I do enjoy the variety this nomination brings to this year.


Man, what a list! This is one that you look at and might think meh, I have heard of these but maybe never actually sat down and watched them and it doesn't seem like a strong list. But it is though! The French Connection has become a sort of classic I think in part because it did win Best Picture but also because of Gene Hackman and that great car chase scene. That's why I am leaving this as my winner. I love most of these films a lot but I really did enjoy watching this winner. A Clockwork Orange is such a classic and such an inspired choice by the Academy and I'm glad they didn't ignore it. It's different than most BP films but it deserves to be here without a doubt. I had heard great things about The Last Picture Show and it completely delivered on becoming a new favorite of mine. It's so moody and just has a great feel to it with some amazing acting and direction that it ushered in a new auteur driven decade. Fiddler on the Roof surprised me in how much I enjoyed it. I was not expecting to like it as much as I did, but it's got great songs and great acting and you can see why it was a cultural touchstone. Nicholas and Alexandra is the last gasp holdover from the 60s and is the end of that kind of grand historical epic. It's somewhat enjoyable but really doesn't hold up to the rest of this list. It's interesting to watch for that reason but definitely is the bottom of this list. Overall, a great year that I was very happy to watch - and now finish.

Oscar Winner: The French Connection
My Winner:  The French Connection
A Clockwork Orange
The Last Picture Show
Fiddler on the Roof
Nicholas and Alexandra

Leading Actor 1971

This is a list of big names (and Chaim Topol) that would make anyone want to sit down and watch these men and figure out who is best. I have seen none of these, so let's sit down and figure out which of these guys is the best this year.

1971 Best Actor

Gene Hackman - The French Connection

This was the role and performance that turned Hackman into a leading man in Hollywood. I was thinking this was his first nomination but he was nominated twice before for Supporting Actor, including the year prior in 1970. So it seems almost like he was due, in that he had been putting in the work and was finally rewarded with a performance that fit his true style. That's what sticks out to me about his win here, it's not flashy by any means. It almost looks like he's not doing much acting and that it's a weak winner. But I think if you really look at it closely, Hackman is doing some wonderful work even when it's not obvious. We know who this man is and what he stands for essentially, even though we don't get all this extra character development. We see a cop who will go to any length necessary to follow and find his man and get the arrest. We see a tough old dude who will fight his own fellow cops because he believes he is right. He gets along well with his partner even though they shit talk each other hardcore at times. He is a man born to do this and get results. Hackman is realistic in his portrayal and you can see him being a cop commanding suspects and being kind of an asshole to them. His Popeye is obsessive in getting his man or finding out who/what is involved in these drug deals and we actually see this obsession manifest at the very end when he goes into the building and shoots the wrong guy and then continues on and we hear another shot but don't know what happens. I think the ending is best left ambiguous instead of telling us what happens but it highlights how Doyle gets tunnel vision in trying to catch his guy. The look of determination and singular focus on Hackman's face is great acting. The performance ends up being a lot more interesting than you might initially give it credit for. You might say well, he didn't do much and then you think back on the whole story and see just how much Hackman did with his character and how truly great it is. This is a sneaky good performance and represents the best of Hackman as an actor.

Peter Finch - Sunday Bloody Sunday

I feel it's sometimes harder to review a performance about a regular person than it is for something like a very Jewish character in a musical or a sweet old guy or a down and dirty cop or a drunk doctor. Those are specific characters and easier to digest and compare to ones we've already seen or know about. But when it's a normal character going through life's challenges, it's harder to really dive into and talk about sometimes. Or at least know where to begin. You can make the case for Finch being another specific characterization because his role is of a gay doctor but the rub is that Finch portrays this character as just a normal person. That's amazing because this was one of the first openly gay characters to kiss another man onscreen in a major film (or something to that effect - it was a real sticking point that made other actors turn down the role.) Finch just plays his character like any other person and he just happens to be gay and involved with a young man who is also seeing a woman. It's the frankness with which everything is dealt with that I find refreshing since this is a film from the early 70s and a kiss between men was still shocking and taboo. But Finch plays it wonderfully and makes his relationship with the young artist guy feel so natural and not like some perverted mess. It's certainly not the most ideal of relationships and Finch knows he sees women too. But Finch is clearly in love and devoted to his beau and wants to do things with him but is concerned that his art will take him to NYC. A perfectly normal thing for a successful young artist and it makes the relationship authentic. He puts this young man's attention above all else and it's heartbreaking to see how flippant the young man treats him. This is a far cry from the angry newscaster of Network but it is still as compelling. I like that Finch treats it as a normal relationship and there isn't any exaggerated gay stereotypes. It's just an older man trying to stay relevant to his younger lover. I especially like the very end scene of just Finch because it does sum up the whole performance and you could just watch that to understand what and why this was nominated. A good, unexpected performance from Finch.

Walter Matthau - Kotch

This was described as a Harry and Tonto film before that even was made. Matthau plays an old man, though he was only 50 and played a much older character. That seemed to be a theme for Matthau in his films, playing way older than he really was. Also, this was the only film directed by one of my favorite actors, Jack Lemmon. So I was curious on how this would actually turn out. Not bad is the answer, however tepid that is. Matthau plays a sweet old man who lives with a kid of his but they want to put him in a retirement home. He decides to ride around the country (but with no cat) and see places and talk to everyone. He strikes up a friendship with a pregnant girl and he tries to cling to her as she kinda goes and does what she wants returning to him when she needs stuff. We've already seen this film before and this is a ho-hum version of it. Matthau is good at playing the sweet, gentle old man but it gets really old, really fast. He's just a super nice guy, always upbeat wanting to talk to anyone and everyone, and he finds the positive in everything. One of those type of characters who become a little too cloying even if Matthau imbues it with his own little version of sarcastic acting. But the performance is just kinda there and we watch the same beats for almost two hours. While we like the guy, I got bored of what was going on because it was the same throughout and Matthau didn't do anything particularly compelling. Maybe this is a case of wanting to reward Matthau or even Lemmon, but this is one of those forgettable performances that doesn't quite move the needle either way for me. I'm mostly disappointed in this performance because I was really hoping it would be a great Matthau role I hadn't heard of before.

George C. Scott - The Hospital

Having won the previous year for Patton, an iconic role, this was in the wheelhouse of the Academy's "let's nominate a previous winner for some good work" thing they love to do. Sometimes it's just let's nominate a previous winner because they made a film, no matter how bad, but at least Scott is pretty good in this role. But for real, Scott had just turned down the Academy Award and still got nominated. That speaks to his acting ability and also the Academy's desire to be right. This film is a bit strange but it is a dark comedy written by Paddy Chayefsky, who wrote Network. It's a dark portrayal of hospital life brought to life by a guy who brings an unmatched intensity to his work. Scott walks that fine line between too intense with his head up his ass in acting and devolving into some black humor schlock. The Hospital probably hits harder for those that have experienced a medical setting because it could easily still be a bit true to life for 2019. The film is incredibly wordy and asks a lot of Scott to deliver pages of dialogue. Therefore it makes the performance come off as very theatrical and it feels like a stage adaptation. Scott is intense, yes, but he is at the top of his game and plays a very great drunk. I am always impressed when an actor can play a convincing drunk because it's the absolute hardest thing to get right on screen.  But I also think the film/writing is a bit self indulgent and it looks like Scott was trying to challenge himself. It just comes off a bit like the opposite of General Patton. That's probably an unfair assessment but it feels like work from Scott. I mean that in a non bad way, but it does feel like he's showing off a bit. I think the best review I read said it was more Chayefsky's film than Scott's and I agree. It feels like Scott getting caught up in an exercise of Chayefsky's. The performance is good, most certainly buoyed by his win the previous year. But Scott is earnest in his portrayal even if the character is a bit half baked in the script. I'd like more and for Scott to really flex his acting muscles. I think this is Scott chewing scenery in a film that wanted to be more influential and powerful than it was.

Chaim Topol - Fiddler on the Roof

This was one of those names and performances on the list that I looked at when first doing this project and thought, really? I didn't know much about the film other than it was a musical about Jewish folk and the Academy has a history of rewarding those that are from another medium or do one thing exceptionally well. I was thinking Topol was like an actual fiddler or dancer or created the whole musical himself because I just didn't know any better. But after finally watching this film, it makes complete sense why he is nominated because it is so well deserved in my opinion. Topol is the heart and soul of the film and without his performance, the story would fail miserably. He has an expressive, distinctive face and a deep voice (that sounds like Marcus, the narrator and gunsmith in the Borderlands video game series, weird comparison, I know) that really suits his presence in the film. He's really quite funny, even in the most subtle of ways, and some of his songs are super catchy. It helps that he sings the most famous one from the film, "If I Were a Rich Man." That's one probably everyone has heard even if they haven't seen the film. Topol's energy in the film and in singing allows the viewer to grab onto him and really dive into the story. He is our conduit and as Topol goes, we go. He is a levelheaded man, though he becomes irked by his daughters' insistence to eschew tradition and marry who they want. But still, Topol allows it (for the most part) and understands change is coming. His character arc is interesting to watch, because at first you wonder if he has the range to portray the emotions necessary for such a joyous film that eventually becomes a sad and tragic one. He is up to the task and not just a singer or dancer or funny actor. He brings real heart to the role and humanizes Teyve for us. I really enjoy his talks with God as it allows us a way to peek inside his mind and Topol does the almost fourth wall breaking justice. I really wasn't expecting to enjoy this performance as much as I did but it's a fully fleshed out character on screen in a very good film. This was absolutely the role of a lifetime for Topol and it helps that he originated it for the London stage production. All of the hard work and devotion to perfecting the character is evident in his performance and this is one you should definitely watch.



A list of big names (and Chaim Topol) that actually delivers for the most part. Matthau is the clear bottom feeder in this ecosystem. I don't think he deserves to be nominated, honestly. There are so many other great performances this year including Timothy Bottoms in The Last Picture Show and Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange to name a couple. Both are a thousand times more deserving than Matthau's too nice old man. It doesn't make much sense for a nomination. Scott just won the year before so he would have to be utterly amazing to win again and he's just okay. He's good, actually, in a very dark comedy of sorts and it's worth seeing but could be easily replaced, honestly. Finch is terrific in a role that is somewhat taboo and I like that he makes it a normal feeling character. It's not GAY in big letters but just a normal human who is in a homosexual relationship. It's refreshing for the early 70s. I struggled to figure out who to give the win to. If Topol had won, I'd be very happy because it's his film and he is perfect in it. But I also love Hackman and feel he is good enough to win as well. So let's stay with the Academy on this but if I woke up tomorrow and it was an alternate reality where Topol is the winner, I'd be more than okay with that. So excited to be wrapping up the 70s soon because it feels like I've been doing this since the 70s!

Oscar Winner: Gene Hackman - The French Connection
My Winner:  Gene Hackman - The French Connection
Chaim Topol
Peter Finch
George C. Scott
Walter Matthau

Leading Actress 1971

I went and looked and calculated that I've seen about maybe 4-5 actual performances from the next 20 years or so of this category. So there is a whoooole lot that I haven't seen yet and I'm super excited to finally be knocking some of these off my list. I have seen none of the below women yet, so let's get started!

1971 Best Actress

Jane Fonda - Klute

This was Jane Fonda's first win and I had heard nothing but great things about the film and her performance. I knew she played a hooker/call girl, so I was expecting the hooker with a heart of gold trope but luckily the role avoids that stereotype. I also was expecting to wowed or bowled over or say this is my favorite Fonda performance of hers. But I only found it to be a very solid job by Fonda, one that fits into her strong, independent woman roles that she finds and excels at. That sounds like damning with faint praise but Fonda is very good and you can absolutely see that she dives deep into the character and produces something really strong. The win feels deserved, though as I write this I haven't seen the other performances yet. Some of her other, later work really feel like she is trying to send or promote a message with her work, not just delivering great acting. This one feels like purely acting on her part. She does play a hooker/call girl who Donald Sutherland finds because a missing person he is trying to locate sent her a letter. The two try to track down some clues to find this missing man and paranoia abounds. The film itself is very moody and that matches the performance by Fonda. She's a smart woman who is involved in the lifestyle because she has a compulsion that draws her in. I think due in part to her being a struggling actress, the lifestyle allows her to play a role she can control and be the lead in. I also like how restrained Fonda is in this. She never goes off into histrionics or breaks down crying and screaming or anything like that. The acting choices are pretty measured and Fonda makes her character come off as a regular flawed human being. I also believe that the paranoia and tension of the film really adds to the overall performance. Fonda is very serious and she matches the tone of the film spot on, so it in turn makes us more invested in both the performance and the film. This win just honestly feels like Fonda really putting in the work and dedicating herself to creating the best performance she possibly could. She herself even said that she nailed this role and usually looks back and critiques her work but not this one. It's strong work that I'd recommend especially because this review was clear as mud about how good Fonda is in this role. Go watch it and see for yourself.

Julie Christie - McCabe & Mrs. Miller

Christie was a previous winner from 1965 for Darling (not Doctor Zhivago, which was the same year) and yeah, I've never heard of that film either. We will get there in a few years, but Christie was a major actress who was beloved in America and England and had the awards love to prove it. So it's no surprise to see her nominated here for Robert Altman's anti-western, as he called it. Christie plays a brothel madam who is addicted to opium and partners up with Warren Beatty, who owns the local whorehouse. It's mutually beneficial and the two get along quite well for the most part. The drug addiction really doesn't come into play for Christie, though she does want the money when a mining company comes in and offers to buy the town, which Beatty refuses. Christie puts in solid work as the madam and has some moments where she really shines when she stands up to Beatty when initially trying to partner up to him. She's this fierce, independent woman who knows her shit and takes none from anyone. But sadly, Christie is underutilized. She disappears from the film for long stretches and is seen as nothing more at times as a love interest for Beatty. It's a good performance but we never get to see Christie full stretch out her acting muscles and do much after her initial entry to the film. I wanted more of her but we never get it. She was also in The Go-Between which had a nomination in Supporting Actress, so she was visible to the Academy in a couple films this year. So while it's good, it's certainly not enough to unseat the winner, especially in this stacked group of women.

Glenda Jackson - Sunday Bloody Sunday

The two-time Oscar winner was always an enigma to me. I've gone into her story in her other, later reviews, but she was an actress that just happened to capture the attention of the Academy in the 70s for some reason. I feel like Jackson is nominated here because of the strength of this film and because of her performances in Mary, Queen of Scots and a mini-series where she played Queen Elizabeth I. She was in the minds of the voters for sure and had just won her first Oscar the year prior. That all adds up to this nomination. That also makes it sounds like this is an awful nomination that is terrible and bad and no good and all that. It's not. I just didn't feel much affinity towards this performance in the film as I did for Peter Finch. I described her performance as "whatever" in a text to my boo and I meant that. The story alternates between Finch and Jackson sharing the same man and both are very into this young artist guy. Jackson shows more of the jealousy and worry than Finch's total love. Jackson is fine in the role but she never really stirs anything inside of me. I don't feel for her one way or the other. She is more a woman in a midlife crisis than a woman purely devoted to her man. I do think this is more Finch's film than hers and that's because he does more with his performance so I just am not as enamored with Jackson in this role. Anytime the story veered away from Finch, I wanted it to return to him. Mostly because Jackson isn't as compelling but also because Jackson isn't as strong. It's not fair to compare the two but they do share a man and Jackson seems to be nothing more than a weak willed, worrisome woman. That's a bit harsh but her love seems like a fling and not legit and Jackson can't convince me otherwise. It's just a performance that exists and I much prefer her work in the below film with Vanessa Redgrave to this, no matter how supporting it is. I'll see in my next group just exactly if she deserved her first win.

Vanessa Redgrave - Mary, Queen of Scots

This film is a holdover from the 60's where these costume dramas were all the rage. It's like the end of an era with this film and probably would have been more of an awards darling if it came out a few years earlier. It's actually a pretty good film, though. I feel like because the subject has so much intrigue and events happening, that it doesn't get bogged down in endless, boring court scenes. The film is alive in a sense and some of that is due to Redgrave's portrayal of Mary Stuart. Now, Glenda Jackson plays Queen Elizabeth I in this film and for my money, has the better performance (though really she is more supporting). That's probably part of the reason she is also nominated along side Redgrave just in a different film. Redgrave's role as Mary is a bit different, though, as she is supposed to be a woman in her teens and early twenties, so she has this youthful naivete and idealism. Whereas Jackson gets to play the composed, calculating Queen of England who has tons of experience being a leader. It's hard to really compare the two, but Redgrave is able to standout on her own. I think it just comes down to preference on who you like more. Redgrave grows with the character as she becomes a stronger leader over time and Redgrave becomes more confident as an actor. By the end of the film, you see what makes her such a great actress as Mary stays strong and resolute in the face of death. Compare and contrast it to the young Mary from the beginning and it is a satisfying character arc and a very deserving performance. She has a lot to do as Mary but never devolves into whining or any other child-like behavior (Redgrave was in her 30's at this point) and gives the film a stately feel to it. She also makes the film way more tolerable and worth watching than I had anticipated (so does Jackson) and it's just an overall good performance.

Janet Suzman - Nicholas and Alexandra

I was trying to figure out just what to say about Suzman and this performance but I don't have a ton to say really. She was a stage actress in London and this was her debut film role. It doesn't look like it's her first film role because she is very polished as Alexandra, wife to Czar Nicholas II. Suzman delivers a very solid performance that perfectly supports Nicholas. She speaks her mind, loves her husband, loves her kids, and comes across as a noblewoman comfortable with her lot in life. Suzman is essentially the only female lead in the film as there is a lack of top females roles in this one. It's strong work in a historical epic about the downfall of the last Czar of Russia. That's about the best I can do with talking about this. It's good and I see why the Academy nominated her. It seems like an overall weaker year, so a holdover film that would fit perfectly in the 60s gets one last gasp with a few nominations (and two wins) to close out an era. Suzman is a beneficiary of that process but also stands on her own with a good performance, if a little lacking in something to set it apart from the others on this list. It's good, maybe forgettable, but you could easily find a ton more that are worse than Suzman is in this one.



This is actually a pretty great group of women. None of these performances are bad in the slightest. They may be a little underwhelming, but certainly not bad at all. And that's pretty good for this category because I always seem to dislike at least one if not more. Fonda is the clear winner and really the only one you could choose. It's her first win and feels like the natural choice for the Academy given her output up to that point and given who her family is. Jackson had just won the year prior, so she wasn't winning unless she gave us something amazing. She was good but I don't think it was anything amazing to deserve a back to back win. Christie was also a previous winner but didn't wow in her performance, either. It's good but she disappears for a bit. Suzman was making her film debut in a historical epic and did some solid work, but again doesn't wow or have any big moments. Redgrave had been nominated a couple times before this one and was from a beloved acting family, so her nomination makes sense for the Academy. Again, not amazing but still good. I think that's the theme of this year for this category - good, but not amazing. Still, I'd rather have a year like this than one where I hate half of the list. Let's finish out the 70s now and hopefully close out with a good one!

Oscar Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
My Winner:  Jane Fonda - Klute
Glenda Jackson
Janet Suzman
Julie Christie
Vanessa Redgrave

Supporting Actor 1971

My favorite category offering up five nominations that I haven't ever seen before. That's always exciting because it means I can possibly find a hidden gem here. Some interesting names and films, so let's dive into it.

1971 Best Supporting Actor

Ben Johnson - The Last Picture Show

This was one that I was always curious about because I didn't recognize the name and he's a winner in a film with a lot of recognizable names and a film that's considered a classic. And honestly when I started watching, I had to ask who exactly is Sam the Lion, which is Johnson's character. He owns a couple local places like the movie theater, billiards hall, and diner. He is this noble figure in the small town who always seems to do what's right. Johnson plays the character with lots of solemn looks and a quietness that can make it hard to remember he's the Oscar winner in the film. He's got a very natural, unassuming style and it makes sense when you find out Johnson was mostly a stuntman and world champion cowboy before acting. He has that quietly strong persona that works well for Sam the Lion and makes him wholly believable. It's a similar story and performance as seen from Richard Farnsworth in Comes a Horseman and maybe that's part of the reason I enjoy it. Johnson has this monologue in the film where he remembers old times while fishing at a lake that is the highlight of the performance and is his Oscar moment. It's one of those scenes that you can watch over and over because the acting is so real and you forget there's a script and not just Johnson talking about his own life. It's great stuff and cements a very good performance. This might easily be overlooked in the film and in the Oscar winners pantheon but Johnson is worth remembering and taking a look at again.

Jeff Bridges - The Last Picture Show

This is Bridges' first ever nomination and it's also a little sad because I don't get to further explore his history and find some new awesome performances from him. This is a young, baby faced Bridges who portrays a high school kid who is pretty popular and likable and dating the hottest girl in their small West Texas town. This is Bridges starting out and you can see those beginnings and traces of what will make him a great actor of his generation. He's charming and fun to watch and has so much energy in his performance that it's almost contagious. He also sticks out a bit in the film because a lot of the other characters are so depressing to watch. He goes through all the small town high school ups and downs where the hot girl dumps him, he fights, he has fun moments with his friends, and then has to come to grips with reality and move on from the town and join the Army. It's a great introduction to someone who will become a great actor. It might not be the winner this year but it shows you what will be possible in the future. It's a sympathetic performance in a great film and one you should check out to see where it all began.

Leonard Frey - Fiddler on the Roof

It still amazes me that Fiddler on the Roof was such a big hit in 71. A musical about poor Jewish farmers captured the zeitgeist of the country at the time and did well at the box office. It got a lot of awards love and I feel like Frey got swept up in all that love and landed himself a nomination. I can't say that he particularly stands out other than he feels like the most natural actor in the film. He was in the original London stage production, but his Motel the tailor comes off as being a very genuine character. It doesn't have the sheen of theatricality that most of the other performances do, which to me is a good thing. I think he really roots the film to the ground and keeps it from being such a fantastical musical. But I also wouldn't say he really wows or stands out other than his different acting style. He is perfectly fine in the role and I can't begrudge the nomination. It seems natural that he would get the nod, since his only real competition was the guy who was a university student and marries the middle daughter. His Motel character is someone we can kinda latch onto and root for, as we want him to marry Teyve's oldest daughter, no matter how meek and soft he comes off as. It's a fine performance and one that I'm glad to have seen even if it doesn't get me that excited to talk about.

Richard Jaeckel - Sometimes a Great Notion

I love when this project introduces me to a film that I never knew existed and it turns out to be really enjoyable. And the funny thing is, this is a Paul Newman directed and starring film with Henry Fonda, so you'd think this would be one I'd heard of, but nope. And I bet the same can be said for most everyone else reading this. Weird that this has become completely unknown. The story is based on a book by the guy (Ken Kesey) who wrote the book for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and tells the story of a logging family in Oregon who continue to work while the union loggers are on strike. It's a good film based off an epic book, so the film could be a little longer to explore in depth the family issues and the broader logging problems. But it works well for me and I'd recommend giving it a watch easily. Now, about Richard Jaeckel's performance. There is nothing in the beginning two-thirds of the film that is remotely nomination worthy. Jaeckel is the nephew of Fonda and they all live together in one house. Jaeckel is this good natured, always smiling and upbeat guy with a wife and a couple young kids. He mostly stays around the periphery speaking up to provide a positive voice since Fonda and Newman are grumpy and sarcastic. Nothing special until Jaeckel's final scene which is where he earns his Oscar nomination. Spoiler if you don't want to know what happens but there is an accident while out cutting trees next to a river bank and a tree falls and pins him down in the water. His head is above the water but the river is rising and the tree rolls on him. The scene initially plays with Jaeckel being his usual jovial and upbeat self telling Newman not to worry and cracking jokes. But there is this moment of sheer panic and terror that crosses his face the first time the log rolls on him and you forget you're watching a movie. The tension and increasing horror of the scene is tremendously played out by Jaeckel and Newman. You really feel for the two men being in an impossible situation of almost certain eventual death. It's a heartbreaking scene made more impactful because of Jaeckel's acting. Definitely worth the nomination for that scene alone and really that's all Jaeckel really gets to do in the film so it works out well for him.

Roy Scheider - The French Connection

Roy Scheider is an interesting actor. Growing up, I only ever knew him as the Sheriff from Jaws and had no idea he was a respected actor who was nominated for two Oscars and in a bunch of popular films. This project has allowed me to see him in a few of those films and see that he is not simply a one note actor. He has range and can play all kinds of characters. He really surprised me in All That Jazz, which cemented him to me as an actor's actor. He is tremendous in that film. I was interested to see what he brought to this nomination where all I knew was that he played a NYC cop. The film doesn't waste any time or effort on getting to know the characters. It's very matter of fact, so all we see of Scheider is when he's doing his job as a narcotics cop and partner to Gene Hackman. Scheider is perfectly supporting. I say that in a good way because Scheider does what you want from a character like his and he does it in a serious and gung ho manner. He and Hackman have a good chemistry that is believable but not delved into very much. He kinda reels in Hackman at times and that's all you can really ask for from his character. It also shows that Scheider is better than his role. He was destined to become more than just a bit player and his acting shines through a meager role. Not much to work with and a decent little performance and I feel like Scheider being in this film and Klute this year helps get him the nomination here.



Another strong year. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Frey is last but isn't bad by any means. He does well with what he's given and even adds a different style to the musical which I appreciate. Next up you can go either Scheider or Brdiges, it doesn't really matter. Both are serviceable to the story and are good but you know they can and will deliver better work in the future. But both are still indelible to their films. Jaeckel is the big surprise. I didn't know the film or him at all and here he is in second. He gets it solely because of his ending scene which is hauntingly effective and so damn good. And speaking of one scene being amazing, Johnson gets the win in part because of his monologue which goes to show that supporting performances can be won off just a single scene for me. All of these men were good and I'm always glad when that happens. Hopefully I can end the 70s on a similar high note.

Oscar Winner: Ben Johnson - The Last Picture Show
My Winner:  Ben Johnson - The Last Picture Show
Richard Jaeckel
Jeff Bridges
Roy Scheider
Leonard Frey

Supporting Actress 1971

There was a lot of time between this year and the previous year of 1972 for me. It's the usual life gets in the way and I get stuck on a film or two for awhile. But I always love starting off a new year with this category because it always gives me some films I would otherwise never hear about or know about at all. Sometimes I find that hidden gem, mostly it's bad films and boring performances. But I at least get to broaden my knowledge of film in general and of different actors and directors and see something outside the norm. I have seen none of these and I am eager to dive in again.

1971 Best Supporting Actress

Cloris Leachman - The Last Picture Show

I only knew Leachman as an older woman who would show up in random movies and TV shows I watched. Her talent has been evident even if some of the material she was in was not the best. So I was curious to see her win here in hopes of better understanding her as an actress. When you have multiple nominees from the same film and one of those wins, you pay extra attention to the winner since it must be special to not split any votes. Leachman is terrific, though. In a film about a small West Texas town, Leachman plays an unhappy married woman who is hooking up with a high school senior. Leachman is very restrained in the role and though you can feel her indignation emanating from her core, she remains calm and collected on the outside for most of the film. It's this quiet, resounding anger that permeates her performance that really makes you take notice. She's not onscreen all that much but when she is, she commands your attention. It's that small town wife who has been abandoned/unloved by her husband for so long that she just wants to feel wanted again. Her Oscar moment comes at the end of the film when this bubbling anger finally boils over and she explodes at Timothy Bottoms for using her. It's a powerful scene and truly memorable acting. I do think that scene cements the Oscar for Leachman but her whole performance is really something worth watching. It's strong dramatic work from a woman who was mostly known for her comedic skills.

Ann-Margret - Carnal Knowledge

I had no idea what this was going to be going into it. I had heard of the film before but just thought it was some early 70s free love type of thing. But it's actually a Mike Nichols film and stars Jack Nicholson, Candice Bergen, and Art Garfunkel of all people (and Rita Moreno and Carol Kane, for good measure). It has gorgeous cinematography when I was expecting some campy, crappy, exploitative film. I guess that's what I get for assuming. It tells the story of Nicholson and Garfunkel, two friends who are obsessed with sex and we see their different loves throughout their lives. It's like an X-rated Woody Allen film and it is freaking fantastic. All the actors are great but Ann-Margret really stepped into her role. I enjoyed her in Tommy, but that was just a fun, crazy film that she could let loose in. In this film, she plays an older lover of Nicholson and it's a very serious, dramatic role. It definitely feels like she is shedding her good girl image of all those teen films and Bye Bye Birdie roles. There are frank discussions of sex and if my research is correct, it's the first time a condom appears in a film and first time someone says the word 'cunt.' Back to Ann-Margret, though, she is fully invested in her character and has the dramatic chops to go toe to toe with Nicholson. The highlight is their fight in the bedroom and you can just sense the desperation and loneliness and frustration and helplessness emanating from her every pore. There is also another scene that really stands out to me when Nicholson leaves to take a shower and Ann-Margret is sitting up in bed and the camera just lingers on her while the shower goes. It's like you can see her thinking a million things as she stares vacantly around the room and it's just tremendous acting without doing much at all. I know when I saw/learned she was a twice nominated actress that I thought they might just be throwing her a bone because they liked her. But no, she earned this nomination and could quite frankly end up my winner. She just wants to be loved and cared for and puts up with an asshole Nicholson who just uses her for sex and you feel for her awful situation. This is a performance and a film that I can't recommend highly enough, go watch it.

Ellen Burstyn - The Last Picture Show

If you have been following my blog and have a good memory, you would know that I'm not the biggest Ellen Burstyn fan. I'm not sure I've really liked any of her nominated work save The Exorcist nomination. This was her first nomination so at least I'm done reviewing her work but it's actually not all that bad. She plays Cybill Shepherd's mother in the film and is dealing with not being the hottest thing in their small West Texas town. She's jealous of her daughter and meddles in her love life while still trying to be her old sexy, flirty self. Burstyn is actually pretty good looking in this film so that works with the character because I've never thought she was very attractive in her other work/real life. That is to say that she plays this mother holding on to her last remaining time of being sexy and she actually is. She is one of the louder roles in the film and makes a grand entrance and is allowed to let loose while other characters wallow in their own self pity. So Burstyn gets to enjoy herself and push the performance in some interesting ways as a desperate housewife. There's emotion in the performance but the arc is rather flat and Leachman gets the showier ending, though Burstyn gets a nice little wistful remembrance scene to work with. It's a decent performance from Burstyn that others will probably really love, I just wish I found her other work to be as decent as this is.

Barbara Harris - Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?

This film holds the record for longest title of any Oscar nominee and just reading it is almost tiring. It's certainly one of those that I would never have heard of if not for this project and it is really different. It actually stars Dustin Hoffman as a famous musician who contemplates suicide and we go on this trippy ride that is leftover from the 60s. It's like a stream of conscious type film where there's all kinds of random moments. Some work, most don't. It becomes a little tedious after the intrigue of Hoffman film I've never heard of dies down and this is Hoffman at his most self indulgent. Luckily, the film has Harris to rescue it from bottoming out. She pops in as an actress auditioning for a role with Hoffman with about 30 minutes left and breathes much needed life into this dying film. I was enthralled with Harris. It's just a simple audition scene but she does so much in such a little amount of time that it's like this is from a completely different film. She is alive and she has the nervousness to her character that seems so genuine. It's great physical acting as well as great timing with her line deliveries. And she can act with just her expressions. It's really something to behold. Not even because the film meanders off and gets lost and Harris saves the day. It makes me want to watch anything else Harris did so I can see what I've been missing out on and if it lives up to this performance. Hoffman also smartly backs off and lets Harris steal the show in her two scenes. It's a very good performance in a short amount of time in a film that sorely needed it. Fun fact: this film features Shel Silverstein doing all the music and performing a song with Hoffman onscreen. Worth a watch for Harris and Silverstein.

Margaret Leighton - The Go-Between

I feel like I've written this same review about 30 times now and I'm at the point where I could just copy and paste without skipping a beat. This film isn't very good. It's boring with some awful young actors at it's core. Yet somehow this won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. I have no idea how, but it's really not enjoyable save for a few brief scenes. The title refers to a boy who visits his rich school friend for the summer (he's poor, obviously) and becomes the go-between messenger for various people in the house/area while his friend recovers from measles or some such illness. It trudges along and Leighton is the woman of the house. She sits at the head of the table and is the matron and acts like an older woman. For the whole film, minus the very end, she does nothing that stands out. It's a non-performance not even worth paying attention to, yet here we are. She gets nominated because at the very end of the movie, she bursts into the film with no trepidation and becomes this fiery, angry woman who wants to know where her daughter is and leads the kid who delivers messages to go find her. Well, she's banging a farmer from nearby and this whole outburst from the mother is completely unearned. Nothing prepares you for it and it's way too all of the sudden. And as quickly as we start to get something interesting, the film ends. I don't think it's very good, performance and film-wise. Maybe it's one of those a bunch of voters liked her/knew her, I dunno. But if you ever watch this and think she deserves to be here, please tell me what you see in this performance because I'd truly like to know. What a weird Cannes winner and pointless Oscar nominee.



Probably one of the better groups from this category I've had in awhile. There always seems to be that one performance that is just a head scratcher as to why it's even nominated. Leighton is definitely it for this year. Not much to the performance and just a waste of a spot. And it somehow won at Cannes? Okay then. Burstyn is 4th but not bad at all. I liked the performance but Leachman was better to me overall. And Burstyn being 4th means this is a pretty good year because I actually did like her. That film is for sure worth watching because it's an absolute classic. So then we have Harris at third which is a surprise for me. I thought that with the silly title and the fact that the film was more of an exercise for Dustin Hoffman that I wouldn't like her much. But wow did she surprise me! It was such a breath of fresh air and unexpected. You could probably just watch her scene and forget the rest of the film. Leachman actually comes in second for me. I liked her a lot and her end scene is truly powerful but Ann-Margret was so incredibly, unexpectedly amazing to me that she was my easy winner. I want to watch that film all over again because it's so good and because she is so good. Both of her nominations were entertaining, shame she couldn't win one! On to 1970!

Oscar Winner: Cloris Leachman - The Last Picture Show
My Winner:  Ann-Margret - Carnal Knowledge
Cloris Leachman
Barbara Harris
Ellen Burstyn
Margaret Leighton

Best Picture 1972

You look at this lineup and see three films everyone knows about and then there's two wildcards that could go either way, we never know. So it should be a good year even if those two are duds, which we have that going for us, which is nice.

1972 Best Picture

The Godfather

Rightly considered one of the greatest films of all time, it's really hard to find negative things to say about it. And honestly, trying and wanting to find negative things to say about it is just needless nitpicking. It's very close to being a perfect film and is a must see, not just for film nerds, but for anyone that's ever watched a movie in their lives. We should all know the story of the Corleone family by now and probably know all the sons' names by heart. We follow Vito and his sons Sonny, Fredo, Michael, and adopted son Tom Hagen. Each of these characters are perfectly portrayed by their actors and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the roles. When you think of the Godfather, you instantly think of Brando's raspy voiced iteration. When you think of Michael, all you can see is Pacino. Even James Caan as Sonny and Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen seem inseparable from their characters. The underrated actor in the film, though, is John Cazale who never gets the respect he should as an actor or even as Fredo in the film. They are all brilliant performances that add to an engaging and intensely compelling story. We witness the ascendance of Michael as the Godfather and his arc is so well done that I find it crazy that he wasn't rewarded at all for his performances in the trilogy. Everything else with the film is great, too, from the iconic musical score, to the cinematography, to the minor supporting characters who lend the film its authenticity. My one gripe might be the time Michael spends in Sicily, which feels underdeveloped and almost shoehorned in. If you shortened that or condensed it, would you notice? I don't think so personally but I would have liked that time to be a little more fleshed out so that Michael's loss would hit even harder and better explain his turn into a cold, calculated Don. But overall, The Godfather is without a doubt one of the greatest films of all time, a true masterpiece of film making.

Cabaret

Willkommen! Bienvenue! Welcome! If you can hear the music playing and see Joel Grey performing those lines then you already know. This is my favorite musical of all time and if not for The Godfather, would have easily won Best Picture. It actually won more Oscars than that film, including Best Director for Bob Fosse. It's an absolute classic that really turns the musical genre on it's head. It has a more dark, real life tinge to it. It isn't just happy song and dance and everyone loves each other type of fancy musical. The performances at the Kit Kat Club at first mock and lambast the Nazi ideals but slowly those musical numbers become increasingly more in line with the rise of Nazism. At first we see a Nazi member getting kicked out of the club, but later the owner is beaten in the street and the ending shows the club filled with Nazi members. It's a really great look at the rise of nationalism and how it can slowly creep into every day life as no one steps up to really fight it off. That's the one part of the film. The other part follows Michael York and Liza Minnelli as they become friends and eventual lovers. Liza doesn't have a care in the world at all about what's going on outside of the cabaret and lives carefree and wild. The club is her ticket to stardom and she has the energy necessary to get there. York is the one who disdains everything about the Nazi rise and comments on it unencumbered even to their faces. He does get beaten for it but it just highlights how much the movement has taken hold. The two leads are really great to watch work, Liza especially, and make these moments in between musical numbers worth watching and paying attention to. They could easily just be filler for the next performance by Grey et al, but the story is very compelling and you understand the different ways of thinking of Berlin in the early 1930s through the various characters we meet. Sometimes I go on and on about films I really like, but you should just go see this one right now if you haven't already seen it. I had seen musicals before this and never really enjoyed the genre, but one day a girlfriend sat me down to watch this and it blew my mind on what exactly a musical could be. So praise be to Bob Fosse for introducing me to a genre that I still enjoy to this day and showing me it's not just those 40s and 50s song and dance movies that feel cookie cutter. There's actually an important message beneath the glitz and glamour of the Master of Ceremonies and Liza singing memorable song after memorable song. And that is also a big reason I like this film, the songs are great and you'll be humming them a week later. This is the best musical I've ever seen and it's a shame that it didn't get to win Best Picture. But don't let that take away from just how great this film truly is.

Deliverance

Deliverance. Everyone knows the film. Dueling Banjos. Squeal like a pig. Man rape. Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight (and Ned Beatty). Dangerous hillbillies. But I bet few people today have actually sat down and watched this one from start to finish. You look through the years and there's always a handful that stick out in a wow, that movie was nominated for Best Picture? This is one of those. I'd bet even more people don't realize it was nominated for BP, but it was, and it was a huge box office success. That's why I think it made it's way on to the BP list because it made a lot of money and had a lot of buzz because of certain scenes. The film itself is a pretty quick watch for the most part. Almost non-stop action or tension as we watch a group of four friends canoe down a river that might as well lead to hell for them. Kind of a benign beginning as they head to the river, meet some locals, and then start canoeing down the river. We watch them do that for awhile and it makes a whitewater river trip seem pretty fun and exhilarating. But then they stop and the man rape occurs and things sour rather quickly. The film still stays extremely engaging, however, as the four friends fight for their survival. From there, it is chaos. Things happen and you aren't sure if what you saw happened is right or what the characters think happened is correct. But it's nonetheless intense and dramatic. The acting is mostly just physical as I wouldn't call the performances amazing, just good enough to stay invested in what happens in the end. This is definitely a strange choice and one that probably makes more sense if you were paying attention back in 1972. Nowadays, a film like this would be praised but the shock value wouldn't be there and the familiarity of the survival story would be too much, I think. We've seen many versions of this story played out year after year in different settings and situations. Maybe this hit harder in 72, I dunno. It's a good film that I think more people should actually watch instead of relying on exaggerated ideas of what takes place in the story.

The Emigrants

This is such a strange nomination. To break it down, this film came out in Sweden in early 1971 and was nominated for Best Foreign Film - and lost to an Italian film, The Garden of Finzi-Continis. It was then released in New York in late 1972 and was subsequently nominated in big categories like Picture, Director, Actress, and Screenplay. Almost two years after it was actually released initially. This film started shooting in 1969! It's crazy that because of bad Academy rules this was allowed to be nominated in two straight years. Nominated for Best Picture and didn't even win when nominated for Foreign Film. Amazing. Even crazier is that when it was nominated in this year, it was nominated alongside it's sequel which was in Best Foreign Film. Wrap your head around that. I am glad that the Academy amended their rules to keep this from happening again because besides it creating a headache to think about, it's not really all that great. The story is about a family of poor Swedish farmers and some other people in their little village who have it rough with bad crops and harsh winters and the normal things that being poor brings with it. The family is headed by Max von Sydow who is good and Liv Ullmann who is decent at best. The film is three hours and twelve minutes long and the beginning of the film when we are in the depressing, dour Swedish farmland feels every bit of that length of time. It's a real struggle to get through, especially when there are these visual flourishes from the director that offer nothing to the story. Moments where the camera mimics Ullmann swinging on a swing and lingering too long on some reflection in water. The film could have easily been pared down and still retained the same message and style. I'd say the only good thing about this early part is when things finally get moving and the family and other folks start making the journey to America. That doesn't happen until halfway through but is a welcome breath of fresh air. They travel together by boat and then train and walk a lot and at least this picks the pace of the film up considerably. It's still mostly boring until they actually get to America and get close to Minnesota. Then the depressing tone of the film turns to hopeful as all the tragedies along the way are made worthy by finding beautiful land in America. Also, the film just looks better with more greens and luscious wilderness. I started liking the film at this point even if it is not enough to make the film bearable. I was at least more interested than I had been and wonder if the sequel would be better because of the setting being in America. Either way, not really something you need to waste your time on unless you're a huge fan of von Sydow or Ullmann or long Swedish films. I have no clue how this caught on with the Academy twice but I'm glad my experience with it is over.

Sounder

This one is a bit perplexing to me as one of the five Best films of the year. I really like that a majority black acted film was able to get nominated in a year with a couple of other really great/classic films. But I feel like this film is lacking in the prestige that should, at least in theory, come with being a Best Picture nominee. The film is based on a young adult novel about a boy and his dog and their slice of life as sharecroppers. The father is sent to a prison work camp in the beginning, so the family has to fend for themselves for a year. After watching, the film goes by so quickly that it feels like it's just skimming through important scenes in the book. The dog who is the title of the film, isn't really a huge deal in the film either, or at least isn't made to feel as emotionally important to the boy or the story. The dog does get shot in the face early on and wanders off before returning later. The boy also dotes on the dog but really the dog is more of a prop than a character which is strange for a film named after the dog. My biggest issue is that the film seems low key, where the film keeps a lot of things distant from the viewer. Like the emotional, dramatic parts don't seem to hit hard because the film doesn't let those moments build and breathe, it just moves on with the story. I did actually like the film and it's a decent, enjoyable watch that positively focuses on a black family. There's just something about the film that feels slight to me. It was like an indie film made on a budget (made for under a million) that didn't realize how sincerely good and powerful it's story could be. I definitely wanted some parts to resonate with me on an emotional level more than they did. This feels more like the Cliffs Notes version of the story and I wanted to see the full version. Sounder is an interesting inclusion in the Best Picture pantheon and I don't begrudge it being here. It's not too often a film about the black experience even ends up here, especially in 1972. It was never going to win but I do wish it had been more competitive in that sense. This is worth a watch, just don't expect a masterpiece.


Those two films I was wondering if they would be duds, well, they ended up (mostly) being duds. The Emigrants is a slog. Coming in at over three hours and it took me days to finish. The beginning is just rough before it starts to become more interesting in the last 20-30 minutes. I don't think it belongs in this group but I guess I can see the argument for it. Easy 5th spot for me. Sounder was strange because the film felt so slight, like it glossed over the story and only briefly touched on all the important moments. There's a great film there that doesn't quite come to the surface. I really wanted to like this one, too. Deliverance is a weird inclusion but probably felt way more daring and important back then. Today, these types of films are dime a dozen. It's cool that it's on here and makes for a very interesting entry into the Oscar pantheon. Was never going to win, though. Cabaret is sadly in second but would have easily won in most years, I believe. It's such a great film, a classic musical, and highly entertaining. It just happened to run into The Godfather buzzsaw. That's the clear cut winner and one of the most obvious choices ever. Cabaret at least gives it a good run for its money. Overall, this is a pretty good list. Two amazing classic films, one fun and interesting choice, and then a disappointing film that is still a decent little film, and then the long, dull Swedish mess. Let's get to the next year so I can finally move on from this one!

Oscar Winner: The Godfather
My Winner:  The Godfather
Cabaret
Deliverance
Sounder
The Emigrants

Leading Actor 1972

Man, just look at the names on this list! Heavy hitters all the way down and then Paul Winfield. Nothing against Winfield, but he is the clear outlier. I haven't seen his performance so hopefully he can at least stack up against the others.

1972 Best Actor

Marlon Brando - The Godfather

What can I really say about this performance that hasn't already been said? Honestly, you know all the beats of this one even if you've never seen the film. And if you've never seen the film, what the hell are you waiting for exactly? It's a classic and considered one of the greatest of all time for a reason. Part of that reason is Brando's Don Vito Corleone, one of the most iconic performances of all time. You might remember it as a caricature of itself, but guaranteed it's way better than you remember it to be. I say that because we've seen all the parodies and sketches and heard all the stories surrounding his performance. But Brando is fantastic, which is to be expected since he's one of the best actors ever and full disclosure, one of my favorites. His Vito is so calming and so assured that you understand immediately that this man has immense power and he doesn't need to shout or fight or go crazy to wield it. That's what makes his performance so good for me, he's this cool, calm, and collected guy who gets shit done. He makes the performance look effortless but you know he did a lot to come up with Vito, including the putting cotton balls in his mouth for the puffy cheeked, raspy voiced aesthetic. I think the one big issue that people could pose about this nomination and win is that it might not be the actual lead lead of the film. Al Pacino is unquestionably a lead and you could argue the most important part of the story and he was curiously not nominated for the lead in this film, instead being nominated in Best Supporting Actor. I'm okay with the placement here for Brando, however. He's lead, if not the lead, but dominates all his scenes and kinda hangs over the film when he's not there. Not much else to say besides Brando is so damn good here. This is easily one of the most iconic performances of all time and he fully deserves his win and nomination. He's great and he's my vote.

Michael Caine - Sleuth

Oh man, this is such a fun film to watch! I am glad the two leads are back to back in this list because it will make it way easier to talk about. Caine and Olivier are literally the only two actors who appear in the film even though there is a cast list in the opening credits. Those other names are all fake and portrayed by these two guys. The gist of the film is Olivier is a famous detective/mystery writer who invites over Caine to help him stage a burglary to then benefit from the insurance payout. But instead Olivier knows Caine is banging his wife and is really setting Caine up to be murdered and make it look justified by staging the burglary. That's all before the first half even ends. It keeps going with twist after twist as we see both of these acting legends try to outsmart the other in the story. We also see these two acting titans go toe to toe as they gleefully show off their acting abilities in their own unique ways. It's based off a play and it's just awesome to watch these two act with one another on screen for two plus hours. It never gets tiring or old or grating. The best of Caine is what's on display and we watch him run the gamut of all the emotions while being his usually charming and funny self. If you like Caine, you'll love this. And if you don't like Caine, you might actually like this because his quirks and distinct voice are more subdued. Not much else to say about the performance other than it's just really fun to watch both of these men go at it. The film is highly enjoyable and the twists keep you glued to the story to see how it all plays out. It's a strong performance that if by itself might have actually had a chance to win.

Laurence Olivier - Sleuth

Read everything above for Michael Caine and apply it to Sir Olivier as well. That could be my whole review because it aptly applies. And really the two performances are mostly the same. That's not a bad thing, it's just the nature of their roles. The two go back and forth of being the domineering one in charge with the upper hand to being on the opposite side and acting out the emotions that come with that responsibility. It's awesome to watch an actor do his thing so well with such ease. You see why Olivier is considered one of the greatest ever because he can be as entertaining in this flick as he can be dramatic in all his Shakespeare adaptations. I feel there are times you will kinda dislike Olivier and then be on his side right after and that shows his level of talent and how he can control our emotions through his acting. It's wonderful to watch in action and I do recommend watching this film for the masterclass these two men put on. It's really hard to single out one over the other because they are both so intertwined with each other. They play off whatever the other is doing and roll with what the story needs from them. So it's hard to choose one over the other and so it's impossible to say one could be a winner. If they tied, I'd completely understand and be all for it. But it's just nice to be able to watch these two guys entertain the hell out of us.

Peter O'Toole - The Ruling Class

This is an insane performance in the best possible way. And if you watch this performance and end up not completely loving it and Peter O'Toole, I don't even want to talk to you. O'Toole doesn't appear until about 20 minutes in, but boy, when he does it's a magnificent and grand entrance that is absolutely ridiculous and hilarious. I was legit laughing out loud as soon as he appeared and wasn't prepared for everything O'Toole would deliver after that. The story is essentially O'Toole becomes the new Lord of an English manor or whatever but the wrinkle is that he fully believes he is God/Jesus Christ. When he first shows up he looks exactly like Jesus and spouts off all this loving, scripture-like mumbo jumbo and makes it entertaining as hell. The other characters all react like you'd assume, thinking he's crazy and plotting to remove him as the new Lord. This continues for awhile and O'Toole even marries a girl who the others want to try to turn him but she falls for him. And then (spoilers) O'Toole is confronted by another self confessed God and they kinda battle it out when both are clearly nuts and the shrink hopes this will wake up O'Toole. He changes but then (more spoilers) starts to think he is Jack the Ripper and actually murders a woman but blames his butler. It's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds and it's only because O'Toole is such a great actor that he keeps this film from going completely off the rails. It's a film and a performance that only someone like O'Toole could pull off without it being too over the top to the point where instead of actively despising how stupid it is you end up laughing at the ridiculous nature of the role. The film itself is a very dark comedy in the oh so British way that pokes fun at the stuffy ruling class (hence the title) and highlights how ridiculous the Lords are and how out of touch they have to be to allow O'Toole to dictate laws in the country. He gives a fiery speech about bringing back capital punishment and the other Lords eat it up. It's very of the times but allows for a wonderful O'Toole performance. It's great to see him go from the Christ-like figure to the dark and violent Jack the Ripper incarnation. The performance isn't just theatrics as O'Toole layers everything to mean more than just what we see. It's a really fun performance to watch and makes you wonder just how he never was able to win an Oscar.

Paul Winfield - Sounder

You look at the names on this list and it's acting royalty all the way down and then Paul Winfield. Not a put down, just one of those moments where most people will have never heard of his name or anything he's done. So this category should be a good way to introduce Winfield to the general public as everyone looks to see who this fifth spot belongs to. Or at least that's my thinking when I see his name on this list. Winfield was one of the first black Best Actor nominees (third officially) and so I went into this hoping to find a hidden gem. I guess what I ultimately found instead was a cubic zirconia. By that I mean it's an alright performance but it doesn't stand up to the other diamonds you find in this category. The reason is because Winfield isn't in the film all that much. Sounder is about a boy and his little slice of life with his dog. Winfield plays the father and has some scenes in the beginning where we see he is a stern father but also warm and caring and just trying to provide for his family. Winfield does what is necessary for the role and does a fine job, but it's not anything you'll be itching to re-watch later. Winfield then steals some food to feed his family and is sent to a prison work camp for most of the middle of the film and returns right near the end. His return scene is actually pretty iconic and is probably something people have seen before without even knowing what film it's actually from. It's an emotional scene that Winfield plays wonderfully and maybe that was enough to get him nominated. It ends with him just going about life after getting released and being a father and mentor to his son. Standard stuff done well but nothing that is going to make you want it to get nominated or win, unfortunately. Winfield comes off as a solid actor who doesn't have much to work with in the film but gives it his all and gets a nomination out of it. I actually really enjoyed the son's performance more since the film is about him and allows the kid to do more acting. A solid fifth place nomination here.



No offense to Paul Winfield, but he's the odd man out. And after watching his performance, I scratch my head as to how he was included in this group. It's cool a black man was nominated when that wasn't happening even in the early 70's but I need a little more substance in my performances. The rest, though, are all very good to great. O'Toole in 4th only because he might not be everyone's cup of tea and because the others are all even better. But it's tough to beat those three. It's also tough to separate Olivier and Caine as they are so intertwined in their performances you can't choose one over the other. It would be even harder to pick a winner if Brando wasn't in the group, so it's good he's in this one. I love Brando, though, so I'm sure some will not like his smaller role and how often imitated it has become. It's a classic, though, and he's my easy winner. A very good all around category again this year.

Oscar Winner: Marlon Brando - The Godfather
My Winner:  Marlon Brando - The Godfather
Michael Caine
Laurence Olivier
Peter O'Toole
Paul Winfield

Leading Actress 1972

Looking at the list, this is a very diverse group of actresses. It's not often I get to say that in this category. It's a bunch of first time nominees and a previous winner in Maggie Smith. I know what Liza brings and it will be tough to beat, but I look forward to what the others have to offer.

1972 Best Actress

Liza Minnelli - Cabaret

If there ever was a surefire win, this is it. Especially when you compare her performance to the other ladies on this list. Diana Ross is the only one that comes close. It really is the role of a lifetime for Liza as she plays Sally Bowles, a cabaret performer. The first thing you notice is how much energy and outright electricity she gives off onscreen. It's totally palpable and hooks you right from the start. Her energy is infectious and you can't help but be charmed immediately. To be expected with her having two uber famous parents, Liza is a great singer and dancer. That makes all the song interludes work so well and also highlights that she's a very talented actress on top of the entertaining parts, too. There's nuance and subtlety behind the frenetic energy, though, which is why Liza shines so bright in this performance. There are moments of quiet desperation behind her eyes that belie the carefree theatricality. We see this standout starkly when Liza is confronted with a life she absolutely dreads in having a baby and being a stuffy academic wife. Liza rebels at that idea and has an abortion and avoids that temporary chaos of self doubt. There is so much more to her character than just being a free loving cabaret performer and Liza handles it all deftly. She is spellbinding and that's not even a description I've ever used on this blog before, I think. But it holds true as she just has this magnetism whether she is performing in the Kit Kat Club or going about her day to day life with the men who surround her. One of my favorite female performances of all time and I'm so glad she won for this.

Diana Ross - Lady Sings the Blues

Before this project, I would never have guessed Diana Ross was an Oscar nominated actress. Obviously, I wasn't around in the early 70s, so I had no idea she even tried her hand at acting, let alone was worthy of a nomination. So my initial thought was did she actually deserve it or was it one of those Academy things where they reward someone successful in another medium when they dip their toes into the acting world. I feel like after watching this that could be part of it, but Ross is talented as an actress. The film is a biopic of Billie Holiday and her tumultuous life. Biopics are always tricky, musical biopics even more so. Lots of them gloss over the troubled, dark times in the subjects life and try to spin everything in a positive way. This film does gloss over a bit from what I can tell in my research, but it also hammers home her drug addiction problem. This was Ross's start in acting and she fought to be cast as Holiday. She knew it would be a star making turn and would allow her to comfortably transition to acting. My fear was that Ross would be awful, but in reality she is very good in the role. It's also very obvious that this is her first acting job and she comes across as unsure of how to play some scenes. But Ross is really incredible at times, too. She plays a great drug addict, which sounds like a put down but I mean it sincerely. Holiday had a drug problem and Ross portrays that expertly. Ross has the mannerisms down and one thing I noted that was exceptional is that her eyes in some of her club performances are droopy and tired and half open and those are when she's using. It's a great choice to portray that she is using. The singing is good, although I don't think it really sounds like Holiday. I went and listened to her music after and Holiday is very slow and not as polished sounding, while Ross has a tempo to her as well as being in key and sounding like a professional. Holiday was a jazz legend, but I much prefer Ross's version of 'Strange Fruit' to Holiday's. Ross gives the role everything she has and is up to the task of portraying another singing legend. I guess it takes one to know one kinda thing here. But if you go into this film thinking that Ross can't hang, she definitely will prove you wrong. Now, is it worthy of an Oscar? Possibly in a lesser year, but also Ross's inexperience shows through a lot during the film. When she has to act to further the story, she fails. It's a good first try but Liza laps her.

Maggie Smith - Travels With My Aunt

Ugh. Really that's all I would need to put here to sum up my feelings on the performance and the film as a whole. I did not like this one very much at all. Now before I get into what it's about and Smith's performance, you have to know that this was initially a Katharine Hepburn starring vehicle. She had wanted to do the story (based on a book) and even went so far as to tailor the script to her liking before she ultimately pulled out before shooting began. So in stepped Smith, doing her best Hepburn imitation in some really bad old people makeup bringing a lot of frenetic energy to the role that is tiring and not really fun to watch. I think Smith is a great actress but her Oscar work has left me wanting more and this is no different. I get that it's tough to step into a role designed for someone else at the last minute, but Smith could have made the performance more of something original and hers instead of aping Hepburn. The story is one where she is the titular Aunt who shows up to her sister's funeral and tells her nephew that wasn't really her mother. Then Smith leads this man on some mostly boring adventures while she cons him into doing little errands for her so she can bail out a lover of hers who she thinks is kidnapped. There is energy to the performance but like I said earlier, it's exhausting to watch and the energy takes the place of earned charm. It's a role and performance that looks and feels like it should be hilarious and one of a kind but ends up a tired one note rehash of another actress. There are some interesting moments and it seems like the book is a wild ride, but the film condenses things to the point where a lot of important transitions and details are left out and Smith can't do much to flesh out her character. I think some people might like Smith here because she is kooky and loud and all over the place but not me. I don't know why Smith captured the hearts of Oscar voters for a while but I don't see anything Oscar worthy in this performance and that makes me sad because I've been hoping for some greatness from this two-time Oscar winner. You just aren't going to find that here.

Cicely Tyson - Sounder

I was really expecting a lot more out of this performance. Tyson is a heavily awarded actress of the stage, screen, and TV. She's had many other personal accolades like a Kennedy Center honor and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. She was even given an Honorary Oscar in late 2018. I know she's a great actress and Sounder seemed to capture the hearts and attention of the Academy so I was prepared for something really strong. What I got was more of a dud. This is a decent little film based on an award winning young adult novel but the story is based around Tyson's character's son and his dog as their husband/father is sent to a work prison for stealing food. Tyson is never really the main focus of the film and so Tyson doesn't really get much of a chance to flex her acting chops. You see it in spurts like when she is pissed at the sheriff and the local store owner who rag her about her husband and especially in her iconic, emotional scene where she reunites with Paul Winfield. I said the same for him but I feel like that scene got her nominated. But besides those moments, Tyson is mostly just the supportive mother/wife who has to pick up the slack once Winfield is gone. She is solid and does everything her character needs to do for the story but she rarely gets to shine. She even disappears at times because the story is about her son. It's great that she was nominated but I was really hoping to see what made her one of the best actresses of her time. There is a lot lacking in the performance simply because the film never allowed her the chance to do much more than be a worried wife/mother. This was highly anticipated but severely disappointing through no fault of Tyson's own.

Liv Ullmann - The Emigrants

Go and read my review of The Emigrants in Best Picture to get the backstory on this film. I don't quite understand how a film that was nominated in the previous year at the Academy Awards could then be nominated in some major awards the next year. Maybe if it was an all time film with an all time performance, but this does not qualify as such. I think there was some building up of Ullmann as an international star and she had been nominated for some other awards before her first Oscar nomination here. Was this to cement her as a star in Hollywood's eyes? Possibly, but serious foreign film fans will tell you Ullmann had a few other better performances that she wasn't nominated for. In this one, she is the wife of a poor Swedish farmer and they eventually set off for America, ending up in Minnesota. It takes over three hours to witness this and I don't feel as if Ullmann does anything amazingly well. She's certainly not doing anything to keep you invested in what you're watching. Ullmann is a talented, accomplished actress but this performance doesn't ask much of her as she plays the farmer's wife who has a lot of kids role. She helps out with the farm work, raises the kids, gets pregnant, has a rough time on the ship to America, argues with husband, and has an overall miserable time. She's good at playing the downtrodden and desperate, but I'm stretching to find anything to grab onto as being worth a nomination a year after it was already nominated once. It's a Liv Ullmann performance for sure, but I feel like she is drowned out in the film by other characters including her husband, Max von Sydow. There are other, more memorable characters who seemingly do more than play restrained mother/wife and are more interesting to watch. This one is a huge disappointment that is not worth the over three hours of your time. Watch her Ingmar Bergman work instead.



This was a really disappointing year with a clear cut winner who blew me away and the rest of the category who are simply here. I have generally disliked Academy darlings because they get some unearned nominations (and even wins) at the expense of other actors who could take their place and make for far more interesting groups of nominees. Smith is one of those in a film that was not as exciting as it could have been and a role that should have been more original than just an imitation. I don't get it other than she stepped into a mess of a situation. Ullmann is tolerable though not particularly exciting. I get that she is thought of as one of the greatest actresses of her generation, but I wished for something not so dour and depressing. And even something like that can be great, but I didn't see that greatness here. Tyson is almost more of the same. An accomplished actress who was heavily awarded in her career and her only Oscar nomination is a boring portrayal of a wife/mother trying to keep things together with a momentary flash of what she could be as an actress. All three heavily disappointing. Ross at least impressed with her singing and takes on a famous singer role that she does well with. Not the most polished of performances but at least one that was interesting and worth the nomination and watch. In most years she'd be a 4th-5th most likely, instead of the 2nd she is here. Liza is the obvious winner and you don't have to dive deep into reasons why. She's just amazing in a role she was born to play and she knocked it out of the park on the first pitch. If not for her, this would be an all time worst year for Best Actress. Thank God for Liza.

Oscar Winner: Liza Minnelli - Cabaret
My Winner:  Liza Minnelli - Cabaret
Diana Ross
Cicely Tyson
Liv Ullmann
Maggie Smith

Supporting Actor 1972

One of the rare times where three actors from the same film are nominated in the same category - and none of them end up winning. It's always one that you want to pay attention to and figure out why, especially because the actual winner is really deserving and great in his own right. Which I don't think a lot of people even know of Grey and his performance. There is one performance here that I haven't seen but I don't think it'll factor in to my decision much. This is a year where I get to savor these performances I've already seen.

1972 Best Supporting Actor

Joel Grey - Cabaret

This is one of those winners that people will look at and immediately think well how did this guy I've never heard of beat three huge stars from The Godfather? That's a legitimate question to ask but this winner is not at all a surprising one, especially if you have seen Grey's performance. Grey won a Tony Award for this same role a few years before the film came out, so he had perfected his performance by this win and it for sure wasn't a fluke. Yes, you can say the other three split the votes (which they probably did), but I honestly believe Grey won this on his own merits. He plays the Master of Ceremonies at the Cabaret that Liza Minnelli dances and sings at in Nazi Germany. That's all Grey's role is in the film, he emcees the different cabaret songs and is a big part of the entertainment. Grey really is memorable and and has such a dynamic, interesting energy in the film that you can't help but be intrigued by him. We never actually know anything about him as a person, but we really don't need to. He, and his song and dance routines, represents what's going on under the surface of the film. The main story is about Liza Minnelli and Michael York, but this is highlighting the rise to power of the Nazis in Germany and subtly lampooning what's going on. So Grey is less a character interacting in the story with other characters, but more a representation of the downfall of Germany. And Grey captures this unusual role perfectly. He's kinda creepy, but also hilarious at times with his on stage performance. He is absolutely compelling and magnetic and the film is better for having his little interludes drive the thematic elements of the story. The performance is just so good and iconic that it makes perfect sense as the winner. Grey encapsulates what Cabaret is with his performance alone and that's the best compliment I can give for this win. It's a different kind of performance that works well and makes for an inspired Academy choice.

Eddie Albert - The Heartbreak Kid

So this was a bit confusing for me at first. I watched Butterflies Are Free first and that stars Edward Albert. I thought he was also in this and was just called Eddie and he had been in two big comedies this year and that's why he was nominated. Well turns out that this is actually Edward's father. I thought it was pretty cool that both father and son had pretty big acting years. This Albert played Cybill Shepherd's father and completely disapproves of Charles Grodin's smarmy, obsessed character divorcing his wife of three days to get with his young, pretty daughter. In this category, one of the best groups ever, he never had a shot to win. And I feel like most people just gloss over his name and look at the other four and move on. But Albert is very good in his role. He is mostly in the second half of the film and plays a protective, grumpy father who hates Grodin, for good reason. He does have some comedic moments that are delivered with a serious face and makes the performance really enjoyable. It might be a stock role but Albert makes it his role and his scenes are the best of the second half of the film. It's certainly not an all time performance like the others, but it holds up even today and is fun to watch. Can't fault a good performance like this being in an all time group.

James Caan - The Godfather

I wasn't as enamored with Caan's performance as it seems a lot of other people were. Not to say it's bad at all, but my least favorite of the ones nominated which, really, doesn't mean it's my least favorite or that I disliked it. Caan is a talented actor no doubt and he plays eldest son Santino "Sonny" Corleone and does a great job with his character. Sonny is kind of a hot headed knucklehead. He isn't as smart as Hagen or Michael but he is the oldest. He also seems to rule once he's Don with an emotional bent. Obviously he comes to power because his father was gunned down and things are going awry, but he just seems to have a temper and leads with that instead of taking counsel or measuring all the facts first. I think Caan does a great job of showing how impulsive Sonny is whether it's banging a bridesmaid at the wedding, rushing out to confront Carlo for beating his sister, or ordering a hit in retaliation. It's a little easier to show off having a trigger hair temper but Caan does that emotion justice with his performance. I enjoy how Caan easily switches between the different sides of his character going from rage to concern to joking around seemingly flawlessly. It makes his character pretty likable and makes his end hit a lot harder. I like the performance and he fits perfectly into the role but I can't help but like Duvall and Pacino better.

Robert Duvall - The Godfather

This is probably my favorite of the actual supporting roles in The Godfather for the simple reason that Duvall is exactly what he should be: lowkey. He doesn't overpower any scene he's in, though he still gives an incredibly strong performance. He even slinks into the background at times, but it suits his character and Duvall plays it pitch perfect. He portrays Tom Hagen, the adopted son and now family lawyer for the Corleones. Duvall shines in the early going when he stays well mannered and cordial when meeting with the studio executive and feels more like a Colonel in a war room where he answers to the big men, adds his two cents when necessary, and doesn't get to take over the deliberations. He keeps everyone else in check and stays even keeled throughout, even when he's kinda demoted from being the counsel to the Don. It's good acting and Duvall does exactly what the character needs and nothing more, which is necessary with all the big egos and moving parts. He's a good family guy and Duvall displays that clearly. It's my favorite supporting performance from the film but I'm not considering Pacino a supporting character.

Al Pacino - The Godfather

Let's admit right off the bat that this is a leading performance and really shouldn't be in the supporting category. I don't know if that was designed to get Brando another Oscar or what since there isn't a rule preventing more than one Lead Actor nominee from the same film. So category fraud aside, Pacino is magnificent. This might be his best performance of his career, leagues ahead of his winning performance years later, easily. What we see from this performance is a man who changes completely. To butcher the quote from the other film, they pull him into the lifestyle. He's a Marine hero who doesn't want to get caught up in the family business and wants to marry his girlfriend and do his own thing and then events happen that cause him to become invested in the family business. Pacino is almost unrecognizable because he's so young looking which adds to his performance, honestly. He hasn't developed any of the Pacino tics and trademarks and so we get an honest, pure performance from him. Pacino wants to do right for his family when it seems no one else is stepping up to handle the affairs so he does and we begin to see the transition. Pacino is so intense and living in the performance like we are filming his own life that it's a thing of beauty to watch. When he helps get rid of some rivals, we see the calculating Michael that will come to rule the family. The transition is subtle and thankfully we don't see Michael rise to power in 15 minutes in some montage, Coppola does it justice. Pacino's time in Sicily seems a bit wasted and either could have been expanded or condensed, I'm not sure what would have been best. But once Michael returns stateside we see the completion of the transition and it's almost scary how dark and assured it all is, yet Michael remains charming and likable. Now there's a lot more to the performance than I'm even discussing like Michael and Vito talking about what could have been or Michael manipulating the father of the Sicilian woman he married. All of this shows the depth of Michael and the depth of Pacino's acting and it's all amazing. Pacino should have been rewarded for his work in this film without a doubt.



This is such an interesting group. I think the knee jerk reaction is why the hell didn't Pacino win or at least one of The Godfather nominees win. Most people just see those nominees and think the others must be shit and this is typical Academy bullshit. But! Albert gives a decent performance that wouldn't ever win in any other year but doesn't feel like an undeserved nomination. It's one you can easily place fifth and move on from. Grey is the wrench in the Godfather machine, however. I love his performance and I give him the win because I think it represents the film well, is so unusual but unforgettable, and is just a great performance overall. Others might not agree and that's okay. The other three performances are all very good. I really like Duvall in his role more than Caan as he is just so lowkey and what is necessary in the role without being flashy. Caan is still good but the lesser of the three to me. Pacino isn't even really a supporting character. I'd say he's a lead but gets stuck in here. I'd have him first of the three but he isn't supporting so I knock him down one. But overall this is a really tremendous group. Helps to have one of the greatest films ever give us three nominations. The other two, however, are even better or at least worth a watch. These are the types of categories I wish I had more often!

Oscar Winner: Joel Grey - Cabaret
My Winner:  Joel Grey - Cabaret
Robert Duvall
Al Pacino
James Caan
Eddie Albert