Supporting Actor 1970

Well, we've got one big name we all know and four that most people have probably never heard of, myself included. I like that these early years offer up new people I've never seen before. I always hope to find my new favorite performance and I hope it's in this category this year!

1970 Best Supporting Actor

John Mills - Ryan's Daughter

Oh man, I really hate roles like this and I've heard that this was a very poor win but I didn't expect it to be like this. Ugh. Mills is the village idiot in a little fishing town in Ireland. The film is about a woman who marries and then cheats on her husband with one of the occupying British officers. This is set in 1917 during WWI and just after Easter Rising. So the affair is a big no-no and this is everything that leads up to it and after. It's a David Lean epic and it looks amazing and is very long at three and a half hours. Oh, should I actually be talking about this wholly undeserved win and performance? Mills' village idiot has a deformed leg and really bad teeth and he's a dumb mute. Mills doesn't say a single word and the performance is very much a physical one. You can say that Mills tries to imbue the character with a humane quality and tries to get to the core of the person he's playing but that's all whatever. He plays a village idiot that is laughed at and mocked and seems to always be at just the right place at the right time to watch the events of the story unfold. But that's all it is: a village idiot role. It's acted as well as Mills can do but there's nothing really to it. He supposed to be this sympathetic figure who sees people for what they truly are but he doesn't say a word and relies on the physical element of the performance because that's all there is. There are other, better supporting performances in this film. Trevor Howard as the priest is so great. If you want to call Robert Mitchum a supporting character, he'd be a good choice as well. Even the local pub owner who is the Ryan in the title is a better choice because he brings something to the film even though the acting might be a bit over the top. I say that because this is not something I would ever vote for and for some reason the Academy has had such a hard on for these simple/special ed type of roles for some reason. I think it's the lowest form of acting and is too easy to do and no one ever gets it right because it's always so exaggerated. It's never true to life and always feels like someone hamming it up or playing it for awards love. It's a bad win, plain and simple. I can't get behind this and these types of wins (because there is another one coming up for Best Actor, though I haven't seen it yet) just feel like pandering and just all sorts of wrong. Howard would have made an excellent nominee and possible winner. Even the star of the film, Sarah Miles, said he would have been a better winner. When your own Oscar nominated actress says that maybe you should listen! Bad win and I hate to go off like this but this kind of shit from the Academy bothers me.

Richard S. Castellano - Lovers and Other Strangers

This is one of those names you see on the list and don't recognize and if you saw a picture of Castellano, you probably wouldn't recognize him from that, either. But when I tell you he was in The Godfather and ad libbed the famous line "Leave the gun, take the canoli" you will know exactly who he is. Castellano seems to have mostly been a character actor on TV, stage, and in film. He already did this very same role on Broadway a couple years before the film came out and I feel that maybe that's part of the reason he was nominated because the Academy loves to do that. The role/character isn't much. Castellano plays the father of a guy in the film who is getting married. His other son is getting divorced and his wife is portrayed by Bea Arthur from The Golden Girls fame. He plays an almost stereotypical Italian married father who doles out marriage advice despite constant bickering with his own wife and only sticking with her because that's just what you do even if you don't love them any more. So Castellano and Arthur go back and forth and bring a little comedy to the film and both are loud and demonstrative and you've seen that same couple a hundred times before/since. Castellano is good in the role for what it is as he should be, but he often gets overshadowed in the film by the other supporting men. To the point that you wonder why Castellano was chosen and not them. He does have a little wistful monologue towards the end of the film where he tells his divorcing son about how he wanted to marry another woman before he married Arthur that comes off as a good scene but doesn't feel like it particularly stands out to me. It's more a sad indictment on marriage more than anything.

Chief Dan George - Little Big Man

It worried me going into this film that this would be some really racist, outdated mess. Some of the pictures I had seen from the film looked a little goofy, so I was expecting the worst. But instead, the film is a revisionist Western where the US Cavalry soldiers are the enemy and the Indians are shown in a more sympathetic light. It's about Dustin Hoffman and his life as he was saved from an Indian massacre by another tribe and then raised as an Indian and then "rescued" and brought back into white society. It's about his life and he eventually goes back to the Indians. But this is about Chief Dan George who is, well, the chief of the Cheyenne that adopted Hoffman. At first he comes off as the measured, wise chief who takes in Hoffman. Eventually he becomes blind and is a bit more philosophical. All the while he has a great sense of humor. It's just that George isn't used all that much. He's on the peripheral and it would fulfill the stereotype of the Indian chief, though George lends a bit more warmth to that role. It's still not much. I think others are going to find deeper meaning in his performance that just isn't there. He's playing a specific part and nothing else. I don't see much here and Grahame Green, who is the other male Native American nominee from 1990, falls into a similar issue: be more than just the token Indian. I like Green way more than George here, but I'd honestly rather see General Custer nominated because he offers up something interesting and that feels like blasphemy. George does what is needed from his character but it's not something that will make you perk up every time he is on screen. It is great, though, that the Academy diversified it's nominees and went a different way than it normally does, especially in 1970. It's just a shame that the performance isn't better than what it is.

Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father

The project does it again, delivering me a wonderful hidden gem of a film with some really great acting. You'd think I'd have known about this one since it features Hackman, but I had never heard about it or knew what it was about. Even my guess as to what it might be about was really wrong. It has nothing to do with singing or music and is very much an adult drama about the relationship between a son and his father. Hackman is the son and this is such an emotionally acted film where the acting is the star. The son wants to love his father who is overbearing and who makes it tough to actually love him. And that's all Hackman's character wants is that fatherly love. Nothing he does is enough to impress his father and get that love and so Hackman grows to resent his father and the relationship is strained. His father is obstinate and stuck in his ways and it takes the mother dying for them to come together again and butt heads and bond a little bit, though the ending is certainly not a happy one. Hackman, though, is terrific. This is soulful acting where the emotions are at the forefront and this really shows his range as an actor. I honestly like this performance more than his iconic work in The French Connection. You can see that internal struggle of his relationship externalized and it's truly strong, memorable work. The mother was the buffer and once she was gone, the two had to deal head on with their issues with one another. Their little clash, though it's only with words, is heartbreaking to watch the frustrations and disappointment stream from them both. It's an acting showcase type of film and I love watching those kinds of performances. Both Melvyn Douglas (a two time Oscar winner) and Hackman are at the top of their game and deliver something exceptional. My one issue is that Hackman is really the lead actor as he is in almost every scene and the focus of the story. Sticking him in Supporting seems wrong and I feel like he and Douglas should have switched categories. But that's the only mark against this nomination. It's wonderful acting from start to finish and will probably end up my winner.

John Marley - Love Story

I'm not gonna lie, I actually really liked his performance. It is short and I normally can't stand those kinds of nominations, but this meant something. That's what I ask for: bring something to the film and the story. And Marley did. It's not much and some people might not enjoy it and that's okay. But I thought he brought so much needed humanity to the role and the story as the father of Ali MacGraw. I love that he's a father to her in the scene where they visit as a couple and is deferential to Ryan O'Neal because his family is so influential. He's playing off these two different emotions of be a father and also be a good citizen and placate this man. It's really good! It surprised me because I thought it would be a nothing performance but it had heart and earnestness and I loved it. He was great at the wedding and he was heartbreaking at the end. All you could ask for. And you might be asking where have you seen him before and that would be as the man who wakes up with a horse head in his bed in The Godfather. Yep, that's him. But I really did enjoy his performance here. It's simple and effective and that's the theme for this film for me. Will it win, I dunno, but I'm glad it's so much better than I thought it would be.



Ayyy, I really don't like this win. It might very well be the worst one for this category that I have seen so far. Eventually I'll make a list ranking all the winners or something to that effect, but this one will be at the bottom for sure. Mills is my last place and it's really no fault of his own. He does what is needed for the role and it's not like he purposefully played a village idiot to win an Oscar, but still. It's a bad win and I wish he wasn't even nominated. Chief Dan George is an inspired nomination but unfortunately it's not that awesome. He's funny but he just plays an Indian. I need more depth and substance to my nominees. Castellano is pretty good in his role. It fits the film and is one of those Broadway roles that transfers over to film and the Academy loves nominating those. Marley was a pleasant surprise and I enjoyed his small role a lot. It's what a supporting role should be, so he's my second. Now Hackman is my winner even if he should be in the Lead actor category. But he's here and I'm taking him as my winner because he is head and shoulders above everyone else. I love his performance and we can see why he won the next year for his first Oscar. Anyway, disappointing year to round out the 70s. Was hoping for much better, but hey, I watched some really interesting films!

Oscar Winner: John Mills - Ryan's Daughter
My Winner:  Gene Hackman - I Never Sang for My Father
John Marley
Richard S. Castellano
Chief Dan George
John Mills