Here are some names and films I've been wanting to get to for a long time and now I finally can. Very interested in a couple of these. No big interesting introduction, let's just get to it!
1968 Best Supporting Actor
Jack Albertson - The Subject Was Roses
Everyone knows Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka. Very few people seem to know that he's an Oscar winner and was a well respected actor in theater, too. He was only a Grammy short of the EGOT. In fact, this role was one that he initially did on Broadway along with Martin Sheen and was what he won his Tony Award for. It's also one of those roles that many people agree was a good win, yet no one seems to talk about it these days. Albertson plays the father of the story and it's a play based on the return of Sheen from WWII. Albertson and Patricia Neal are fighting at every opportunity and the son being back allows for a lot of issues to be addressed. It's based off a play so you know you're getting a film that relies heavily on character interactions. I would say that Albertson is more of a co-lead with Sheen but here we are. I think Albertson is so good. He's theatrical for the most part, especially in those scenes where it's just him and Sheen. Neal grounds the whole film and allows Albertson and Sheen to seem more animated. What I want to say is that Albertson is so comfortable in this role for obvious reasons but it speaks to a place of truth. It feels so real and authentic that you might think your own father is having his issues with you. The wife adored Sheen and Albertson felt he needed to be needed to be coddled less and then the son goes off to war and he still holds him to a higher standard than Neal who is excited for her baby to be back. It's one of those family dramas that works better as a play but I still really dig this as a film. Albertson's best scenes are the ones where the family goes out clubbing and they are all drunk and he is trying to convince his wife to sleep with him but she resists because we have inferred that he slept with other women before and it's still raw. Their interactions are so natural and realistic that you see people you know in these characters. It's just a really great acting job from Albertson that was lived in with a Tony win and was rewarded by the Academy. We can debate that it probably isn't Supporting but I get when people say this was a good win because you watch this and just recognize how good Albertson is.
Seymour Cassel - Faces
Go read my review for Lynn Carlin because it will give some much needed info I don't want to repeat here but I kinda will anyway. Cassel is a young man that Carlin and her girlfriends pickup at a nightclub. Or rather he gets them out of their table and onto the dance floor and they take him home. They are all starved of attention from husbands they don't seem to care about and who don't seem to care about them. He focuses on each one but early on catches the eye of Carlin who mostly sits back and watches as he dances with the other three and flirts like crazy. The real prize is Carlin. Cassel, though, is really up for the part. Full of youthful energy and charm, he seems harmless and tries to take care of these lonely women. He has great chemistry with Carlin and their part of this film is the only part that is interesting to me. Their attraction is palpable and I wanted to see more. Give me a whole film on them and this could be an even better film. The big thing is that these two feed off of each other but also benefit from working with each other. Their performances are better because of each other and Cassel works best as the playboy. I mean that because he doesn't have to do all the machismo posturing like in the first half of the film so he can just be chill and weird and sexy and himself and still come off pretty good. It's a good performance that is also begging for a little more depth and time on screen. But that's supporting roles in a nutshell and Cassel is good in the role.
Daniel Massey - Star!
So Fox wanted to try and replicate the success of The Sound of Music and then undertook Doctor Doolittle, Star!, and Hello, Dolly! All of these under performed at the box office and were huge bombs. It's because of the garbage campaign systems that were allowed that those three except Star! were nominated for Best Picture. Nowadays terrible films like these wouldn't make it, yet in the 60s they took up undeserving spots. Luckily all Star! managed was a head scratching nomination in this category (okay, they actually had 7 total nominations, mostly in sound and design and all that, but you get it, not a Best Picture nomination like the others mentioned). Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan. Massey plays Noel Coward who was a theater hotshot. He composed songs and created and directed plays and acted and did all things theater. I have no reference of who Noel Coward is, so I can't say whether or not Massey is spot on or terrible or what. I just know he plays a kind of stereotypical gay British theater bloke. Enunciates, surly, witty. But I don't know what he's actually known for as that seems to be from the 30s to 60s. He does have an Honorary Academy Award from 1942 for a war time film he made. Massey is fine in the role. I know I've spent no time talking about his performance but it's fine for what the role is and that's to be a comedic foil for Julie Andrews and then every once in a while bring her back down to earth. I think he gets nominated because Fox pushed for it and because people wanted to vote for Noel Coward who I imagine was a big deal to some of the voters back then. This is certainly no hidden gem or anything, which is what I was hoping for.
Jack Wild - Oliver!
You know, I was worried this would be a terrible nomination. If you've read any of my blog for awhile, you know I loathe child actors. Most of them overact or don't actually act at all and are just told what to do and say and don't mine any depth or nuance out of their characters. It's got to take a lot to wow me and I can't even think of any off the top of my head besides maybe Saoirse Ronan in Atonement but I don't know how old she was for that one. This isn't one that wows me but it is one that I'm okay with as a performance. Wild is the Artful Dodger who I remember being a bit more mischievous and clever than in this film. My memory might not be the best but this Artful Dodger doesn't get a lot to do other than introduce Oliver Twist to the Fagin's gang of kids. But Wild doesn't annoy me, he doesn't over act or try to be the star. He doesn't mug for the camera or come off too slick and precocious. He's actually playing a character and doing his best to be the Artful Dodger and I can appreciate that. Wild can actually sing and dance and be what the story needs him to be to move everything along. It's also possible that in seeing the kid who plays Oliver Twist, it makes me like Wild more because Oliver is an awful actor and was dubbed over because he couldn't sing. Compared to him, Wild does indeed look like an Oscar contender. He isn't really, though I do enjoy the performance for what it is and that's a small little victory I'll take for a child performance.
Gene Wilder - The Producers
Sometimes this project throws a film at me that I am just thrilled to watch because I forget it's even one I have to watch and it's like this added bonus. A couple of them have been Mel Brooks film like this one and Blazing Saddles and it's just so great to just take a break and laugh my ass off while watching someone like Gene Wilder. Because who the hell doesn't love Gene Wilder?! I am so glad he's an Oscar nominee and I'm glad I get to watch him in this. He's an unbelievably funny man and his comedy is so different than most. Just full of deadpan and exaggerated expressions and sly comments and he's just a big mishmash of these different styles that become uniquely him. I can't do justice in describing his humor, you just have to watch his work for yourself - which you should have already because he's a cultural icon! In this film, Wilder plays an accountant who helps Zero Mostel try to come up with the worst play ever to get him money. It backfires as Springtime For Hitler is a hit! It's hilarious to see Wilder and Mostel scramble when they realize they whiffed big. The bulk of what got Wilder the nomination is in the beginning of the film when Wilder is in the office and explaining to Mostel exactly what he needs to do to not have a successful play. It becomes super successful and the hilarity ensues. But the funny is mostly in the early parts of the film when Wilder gets to be himself. He reacts ridiculously and it's super funny. His role is great and we can laugh along with him throughout the film. What a great nomination.
Some very good performances in this category and then we get a dud like Massey. I was really hoping that it would be some hidden gem, but it was just a dud. Massey isn't awful, but the performance isn't there. It's just like an imitation of someone you don't know and that's it. Wild doesn't really get all that much to do but at least he wasn't an annoying child actor. Cassel was very good in his brief time, but felt like he needed a bit more to do. Great in his limited time, though. Wilder was and always will be a hoot to watch on screen. He was awesome here and it would have been so wonderful if he was an Oscar winning actor for his comedic talents. Albertson, though, is the winner. He's so good in the role he was so comfortable in. Very good win that's not talked about and it's a shame because we know him as the decrepit Grandpa Joe who jumps out of bed to go see Willy Wonka and not for this really wonderful performance. Overall an interesting year that I wish was more consistent all the way through.
Oscar Winner: Jack Albertson - The Subject Was Roses
My Winner: Jack Albertson - The Subject Was Roses
Gene Wilder
Seymour Cassel
Jack Wild
Daniel Massey
No comments:
Post a Comment