I've always wanted to get to this year because a lot of people see this winner as one of the worst ones. Maybe not exactly top 10 but close to it. I need to see for myself if that is true or not and if anything else can overcome it. The nominees offer up a wide array of different films so that will be fun to watch and dive into.
1968 Best Picture
Oliver!
I haven't read my Oscar history book on this year yet, but I'll guess that this film won because of some hard campaigning or something. Watching this film, it doesn't feel like a winner and I know a lot of people consider this one of the worst winners in Academy history. Though in looking up articles about that subject, Oliver! doesn't typically make any of the top 10 worst lists. Anyway, my perception of Oliver! has always been that it's not that great of a winner and is an alright musical. I'm not sure about the winner part just quite yet, but I know it was an influential musical and has a lot of really well known, catchy songs. It also has some duds, too, but for the most part the musical side of the film is good. The sets are incredible at times and the musical numbers are huge and full of motion and life and energy. I enjoyed watching a lot of them frankly. As a film and story, it's not all that great to me. You should all know the story of Oliver Twist by now so no need for a recap. The kid who plays Oliver is pretty awful, though, and can't sustain the film. He's almost like a prop in the film that they didn't trust to sing (which is dubbed over, of course) and dance or act. I have no idea why they picked him but he makes the film worse. And yes, I know I'm being overly harsh on a child actor but you need the main character to at least be alive in your film. The supporting players are mostly pretty good. Fagin and the Artful Dodger are good and got nominated for their work. Bill and Nancy are memorable and I think that Shani Wallis (Nancy, obviously) deserved a nomination herself for her lovely performance. It certainly is a memorable film with lines and songs that have been often imitated. I don't think the film ever grabbed me as essential viewing, besides it being a Best Picture winner, and I'm kinda sad about that. I was hoping it would buck my expectations more than having some great musical numbers and supporting acting. The story trots along with a main character that is just there and the story seems inconsequential to the musical part. I am glad I finally saw it and could figure out what I thought about it and not what others thought. Hard to really hate on this one even if it's not a great Best Picture winner.
Funny Girl
I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from this film. I am not much of a Barbra Streisand fan at all, so I was worried it would be a film I hated because she can be a bit overbearing in her work. Well this is certainly a film that is all about Streisand and focused solely on her, but I actually enjoyed her performance. I enjoyed the film a little less but certainly didn't hate it. The film is about Fanny Brice, played by Streisand, and her rise to fame in theater and as an entertainer in the early 1900s. The film starts off with a really powerful song from Streisand about being the best singer ever and you really feel like it's coming directly from Babs herself. That song sucked me into her performance and I was excited to see where it would take me. The performance is great, but the film failed to continue on with that strong opening. The first part of the film moved quickly and then Streisand meets Omar Sharif's character and they begin a love affair (in real life, too). Sharif is very good in the role but the film sinks under the weight of the romance because it just drags on and on and really slows the film down and becomes pretty uninteresting. It's mostly due to Brice getting sad when Sharif's character leaves and that happening a couple of times. The film has a pretty good finish to it with Streisand belting out another great song and then melting into the black background. It's just the middle of the film where I lost interest. Maybe if the film didn't focus solely on Streisand and had some supporting characters there to, well, support the film. Apparently the stage version has a more robust supporting cast, so maybe that would have been better. But I do like Streisand's performance and there were some fantastic musical numbers and some interestingly shot scenes. This just falls into the story being a bit too long and not having that supporting cast to help in the slow parts. I was expecting that I might hate this film, but I'm certainly glad that wasn't the case. Not an all timer for me, but I see the appeal and why it made Streisand a star.
The Lion in Winter
If the opening credits with that indelible score don't hook you straight away, why are you even watching films? This is a fantastic film that features some incredible acting performances that will most likely be my winner for the year. That score is a classic and one of the most memorable of all time. It sets the stage for the intense, bombastic performances we get from everyone involved. Katharine Hepburn gives a winning performance and Peter O' Toole should have won his acting Oscar for this brilliant take on Henry II. You also get great performances from young Timothy Dalton and Anthony Hopkins and the other few actors in the film. Overall, the acting is what makes this film so good. The story is Henry II calls his sons and estranged Queen to a Christmas gathering to anoint his heir and then plotting and backstabbing and machinations abound. There's lots of intrigue and intense, lengthy back and forth discourse all done in a mostly British accent, Hepburn aside. It's a treat watching all these actors go toe to toe and flex on each other. The whole vibe of the film is this fervent, impassioned feeling as the film zips along with each twist and turn. The dialogue is wonderful to listen to and the set, while mostly drab, feels appropriate for the tone of the film. It never feels stuffy for a period piece and has this urgency that is fun to watch. It is really just a well made film with some titans of acting doing their thing. This one will be tough to beat this year.
Rachel, Rachel
This is a really interesting film. It was Paul Newman's first directorial effort and it stars his wife, Joanne Woodward. The story is part of what makes the film interesting in that we follow Woodward who is a middle aged schoolteacher spinster who lives with her widowed mother. School lets out for summer and Woodward thinks it will be another boring one at home but then a man comes back to town that she went to school with and he makes a pass at her. They eventually do hookup but she mistakes lust for love and then thinks she's pregnant but isn't. That spurs her to move to the other side of the country. That's the gist of the story and there is another little side element of her best friend kissing her after going to a religious revival meeting. Interesting story, but Newman's direction is what also adds to the film. There's a lot of flashy shots and camera angles that feel like Newman trying to flex his directing muscles but also push the boundaries a bit. It's also interesting in the way that they handle what the book it's based on can easily do and that's inner monologue and visions or thoughts. There are a lot of scenes where Woodward is walking or around or doing nothing really and there's a voice over of what she's thinking. That sometimes get interspersed with scenes of how she would like to react to a situation like a kid in her class being told to go talk to some principal guy and Woodward wanting to scoop him up and take him home with her. These moments are spliced into the scenes so it's kinda jarring in that it's hard at first to figure out what's going on. I liked how it was done and it made the film feel fresh. It was definitely flashy from Newman, though, but it does get some great work out of Woodward, too. Most of that is done in the first half of the film before it settles down into a more straightforward directing style. The film is a bit clunky, however. There are moments where you can see the camera bounce around, transitions between scenes feel stilted, and it just feels like a first time director. Without Woodward, this probably would have been a mess of a film. She anchors it and makes it less of a vanity project and more of a serious piece of film.
Romeo and Juliet
It's funny because I imagine a ton of people have seen this film because it gets shown in school and have no idea it was a Best Picture nominated film. It was just something they watched in high school after reading the play in English class. My memories of this film start with my 9th grade English teacher showing us this film and then in a panic trying to cover up Juliet's boobs when they were on screen. Did I mention Juliet was only 16 at time of shooting so she was underage and naked? So weird to think about! But aside from that, the film is such a great adaptation of the William Shakespeare play. In fact, I think it's the best classic adaptation even though I really enjoy Baz Luhrmann's contemporary version a lot. It was the first film to use actors close to the actual age of the main characters which makes a huge difference in how this film is perceived. The visuals are amazing for the film and having age appropriate characters makes you more invested in the story and makes it so much more believable. And they aren't just window dressing, the two leads are very charismatic and beautiful but also very good actors. They are what make the film worth watching as they bring life to all the familiar beats of the play. This was the last Shakespeare film to be nominated for Best Picture as of 2020 and it almost feels appropriate. The Kenneth Branagh films feel like they could have been the next to be nominated, but it shows that it takes a lot for a Shakespeare film to be nominated. I feel like this is the quintessential Romeo and Juliet film and nothing can surpass it. I like that it was nominated in this category and it won Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design. I dunno, it's just the last best Shakespeare adaptation that could have been nominated in Best Picture. Great cast and great directing all around for a classic adaptation.
This is one of those years I wanted to watch for a long time. Was Oliver! really a good choice or a bad choice as I've been lead to believe? It's a bad choice yes. The Lion in Winter is your clear and unequivocal winner. It's an amazing film and is far and away better than anything on this list. My second is easily Romeo and Juliet which is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations ever produced. It's one that still gets played in English classes and is so good beyond that reasoning. Rachel, Rachel is very interesting as a film. Paul Newman spiced it up as his debut directorial effort and the story and acting is pretty good. Oliver! comes in next because it does have some good songs and great sets and is more in the public arena than Funny Girl. I like Funny Girl, but it is a vehicle for Streisand and nothing more. This was very diverse and interesting field and I can't wait for 1967 because I know it is a pretty nuts lineup.
Oscar Winner: Oliver!
My Winner: The Lion in Winter
Romeo and Juliet
Rachel, Rachel
Oliver!
Funny Girl
Sunday, November 8, 2020
Leading Actor 1968
This year has a couple of interesting nominations that I have been waiting to watch for a long time. I'm thrilled to finally get to them and I know I say that every year but it's still true here. I'm very interested in Robertson, Arkin and O'Toole as I have heard a lot about those or at least know a lot about the actors. Should be a good category to review.
1968 Best Actor
Cliff Robertson -Charly
A lot of people know this story even if they haven't ever seen the film or read the book Flowers for Algernon. I really know the story from The Simpsons episode where Homer has a crayon removed from his brain and becomes super intelligent. It's a classic episode and shows how much the story has permeated popular culture. So that's what Charly is about: Cliff Robertson is a retarded guy who has some procedure done to him that makes him hyper intelligent. Robertson secured the rights to the story and starred in the film, obviously, but he knew he had some gold here. I do like that Robertson never waded into the I am Sam territory of playing a retarded person. It's never, ever over the top and his physical manifestations come across as normal. Yes, he is slow but Robertson endears him with some humanity and we start to root for him. Once Charly becomes smart, Robertson transforms the character into one that is kinda like a robot. He has no humanity and no softness to him. Robertson lowers the voice and even becomes a bit creepy. He stalks his former night teacher and then attacks her once she lets him in and then they become a couple. I hate that trope in film and it rings super hollow. I don't like them together and I resent what Charly becomes only because he happens to be smarter. Smarter equals more dangerous? It's a weird revelation and it is where the performance goes off the rails. It's not a fault of Robertson as he does what the script wants but the goodwill he earned as the simple retarded guy is gone when he assaults a woman. We feel for Charly initially and we are expected to feel for Charly once we realize he is going to end up being retarded at the end. But I have no compassion for someone like that and that is a failure of the film. Robertson does a good job at playing these different iterations of Charly, but I can't be happy about it. Maybe this was a reaction to seeing a performance that showcased a mentally retarded fellow, I dunno. Robertson does a great job in both variations of the character but it still has to be believable and likable. Robertson is fine in the role but is he worth the win? I'm not sure.
Alan Arkin - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
We know about Arkin's later win for Little Miss Sunshine and nomination for Argo, but I was always surprised that he seemed to have a really great start to his career because his Oscar win was really my introduction to him. I've been eager to finally get to his first two nominations to see what they were like. And oh boy, I love this performance a lot. A lot a lot. Arkin plays a guy who is a deaf mute that moves to a new town to be closer to his deaf mute friend who gets admitted to a mental institute. In this new town, Arkin meets a bunch of different people who seem to be as lonely as he is. As a deaf mute, Arkin doesn't say a single word in the whole film. That's what is so impressive to me about this performance. Arkin has to convey all these emotions and feelings and thoughts and actions without saying a word. With a lot of other, less capable actors this would be a mess. But Arkin has so much emotional depth in this character that I enjoyed watching him immensely. And Arkin doesn't ham it up or be too outgoing or anything. He brings a lot of subtlety and nuance to the performance that really adds to the character overall. Walking alone on the street and he signs to himself as if he's just talking to himself like a normal person. His face isn't more expressive than it needs to be which I loved. It felt like his character was naturally a quiet guy beyond the deaf mute thing and Arkin doesn't turn it into some sort of pantomime performance. He connects with other characters and shows empathy and patience and tries to do what's right and find the good. Arkin has to do so much while also doing so little and he allows us to connect with the character because he makes him almost universal but unique. It's just a really fantastic performance and I especially love when people can create something complete from very little. His deaf mute character is a person, not just a stereotype and it makes the ending so heartbreaking and emotional. Everyone should watch this film just to see Arkin's performance.
Alan Bates - The Fixer
This film, to me, was pretty interesting. It's one of those films that no one has really heard of, let alone seen, so it's neat to go into it without any expectations. I've seen Bates in quite a few other films on this journey but this was his first and only nomination. It seems appropriate that he earned a nomination because he was in so many films that were seemingly loved by the Academy. This film is about a Russian Jew who goes into hiding because the Jews are being arrested and killed and helps rescue a government official who is passed out drunk in the snow. Official guy gives him money and let him stay at his big house and then his daughter tries to sleep with Bates. Eventually, he gets found out to be a Jew and is jailed and tortured over some made up charge of killing a boy in a ritual sacrifice and then accused of being a part of a Jewish revolution. The film is obviously about the mistreatment of Jews in Russia and how Bates' character deals with all of it while maintaining his innocence. He's a really good guy who just happens to be of a different culture and is punished for that reason. Bates is very good at playing up the innocent man and getting you to become emotionally vested in dire circumstances. He is incredulous at the accusations of killing a boy and even becomes tearful at the description which shows us his humanity but to the accusers looks like guilt. There's a lot of strength in this performance from Bates who has to show us a broken man who still tries to carry on and maintain his innocence. He doesn't play it as purely a victim, there's humanity in the performance as well as some righteous anger and contempt at times. But it's the emotion at the core of the performance that makes this an interesting nomination to actually watch. The pain is real and heartfelt and we as an audience feel it ourselves. I will say the film drags on a bit too long and Bates has a lot of scenes in his cell where he is losing his sanity that sometimes are brilliant and sometimes seem a bit much. It's not really Bates' fault, though, as he does a great job with the heavy material in the second half of the film. I won't even get into the fact that everyone has British accents in a film about Russians and Russian Jews. It's a good performance and this is the kind of thing I like experiencing with this project.
Ron Moody - Oliver!
Moody originated this role on the London stage adaptation but wasn't even the first choice for the producers of this film. He was a fall back choice it seemed, but it worked out pretty well for all involved. How many times have we seen stage roles get nominated at the Oscars with the same person in each? There are so many of these types of nominations you wonder why producers don't just go with what works instead of trying to get Peter O'Toole or Peter Sellers to star for you. Moody, in case you don't know, plays Fagin. He is the head of the gang of young pickpocket kids and is that sort of stereotypical old Jewish creepy looking guy. Obviously Moody is done up to look at bit more villainous and scary (though Bill Sikes is the real villain in this film unlike the book). Moody plays the role perfectly to me. He has created it and lived within it for so long it comes off as natural. His singing and dancing is effortless and he gets you liking him at times, too, even though he's not the greatest guy ever. This is a musical and Fagin has one of the more memorable songs in "You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two." He's good with the songs and being animatedly villainous but ultimately with a good heart, I think. He just wants to steal stuff and hide away and not get mixed up with kidnapping and all that, even though he employs child labor but whatever. I think that Moody gets swept up with the love for Oliver! and gets his nomination that way and maybe as a hey, we recognize you from the stage version kinda thing. But Moody is good as Fagin and it's very much his role and it's one of those things you take away remembering about this film. Before I had even seen the film, I knew of Fagin and that's due in part to Moody doing a good job in the role and being memorable enough to make it to the pop culture lexicon. It's a good performance but was never going to seriously win.
Peter O'Toole - The Lion in Winter
Peter O'Toole deserved an acting Oscar over his long and storied career. The Academy had many chances to do so and this was one of those instances. O'Toole plays Henry II, the second time he was nominated for playing the monarch (Becket being the other time). O'Toole looks and feels comfortable in the role and he is on the top of his game here. I fully believe that starring opposite of Katharine Hepburn helped balance out this performance. By that I mean, O'Toole can be a bit theatrical in some of his roles, but he is balanced here with Hepburn's old Hollywood style and the two create some memorable performances. It's a treat watching the two acting titans go toe to toe with each other without upstaging the other. The film and this performance can be described as intense. Henry II has brought his sons together and estranged Queen to name an heir. So there are lots of twists and turns as he flip flops on who to choose and there are many intense scenes of actors just talking or arguing back and forth and it's fun to watch. That's mainly what the film is as a whole which is lots of dialogue and actors going against one another in a room. O'Toole is a big part of why this film is successful and it's simply because he is one of the best actors to ever live giving some of his best work on screen. A lot of that work is in how he can play all these different emotions with the character. He can be righteously angry, mired in grief, clever and cunning, tender and passionate. He can turn on those emotions in the blink of an eye and always makes it look convincing and well measured. He takes us through those twists and turns and keeps us hooked. It's a great performance from a great actor - simple as that.
A lot of people feel like this is one of the worst Best Actor decisions ever. I'm inclined to agree that this is not a good win. Peter O'Toole is the absolute and correct winner without a second thought. His Hnery II is so freaking good. Especially over a retarded role that becomes smart. I am actually also really into Arkin's role who has to do so much without ever saying a word. And he acts it as if it's a normal role. He doesn't overact and just plays his character. If not for O'Toole, Arkin is my winner hands down. So freaking good. I actually like what Alan Bates did over Robertson because he had a tougher assignment. He had to play a Russian Jew tortured and acting against himself in a cell and had to show a lot of emotion. Robertson is decent but not at all a good winner. I don't like retarded persons being subject to wins or even nominations. I don't think the acting is ever authentic or worthy of these people. Moody brings up the rear because he just is there. Not a very good performance or role and just not at all exciting in this group of pretty exciting performances. Can't wait for the next year.
Oscar Winner: Cliff Robertson - Charly
My Winner: Peter O'Toole - The Lion in Winter
Alan Arkin
Alan Bates
Cliff Robertson
Ron Moody
1968 Best Actor
Cliff Robertson -Charly
A lot of people know this story even if they haven't ever seen the film or read the book Flowers for Algernon. I really know the story from The Simpsons episode where Homer has a crayon removed from his brain and becomes super intelligent. It's a classic episode and shows how much the story has permeated popular culture. So that's what Charly is about: Cliff Robertson is a retarded guy who has some procedure done to him that makes him hyper intelligent. Robertson secured the rights to the story and starred in the film, obviously, but he knew he had some gold here. I do like that Robertson never waded into the I am Sam territory of playing a retarded person. It's never, ever over the top and his physical manifestations come across as normal. Yes, he is slow but Robertson endears him with some humanity and we start to root for him. Once Charly becomes smart, Robertson transforms the character into one that is kinda like a robot. He has no humanity and no softness to him. Robertson lowers the voice and even becomes a bit creepy. He stalks his former night teacher and then attacks her once she lets him in and then they become a couple. I hate that trope in film and it rings super hollow. I don't like them together and I resent what Charly becomes only because he happens to be smarter. Smarter equals more dangerous? It's a weird revelation and it is where the performance goes off the rails. It's not a fault of Robertson as he does what the script wants but the goodwill he earned as the simple retarded guy is gone when he assaults a woman. We feel for Charly initially and we are expected to feel for Charly once we realize he is going to end up being retarded at the end. But I have no compassion for someone like that and that is a failure of the film. Robertson does a good job at playing these different iterations of Charly, but I can't be happy about it. Maybe this was a reaction to seeing a performance that showcased a mentally retarded fellow, I dunno. Robertson does a great job in both variations of the character but it still has to be believable and likable. Robertson is fine in the role but is he worth the win? I'm not sure.
Alan Arkin - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
We know about Arkin's later win for Little Miss Sunshine and nomination for Argo, but I was always surprised that he seemed to have a really great start to his career because his Oscar win was really my introduction to him. I've been eager to finally get to his first two nominations to see what they were like. And oh boy, I love this performance a lot. A lot a lot. Arkin plays a guy who is a deaf mute that moves to a new town to be closer to his deaf mute friend who gets admitted to a mental institute. In this new town, Arkin meets a bunch of different people who seem to be as lonely as he is. As a deaf mute, Arkin doesn't say a single word in the whole film. That's what is so impressive to me about this performance. Arkin has to convey all these emotions and feelings and thoughts and actions without saying a word. With a lot of other, less capable actors this would be a mess. But Arkin has so much emotional depth in this character that I enjoyed watching him immensely. And Arkin doesn't ham it up or be too outgoing or anything. He brings a lot of subtlety and nuance to the performance that really adds to the character overall. Walking alone on the street and he signs to himself as if he's just talking to himself like a normal person. His face isn't more expressive than it needs to be which I loved. It felt like his character was naturally a quiet guy beyond the deaf mute thing and Arkin doesn't turn it into some sort of pantomime performance. He connects with other characters and shows empathy and patience and tries to do what's right and find the good. Arkin has to do so much while also doing so little and he allows us to connect with the character because he makes him almost universal but unique. It's just a really fantastic performance and I especially love when people can create something complete from very little. His deaf mute character is a person, not just a stereotype and it makes the ending so heartbreaking and emotional. Everyone should watch this film just to see Arkin's performance.
Alan Bates - The Fixer
This film, to me, was pretty interesting. It's one of those films that no one has really heard of, let alone seen, so it's neat to go into it without any expectations. I've seen Bates in quite a few other films on this journey but this was his first and only nomination. It seems appropriate that he earned a nomination because he was in so many films that were seemingly loved by the Academy. This film is about a Russian Jew who goes into hiding because the Jews are being arrested and killed and helps rescue a government official who is passed out drunk in the snow. Official guy gives him money and let him stay at his big house and then his daughter tries to sleep with Bates. Eventually, he gets found out to be a Jew and is jailed and tortured over some made up charge of killing a boy in a ritual sacrifice and then accused of being a part of a Jewish revolution. The film is obviously about the mistreatment of Jews in Russia and how Bates' character deals with all of it while maintaining his innocence. He's a really good guy who just happens to be of a different culture and is punished for that reason. Bates is very good at playing up the innocent man and getting you to become emotionally vested in dire circumstances. He is incredulous at the accusations of killing a boy and even becomes tearful at the description which shows us his humanity but to the accusers looks like guilt. There's a lot of strength in this performance from Bates who has to show us a broken man who still tries to carry on and maintain his innocence. He doesn't play it as purely a victim, there's humanity in the performance as well as some righteous anger and contempt at times. But it's the emotion at the core of the performance that makes this an interesting nomination to actually watch. The pain is real and heartfelt and we as an audience feel it ourselves. I will say the film drags on a bit too long and Bates has a lot of scenes in his cell where he is losing his sanity that sometimes are brilliant and sometimes seem a bit much. It's not really Bates' fault, though, as he does a great job with the heavy material in the second half of the film. I won't even get into the fact that everyone has British accents in a film about Russians and Russian Jews. It's a good performance and this is the kind of thing I like experiencing with this project.
Ron Moody - Oliver!
Moody originated this role on the London stage adaptation but wasn't even the first choice for the producers of this film. He was a fall back choice it seemed, but it worked out pretty well for all involved. How many times have we seen stage roles get nominated at the Oscars with the same person in each? There are so many of these types of nominations you wonder why producers don't just go with what works instead of trying to get Peter O'Toole or Peter Sellers to star for you. Moody, in case you don't know, plays Fagin. He is the head of the gang of young pickpocket kids and is that sort of stereotypical old Jewish creepy looking guy. Obviously Moody is done up to look at bit more villainous and scary (though Bill Sikes is the real villain in this film unlike the book). Moody plays the role perfectly to me. He has created it and lived within it for so long it comes off as natural. His singing and dancing is effortless and he gets you liking him at times, too, even though he's not the greatest guy ever. This is a musical and Fagin has one of the more memorable songs in "You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two." He's good with the songs and being animatedly villainous but ultimately with a good heart, I think. He just wants to steal stuff and hide away and not get mixed up with kidnapping and all that, even though he employs child labor but whatever. I think that Moody gets swept up with the love for Oliver! and gets his nomination that way and maybe as a hey, we recognize you from the stage version kinda thing. But Moody is good as Fagin and it's very much his role and it's one of those things you take away remembering about this film. Before I had even seen the film, I knew of Fagin and that's due in part to Moody doing a good job in the role and being memorable enough to make it to the pop culture lexicon. It's a good performance but was never going to seriously win.
Peter O'Toole - The Lion in Winter
Peter O'Toole deserved an acting Oscar over his long and storied career. The Academy had many chances to do so and this was one of those instances. O'Toole plays Henry II, the second time he was nominated for playing the monarch (Becket being the other time). O'Toole looks and feels comfortable in the role and he is on the top of his game here. I fully believe that starring opposite of Katharine Hepburn helped balance out this performance. By that I mean, O'Toole can be a bit theatrical in some of his roles, but he is balanced here with Hepburn's old Hollywood style and the two create some memorable performances. It's a treat watching the two acting titans go toe to toe with each other without upstaging the other. The film and this performance can be described as intense. Henry II has brought his sons together and estranged Queen to name an heir. So there are lots of twists and turns as he flip flops on who to choose and there are many intense scenes of actors just talking or arguing back and forth and it's fun to watch. That's mainly what the film is as a whole which is lots of dialogue and actors going against one another in a room. O'Toole is a big part of why this film is successful and it's simply because he is one of the best actors to ever live giving some of his best work on screen. A lot of that work is in how he can play all these different emotions with the character. He can be righteously angry, mired in grief, clever and cunning, tender and passionate. He can turn on those emotions in the blink of an eye and always makes it look convincing and well measured. He takes us through those twists and turns and keeps us hooked. It's a great performance from a great actor - simple as that.
A lot of people feel like this is one of the worst Best Actor decisions ever. I'm inclined to agree that this is not a good win. Peter O'Toole is the absolute and correct winner without a second thought. His Hnery II is so freaking good. Especially over a retarded role that becomes smart. I am actually also really into Arkin's role who has to do so much without ever saying a word. And he acts it as if it's a normal role. He doesn't overact and just plays his character. If not for O'Toole, Arkin is my winner hands down. So freaking good. I actually like what Alan Bates did over Robertson because he had a tougher assignment. He had to play a Russian Jew tortured and acting against himself in a cell and had to show a lot of emotion. Robertson is decent but not at all a good winner. I don't like retarded persons being subject to wins or even nominations. I don't think the acting is ever authentic or worthy of these people. Moody brings up the rear because he just is there. Not a very good performance or role and just not at all exciting in this group of pretty exciting performances. Can't wait for the next year.
Oscar Winner: Cliff Robertson - Charly
My Winner: Peter O'Toole - The Lion in Winter
Alan Arkin
Alan Bates
Cliff Robertson
Ron Moody
Leading Actress 1968
The tie! All that needs to be said.
1968 Best Actress
Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
I was not a fan of Hepburn's fourth and final win for On Golden Pond. It wasn't that good of a performance and it was a waste of a Best Actress Oscar. Not gonna lie, I was worried coming into this won where she tied with Barbra Streisand and won her third Oscar that it would be similarly undeserved. But that's not really the case with this performance. Hepburn is on top of her game starring opposite of Peter O'Toole. The two go head to head and just deliver great performances while balancing each other out to where neither style overtakes the other. Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine, the estranged Queen of Henry II who is in jail. Henry summons her and his boys to a Christmas gathering to declare his heir and then intrigue abounds as the story twists and turns with backstabbing and machinations. Hepburn gets to play this plotting woman who wants to see Henry choose their son Richard and has all of these scenes where she is attacking other characters with her words in a clever way or fending off these dialogue attacks from the same. It's a push and pull game where Hepburn at times has the upper hand and comes off as confident and assured and bitingly condescending and ruthless and all those strong adjectives. Other times she loses the war of words and seems resigned or aware of her defeat as she vows to strike back with more precision and cunning. She is best when she and O'Toole are going at it because you can tell there is still great respect between the two royals and even some attraction still, but it also feels like posturing to get the better of the other and it's thrilling to watch. The two are acting titans and seeing them at their best is an absolute treat. I also like Hepburn manipulating her sons who it would seem she both loves and hates equally depending on how it affects her own goals and aspirations. The whole film is like this with everyone trying to play the rest and seeing Hepburn in her sort of laconic old Hollywood style play these men for fools is why we watch film. I had gone in to this thinking the tie might have been some bullshit, but this seems like a well earned win. These are two really great performances so I can see why the Academy produced a tie.
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
The second of the two winners, Streisand won her Oscar in her debut film role. And what a debut it was! This is unequivocally Babs' film. Like completely and totally hers. She had originated the role on Broadway for a couple years before this, so naturally she is very comfortable in the role of Fanny Brice. The story is about a girl who comes from humble beginnings to become a huge star in NYC, which apparently isn't true at all, but that's Hollywood. The supporting characters had a much bigger impact and role on stage, but they all fall to the wayside in the film version as Streisand just takes over. Her opening number is pretty great as she sings about being the best ever and you feel like it's Streisand singing about herself. And how you feel about the performance may really come down to how you feel about Streisand as an entertainer. I'm not her biggest fan by any means and don't really care about her persona, but she is really great in this performance. Maybe because it is her debut that what annoys me about her ends up being a positive in this film. She's funny and her comedic style works well with the story. She can obviously sing amazingly well and some of these songs are classics you've heard many times before. She can even dance and do a little bit of ballet. She does it all and that energy comes through the screen. It also make sense that she had a heavy hand in what happened with the film, from the directing to the hair and make up to the lighting. She annoyed director William Wyler but he allowed her because she is stubborn but also because we see what the result was. It's a powerhouse, star making performance and one that wasn't going to be overlooked. This is definitely the best Streisand performance I have seen - impressive for her debut.
Patricia Neal - The Subject Was Roses
I don't want to be dismissive, but I think a lot of this nomination is due in part to Neal having suffered a series of strokes a few years earlier and this being her big return to film. I do think that's what got her nominated even though it is a very good performance. She had the health issues and had to memorize the lines and movements of her character and at times didn't believe in herself but kept going. The Academy rewarded her and it feels like a deserved nomination no matter what. Whereas Jack Alberston and Martin Sheen, who originated the roles on Broadway, were comfortable in the roles but Neal brought something different. Albertson and Sheen have that theatricality to their performances, Neal has a more film quality aspect to hers. She is more quiet in the role while the other two have a very demonstrative presence in the film. They yell and posture and try to be alpha while Neal just quietly says her lines. The film is based on a son returning home from WWII and the married couple are having problems that keep coming up while he is home. She is a caring mother who has waited for him to come home for 3 years and is mad he can't remember that his favorite meal is waffles because that's what she's dreamed about in that moment for years. It's a quietly strong performance by design because of the strokes and because the other two men take over. Neal disappears for a long stretch so maybe this isn't quite leading but she is the only woman besides a small 10 second part from a girl in the club. Anyway, Neal is acting in a different film at times from Albertson and Sheen. She didn't originate the role like they did so she is bringing something different and cinematic to the role. She has a presence even when being quiet and it's felt throughout the film. It's a good performance that makes more sense when you learn she was coming back from a series of strokes. It might not be the winner but I have no problem with it being nominated.
Vanessa Redgrave - Isadora
I have been pretty ambivalent about Redgrave's nominated work during this project. This is my fifth of her six nominations and while I can definitely say she is a great and well respected actress, a lot of the work she has been in just hasn't been for me. This film is another one of those kinds of stories and performances. I was only somewhat aware of who Isadora Duncan was before this film. She was an American dancer in the early 1900s who had a lot of acclaim and was a sensation all over Europe and Russia. She had many lovers and was mostly a free spirit type of person. This film is all about her life even though I would say it doesn't go too deep into who she is as a person. Redgrave does a great job at being fully invested in the character. She goes all out in the couple of dance scenes and we can feel her energy and artistic expression come through the screen. The dances aren't really my thing and look like just a bunch of flailing around but Redgrave gives them her all as she whirls around and prances and dances in a unique style. I feel that those are the scenes where Redgrave really shines and especially in her final dance scene when she is being booed and heckled and spontaneously rips off her top while dancing. There's a lot of confidence and chutzpah to her performance in this scene and most of the dancing throughout the film. As for the rest of the film, meh. Redgrave is fine as Isadora and has a lot of charm and personality that men love and throw them self at her. She has a bubbly personality almost and is very carefree and wild at times, which makes sense as she is a very free form kind of dancer and artist. Redgrave displays all of these characteristics perfectly. It's just that the film doesn't really endear me to the character and it is mostly boring overall. Redgrave is the best part of the film and the only reason to watch and though she carries this weight, it doesn't really affect her much. She does her thing well and we get a good performance that could have probably been so much better with a more interesting story around her.
Joanne Woodward - Rachel, Rachel
I have always had trouble with coming up with how to write about Woodward's performances. None of her previous work that I've reviewed has wowed me but it was also never bad by any means. In my last review of hers, I noted how much I liked her quiet, restrained acting. To me, that is what Woodward has been so far in what I have seen. She is this dignified, restrained, minimalist type of actress. She is not launching herself into hysterics or getting overly dramatic or doing anything other than what looks to be calculated acting. It's simple looks that can convey a whole monologue's worth of feeling or description of what she's thinking. For her, less is more and I have always been a big fan of that style of acting. In this film, Woodward plays a middle aged school teacher spinster who lives with her mother and is expecting another dull summer. Things happen and her life takes on new meaning and direction. But her character is a sort of meek and mild woman with nervous energy who has a lot of thoughts and visions in her head of how she would react in a situation like her walking into town and thinking everyone is looking at her weirdly and her dropping dead or at least fainting. This doesn't actually happen, but we see it portrayed on screen because that's what she's thinking. It's interesting in showing how her character deals with things but also means Woodward has to do a lot with only voice over saying something completely different. I think the restrained acting style really goes well with this nervousy, skittish woman because when hit on by a guy she bumbles around and is frazzled without being so demonstrative about it. It's quivers in her voice or quick glances and not running into people or things or causing a scene. It's looks of frustration and anger when dealing with her overbearing mother. All of those little things add up to quite the complete performance and helps contribute to a fully realized character arc. She's a late bloomer but we see the change and the awakening and it feels authentic. I have become more interested to see her Oscar win with each new review of hers. This is a quietly strong performance that will be in my consideration for the win.
This was a phenomenal category! It was the first and only tie in the acting categories and I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. Maybe you could argue that Streisand's debut trumps Hepburn's third win and second in a row, but they are equally great. I'm just gonna roll with the Academy on this one because separating the two seems a bit sacrilegious. And none of the other three even come close so this works out for me. Redgrave is last because the film is boring and the performance is really only interesting because of the dance scenes for me. Everything not dance is mostly boring. Neal does a good job with the character but she is clearly here because she bounced back after some strokes to act again and be good at it. I can respect that. Woodward was maybe the best I've seen from her so far in this project. I enjoyed the performance and appreciated what she brought to a very different role. So there we have it for 1968. A pretty good year overall with no stinkers and I'm eager to move on.
Oscar Winner: Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
My Winner: Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
Joanne Woodward
Patricia Neal
Vanessa Redgrave
1968 Best Actress
Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
I was not a fan of Hepburn's fourth and final win for On Golden Pond. It wasn't that good of a performance and it was a waste of a Best Actress Oscar. Not gonna lie, I was worried coming into this won where she tied with Barbra Streisand and won her third Oscar that it would be similarly undeserved. But that's not really the case with this performance. Hepburn is on top of her game starring opposite of Peter O'Toole. The two go head to head and just deliver great performances while balancing each other out to where neither style overtakes the other. Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine, the estranged Queen of Henry II who is in jail. Henry summons her and his boys to a Christmas gathering to declare his heir and then intrigue abounds as the story twists and turns with backstabbing and machinations. Hepburn gets to play this plotting woman who wants to see Henry choose their son Richard and has all of these scenes where she is attacking other characters with her words in a clever way or fending off these dialogue attacks from the same. It's a push and pull game where Hepburn at times has the upper hand and comes off as confident and assured and bitingly condescending and ruthless and all those strong adjectives. Other times she loses the war of words and seems resigned or aware of her defeat as she vows to strike back with more precision and cunning. She is best when she and O'Toole are going at it because you can tell there is still great respect between the two royals and even some attraction still, but it also feels like posturing to get the better of the other and it's thrilling to watch. The two are acting titans and seeing them at their best is an absolute treat. I also like Hepburn manipulating her sons who it would seem she both loves and hates equally depending on how it affects her own goals and aspirations. The whole film is like this with everyone trying to play the rest and seeing Hepburn in her sort of laconic old Hollywood style play these men for fools is why we watch film. I had gone in to this thinking the tie might have been some bullshit, but this seems like a well earned win. These are two really great performances so I can see why the Academy produced a tie.
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
The second of the two winners, Streisand won her Oscar in her debut film role. And what a debut it was! This is unequivocally Babs' film. Like completely and totally hers. She had originated the role on Broadway for a couple years before this, so naturally she is very comfortable in the role of Fanny Brice. The story is about a girl who comes from humble beginnings to become a huge star in NYC, which apparently isn't true at all, but that's Hollywood. The supporting characters had a much bigger impact and role on stage, but they all fall to the wayside in the film version as Streisand just takes over. Her opening number is pretty great as she sings about being the best ever and you feel like it's Streisand singing about herself. And how you feel about the performance may really come down to how you feel about Streisand as an entertainer. I'm not her biggest fan by any means and don't really care about her persona, but she is really great in this performance. Maybe because it is her debut that what annoys me about her ends up being a positive in this film. She's funny and her comedic style works well with the story. She can obviously sing amazingly well and some of these songs are classics you've heard many times before. She can even dance and do a little bit of ballet. She does it all and that energy comes through the screen. It also make sense that she had a heavy hand in what happened with the film, from the directing to the hair and make up to the lighting. She annoyed director William Wyler but he allowed her because she is stubborn but also because we see what the result was. It's a powerhouse, star making performance and one that wasn't going to be overlooked. This is definitely the best Streisand performance I have seen - impressive for her debut.
Patricia Neal - The Subject Was Roses
I don't want to be dismissive, but I think a lot of this nomination is due in part to Neal having suffered a series of strokes a few years earlier and this being her big return to film. I do think that's what got her nominated even though it is a very good performance. She had the health issues and had to memorize the lines and movements of her character and at times didn't believe in herself but kept going. The Academy rewarded her and it feels like a deserved nomination no matter what. Whereas Jack Alberston and Martin Sheen, who originated the roles on Broadway, were comfortable in the roles but Neal brought something different. Albertson and Sheen have that theatricality to their performances, Neal has a more film quality aspect to hers. She is more quiet in the role while the other two have a very demonstrative presence in the film. They yell and posture and try to be alpha while Neal just quietly says her lines. The film is based on a son returning home from WWII and the married couple are having problems that keep coming up while he is home. She is a caring mother who has waited for him to come home for 3 years and is mad he can't remember that his favorite meal is waffles because that's what she's dreamed about in that moment for years. It's a quietly strong performance by design because of the strokes and because the other two men take over. Neal disappears for a long stretch so maybe this isn't quite leading but she is the only woman besides a small 10 second part from a girl in the club. Anyway, Neal is acting in a different film at times from Albertson and Sheen. She didn't originate the role like they did so she is bringing something different and cinematic to the role. She has a presence even when being quiet and it's felt throughout the film. It's a good performance that makes more sense when you learn she was coming back from a series of strokes. It might not be the winner but I have no problem with it being nominated.
Vanessa Redgrave - Isadora
I have been pretty ambivalent about Redgrave's nominated work during this project. This is my fifth of her six nominations and while I can definitely say she is a great and well respected actress, a lot of the work she has been in just hasn't been for me. This film is another one of those kinds of stories and performances. I was only somewhat aware of who Isadora Duncan was before this film. She was an American dancer in the early 1900s who had a lot of acclaim and was a sensation all over Europe and Russia. She had many lovers and was mostly a free spirit type of person. This film is all about her life even though I would say it doesn't go too deep into who she is as a person. Redgrave does a great job at being fully invested in the character. She goes all out in the couple of dance scenes and we can feel her energy and artistic expression come through the screen. The dances aren't really my thing and look like just a bunch of flailing around but Redgrave gives them her all as she whirls around and prances and dances in a unique style. I feel that those are the scenes where Redgrave really shines and especially in her final dance scene when she is being booed and heckled and spontaneously rips off her top while dancing. There's a lot of confidence and chutzpah to her performance in this scene and most of the dancing throughout the film. As for the rest of the film, meh. Redgrave is fine as Isadora and has a lot of charm and personality that men love and throw them self at her. She has a bubbly personality almost and is very carefree and wild at times, which makes sense as she is a very free form kind of dancer and artist. Redgrave displays all of these characteristics perfectly. It's just that the film doesn't really endear me to the character and it is mostly boring overall. Redgrave is the best part of the film and the only reason to watch and though she carries this weight, it doesn't really affect her much. She does her thing well and we get a good performance that could have probably been so much better with a more interesting story around her.
Joanne Woodward - Rachel, Rachel
I have always had trouble with coming up with how to write about Woodward's performances. None of her previous work that I've reviewed has wowed me but it was also never bad by any means. In my last review of hers, I noted how much I liked her quiet, restrained acting. To me, that is what Woodward has been so far in what I have seen. She is this dignified, restrained, minimalist type of actress. She is not launching herself into hysterics or getting overly dramatic or doing anything other than what looks to be calculated acting. It's simple looks that can convey a whole monologue's worth of feeling or description of what she's thinking. For her, less is more and I have always been a big fan of that style of acting. In this film, Woodward plays a middle aged school teacher spinster who lives with her mother and is expecting another dull summer. Things happen and her life takes on new meaning and direction. But her character is a sort of meek and mild woman with nervous energy who has a lot of thoughts and visions in her head of how she would react in a situation like her walking into town and thinking everyone is looking at her weirdly and her dropping dead or at least fainting. This doesn't actually happen, but we see it portrayed on screen because that's what she's thinking. It's interesting in showing how her character deals with things but also means Woodward has to do a lot with only voice over saying something completely different. I think the restrained acting style really goes well with this nervousy, skittish woman because when hit on by a guy she bumbles around and is frazzled without being so demonstrative about it. It's quivers in her voice or quick glances and not running into people or things or causing a scene. It's looks of frustration and anger when dealing with her overbearing mother. All of those little things add up to quite the complete performance and helps contribute to a fully realized character arc. She's a late bloomer but we see the change and the awakening and it feels authentic. I have become more interested to see her Oscar win with each new review of hers. This is a quietly strong performance that will be in my consideration for the win.
This was a phenomenal category! It was the first and only tie in the acting categories and I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. Maybe you could argue that Streisand's debut trumps Hepburn's third win and second in a row, but they are equally great. I'm just gonna roll with the Academy on this one because separating the two seems a bit sacrilegious. And none of the other three even come close so this works out for me. Redgrave is last because the film is boring and the performance is really only interesting because of the dance scenes for me. Everything not dance is mostly boring. Neal does a good job with the character but she is clearly here because she bounced back after some strokes to act again and be good at it. I can respect that. Woodward was maybe the best I've seen from her so far in this project. I enjoyed the performance and appreciated what she brought to a very different role. So there we have it for 1968. A pretty good year overall with no stinkers and I'm eager to move on.
Oscar Winner: Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
My Winner: Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
Joanne Woodward
Patricia Neal
Vanessa Redgrave
Saturday, November 7, 2020
Supporting Actor 1968
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
Supporting Actress 1968
I am sitting here writing this in August of 2020 and wondering if we are even going to have an Oscars season this year. We have barely had any films come out and everything is getting pushed back and I'm hoping stuff can come out in time but I'm highly doubtful. It's feeling like we won't have a ceremony next March or whenever. Completely unprecedented but I'd also like a stacked ceremony and not some random terrible films that would have never sniffed the ceremony. Time will tell but Id figure I'd mention it for posterity sake. These are a group of women I don't really know with some interesting films I've been anticipating for awhile so I'm excited to start this off.
1968 Best Supporting Actress
Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby
This film gets bandied around as being one of the best horror films or one that a lot of people respect and reference. But this film didn't seem like it was much horror at all. If anything, you might call it a bit creepy at times but it's more of a mystery for me. I was trying to figure out what was going on and if it was real. I wasn't scared or unnerved or anything. This was a timid horror film that deals with Satan and witches and an anti-Christ, I assume that's what the baby is anyway. The only emotions I had were being mildly creeped out at the rape scene and more interested in seeing if Mia Farrow was crazy or if this was real. Gordon plays an old married neighbor of Farrow's and she is a witch (I think). I always thought that this was supposed to be a creepy performance and one that was so revered because she was a great villain, but I didn't get much of that. Maybe my expectations were too high and maybe I was thinking of a different film/performance but this one always gets high praise when talked about. She is more of a comedic kick to the story as the intrusive neighbor who can't help but be overly nosy and burdensome. She has this interesting slurry way she talks as if she's combining a lot of words together and also tired of talking. She pops in and out with Farrow and gives her stuff to drink and is always checking in and just being the overbearing old neighbor. She does have some menace to her but mostly it's the creepy vibe we get. I was fully expecting a lot more to the performance. I think Gordon is fine at the role she's given and she does pull it off naturally. You know there's more to her bubbling underneath the surface but we don't really get to see it except for the brief moment at the rape scene. My disappointment is because I was expecting something very different which is all on me, but this also isn't too varied of a role. She does the concerned elderly neighbor thing that is meant to be more than just loving concern. I'll have to see the others to figure out if this is a strong performance or a weak one to win.
Lynn Carlin - Faces
This is a John Cassavetes film, so going in I knew to expect something raw and real. It's made in the cinema verite style in black and white, so it's right in your face and their faces (ha!) and has this improvised quality to it. The first half of this film mostly features John Marley (who we know from his Love Story nomination and The Godfather opening) and Gena Rowlands. Carlin is the wife of Marley who he wants a divorce from and is stepping out and seeing Rowlands who is a prostitute, I think. We don't see much of Carlin in the first half except for a brief exchange where the two giggle and laugh in bed and it seems pretty innocuous. But once Marley says he wants the divorce, Carlin goes out with her girls to a dance club and the group of girls bring back Seymour Cassel, a young playboy, to her house. This bit of the story is where I really fell in love with Carlin's performance. It's mostly wordless and just full of these looks and faces from Carlin. Her face just tells so much about what she's thinking and feeling and expresses so much with just a glance or roll of the eyes it's amazing. She's actually super attractive in those moments because she is playing hard to get knowing she already got his attention earlier and is just waiting for everyone else to leave. They have great chemistry and the performance is made by her looks. It really is simply fantastic acting. I kinda wished that's where it would end after they go to bed. Her final act is kinda perplexing to me because - spoilers - I guess she took too many sleeping pills and had to be revived by Cassel forcing her to puke. It's not explained if she did it on purpose or in the moment of having fun or what (maybe someone can enlighten me on that) but it felt weird for the character. She seemed so assured of herself and in control but maybe that's where real life hits and we see she didn't take the divorce announcement very well by sleeping with a random young guy and trying to kill herself. The very end is her and Marley getting into it without anything being discussed and it's apropos of the times. But I really enjoyed that middle half of Carlin's performance so much. The rest was good but that really elevated her in my mind. Not sure where she will end up in the rankings but this was a nice little surprise for me.
Sondra Locke - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
This was a very surprising film and one I had always wanted to see because of the title being so cool sounding. It's about a deaf mute played by Alan Arkin who moves to a new town to be near his deaf mute friend who gets sent to a mental institute. He rents a room at a house that has a mercurial teenage girl, Locke. She is a different kind of girl. Tall, spindly, a bit gaunt. She is comfortable talking to Arkin's character who is much older and the subtext is almost a little creepy because it's like Arkin is into her and vice versa but it also is like two lonely people finding each other and bonding in being different. She is older than her age but still very young emotionally and it's hard to balance that in a performance but Locke does her best. At times it's uneven, but she is a teenage girl who is a bit tempestuous. Locke is this fast talking Southern girl who is almost like a tomboy but who at times in the story is concerned with appearances. There's a lot of dichotomy in this character that Locke has to work through and with and deliver something that is difficult for any veteran, let alone a newcomer like herself. She also makes it feel like a real character, too. Locke is a girl trying to figure out life in a small Southern time that doesn't seem to offer much of a future for her. She wants to play piano and adores classical music, trying to describe it to Arkin so he can understand it's impact and feeling. The performance has a few of these really great authentic moments and Locke is mostly up to the task of creating a believable character in the film. Some of her work is still a bit raw and not perfect, but overall it's a pretty good performance. Only real issue is that Locke is a leading performance through and through and you know how much I hate when the Academy puts them in the wrong category. But performance is good and her chemistry with Arkin is very good, definitely worth a watch.
Kay Medford - Funny Girl
After watching Funny Girl, it seems wild that anyone other than Barbra Streisand could be nominated for this film. This is her star vehicle and one that she had a big hand in making. Therefore all the other characters get kinda get the short shrift. Medford plays Rose Brice, the mother to Streisand's Fanny. She barely has any screen time and most likely gets nominated because the film itself did so well. From what I understand, the role was much bigger in the stage production so maybe that was factored in for people who had seen it before. I'm saying all this because there's really nothing to the performance. What's weird is seeing all the actressexuals or stans online who love the role and Medford and write glowingly about her. She may be wonderful but all she does is play a a wise quipping mother. She has a few one liners but it's not really anything with depth or substance. She will make you laugh and maybe think of your own mother or grandmother if they are the same way, but just not much there because the focus is all on Streisand. I liked how someone else summed up this performance as being supporting, but not essential. That's the truth and Medford is lucky to be nominated.
Estelle Parsons - Rachel, Rachel
Parsons is here in large part because the Academy loves rewarding those that have recently won Oscars with more nominations. It's like an afterglow effect where the Academy is like well we loved you before and then you did this performance we also like, here's another nomination! Sometimes they can be well earned, usually they are not. Parsons had just won the year prior for Bonnie and Clyde and this feels a little like going back to the well but also she is in a rather interesting film with a role I don't think had been seen much at that point. Parsons plays the school teacher friend of Joanne Woodward who is a middle aged spinster. Parsons is sorta more carefree at the school and with her attitudes from what we can see in the few scenes she has in the beginning with Woodward. She takes her shy friend to a religious revival and that overwhelms Woodward who leaves. When Parsons checks on her, she too is caught up in the moment and passionately kisses Woodward who recoils and runs away. That's obviously when we realize Parsons character is a closeted lesbian and makes her earlier carefree attitudes make sense. We see her a couple more times try to apologize to Woodward and then Woodward comes to her towards the end for help and that's the performance. I think the lesbian revelation was a bit intriguing for the time and to see two women kissing, too. Parsons is good in the role and matches that carefree attitude I keep mentioning but that is also at odds with her religious zeal. Parsons makes this character who is seemingly at odds with herself work as one character instead of a collection of tropes needed for the story. It's good work and you can see why she had just won an Oscar but it would have been better with a more cohesive arc to it.
I love that I am getting all these actresses and performances I've never heard of or seen at all. It makes this category way more enjoying when I have no idea what to expect and can go in super blind to almost everything. Now I did have some expectations for Gordon's performance, but not the others. Medford is barely a performance at all and squeaks in only because they loved Streisand and the film so much. I'd rather she be replaced with something more substantive. Parson had just won and gets in on that win and not really her performance here. It is a little interesting, but not overwhelmingly so. Locke is a leading performance that got relegated to supporting for who knows what reason. But she is clearly lead and very good in the role. Carlin was a revelation for me. I loved all her little subtle glances and looks and how she did so much with very little acting. I maybe didn't like the arc but it felt a bit true to life. I think it was very good for the times. Gordon is talked about as one of those sort of iconic roles of the crazy old lady. I liked the performance but I didn't get the whole scary nature of the film. She was just a nosy neighbor with ulterior motives. I think it's a decent enough performance but one that I was expecting more from based on all I've heard about it over the years. Maybe that sullies my perception of it but I think for now, Carlin edges her out for my win. I can say this was an interesting year even if it wasn't the greatest.
Oscar Winner: Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby
My Winner: Lynn Carlin - Faces
Ruth Gordon
Sondra Locke
Estelle Parsons
Kay Medford
1968 Best Supporting Actress
Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby
This film gets bandied around as being one of the best horror films or one that a lot of people respect and reference. But this film didn't seem like it was much horror at all. If anything, you might call it a bit creepy at times but it's more of a mystery for me. I was trying to figure out what was going on and if it was real. I wasn't scared or unnerved or anything. This was a timid horror film that deals with Satan and witches and an anti-Christ, I assume that's what the baby is anyway. The only emotions I had were being mildly creeped out at the rape scene and more interested in seeing if Mia Farrow was crazy or if this was real. Gordon plays an old married neighbor of Farrow's and she is a witch (I think). I always thought that this was supposed to be a creepy performance and one that was so revered because she was a great villain, but I didn't get much of that. Maybe my expectations were too high and maybe I was thinking of a different film/performance but this one always gets high praise when talked about. She is more of a comedic kick to the story as the intrusive neighbor who can't help but be overly nosy and burdensome. She has this interesting slurry way she talks as if she's combining a lot of words together and also tired of talking. She pops in and out with Farrow and gives her stuff to drink and is always checking in and just being the overbearing old neighbor. She does have some menace to her but mostly it's the creepy vibe we get. I was fully expecting a lot more to the performance. I think Gordon is fine at the role she's given and she does pull it off naturally. You know there's more to her bubbling underneath the surface but we don't really get to see it except for the brief moment at the rape scene. My disappointment is because I was expecting something very different which is all on me, but this also isn't too varied of a role. She does the concerned elderly neighbor thing that is meant to be more than just loving concern. I'll have to see the others to figure out if this is a strong performance or a weak one to win.
Lynn Carlin - Faces
This is a John Cassavetes film, so going in I knew to expect something raw and real. It's made in the cinema verite style in black and white, so it's right in your face and their faces (ha!) and has this improvised quality to it. The first half of this film mostly features John Marley (who we know from his Love Story nomination and The Godfather opening) and Gena Rowlands. Carlin is the wife of Marley who he wants a divorce from and is stepping out and seeing Rowlands who is a prostitute, I think. We don't see much of Carlin in the first half except for a brief exchange where the two giggle and laugh in bed and it seems pretty innocuous. But once Marley says he wants the divorce, Carlin goes out with her girls to a dance club and the group of girls bring back Seymour Cassel, a young playboy, to her house. This bit of the story is where I really fell in love with Carlin's performance. It's mostly wordless and just full of these looks and faces from Carlin. Her face just tells so much about what she's thinking and feeling and expresses so much with just a glance or roll of the eyes it's amazing. She's actually super attractive in those moments because she is playing hard to get knowing she already got his attention earlier and is just waiting for everyone else to leave. They have great chemistry and the performance is made by her looks. It really is simply fantastic acting. I kinda wished that's where it would end after they go to bed. Her final act is kinda perplexing to me because - spoilers - I guess she took too many sleeping pills and had to be revived by Cassel forcing her to puke. It's not explained if she did it on purpose or in the moment of having fun or what (maybe someone can enlighten me on that) but it felt weird for the character. She seemed so assured of herself and in control but maybe that's where real life hits and we see she didn't take the divorce announcement very well by sleeping with a random young guy and trying to kill herself. The very end is her and Marley getting into it without anything being discussed and it's apropos of the times. But I really enjoyed that middle half of Carlin's performance so much. The rest was good but that really elevated her in my mind. Not sure where she will end up in the rankings but this was a nice little surprise for me.
Sondra Locke - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
This was a very surprising film and one I had always wanted to see because of the title being so cool sounding. It's about a deaf mute played by Alan Arkin who moves to a new town to be near his deaf mute friend who gets sent to a mental institute. He rents a room at a house that has a mercurial teenage girl, Locke. She is a different kind of girl. Tall, spindly, a bit gaunt. She is comfortable talking to Arkin's character who is much older and the subtext is almost a little creepy because it's like Arkin is into her and vice versa but it also is like two lonely people finding each other and bonding in being different. She is older than her age but still very young emotionally and it's hard to balance that in a performance but Locke does her best. At times it's uneven, but she is a teenage girl who is a bit tempestuous. Locke is this fast talking Southern girl who is almost like a tomboy but who at times in the story is concerned with appearances. There's a lot of dichotomy in this character that Locke has to work through and with and deliver something that is difficult for any veteran, let alone a newcomer like herself. She also makes it feel like a real character, too. Locke is a girl trying to figure out life in a small Southern time that doesn't seem to offer much of a future for her. She wants to play piano and adores classical music, trying to describe it to Arkin so he can understand it's impact and feeling. The performance has a few of these really great authentic moments and Locke is mostly up to the task of creating a believable character in the film. Some of her work is still a bit raw and not perfect, but overall it's a pretty good performance. Only real issue is that Locke is a leading performance through and through and you know how much I hate when the Academy puts them in the wrong category. But performance is good and her chemistry with Arkin is very good, definitely worth a watch.
Kay Medford - Funny Girl
After watching Funny Girl, it seems wild that anyone other than Barbra Streisand could be nominated for this film. This is her star vehicle and one that she had a big hand in making. Therefore all the other characters get kinda get the short shrift. Medford plays Rose Brice, the mother to Streisand's Fanny. She barely has any screen time and most likely gets nominated because the film itself did so well. From what I understand, the role was much bigger in the stage production so maybe that was factored in for people who had seen it before. I'm saying all this because there's really nothing to the performance. What's weird is seeing all the actressexuals or stans online who love the role and Medford and write glowingly about her. She may be wonderful but all she does is play a a wise quipping mother. She has a few one liners but it's not really anything with depth or substance. She will make you laugh and maybe think of your own mother or grandmother if they are the same way, but just not much there because the focus is all on Streisand. I liked how someone else summed up this performance as being supporting, but not essential. That's the truth and Medford is lucky to be nominated.
Estelle Parsons - Rachel, Rachel
Parsons is here in large part because the Academy loves rewarding those that have recently won Oscars with more nominations. It's like an afterglow effect where the Academy is like well we loved you before and then you did this performance we also like, here's another nomination! Sometimes they can be well earned, usually they are not. Parsons had just won the year prior for Bonnie and Clyde and this feels a little like going back to the well but also she is in a rather interesting film with a role I don't think had been seen much at that point. Parsons plays the school teacher friend of Joanne Woodward who is a middle aged spinster. Parsons is sorta more carefree at the school and with her attitudes from what we can see in the few scenes she has in the beginning with Woodward. She takes her shy friend to a religious revival and that overwhelms Woodward who leaves. When Parsons checks on her, she too is caught up in the moment and passionately kisses Woodward who recoils and runs away. That's obviously when we realize Parsons character is a closeted lesbian and makes her earlier carefree attitudes make sense. We see her a couple more times try to apologize to Woodward and then Woodward comes to her towards the end for help and that's the performance. I think the lesbian revelation was a bit intriguing for the time and to see two women kissing, too. Parsons is good in the role and matches that carefree attitude I keep mentioning but that is also at odds with her religious zeal. Parsons makes this character who is seemingly at odds with herself work as one character instead of a collection of tropes needed for the story. It's good work and you can see why she had just won an Oscar but it would have been better with a more cohesive arc to it.
I love that I am getting all these actresses and performances I've never heard of or seen at all. It makes this category way more enjoying when I have no idea what to expect and can go in super blind to almost everything. Now I did have some expectations for Gordon's performance, but not the others. Medford is barely a performance at all and squeaks in only because they loved Streisand and the film so much. I'd rather she be replaced with something more substantive. Parson had just won and gets in on that win and not really her performance here. It is a little interesting, but not overwhelmingly so. Locke is a leading performance that got relegated to supporting for who knows what reason. But she is clearly lead and very good in the role. Carlin was a revelation for me. I loved all her little subtle glances and looks and how she did so much with very little acting. I maybe didn't like the arc but it felt a bit true to life. I think it was very good for the times. Gordon is talked about as one of those sort of iconic roles of the crazy old lady. I liked the performance but I didn't get the whole scary nature of the film. She was just a nosy neighbor with ulterior motives. I think it's a decent enough performance but one that I was expecting more from based on all I've heard about it over the years. Maybe that sullies my perception of it but I think for now, Carlin edges her out for my win. I can say this was an interesting year even if it wasn't the greatest.
Oscar Winner: Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby
My Winner: Lynn Carlin - Faces
Ruth Gordon
Sondra Locke
Estelle Parsons
Kay Medford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)