Best Picture 1966

I sit here a little over a day away from ending 2020 and moving into 2021 and like everyone else this year I'm screaming thank the fuck for that. This year has sucked for everyone, myself included. I got dumped mid year and that sucked, though I moved on in hopes of finding better days much like we are all doing now. Barely any films have come out and theaters have been shut down for almost the whole year. The Oscars next year are going to be so weird. Most people will not have had the opportunity to see most of these films except for those launched on Netflix or other streaming services. It'll be interesting to see because as of right now, there really is ZERO buzz for this Oscars season. It's also in April so there is still months to go, but normally we have a front runner that is either getting taken down by other films or boosted into a sure thing. No one, not even I, could tell you what might get nominated right now and that's sad. I think we will end up with a good slate of films and performances but the fact that the public wasn't really involved sucks. This year sucks and I'm so happy to kiss it goodbye. I leave you with one last category for this year and it looks like it should be good, so thank fuck for that.

1966 Best Picture

A Man for All Seasons

I had been looking forward to watching this film for so long because of its win and because it had a reputation for being such a tight, well made costume drama. And it is all of that. It's about the moral steadfastness of Sir Thomas More played by Paul Scofield. He is part of the Henry VIII government and is made the Lord Chancellor but won't figure out a way for Henry to divorce Catherine and pays the ultimate price. This is a tight film that really doesn't spend any time explaining anything and just plows ahead. More is on the Council as an advisor to the King and Cardinal Wolsey advises him to find a way for the divorce. He doesn't, Wolsey is gone and More is made Chancellor and advises Henry. It doesn't last long and the Church of England schism happens and More is not onboard. More is imprisoned and then executed for this reason and that's the film. Very tight two hours as we really only get to dive into More as a person with concrete morals and ideals who is a good man. He is already a perfect being when we get to see him. He is a man that is steadfast in his morals that is completely respectable. I don't think anyone begrudges More for adhering to his faith and sticking with it. I love that the film has a good score and some good shots, but that it has such a tight story. It just goes from one scene to the next without anything else in the way. It has almost no filler and is better for it. There are also some really great comedic moments in the film like the More household butler guy talking to his wife after being fired. It's hilarious and there are a few of those moments sprinkled throughout the film even though they may get overlooked easily. The film has great acting abound and some great music to accompany that. I really just can't get over how great and succinct the film is. It's a great historic retelling of the story and it uses so many great performances to make it work. It's quite easy to see why it won.

Alfie

After watching this, I honestly can't say that I really enjoyed it that much. Alfie is played by Michael Caine and is an unapologetic womanizer who uses and discards women like they are trash. Why am I supposed to be interested in Alfie at all? Because he at the end is met with the reality of his actions and the fact that his ways have left him alone and only then does he have a change of heart about who he is as a person? As charming and suave Caine is as a person and actor, it's not enough to get me to like who Alfie is or feeling any sort of admiration for him. I don't feel like I'm missing the point of the film, either, because I understand that the change at the end of the film is all because of what we see from him during the rest of the film. So I can still not like a character no matter where he ends up and not really enjoy a film because of that reason. I think Caine does a great job as Alfie, though, and can separate actor from character. I also think the film uses the fourth wall breaking style to great acclaim even if it comes off as some kind of incel training video with Alfie discussing how to use women while actively being with them or how to get rid of them. I do think a lot of folks may like the film despite all of this and I'm probably reading too much into the character and film, but it's genuinely how I feel. It's okay in 1966 but it just comes off as shitty to me in 2020. I say watch for yourself and see what you think about this one.

The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming

Another one of those films I've wanted to see for awhile based on the name alone which has always been intriguing to me. The film is a cold war farce where a Russian submarine crew wash ashore on an island in Northeast America and a small group go onto the island to find a way to get their submarine pushed back into the sea. Absurd mayhem and hi-jinks ensue for most of the rest of the film as Alan Arkin and his little group of Russians hide out and steal cars and threaten families and avoid the townspeople hunting them. It seems rare for a film like this to get nominated in this category but here we are. I imagine that it coming out at the height of the Cold War and poking fun at both sides with a funny cast and slapstick story. This is way more accessible for everyone than something like a Dr. Strangelove and I think that helps it get nominated. I thought the film was funny and entertaining and had some good performances but it does seem a bit milquetoast as compared to the previous mentioned Dr. Strangelove, which I can't help but compare it to. Which is unfair because that is such a great and classic film. My point is that this film doesn't seem to have the heft to it that maybe it should. It plays it safe and the ending is a coming together of everyone after a standoff to help rescue a little boy showing that if we work together, we can achieve peace. A noble goal, for sure, but not everything is that easy or clear cut. This film supposedly played well over in Russia at the time and was obviously well liked here by audiences so it seemed to bridge a gap, so maybe a heartwarming ending like we got was necessary. It is a very well done film and I really enjoyed Arkin in his role as one of the few people to be level headed. Worth watching to see the comedy but there are some films in this group that just blow this one away easily.

The Sand Pebbles

Did not realize this would be a just over three hour epic. At the time the film came out, some of the reviews had mentioned it in the same breath as the British epics (you know the ones) and how this was a similar war epic. This film is about Steve McQueen's character who is an engineer sailor guy who is in China and gets assigned to a gunboat that has some issues. The Chinese fellows on board basically do everything while the actual Navy guys do nothing and McQueen just wants to monitor and repair the engine. He makes enemies and friends on the ship all against the backdrop of the US and other nations' involvement in China in the 20's while they were trying to figure out their own country. I actually really enjoyed this film a lot more than I had initially thought. I think a lot of that is due to the subject matter of the film. We almost never see this time in history from a US perspective and see how our involvement in China in the 20s sparked that country. It was fascinating to see the country and all the racism and how badly the Navy guys treated the locals while some went above and beyond helping them. McQueen carries the film just fine even if it is a bit of an uneven performance. He still has that gravitas and commanding presence to overlook any flaws. I also appreciated that the film had a very good pace to it. It's three hours long, but it sucked me in and moved well from scene to scene. It helps that there are a lot of action scenes, whether outright violence and actual battles, or even just a trip to a local bar or a boxing match between one of the Chinese workers and a sailor. The scenes keep moving and you come to root for McQueen who is just concerned with doing his job and not all into demeaning the Chinese. Yeah, he's still a bit racist in the film but that's part of the messaging of the film. Watching it now, I don't quite see the allusions to the Vietnam War, but it's there and was one of those things noted in many reviews whether for better or worse. It was also just how the US was in those days trying to act like an imperial nation. This is a really interesting film and one setting and time that I'd wish we see more of in general. This was one of the biggest winners at the box office this year and that's a big reason why it's nominated. A big war epic with a charismatic lead and a plot that reminds people in 1966 about a more timely war, well it was going to get on. It's nice to see that even though this film is really remembered at all these days, it's still a strong, entertaining film in its own right.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

This is Mike Nichols' debut film and it's so brilliant that he decided to follow it up with The Graduate. He has become one of my favorite directors because of this project and I only wish I had more of his films to watch. Many consider this to be one of the greatest plays that was put to film and I agree. It's so intense that I felt like I needed a drink afterwards. The cinematography won an Oscar for black and white and it is amazingly framed and shot. The acting is what makes the film legendary and it has some all time greats from Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and Sandy Dennis and even George Segal. The first film to have it's whole cast nominated for acting and they all earn it. If you don't know what it is about, I feel like it's better to go in cold like I did. I knew it was one of those wordy, volatile relationship plays that got filmed. But it is so much more than that. The subtext in this film could fill another film or three. Basically it's about a middle aged couple who are so temperamental who invite a younger couple over for night cap after a party. When I say intense, it is intense! Taylor and Burton are at each other's throat, sometimes literally and they drag the young innocent seeming couple deep into their depravity. I love dark films about flawed people. I have found this out recently when looking at all my favorite films even though it was always true. I think I connect more with those stories and enjoy them way more than something simple and feel good. But I also know I love a good, intimate play that throat punches you from the start and doesn't let up until the end. I know know of these types of films are coming and I'm pumped for that. But this was I think one of the first forays into those plays on film that were all the rage in the 50s and 60s. I also think it's pretty dope that this film helped challenge and end the Production Code in a way. This would never had been made before that was thrown out and this film debuted on stage just before that era ended and many people said it wouldn't and couldn't be made. This got made because it was especially wanted on the big screen and people realized how outdated the Code was. This wasn't directly responsible but it certainly helped. I want to point out again how amazing the actors were in this film because it's one of those things that you want to get the best out of everyone in a film and this knocked it out of the park. If you watch this and don't want a drink or a cigarette or something after, then you are doing it wrong. It's a great film that has only grown on me since I watched it and I can't recommend it enough.


Happy to be done with this and moving on in every way. But it's a very good group of films. I get why people like Alfie. I'm not much of a fan of that kind of misogyny and womanizing behavior and I am far from any kind of SJW. I just think it's a bad look and celebrating it even with deeper social issues nestled into the film is not that great. I do appreciate the performances and what it tries to do but I didn't like it. The Sand Pebbles is a really interesting war epic. I like getting to see historical times that aren't done to death. We never see anything from China in the 20s as far as the US is concerned. So that was refreshing. And McQueen is pretty great and the film is really entertaining. I enjoyed it a lot. The Russians is hilarious at times. I love Arkin's performance and it's a cool look into the Cold War era of thinking that we should give peace a chance. A really overlooked film today, it's worth checking out. A Man for All Seasons is a good Oscar winner. A tight costume drama that doesn't get bogged down in any extraneous plots. It marches forward with it's single story and we are all better for it. Great acting and just a wonderful film. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? though is absolutely brilliant and amazing and is my easy winner for Best Picture. It's so damn intense you need a drink or five after watching. Some all time performances coupled with great story and direction make this a classic I'm glad I finally got to watch it and can now add it to my list of favorites. So a final fuck you to 2020 and a happy new year to everyone out there - even if you are reading this in June of 2029.

Oscar Winner: A Man for All Seasons
My Winner:  Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
A Man for All Seasons
The Russian Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming
The Sand Pebbles
Alfie

Leading Actor 1966

Some very strong names on this list which I feel like I say this every year for this category. It's such a memorable category usually. I'm just happy to see what these guys can bring.

1966 Best Actor

Paul Scofield - A Man for All Seasons

I had been waiting for this win for a long time because I enjoyed Scofield in Quiz Show in the 90s and wanted to know what else he brought to his Oscar win. This is one of those lived in performances. Scofield won the Tony Award for Best Actor for his work on this play. He wasn't the first pick for the film but they eventually went with him. It paid off as Scofield is one of the few to win a Tony and Oscar for the same role. Scofield plays Sir Thomas More, an advisor to Henry VIII who wants to be divorced from Catherine. I think we all know this story as it has been the subject of tons of films and TV shows and plays and books and is in the pop culture realm. More doesn't give the king the answers he wants and More has to hold his moral ground. I like that Scofield is so comfortable and assured in the role that he doesn't feel like an actor pretending to be someone - he is Sir Thomas More. Everyone else feels like they are acting and Scofield is quietly and calmly going about his duties. He's never some fanatical preacher shouting his beliefs everywhere. He believes in his Church and their ideals and wants to see those upheld and continued. He's a dutiful man who doesn't want to betray his beliefs even though his king orders him to and it could mean his death. It's a character that could easily become so rote and boring that you tire of his morally good characterization. But Scofield breathes life into the role and his performance is why we watch and to see how exactly he handles a king who only believes in what is convenient for him. Scofield also portrays More as not a saint, but as a man just trying to do right by his God and that's the power Scofield brings to the performance. It is never anything high and mighty or that seems put upon, but is dignified and rational. He believes that if he follows the laws and avoids saying anything controversial that he will be okay, but we know that's not how it ends for him. Watching Scofield in this moments is what makes the film for me. There is no panicking or overwrought pleas to God or the king or whoever. He intelligently tries to explain his reasoning and accepts his fate as something almost unavoidable at the end. There's a lot of talk of politics and religion yet it never feels preachy and most of that is due to Scofield being such a warm and steady actor. This is a quietly strong performance that is aided by how much Scofield got to live in and become this man and it's a really great thing to watch because of all the subtleties in his work.

Alan Arkin - The Russians are Coming, the Russian are Coming

This project has turned me into a big Alan Arkin fan, especially his early work such as this. I'm sure if I had seen these performances first, I would have really cherished his win and been advocating hard for it. Now, I might not be as enamored with this performance as I was his second nomination in The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, but it's still a good performance nonetheless. In this film, Arkin portrays a Russian submarine Lieutenant who goes onto an island in the Northeast US after they have run aground. It's a comedy film and role and Arkin has to speak a lot of Russian throughout the film and make it look funny. He butchers English in a funny way and ends up helping the islanders by the end of the film who have been hunting him and US/Russian relations are thawed a little bit. It's a big farce with a big warm heart at the center and Arkin does a great job of balancing a Russian villain of sorts into becoming a well liked ambassador and translator of sorts. Arkin speaks Russian fluently and that adds to the touch of him being Russian and not just giving English words a poor accent. The performance is underplayed because this could have been a huge over the top figure who dominates the film, but it's all measured and calm with a lot of subtle comedic notes to it. A lot of those are looks and reactions which seems to be something that Arkin is really great at with his other performances as well. This won't be the winner but it's still a very entertaining performance to me and I can appreciate that this project helped me find the young Arkin and his string of great performances.

Richard Burton - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Oh, hey, here I am just becoming the biggest Burton fan because of this project. No big deal. I have yet to see him give anything other than a stellar performance and it's starting to annoy me that he never won a richly deserved Oscar. Many people will know this film and performance because many people consider it a great film with some legendary performances. Burton is part of the reason for that along with Elizabeth Taylor. The two were married at the time of the film and you can sense how comfortable they are with one another even when acting hostile. Burton's role is one that needs a skilled actor to pull off because it has so many dueling emotions to it. He plays a history professor married to the daughter of the university president. They are both alcoholics and cantankerous, which makes for a very volatile combo. They invite a young couple over for night cap and the night goes downhill from there. Burton's character can come off as cold to his wife and to the others, seemingly uncaring towards his fellow man and concerned with himself primarily. But he can also run hot in anger at his wife and his guests and control the room with his outbursts. We also can't really trust him, since he tells a bunch of stories that we can't quite tell if they are true or not, yet will goad out the truth from everyone else. By the end, we don't know as much as we thought we did about him as he gets the truth from everyone else but we are left to wonder who he really is. He has a commanding, charming presence in the film that demands you pay attention to him, yet he pretends to not know that George Segal's character is a biology teacher and purposefully gets wrong what he was just told as if he wasn't paying attention. For all of this perceived bravado, Burton is essentially hollow inside. He let's his wife walk all over him, he seems to hate the politics of the school faculty and says that the job is only good for sleeping around with other wives and students. He's jaded and we see why by the end of the film as his relationship is one that is heavily co-dependent on the other to not only put up with each other but go along with the insane depravity and lies they spew. Burton feels like a man that could go off at any second and murder everyone, but you can feel that he is so hopeless inside that even doing that wouldn't satisfy him. Instead, he enjoys his games with the guests and his wife and relishes in making them uncomfortable and pitting them against each other. This is a savage performance from Burton that showcases so much of what makes him a brilliant actor. There are so many emotions and subtle ways of getting them across that I just flat out love it. I love when an actor can do one small or simple thing or say something and it has so much depth and nuance to it that it means so much more underneath. I feel you'd have to watch this a second time knowing how it ends to fully digest the performances and see what exactly makes them so legendary. It's a fully realized character even though he comes off as a bit enigmatic, we still understand him. There's a humanity in there but this man has been beaten down so much that we get a haunting figure who brings others to his level. Many people consider this one the very best performances by an actor ever and I'll have to agree. It's so richly fulfilling with so much to enjoy that I can't wait to watch it again.

Michael Caine - Alfie

This is the film that kick started Caine's career and is still one people talk about when discussing his best performances. I will have to admit that I don't really like the film very much. I don't like the character of Alfie and how much of a womanizer he is. And that's what the film is about. Alfie sleeps with a whole bunch of women, married and unmarried, and discards them whenever he's done using them because they either get too attached or because he gets bored. Caine, though, is ever his charming and suave self. It's a bit hard not to like him as he constantly breaks the fourth wall and talks to us directly about how to ditch this woman or that and how to get this woman or that one. Caine perfectly executes that style and has all the charm and wit to make it work. For most, I think Caine will make the character likable enough for them. I didn't like him but not because of Caine. Caine also has to make the switch towards the end as a sympathetic character where wefeel for him and his sudden realization and his unfortunate situation. Caine is able to not only deliver the charisma and humor of the character, but also the introspective heartfelt moments where he questions his attitudes and what he's done with his life. The scene after the abortion is sufficiently emotional and Caine makes it believable to me. That's what makes this a very good performance to me is that I dislike the film, yet I like Caine's performance and what he is able to do in the film with such an unlikable character to me. I wish I had liked the film more because Caine would certainly be bumped up a bit in my ranking of him. He's great, the film isn't as much.

Steve McQueen - The Sand Pebbles

I know I'm probably not the only one who forgot or didn't realize that McQueen has an Oscar nomination to his credit. Everyone knows him for his other work, but this is a pretty interesting film for him to star in. McQueen plays a Navy engine mechanic who is assigned to a gunboat in China during the 20s. On the ship, the local Chinese do everything while the Navy guys let them due to that's how it's been for so long even before anyone on the ship was there. McQueen just wants to do his job and fix the ship the right way. This causes friction with some of the sailors and the Chinese, but he also makes some good friends on the ship. Much of the action of the film is because McQueen does what he wants at times which is usually the right thing. Standing up for his Chinese engine buddy and helping him box, with his shipmate who is in love with a Chinese woman who works at a brothel but isn't a prostitute there. His manner is rebellious for the Navy but we can see it for what it is which is being morally right. He's a bit racist in some of the names he uses for the Chinese but you can tell he respects them and appreciates them as long as they are good people. Now, McQueen's performance overall is a bit uneven. The guy oozes charisma and is one of those actors that can say one word and it just works for him. He has a magnetic, commanding presence at times like towards the end with the battle at the blockade. But he also has these moments where it's like he's trying out a different reading of the character. Weird, almost goofy or Southern or just odd ways he says some things. It took me out of the film briefly each time because I was wondering what the heck he was trying to do. There aren't a lot of these moments, but it still distracts from an otherwise very good performance from McQueen. It's got a lot of humanity in some of the quieter scenes and his manly heroics and leadership at the end goes beyond the typical machismo acting we know from him into something with way more depth. Definitely feel like people should check this one because it feels like it would normally get overlooked for his other star turns.


Absolutely a strong group. Not a bad performance in the bunch or even one that I would say was boring or anything like that. Caine brings up the rear because I can't stand the character though I can respect Caine's performance. But I like the rest more than this one. McQueen surprised with a pretty good performance. Not just relying on his movie star qualities, he delivers something with more depth than I thought he would. Plus it's cool he has a nomination. Arkin has quickly become a favorite in his early years. His three films in three years, two of which he was nominated for, are really great. I loved this because he's an actor that does so much while doing so little. Love that acting style. Scofield would have won and was my pick but then I watch Burton. I love how Scofield is so moral without being preachy and just stands out as a good person and character. Burton steals the show though. And I'll stan this man forever. Such a brilliant actor, it's a shame he doesn't have an Oscar to his name. I'd have given him like 80 by now! He's so terrific and in that discussion for one of the best male performances ever. Love it and this category.

Oscar Winner: Paul Scofield - A Man for All Seasons
My Winner:  Richard Burton - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Paul Scofield
Alan Arkin
Steve McQueen
Michael Caine

Leading Actress 1966

Interesting to note that all of these are foreign born actresses and really it's four foreign films if we want to be accurate. It's an interesting group and one that I want to watch because of the foreign factor and the names involved.

1966 Best Actress

Elizabeth Taylor - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I am, admittedly, not very well versed in all things Elizabeth Taylor. I know her as the cultural icon and movie star who has a few nominations and had two Oscar wins. I've seen some of her work, but have never fully dived into her output and explored her as an actress. So in saying that, Taylor more than impressed me in this performance. I was expecting something maybe overacted or too actor-y, but she managed to give such a believably real performance. From the start she felt so natural and her acting didn't have any tinge of someone relying on mannerisms or character tics. You know, someone who purposefully stutters and waves their hands all over in a big show of look how affected my performance is kinda way. No, Taylor's drunk woman was real from the start because she wasn't so broad and showy. She pokes and prods her husband with barbs and plays off his attempts to control her. She is this wild spirit who actively bullies her husband who plays on this passive aggressiveness that seems to drive her mad. That chemistry between Richard Burton and Taylor is obvious seeing as they were married at the time. But it's put to good use because their arguments and venomous back and forth is intense and quite unnerving at times. It's like watching a trainwreck and not being able to look away. They even rope the younger couple they invited over for drinks into their fucked up relationship. I like that Taylor is never over the top, in fact I'd say she plays a lot of the performance in a very understated way, choosing to not do the obvious and explode. Instead she knows how to rile her husband up whether it's flirting with the younger man or bringing up forbidden topics. It also has well timed heartbreaking moments. Taylor excels in these scenes and they don't feel forced or too sappy. You feel for her and even though the film is so intense, you're glad to see these moments almost as a payoff. The performance is an effortless one from Taylor which speaks to how much work she put into it for it to seem that way. Many people say this is one of the best female performances ever and I think I would have to agree with them. It is fantastic and soul draining, but absolutely worth it.

Anouk Aimee - A Man and a Woman

I really, really liked this film! It's a simple love story for the most part with some great, subtle acting. The end is a bit of an emotional roller coaster but feels very true to life that love isn't always so easy and straightforward. This is a French film and it should be a given that Aimee is absolutely gorgeous, but it must be said because she one hundred percent is. She is also a pretty great actress in this film. There's no grand moments or scenes where she has to show off her acting chops, it's just subtle acting all the way through. She meets Jean-Louis Trintignant's character who gives her a ride home from the boarding school their kids both go to. The attraction builds naturally and slowly and that's what the film is about. I enjoyed that the film style was one of watching the two interact however mundanely and flashing back to other points in their life where something big happened that they are discussing in real time. Like Trintignant asks about her husband and then we flash back to see that he was killed on set working as a stuntman. The style has this documentary like feel to it where we are peering into these two peoples' lives so we get very natural acting from Aimee. We see the playful flirting and the emotions of talking about their past partners and the pride and happiness in their children getting along. We are more privy to Trintignant's inner feelings and worries, but we see some of that in Aimee although it's done in a very French sort of way. It's a dreamy flashback while she's in bed with the current guy and we see the inner turmoil on her face as she thinks about her dead husband and we sense that she isn't over his death. I have always like subtlety in acting and I like when someone can make what looks like a boring premise into something really great and fascinating. These are two people getting to know each other and falling in love and it's a great film because it feels so authentic due to the acting from Aimee. Wonderful film and performance.

Ida Kaminska - The Shop on Main Street

This is one of those weird Academy trivia answers where the film was nominated in 1965 as Best Foreign Language Film, but Ida was nominated the next year for Best Actress. It happens rarely but it does happen with these foreign films. This is a Czechoslovakian film about the Aryanization of the country in World War II. It's about Tony, whose brother is a top Nazi official and who gives Tony a shop run by an older Jewish woman because they aren't allowed to own anything now. Tony isn't into the Nazi crap and just wants to make money and do his thing. I will admit I went into this film blind and didn't know what it was about and I thought that Kaminska was the wife and wondered why the hell she was nominated because the wife barely did anything in the first hour. Then I realized it was the old Jewish shopkeeper lady that I needed to pay attention to and she shows up a little under an hour into the story. She is old, obviously, and oblivious to the outside world and what's going on with the Nazis. She thinks Tony is her nephew or an assistant and is just going about her days as if nothing has changed even though the Jews are being rounded up. She's essentially just a senile old lady who really doesn't do a whole lot in the film. I'm not sure why she was singled out other than she was known as the Mother of the Jewish Stage and was obviously well respected and probably well liked in the old Academy. Maybe it's a representation of the film? The film is a powerful look at the deportation of the Jews from Slovakia and the choices made by Tony are what make the final 30 minutes so agonizing to watch. It's heartbreaking and one of those all time great foreign films that makes best of all time lists through the years. I'm glad this project allowed me to watch it as I do love good foreign films and important ones at that. I don't know why exactly Kaminska got singled out for this performance as it just isn't much of a performance to me, but I'm happy she did as it exposed me to this important film.

Lynn Redgrave - Georgy Girl

This reminds me a ton of Liza Minnelli in The Sterile Cuckoo. Like a ton. Redgrave is the eponymous Georgy and she is a very awkward young woman. She may not talk a mile a minute like Liza, but they both have their awkward time fillers. Redgrave's character plays piano and will sing and dance a bit and just reminds me of a theater girl who is painfully shy but somehow is able to do a sultry song and dance in front of a large group no problem. Georgy is a virgin and incredibly awkward around men. It doesn't help that her father's employer, James Mason, who is much older than her is creepily trying to get with her. And he has a sick/dying wife and Georgy's father seems to know and be okay with it. Mason's character even draws up a contract for them to have an affair of sorts. It's super weird and she is dealing with that and pining for her roommate's (Charlotte Rampling) boyfriend (Alan Bates). Redgrave plays it in a very believable fashion. She is a woman who is trying to figure herself out and life at the same time. She wants to be like her beautiful roomie who goes out to parties and has lots of sex. Georgy is a frumpy girl who eventually does have sex with the boyfriend and she starts to love him. So it's that story of a girl being pulled in two different ways as she tries to find herself. Redgrave feels very natural in the performance. Her sister (from below) was actually up for the role but bowed out and I can't really see Vanessa playing this character as well Lynn does. There are moments where Georgy is annoyed or embarrassed and she yells in a nervousy way where your voice changes and you are very much not calm and collected. It felt real to life and made her seem younger at times. Other times she seemed mature in handling the creepy Mason character or helping out the roommate when she has her baby. Lynn was working out the character as the film went on just how Georgy was working out her own issues and feelings. So yes, very much like Liza's performance to me and both were very good in displaying awkward youth. Georgy is the only character in the film that felt authentic to me and that's all due to Redgrave's performance.

Vanessa Redgrave - Morgan!

This is for sure one of the worst films I have watched for this project. Not so much because of anything Redgrave does, but because the film is just a ridiculous, unfunny mess that is supposed to be one of those Swinging London comedy films. Redgrave isn't really the focus of the film although she is the focus of the main character, Morgan. It's her soon to be ex-husband and he's a communist, artistic, avant-garde kind of dude. Just overall weird and creepy at times but also intensely unfunny. Some of what I read about the film was that critics thought it was howlingly funny and all that and this film is anything but. It was so hard to get through because of how much I didn't enjoy it. Somehow Redgrave won Best Actress at Cannes for this and I don't know why other than Cannes seemed to really love her through the years. She is the somewhat tortured wife/ex who Morgan tries over and over to win back in the most wildly outrageous and creepy ways. Redgrave doesn't really do much then mostly brush off his escapades and get slightly annoyed and at times cave in to his overtures and have sex with him. If you actually want to watch this for some reason, you'll see she just doesn't do very much in the film except react to Morgan in ways that don't feel real. Why wouldn't you try harder to get him to stop by being arrested or put in an institution or something? Redgrave is their to be the pretty woman that the gorilla rescues/kidnaps which only makes sense if you watch the film. I was bored by the performance and actively disliked the film and resented that I had to watch the whole thing just for a tepid performance from Redgrave. Ugh.



I feel like this group really opened me up to some new cinema and I appreciate it for that reason. We can start with a swinging London type of film for Vanessa. It's cool to see stuff like this even if I didn't really like it at all. Vanessa just didn't do much for my tastes. She kinda plays both sides of the artistic and fantastical versus the buttoned up and proper. But not much to my liking and I don't care what her name is. Give me a good performance, not something to sleepwalk through.  Kaminska gave me the opportunity to watch a film that is highly respected as a foreign film and Holocaust film. It was really good to experience it. I don't think Kaminska did all that much and probably got nominated because of the subject and being a Jewish queen of the stage. Still respect the choice, though. Lynn was way better than her sister. She had one of those different British films of the 60s but she at least brought a ton to her ole and film. I rather enjoyed her and wonder why she didn't take off like her sister did through the years. Aimee was fantastic and the film surprised me. I loved it. Simple story of how a relationship starts that has an unexpected ending. Aimee is more of a natural actress and it was like watching a documentary because it didn't feel like some scripted film. She's gorgeous but also really compelling as an actress. Glad I got to watch her and this film. What can we say about Taylor? Some consider this the best female performance in the Oscars. It's certainly right up there and I agree with the sentiment. She is brilliant and you should watch this ASAP. Overall a pretty awesome year that I would take over most others.

Oscar Winner: Elizabeth Taylor - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
My Winner:  Elizabeth Taylor - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Anouk Aimee
Lynn Redgrave
Ida Kaminska
Vanessa Redgrave

Supporting Actor 1966

I was thinking recently about how good of a copy of a film might play into how I or we view a performance or film overall. Meaning, me watching a crappy quality version of some film that's hard to find might detract from my review of it unlike say finding an amazing blu-ray quality film for another performance. I don't think I let that affect what I feel and write about but maybe deep down I do? I'm writing this as I start watching the winner here and it's an exceptional quality version for a 1966 film. And I was thinking about how the version I saw of Edith Evans' performance last year in 1967 was a poor, grainy quality. Would I have been more into it if it were better? I dunno. Something to ponder as I ramble on here. I have seen none of these but there are some recognizable names and films so I'm hoping my favorite category hits the spot for me.

1966 Best Supporting Actor

Walter Matthau - The Fortune Cookie

Believe it or not, this was the first Matthau and Lemmon film ever. It's only 1966 but it feels like they made hundreds of films together over a century. In this one, Matthau pretty much plays what you expect from him as his character is essentially the same as many of the other's he's played in his career. He plays an unscrupulous lawyer who is the brother-in-law of Lemmon who gets hurt on the sideline of an NFL game as a camera operator. Matthau sees money in pretending Lemmon is hurt and suing the Clevelands Browns, CBS, and the stadium. So that's the setup of the film. This is the same Matthau that you will find in almost all of his films. Quick witted, dry humor, same sad sack look to him. Having seen a ton of Matthau films and a few for this Oscar project that I haven't exactly been a fan of, I struggle to see what set this apart other than it was his first nomination and maybe this comedy style was new to everyone and they loved it. I think Matthau is great and actually better than Lemmon who plays the straight man. But I feel like we've seen better Matthau performances, at least we have seen funnier Matthau performances, anyway. I enjoy this one but it doesn't feel ground breaking but how much of that is because I have seen his whole career before this film? If I saw this in 1966 without ever hearing of Matthau, would I think it was amazing? Probably because he's awesome. Also, dude is a leading performance. He has the most screen time and is involved in the side scenes with the insurance company or whatever, so he's the focus of the film. How is this supporting? I enjoy it, don't think it's supporting or ground breaking, and feel like it's basic Matthau but am okay with him having an Oscar because comedy isn't really that rewarded with the Academy. I feel like this win and what you think of it depends on how you watch it and what you think of Matthau.

Mako - The Sand Pebbles

I have always been interested in this nomination because of the name. I was figuring an old Japanese guy or something like that. I was close, as Mako's actual, non stage name was Makoto Iwamatsu. He was a younger Japanese guy who was playing the Chinese Po-han, a worker in the engine room who hits it off with Steve McQueen's character. It's pretty cool that he gets nominated here as the second Asian in this category. As I go through this decade, it's actually starting to have a lot of diverse nominees and I love that. Mako's role in this film is very small. He is just a guy who works in the engine room but the Chinese engineer dies in an accident and McQueen picks Mako to take over and the two bond over teaching how to run the engine room. Not much to it so far and lots of broken English, but then one of the bigger Navy guys bullies Po-han and challenges him to a fight. The two have a boxing match where McQueen is in Po-han's corner and after a while they prevail. Mako plays the character as scared and timid but who opens up with the help of McQueen and Mako realizes he's got his back. After that, the chief Chinese worker on the boat sends Po-han ashore to get something amidst rising tensions between the locals and the foreigners. Predictably, Po-han is captured coming back to the boat and his end is heartrendingly tragic. I imagine that this is where Mako earns his nomination, as the rest of the performance is very short and doesn't really do much more than bridge the gap between East and West for us and McQueen. It's unfortunate too that Mako's end is just where we start to see his importance and how good of an actor he is. I guess in the book, Po-han lasts longer but it's understandable when we see what happens to him and what it causes for McQueen. Fun fact is that Mako was also a Tony nominated actor, so you know he had the acting chops to really go off and deliver something great. I just wish we had more of Mako to fully take in what he could have given us performance wise.

James Mason - Georgy Girl

I really dig James Mason. He's got a very soothing voice and accent. He always seems so cool and calm and collected and classy. Even when he's a villain, you can't help but like him. This may be where I draw the line. Now this isn't some huge, uncrossable line but Mason comes off like such a creep in this film and I didn't much care for it. Mason is the boss of Georgy's (played by Lynn Redgrave) dad and he hits on and harasses and just can't leave alone Georgy. All of this while he has a sick or dying wife and he's writing up a contract for him to sleep with Georgy. It's odd and I don't know if it's meant to be endearing or what but it comes off so bad to me. Why is this being tolerated at all? Because her dad is like the butler of Mason? I don't understand. Mason himself is his naturally charming and harmless seeming self. He just seems thrilled to be acting which is what I get from a lot of his performances that he just loves playing a character, whoever that character shall be. But also doesn't mean I have to like this character or performance just because it is James Mason doing it. Other than that, the performance is mostly him chasing after Georgy and trying to get her alone and talk to her while she evades him. It's mostly that until the very end when they end up married and it feels weird to me, again. There is one serious moment that Mason does well when after his wife has died he has a moment of introspection about her and them and the sadness of it all. It's decent but also not really indicative of the performance and doesn't do much to humanize or explain his behavior to me. Myabe some people will enjoy it, but I certainly didn't and that sucks because I like Mason.

George Segal - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Segal's main role in this film seems to be to play the straight man of sorts. While Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton duke it out for twelve rounds, Segal seems to play the ref or a cornerman. That's not to put down his work at all, merely to frame that he has the least flashy of the roles and I feel like has to work a bit harder to get his performance to land. I'd say he stays the most sober of the group and he has all these moments where he's laughing and having a good time only to then immediately start arguing with Burton because of something that was said. Then to try to placate the others or babysit them or flirt with Taylor or snap at his wife. There are lots of layers to this performance that Segal has to maneuver, like getting drunk and looking after his wife and dealing with Taylor and Burton who needle him at every turn. Segal seems like a fly trapped in a spider's web who desperately tries to get away at first and then tries to fight back to no avail. I like that Segal plays it all mostly reserved. He let's the other three have their space and eat up the scenes in a good way. The best thing about Segal's performance is that he knows what his role is and doesn't try to do too much with the character. This wasn't going to be a winner, but it does contribute greatly to the film overall and allows the other three actors to shine in their own way. And that's really a perfect supporting role, even if it doesn't wow.

Robert Shaw - A Man for All Seasons

I am very glad that Shaw has an Oscar nomination. We all know him as the captain of the ship from Jaws and his telling of the story of the sharks eating sailors. It's a thing of beauty. But his performance as Henry VIII in this film is pretty good as well! One of those characters in film that has the most Oscar nominees for having played them. Shaw's Henry is one that is pretty bombastic. He's loud and demonstrative and has quite the presence in the film. He plays a king as he should. People follow his lead while jumping into muck on a riverbed and laughing when he laughs. It's his big scene with Sir Thomas More that I think gives him a nomination. It's very animated and has highs and lows and a king who very much acts like someone who is coddled at every word and step. He plays the scene as someone who is testing someone and how they react to certain situations. Shaw is up to the task of feeling someone out and he is so secure as Henry that you just see him as the King. Shaw has a moment when he is enjoying his marriage to Anne Boleyn that when he thinks he sees More, he stops everything and rushes over. The look on Shaw's face when he realizes it is not him is a realization that he let a good man go. I think Shaw does well in his few scenes but really makes his Henry into a volatile man and we all see it from More's perspective. It's an enjoyable short performance.


Hey, a pretty good group! All of them are pretty much on the same footing so that made for a better category overall. Mako was pretty interesting to see but the film underutilized him. I wanted to see what else he could do and didn't get the opportunity, sadly. Mason is his normal charming self except it's in the role of a creepy weirdo. I didn't like that even if Mason seemed up to the task. In fact, I'd rather switch the two of Mason and Mako for that reason. Shaw is a bombastic King Henry VIII. But he never overdoes it and brings a bit of humanity to the king. He pokes and prods Scofield and so this is more than good actor plays famous character/person. I'm glad he has a nomination. Segal hs the toughest job out of everyone in this category. He is the straight man in a brutally intense film and doesn't get to be as dominant as everyone else. He still succeeds and does a great job. Matthau wins because his shtick was new, if you ask me. It's more a lead performance and even if I enjoy the performance and Matthau as an actor, it still feels like a weird win. I'm happy he has a win but if Segal or Shaw won, I'd be all for that. I jst feel like sticking with the Academy on this one. A pretty solid, evenly matched group for once. Looking forward to the next one.

Oscar Winner: Walter Matthau - The Fortune Cookie
My Winner:  Walter Matthau - The Fortune Cookie
George Segal
Robert Shaw
Mako
James Mason

Supporting Actress 1966

I know I've written about it before, but I wish I had better intros that said something clever or deep or meaningful. I'm just psyched to start a new year and dive into this group. Getting into the years where I don't know the women or the films and so that brings some excitement to this. I just hope I get a good group.

1966 Best Supporting Actress

Sandy Dennis - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I went into this film cold, not knowing what to expect from the film and only knowing that it's a celebrated play and a legendary film in its own right. When Dennis first appeared and was a bit shy and meek and had that excited, high pitched voice I was thinking oh no! But what followed is probably one of the best Supporting Actress wins I have seen so far. One day I'll earnestly rank them in some way, but Dennis will be very near the top for this performance. Part of that is because she holds her own against both Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton who are both these big bulls in a china shop. But Dennis finds her place among the destruction those two leave in their wake. For one, Dennis plays one of the best and most convincing drunk persons I have seen. She said she was a lightweight and we see very quickly that she is. She seems more at ease and happy and the way she blinks and moves her head around and slurs her words all feel real and not that over exaggerated Hollywood kind of drunk. It really did impress me because it's so hard to get right when totally sober. Dennis does a lot more, though, than just play a young woman who gets drunk. She still portrays a character beneath the alcohol and one who is very proud of her husband's job and accomplishments while also keeping an eye on him, wary she could lose him to other wives or students. This is initially under the surface before the alcohol brings it out into the open. But we also see that Dennis's Honey seems to enjoy the the back and forth of Taylor and Burton despite her own emotional vulnerability and insecure relationship with her husband. Even while drunk, she plays off the two of them and joins in their games and sort of unleashes a more innocent version of them, more aware of what's going on than being a simple drunk girl. It's anxieties being calmed by the booze and heightened by it at the same time. Her performance has these wonderful comedic moments that are scattered throughout some heartbreaking ones as well. Dennis digs deep into a character that has surprising depth and who ends up being more than just a pawn in Taylor and Burton's depraved game. This is such a great performance that I'm very happy to have found it in this project.

Wendy Hiller - A Man for All Seasons

Wendy Hiller was a previous Oscar winner and also a nominee, so it feels like this performance came along with the love for the film and the actress and not entirely on its own merits. This is the Academy giving Hiller a bone because they know her and her work. She had done a couple films in the last few years that got recognition and here she is. Hiller is Sir Thomas More's wife, Alice. Alice is a no nonsense kind of woman. She isn't afraid to speak her mind to More and I feel like that is what defines her character and performance. Scofield is the idealist while Hiller is the practical wife. She seems perpetually negative of More but it's because she wants to understand her husband when he offers up nothing in that realm. She is grumpy with him because she at the end wants him to go against his morals to stay with her and the family but he won't. You wonder why he was even married to her in the first place. It feels like it just comes along for the ride as I can't see an ignored character offering up more than what we get from her. Of course, this isn't to say that Hiller is bad or something that detracts from the film. She gives a very good performance for what she has to work with as almost the afterthought of a wife to a man who has a ton of depth to him. This isn't her film so we don't get to see much more than Hiller be a dutiful, yet burdened wife. I am interested in seeing her other work based off this performance, though, and I think that speaks to her ability.

Jocelyne LaGarde - Hawaii

I feel it would be entirely too easy to simply dismiss this performance and nomination as nothing due to the circumstances of it. Those being that LaGarde, a French speaking Tahitian woman, learned her lines phonetically and a lot of people wouldn't call that acting. I even thought this would be a mess of a performance that panders to a native woman and makes the Academy look good for nominating her. But LaGarde really does imbue a lot of emotion into her performance. I assume she knew what she was saying even if she didn't know how to say it and was able to still act out what was needed for the scenes. This was her only acting job ever, nothing before or since, and it's hard to even find much info on her. Mostly she got the role because she happened to look like the actual person she was playing, which was a queen in Hawaii. She does have quite the presence in the film because she is a rather large woman and because she gets to tell the white people what to do or no in some instances instead of bending to them or having to listen to them. She can just interrupt and demand whatever. It's a really interesting performance because it's hard to tell how much of it is actually a performance. I liken it to the child performances I hate who get told what to say and do without any thinking or feeling behind any of that. I feel LaGarde actually does bring a bit of her own self into the performance so it's not as bad as the child actors I tend to hate. It's an intriguing nomination and the first indigenous person ever nominated for an Oscar. I would say search it out and watch it for yourself to see what you think. I say it's a performance but maybe shouldn't have been rewarded like this. But I also don't begrudge the fact that it is nominated and it made me really think about what all this means.

Vivien Merchant - Alfie

There are quite a lot of women in this film in supporting roles to Alfie played by Michael Caine. The one with the saddest story is the one that gets the Oscar nomination which seems on brand for the Academy. It also is about a very touchy and controversial subject, so that goes in favor of Merchant as well. The film is about Caine having all these little trysts and affairs with women and using them and discarding them when things get serious. Merchant is the wife of a guy in a hospital that Caine is also recuperating at. The husband asks Caine to take Merchant home and both seem resistant but then acquiesce. This results in a one night stand before Caine moves on to other women. Merchant is a frumpy, seemingly depressed woman. I guess in a way she is most unlike the other's because she isn't as charmed by him and seems to have just wanted some physical attention and to be close with someone. But she is mostly just a sad woman and when she let's Caine know she's pregnant and he arranges for it to be taken care of, it feels like she is mostly used as a plot device and not a fully fleshed out character. She's sad, gets knocked up on the one night stand, and has an abortion. Merchant is devastating in the moments before and after the event and maybe that's where she earns the nomination but it's all served to make Caine question his ways and have a moment to see the result of his flippant actions. But it does feel like Merchant's purpose is to elicit this emotion in him and she has a very one note performance because of that as compared to some of the other women. I think she's good in that one note and her role has a profound effect on the film, it's just lacking the depth of a normal performance. I can't begrudge her that fact when the film doesn't allow her any growth or to even be anything other than depressed and sad. It's a decent performance from Merchant but not one that makes me stand up and get excited about.

Geraldine Page - You're a Big Boy Now

I am not a big fan of Geraldine Page. I have made that crystal clear over the duration of this project. She's a good actress but her nominations have been awful garbage (okay, maybe some hyperbole there). She's been nominated at times for basically doing nothing and this is my fifth foray into watching her completely disappoint me. It still disappoints me. This is Francis Ford Coppola's thesis film project from UCLA and it is very counter culture 60s. Page is the mother of the ridiculous lead of the film and she tries to control him to no avail. She is a domineering, clingy mother who wants to dictate what her son "Big Boy" does and who he can see and all that. This is a performance where she mostly screams about being someone's mother and being stopped as an actress and spies on her son and sends locks of her hair to him while he is away. Obviously, the character is a bit crazy and obsessive of her son and quite a bit over the top. Page offers nothing to this student film. Why the hell she was nominated, I don't know. She's over the top in this film and not engaging enough to keep her around for anything else. Your son moves on while you scream about it needing to mean something and blah blah blah. I feel like an Oscar nomination should do more than just be obnoxious and histrionic. Page now has three more Oscar nominations that we have to deal with and I am hoping that those first three are exceptional and can be sucked into in a good way. Essentially this is a weird film with a subpar performance considering the reputation of this actress among the Academy members. Not really one to search out unless you feel the need to watch all of Coppola's film because Page certainly isn't the reason to watch it.


Well, this isn't a very strong group. Dennis stands out as being head and shoulders above the rest. She is the clear and easy winner for me and the Academy. As for the rest, well, it's all a toss up. I am just not a Page fan at all and that's becoming more of a reality with each nomination. I don't like the performance or the film all that much even if it is neat to see Coppola's start. LaGarde. It's hard to truly rank this one as she phonetically learned the script, so is that acting? I think she puts some acting into it and is genuinely interesting to watch and makes the film better. She would never win but I'm fine with her being here. Merchant is more of a prop for the film. It's like hey, this chick makes a mistake and pays for it dearly in the end. The film uses her and doesn't allow her to be more than just a PSA. Hiller is fine. Good in the role but there's not much of it. I'd want more but it wasn't her film. Dennis is amazing and this is probably the easiest win in a long time for this category. Sadly it's because it sucks so much for the rest. Oh well, on to 2021 in reality and to better groups in this project.

Oscar Winner: Sandy Dennis - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
My Winner:  Sandy Dennis - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Wendy Hiller
Vivien Merchant
Jocelyne LaGarde
Geraldine Page

Best Picture 1967

This was a year and category that I have been looking forward to for sooooo long! It's full of classic films and minus one film, is close to the best category ever. There's even a whole book called Pictures at a Revolution by Mark Harris that goes in depth about this year and all these films as well as other ones. A great read and really fascinating to see what was going on at the time. I've purposefully held off on seeing some of these so now it's finally time to dive in and experience them for the first time.

1967 Best Picture

In the Heat of the Night

I feel like this is a forgotten winner. No one ever seems to talk about it in Best Picture discussions and when I thought about 1967, I had trouble remembering who even won. You can look at this year as one that changed the Hollywood landscape with some great films that pushed the medium and society forward. There's even been articles and a book written about this year and it's importance to film. Just as I'll explain about the others in their reviews, this film pushed the envelope on what viewers were used to and expected. The film is about a murder in a small Mississippi town. Sidney Poitier is rounded up because he's a black man alone in a bus station so obviously he is the one to have done it. Except that Poitier is a homicide detective from Philly who happens to be down there. He is eventually let go as a suspect and begrudgingly begins to help the local police chief who doesn't really want his help, either. The film is a murder mystery but really is about the racial tensions of a small town in the South. It's important for that reason as we see Poitier in a position of some authority able to stand up to racists and sort of strike back at them, sometimes literally. Rod Steiger's white police chief pushes back against Poitier in the beginning but we eventually see the two work together to solve the case and ultimately respect each other. The murder mystery aspect mostly takes a backseat to the racial tension and power dynamics throughout the film and so it's not a super fulfilling whodunit. Poitier comes off as perfect and solves a lot of the issues easily in order to get to more confrontations and explosive moments. The film is really compelling, though. I was hooked into figuring out who was responsible and to see what, if anything, would happen to Poitier's character. The acting is very good and Steiger won a Best Actor Oscar for his efforts. The music by Quincy Jones adds to the overall feel of the picture and it's got a nice theme song. I don't feel like I just watched an all-time film, though. I enjoyed it a lot but it hasn't even stuck with me after watching it and while it's a strong film message, I can't shake that maybe one of these other films should have won? I'm not sure but I am feeling underwhelmed even though it seems like an important film to have watched.

Bonnie and Clyde

This has become such an iconic film with a lot of moments that we remember. It also changed the Hollywood landscape forever as being one of the first films of it's kind with widespread popularity and critical acclaim. The fact that it came in the same year as a couple other films that changed the landscape is a sign the times were really changing. This film was one of the first to show visceral violence on screen. One of the first films to use squibs to show blood, it's a very bloody and violent film that is made all the better in not totally romanticizing the actions of this pair. I also like how their really is no romance at all in the film. Early on Beatty tries to bed Dunaway but it doesn't work and we learn he's impotent or at least in that moment is. This relationship aspect mostly simmers underneath the film and never comes to a boil. I actually would have loved to see this addressed as well as the other relationships in the film, too. There's a lot of emotional complexity that only gets scratched a little and is left to the actors to display what they can. The acting is brilliant. A great cast of Dunaway, Beatty, Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons, and Michael J. Pollard. All were nominated and I agree with some over others but the acting is the strength of the film easily. It has some great dialogue and some scenes that are etched into film lore forever, namely the final death scene. I think some films just touch a nerve and hit a mood that people seem to want and this film does that. Compared to today's films, it's not that violent or shocking, but that this kind of film was in 1967 is pretty incredible. I'm glad to have finally seen it and can agree that it's a classic for sure.

Doctor Dolittle

Man, this film just sticks out like a gangrenous thumb. And it pisses me off knowing the story behind why it was nominated among these classic films. The story is that these huge, big money musicals were falling out of fashion and were box office flops. This film didn't do so hot when it came out and was a critical disaster as well. So naturally the studio, Fox, decided to lobby hard for it to get nominated at the Oscars so that the film could be re-released and recoup its money. That lobbying paid off as it now sits ignominiously among these truly great and all-time films. We could have had something else added like a Cool Hand Luke to what could have been arguably the greatest Best Picture group ever. Instead, it's a two and a half hour musical about a guy who talks to animals. And really it's not that entertaining. It did win Best Song and it is probably the only song you'll possibly have heard from the film. Fair enough. But the film is too long, and surprisingly, original cuts were even longer! The interesting sheen of seeing the animals wears off rather quickly as they just stand there while Rex Harrison talks at them. Harrison's performance is mild at best and it was reported that he took a while to decide to take the role and once he did never gave it his full attention and was a huge wanker on set. After the beginning it becomes a snooze fest. There's not any real action pieces, there's no love story (not that it would have helped), the supporting characters are pushed to the side until convenient, and the animals are your garden variety without anything wild or fun like tigers or bears or the like. The songs become increasingly dull and repetitive. Some of the animal effects/props are actually impressive, while others are laughably bad. The pink sea snail thing at the end is horrendous to look at and feels like some bad joke. There really isn't that much positives to find in this film. It's a rather forgettable musical whose only goal was to sell merchandise for Fox and make them money of which it did neither. It is absolutely one of the worst nominees in this category not only by virtue of being an obviously terrible standout in this group, but also because it's just plain boring and uninteresting even with a fun premise. Really wish I could go back in time and somehow convince Hollywood this wasn't worth voting for or lobbying for a nomination. One of the worst Best Picture nominees easily.

The Graduate

If you're looking at this group of nominees and you ask the normal movie goer which film won Best Picture, no doubt they'd say this film probably 90 times out of 100. I actually forgot this didn't actually win when I got to this year. It is indeed a classic but wow is the direction and style so incredible for this film. This was actually the first time I have seen this film, so I don't have any weird attachment to it or anything, I just adore Mike Nichols and what he does with this story and direction. I love so many of the iconic shots that we've seen over and over, but I also love those amazing shots that don't get clipped ad nauseam. There are so many great shots in this film like when Hoffman is in total darkness talking to Bancroft who is totally lit up. I love the handheld camera shots throughout the film because it feels fresh and new. This is simply a vibrant film that has so many amazing scenes that you can't even remember them all. And I'm not talking about all the quotable lines or the iconic shots. I'm talking about the moments in between that make you say wow even though it's just Hoffman laying on a pool float. You can definitely say that the film subject is pretty weird as Hoffman bangs Bancroft reluctantly at her urging, then goes out with her daughter and wants to marry her. It's totally 60s and it totally works. There are many iconic moments and it just says something about the 60s counter culture of the times. Many other brilliant things have been written and said about this film, but I can easily recognize that it's a classic and is one of those touchstones in film where people see it and then go on to be amazing directors or actors or whatever. It is an incredible film that everyone should see at least once, if not twice because it has that kind of appeal. A great American classic.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Sidney Poitier. That's who's coming to dinner along with some other folks. Just wanted to get that tired joke out of the way now. This is another one of those films from this year that completely changed Hollywood and film forever. It features an interracial couple who are engaged to be married coming home to the white woman's parents for dinner where they'll meet the black man marrying their daughter and his parents. This is significant because it had been rarely portrayed on film, especially by such a venerable cast like this one. And the fact that only a couple months prior to its debut was interracial marriage, or miscegenation if you want to learn an interesting word, made legal in the US. While this film was being shot, it was actually illegal in 17 states! That's embarrassing and a shame because who the fuck cares who marries who? But the film itself is actually quite good. I've read a lot of recent reviews that call it dated or stagey and yeah, it is. It's from 53 years ago right now. I was actually thoroughly enjoying this and I have already seen it a couple of times. I was laughing and cringing and riveted to what would happen. I do hate that Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy have a black maid but I get it's point in the story. I like the performances and I like how they arrive to the big Tracy monologue at the end that makes the audience feel good (if they aren't a racist piece of shit). I feel like it still feels relevant to today. Mixed marriages aren't as controversial but they still cause a lot of drama in today's world for some people. That level of uncomfortability isn't as bad, but it still can be an issue. And this film tackled it over half a decade ago! I don't know if this was Best Picture worthy exactly, but I know that this is a very important film on the Oscar list.


Another year after 1968 that I've wanted to watch for a long time. It's considered a pivotal, classic year and it did not disappoint. There are four really great films and then one absolute stinker. Doctor Dolittle is not an Oscar quality film and had no business being nominated at all. The backstory of it lobbying to get nominated and Fox telling it's employees to vote only for it are bullshit and one of those things I hate about the Oscars. I just want the best films of the year in this category and that film is not it. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is an Oscar worthy film even though I questioned it in my review. It is important and a good film and I'm fine with it being here. It would have been a fifth vote except for the stinker that was in this group. But I'd say it belongs for sure. Bonnie and Clyde really did change film forever with its violence and realistic look at the two robbers. It's a very good film that deserves its classic status and to be in this group. In the Heat of the Night is my runner up. I actually really enjoyed it because of the two leads and the fact that it is very frank and open about racism. It pushes the boundaries of film and was entertaining to boot. The Graduate ends up my winner as it is an all timer and the acting and direction from Mike Nichols is fresh and exciting and game changing. It's an amazing film that deserves an Oscar win. This was a great category to watch and I can only hope they keep being as great as this one was.

Oscar Winner: In the Heat of the Night
My Winner:  The Graduate
In the Heat of the Night
Bonnie and Clyde
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Doctor Dolittle

Leading Actor 1967

Wow, just look at those names and tell me that isn't one of the best collection of actors ever in this category. Names like that in the films they are in have me hyped that this is gonna be a fun one to review.

1967 Best Actor

Rod Steiger - In the Heat of the Night

I feel like if you were to guess the Oscar winning performance from this film it would have been for Sidney Poitier. I don't think anyone remembers this win, sadly. Probably because his competition is freaking out of this world with some top notch names. But Rod Steiger won and I'm okay with that. Maybe I would have liked a Newman win here but he won eventually and Steiger was never nominated again and I love one time winners. Steiger is a white police chief in a small southern town that has a murder happen and Poitier is first accused because he happens to be a black man alone at night at the bus stop. Except he's a homicide detective from Philly and soon helps Steiger with the case. What I like about Steiger in this role is that this isn't some stereotypical, cliche white police chief character. Yes, he's got the drawl and some casual racism going on but he's a real nuanced character that isn't just some goon with a white hood. He wants to solve this case and listens to Poitier even though it goes against what he wants and believes. He knows that Poitier has a lot to offer and even goes with him to question the town's wealthy, racist landowner which at the end of it puts himself in trouble. Because he won't just get rid of or kill this uppity black man, some of the residents push back against Steiger. Steiger plays it like a real person that is hard on everyone around him including his inept officers. We get these glimpses where Steiger is more than just some southern guy and opens up a slight bit like the scene where he and Poitier are resting at Steiger's house. So there is a some depth to this character that shows he is more than some casual racist. He comes to respect Poitier by the end and we see he is a good person deep down. Steiger has great chemistry with Poitier and it shows in the performance we get from both men. It's a very good, quietly strong performance from Steiger and I'm cool with it winning here.

Warren Beatty - Bonnie and Clyde

You know, I have watched a lot of Beatty's performances and while I like him because he's so charming and likable, most of his performances are lacking any real depth. Beatty is mostly a surface actor, depending on his good looks and charm and obvious acting ability. But there's a lack of depth that I've seen in a lot of his performances that I wished he would have given us. This one needed it even though his version of Clyde Barrow isn't bad or wrong at all. It's like the lack of emotion is his thing in acting and while it serves the character well here, I just can't help but think if we got something deeper if it wouldn't have been really amazing. There are glimpses of it, like when he is angry at his brother's death and those moments are great. I don't like that the relationship with Bonnie is so devoid of emotion on his side. Beatty is good at playing the cool guy version but, again, I just wanted more and that's what screams at me with this performance. He's obviously very good in the action parts with robbing the banks and getting into gunfights and police chases and charming whoever needs to be charmed. That part of the performance is effortless from Beatty and you can see why he leans heavily on that tactic. It's good and it works and it seems like what he naturally is like as a person. I feel like Dunaway and Hackman do a much better job in the film and that surprised me because I thought this would be his film. But still, I don't want to sell the film short or say Beatty is bad. Many people will absolutely enjoy his performance and love it a lot, no shame in liking what is a good performance overall.

Dustin Hoffman - The Graduate

Honestly, this is one of Hoffman's best performances. I know he has two Oscars and a bunch of other nominations but his first one is a thing of beauty. I think it's because it distills his normal performances down to a potent truth. We first connect with Benjamin Braddock because he is distant and anxious. He then meets Anne Bancroft who has him drive her home and then seduces him. He abstains at first but then relents in the future. He is awkward as hell, nervous and bumbling, we see ourselves in him as a male audience. But we also enjoy him eventually fucking Bancroft often because we are designed to live through Hoffman. It's a shock when he dates the daughter and then wants to marry her so that he even moves to California to pursue her. He grows from this shy, timid virgin to a guy who is overconfident. The first date with Katharine Ross is a nightmare because he thought he should sabotage it. He's a good guy deep down and we see that. Though the sequence of him going to California and stalking Ross is really not a good look these days. He's obsessed and his confidence almost does him in. So I guess it's almost like a real life stalker. But the point is that Hoffman is finding his footing as an actor. Is this his absolute best work? No. But I do believe it should be considered among his best work because it has so many different emotions and reactions that he needs to showcase. And so many of those are iconic to Hollywood and film in general. So yeah, Hoffman does a great job with the performance and it is better than some of his other nominated work.

Paul Newman - Cool Hand Luke

I sure do love me some Paul Newman. Makes great salsas and frozen pizzas and all the profits go to charity. Swell dude. He was also a pretty good actor. This is one of my all time favorite films as well as one of my parents' favorites. It's just an awesome flick that should have been nominated for Best Picture but sadly and infuriatingly wasn't. And this might be my absolute favorite Newman performance, too. Newman plays the eponymous Luke. He's a guy who gets arrested for cutting off the heads of parking meters one late night while drunk and gets sent to a chain gang type prison. He's a war hero that doesn't like authority and doesn't conform to the norms and is by his own admission just passing time. He's an anti hero type, someone that comes off as effortlessly cool and laconic yet doesn't want anyone's love or attention. Newman owns the role and that smirk of his suits the character well as does Newman's own laid back, effortlessly cool style. His presence alone defines the character without having to say or do anything. This is a guy who just doesn't care any more which to me points to some war time trauma that is only very briefly alluded to. He has issues with God and doesn't believe in him and curses him during a rain storm. I like that we have this unexplained depth and back story that Newman is able to mine to great effect by making us wonder just what went on before his prison time. This is a man that has a lot going on deep down that we never really get to figure out what he's dealing with and why. It makes Luke a bit mysterious and Newman is able to parley this into a very likable character despite how alienated his character can be at times. There are those moments where Luke yells at the other prisoners to stop feeding off him and give him room to breathe and when he breaks down with the bosses and warden - those are real moments that belie how cool Luke is and everyone else thinks he's doing on purpose as part of a plan. He admits that it's because he was really broken in that moment and there was no ulterior motive which humanizes Luke to us and is just a fantastic job by Newman to express all of this. This is truly one of my favorite performances from one of my favorite actors and everyone needs to see this one.

Spencer Tracy - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

The main reason Tracy was nominated is probably threefold. It was a veteran nomination for a guy who won back to back Oscars in 1937 and 1938. The Academy really liked the film with 10 total nominations. But what probably really did it, and I say this without any hatred or anything like that, is that Tracy died 17 days after finishing filming for this film. So this was one of the rare posthumous nominations. Tracy was obviously well respected and got a lot of attention for this performance. I probably should have said fourfold in my first sentence because Tracy does give us a very good performance so it's his natural acting ability on display as well. A lot of critics at the time praised it but a lot of people recently have denigrated the performance and I feel like the film and performance have been unjustly maligned. I like the performance. Tracy goes through a lot of emotions but is not a physical actor in this instance. He isn't wearing anything on his face or throwing things around or anything like that. His is all internal and we see a guy flip flop a couple times and then deliver a hell of a final monologue. His final monologue is probably why he was nominated. It's a thing of beauty and even the reviews that don't like the performance mention how good it is. It just lays out why he is wrong in not wanting his daughter to marry a black man because they are truly happy and he remembers how he initially felt with his wife and that's a universal feeling. I really enjoy Tracy in this role and his performance which isn't groundbreaking but is pretty solid overall. Some other people might argue that Sidney Poitier should be here in his place for this and for In the Heat of the Night but I think Tracy holds his own. Poitier probably should be nominated in some capacity but I can only say Tracy isn't awful and I enjoyed his performance.


Man, I gotta talk about Sidney Poitier. This year saw him in 3 critically acclaimed films in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, To Sir, With Love, and In the Heat of the Night. I would assume he split the vote with himself to not get nominated but like what the fuck how do you not nominate him in his best film year ever with 3 great films? I feel like he should be here and I know he already won an Oscar but still. Representation matters and I will keep saying that forever. But who do you knock out? All of these guys are pretty great in some capacity. I guess Tracy would be the one to go but it's a tough decision no matter what. Either way, this is a really strong group overall. Tracy would be my fifth place guy. Good performance but just not as strong as the others. Beatty is great as Clyde even if he needs to bring more depth to his roles. Hoffman is so good and this is possibly my favorite role of his in an Oscar sense. I was hoping it would be good but it blew past my expectations and really is a classic film and performance. Newman would normally be my winner but I'm cool with Steiger getting the win because Newman also won later and probably should have had some other wins in there, too. Newman is just so damn good and it really highlights what makes him good as an actor, almost like a cool anti hero. Steiger is really good in his role, too, where he has to show more than just being some dumb, racist, hick cop. Great chemistry with Poitier and some great nuance and balance to a role that could easily have no depth at all. What a fantastic group of guys that also could have been better with Poitier. I'm happy with this one, though, even if I do kinda wish Newman would have won.

Oscar Winner: Rod Steiger - In the Heat of the Night
My Winner:  Rod Steiger - In the Heat of the Night
Paul Newman
Dustin Hoffman
Warren Beatty
Spencer Tracy

Leading Actress 1967

A group of huge names in some films that are considered classics has me excited that this could also be a pretty great group of actresses and performances. It's all I'm ever hoping for out of the actress categories since they seem to let me down more than the actors. So let's find out shall we?

1967 Best Actress

Katherine Hepburn - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Honestly, I can't believe she won for this performance. This feels like the Academy wanting to reward her again after so many years since her first Oscar. This film was a landmark film that changed Hollywood and brought interracial marriage to the forefront just as it was legalized in America. Very timely stuff. Hepburn plays the mother of the white girl who brings her black fiancee home and his parents also join in the dinner party. Basically what I got from this performance was that Hepburn is good at reacting and looking. Sure, she talks a bunch but a lot of the key moments are her reactions to being told her daughter is marrying a black man or her husband being told the same. I don't feel there is a ton of acting being done by Hepburn in this film. I am also distracted by her constantly watery, shiny eyes that make her look like she is always on the verge of tears or actually crying. It's hella distracting and you wonder why no one spoke up about how bad it looked. But even then, she just has this sort of statesman kinda vibe to her as she moves through the scenes. She's a great actress and has history with Spencer Tracy, but she doesn't offer up anything truly interesting in her performance. She is motherly and concerned and offended and welcoming and shocked. All things any other actress could pull off with ease. This feels like a win based on her stature and standing in the community and maybe about the issues as well. Just not a good win considering she would win the following year for a really great performance that actually made her look years younger than this one did.

Anne Bancroft - The Graduate

Yes, Mrs. Robinson was trying to seduce you. What's weird is that this is considered a leading performance. Bancroft is really only in about half of it, maybe less. She does have an important factor on the outcome but still, she plays second fiddle after less than an hour. Yes, Bancroft seduces Hoffman and the way she does so is so flipping hot. She denies it at every step and comes up with a convincing reason as to why she wants Hoffman to unzip her dress. As the audience, you are also questioning whether or not she is seducing him. She plays that sexy but demure character so well and it's weird to think of Bancroft acting this way because I know her as Mel Brooks' wife. It just feels weird to see her in that way, though she was a multi Tony and Emmy award winning woman. She could play whatever she wanted. The thing is about this performance is that we don't get any reasoning as to why she cheats on her husband with a younger man. We also don't really get to see that fury and anger of Hoffman dating and eventually boning her daughter that I feel we should. There are some scenes where it's brought up but it never feels pressing or important. So it's really weird to see this guy just bang both mother and daughter without much push back. Bancroft was a previous winner so maybe that was why she was nominated in Best Actress. It has certainly become an iconic portrayal, but we classify it as such based on a couple scenes. Bancroft is great throughout the film with what she is given to do, but I don't feel her arc is rational for any woman. It's interesting and iconic, no doubt, but I don't see it as leading.  That's my big issue. But anyway, Bancroft is pretty good and the film is a classic for a reason.

Faye Dunaway - Bonnie and Clyde

I feel like this is the performance that everyone knows Dunaway for, though I think her work in Network and Chinatown is brilliant and her work in this film lead up to her Oscar win later. To state the obvious, Dunaway plays Bonnie, the young and beautiful bank robber. We rob banks! An iconic, yet simple line that shows the enthusiasm of this young girl getting out of her meager existence in a small town. Bonnie was captivated by Clyde and egged on his criminality and helped escalate it to more than just robbing small banks. The film never shows the two stars be intimate except to show that Clyde wanted to but was impotent in that moment. This took out the sex but left the emotional relationship as complex and Dunaway showed that in her face and manner with Beatty. There is this yearning and intensity to the performance as we see in a scene where she takes him to the bedroom and he wants to get back to the others. These emotional depths and undertones aren't really explored much in the film. They are left to simmer just under the surface as the action is more important than the relationships and emotions. Dunaway is great at having this sort of quiet sadness along with being wild and ready to cause mayhem and rob banks. There is a scene where Bonnie visits her family and she clearly misses her family, yet her mother is cold because she's a criminal and doesn't want her near her. Dunaway shows how devastated she is by this revelation without giving in to histrionics. It shocks her and she realizes there will be no happy ending. I like that Dunaway is way more than just a pretty face. Her performance has to tread through many different emotions without really getting to explode except for when she demands to see her mom and family. The balance is key for Dunaway to succeed because it elevates her above just being Beatty's arm candy. She stands out on her own and we see just how fierce and delicate she can be as an actress and it's totally engrossing. We see those strong performances to come in this one and it has become an iconic performance for a reason. I'd even say she's better than Beatty and it's great to see a performance like this opposite of him.

Edith Evans - The Whisperers

This was Edith Evans' third nomination in five years at the twilight of her career and life. She was an older English actress whose name is unfamiliar to me despite having three total nominations, which will no doubt be more common as I go back in time. The film itself is really quite boring. It's kinda neat to see a little known or remembered black and white film of the late 60s. But this certainly feels like the Academy wanting to reward Evans for her career, as evidenced by her flurry of nominations in just a couple years. She plays an older lady who lives on her own and is a bit eccentric. Her son visits her and hides some money he stole at her place before going to jail. Evans finds it and starts making plans and casually tells a random lady stranger about it and of course that stranger schemes to get Evans stinking drunk, kidnap her, take her money, and leave Evans for dead in the cold. Evans is found and sent to the hospital and authorities find her long estranged husband who also takes advantage of her before leaving due to working for some gang. The second half of the film is more about the husband and really doesn't give Evans anything to do. Prior to that, she is a very paranoid, kooky old lady. Loves her son who just uses her and is mostly just a harmless, doddering old lady. I keep saying she's just an old lady but that's basically what the performance is about. It's more interesting that a story like this could be made into a film. I didn't get much out of the performance so I will have to wait to see her other couple of nominations to see what kind of actress she truly is.

Audrey Hepburn - Wait Until Dark

I was thinking about Audrey Hepburn and how I actually haven't seen very many of her performances. I've seen a couple, I think anyway, but I know she's one of those actresses that never really gave a bad performance. I should do my due diligence and seek those out to watch. I know I'll get a couple more instances in this project though. I was actually really interested in this performance because it's not a Hepburn film that you think of when seeing her name. I would be hard pressed to find someone who knows this film and performance. It's actually a really interesting film, though! Hepburn plays a blind woman and her husband accepted a doll from a woman he was on a plane with and that doll had drugs in it. So some con men and a murderer try to find the doll while they try to trick Hepburn by pretending to be other people and accessing her home. It's a psychological thriller that I guess was a play before this. I would assume the reason Hepburn is nominated is because she has to play a blind woman and go through the physical aspects of that or because it's just name recognition in a weak year. I really like Alan Arkin's performance in this film as the murderer guy. Very creepy and unsettling. As far as Hepburn, she really doesn't do much other than be scared in the majority of the film. And overly trusting to random people showing up to her home. Hepburn is fine but it doesn't really evoke any strong feelings for it. Meaning I watch this and go okay that was a film and then move on. We all do that for a ton of films but I hate doing it for this one. It seems like it should be a really cool performance that is only lukewarm. The film is interesting especially for late 60s and would make for a cool remake in today's world. I just wanted something more than Hepburn pretending to be blind and acting in a blind panic. Interesting film, not that interesting of a performance.



Not a bad group this year, if just a bit underwhelming. I had high expectations that weren't exactly met, but I wasn't completely letdown overall. We can start with Evans who it feels like she got nominated because she was old and respected and the Academy loves doing that sort of thing. She got 3 nominations in 5 years and that feels like them trying to get her an Oscar for whatever reason. Her performance is kinda blah and she's not even in the second half of the film that much. Audrey Hepburn gets nominated because she plays a blind woman and that's the only reason why. Play someone with a disability as a respected actress and you'll more than likely get in. She was okay, but I can't call that Oscar worthy. Katherine Hepburn had no business winning an Oscar for that performance. Especially since she won for a really great one the next year which of course the Academy didn't know would happen yet. This just reeks of them trying to get her another Oscar because they like her and she was in a well liked film. It's decent but she doesn't really standout in the role to me. Bancroft is runner up because she is really a supporting character. I do love what she does with the character and how unique and vibrant her performance is. I'd have given her the win if she were in the film more after the first half. Bancroft really surprised me with how great she was. Dunaway ends up the winner almost by default, though she is very good in the role. I enjoyed that she was a complete person and not just arm candy for Warren Beatty. She was actually way better than he was and we see just how good she would become. Again, not the best group but not the worst either. Some decent performances and a chance to see some people I haven't seen yet. Just hoping that 1966 can deliver me something great.

Oscar Winner: Katherine Hepburn - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
My Winner:  Faye Dunaway - Bonnie and Clyde
Anne Bancroft
Katherine Hepburn
Audrey Hepburn
Edith Evans

Supporting Actor 1967

Some huge films and some great actors in this group. This is my favorite category and it always seems to come through for me. I fully expect that this one will do the same.

1967 Best Supporting Actor

George Kennedy - Cool Hand Luke

This is one of my favorite films of all time and it makes me happy that Kennedy won an Oscar for playing Dragline. His character is the unofficial leader of the prison inmates and he sort of sets the rules and influences everyone. He's a giant Southern man who is illiterate but ultimately deep down is a good person. I don't think we ever learn what he actually did to end up in the prison. We initially see him as this hulking, domineering bully who runs the show and comes up against Paul Newman's character. That conflict is solved early in a boxing match that shows Newman getting his ass kicked but doesn't stay down and keeps coming no matter what. That earns the respect of Kennedy and the other prisoners and from there we start to see Kennedy look up to Newman. Luke doesn't like authority and is just there passing time and does whatever he wants, so Dragline respects that and gives everyone else someone to live vicariously through almost. There's joy in cheering Luke on with his egg eating challenge or his escape attempts or his standing up to authority and real respect and tenderness when Luke's mom dies. These are mend that needed something or someone to rally around in their harsh existence and Luke offers that salvation for a bit. We see that Dragline is not just a big tough guy, but a guy who just needs someone to believe in to make him into a softer person. One criticism I saw said there was a lot of overacting by Kennedy, but I don't feel that's true. I feel everything is done well as Dragline is a bit over the top by design and comes off a bit goofy in his adoration for Luke. I think Kennedy does a great job in portraying this man who has a few more layers than we initially see. I feel this is a really strong supporting performance that makes the film and Newman's performance much better and that's all I can ask for out of a supporting actor.

John Cassavetes - The Dirty Dozen

I feel like if you're a dude, you've seen this film before. It's like some machismo right of passage, but that hides the fact that it's a well done, entertaining, pretty great film in its own right. Cassavetes is the lone representative for the film that did win one Oscar for Sound Effects. But it's got a smorgasbord of talented male actors from Cassavetes to Lee Marvin who probably would have been nominated in Lead in a weaker year. To Charles Bronso, Telly Savalas, NFL legend Jim Brown, Oscar nominee Richard Jaeckel, Donald Sutherland, Ernest Borgnine, and Oscar winner this year George Kennedy. Kind of crazy that Cassavetes made it out of that group as the nominee. But Cassavetes plays the prisoner that first makes an impression by challenging authority and constantly does so throughout the film. He stands out as the trouble maker and it's why we remember him. That's essentially what this role is and why it stands out on its own. He has moments of redemption and then he is killed in the end so that we don't really get that successful, fulfilling arc. Cassavetes is good in the role but is more representative of the film than what he is as an actor and he readily admitted that. Dude was an Oscar nominated screenwriter and director along with being an actor so he knows what he's talking about. A film that is a classic and is very much worth watching for the ensemble of the 60s.

Gene Hackman - Bonnie and Clyde

This was Gene Hackman's first Oscar nomination and thus my last time reviewing his work. I was thinking about how I've never seen Hackman give a bad performance and I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. I read that he was motivated by people in his acting classes saying he would amount to nothing and then he goes off to become one of the best actors ever with two Oscar wins. How's that for nothing? This was Hackman's first big film role and if you told me this was him at the start of his career, well I'd ask just how could his classmates and instructors say he would be a failure? Because this is a very good introduction to the acting of Hackman. He's got so much life and energy and honest, raw emotion that you just recognize it as another great performance from the man. He plays Buck Barrow, Clyde's older brother. He's been in prison and has a meek wife and seems thrilled to meet up with his brother who is on the run and join his gang. The energy Hackman brings is necessary because Beatty adds something different as do the other actors in this. I'd say that Hackman stands out even with Beatty being pretty great and Faye Dunaway being solid, too. Buck keeps Clyde in check and is just having a great time being together as a family. It's really great supporting work and it feels more authentic than anything else in the film. Definitely my favorite performance in this star studded film and what a great introduction to one of the best to ever do it.

Cecil Kellaway - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

The only thing I can say for this nomination is two things: this might just be a veteran nomination and I'm pretty sure he just rode the wave of love for the film. I assume the veteran thing came into play because Kellaway doesn't have much to do in this film. The performance is paper thin. He plays a Monsignor who comes to the house where everyone is because Spencer Tracy was supposed to golf with him earlier. He comes to see what's up and then is dropped into the middle of a crisis. But still he doesn't really do much. He talks with his friend, Tracy, who he takes advice from and makes some jokes but besides that he is a background character. I laughed at one point in the film as all of the main characters are talking about the marriage in various places alone with each other and we see a shot of the Monsignor chilling on the couch waiting for everyone to stop huddling and come out and drink with him. It was hilariously unintended but describes the performance. It has some warmth to it because he doesn't care about the wedding and doesn't react in a shocked way, but this isn't Supporting Actor material.

Michael J. Pollard - Bonnie and Clyde

It's interesting that Pollard also got nominated alongside Hackman because comparing the two is like comparing an apple with a bridge - there is no comparison. Now some of that is due to what kind of character Pollard has to portray. He plays C.W. Moss, who gets picked up by Bonnie and Clyde to drive them to and from their bank robberies. He is a rather slow in the head gas station attendant who is easily swayed by the two charismatic leads and hops in with them to prove he ain't scared of them or robbing banks. He's a gentle soul and Pollard portrays that innocence and mild mannered warmth to a great degree. But Moss doesn't need to be played any differently or the character would be lost in the film. Pollard balances out the alpha male dynamics of Hackman and Beatty well and gives the audience a connection to this gang of bank robbers. No real stand out Oscar moment, the character just exists in the film which makes it sound like Pollard does nothing but it's just a quiet performance. I don't know if I would have nominated it, but here he is. Being the least memorable performance in this film isn't too shabby when you have some real heavyweights taking up the screen time. I wished that maybe Moss would push back against his father when he decides to turn in Bonnie and Clyde, but it's fitting that the character is just a pushover who does what he's told and nothing else. Kind of a sad realization and portrayal but can't be upset at a performance that does it's job for the film.


This is a pretty good group of actors, if a bit top heavy. Kellaway has no business being nominated as he simply came along with the love his film had. I would much rather see someone else in his spot who contributed to a film in a meaningful way. Pollard I think also comes along with the film and if he was replace, I'd be cool with that. He just doesn't get a lot to do with that star studded group. Not much his fault but I'd still rather have something that stands out instead. Cassavetes is representing his huge cast and probably is one of the more noticeable actors in it and that's why he gets in. Hackman is probably the best actor in that film, at least on par with Dunaway and watching him is a treat. If it had won and Kennedy wasn't nominated, I'd be fine with that. But Kennedy deserved the win to me and not because I love the film but because it brought so much to the film. I love when performances do that in a supporting role. A decent enough group and no stinkers, just some that don't have much to do. Looking forward to 1966 now.

Oscar Winner: George Kennedy - Cool Hand Luke
My Winner:  George Kennedy - Cool Hand Luke
Gene Hackman
John Cassavetes
Michael J. Pollard
Cecil Kellaway