Leading Actor 1965

I know I seem to say this with each new year in this category, but these are some heavy hitters. Big names that I expect big performances from in films that should be pretty great. That's the expectation so let's see if they deliver on it.

1965 Best Actor

Lee Marvin - Cat Ballou

I never knew anything about this film but was always interested that Lee Marvin had won an Oscar. I have always seen him as the macho tough guy in action films and the like but never really a serious Oscar contender. After finally watching this, I'm left scratching my head a bit. The film is about Jane Fonda, who is the eponymous Cat Ballou, who returns home to her father's farm in the west only to learn there is a price on his head and then he is quickly killed. She becomes kind of an outlaw. Sounds like a great Western drama, but this is a Western comedy and a pretty decent one at that. Marvin plays a dual role in this film which maybe contributes to his win. He plays a drunken sharpshooter who can only shoot well when drunk. He is hired by Fonda to help protect her father and then tags along as she (and he) gets revenge. His other role is the drunken sharpshooter's brother, who is the villain and has an admittedly pretty dope look with an iron nose and black attire. But that character isn't in the film very much and Marvin doesn't really show up until over a half hour into a film that is just only over an hour and a half. Now, Marvin is quite hilarious at times as the drunk. His comedic chops are there and his physical comedy is also pretty great, which it has to be for a drunken character to work. I also would hesitate to call Marvin the lead actor. I guess in the context of the film he is, although Fonda is the lead and there are other male characters who get just as much time as Marvin does. And the unsatisfying thing about the film is that we don't even see the fight between the best shooter in the West and the evil villain. It's done off screen, which most likely is because Marvin plays both parts, but come on! That should be the highlight of the film! So Marvin makes funny quips and stumbles around and is there when you need him in hilarious ways but that's about all the performance offers. A good comedy performance that is entertaining to watch, but for this to win an Oscar? I can't quite figure it out. Marvin was also in Ship of Fools that was heavily nominated, so maybe that is part of the reason. I don't want this to sound like I'm bashing Marvin because he and the film are wonderful, just not exactly award worthy in my eyes. It's got a great and catchy title song, though.

Richard Burton - The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

Richard Fucking Burton. This man has become one of my absolute favorite actors of all time through this project as I have enjoyed all of his nominations. Luckily enough, I still have three more to watch after this one. As you can guess from the title, this is a cold war spy film. I won't call it a thriller because there isn't much action, but that is by design. This is not James Bond running around the world getting into all sorts of trouble. No, this is Burton as a spy who has come in from the cold from his Berlin station chief position to be unceremoniously dumped by the agency. Or so it seems. It's a cold war spy film so you can guess, like I did not too long into the film, that there is more to this being fired than we understand in the beginning. Spoiler of sorts but it really should be easy to guess that something is up. Anyway, Burton portrays his spy in a very straightforward and mundane sort of way. In the beginning he sees an agent of his get killed crossing Checkpoint Charlie and doesn't really react. Once out of the agency, he becomes a drunk who spends what little money he has on alcohol and food and is hired as a librarian assistant. He is the antithesis of Bond and is completely unsexy or charming. He's just going through the motions and eventually lands in jail after beating up a shopkeeper in a drunken rage. Recruited by East German agents to defect, Burton's spy does it simply to get paid. He essentially claims he's just another bureaucratic cog and joined for money and because it was a job. So we see the kind of man Burton is portraying his spy as is this boring, mundane guy whose motivation is money and not service to country. You might think that Burton isn't doing much in this performance, but there is so much subtlety and layers to this character that it only really becomes apparent once we see it to the end. I like that he is just a regular guy doing his job. By the end of the film, you can see he has lost a bit of faith in humanity as evidenced by his monologue about how spies aren't perfect people. It's just another strong performance from Burton that I thoroughly enjoy. I love that he can have so many different sides to his acting like I'm peeling away another layer of his acting onion. Can't wait to see what else he gives me in the coming years.

Laurence Olivier - Othello

You look at this name and think that this is going to be a really great performance to watch. It's Shakespeare and Olivier, how awesome will this be? But man, this is such a bad film. For many reasons, I think. From what I read, the budget wasn't much so that's why the production design is so sparse. The same few areas over and over with really drab brown colors and just walls and columns. It looks terrible. But then you get to witness Olivier in black face. Yeah. I understand that this play has been done like that for centuries I guess, because Olivier plays the black Moor character. But he looks so damn awful. Like really terrible in that get up. He comes across as looking dark gray or charcoal and not like an actual black person. He also has this weird baritone voice he decided for the character that he apparently worked on for months. He also created an accent and an affected walk. I do have to give Olivier some props for being so dedicated to the character and the play that he went all in with it. I don't actually begrudge him for any of that because it's evident he was just so into being a Shakespeare actor that he forgot how it would look. He got criticized even back in the 60s for these choices which actually makes me happy, although he was still nominated for an Oscar. It's just an absolutely ridiculous look that is legitimately hard to get past when watching. Not to mention Olivier hams it up the entire time. Yes, he may be fully committed to what he thinks is greatness and I like that quality, but it doesn't make it good. He really does dominate every scene and I truly admire people that can memorize whole damn plays and perform them start to finish. It always blows my mind. I like that Olivier really lives in the words Shakespeare wrote. He's looking all over the place, moving around, just really inhabiting the story and making it seem like this is the first time these words have ever been uttered. That's why I say I like the passion Olivier exudes but it just is a bit misguided, especially in 1965. It's not a very good adaptation, honestly, and I really like the Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne version the most. I'm glad that Olivier already had his Shakespeare Oscar because this wasn't it.

Rod Steiger - Pawnbroker

I feel I downplayed that Steiger had any other nominations when I reviewed his win in 1966. He had a couple including in my favorite film of all time which we will get to eventually. I had never seen or even heard of this nor knew it was nominated. But I learned a lot about it. It was the first film to feature boobs with a production code seal and one of the first, if not the actual first, to take on the Holocaust with a POV angle. The film is interesting and is about Steiger who runs a pawn shop in NYC and we see him deal with his clientele and the neighborhood shakedown. Steiger reminds me so much of a later Marlon Brando, which is ironic given my favorite film of theirs. But he has that quality to him. Shuffling around, all business going through the motions. Like I said in the next year's review, Steiger has this quiet distinctness to him. He says so much with just his actions and with his demeanor and his looks. I'm not gonna lie, I was blown away by this performance in the beginning. The film takes after some French directors with the flashbacks and the on the street style, but Steiger just dissolves into the role. Compare him to the racist cop or the mob brother and this is completely different than those performances. This is unique and so strong that I was thinking Steiger was my new favorite actor. The second half of the film brings him back down to earth a bit but Steiger still does some great work to consider him one of my favorites. The film itself may be out of the running but Steiger hits all of the fucking notes I want. Subtlety is key and Steiger never lets on to how this thing will end and I appreciate that. I enjoy the flashbacks, however brief, for what characterization they bring to the man. I want to know more about him and what happened during his camp time and why he turned out the way he did. I like how his life outside the Holocaust is a series of living in cages at his work and home and all that. Great directing by Sidney Lumet. This is a really interesting film with a performance that actually transcends the film. It's way better than the film and deserves someone not experimenting and who could make the serious Holocaust aspect stick. Great performance in an interesting film.

Oskar Werner - Ship of Fools

This is a film I enjoyed more than I thought I would because it's one of those ensemble casts. I would say that Werner does seem to be the most focused on actor in the film so his nomination here makes sense in that regard to me. He is the doctor of a ship that is sailing from Mexico to Germany. It seems like he's getting ready to end his time as the doctor of the ship and move on and we later learn he's got a heart condition. His story in the ensemble focuses on his interactions with Simone Signoret's countess character. She is being sent to a prison on Tenerife and if an opiate addict, so that's where we see them start to bond. We later realize these are two people hopelessly bound to their impending fates, as Werner's heart condition is more serious than we realized. The two even start to fall for each other and we see that hopelessness on their faces even as they persevere onward, together. The title does say Ship of Fools and I guess we see how these two are fools to find comfort in each other, yet it makes sense they would. The two characters have great chemistry just as the two actors do and that's why this story is the heart of the film. We see more of the doctor opening up when with the countess than in the other parts of the film. Werner is brooding and someone we see to be a good person in dealing with the Cubans on the deck and with being irritated by the Nazi sympathizer at the captain's table. Werner internalizes a lot of his character that we see only come out when with Signoret and this choice makes the connection and performance more tragic and endearing. Werner really is the heart of the film and it's such a well done performance. He is definitely a big part of why I enjoyed the film more than I thought I would.


A pretty huge group of names, this was a decent enough category. Not top tier by any means, but certainly an entertaining group. I don't agree at all with the win for Marvin. Maybe they are rewarding him for playing two characters in the same film or because he was in two big money films this year, I don't know. I don't think it's a strong enough performance to be a winner especially when there are three guys here who I think do a better job. Olivier is easily the last one in this group because of the whole black face thing and because he hammed it up hard. I'd rather watch Marvin play a funny drunk than Olivier do this again. Marvin is next followed by Werner who surprised me a bit. Ensemble film about people on a boat and he elevates his performance beyond just being some token cast member. He was also in Burton's film, so I'm sure being in two high profile films really helped him out. Steiger blew me away and I just wish that film had been a bit more cohesive because what Steiger was doing was so good. His trauma and loss of faith in humanity is heartbreaking to watch and in another year he would win. And he also had two big films with Doctor Zhivago. It's like a theme. But gonna give this one, again, to my guy Burton. I've probably given him like four Oscars so far, but he has deserved them for sure. Can't believe he never won and was beat out by shit like Lee Marvin's performance. Burton is a legend and this is my part in rectifying that. As always, looking forward to the next year.

Oscar Winner: Lee Marvin - Cat Ballou
My Winner:  Richard Burton - The Spy Who Cam in from the Cold
Rod Steiger
Oscar Werner
Lee Marvin
Laurence Olivier

Best Picture 1965

I am finishing these categories a couple days after the 93rd Oscars, which was kinda fun and kinda controversial and mostly the same. I enjoyed it because I'm a diehard, but also had my issues that I'll eventually go into when I get to 2020 after I do the 60s. Hopefully before the 94th Oscars next year! But I have been looking forward to this group because of the films below and being a mix of big and epic and small and never heard of, which is compelling to me. Let's dive in shall we?

1965 Best Picture

The Sound of Music

It always seemed weird to me that this was an Oscar winner for Best Picture because I had always seen it as this popular musical but nothing more. I don't even think most people realize it is a BP winner, honestly. I didn't until this project and had never seen it all the way through until just now. This is unequivocally one of the best musical films ever created. It was a Tony winner for Best Play/Musical a couple years earlier and has some of the most recognizable songs from a musical that even some average joe could pick out and hum easily. That's one of the main things about the film is that almost all of the songs in the film are iconic and recognizable and just plain catchy and good. They add to the film overall and never detract from the experience. They fit into the story and make sense. Obviously it helps that they are so good that people that have never even seen the film know the songs. The story works and the acting is decent enough. Christopher Plummer is suitably great at being so annoyed and dismissive and stern because he actually hated making the film so much. Even hated Julie Andrews during the filming, though they became friends eventually. That chemistry, or lack of it, makes the film better because it does feel true to life. The kids are actually pretty good and that honestly makes the film for me. If they were obnoxious or intolerable, I'd hate on this one easily, but they do a good job as just being characters. Some of the shots of the mountains are breathtaking and it's a great looking film overall. It's really easy to see why this was such a huge hit. It made a lot of people happy and had great songs and acting and looked wonderful. When a big money maker is also a critical darling and well liked in the industry, you get a pretty big no-brainer for Best Picture. I enjoy this musical a lot and I think most people watching this, even for the first time, will love and appreciate it as well. I still don't know if it will be my pick for this year, though! Got to see the others first to be sure.

Darling

This is one of those films that I think no one remembers or knows much about other than maybe that Julie Christie won Best Actress for her role in this. It's one of those Swinging 60s films from Britain, although not as wild as some of those films. It's a story about Christie, who is a young woman who essentially sleeps her way to the top of society and in her modelling/fashion job. That's really what the film is about, focusing on Christie and her relationships, I guess. Sometimes in watching films for this project you come across one that just bores the snot out of you and this is one of those. I had nothing to connect to in this film and worse than being a bad film is being a boring one. For some, this may be something they enjoy, but I just couldn't get into it. I felt that Christie was fine but not anything special or amazing. The story of a woman who just moves up in the world because she's pretty doesn't do much for me. The film has a cynical viewpoint for Christie and that seems the most real in the film, that despite ending up a Princess and having all these men and fame, she's still pretty miserable inside. The film itself looks amazing on Blu-ray and it is pretty stylish. But this film feels like something contemporary and faddish that captured the Academy's love, a real snapshot of the mid-60s. This was nominated for five awards and won Actress, Costume Design, and somehow Original Screenplay, though looking over the nominees they were not very strong. Not a whole lot to say on this one. Watch it for yourself and see if you are into it, but I for sure expect more out of a Best Picture nominee no matter the decade.

Doctor Zhivago

If you love classic films, you should already know this one and what you're getting yourself into. If this is new, well, welcome to the world of the David Lean epic film. It is epic in all the ways, especially length, clocking in at just under three and a half hours. For many, that will be a detriment. But I happen to love these kind of historical epics and Lean does a great job of pacing this film so that there is no real lull. The story is about a few people before, during, and after the Russian revolution and mostly about the love story between Zhivago and Lara. Many people are fond of their love story depicted in this film and I think it's perfectly acted by Omar Sharif and Julie Christie. My complaint is that Zhivago had a good thing going with his wife, yet chose Lara. I guess I can see how their shared crises would bond them together and naturally they would fall in love, but I really liked his first wife in this film. But that's a silly, minor complaint. The film is beautifully shot, in Spain of all places and not Russia. It looks amazing with some wonderful direction from Lean. I love that we see all of these outside sets and landscape and how the world is populated with tons of extras. In some of today's films, the CGI that replaces actual locations can be terrible and so can having just a few people when there should be a lot. The scope of the film is incredible and the acting from most is pretty on point. The standout is Rod Steiger who maybe should have been nominated in Supporting, though he was in Lead for another role. His Komarovsky is so layered without any traditional arc. He comes off as a real person, flaws and all and he is great in the film. Tom Courtenay is also very good in his role as the revolution leader, one of, anyway. It's just one of those classic films that is a classic for a reason. Don't let the length deter you because it's very rewarding and honestly entertaining for the whole film. I'm very glad I'm in the age of the historical epic and look forward to some more, especially from lean in my future.

Ship of Fools

This is one of those ensemble films where a whole bunch of characters interact in a location but have their own little stories going on at the same time. This one takes place on a ship, naturally, returning to Germany from Mexico in 1933 or so. It stars a whole slew of Oscar winning and nominated folks like Vivien Leigh, Lee Marvin, Simone Signoret, Oskar Werner, Jose Ferrer, George Segal, Michael Dunn, and Lilia Skala. Now, sometimes you get a group together like this and end up with something like Voyage of the Damned or Airport, where the films are kinda boring because the parts are greater than the sum. I actually quite enjoyed this film, though. The film is a microcosm of 30s society and the coming World War as evidenced by Ferrer's Nazi sympathizing businessman who openly detests Jews and gets one a German man who is married to a Jewish woman kicked out of the Captain's table when dining. Other stories are the Jewish man and the dwarf who are outcast from the start who strike up a friendship. There's an American ex-baseball player who is a drunk and a creep who hits on and assaults the women. There's a young American couple, artists, who have jealousy and dependency issues. I liked this one the most, due to Elizabeth Ashley's acting and Geroge Segal, too. There's a Spanish flamenco troupe who have the women whored out by the man male leader. There are 600 Cuban deportees who are being shipped back to Cuba from Mexico. And the main story of the ship's doctor (Werner) and a woman (Signoret) who is a contessa with an opiate problem being shipped to a prison on Tenerife. So there are a lot of stories going on, but they all kinda coalesce into a watchable film where the different stories intertwine. The acting is wonderful all the way around and the stories are mostly compelling to watch. The issue you run into is that some of the scenes go on for so long. There was a scene in the middle of the film of a dance for the first class folks that seemed to go on forever as all the different people in the film had their moments. This film is all about the acting and the stories being told. If they were bad, the film would sink miserably. But it had me invested all the way through even though I was expecting something boring. Not much else to be said, you're coming to see the famous names and a good story and you won't be left disappointed.

A Thousand Clowns

Hmmm. Another forgotten Best Picture nominee. I was intrigued going into this because I didn't have any idea of what it could even be about. And it's an interesting film for sure. It's about Jason Robards' character who is an unemployed TV writer who takes care of his like 10 year old nephew. Robards has a dry sense of humor and is always cracking jokes that aren't obvious he's saying something funny, making quips out of literally everything. It's a technique of deflection to not think about his unemployment and having to seriously take care of his nephew and himself. For many people, Robards and his nephew, Nick, will come off as annoying and I was with them in the beginning. The film also cuts oddly at times in the beginning that detracts from the overall experience. I did read that the initial cut had no scenes of the city shot to show location, so some of that cutting seems like they edited they original to add stuff which came off as weird. Speculation on my part but it's disjointed in the beginning before it settles in. It also has that 60s vibe of we are gonna be a bit different with our directing style. It does settle down and then the story becomes that Nick might get taken away from Robards and a duo of social workers come to check them and their place out. Robards charms the woman, Barbara Harris, and they start a fling. There's lots more sarcastic banter and dark quips and then Robards realizes in order to keep Nick he needs to get a job and rejoin society and the thing he hates. It feels like a progressive film in that it's kinda railing against the current corporate world as Robards just wants to live his life freely and without being confined to a work schedule. Some people just won't like the film because of Robards' character and some people will praise him through the roof. I think it's a pretty well done performance because Robards has to be a specific way and gets us to feel strongly about him and the situation and the film. I'm of the mind that I'm glad I saw this because it feels not of the 60s but also does if that makes sense. What's interesting is how exactly did this get nominated for Best Picture because this certainly doesn't have a BP feel to it. And Martin Balsam, who plays Robards' brother and is barely in the film or much of a factor, wins Best Supporting Actor. Like what? There's gotta be more to how this film did so well with the Academy. All I can figure out is that it was a Tony winning play, very awarded at that, so maybe that's why? I would recommend seeing it to figure out what you think of it and if it belongs in this category or not.

This is kind of an up and down category like I mentioned in the intro. Big films we know and small films we don't. Doctor Zhivago is my winner. I really enjoy historical epics and this was just really entertaining all the way through the three and a half hours. Good performances and just lovely looking. I'd say The Sound of Music is second. It's a very good musical, probably one of the best with some highly catchy and recognizable tunes. But I don't feel it's all that strong as a film. Hugely popular but Zhivago just trumps it in being a film. Darling is next because it does kinda sit in the middle. Not a fan of the Swinging 60s London films, but the performances are decent and it's a look into a certain time frame and culture. There is stuff to like in this film even if it can be boring and lose me at times. A Thousand Clowns doesn't have that Best Picture feel to it, so it's an interesting one to watch. Feels very of the moment and tries to say something interesting. I don't think it really succeeds and the actors can be annoying, but it has something to it, I think. Othello has been done better by others and that black face thing ain't it, chief. This could have and should have been way better but I feel we are left with a husk of a film. Really wanted to like this, too. Again, up and down and very inconsistent. Not a strong year but I like my winner a lot. Hoping, as I do every year, that the next is the best ever,

Oscar Winner: The Sound of Music
My Winner:  Doctor Zhivago
The Sound of Music
Darling
A Thousand Clowns
Othello

Leading Actress 1965

Some names I know, some names I don't Looking forward to finding out about some of these I have been wondering about. Really starting to get antsy about getting out of the 60s but I've only got myself to blame. This project just seems never ending! But I'm getting there, so let's go.

1965 Best Actress

Julie Christie - Darling

Probably not the Julie you thought would be the winner if you had to think about it. But Andrews had won the previous year for her first film and so Christie gets the win here. I honestly can't say that I like the film all that much. I was mostly bored, although not directly because of Christie. She is a young, beautiful woman who gets noticed on the street and then begins modelling. She makes her way to the top of society by sleeping with a bunch of different guys and ends up a Princess in Italy, but unfortunately is miserable inside despite that. I couldn't connect with the film and Christie being so pretty that she just easily sleeps her way forward in society, that kind of story doesn't resonate with me. Christie is perfectly fine in the role. She is gorgeous and does all that is asked of her. She has to show off a few different emotions at times and I think the Academy took note of that. Like when she's in Italy and her new husband leaves her she goes through this big empty mansion getting more and more worked up before she strips naked after having tossed some items around. She also has a breakdown when she flies back to London and one of her ex boy toys has sex with her out of revenge and tells her to leave when she wants to spend her life with him now because she's lonely. She ended up a Princess yet is wholly unhappy and tries to escape that life before returning and facing it, despite being so melancholy. Christie does the heavy lifting in the film and she's totally fine. I didn't think it was amazing work, but the performance does work for the film. I just don't really care for the film and that's a tall hurdle to get over. Christie may end up being the best choice for the win, but see it for yourself and figure out if you like her and the film more than I do. I actually forgot that Christie was in Doctor Zhivago this year as well, so the win makes sense in that regard. She gets nominated because she was in two Best Picture nominated films and gets a win out of it.

Julie Andrews - The Sound of Music

I am a fan of Andrews since I saw her in Victor/Victoria. I've seen her in many other films since because of the project, but she has only had three nominations in her career. This was her second consecutive nomination after she won for her film debut playing Mary Poppins. I honestly think that if she had not had that win already, she probably would have won for this film. It was a huge smash hit and Andrews plays a role very similar to Poppins. She's trying to become a nun but they don't really want her and send her to be a governess to the Von Trapp family. She teaches the children how to sing and is super upbeat and positive and just a wholesome person over that she eventually wins over the stern Christopher Plummer who plays the father. What is interesting is that Plummer kinda hated Andrews and definitely loathed the film while making it and I feel it works for the film and for Andrews. His annoyance and dissatisfaction feels more real because of that but also makes Andrews winning him over, as she did in real life, all the more poignant. And it just feels so much more true to life and makes the performance better. Even not knowing that background between the actors, the performance is still one that is pretty solid. Andrews is charming and a great singer and dancer and easily wins you over with her wonderful personality. Same for her Oscar win and for her third nomination. This is what you get with an Andrews performance. In her other films I've seen that have been nominated in other categories, she is identical to this and I see that as a plus. She is the reason this film (and the others) are so successful. Without her, this film does not do as well. And I love that I can see Julie Andrews' name and know exactly what I'm getting out of her performance wise. It might change a bit, but it will always have the same dedication and personality we've come to expect and know. I really enjoyed her in this film.

Samantha Eggar - The Collector

This is a super interesting film, honestly. It's about a guy, played by Terence Stamp, who sees Eggar out and about and then kidnaps her and holds her in like a basement area on a farm. He tries to get her to love him while she tries to escape. It's a psychological thriller film that doesn't seem like it would be something you'd find in the mid-60's. Oh, and it's a William Wyler film, too, which shows how varied his works were. Eggar's character is a young woman who enjoys art and painting and reading and is pretty modern in her appearance and views. Her character does everything she can to get away from her incel captor. She plays a submissive role, she tries to flirt and seduce him, she tries to escape multiple times, she even gets violent. Her attempts are clever and speak to her intelligence and will to survive. One time she is tied up in the bathroom after someone knocks on the door and uses her foot to turn the bath on and overflow the tub and get the attention of her captor and the man who came knocking. It doesn't work but we see how strong she is inside to risk her life to try and get attention to her being there. When she has an opportunity to attack Stamp and hit him in the head with a shovel, she feels compassion for the man after seeing his bloody, dazed face. This allows him to overtake her but also speaks to just how good of a person she is and how terrible the circumstances are that she finds herself in. The story is mostly just her trying different ways to escape, so she runs the gamut of emotions from angry and sad to defeated to determined to happy to cunning and so on. Unfortunately the ending isn't very satisfactory no matter how realistic it is. Eggar gives a good performance in a film that I wasn't expecting to have such dark tones to it. Maybe not the most impressive performance, but certainly one to point to as a strong female character.

Elizabeth Hartman - A Patch of Blue

I feel like I'm not gonna do this review and performance justice. Not because it's so great or so bad that I can't quite articulate my thoughts on it, but because I kinda forgot about this when writing my reviews. I wrote the one for Shelley Winters and then moved on. This was Hartman's debut performance and I think that is an advantage for her performance. Hartman plays a young blind woman living in poverty with her abusive prostitute mother and drunken grandpa. As much as her mother rails on her both physically and verbally, Hartman's character keeps a positive outlook on life and is as happy as she can be given the circumstances. She is a very naive and innocent young girl and that's where I think this being Hartman's debut performance comes into play. She plays this young woman as almost child like and that's where the aw gee whiz and hokey nature of the character can shine without it looking terrible for Hartman as an actress. Her personality is a bit infectious and you start rooting for her to strike back at her mother and to break out of there. The film is about how Hartman goes out to the park, which itself is a struggle, and meets Sidney Poitier's character. She obviously has no idea he is black, but is just so delighted to meet someone and gain a new friend. It's very wholesome and obviously speaks to the films message that color and class don't or shouldn't matter, just be a good person. Hartman's performance at times can seem like she is playing a lost puppy who has been found and just has all this boundless love and energy to give. Poitier wants to help her out especially as he learns of her situation and she falls in love with him. This part is handled deftly as Poitier encourages her to go to a blind school to learn and interact with others and sort of lets her down easy. Hartman takes it in stride and is a better person for it. It's a wonderful little film that is made in part due to Hartman's believable performance. We believe wholeheartedly that she is this innocent young blind woman who finally has a chance to breakout in her dark world. It's a great debut performance and it's a shame we didn't get all that much more from Hartman in her career as this was a great tone setter.

Simone Signoret - Ship of Fools

This is an interesting pick for Best Actress because this film had an ensemble cast and Signoret could have easily been in Supporting or someone else from the film in this spot if the Academy was so inclined. Signoret already had a win in this category in 1958 for Room at the Top, so maybe that's why she gets the nomination here. Signoret plays a countess from Cuba who is being sent to a prison on Tenerife in the Canary Islands who is also an opiate addict. Most of that information is lightly touched on in her story with Oskar Werner's character who is the doctor of the ship. They meet when she asks for sleeping pills and the two develop a bond. As we see later, it's because the two are hopelessly bound to their future. She is going to prison and the doctor has a heart condition that is worsening. They bond, but also start to fall for each other and as the days go by, the pressure of the mounting realities hits especially hard. Signoret has this warmth and charm to her that belies her desperation and inner turmoil. The chemistry between she and Werner are evident and the story does seem to become the main effort of the film. This is a very understated performance and Signoret has to convey a lot while doing a little and it works out well for her. It's one last yearning and human interaction for both of them before the inevitable and is somewhat romantic and sentimental. It's a good performance and I'm eager to see what Signoret can do for her Oscar win in a few years.



Honestly, a pretty solid group! There isn't one in this group that I don't like and that's rare. I'm gonna role with the Academy here on the strength of Doctor Zhivago and her win. I like her as an actress and those two definitely show her range. Not the best win ever but I'll leave it as is. Andrews had just won for Mary Poppins the year before so she wasn't winning here, though you could argue that she is better in this film. Would be a pretty fun debate, not gonna lie. Eggar has such an interesting film. It doesn't feel mid-60s at all and is that kinda psychological thriller genre and she's pretty solid. Middle is where she should be. Would recommend the film. Hartman is very strong in her naive young woman role and just has this raw energy to her that I liked. Wish she had done more, but I liked what we got here. And Signoret had already won an Oscar. Sometimes this is just the Academy going we like you previous winner friend, have another nomination. But she is again solid here and has great rapport with Oskar Werner. They elevate the film for sure. So this is a very solid group and if I can't have amazing, I'll take solid any time.

Oscar Winner: Julie Christie - Darling
My Winner:  Julie Christie - Darling
Julie Andrews
Samantha Eggar
Elizabeth Hartman
Simone Signoret

Supporting Actor 1965

Some real interesting films on paper and some names I'm not too familiar with, but that's gonna be the norm now. Can't wait to sink by teeth into these and hope that what I eat is nice and juicy.

1965 Best Supporting Actor

Martin Balsam - A Thousand Clowns

I am honestly at a loss to try and explain or figure out why exactly Balsam won the Oscar for this performance. He is not in this film very much, though that isn't a barrier to winning or being good. The film is interesting and features Jason Robards as an unemployed guy taking care of his nephew and who makes a quip or joke a second in dealing with his unemployment and not wanting to be a part of the rat race. Balsam is Robards' brother and we barely see him for most of the film. He pops in briefly now and then but nothing memorable. And then there's a moment where Balsam talks to Robards in a serious manner and says he needs to be better and get a job and that it's okay to have a job and it makes him better. It's not even an Oscar moment, just a scene where a brother gets serious and tries to straighten out someone he loves. That's legitimately it. I can't explain his win. The performance doesn't leave much of a mark on the viewer and if you take him out, the film is about the same. Balsam isn't bad, but Balsam doesn't do anything to warrant a nomination let alone a win. I feel like I have to dive into this one and see exactly why he won. Industry favorite? Furious campaigning? Paid off people? I don't know but these kinds of wins frustrate me because I know there are better performances in this same category. Academy gonna Academy.

Ian Bannen - The Flight of the Phoenix

I would wager that most people have seen this film. It's just one of those movies that people seem to have seen for whatever reason. And I'm not talking about the shitty 2004/5 remake they did. This is a classic survival film with a great cast. Starring James Stewart, Peter Finch, George Kennedy, Ernest Borgnine, Richard Attenborough. It's the perfect Saturday afternoon movie you find on TCM or even before that on some other channel and you get sucked in. Basic story is a plane full of people crash in the African desert and have to survive. Some make it, some don't. That's the whole film as we watch them react and try to put the aircraft back together again to get out of there. It's pretty great and a really enjoyable film. My surprise is seeing Bannen as the nominee amongst these huge names. Bannen is a Scottish guy who is an asshole through and through. That is legit his role in the film. He just makes these sardonic comments throughout the film and that's his character. You watch this film and you might guess as to who is the best supporting actor and the last person you'd name is Bannen. No slight on Bannen, he's just doing what he is directed to do. But there are better performances within his own film and so this is a wasted nomination. I still don't know how he was nominated, I'm sure there is some reason you would have to dive into. The film is great, watch it - but not for who is nominated.

Tom Courtenay - Doctor Zhivago

I will be upfront that this is the last of the group that I'm watching and this looks like the clear cut favorite for me. I really enjoyed Courtenay in The Dresser and later in 45 Years, though he wasn't nominated for that one. Just one of those solid actors who adapts to the work and becomes whoever the character is. In this film, he is a nerdy looking, bespectacled Russian revolutionary. When we first see him, he's handing out pamphlets and leading peaceful marches until one of those marches is overrun by Cossacks and people are killed and injured. Every time we see him, he is deathly serious with a stony expression. But he also has a bit of a softer side in talking with and then marrying Julie Christie's Lara. They never seem like they should be together other than he is someone that would protect her and is around her age. Then we go through a lot of film until after the revolution has occurred and we find out he is one of the major players and now called Strelnikov. That hard ass demeanor and attitude again serves him well as we see how seriously we seem him take his responsibility. I like what Courtenay brings to the role and gives his revolutionary some real gravitas. We see this real hopeful, dedicated man become this cold and hardened version of himself later and that transition is personified with how he keeps tabs on Lara from afar. We don't dive too deep into Courtenay's character but we don't need to as he represents a certain part of the revolution for the film. He represents it well, too, and he is easily the strongest actor up here. I actually prefer Rod Steiger's Komarovsky character because it feels way more real and doesn't have a defined arc. But Courtenay does a great job in being that idealistic young man who becomes burdened with power. It's fascinating to see unfold and that lies mostly with Courtneay.

Michael Dunn - Ship of Fools

I am always interested in names I don't know and have never heard of because there is always that chance it's a hidden gem. This is not one of those but it is pretty interesting as Dunn is the only dwarf person to receive an acting nomination ever at the Oscars. He's a passenger on the ship that we don't really learn too much about personally. He is used more as a plot device than a real character. He addresses the audience in the beginning and end of the film directly talking to us about what we are going to see and what we saw. It seems mostly unnecessary for the film and I don't know if it was some framing device for the book that was more deep there or not. He does appear throughout the film, mostly with the Jewish character as they are shown to be somewhat outcast from the others. Not a bad actor at all and from what I can see had a solid career. He is just one of the few, if only, character we don't learn much of anything about which further hammers home he was just plot device for me. My guess is he just came along with the support of the film and maybe the Academy wanted to seem diverse but it kinda feels like a token nomination. It's good for Dunn, though, and diversity is always welcome.

Frank Finlay - Othello

Doesn't Frank Finlay sound like he would be some gangster in The Godfather or some Scorsese flick? Thinking about it, I'd actually love to see Scorsese's take on Othello. Iago would be a great character in his hands. And that's who Finlay plays in this film, the ever scheming Iago. I'm sure everyone knows the story from high school, but Iago is the guy who is mad he was passed over for promotion by Othello and then schemes to ruin the Moor in various ways. This is an interesting Supporting nomination because it's the longest Supporting nomination screen time wise for the category. Finlay is on screen for over an hour and a half and Laurence Olivier only has 3 more minutes than him. But in reality, this is Iago's play/film. Yeah, it's titled Othello but maybe it should be called Iago. The whole story is about him scheming to ruin Othello because he's mad. Finlay does such a great job in showing the machinations that he has. He avoids getting lost in Olivier's Othello and laps everyone else he interacts with on screen with his sharpness and cunning. I especially love the parts where he talks directly to the audience about what he's gonna do or is thinking. It makes Finlay more likeable as you kinda hate him more. But it also humanizes the story. Iago is letting us in on his secret and we feel like a part of the story. Finlay just does an incredible job as Iago and is one hundred percent my favorite part of this otherwise dreadful film. I enjoyed when Finlay was on, which is most of the film, and I just love how he plays everyone off each other. Finlay does it in this unassuming way. It's not a wink wink nod to the camera or some hyper performance. He's chill going about his plot for revenge and even his ending is kinda badass. I did all of this but I'm not even gonna explain myself. You're left to wallow it what it all means. Finlay does a fantastic job and it sucks that he's in such a bad film, because he is way better that this one.


Definitely a weak group, which is pretty rare for this category! Kinda sad it ended up this way because these should be some really great performances. Bannen just doesn't do much in his film and how do you single him out in that stacked film? Makes no sense. Balsam doesn't do much in his win and I can't figure out why he won. It boggles my mind. Watch it and tell me what I'm missing please. Dunn is unique because he's the only dwarf nominated in acting ever. That's pretty cool and I like that he kinda book ended the film. He just kinda floats on the periphery of the film otherwise, but he was decent at his role. Finlay was pretty good at Iago and that's definitely a role that can give you a nomination. Not the best I've seen in the role but a good effort. Courtenay is the clear and obvious winner to me. He has an arc and morphs from young idealistic revolutionary to hardened leader. He doesn't have to do much but excels at what he is given and what he does with it. Not a great group at all and really hoping next year is much better than this one.

Oscar Winner: Martin Balsam - A Thousand Clowns
My Winner:  Tom Courtenay - Doctor Zhivago
Frank Finlay
Michael Dunn
Martin Balsam
Ian Bannen

Supporting Actress 1965

Slowly but surely I am getting there. Glad to be halfway done with the 60s and happy to dive into these performances based on names I recognize and some big time films.

1965 Best Supporting Actress

Shelley Winters - A Patch of Blue

This was Winters' second Oscar win after her first for The Diary of Anne Frank. These are definitely two very different performances. I was wondering how to really explain my thoughts on this win and it basically boiled down to it being one note. Usually a bad thing as an actor doesn't change much or grow or budge from their comfortability level. It works for the character Winters plays even though it doesn't really leave me hyped up about the performance. Winters plays the abusive, ratchet mother of a blind woman. She's an awful person, a racist, an abuser, and a schemer. There are times where you'd say you want to see growth from a character. You want them to have an arc where they find redemption or learn or become better; but that isn't always true. It works for Winters here because her mother character is a true piece of shit and sometimes that is the reality of people. They are irredeemable. Winters didn't like this character as she was a huge ally of the Civil Rights movement at the time and worried that she couldn't do this role. So it's a testament to her acting abilities that she makes this woman into a truly hateable person. She plays it exactly how it needs to be done to not only show the racist, hateful attitudes of the day but also highlight how pure and innocent her daughter is. It just seems to lack some kinda oomph quality to it. Hard to explain but she is a shitty person but I needed a bit more to grab onto. I'm saying this without having seen all the rest of the nominees but I needed something more from this. It may end up winning for me, who knows, but it is a bit one note even though that's the point. I did like one moment where her daughter was happy and excited and Winters gives this look like oh I'll knock you back down to earth for even daring to be happy. It's a subtle thing and is what I was looking for, just wanted more of it. Winters is good, no doubt about it. Great actress who I am excited to watch two more performances of.

Ruth Gordon - Inside Daisy Clover

This was Gordon's 4th nomination, but her first for acting. She had 3 writing nominations before this and of course won her only Oscar for playing a crazy old neighbor in Rosemary's Baby in 1968. This feels like the typical veteran nomination to me. The film is one that I don't care much for. It stars Natalie Wood, Robert Redford, and Christopher Plummer. It should be a hidden gem, but it was not enjoyable to me. Daisy is Wood and she is an almost 30 years old playing a 15 year old, so right off the bat it's unbelievable. She overacts and the film is about how she finds her way into Hollywood who then chews her up and we see a rough life from there. It's a drama that has some black comedy tinges, but yeah, I didn't care for it. Gordon plays Wood's mother and has a couple scenes in the beginning where we see her playing cards and drinking and being a loud, quirky mother. It's a small role but you realize she's way more entertaining than Wood. Gordon eventually gets put into a mental institute once Wood hits it big in Hollywood so the studio can sell her as a tragic orphan. We see a bit more of her here and there but it never amounts to anything coherent or interesting to me. There's a promise of a great character who maybe should have been the focus of the film along with Wood and Redford, but we don't get that. This is the Academy trying to reward someone they loved after she made the switch to acting. It's a cool story for Gordon and she would reap that reward eventually. This one just ain't it.

Joyce Redman - Othello

So this was Redman's second nomination in three years, which tells me what I want to know about this nomination. The Academy liked her enough to include her in two ensemble heavy films as a nominee. But was that simply because of the well liked films she was in? Most likely. I'll have to wait and see on Tom Jones in two years, but I feel like it applies to this one. Redman plays Emilia, Desdemona's attendant or maid. She doesn't factor into the story all that much until the very end. Though she does have a pivotal scene where she gives Desdemona's handkerchief to Iago. The saving grace of Redman's performance is she is the most grounded performer in this film. Her performance feels most natural and underplayed while everyone else is going all out. I appreciate Redman for this reason and understand she's a good actress. She's like the calm in the story, the rational person doing her thing. But it really doesn't stand out to me. Anyone else could have done this. Maybe worse, possibly better. Redman is not bad at all, but she is mostly an extra character there like Roderigo is. Not sure this should have been rewarded and seems to have rode the wave of support for the film to a nomination -  and that's okay. Would rather have a great performance here, but it is what it is. The Academy liked her and of course liked Shakespeare even more.

Maggie Smith - Othello

What I have found out about during this project is that I am not much of Maggie Smith fan. I do like her Harry Potter work, but that seems to fit her more than beautiful young woman roles that she was in a ton, because I don't think she is pretty at all. That sounds pretty messed up, but if she is in those roles, I gotta believe in them. And her eyes are expressionless which I don't like. I've been open to everything I have seen of hers, but nothing has stuck with me in a good way. I am completely underwhelmed by her Desdemona, which to me should be beautiful and worth being jealous over. Also, her performance is rather tepid to me. I don't think she gets much of a chance to shine opposite of Laurence Olivier hamming it up in black face, but I wish she could have been more assertive. I don't know where that blame lies and I'm probably missing the point of Desdemona, but she just seems like something to act with like a prop and not act with like a person to balance a performance. That sounds extremely harsh reading it back but I feel that way. Of course, the film isn't that great having not had a lot money to shoot and it being a very austere stage shooting. Olivier acts in his own world and Smith is there to try to do her part. I'm not really a fan of either of the Othello nominations and feel like these could have been better served going to anyone else. As toxic as it is to say, I am glad I have no more Smith nominations to come. I'm just simply not a fan and this is certainly not a performance or film that could have changed that.

Peggy Wood - The Sound of Music

Yep, this is one of those short, easy reviews for the reasons you already know. Wood was obviously an older woman and from what I read, a TV regular. This is one of those nominations that is both purely here because the film was such a smashing success and because I think the Academy was rewarding her for her career for whatever reason. It absolutely does not deserve a nomination. At all. Wood plays the Mother Abbess nun. In the beginning, she doesn't think Julie Andrews' character belongs in the abbey and Wood helps convince her to move on. We then later see her towards the end as she "sings" Climb Ev-ry Mountain. In quotes because she was dubbed over by request and she couldn't match up the lip synching so the scenes are in shadows and her back turned at times. That's bad acting and it got rewarded with a nomination. I mean, it really doesn't add much to the film for me especially knowing she isn't actually singing. Yes, Christopher Plummer was dubbed over, but took the time to learn to play guitar and to sing for the role but producers decided to dub it over. There's a difference than an actor saying they can't do it like Wood did. It also probably took away a nomination from Eleanor Parker who was the Baroness and who would have been a better recipient from the film. Clearly you can tell I don't like these kinds of token nominees and we should always be rewarding the performances and not the career.


Yikes. None of these are stand out performances and it's easy to see why Winters won her second Oscar since no one else was even competitive this year. Winters is the only choice and that kinda sucks because she was okay, but would rather have a more deserving winner in this spot. Gordon is interesting due to the whole getting nominated a bunch for writing and then finally breaking through in acting. Her performance has some intriguing elements but it never really coalesces into anything worth voting for. Smith is the middle because she has way more to do in her role than the remaining two. I still don't really care for her and wanted someone with way more depth and energy in the role. Redman is along for the ride and is fine, but anyone could do that role. Wood clearly should not have ever been nominated and allowed someone more deserving the chance to be nominated. Really dislike performances and nominations like this one. All in all, an extremely weak year. One of the wrost I can remember in some time. Really hoping 64 can redeem this category for me.

Oscar Winner: Shelley Winters - A Touch of Blue
My Winner:  Shelley Winters - A Touch of Blue
Ruth Gordon
Maggie Smith
Joyce Redman
Peggy Wood