Leading Actor 1960

Going back we start to see these all star lineups where everyone is an acting legend. It's fun to watch these guys work and create that legend status in almost real time.

1960 Best Actor

 

Burt Lancaster - Elmer Gantry

 

I have said over and over how much of a fan I am with Lancaster's acting style. I just love his delivery and presence and it just works for me. It also works for this character who is a traveling salesmen and is a loquacious, wild man who catches a revival act with a pretty woman and decides he wants in on that grift. He weasels his way into Sister Sharon Falconer's (a great Jean Simmons) entourage and lies his way into delivering some testimony. This kind of role is right in Lancaster's wheelhouse because the guy he plays is so over the top and loud and he laughs at everything with a big toothy smile and it doesn't feel weird. It just fits him to a tee. This is a smooth talking, womanizing, manipulating guy who looks for his next play. He has an answer for everything and when called out by a skeptical journalist, he essentially defeats him with scripture and clever lines. Lancaster excels so much in this role because he can just let loose with this character and be so gregarious and charming while being serious at the same time. And it's like the film stands back and lets the viewer judge Gantry because he seems to get away with being a piece of shit to those around him. Lancaster is a force both verbally and physically as he just has that preacher energy and you kinda start feeling his energy. Just a great synergy of Lancaster's talents that resulted in him winning a well deserved Oscar. Definitely a must see for both him and Shirley Jones and Jean Simmons who should have been nominated.

Trevor Howard - Sons and Lovers

You will watch this film and observe this performance and then wonder why was Trevor Howard nominated for what is clearly a barely supporting performance. I may have the answers to that, though it is hard to understand why the Academy does what it does sometimes. This was Howard's only Oscar nomination in his long and illustrious career. You can go look at his filmography and see he is in quite a lot of great films (Brief Encounter, The Third Man, Ryan's Daughter, Superman, Gandhi, to name a few) and kind of realize what is going on. This was a chance to nominate someone the Academy respected and whose previous works they probably loved and wished they had nominated. But also, Howard was top billed in this film and the actual lead of the film, Dean Stockwell (who was pretty good) gets nothing despite doing all the heavy lifting. It just kinda feels like his billing and stature in the film community is what got him nominated and not anything he did onscreen. He plays the drunken, sometimes violent father of Stockwell, who is an artistic young man who wants a better future than just being a coal miner like his dad. Howard really doesn't do all that much in the film. We see him as this rough man who stumbles home drunk at times and assaults his wife and locks her out and then apologizes the next morning by making breakfast. He doesn't approve of Stockwell's artistic desires and is really just the one tie to the old, hard working lifestyle that the film has. Howard also doesn't really do anything amazing in this role. He does what is needed, but you're not looking at this like it's some great piece of acting. You are scratching your head wondering how it got nominated and in this category to boot. The film is worth watching but not for this performance. Go watch his other works to get a better appreciation for his talents.

Jack Lemmon - The Apartment

I feel like I should just change this to a Jack Lemmon fanboy blog because show me a Lemmon performance and I'll never hate it. He's just so fucking good at his craft and I love what he is able to do in every film I see him in. I love that he is equally great at both the comedic side and the dramatic side and when he puts them both together, just look out. This film sees both of those sides coming together. I thought going in that this was a mostly comedic film and it is equally comedic and dramatic. Lemmon seems to relish these dual roles because he knocks them out of the park each time. His comedic timing is impeccable and I have always loved his energy, but his dramatic sense of timing is also so great. He knows when to let a scene breathe and when to reel it in and defer to whoever he is working with. And it never feels insincere. You never feel like some funny man is trying out drama for the first time or some thespian is trying to crack a forced joke. He makes both sides work so well and it makes this film work especially great. He has great chemistry with Shirley MacLaine and it's a delight when both are riffing off each other. It's also nice to see that Lemmon never gives up what he does with his apartment and takes all the blame for MacLaine's issue as his own. It speaks to his character and is just one of those nice acting flourishes from Lemmon. He's got this sweetness and pathos about him that makes you root for him. I feel like I could give every win to my guy here, but there is stiff competition here that I am excited to see play out and figure who is best.

Laurence Olivier - The Entertainer

 

I went into this one completely blind. My guess was Olivier would be playing some entertainer (shocking!) and have issues making it big. Almost correct, but Olivier is playing a third-rate vaudevillian actor whose audience is dwindling. His actual future wife, Joan Plowright (with beautiful, expressive eyes by the way), is his daughter (lol) and our guide to see him struggle to find backing and be relevant. Olivier's character is a scumbag. He cheats on his current wife, doesn't care about his kids, and will do anything for money. When he is found out as a scam artist, the funding is withdrawn and he has to enlist his father to help him who is a vaudeville legend. His dad dies before things can go off and he entertains a paltry audience. Olivier is fantastic in the role, though. Read the previous bit and see me praising him, you're like whaaaat? Not the greatest character, but Olivier does a lot with it. The role was written for him by a progressive playwright who hated the old guard and Olivier challenged him to write something progressive for him. Genius by Olivier to stay relevant as the theater world underwent a revolution and then capitalized on it with this play and then film. Nominated for a Tony and obviously nominated for the Oscar. I love Olivier here because he acts old and has lived in this performance for awhile. Every response and movement is thought through. And his vaudeville persona is put to good use because we can see him as this washed up artist. He is trying to maintain it and keep it going, but that is obviously not succeeding. His character is fun but washed, and we only get the true glorious moments when we see when his funding is dried up or when speaking to his daughter privately. The character has so many dimensions that it can be hard to know what is the true Archie. It's an incredibly interesting character and performance that only Olivier could pull off and make into something digestible. Recommend this to see who Olivier is outside of the Shakespeare stuff.

Spencer Tracy - Inherit the Wind

 

This was Tracy's seventh of his nine nominations throughout the years, so I've got a lot more of him to come including his back to back wins. This film is about the Scopes monkey trial, which was about a guy being prosecuted for teaching evolution in early 1920s Tennessee where it was against the law. Tracy plays the Clarence Darrow character with a different name in the film and is the defense attorney for Scopes. It's a classic trial film and I love these types of films. Tracy is his usual solid self. It's very similar to his Judgment at Nuremberg work and the rest of his later work. It all looks so easy and natural for him where it doesn't look like he's acting at all and just playing himself. Some would call that a problem, but I have enjoyed all of these later performances I have seen. Put this up against Fredric March's heavily put upon and overacted William Jennings Bryan film counterpart and you can easily see the difference in style and tone with the characters. It kinda works, though, as the two butt heads in court and March is the more radical and fervently religious type, so his bombastic performance fits as much as Tracy's measured, pinpoint performance. Unfortunately, the film doesn't really go too in depth with Tracy's character. He's actually religious himself and not an atheist, but this isn't explored at all besides some mention at the end of the film in talking with Gene Kelly's character (who is excellent in this, by the way). This film felt more like two forces or ideas going against each other rather than any kind of character study or an accurate look into a notable historical trial. Still worth watching for Tracy and for being an entertaining trial film, though.

As usual, an excellent group of nominees. The lone head scratcher is Howard, who definitely should not have been nominated. I could see Kirk Douglas getting nominated instead for Spartacus. And if that was the case, I'd be hard pressed to even rank this group. I'll let Lancaster's win stay because I think that was probably some of his best work and just felt like a Burt Lancaster performance. Lemmon just doing what Lemmon always does which is give a performance that in a weak year would win hands down. Just great work from Lemmon, it's unbelievable. Olivier gives us a really interesting character that has all these different dimensions to him and it's fun to watch him work. Tracy is good and this film would make a great double feature with Judgment at Nuremberg. It's also a bit of the same flavor as that performance, so not really ever going to win, but still good. Just another solid year for this category with just a minor slip up. Looking forward to a new decade for sure, though.

Oscar Winner: Burt Lancaster - Elmer Gantry

My Winner: Burt Lancaster - Elmer Gantry

Jack Lemmon

Laurence Olivier

Spencer Tracy 

Trevor Howard

Best Picture 1960

Finally, we are at the end of the 60s and can move on! I'll actually be going modern with finishing up the two most recent years in 2020 and 2021, so that should be fun. But first we have an interesting group of films with some I don't know much about and am hoping, like always, they are some hidden gems.

1960 Best Picture

 

The Apartment

I kind of feel like for any big classic film like this I can just paste the whole I'm so excited to finally watch this film I've been putting off for forever and can't wait to watch it and see what makes it so great. And this is truly one of those films that earns and lives up to the perfect or almost perfect designation and is an honest to God classic that swept 1960 with Oscar, BAFTA, and Golden Globes (the first time ever for that). If all the awards shows were around now, it probably would have had like twenty Best Picture wins. I actually thought it would be more cute and charming, and it is, but it also has some serious dramatic moments I really wasn't expecting. It's more of a dramedy than straight comedy that I was anticipating and it made for a more enjoyable experience. It's a very adult type of film in that it is smart and treats the viewer like an adult and isn't so cutesy with serious topics. It also has some legit great performances from Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine and even the sort of villain figure of Fred MacMurray who was more of a loving father figure and his role upset some folks expecting that. The direction from Billy Wilder is fantastic and I actually loved his decision to basically do zero closeups as it helps set an intimate but not in your face intimate tone that makes the film better. I haven't even said what the film is about yet! It's about Lemmon who is an insurance guy at a big firm in NYC who lends his apartment out to a few executives in the company in hopes of getting promoted. Comedy and drama ensue from that and Lemmon falls for the elevator operator MacLaine who has other things going on. Trying to be vague because it is best to go in blind on this one and just enjoy the story as it reaches its end because the story is satisfying. Honestly, one of the better wins in this category and probably one of the few comedy/drama films that could challenge for tops among all currently now 94 winners. That's a high bar but this film clears it with plenty of room.

The Alamo

I loved these types of films when I was growing up. My Dad is a big Western fan and liked John Wayne, so on lazy Saturdays, films like this or Rio Bravo or She Wore a Yellow Ribbon would be playing and we'd sit and watch before going out to eat with the grandparents. I loved Wayne as an actor and thought he was so cool and all that. Then of course I grew up and you kinda get to know more about the man instead of the star. His politics aside, he was a great and prolific actor who many a young kid saw because he was always in Westerns and war films. This film was his directorial debut and he sank a lot of his own money into it. It was one of the biggest draws of 1960 but only began making money after about ten years. Don't feel like I need to really explain the film. Wayne is kinda miscast as Davy Crockett, but I guess it works in a larger than life kinda way. His militia from Tennessee goes down to Texas to help out against Santa Anna. They hunker down, defend, and then they all die. Heroic stuff. You can argue the actual history and merit of their actions and whether or not they are on the wrong side of history in trying to keep black slavery a thing in that area (among other controversial issues). Lots of good arguments to read online about that, but historical accuracy is not something to expect of Hollywood in the late 50s and early 60s and especially not of the ultra patriotic Wayne. The film looks good enough, not really any flashy scenes or anything truly memorable. Just a film that gets to the point and follows these rag tag group of men as they defend to their last man. In reality, the men who fought at the Alamo were rather cosmopolitan, with many from Europe and a large number were Mexican themselves. The Tennessee folks were actually small in number. The action is done really well, with lots of closeup on the fighting and no skimping on explosions and violence. The end fighting is the best part of the film and makes wading through the by-the-numbers beginning worth it. I don't know if this is really an Oscar worthy film, especially for Best Picture. Maybe the Academy was giving John Wayne some props for his first directed film, seeing as they hadn't yet given him an Oscar. Worth searching out because it is a decent film and has some good performances from Laurence Harvey and Richard Widmark. It's entertaining, just maybe not at an Oscar level.

Elmer Gantry

This film is essentially a film that lets Burt Lancaster, in the title role, go off and do his thing. He is Elmer Gantry, a traveling salesmen who sees a revival with a hot woman (Jean Simmons, who probably should have been nominated for Best Actress) and decides he wants to get into the religious grift. The film really does just allow Lancaster to do what he does best and that's why he won the Oscar for it. It's also why Shirley Jones, as a prostitute who used to know Gantry and then gets her house raided by his morality police and then tries to blackmail him but feels guilty. A complicated role that won the Oscar possibly because she was going against her good girl type, but I enjoyed a ton. The film is interesting because it's kind of against the revival, extreme evangelicalism, religiousness that was an issue. Though this is set in the 1920s, it parallels the 1950/60s at the time and while it doesn't seem to suggest either way is right or wrong, it allows the viewer to do that. Though I do wish the film would have hammered Gantry a bit for his behavior because it is obviously reprehensible garbage and the film seems to excuse his actions. That's my big gripe that this dude should be held accountable for his actions but he slithers out of everything and doesn't really suffer any consequences. This is a great film that feels relevant to today unfortunately because of the loser MAGA folks who eat up bullshit like these people eat up revivalism. Mostly a film to watch for Lancaster's performance but it's a film to make you think and I appreciate those.

Sons and Lovers

 

This was an interesting film because it was the one in this group I knew the least about and also has the most sensual game of cribbage ever filmed. It's an adaptation of a D. H. Lawrence novel, so you know you're probably getting something dealing with relationships and sexuality within an industrial setting. And that's exactly what this film is about. Paul (a possibly miscast Dean Stockwell, who is the only American in the cast because the producers wanted a recognizable name/face for American audiences and who has an iffy accent) is a young man who has an artistic gift and lives in an English coal mining town with his overbearing mother and a drunken, sometimes violent father who doesn't support his artistic notions. He loves a local girl, Miriam, who has a strict mother and views sex as sinful and dirty and prefers to keep their relationship more platonic, much to Paul's chagrin. An older, wealthy man likes one of Paul's paintings and hires him to pursue his gift as his patron. Paul meets Clara (Mary Ure) who is is very independent woman who is separated from her husband, a suffragette, and very in tune with her sexuality. That's where I'll stop because you can see how much is going on even with stuff I left out and the cavalcade of characters continues in ways you might not expect. It's a quick hour and forty minute film that is worth watching because so much intrigue is going on. I actually enjoyed Stockwell's performance, though the critics didn't quite like his casting. Ure is an interesting breath of fresh air and the black and white photography just lends more weight to the story. The story comes from well seasoned stock so it feels a bit more important and serious and may well be why it was chosen for this group. I don't understand Trevor Howard's nomination in Best Actor for playing the father because he barely factors into the film. And I feel like the story could be longer to flesh out some of the details and make things more fluid rather than just having one relationship suddenly end and someone is back in another place (you'll know when you watch). I think it would bring a bit more prestige and gravitas to the film, though I enjoyed it for what it was. Worth watching because I feel this might be a hidden gem for some, this is a mild interest for me.

The Sundowners

 

This film is one of the forgotten nominees that no one ever remembers or brings up when discussing Best Picture films. The actressexual idiots that I read when looking into Glynis Johns nomination all declared the film utterly dull and boring. That's why you watch the films yourself instead of relying on anyone to tell you how to feel about something, including me. I enjoyed this film a lot more than I thought I would which shouldn't be all that surprising with a stacked cast of Deborah Kerr, Robert Mitchum, Peter Ustinov and the aforementioned Johns. It was directed by Fred Zinnemann who was himself an Oscar winner previously and directed a few classic films. The film is a pretty straightforward telling of a family in the Australian Outback who rove around herding sheep all over. Kerr and her son want to settle down, but Mitchum is resistant as he loves the nomadic lifestyle. While herding, they meet up with Ustinov and drive the sheep to a town after escaping a brush fire and there they all settle down for a while. We have seen many films like this in the previous decade of the 50s and before where we follow one family as they go through life's ups and downs. This one just comes with a more exotic locale than simply the American West. What I love most about the film is the strength of the acting and the characters. It is pretty great all the way through. Kerr was nominated for Best Actress and you've got some really entertaining turns from Ustinov and Johns while Mitchum is his normally solid self. The supporting and tertiary characters are pretty good, also, which helps solidify the story for me. I was never bored and didn't find this film to be dull at all. It's got a good mix of comedy and action and drama to keep anyone entertained. There's a lot more that goes on once the family reaches the town with sheep shearing and horse racing, but I kinda love that the film doesn't really have a neatly wrapped up happy ending. It forgoes that for one where the family comes together again but still will have to continue struggling and I appreciated that it didn't just end in the most obvious way. The film looks great and of course the Australian Outback makes for a beautiful backdrop for a story. This is why we watch things for ourselves in case other people lead us astray and keep us from seeing something we actually enjoy.

A pretty decent way to end a decade. The Alamo was something I enjoyed as a kid, but never thought of it as a Best Picture quality film and I still don't. The weak link for this year. Sons and Lovers was surprisingly modern feeling to an extent and had some good performances. Elmer Gantry was a bombastic film for Burt Lancaster and got you thinking about how easy it is to take advantage of people with religion and we are still seeing that today. The Sundowners surprised me with how much I truly enjoyed it. Kind of a simple, straightforward story that shows life down under with some really wonderfully solid performances. And then The Apartment is an almost perfect film that has a lot to love about it and would be around the top of all time best Best Picture winners. I am really surprised, though, that Spartacus and Exodus didn't get nominated. Maybe subject matter plays a part, but they were the highest grossing film and a top 5 grossing film, respectively. I wonder what the story was behind them missing out in this category. Great year to end a decade and I can't wait to start the 50s, just have to make a little detour first.

Oscar Winner: The Apartment

My Winner: West Side Story

The Sundowners

Elmer Gantry

Sons and Lovers

The Alamo

Leading Actress 1960

Some big names here that we are going to start to see more of as we keep going back in time, so I'm looking forward to these below. Taylor's first Oscar I know has some controversy attached to it, but I'm hoping it's at least a good performance. Let's see.

1960 Best Actress

 

Elizabeth Taylor - BUtterfield 8

 

What is crazy about this nomination and win is that Taylor herself hated this film. Loathed it. It was the final film done to satisfy her contract with MGM after some legal wrangling and she didn't want to do it. So she did it along with her new husband Eddie Fisher, who is not very good in the film. It's about a call girl, prostitute, whore; whatever you want to call her. She is mad that a john gave her like $250 and her dress was ruined and so she steals a mink coat at his place. That john is Laurence Harvey and the two reconnect and start a relationship that damages his relationship with his wife. There are some complications but that is the film. I have always hated the title of this film and realize it had to do with an area code where BU and 8 equals 288. Also, the only reason Taylor won the Oscar here is because she was on death's door, literally dying, and that is why everyone voted for her. Like no shit, she had some pneumonia or something and was dying and the Academy was like oh, no! We haven't rewarded her yet so let's do it for this truly awful performance. And her accepting the Oscar was like this Jesus rising from the dead moment. The film is terrible and Taylor does nothing to make it great. It's just a whore who tries to get away with being awful and is confronted with her reality. Watch the film to see how it ends, but it's not good. That previous sentence seems harsh, but it is accurate for the film and the performance so I'm letting it stand. This in no way deserves a nomination, let alone a fucking Oscar win! It's crazy that because Taylor got sick that they just decided to say fuck it and give her a win. She deserves an Oscar for other works, but deserves garbage for this performance. It's not that great and deprives the others in this category of possible glory.

Greer Garson - Sunrise at Campobello

Wow, this is not what I expected from a Greer Garson performance. I know that she won the Oscar in this category for her role in Mrs. Miniver and I am excited to watch that film, but this performance just ain't it. I get that Garson is a respected actress but this is a totally awful performance that just misses on all accounts. Her choice to use that lilting accent that goes up and down as she speaks is horrendous. It makes no sense and sounds nothing like her and is just an odd choice. And that permeates the whole performance to where you can't really shake it and get over it. She looks nothing like Eleanor Roosevelt, which by the way I probably should have mentioned earlier, and just looks like Garson with fake teeth. The film itself is about Franklin Roosevelt's early years after he gets polio. Which the film can't say polio because of the production code, like what the fuck? God, I wish the Code never existed so we could have decades of films without that hindrance and maybe move Hollywood forward in the process. Anyway, the film only is good at the very end when we get to see the political maneuverings of picking a Presidential nominee which is fascinating and more media needs to be on that. Before that, the whole film is mostly filmed in rooms because it was based on a play so we get a ton of boring content of FDR in bed or at a desk. Garson is fine, whatever. She's really not great at all and something to overlook and wonder why she talks that way. A truly forgettable performance that should not have been nominated, not sure what the Academy was doing here.

Deborah Kerr - The Sundowners

Kerr (pronounced like Car, by the way, because I've been pronouncing it wrong for forever) has the distinction of most Best Actress nominations without a single win. This was her sixth and final nomination, though she would get an Honorary Oscar years later from the Academy. We will be getting very well acquainted with Kerr in the next decade so I was excited to see how she was in this film. I've seen her in a couple of her other nominated roles and just other films in general and she was always solid to great. That's no different here as she plays a wife and mother in a roving sheep herder family in the Australian Outback. One of those films where we follow a family through their trials and tribulations. Kerr is solid as expected and she really pairs well with Robert Mitchum who were good friends in real life and it shows. She plays the wife and mother role perfectly and is a sort of bedrock for the family and others they encounter like when she helps a woman give birth or encourages her husband to do a sheep shearing contest. She is supportive and caring and understanding, never really letting her frustrations of wanting to settle down get the best of her or her family. Kerr helps make this an entertaining film with a solid performance where she can play sexy, strong, lively, funny, and a hundred other adjectives. It's a good introduction to Kerr if you have never seen her on screen before. We will be getting to her more well known works in short time and I can't wait for that.

Shirley MacLaine - The Apartment

 

I always forget that MacLaine's lone Oscar win was for Terms of Endearment and not this film and it feels like she should have more than five acting nominations. I think that speaks to just how charming and talented an actor she is that I expect her to have many more. This is one of those films that people point to as being perfect or one of the best of all time and some of that is due to just how great MacLaine is in the role of Fran. She's so cute and charming but in a non purposeful way. She is just being herself and not some manic pixie dream girl and that's what attracts me most to the performance. It seems so effortless and she absorbs a lot of the attempts at flirting that the men in the film throw at her. She is unfazed at Jack Lemmon trying to take her out that it feels real. I love when the woman in a story is just nonplussed by whoever the lead of a film is that is trying to get in her pants or even just get her attention. It's better when the woman isn't some one dimensional piece of meat. MacLaine is certainly not that as her character has a range of emotional depth to mine. Without ruining the film, she has some dark moments and tough scenes to get through that she gives the seriousness they deserve. She can also have some great comedic moments and it's this balance that makes the performance so successful. I like that her character is not just being used and manipulated by the men in the film and she makes her own decisions for the most part. It's nice to see a well developed female character and that MacLaine can go toe to toe with anyone. It's just a really charming and effective performance from a really terrific film that everyone should see at least once.

Melina Mercouri - Never on Sunday

 

Another foreign actress getting a nomination, this was in the thick of the Academy rewarding actresses outside the norm. Mercouri is a Greek actress who won best performance at Cannes for this role, so it's not like it came out of nowhere. The film was well received by the Academy with five nominations, including Best Director and a win in Best Song (the first song from a foreign film to win). The film is a short one that essentially is a combination of Pygmalion and the hooker with a heart of gold trope. Mercouri is an independent prostitute who sets her own rules and enjoys her lifestyle. An American named Homer is trying to find himself and after seeing Mercouri, puppy dogs her everywhere. He actually comes off creepy at times just showing up in her room unannounced and following her everywhere. He doesn't like that she's a hooker and tries to change her into a more intelligent woman. Mercouri goes along with it for a bit and then is like nah, I like my old life way more. Mercouri is fine in the role although it didn't really wow me or anything. She is very fierce and independent and this take charge and take no shit kind of person. Mercouri leans into that mentality and runs with it to great effect. Definitely a pro woman type of film and it was interesting to watch. Mercouri does well with the role, but the performance just didn't stand out all that much to me. Worth watching for a very feminist type of film from the early 60s that feels a little fresher than being 60 years old.

What a fucking mess of a category, holy shit! At least two of these probably should not have been nominated at all. Taylor is a weak performance in a bad film that won because the Academy thought she was dying. So absurd! At least her second win was well deserved. Greer was just painful to watch. A boring film with a really awful performance from Greer. That just felt like the Academy rewarding someone they liked over liking the actual content. Mercouri was fine and it was a bit of an interesting film, but honestly if she wasn't nominated I'd be fine with that. Just not a big fan of the hooker roles, no matter who or what they are about because they are so overdone in this category. Kerr is solid and I am excited to watch more from her in the next decade. I guess I give my award to MacLaine who was pretty great in a wonderful little film. I feel she does a bit more than Kerr so she gets the win. What a terrible year to end the 60s on for this category. Really hoping to avoid disasters like these in the 50s, but we shall see.

Oscar Winner: Elizabeth Taylor - BUtterfield 8

My Winner: Shirley MacLaine - The Apartment

Deborah Kerr

Melina Mercouri

Elizabeth Taylor

Greer Garson

Supporting Actor 1960

Some really interesting names and films here that I can't wait to dive into, so let's get going!

1960 Best Supporting Actor

 

Peter Ustinov - Spartacus

 

I was never sure about Ustinov and his two wins because before this project, I had never really heard of him. I know that sounds ridiculous but I feel there are an increasing number of folks like me who just don't know his legacy. I am glad this project has not only shown me his two wins, but have shown me his work in other films as well. And because the Academy loves rewarding folks who have a great year, Ustinov wins here but also does great work in The Sundowners, where I laughed out loud at his character. I also have forgotten that this is a Stanley Kubrick film, but it makes sense because it looks so much better and so more stylish than the typical sword and sandal films of the previous decade. Ustinov plays Batiatus, a slave trader who buys Spartacus and trains him to be a gladiator along with others slaves. If you have ever seen an Ustinov performance, this one is very much like all the rest of his that I have seen. I don't say that in any negative way because I love his charming sort of deadpan and wry sense of humor. He is hilarious to me without it really being overt comic relief. For this performance he keeps it toned down but still brings a lot of humor, mostly by saying things to people who are above him in station and backtracking quickly to say something else. He's also kind of soft as a slave trader. Yes, he has moments where he can be a bit cruel, but he seems more motivated by money and pride than being a bad person who enjoys mistreating slaves. Ustinov follows the story around as he heads to Rome after the slaves overthrow his little camp and does more business with the Roman senators and he even escorts Jean Simmons and her baby out of harm's way (she is Spartacus's wife). He is very integral to the plot and always around at the right time and Ustinov perfectly plays his part in this very long film. It's really a great role for Ustinov and he makes the most of it and is my favorite part of this film.

Peter Falk - Murder, Inc

The introduction of Falk into Hollywood, this gave us Columbo so that's pretty good. You might also watch this film and think that this is a leading performance because they just can't get away from Falk in the story. I know another Best Actor blog said that Falk disappeared for a long time, but fuck no he didn't. He appeared intermittently but consistent enough to not be Supporting. It was his introducing credit, so that's why he is in Supporting, but Falk is very intimidating in the role. He is doing exactly what they want from him. Falk does a lot of killing, but then gets fucked over and taken to jail where he meets one of the people in this ridiculous film and offers advice. Falk plays everything as he should and is just a perfect gangster who accomplishes more than you do. So yeah, Falk is a gangster hitman and goes on doing his leader's bidding. The role is fine, but obviously Falk is doing way more than Supporting work here. It's again not a great film like his nomination from the next year and it feels like Falk was getting typecast. Glad he was able to breakaway from that and I know he was in some John Cassavetes films so he at least got to be more than just some boring gangster. A lightly decent performance where I'd suggest watching Falk's other work instead of this.

Jack Kruschen - The Apartment

This film is pretty damn great and it hurts me to say that Kruschen most likely just came along for the ride for such a well liked film. Kruschen plays the next door neighbor to Jack Lemmon and he provides a bit of comic relief as a Jewish doctor. He and his wife believe that Lemmon is a huge playboy who is having multiple women a week and throwing large parties and drinking like a fish and just being a huge party animal. Of course, these are the executives from his work that he lets use his apartment, but they don't know that and he never tells them otherwise. He has a few brief, funny interactions with Lemmon in the hall but does have a very serious scene. He is woken up by Lemmon to, spoiler alert, help tend to Shirley MacLaine who has overdosed on sleeping pills. The scene is fantastic because he does exactly what a doctor would do and it looks like the real thing. I read they had some emergency doctors on set guiding them on how Kruschen should act and it comes out making the scene so much better. So not a lot to the performance, just a guy who gets some laughs and then when he needs to be commanding and do his doctor duties hits it out of the park. Still, the nomination probably came with the film as amiable as Kruschen is in the role. I don't mind it, though, and would take more roles like this and less like Chill Wills.

Sal Mineo - Exodus

 

A very interesting film about the creation of Israel and all the troubles that came along with doing so. It's got a stacked cast including Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb, Peter Lawford, Ralph Richardson, and of course Mineo among some others. It's also a very long film of almost three and a half hours, crazy that it was the third highest grossing films of 1960 at that length. Mineo plays Dov Landau, a young Jewish man who was in Auschwitz and wants to carve out a country for his fellow people by any means necessary. It's not a big role in terms of actual screen time, but Landau is instrumental in kicking off the aggression that eventually will lead to Israeli independence. I would say Mineo only has maybe twenty minutes face time and a lot of that is minor scenes setting up his romance with a young girl played by Jill Haworth, who I think should have been in the Supporting Actress category, honestly. Or it's him being arrested or visiting a group, minor scenes. But Mineo does have an Oscar scene where he is grilled by a group of radical Zionists about his time in Auschwitz and Mineo finally breaks down and admits he was a Jew that helped the Nazis blow up holes for mass graves. It's a good piece of acting that shows us that Mineo has the talent and is probably wasted a bit with his character getting so little to do in the film, though some of his scenes are pivotal ones. This was a role that Mineo desperately wanted and sought out and his persistence paid off with his second Oscar nomination. It gets better as the film goes on and that just made me want to see a little more of him in the role.

Chill Wills - The Alamo

 

Well, this is one of the more I guess infamously well known nominations if you follow Oscar history. Mostly because Wills unashamedly took out ads trying to win and stating in them that he was everyone's cousin and I love you all and that the cast and crew of this film were praying harder than the men who fought at the Alamo. Pretty unbelievable poor taste by Wills that drew the ire of his director and star of the film, John Wayne, among other stars at the time. Sammy Davis Jr. took out an ad saying sorry bruh, I voted for Sal Mineo (without the bruh, obviously). I don't know if this was the first real campaign for a win, but it sure was one of the most distasteful. Silly thing is, if you watch this film and have no idea who Wills is, you may not be able to guess who he is. He is nothing more than comedic relief and while he does succeed in that regard, it really is nothing special. He has a couple moments, but nothing that makes him standout and his nomination must be due to his campaign, because he certainly doesn't belong here. Maybe you could go with Richard Widmark or Laurence Harvey in their roles, but I don't think anyone would ever point to Wills willingly and say that should be nominated, let alone rewarded. This one is better left forgotten.

Definitely not the best group ever and probably a little disappointing if I'm being honest. Wills has a nothing role and only got nominated because he campaigned hard for it. Useless nomination that I would have rather gone to someone else. Falk is fine as a gangster and may be in the wrong category, but not an awful performance or anything. You can see the star power peeking through his work here, though. Kruschen probably just comes along for the ride but does have that one Oscar worthy scene where he goes into doctor mode. It is an important scene and a great bit of acting and I'm happy he's here. Mineo could have possibly been my winner if he had more screen time. He was also somewhat vital to the film but just didn't get a ton to do before he was used as a plot device. So Ustinov gets my vote because he is important to the film and pops up throughout this long film and gives a good performance to boot. Just a likable actor who does good work. Not a great year but at least some decent performances on the top end.

Oscar Winner: Peter Ustinov - Spartacus

My Winner: Peter Ustinov - Spartacus

Sal Mineo

Jack Kruschen

Peter Falk

Chill Wills

Supporting Actress 1960

A few films on this list I have been waiting a long time to finally watch. Also, some pretty recognizable names on here so hopefully this will be a pretty good group.

1960 Best Supporting Actress

 

Shirley Jones - Elmer Gantry

 

This performance was very much against type for Jones and is probably a contributing factor in her win. It also is one of those hooker with a heart of gold type of roles, albeit the heart of gold could be up for debate. But I actually really enjoyed this performance! When you look up the reviews on this performance, a lot of it is centered on Jones being a good girl in previous work going against type and mostly succeeding. I think she did a great job because she is just as morally ambiguous as Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) is and it adds a bit to the theme of the film. Which the film is about Lancaster who is a grifter of sorts that latches onto preaching as a way to get what he wants. Jones is one of his old flames and she's a prostitute and recognizes him, so he has her cat house raided. She is convinced to blackmail him for lots of money by taking indecent pictures and does, but then reneges on accepting the payment because she still has feels. So here is this woman who is doing something maybe not morally great with selling herself and sees her ex-something swindling a community with religion and tries to expose him after he gets her house overrun with police. But she seems to feel a little guilty and doesn't take the money and it's just a great performance from Jones to go from cackling at his absurd scamming to wanting him to pay to oh, maybe I made a mistake. And I think that good girl persona served her well because she has this innocence to her but also this biting spitefulness, too. She also shows the past of Gantry and is important to establishing that he is a terrible fraud. Honestly really enjoyed this performance more than I thought I would and I think you will, too.

Glynis Johns - The Sundowners

Most people probably know Johns from her role as Winifred in Mary Poppins. A lot of that same energy is in this performance which was her only Oscar nomination of her career. Fun fact is that as of October 2022, she is the oldest living acting nominee still alive at 99 years young. Johns was a Tony award winner, a singer, and found most of her work as a character actress. In this film, Johns is a bartender down under and becomes friendly with a family of homesteaders and dates their helper, Peter Ustinov. I liked the film a lot because all of the characters are entertaining on different levels. Johns brings some comedic relief and a bit of a vivacious personality that livens up the film. She has these wide, bug eyes and a mouth that doesn't see to close because she either smiling ear to ear or constantly talking. She has fun interactions with Ustinov's character as he doesn't want to be tied down and is warm with the family she befriends. The role doesn't ask too much of her, but Johns does a good job with the performance that is as supporting as you can get without just being a cameo. A feisty little performance that fits the film and the role and gives you a good idea of who Johns is as an actress.

Shirley Knight - The Dark at the Top of the Stairs

There are times when I start a film and just can't get into it because it's been a long work day and I'm tired, got back from whatever and I'm tired, got drunk and decided to watch it and I'm tired, or started it and just couldn't give a fuck. The latter is this film, but also the former(s). Started this film so much to where I just want to finish it. It doesn't help that Knight doesn't show up until like 40 mins into this one. It's a film about, well, this young woman falls in love with a young Jewish boy from a neighboring boarding school while her parents go through marriage hell. It feels like Knight is lost in her feelings about her life and her new boyfriend and his issues with antisemitism. But she's playing a teenager in a melodrama and her role is more of an anxious, wispy girl who is overwhelmed not just by the subject, but by everyone else acting around her. It's the least interesting role in the film with Eve Arden as her caustic, bigoted aunt, Robert Preston chewing the scenery, Angela Lansbury giving a dignified performance. Even her boyfriend, little brother, and mother seem more interesting. This feels like the Academy trying to anoint a new starlet for whatever reason (young, pretty, blonde, member of the Actor Studio) since they also nominated her two years later for Sweet Bird of Youth. I think most people might say the wrong performance was nominated and not really the fault of Knight who does what she can with a flimsy role.

Janet Leigh - Psycho

 

How many people realize that this performance and this film was actually nominated for an Oscar? We have all seen the shower scene. We know the score. We probably all know the still of mother sitting in the window. I think it's easy to forget this is an Oscar nominated film and was really groundbreaking in what it brought to film. It's weird that both main actors, Leigh and Anthony Perkins, failed to be remembered for other instances in their career because both are so talented (how many know Perkins was nominated for a Supporting Actor Oscar before this?). I also think that people fail to remember that this film starts with Leigh stealing some money from her employer and then going on the run. She wasn't some weary, lost, innocent traveler needing a room. She had her own demons which adds to the overwhelming tension in the film. It's interesting what the collective public's mind will recall about actors or films. As for the performance, Leigh is anxious and that makes us anxious. Part of that building tension Hitchcock does so well. We are looking over our shoulder just like Leigh is and our faces are mirroring hers as she settles in at the Bates Hotel. She is great in closeup and she does a ton without actually saying much, which is a gift. The shower scene is iconic, but the rest of the performance is sort of a how to be a scared, paranoid woman on the run for every role that touched on those same themes. Leigh set the tone in iconic fashion so tons of other women could follow. Hell of a performance that we all kinda sorta remember.

Mary Ure - Sons and Lovers

 

This is a pretty interesting D. H. Lawrence film adaptation that deals with many different characters and their relationships and outlooks on life. Ure is like a factory supervisor who is also a very independent woman. She's an outspoken suffragette who believes in free love and is very self assured. She is the one character who knows who she is and what she wants. She helps guide the lead of the film Paul, played by Dean Stockwell, into trying to find who he is. They have a bit of a relationship, though he's not good in bed but does offer more than her husband does overall. She is the sensual, mature aspect of this film and almost a voice of reason. But we realize that she, too, has her own issues she is working through, she just knows that they are there and is working on them. Honestly, it's a great little performance from Ure because it gets us asking so many questions about Stockwell and her beliefs. I think coming at this from 2022 is probably a lot different than in 1960, where I feel this performance is a bit more salacious and captivating of a woman in charge of not only her own sexuality, but her own life as well. No one is dictating to her what she has to do or needs to do. And Ure plays this all a bit close to the vest and never really exposes herself and it makes for a really intriguing characterization. This is a performance that feels like it should or could be nothing more than a mistress realization but instead offers up much more thought and execution, thus delivering something much more worthwhile.

Not a bad group at all with some really interesting films. Knight is the obvious one out first and I honestly would rather replace her with Jill Haworth from Exodus who was pretty great in that film. Knight just gets overwhelmed in her film to where you'd rather nominate her co-stars instead of her. Johns is next because she was more of a glorified cameo, though very entertaining in her role. Just too small to reward here. Ure surprised me by being so modern of a performance that this probably hit harder back in 1960. A real solid performance that got me thinking. A shame that Ure didn't go own to have bigger roles. Jones went against type and had me liking her performance way more than I thought I would. Equally as morally ambiguous as her title character, it was solid work from Jones. Everyone knows Leigh's performance and it is partly iconic for a reason. Great performance that really sets the tone of the film and is an easy winner for me. A pretty decent group with some really interesting films, which is just how I like it.

Oscar Winner: Shirley Jones - Elmer Gantry

My Winner: Janet Leigh - Psycho

Shirley Jones 

Mary Ure

Glynis Johns

Shirley Knight

Best Picture 1961

Well, looks like I accidentally deleted this intro or else I forgot to finish it before I hit publish. Anyway, we got an all time great film that I'm pumped to watch again and some films that I have been looking forward to for a long time. There's also an unknown in Fanny, so let's see how that one plays out.

1961 Best Picture

 

West Side Story

Honestly, this is an all time winner. Just one of the most fantastic musicals ever produced and if you don't believe me go fucking watch it. I am enamored with the like twenty plus minute opening of the gangs dancing and prancing around the neighborhoods. It's colorful and bright and beautifully shot and tells us exactly what we are in for. Gangs that dance are going to clash with each other hardcore. It was the first film to win Best Director for two directors until the Coen Bros did it decades later. Jerome Robbins was a renowned Broadway guy brought in to shoot the dance numbers and was fired after about four of them were complete because he ran over budget so much and dancers were hurt and money was now tight. Robert Wise did the dramatic parts and the rest of the musical numbers, with input from the fired Robbins, and he deferred to and consulted with Robbins even after he was fired, which is pretty awesome. Wise insisted on the double billing and we got some really inspired scenes out of all of this. Some great acting as well. I think Rita Moreno might be the greatest Best Supporting Actress winner of all time. The story has romance, intrigue, lots of action and violence, some death, tender moments. It also has some of the most recognizable songs from a musical that you probably don't realize are from the same film. Just look at the Wikipedia or go on Spotify and listen to "America," "Maria," "Tonight," "I Feel Pretty," and "Cool." You may not recognize the names, but you absolutely know the songs. And I feel you may even know some of the other songs in the film, that's how amazing this musical is from a song standpoint. Usually it's like one song you recognize because it's ultra popular but this has multiple! I'd argue that this is probably the greatest musical of all time and I think I'd die on that hill. Just a complete film that is also a musical. It won ten of the eleven Oscars it was nominated for and won a special Honorary Oscar for Jerome Robbins which felt like you got booted while making a masterpiece, here's your fuck you to the producers. It got a remake from Spielberg that did well, so I'm curious what all he changed. But this one is an all time film and you probably have already watched it numerous times well before finding this shitty blog.

Fanny

Yikes. I did not like this one at all. Just a boring slog for something that maybe could have been good? Apparently this was a big musical on Broadway and had been adapted from the original play into a bunch of successful films in different countries in the 30s and later. So this had pedigree, and yet, the studio decided that this new film would have no songs and be a straight comedy/drama. Studio thought musicals were on the way out, yet look at what won Best Picture this year. And that's the thing, this film at times feels like it's going to burst into a song but then never does. So it feels a bit off. Also, much of the acting is just terrible and suffering from overacting. I think some of it is due to the dubbing where the voices just seem to not match, but also it just simply has bad acting. Leslie Caron was fine, Maurice Chevalier probably should have taken Charles Boyer's spot in the Best Actor list (though I would take neither, just Chevalier campaigned hard and was the better role), and the rest of the actors were plain bad. It really does take you out of the film and makes it seem interminable. The story is a guy gets Caron preggers but then goes out to sea to find adventure though he doesn't know she is pregnant. Old creepy guy Chevalier, who is like 70, marries 18 year old Caron and takes on the son she has as his own. There is tension when the guy comes back from abroad and his dad, Boyer, prevents him from disrupting the marriage. The first half of the film is so lighthearted that you think this is nothing but a comedy. But then the second half is more drama and family tension and it feels like a tale of two films. I said it was boring and you might be thinking after reading what I just wrote that this was actually intriguing, but no, it's not. It just doesn't seem to do anything right. I don't know how this made into a Best Picture lineup other than the studio bought it's way in or else the people from this year just had bad taste. This is one worth skipping unless you are a degenerate Oscar fan like me.

The Guns of Navarone

Here we have the token war film and I'm only half kidding. It does seem like the Best Picture category has to have a war film, though it's not always true. Anyway, this was one of the biggest box office pictures of the year, only behind the winning West Side Story. Audiences loved the star studded war thriller. It is loaded with the miscast Gregory Peck, David Niven, Anthony Quinn, Anthony Quayle, and a brief appearance by Richard Harris. Peck's character was from New Zealand in the book, but he didn't want to do an English accent, so everyone thought he was just some American which was not accurate at all. That's a minor quibble because it doesn't really effect the story at all.  Almost all of the cast was too old for their actual counterparts from the story, but they are Hollywood stars so we overlook that. The story is of six commandos who are tasked to infiltrate an impenetrable fortress on a Greek island to blow up two big guns that are wreaking havoc on Allied ships. It's an entertaining film with big names and some good action. There are, to me, some times where the film really stalls out and becomes a bit boring as I am waiting for something to start happening. It doesn't have that flow of constant action and movement towards the inevitable end. That is okay sometimes if we are getting character development or whatever, but this film just doesn't have a good pace. It is an entertaining film like I said and I enjoyed watching it, but it isn't a strong war film compared to many others in this same category like The Longest Day or (not in this specific category) The Dirty Dozen. Decent film but not mind blowing or anything.

The Hustler

 

This feels like a film tailor made just for me. Gorgeous black and white film starring Paul Newman about a gritty, sports drama involving pool as the game of choice. Great acting and direction, it won the Oscar for Cinematography and Production Design, Black and White deservedly so. I'm a huge fan of The Color of Money and felt that it was a shame that it took until that film that Newman won his Oscar because I think I've given it to him in this blog like every single time he's been nominated. To say I was excited to finally watch this one is an understatement and knew full well going in that my expectations were exceedingly high. But it meets them because this is just one of those all around classic films that you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't enjoy it. What amazes me about the film is that almost every shot is done by the actors themselves, which points to their dedication and that folks like Jackie Gleason, who was actually an incredible pool player in his own right. So it lends that authenticity to the film where a shot doesn't always cut away from someone shooting or only film their face, we get to see the action as intended. The story is great as we see this young Newman act cocky and arrogant as he tries to beat the best pool player in the world. There is also a romantic story in there between Newman and Piper Laurie, which actually helps deepen the intensity of the film and rounds out Newman's character. That romance is a tragic one of two addicted people feeding into each other's problems and is fantastic work from Laurie. It's just an all around great film that is a classic for a reason and one that you shouldn't wait to watch like I did.

Judgment at Nuremberg

 

Been looking forward to this one for such a long time. Has a hugely star studded cast featuring Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Maximilian Schell, Judy Garland, Richard Widmark, and William Shatner. It really is a great film and more than that, it's an all time trial film. You list law films and it's always top ten. So this film is about Tracy, who is an American judge brought over to Germany to judge some Nazis. It is basically an amalgamation of real life trials all rolled into one to supply the drama. Tracy is basically the conduit for the audience as Schell, Lancaster, and Widmark are the driving forces of the film. They are the ones who are prosecuting or defending in the film and it really allows Schell to make sane arguments for the Nazi side. The performances are obviously the highlight of the film, as four of them were nominated and Schell won for Best Actor. He is phenomenal and I feel like his win speaks to his passion in the role. I don't much care about the character arc for Tracy as he experiences some of Germany and meets Marlene Dietrich, a widowed Nazi. The meat and potatoes are the courtroom scenes where Schell is glorious and Widmark makes his mark, ahem. The subject is noble and apparently a few folks wanted to work for less than they normally got to be in this important film. The courtroom scenes are pretty dynamic with some rotating and split depth perception where one side is focused on one person, the other on someone else and it changes kind of thing. It has an incredible ending monologue from Tracy and is just a fantastic film overall. This is one to watch just for the historical perspective alone, but you'll stay for the great performances.

Not a bad group at all. An all time winner in West Side Story, a great billiards and character study in The Hustler, and a trial film that allows the defense to make sense and cast doubt, Judgment at Nuremberg. There is a generic WWII film that is the stuff of Allied fantasy but does have great actors and a good story in The Guns of Navarone. Fanny just sucks. It does not deserve to be in this category, but it seemed to be a big box office hit and so here we are. Terrible film that needs to bow out and let another great film get recognized. An easy winner this year and every year. Let's get to the end of the 60s and get out of here.

Oscar Winner: West Side Story

My Winner: West Side Story

The Hustler

Judgment at Nuremberg

The Guns of Navarone

Fanny

Leading Actor 1961

Some big names and some unknown names, which is what I love about this project. Because I hope that the unknown's will beat out the known names every time. I think that's a natural thing, rooting for the underdog. Let's see what happens here.

1961 Best Actor

 

Maximilian Schell - Judgment at Nuremberg

 

The main thing I have heard about this performance is that a lot of folks argue that this is more of a Supporting role than Leading. Having watched it finally, nah, this is right where it belongs. Schell actually originated this role in a TV movie two years prior and you can see why he's so comfortable in the role. His passion is palpable throughout the whole film and his delivery at times is so powerful and enthralling that you almost forget to breathe so as to not miss a single word or moment. I was riveted by Schell every time he was onscreen. He is serious the entire way through and has this demeanor that tells you he also wants justice along with a fair trial. He may be defending Nazis, but he makes us respect his handling of the trial on his end. Some people have criticized this as big acting, a pejorative for a bit too much or over the top. I think it's simply a powerhouse performance that is up there with the greats in this category. I really loved Schell's introduction in the beginning of the film as he starts out talking in German with translators speaking for him and then transitions to him speaking English, though they still use the translator ear pieces as if he's still speaking German. It was a pretty clever way to drop the cumbersome translating and let us understand him. Schell is the driving force of the film, and though he doesn't have much of an arc and we don't get to really know him much as a person, it is still very much a leading role to me. You could throw Richard Widmark into that as well, as he is the prosecution attorney and has a great performance in his own right. It just shows that maybe a film focuses a lot more on one actor or character, but another can also be co-lead. I just love the way Schell speaks and his accent and I think he makes a lot of deliberate choices in how he delivers his lines that really help elevate the film. It's a true joy to watch so much better than his other two nominations from the 70s.

Charles Boyer - Fanny

I kinda feel like this isn't really the proper lead of this film. You can say it shares the lead with Maurice Chevalier's character, but he seems to have much more of an impact on the story than Boyer. I would try to say oh, well Boyer was a previous multiple nominee in the 30s (and one in the 40s), but so was Chevalier. Chevalier campaigned hard for this nomination given it was one of his first English speaking roles where he didn't sing, so in other words, actually acted. Boyer somehow got the nomination though and I'm not really sure why other than he had a lot of friends in the Academy. Both men had actually been given Honorary Oscars in the 50s, so both had wide support and were well liked but I guess Boyer was more well liked. Boyer plays the father of Mariusz, a young man who gets Leslie Caron pregnant but goes away to see for adventure before that is discovered. She marries a rich old man in Chevalier and family issues then pop up. Really all Boyer does is play an amiable and father like character. There is no real intensity to the character or much to do with the role. It's rather simple and doesn't really stand out. If you watch this film and try to pick who was nominated in this category, you're going to pick Chevalier. Boyer advises his son against disrupting the marriage and accepting the way thing are which just seems so wrong and hollow to me. You'd think he'd fight for his son, but seems more interested in his grandson being brought up rich. Nothing about the performance sticks out to me besides him favoring his grandson and it doesn't seem like it will even stick in my memory more than Chevalier. And I don't even think Chevalier should be nominated! He is the better performance, but the film is boring and I feel like this was the Academy dipping into it's old timer's well and picking a name. Not worth a nomination, unfortunately.

Paul Newman - The Hustler

I am unfortunately coming quickly to an end of reviewing Newman nominations with only one more to go. But as I have gone back in time, the performances have just gotten better and better and am excited to finally have watched this one. His work in The Color of Money is perfect and I wish I could have seen the natural progression of the character instead of going in reverse, but it does offer a unique perspective. This role is obviously like Tom Cruise's in the sequel and is a lot of fun to watch. Newman is cocky and arrogant and determined to face off against Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) who is considered the best pool hustler going. The film essentially bookends the story with two head to head match ups between the two. The film shows Newman's growth and goes from him losing control to finally finding it in the end. Newman is great and I love that he plays a lot of the pool scenes himself, which really lends weight and authenticity to the role. Because I honestly feel like Newman could be some masterful pool player in real life. That's what he brings to the film besides his normal charisma and stellar acting chops. Their is a romantic side story that intertwines with the pool playing that helps add some intensity to Newman's role and the film itself. Piper Laurie plays an alcoholic woman who catches Newman's eye and the two have a very depressing, tragic relationship that fuels the ending of the film. What more can I say about Newman, really? Think about every Newman film you have watched and you'll see the same steady, strong acting in every one of them. This one is no different, yet Newman somehow makes it so he isn't just playing himself over and over. It's why his roles resonate even decades later because they transcend time and easy to get lost in. Just more great work from one of the best to ever do it.

Spencer Tracy - Judgment at Nuremberg

 

I feel like I have seen a bunch of Tracy nominations already, but this is only his second I have seen so far. He has been in a bunch of other films from this project, so I guess he's getting more familiar to me and I know he has a ton more coming up, films and nominated roles. This film focuses on Tracy and we follow him as he sits as the head judge of the Nuremberg trial. Obviously he does the judge thing, but he gets a full story outside of the courtroom. He stays at an old Nazi general's house (who was executed after an earlier trial) and eventually meets that guy's wife, played by Marlene Dietrich. It feels like these outside moments are to see what life is like in postwar Germany and to see how the people react. The thing with Dietrich's character doesn't really go anywhere, but we get to see Tracy interact with folks and help with his final judgment. Tracy has a character arc and is the conduit for the typical American watching the film. He is the focus of the film, but he is more like the camera who comes along and then focuses on the more important parts. He does have this iconic like 10 minute monologue at the end of the film that secures his Oscar nomination. It's highly talked about and is one of those things where people may not even know the context or the film but know it's usage. It was a one take shot from multiple angles and is a thing of beauty. Tracy is the definite lead in the film, but Maximilian Schell is also flexing that he is doing all the heavy lifting and I believe him. Tracy's acting is so nonchalant and natural that I enjoy his style for this character. He is soft spoken and jovial until he has to command his courtroom. He is earnest in his pursuit of justice and noble in that regard. He is this quietly strong character in contrast to Schell's emphatic and loud defense attorney. I like Tracy in this role, but it definitely gets overshadowed, and rightfully so, by Schell's incredible performance. Tracy himself felt the same way on set remarking something along the lines of well, looks like the Oscar is Schell's. He knew it early and still gave a very good performance in his own right.

Stuart Whitman - The Mark

 

This is probably the name most won't recognize for a film they have never heard of before. This was Whitman's only nomination and his career sort of turned into TV and B films, sadly. But he had a full life, only just dying back in 2020 at 92. This was actually a tough film to track down, but it felt worth the payoff as it is definitely a forgotten gem of the early 60s. It's actually probably for the best if you go in completely blind, as I think that makes the film's impact feel much stronger. So spoilers now, but it's a film about a guy who has sexual inclinations towards young girls but is now paroled from prison as his psychiatrist (wonderfully played by Rod Steiger) champions his release and feels he's over his disease so to speak. This is a tough subject to do a film about but Whitman gives a delicately balanced performance of a man who is conflicted and tormented by his past as he tries to move forward in a positive way. It is also a good thing that Whitman plays the main character because Richard Burton was originally slated to star and Whitman brings more of an everyman quality to the role. He's not a movie star, he's not an ugly creep. He is a normal looking guy who stopped himself from acting on his impulse and essentially turned himself in. It's a very complex role that Whitman gives equal measure to all the various states of mind someone like that would have. He's wary when he is released that he can assimilate back into society and then hopeful when things start looking up, We see the frustration and self doubt that creeps in at various times, and the relief that his therapy sessions has helped him break away from his past issues with his mother to finally love an adult woman. All of these emotions are swirling around throughout the film as we go back and forth from flashbacks to present day and as his past is slowly revealed and how poorly the local reception is. Whitman gets us to sympathize with his character because even though the subject is reprehensible, we can kind of connect it to our own issues like drugs or alcohol or gambling or whatever terrible thing from our past. We would never want to be defined by that especially if we have taken strides to fix it and overcome it in a real way. I like that Whitman never gets too high or too low in an acting kind of way, he just trudges on to get past all of this even with some slight setbacks and hesitations. Honestly, a really refreshing performance that surprisingly comes from the early 60s on such a taboo subject. A shame that Whitman did not have sustained success in roles like this. It will be interesting to see how he stacks up against the others for me.

Great category, Boyer is the worst of the bunch. Not awful, just one of those nominees who should be represented by someone else. Tracy is great and is a big part of his film, but Schell just transcends and reminds me of DDL. Whitman is so fucking good. That is absolutely a hidden gem. Such a good performance, everyone needs to see it. Newman does such great work and if not for Schell, he gets his billiards Oscar. A very good category that is just solid all around. Love this one and need to move on to get out of this decade.

Oscar Winner: Maximilian Schell - Judgment at Nuremberg

My Winner: Maximilian Schell - Judgment at Nuremberg

Paul Newman

Stuart Whitman

Spencer Tracy

Charles Boyer

Leading Actress 1961

I may have first looked at this group and totally disregarded Sophia Loren because I only knew her as some sex symbol and was this an actually well earned Oscar? I'll admit I'm not a good judge and this category has some greats, so let's get into it then.

1961 Best Actress

 

Sophia Loren - Two Women

 

I think it gets forgotten that Sophia Loren was an accomplished actress and we remember how beautiful she was/is and her being an international sex symbol. But Loren did win many international acting awards including here as the first acting Oscar for a non-English language performance. This isn't just some token nomination and win, either. Yes, she was mostly in romantic and comedic films prior to this win, but this film definitely had a bit more heft with it's subject matter. The film is about Loren and her eleven year old daughter getting out of Rome to avoid bombings in WWII. She meets up with some distant family in the countryside as the Italians and Germans retreat from Americans and eventually both she and her daughter are raped in a Church by Moroccan troops. This was a real tragedy that occurred on a wide scale where these rural villages were raped and pillaged with many murdered. It's a heavy story that asks Loren to be both defiant and vulnerable, sometimes at the same time. She has to stay strong for her daughter, yet is terrified just as much as her daughter is. It's not really a glamorous role, though Loren does manage to look beautiful throughout, even in her characters worst moments. But that really just speaks to how she really looked back then, you couldn't really make her ugly and probably didn't want to so as to keep the audience coming. I have seen Loren in a few other films and she always has a presence and can command a room just because of her stature and beauty. But this was one of those performances where she came to act and not just be a movie star. She takes it seriously and her desperate pleas and crying out in anger and frustration at a passing troop vehicle are entirely visceral. All the pointless death and destruction and trauma for what? The innocence lost that will forever remain a deep scar. That pain is something that resonates loudly and shows just how good Loren can be as an actress. It may be tough to beat and I might be surprised that the Academy got it right for once, I'll have to see how the others stack up first.

Audrey Hepburn - Breakfast at Tiffany's

One of the most iconic roles in all of film, I think everyone who thinks of Hepburn sees her as Holly Golightly in shades and a black dress and a long cigarette holder. Hepburn didn't consider it one of her best performances, but it's definitely become her most memorable for the general public. Not really much to say that hasn't already been said for this film based on Truman Capote's novel. Hepburn is a young woman making money by essentially being an escort and getting drunk guys to give her lots of money and then slips away. Her new neighbor is a writer and a boy toy to some rich woman. Their friendship grows until it finally becomes more than friends. A simple story that is made better by Hepburn's eccentric, impetuous performance. Holly is wild and impulsive as she flits around with a carefree attitude. She can defuse anyone being mad at her with her smile, but we can see this is a front for her to not face her past and her problems. Hepburn is great in the role and it's hard to imagine anyone but her playing Holly. She has the perfect spirit and charisma to play Holly and to play her more introspective and dramatic moments. There are a lot of better reviews about Hepburn's performance here (and you should go read those), but I did love a point someone made about how this role set up her future roles in the 60s with kooky romantic characters and more grounded serious roles and how this kind of mixed those two. Obviously, this performance is more light (no pun intended) with just a few poignant parts thrown in, but it is still very good work and entirely memorable. If you haven't seen, not sure what you're waiting for as this is a cultural touchstone.

Piper Laurie - The Hustler

Okay, wow. Piper plays a perfect drunk. Alliteration aside, it's true, she is fantastic in her role. Already ahead of myself, Laurie plays an alcoholic woman that Paul Newman meets in a bus station and falls for. Laurie plays it so good because she at first tricks him and pays for the drink and vanishes. We then see her later and realize she is a bonafide alcoholic that Newman latches onto. Laurie's drunk acting is actually phenomenal as she is so believable. There is no hiccuping or closing your eyes or whatever, she just looks around and slurs her words and has that uncontrolled drunk aspect to her performance. I love the fuck out of great or even good drunk performances and Laurie is setting the bar for how to act while your character is drunk or under the influence. It's not conceived, it's grown. Kinda weird to write but she hits all the perfect notes of being angry but being drunk and also balancing what that means for Newman. She walks around sipping on a drink and you know something is happening and you wish it wouldn't. Laurie is fantastic at burrowing into scenes with her drunken shenanigans and just hitting that desperate note so perfectly. I also think Laurie is a good equal to Newman and not just something he acts against or a like a prop to act with. She challenges him and delivers the only real female performance in this very manly film. Crazy to think that after this film, she would take a 15 year break from acting to start a family and then her first role back in Carrie was nominated in 1976. We probably missed out on some really great acting but props to her for making family a priority.

Geraldine Page - Summer and Smoke

 

Thank goodness I only have one more Geraldine Page nomination to go after this one. There is nothing personally about Page that I dislike, it's just that most of her eight nominations, including her one win, has failed to connect with me. Either just something I outright disliked on an acting level, or just too small of a part that really probably shouldn't have been nominated to begin with. I did enjoy her nomination after this one for another Tennessee Williams film adaptation, Sweet Bird of Youth, so maybe it's a Tennessee thing because this performance wasn't terrible or anything. Not as enjoyable as the previous mentioned performance, this one is way more melodramatic and easy for Page to lay it on thick. She is a reserved, proper Southern woman who is infatuated with a wild, good looking young doctor who lives across the street. Now the doctor is wholly unlikable and really keeps you from being more engaged with the story because he is so awful. He plays with Page's naivete while hooking up with Rita Moreno and lusting after a 17 year old girl, who he later gets engaged to when she comes back from boarding school. All the while trying to get with Page who continues to play a very shy, anxious, fragile woman who can't keep herself away from the doctor. He takes her to a cockfight and then tries to sexually assault her later, is constantly drunk and partying while belittling her. It's one of those wild, intense Tennessee Williams relationships. And it's really hard to stay invested in it, not that you really should be, but I didn't get why Page's character was so desperate. But then at the very end of the film, I think we get a very telling reason as to why. Page does most of what the role commands her to do. It's like her character belongs in Gone With the Wind or some 30s or 40s film. It doesn't match the same energy of Laurence Harvey's doctor and it feels like they are almost in two different films at times. But Page plays it earnestly even if that just kinda feels like a bit much. It's decent and I understand why it was nominated and certainly is among the best of her eight nominations for me! Can't wait to see if her last one is her best one.

Natalie Wood - Splendor in the Grass

 

Let's be really real, the only reason Wood is nominated here is because this is a combination of this and her work in West Side Story. I mean, the biggest film of the year and you get nominated for a sexual coming of age film? That's what this role and film is about. Wood is infatuated with Warren Beatty (in his first ever film) because he is from a rich family and captain of the football team and he wants to fuck her. Wood denies him and it sets off the film, essentially. Beatty complains to his dad and teachers and friends that he is preoccupied (cuz can't get laid) and is doing poorly. He breaks up with her because he saw his sister getting ran on and wanted to end the relationship for whatever reason. She decides to be like his sister and a friend of his tries to rape her and jumps into a waterfall but is rescued and then her family institutionalizes her. That's a whole lot of context to take in and not to dismiss any of it, but it all explains her teenage decisions. It's a film about what may have been. Wood is great in the role as hesitant and unsure in the relationship at first, though she is smitten with Beatty from an outside aesthetic. Wood seems like a genuine teenager, desperate for the only person she believes she loves and afraid of losing the only thing she knows. I think we've all been there in some form, so we can commiserate when Beatty cheats on Wood. Just because you are seemingly perfect, does not mean you are okay. As Wood's character goes through therapy for years, she is happier after the fact, but easily slips into her old issues when meeting Beatty who now works on a farm and is married with a kid. You can see that Wood was wanting him in that moment and re-experiencing everything from her youth because she thought she could be with him again. It's a great look at young love in this moment and how some people looked at each other. Wood's performance is great because it just feels so real when she looks at you. A great use of her talents as she plays a small town girl confronting her demons. One of those moments of another film lifting up a different performance that is better for the actor.

Almost done with Geraldine Page and thankful for it. Not a terrible performance by any means, it was interesting, but still not that great. Wood gives a very Oscar baity performance. Hepburn gives her iconic role life and is a joy to watch. Laurie blows me away with her alcoholic person and it may have won in weaker years. I'll go with Loren who eschews her sex symbol self and all those romantic comedies. She was better than that being wasted on inferior slop and got to show her chops in her own language. It's a good group if unassuming. Ready to move on now.

Oscar Winner: Sophia Loren - Two Women

My Winner: Sophia Loren - Two Women

Piper Laurie 

Audrey Hepburn

Natalie Wood

Geraldine Page

Supporting Actor 1961

A stacked flipping category with a winner most folks think came along for the ride. Is this true? Let's find out!

1961 Best Supporting Actor

 

George Chakiris - West Side Story

 

In a stacked category, I feel like Chakiris, who was Greek by the way, came along for the ride. That doesn't mean I don't like his performance, though. I like his brooding, sarcastic demeanor as it fits the leader of the Sharks. He dances well and sings fine (and at least didn't get dubbed over like everyone else in the film) and is properly good looking for a leadership part. Spoilers, but I have watched the film a couple times before but always forget that he gets stabbed to death by Tony. It's always a shock and I think speaks to how important Bernardo is. Like I thought he was gonna win and then we were going to get him  taking on Tony. And yet I've seen this damn film like five times. Chakiris might not be all that great but the character looms across the picture and we expect him to show up or do things he doesn't. I enjoyed what Chakiris gave us, though. It's good, not great, and probably just came along with the film. Crazy to think that he had to undergo extensive makeup sessions to look dark, along with Rita Moreno is actually is Puerto Rican! That just tells you how racist Hollywood was back then, but also they both won and had the last fuck you to them. Good performance, just nothing amazing. It happened to be in an all time great film and he got carried along.

Montgomery Clift - Judgment at Nuremberg

So I have liked the couple Clift performances I have seen and appreciated his whole method acting style in those films. I did not know that this guy was a huge alcoholic who made it his personality and worked it into his contracts. Clift plays Rudolf Peterson, a nervous, scared, maybe simple man whose family were communists and probably killed by the Nazis. Clift was sterilized by the Nazis and is a witness to their atrocities. This is an interesting nomination. It is said that Clift wanted to be in this film and worked for free with expenses paid only which amounted to a ton of alcohol and hotel fees. He was deep into the throes of alcoholism and would die in 5 years, yet the director felt he was perfect for the role of the aggrieved citizen and it's kinda hard to argue. I'd hate if they did that for real, but apparently Clift just couldn't remember his lines and had trouble concentrating and focusing on getting the job done. So the director and Spencer Tracy just encouraged him to ad lib whatever he could and worked with shooting that way for hours and hours over like four days for maybe fifteen minutes of screen time. Absolutely crazy because he is kinda perfect for the role. He is playing a simpleton who got sterilized and lost his family and is super nervous and scared and it all comes across as someone who doesn't want to be there and who is trying to fight for his wrongdoing in an undefined way. It's like it works on accident and creates a fitting portrait of post war Germany. This actor who can't remember his lines is fumbling and bumbling as the character to remember details of the atrocities and it works. Now if the director had this in mind from the start, I dunno, but would be some brilliant casting and directing. It also feels a lot like a cameo than some supporting bit that seamlessly integrates into the story, kinda like Judy Garland in her role. I think it still works really well but it kinda sticks out in a weird way, too. Really wish Clift hadn't given in to alcohol so we could have gotten a lot more great work from him. It may have helped this performance but obviously didn't help him in the long run, such a shame.

Peter Falk - Pocketful of Miracles

Before this project started, I would not have thought that Peter Falk would have one Oscar nomination to his name, let alone two. I just knew him as Columbo, yet this was his second straight nomination in this category and part of why I undertook this whole thing. Pretty much everything I read on this film said that Falk was one of the few, or the lone, bright spot and I'd have to agree. This was Frank Capra's last film and it was an underwhelming flop that even Capra wasn't proud of at all. The only thing he said that kept him going and the he enjoyed in the film was Falk's performance. Falk is exactly as you will remember him: big suit, gruff voice, his false eye making him look unique. Falk is the right hand man to a mobster and is the one who gets things done. He adds some great comedy to the role and kinda says what the audience is thinking in certain situations, honestly some hilarious lines. The rest of the film is mostly tepid and boring with some moments of funny. Capra was remaking one of his earlier films, Lady for a Day, and apparently this one was a huge mess with Bette Davis and Glenn Ford butting heads at every turn and just being obnoxious. It shows through in the film a bit as this is bloated and pointless. Falk is mostly the only reason to check this film out, it's a fun little performance in a wasted film.

Jackie Gleason - The Hustler

 

Gleason has a rather simple role to play as Minnesota Fats, one of the best pool players in the world that Paul Newman's character is gunning for. It's a pretty straightforward performance where Gleason mostly stays calm and collected in stark contrast to Newman's loud, arrogant, increasingly intoxicated challenger. It's like Gleason is used to these younger guys trying to take him down and prove themselves to be better all the while he just casually plays pool and let's them talk their talk. Which, if you know Gleason, is also very different from how he was in the entertainment world. He was a huge comedian known for a very brash style and here he is playing a dominant pool hustler with a cool demeanor. He gives off a certain presence in the film and you instantly know he's the man to beat. Towards the end of the film when Newman is beating him at pool over and over we start to cracks in the facade as Gleason looks exasperated and see the raw competitiveness come out. It's a short performance but one that is powerful to the film in establishing the story and just how far Newman will go to beat the best. Really enjoyable to watch especially with all the great acting swirling around in that film.

George C. Scott - The Hustler

 

Funny thing about this nomination is that it garnered Scott a Best New Male Actor nomination at the Golden Globes, except he had been nominated for another Oscar two years prior. Golden Globes may be the reason Scott hated awards shows. Yes, he denounced this nomination just like his win for Patton, so at least he was a man who stuck to his convictions. I love his introduction in this film where Paul Newman asks him to move where he's sitting because it's been bothering him for hours and he gets up and moves his chair about an inch to the left. It just perfectly showcases who his character is and how Scott is going to play him. His character is a professional gambler who just likes to be where the action is, whether that's cards, horses, or billiards. He also seems to be a bank roller for other guys to play and comes off a bit like a villain at first. Eventually we see he is a cold, calculating, observant man who will use people to get what he wants. Scott plays the role perfectly as he comes off brooding and measured. He does what he can to manipulate those around him and Scott never comes off too hokey or dastardly. He is a genuine person and the performance has a lot of realism to it. The performance just adds to the overall feel of this film in a good way as we get all these strong characters coming to a head and giving us an excellent film as a result. Glad the Globes were able to honor this newcomer for his fine work.

It's a stacked group, but who the hell deserves the win?? Clift chews the scenery in his alcoholic state. Falk is his usually charming self, yet this time he is a gruff gangster. Gleason plays a serious role that is against type and nails it, but Scott kinda acts circles around him. Chakiris came along for the ride but should I swap him with Scott? I think so. Scott is just better and I feel Gleason is better, too. Feels controversial, but it's not really. Just giving Scott multiple wins now. Intriguing group of actors and tough decision to make. I want every year to be a tough one. On to 1960.

Oscar Winner: George Chakiris - West Side Story

My Winner: George C. Scott - The Hustler

Jackie Gleason

George Chakiris

Peter Falk

Montgomery Clift