Best Picture 1964

OK, so I am posting this on Oscar nomination day in 2022 and it's got me super hyped to watch every film ever. It's partially why I came back to this project to finish this year. I just fell off and didn't feel motivated to watch movies. Played so many video games and binged like 3 years of TV shows. Just had so much else going on. I know my ideal timeline for this project was like maybe 5-10 years, but sometimes you get stuck. Life happens, or doesn't happen as is my case really. Just didn't feel like watching Zorba the Greek after a few tries. It's a good group of nominees and am finally excited to get this shit over with.

1964 Best Picture

My Fair Lady

When it comes to musicals, I always seems to start out heavily skeptical about if I'm going to like them or not. I think we have all sat through a musical we just absolutely hated or that was flatly boring with some uninspired songs. But for the most part, the musicals I have encountered in this project have been mostly entertaining with some catchy songs. This one is no different. There are a couple songs I really liked and as a whole, the musical works. It has a lot of things you could point to as issues, though. Audrey Hepburn has her singing dubbed over, Rex Harrison mostly talk sings and isn't that great vocally, though this style does work for me in this film and for the character. Julie Andrews originated the role of Eliza on stage and really wanted the film and so did Harrison, so there was that background going on. Of course, Andrews went on to win her Oscar for Mary Poppins and Hepburn was famously snubbed for even a nomination, though I feel a nomination was not earned here. And many feel that Harrison's Henry Higgins is plainly misogynistic, though again, I feel like he mostly just hates people and not women in general. Most of that doesn't matter to the story for me. Eliza has a horrible cockney accent that Higgins accepts through a bet to change her into a proper sounding British woman that can pass as believable in high society. Hepburn does a great job with that awful cockney accent and makes the transformation truly believable, even if she doesn't get to sing her own songs. There are quite a few well done scenes like the one at the horse race that looks wonderful. I liked the way some of those scenes had the extras all gather and stop at various times to start the scene, it was pretty clever. I was surprised with how lively the film was overall. I guess I was thinking that a story about proper, upper crust British folk may be a bit dour and boring, but it had some energy to it, thankfully. It's just under three hours but didn't feel too long. I do think the ending goes on a bit and could have been shortened, but otherwise the pace of the film is nice as we bounce from song to song. It's a pretty good musical, but we also have another musical in this category that feels a bit more progressive, while this is old school. It will be interesting to see if this holds up as a winner because I have a feeling it will not with the stiff competition of the other films below.

Becket

Boy do I really love historical period piece dramas! And that's not a sarcastic joke from me. This is a fantastic film and while the term period piece can evoke stuffy costume drama, this is far from that. This film is a story about King Henry the II and his right hand man and confidante, Thomas Becket. These are played by Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton, respectively. That's one hell of a combination of actors and the two have such easy, seamless chemistry. It's a story of love and friendship and focuses on devotion and what that really means. The two are great friends, though the king is still the king, and after Burton is made Archbishop of Canterbury in hopes this will keep the Church firmly in O'Toole's control, Burton takes the role seriously and contention and drama ensues. There is some great acting from both men as well as John Gielgud in this film. It's like a masterclass in acting. It's far from stuffy, too. It has a nice pace and the acting and relationships are the primary focus of the film and not the costumes and sets. Though those are all on point here and the film looks great overall. The music and cinematography are good, as well, but you are here for the acting showcase on display. The story is interesting and it won a Screenplay Oscar, though it also lost eleven other nominations which is tied for most all time. Not sure what else to say about this great film. It's simply a film where the acting takes precedence and really carries the film overall. The reason you watch is to see O'Toole and Burton act with and against each other and just soak up the awesome display of acting power on screen. Can't go wrong with that.

Dr. Strangelove

"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" I think that line just about sums up what this film is all about. It's a great political satire from Stanley Kubrick and is simply an all time classic. It takes the not so absurd idea that an American airbase commander would launch a nuclear strike on Russia and we see the fallout from trying to stop it and understand it. The satire is biting and funny and you realize just how possible something like this scenario could happen in real life. So much so that the US had to overhaul their protocols to prevent something like this happening in real life. There is great acting throughout the film, most notably from Peter Sellers who plays three very different characters and knocks them all out of the park. Without Sellers, the film wouldn't be as poignant and great and it's crazy to me that he didn't win Best Actor. The black and white photography is great, Kubrick's direction is inspired, the story and all the other elements just coalesce into something that stands the test of time. This is one of those picks by the Academy that looks better and better as years go by. Yeah, other films in this group are beloved and respected, but this film has been held up as a classic and one of the best satire films ever that still remains relevant in today's world. This one is a quick and easy watch that will leave you laughing and also shaking your head that this could still be possible. An all-timer.

Mary Poppins

I sometimes forget that this is a Best Picture nominated film and that the Academy loved the hell out of it, too. This film actually was nominated for 13 Oscars, second most all time, of which it won 5 of them. Really everyone reading this should have seen the film already and knows all about it and it's cultural impact. Not really anything deep I can add to the critique of the film that hasn't been said a million times before by millions of other folks. The film is colorful, charming, inventive, and entertaining. It's easy to see why it was so liked back then and still so well beloved now. The mix of animation and real live acting had to have been really mind blowing back then. I really do love how a lot of the scenes are full of color and spectacle and how the special effects, for which it won an Oscar, are so seamlessly integrated and still look good today. There are some places where it looks obvious, but it doesn't take me out of the film at all. Now it's just charming and yet there are still some crazy effects, especially all the flying around people do. Julie Andrews is obviously a big reason the film works and her performance is iconic and warmly comforting in a way. My complaints would be Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent, though some probably find it funny and charming in its own right. And I feel the movie is too long and drags a lot at the end. The pacing was off to me and felt like it should have been tighter. I was not a fan of the banking scenes, either, which were really boring and lacked the actual Mary Poppins. But this is a classic for a reason and holds up well as a musical with some very catchy songs. I may forget that it's been nominated in this category, but it makes sense with how well made it is and how well loved it is.

Zorba the Greek

It took me a long while to finally watch this film. I tried a couple times and just couldn't get past about twenty minutes. Not because it's bad or anything, but the film never really grabbed me in a strong way. I know it's somewhat beloved by folks and typically I had heard good things about the performances and film as a whole. But this one just didn't seem to connect with me. To start off, it does look great and won Oscar for the Cinematography and Art Direction (both black and white). The film itself feels familiar, as if I have already seen it before and perhaps I have in a roundabout way with how influential this was with its foreign slice of life story. I really enjoyed Alan Bates and this project has not only introduced me to him, but made me a fan of his work. It's solid sort of stuffy British fish out of water type of stuff, but I enjoyed his role. I recognize that Anthony Quinn is well liked and a good actor, but he's a bit over the top here and I guess that is how he plays a Greek man who has a big zest for life. I know Quinn has played all different kinds of foreign characters and he is believable as a Greek man. A lot of his work just seems to be his natural charm and likability as an actor which benefits him well here. The story at times is slow and can seem a bit vignette-y, where this clearly comes from a book. I'm also sure the book does a better job of reeling you in and is probably more exciting to read than it is to watch this film, for me anyway. Again, not a bad film at all, but it bounces from one idea to the next without really developing any of them in any meaningful way. When the Widow is killed, we quickly move on from being shocked and saddened by it. It's really weird how it just flits on to the next little blurb of a story like we just moved on to a new episode. Sometimes a film just fails to connect in a way that others seem to love about the film. Zorba was an interesting watch but certainly not a favorite especially with this nominee group. Worth watching because it is part of film history and always gets some love by others who talk about, so see for yourself how you feel about it.

 

I liked this group of nominees and it's a very entertaining group. Honestly, besides Zorba the Greek, it could maybe be a toss up. I enjoyed Zorba for what it is but just have so many issues with the story and the characters. Mary Poppins is a classic, but also has its issues. Lovable but it has its flaws. My Fair Lady is actually a respectable winner, but just not my winner. Like the performances and songs, just not the overall thing. Becket is flipping awesome. Love costume dramas, but this is like a bro costume drama. Just a great story with phenomenal acting and if not for an all time classic war satire film, it would be an easy winner. Dr. Strangelove is the winner for me. It's sooooo good and just funny and absurd and iconic and just a million other adjectives. Peter Sellers is ridiculous and should have won and the world leaders should watch this film together every year. Why are we hurtling towards WWIII with Ukraine and Russia right now when this is still so relevant? Crazy, but that's why it wins, an all-timer.

Oscar Winner: My Fair Lady
My Winner:  Dr. Strangelove
Becket
My Fair Lady
Mary Poppins
Zorba the Greek

Leading Actor 1964

I know I've said this before, but what a goddamn group of legendary actors! This is the kind of group you dream of and want to see over and over again. Let's hope I want to see these over and over again!

1964 Best Actor

Rex Harrison - My Fair Lady

I was wary of this win coming into this year because I had really disliked Harrison in Doctor Dolittle from a couple years later. He couldn't sing a lick in that film and was a raging asshole on set and it seemed to carry over to the film. But those reasons I disliked him in that film are essentially why I really enjoyed him in this film! From what I read, he wasn't an asshole off set on this film, but he didn't want Audrey Hepburn in the role because he wanted Julie Andrews to play Eliza. Andrews originated the role on stage, just like Harrison did with the Henry Higgins role. He actually won a Best Actor Tony for it, one of those few actors to win an acting Tony and Oscar for the same role. But those qualities I hated ended up working for Harrison in this film. He still can't sing a lick, but his sort of speak-singing style where he mostly just talks a bit faster without the grand intonations works surprisingly well for the character. I feel we get to focus on the words and rhymes a bit more which seems apt for a linguistics professor. He is also kind of an ass to Eliza in the film. Some say he's misogynist, but I feel like he just genuinely hates most people or he feels he's above them in a way. He does treat Eliza like a thing more than a person and I think that's partly because she is a subject to train for him to win a bet. By the end he does realize that he likes having her around and that he misses her. I am not sure it's as a love interest as it is more like he grew to respect her a bit more than others. Harrison really did somewhat surprise me with this performance, though. I was expecting to outright hate it, but I was amused and entertained and really enjoyed how dedicated he was to the role. I think some, if not most, of that comes to him having played it on stage and how he really wanted to play the role on screen, too, because he was not the first choice. One knock against the character is that Higgins doesn't have a lot of depth to him. We never really dive deep down into what makes him tick. He just sees everyone as a linguistic thing to be curious about and is a very selfish person. That realization at the end seems more determined by the story than by a true self realization and earned character arc. Harrison does his best with this and makes his character interesting and honestly compelling to me. I laughed and enjoyed his lines, but could also recognize how terribly he was treating Eliza. I won't say the acting is surface level as I do feel that Harrison brings a ton to the character, but a better arc would make the film better overall, I think. I am just glad that I didn't hate this performance like I thought I might. That's due in large part to Harrison crafting something I enjoyed even though I know many people find him insufferable and the character to be an awful person. I get it, but I like Harrison here.

Richard Burton - Becket

Ho hum. Another Burton nomination, another solid knockout. He has really cemented himself as one of my all time favorite actors and I'm so happy this project opened me up to his work. I obviously knew of him before, but had not seen all that much of his output. In this film, he plays the eponymous Becket, who is the right hand man of Peter O'Toole's Henry II. The two have undeniable chemistry and watching them together in the first part of the film was amazing, honestly. O'Toole was cracking me up right and left with his banter and Burton showed me he can play more than just serious dramatic work. The beginning part of the film had me hooked right away and it really highlighted how well the two legendary actors work well together and contrasted with them working separately later on, which was interesting. Historical inaccuracies aside, Burton is a Saxon in this film and O'Toole, the king, is from Normandy. Burton has worked his way to genuinely becoming O'Toole's confidante and best friend. Some might even say more than just a friend, though the censorship laws and all that at the time wouldn't let that be explored. But it tells you how close they are. Burton is made chancellor in title, which makes his right hand status legit and then they go off to France to fight. There, news hits that the Archbishop of Canterbury has died. O'Toole has been feuding with the Church for more taxes and for them to pay for his war and troops. So this allows the king to make Becket the head of the Church in England, thinking Becket is only loyal to him and not God. Well, things don't go as planned and Becket takes the role seriously. More drama ensues. Burton is so good in the role and the best part is that he and O'Toole never try to steal the spotlight from the other. They share their scenes together and act as a cohesive unit. Burton gets to play the more reserved and deferential man because he is lower in status. Burton is great at playing the role this way and it plays to his strengths as I feel Burton is one of the best at playing a quietly strong individual. I also think Burton really shines as he becomes the Archbishop and becomes a bit more religious and duty bound to God and not the king. He finds a lot more power in the performance in the later part of the film and Burton makes him being a religious man believable, which was some folks' worry when he was cast. It works out well because it shows the dichotomy of the two men even clearer with Henry becoming more unhinged and wild. I like the transition that Burton had to undergo because it's well earned. We see moments early on where Becket is more placating Henry rather than fully agreeing, like in bedding the young peasant girl. Even though their chemistry is strong, there are cracks in the foundation, so Becket's change in devotion isn't as sudden or unbelievable. I am just so impressed with the range that Burton continues to show in his performances. Couple this with his other film of the year, The Night of the Iguana, where he plays the boozy, defrocked minister lusting after a younger girl. I cannot wait to see more from this incredible actor.

Peter O'Toole - Becket

See the above review for more about this film. O'Toole plays King Henry the II and Becket is his right hand man and close ally. All of the above happens and there is a falling out. The drama between these two is wonderfully acted by both parties. I do enjoy their chemistry together, especially in the first part of the film. O'Toole is insanely funny and I was actually laughing out loud quite often just watching some of his antic, looks, and from his witty banter. That's what got me hooked and the rest kept me invested all the way through. This is also legitimately a leading performance along with Burton. They both lead and O'Toole gets to play the more wild and unbridled king. Obviously the king gets to act however he wants without anyone really telling him how to behave and O'Toole goes all out at times with great results. He's funny, but also extremely lonely once the two split. Even before that, you could tell there was some longing on O'Toole's part to maybe have an equal. I think that O'Toole excels at swinging wildly from one emotion to the next without it ever seeming out of place or overacted. Basically everything that I've loved from O'Toole so far is on display in this performance. Couple his brilliance with Burton's and throw in a quick John Gielgud for good measure and you have a recipe for a really great film. And really you can't have one without the other because they play off each other so well. It's a shame that they probably split the vote and neither would ever win an acting Oscar.

Anthony Quinn - Zorba the Greek

I know a lot of people seem to love this performance a lot. I had some high expectations going in, but ultimately felt let down in the end. One thing this performance has going for it is Quinn's energy in the role. It's almost infectious in everyone he meets and his Zorba is a very loud, bombastic, energetic man traveling through life. I can appreciate the performance for how full of life Quinn makes his character feel to us. It's a fully lived in character, but it also is some very over the top acting in a film that can't seem to find the right balance between serious and carefree. The story itself feels a bit episodic, so in turn we get these wild mood swings for Zorba that feels like a roller coaster of emotions at times. The performance yo-yo's between the funny, vibrant man who is dancing and singing and back slapping everyone around him to fighting to protect a woman from death or monologuing in earnest about his time at war. A role like this is probably a lot of actors' dream to have so many different emotions on display, but I need it to gel together and be cohesive and not a series of acting moments. I blame the story more so than I blame Quinn. He definitely gives it his all and gets the other actors around him to  open up and be more lively. In no way did watching Quinn do his thing become grating during this performance. I wanted to make sure I mentioned that because it's an entertaining character that Quinn imbues with a ton of heart and spirit and I think most people will probably love it. I think the film is a little bit of a miss for me and I enjoy Quinn for what he does but can't quite pull for him all the way. I am very excited to start seeing more and more of him as a progress backwards in time with this project. I am sure I'll find something of his to love.

Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove

This is an incredible performance from Sellers. Or really I should say this is an incredible trio of performances from Sellers as he plays Group Captain Mandrake, President Muffley, and the eponymous Dr Strangelove. This is the only time someone has been nominated for playing three different characters in a film. And the fact that he pulls off every single one and essentially carries the film is just mind blowing. You can break down each character and go from there, but this is some really great work. Mandrake is a British RAF officer who is the XO of an Air Force base commander is paranoid by commies. He plays this character in a normal way, bringing sense to a senseless situation. He has to placate the general who is nuts and has launched a nuclear strike on his own. It has all the trappings of a British performance with the dry humor and means of deflection. It's good on its own, but not award worthy. Then you juxtapose it with his President role and you could not tell these were the same actor at all. His President is a foil to the madness and Sellers plays it straight. He is the voice of reason and is mostly calm and incredulous. He utters the famous line of "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" It is a needed role in this film because it reigns in the satire. Apparently it was initially shot with him having a funny, effeminate voice and really playing up the character before Kubrick realized the film needed someone like what we got. His Strangelove character is a thing of brilliance and one that is not on screen enough. It's the role he has the least amount of time with and I really wish we got to see more of him in this role. The whole alien hand thing doing Nazi salutes and trying to choke him is ridiculously funny and a reason to want to see more of him. Combine all of these together and you get a legit Best Actor nominee. He did so much in his roles that were all wildly different that in any other year he may have easily won. This is a stacked group and I am going to have to see where he stacks up among them.


Probably legit one of the best acting groups ever, you really can't go wrong with anyone on this list. I have Quinn pulling up the rear, but there are lots of people who would give him the win. For me, I wasn't a fan of the over the top acting. Simple as that. I actually enjoyed Harrison way more than I did in his, well, I guess subsequent nomination but previous in the context of me going backwards. Anyway, I liked his portrayal of Henry Higgins and understand why and how he won. O'Toole just came up on another curse where his co-lead outshined him and others in his group were just better. I could give every year to Burton even if he wasn't alive. I've become a Burton stan and it feels good. He is superb here but not quite worth the win. Sellers plays three...three...different characters and is amazing as all three and just makes the film as funny and amazing as it is. Can't believe he lost, but can believe it if you understand what I mean. Would be awesome if Sellers had an Oscar. Let's move on, now.

Oscar Winner: Rex Harrison - My Fair Lady
My Winner:  Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove
Richard Burton
Peter O'Toole
Rex Harrison
Anthony Quinn

Leading Actress 1964

Some huge names in this group. Super eager to watch and see what they offer up. Of course, if you are looking at this come nomination day, would we say it's a stacked group? Probably not and would just want the super popular film to win. I dunno, can't judge my nonexistent past self. But I am excited for this group so let's get it.

1964 Best Actress

Julie Andrews - Mary Poppins

Now we finally get to Andrews' win. I feel like if she had not won for her very first film role here, that she would have won in 1965 for The Sound of Music. Or would have won for whatever film she was in, because she was almost in My Fair Lady, and I could totally see her winning for that role. I have gotten to watch a lot of Andrews' films in this project, not always because she has been nominated. But I have always enjoyed her and her acting style. How can you not like Julie Andrews? Besides being beautiful, she is so charming and quick witted that she just feels natural in whatever character she is playing. She can sing and dance and act and hit comedic notes with just the right precision. She is sort of a do it all actress and it's been fun to see her growth, albeit in a non-linear way. This character is similar in a lot of ways to her Maria Von Trapp and feels like almost a primer for her Oscar win. The character is iconic because of Andrews, but it's also a unique character on its own. She can fly and defy the laws of physics and has all these little tricks and abilities that wow the children and endears the viewer to her. She clearly has a good time with it even when the character can be a bit serious at times, Andrews still makes it warmly comfortable. Her singing is top notch, as is her dancing, and her scenes with Dick Van Dyke are a lot of fun to watch. It is simply an immensely enjoyable performance for someone in their film debut. She was coming from Broadway but it is still very impressive that she could just step in and dominate and feel like this had been her role for her whole life. It's a classic role with an indelible performance that will be hard to unseat as the winner.

Anne Bancroft - The Pumpkin Eater

I had to rewrite this little review because sometimes you just can't quite get good momentum while writing and every sentence sounds like a random thought or non-sequitur. I wish this film had a better title than being based off the nursery rhyme of Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater, which I think one of the children says in the background of the film. It's a character study of Bancroft's character, who is on her third marriage and has like eight or nine kids. We see her marriage breakdown right alongside her psyche and there's a lot of reasons as to why. Her newest husband, Peter Finch, cheats on her while away on a film shoot and constantly lies to her. She seems to only engage in sex to have a kid, so the bedroom is dead. It seems she likes the thrill of getting married and everything that comes with the new beginning and with have another child. There's a lot of neuroses and psychological issues going on for Bancroft's character and she has to go through a wide range of emotions, many of which are shown in closeup. So she has to use her face and her looks to convey exactly what her character is feeling and thinking without much context at times. This was honestly a nice change of pace to the musicals and lighter fare I had seen before this. This is pure dramatic work and a really strong effort from Bancroft. I like when an actor can show us so much range and emotion without doing much more than a look or a shift in body language or her eyes not having a spark like in other scenes. It reminded me of Gena Rowlands work in that this is serious work in a sort of indie type of film. There's a scene where Bancroft breaks down crying in a store that is just incredible acting and she is like that all the way through the film. She is radiant and beautiful in scenes where she is happy and all is well and then gloomy and morose with sunken eyes in scenes where her depression is rearing it's head and her marriage is falling apart. So much range that yo-yo's back and forth throughout the film and it is impressive to watch Bancroft do her thing in this film. I would for sure recommend this since I'm sure no one has heard of it, let alone seen it.

Sophia Loren - Marriage Italian-Style

I am always a little worried when we get a foreign film in this category, or really any category, because I never know if I'm reading the performance/film the right way. Meaning is something getting lost in translation or with me reading subtitles? I want to take everything in and not miss the tiniest of glances or tonal inflections. At least with Loren, I kinda know what I'm getting already. What's left is to see just how good of an actress she is in her native tongue. And... I'm not the biggest fan of the film. I get it, Loren was this super sexy world famous actress who had won an Oscar only three years prior and this feels like the Academy doing what it does best and rewarding someone after a recent win. They do it all the time and I've highlighted it in numerous reviews. I am excited to watch her win and I know she's a great actress, but here she underwhelms a whole lot. Story is about Loren who is rescued when a teenager by a charming Marcello Mastroianni, who we have had the pleasure of reviewing a couples times before. Story continues fluctuating between modern day where the two are estranged and flashbacks where the two are falling in and out of love. It feels like a typical romantic Italian film. Loren doesn't have to really do much heavy lifting and relies on her looks for a lot of scenes but does have some depth to her in those small instances where she can show it off. I just feel like their is better films of this type and for the major actors involved. It feels like this is a sort of milquetoast Italian romance film starring two mega stars in Loren and Mastroianni and everything feels like its being sleepwalked. Feels like a token nomination for Loren because the old white men were infatuated with her and that's it. Not worth the time but I am looking forward to seeing her winning work.

Debbie Reynolds - The Unsinkable Molly Brown

I was not a big fan of this musical if I'm being honest. It was actually pretty boring and I can't remember any songs from the film and I just got done watching it. If a musical doesn't have catchy, recognizable songs that stay with you after watching, then it is not successful as a musical. The only real saving grace of this film is Reynolds. She sure as hell can dance, but we already knew that from her iconic role in Singin' in the Rain. It's used to great acclaim here since some of those musical sequences go on for a long time with Reynolds and cast dancing for awhile. She is not much of a singer but not sure if that is because her character is this tomboy, outcast girl who is pretty rough and tough on the exterior and pretty badass inside with her fighting spirit. She falls in love with some rich local guy near Denver and they try to enter society but are laughed at. They get the upper hand in the end, but she decides to leave the local guy for Europe but reconsiders and books it home on the Titanic. All of that last bit happens in like the last ten minutes or so of the film. I take exception to the title of this film because I honestly thought it would be about her Titanic misadventure and not just an afterthought, but it's only about her early life. The word that kept coming up when reading about this film and Reynolds was boisterous and that fits her to a tee. She is loud and proud and embraces her dumb upbringing. She leans into it but still learns how to read and my favorite scene is the one where she is welcoming the foreign guests to her party and talking to them in different languages. Reynolds is the only reason to watch this film because without her all around effort, this thing is a huge failure. I already was bored with the film, but would have fallen asleep if she wasn't there to keep me awake. This feels more like wanting to reward Reynolds for her career and maybe right a wrong from her early days, I dunno. Certainly not the best musical in this category.

Kim Stanley - Seance on a Wet Afternoon

It's funny how sometimes what I want to initially say matches up with what I said the previous year. So I copy the previous year and paste it here and then make my updates and then write my reviews and I wanted to say that this is an interesting film, just like I did in this spot for 1965. And it is an interesting film. This is about a domineering medium, Stanley, who forces her meek husband (Richard Attenborough) to kidnap a young girl so that she can eventually contact the family to say she knows what happened to their daughter. Clever, but also you know it's just gonna end up going wrong. There's a lot of tension in waiting to see how things are going to unravel for the couple and I think Attenborough is fantastic in his role. Stanley plays her role in a rather gentle manner. She never screams or yells or acts wildly towards her husband. It is all done in a very mild, but stern manner as we see how domineering she can be and how meek her husband is. She is deranged and insane and it seems to stem from losing her child when they were very young. Stanley does a great job of portraying this seemingly innocent looking woman as a person who is not at all right in the head. Even at the end when they get rid of the girl, she says things in a cheery way and feels more at ease. A good thriller has you become disturbed by the main character and Stanley makes you want to smack her in the face for her depravity. That's the mark of a good performance as she gets us to absolutely hate her and feel sickened by her husband but also feel sorrow for Stanley commanding him. It's a very good suspenseful thriller where we root against Stanley even as she does everything to make herself look innocent. Really kinda dug this little film as it is very different than the normal stuff we get in Best Actress.



Okay, so this is a good group and a really hard one to figure out the winner. Loren is the obvious fifth spot. Not a fan of the film and not a fan of her performance and it's just all blah. Stanley is very interesting and I appreciate that kind of film which I wasn't expecting. Enjoyed what she did with the performance. Reynolds absolutely carries her film and without her, it is a pile of hot garbage. Not at all good enough to win, but should be rewarded with the middle. My big battle is between Andrews and Bancroft. I understand Andrews' win for her role because it is iconic and she did so much with that musical. But on pure acting, I'm giving it to Bancroft who blew me away with her dramatic work. It makes her other work make sense and she is not just Mrs. Robinson. I think she's fantastic and felt she deserved the win. A really diverse group of roles and films and I can't wait to keep diving into these.

Oscar Winner: Julie Andrews - Mary Poppins
My Winner:  Anne Bancroft - The Pumpkin Eater
Julie Andrews
Debbie Reynolds
Kim Stanley
Sophia Loren

Supporting Actor 1964

I love when I have not seen any of the films and barely know who the actors are. I know Gielgud and have seen him in lots of things and know that this is Ustinov's second win, but couldn't tell ya much about them or the films. Mt favorite category, so let's get to it.

1964 Best Supporting Actor

Peter Ustinov - Topkapi

This was Ustinov's second win in this category, so naturally I was excited to see what made him so special. I have seen other multiple Oscar winners and not been wowed at all, so I wondered if this would be another one of those types of winners. Well, it's not a terrible win or anything. I think I'll need to watch the rest of the nominees and more of Ustinov's work to figure out where he stands. But performance wise, he's decent enough. This film is about a heist to steal a jeweled dagger from a palace in Turkey. The first half was a lot of fun to watch and Ustinov has more of a comedic role. He's a small time grifter of sorts that gets roped into participating in the heist by the actual thieves. But the police are also on to him so he has to balance those two realities in the film. He has some fun, humorous moments early in the film. He's witty and has some good physical comedy to him. But then the second half of the film gets a bit more serious about the heist and that comedy kinda fades away as Ustinov seems very nervous and worried and serious, as he's participating in the heist. Ustinov is this sort of bumbling, harmless man who just wants to make a quick buck. By the end, he is important to the heist and making sure it goes off without issue. He does still retain some humor and is relatable to the audience with his reluctance and confusion as to what is exactly going on. He is very likable in the role and I can see why the Academy liked him, as well. I still think the performance kinda falls flat towards the end, but I think that's a fault of the film getting too serious with the heist. Also, Ustinov may be considered the lead of the film, as we see everything through him and he's in most scenes. I like the performance and the film is mostly fun, but maybe this is category fraud and the Academy going back to the same well like they love to do? I'll have to see if this holds up as a good winner.

John Gielgud - Becket

When you watch this film, you will be thinking how could anyone upstage Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole going at each other? Well, just be John Gielgud, I guess. He plays King Louis of France and only has two scenes in the film for only about ten minutes worth of screen time, possibly less. But he makes the absolute most out of those two scenes. He is very assured and witty as he toys with the English messengers who ask him to find and lock up Burton's Becket. He has this supreme presence about him, but it is at stark odds to how O'Toole's Henry II is with his advisors. Gielgud is relaxed and jovial, but still in command. His playing with the emissaries just shows his total control over his kingdom. His talk with Burton, who was hiding nearby, shows that he's politically savvy as having Becket makes life harder for Henry. Gielgud comes in like a veteran actor who drops off a great performance with little effort and leaves an impression on the film. It also helps break up the whole Becket/Henry drama and is a nice little refreshing detour. It doesn't last long, but Gielgud makes the most of his opportunity and it's a very fun role that fits well into the film at just the right time.

Stanley Holloway - My Fair Lady

I am always skeptical when we get a couple supporting nominees from a really well liked film like this one. Are they just coming along for the ride or are they actually well earned nominations? Because the former is more often than not the case. I feel like Holloway earned this nomination for playing Eliza Doolittle's father. A lot of things go his way for this role, most important being that he actually sings his songs in the film. The others are either dubbed over, or in the case of Rex Harrison, he just speaks the songs without really singing them. Also in Holloway's favor is the fact that he originated the role on stage and was nominated for a Tony for his efforts. He had lived in the role and it was clearly evident on screen. He also has a bit more to do with the role. He pops up here and there throughout the film and isn't relegated to just one or two scenes. He has a very catchy song he sings and is convincing as the dustman who is trying to make an easy pound or five. Holloway gets to dance, albeit stiffly, and make a lot of funny jokes and observations that helps lighten the film and show the quality of the people living on the poorer end. He is one of those perfectly supporting characters, there to bring more color to a film even if he doesn't really grow or have an arc. He comes into money but recognizes that this only brings people coming to him now instead of him continuing to bug others for money. It's a great point that he just wants to be a bit comfortable and isn't looking to do anything grand. I enjoyed the performance and am glad it wasn't something pointless in the film that got voted in because the Academy loved it and not him.

 Edmond O'Brien - Seven Days in May

This film has quite the cast with Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, Frederic March, Ava Gardner, Martin Balsam, and a screenplay by Rod Serling. O'Brien had already won an Oscar for The Barefoot Contessa (no matter how much he robbed my favorite film in 1954), so add him to the list, too. This is a pretty cool film in that it's a political film where a military coup has been planned against the President because he made a treaty with the USSR over nuclear arms. Lancaster is the main antagonist and a Joint Chief of Staff who is pressuring others to join and perpetrate the coup. O'Brien is a drunk Senator from Georgia who is friendly with the President and tries to get to the bottom of the coup and learn what's going on. It takes him to various places and he even gets caught, but is helped out by a friendly General. It's a political thriller and has all those trappings of the 60s. O'Brien is good enough in the role. He has some comedic moments but also has to play serious with everything going on. He stands by the President and is a voice of support and reason to him. I wouldn't say O'Brien does anything amazing with the role, it's just solid. It's more that he was a previous Oscar winner and I think that he was an easy choice to represent the film for them. Not a winner by any means, but I am glad that it gave me the opportunity to see this film because it's a very good one that tells a specific story from the 60s that was in everyone's mind back then with the nuclear treaty with USSR and how that would be perceived. Watch this one for the film itself and enjoy it for that.

Lee Tracy - The Best Man

This film is about a political campaign. It wants you to believe that this is a battle between two people in the same party as they try to win a convention. But let's be real, the two people are clearly Dem and Rep in their leanings, so why are the two completely opposite candidates going through some primary convention drama? Just name them as actual political opponents and go from there. Anyway, that's my petty beef with the film which is otherwise an entertaining look at the political process. Tracy plays the previous President and both guys are hoping for his endorsement. We see for various reasons why he won't endorse either one and that becomes a point of contention between both candidates. Oh yeah, the candidates are Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson. Oscar winners in their own right, they were both trying to manipulate Tracy to make them the best candidate. Like yeah, he's an ex-President, but he knows what it takes to hold the office and is basically seeing if both men can fill the role. He also plays them both and doesn't endorse either of them in the end. Tracy is good as the ex-President trying to curry favor from both big names. He's good natured and Presidential at times and then ruthless and straight to the open behind closed doors, which is kinda what you feel a President would be like. So this performance really has to work with us believing he is an ex-President and he succeeds in that. He's fine in the rest of the performance and the big twist at the end just shows how the political game is played, but the two candidates for sure are more interesting to me. So a good supporting role, but not the reason to watch the film exactly.


Interesting group that had potential. Didn't quite work out for this year, though. Tracy and O'Brien are pretty interchangeable. You could tell me they were in each other's films and I would be like yeah okay, sure. Both political films and just older white guys who lean in for advise and to be voices of reason at times. Whichever spot you want to put them in is fine by me. Ustinov won his second Oscar for a role that is really probably a lead role since he is focused on so heavily. But it's completely undeserved no matter how funny it can be in the beginning. It wanes towards the end and just doesn't stand up against the other two who are left. Holloway is surprisingly fantastic in his role. I enjoyed it and I liked that it contributed to the film and the plot and wasn't just some lame father role. He worked it on stage and worked it onscreen. Kudos to him for making something last. Gielgud is the obvious winner. He comes into that film like a breath of fresh air in a film that doesn't actually need a breath of fresh air but yet we are eager to breathe it in. O'Toole and Burton are amazing but Gielgud gets to come in and drop the mic and leave. Fun to watch and an easy winner for me. Looking forward to moving on.

Oscar Winner: Peter Ustinov - Topkapi
My Winner:  John Gielgud - Becket
Stanley Holloway
Peter Ustinov
Edmond O'Brien
Lee Tracy

Supporting Actress 1964

Fun fact about this year's category and group of nominees is that it may be the oldest average age of nominees ever at 61. I think I read that somewhere, so I don't know if another category is older, but this one is for sure an average age of 61. So it is full of older white women. Now I don't know what that means exactly, older women were getting pushed into supporting roles? Academy wanted to reward some older actresses with a nomination? This was just a coincidence for the year? Or maybe we were in a transition year where the older folks were having their last hurrah before the 60s really started to take over. I dunno which one is more accurate but it's an interesting fact. I'm hoping for some really good performances and not some boring, perfunctory efforts simply voted for because they are old. Let's find out.

1964 Best Supporting Actress

Lila Kedrova - Zorba the Greek

I have always been interested in watching this winner because I have no idea who Kedrova is/was and the film was always well talked about whenever it would come up in discussions. From what I read, Kedrova learned English for this role as she was Russian and then did more film and stage work in the West, eventually winning a Tony Award for the early 80s revival of Zorba. Pretty interesting and that could certainly play into her win in a weak year with only older, white actresses in the running. Kedrova plays Madame Hortense, a foreign woman who owns a hotel in Greece. She is introduced to our main two men when they need a place to stay and she eventually gets all romantical with Anthony Quinn. She has a strong presence in the beginning of the film and then a little bit at the end of the film and is very naturally supporting to Quinn and Alan Bates. She's a woman with a lot of passion and gusto and she plays up the emotional side of her character and it almost mirrors Quinn's character in a way. She also shrouds her sadness in the vibrant emotions she shares on screen with her dancing and fretting about her hotel. She's been often married, so I think she is just at the end of her life and enjoying her time with Zorba but also anxious in the budding relationship. She's a very sympathetic character and it's easy to see why this was a well liked performance for the year. She brings a much needed balance to Zorba and helps liven up a film that can be a little too serious at times. A pretty decent performance that may not wow you and would certainly not win in a more stacked year. It at least entertains and is an actual supporting role which I can appreciate.

Gladys Cooper - My Fair Lady

This is one of those pointless nominations that comes along for the ride with a film that was so beloved by the Academy that it won 8 Oscars. I imagine that this was partly a veteran nomination as well as fitting the theme of this year's category of rewarding older, experienced actors. If you've seen the film, you may have trouble remembering who she is because she only has a couple short scenes. She plays Henry Higgins' mother. Now I must say, as I often do with these kinds of nominations, this is not a bad performance. Cooper is actually good for the film because she stands up to Higgins' shtick and doesn't blink at all at his shenanigans and behavior. To say it frankly, she doesn't put up with his shit. And it's welcome as I'm sure many folks can't stand Harrison in the role or at least the character itself. So it is essentially a mother who doesn't suffer her son's crap, calls him out with some haughty lines, and that's about it. It's a nice change of pace but is also too short and really doesn't leave a lasting impact. You can look to Stanley Holloway's supporting nomination as one that does do a lot for a film. I would rather have another actress here that maybe showed off more and allowed a chance to see another film. Not a bad performance, just not a good nomination.

Edith Evans - The Chalk Garden

This was Evans' second consecutive nomination, so that tells me the Academy probably loved her and that they were trying to give her at least a win. Is this a veteran nomination? Oh absolutely! It has to be. The film itself is actually pretty good. I thought it was going to be this stuffy British period piece type of thing, but it is about Evans who is an old wealthy Englishwoman who has custody of her granddaughter and wants to keep it that way. Which sounds stuffy, but it is not at all! The granddaughter is Hayley Mills and she is spoiled rotten and never told no and just has her bad behavior encouraged. So Evans is the main lady, Mrs. St. Maugham, where Mills' character lives. Her mother divorced her father and ran off with another man and so Evans' character took her in. Lots of animosity abound. Deborah Kerr is a mysterious woman who comes and answers an ad to be the governess and is hired. The film is about Kerr and Mills going at each other and that's the mystery and the appeal of the film. Evans plays the haughty grandma who has that prickly British accent who gives whoever shit when they deserve it or when she feels they deserve it. She is upper crust and tries to rule her little kingdom, but lets her granddaughter do whatever she wants, including burning things and snooping and just being a terrible person. You watch this film for Kerr and Mills, but Evans certainly adds to the overall appeal of the film. I enjoyed her performance because it adds to the film and supports the others involved. Though the performance is still mostly a grumpy old woman in power who talks down to everyone. I really did enjoy the performance, though. Not above and beyond or anything, just as a really good, classical supporting role in an entertaining film.

Grayson Hall - The Night of the Iguana

I was excited to watch this film because I have become a big Richard Burton fan and this is also an adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play. So it had some good pedigree going in its favor. The film is good enough, but feel like it may lose something from the play, I don't know for sure. The film is about Burton who is a priest who suffered a breakdown after being accused of banging a young Sunday school teacher. He went down to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to chill out as a tour guide and drink. A church tour comes through lead by Hall who has a young, hot teenage niece who tries to seduce Burton. Hall then vows to destroy Burton's reputation. Most of what I got out of Hall's performance was mostly one note. She screams a lot at Burton or when trying to locate her niece. She just seems like a grumpy, repressed bitch who may or may not be a lesbian who has a thing for her own niece. Just high strung and on guard from the start and never really eases up on that part of the performance. Hall plays her more like a lonely spinster who gets her kicks on getting someone in trouble. She has a memorable look with her wild hair and screeching but it doesn't progress much beyond that. This film does have some very good female performances especially from Ava Gardner, who I am looking forward to seeing more of, and from Deborah Kerr. Both feel like they'd be better choices but also are probably more leading than Hall. They also both have other big films this year, so it's surprising they weren't nominated themselves. Interesting film, yet the interesting performances weren't nominated in this film.

Agnes Moorehead - Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte

The most interesting fact about Moorehead that I learned was that she was the first female host of the Oscars and I found that to be very cool. It also tells you what the Academy thought of her and probably why she got nominated here. This is a Southern Gothic melodrama with some hints of horror and it is really fascinating and entertaining to watch, honestly. It's very campy at times and Moorehead is fully on board with that campiness. I think you have to go into this with an idea that it's supposed to be the way it is and not some super serious Oscar contender, though it did get seven nominations. And you have to realize that this is a follow up of sorts to Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and realize why it was made. Starring Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland, it's about Charlotte who in later life lives alone and is eccentric and crazy and in her youth was having an affair with a man who was killed in a gruesome way. Moorehead plays Velma, Charlotte's maid. She overacts and I think that is by design as she knows she's in a campy film where Bette Davis is overacting her ass off. She's got that very Southern accent and fiercely defends her employer. That's about all of what she does in the role. She lurks around and does Charlotte's bidding and then at the end of her time in the film, accuses de Havilland of drugging Charlotte. A lot of melodrama and I enjoyed it all. I don't think that Moorehead is all that amazing in the role, though she does make it her own. She is probably singled out for the aforementioned reasons but I'm okay with that because I got to watch this film as a result. It's campy fun and you get to watch quite a few big name older actresses do their thing and that's pretty cool, honestly. Never gonna be a winner, but it's fun to just sit back and enjoy a film for what it is.


One of the oldest average aged group of nominees actually produced a decent enough slate of performances. I am actually surprised and happy about that! Cooper is a throw in for a film everyone liked and probably because she was a beloved actress herself. Fine. But would be better suited with someone more deserving. Hall is completely one note to me and it brings her impact down so much. Just shrieking and not very likable, just above the ride along nominee. I really enjoyed Moorehead's campiness. It was such a melodramatic film that it fit and it just felt fun to watch. I got a sense of who she is and what she is capable of and will probably see more of her as I go back in time. Evans was almost the winner for me. Great in the role and in a surprisingly interesting film, with such a weak year she almost took it home. But I enjoyed Kedrova's desperate for love and attention hotel owner. She added to the film and was a great supporting player and, well, can't go against the Academy when they get it right. A year I didn't think would be very good, ended up being pretty entertaining with some super interesting films. More like this please.

Oscar Winner: Lila Kedrova - Zorba the Greek
My Winner:  Lila Kedrova - Zorba the Greek
Edith Evans
Agnes Moorehead
Grayson Hall
Gladys Cooper