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