Best Picture 1963

Some really interesting choices here. Why was this winner chosen over the others? I have always asked myself that when looking over the years. This one always stuck out as strange, so at least I can hopefully figure out why now.

1963 Best Picture

Tom Jones

It's not unusual to think of the other Tom Jones when you see this film. Shit joke aside, that Tom Jones got his stage name from this film, so fun fact there. This film, though, always made me wonder why it was nominated. I knew going in it was a bit of a controversial winner, but wanted to experience it for myself. It had five acting nominees, three in Best Supporting Actress alone, which is incredible! For some reason this film captured the zeitgeist and exploded. Funny thing is the director, Tony Richardson, kinda hated his own film. Felt is was an unfinished project that could have been worked on more and legit cringed when anyone would tell him they loved the film. It does seem as if the original novel would be better suited for a mini series, which has been done before. Point being that the director felt there was more to be done. Anyway, the film starts off crazy with not just the story, but the camera work itself. We are introduced to Albert Finney and the craziness starts off with fun camera angles and just an overall wild feel to the film. It levels off and becomes a more straightforward story about Tom Jones and his dalliances instead of some experimental early 60s film. There are lots of great performances and the story becomes much more normal. I'm assuming that this film hit differently in the early 1960s which is why it had such an effect on Hollywood and the box office. The source is a bawdy tale that does push the envelope a bit here, but backs off mostly. I'm wondering if this win is due to those voting for something that felt more modern which the film totally did, even though it was set in the 1750s. I dunno, it just feels like that fun film to vote for and what was it about again? Would love to see the ballot for this one.

America, America

This is probably one of the most forgotten Best Picture nominees that could be considered a masterpiece for the director. The film is actually based on a book director Elia Kazan wrote about the story of how his uncle journeyed to America. This is a deeply personal film and story for Kazan and it shows in the nearly three hour film. He even provides narration at the beginning and end of the film, so no shock when he said this was his favorite film of his. Now is this his all time great masterpiece to others? No, but I feel like you could still describe this film as such for Kazan, but he had some absolute bangers in his career, many of which we get to watch. The film is straightforward enough as we follow Stavros who is Greek by heritage but Turkish by birth. We follow his journey from the Armenian massacres, to a rough journey to Constantinople, to the ups and downs of trying to get to America. It's better to watch it for yourself to see what all happens, but it's a lot for a young man and will definitely hold your interest. I was so into what was going on that I got mad that Stavros would rather go to America than stay with the young girl he finds himself betrothed to, which is really just for money. But she was perfect and absolutely devoted to him that talking to the screen saying he was a fool to give her up. And that really drives home the message that some would do anything for a chance at the American dream and it puts into perspective Kazan's view on his adopted country and how a lot of people feel as immigrants. A really well done film that should definitely be watched at some point.

Cleopatra

I think anyone that is even a little bit of a film fan or loves old movies or knows about Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and Rex Harrison knows about Cleopatra. I would say most people know it's super long at over four hours and was super expensive for it's time and almost killed the studio system. It's considered one of the biggest box office bombs, yet still was nominated here probably because the studio campaigned hard to try and earn their money back, oh and it was the biggest grossing film of the year. Go figure. It also has some stunning visuals with the large sets, thousands of extras, bright colors splashed everywhere, and an epic sense of watching something important. Except it isn't. It is too long. The director initially wanted to make two three hour films but Fox made him cut down the six hours to three and some change before it went up over four. I think I watched the special version that is over four hours long, but it still goes on too long and a lot of scenes feel inconsequential. At times it is downright boring. The battle scenes are rather tame and muted, like they were tacked on as an afterthought. None of the acting really stands out except for Roddy McDowell as Octavian. Even Fox had to come out and apologize for putting him in Lead category for a nomination when he was clearly Supporting and stood a good chance of a nomination in that category instead. This is a huge film that should feel more grand and epic than it does and you can really see the studio meddling with the film and all the issues and setbacks suffered that takes a toll on the final outcome. I did want to grab onto something in the film to really champion or just love the film overall, and aside from McDowell, there's nothing to grab onto other than the big, bright sets. This is more like watching a piece of film history in the purely historical sense rather than watching because it's a great piece of film making. Probably worth the watch to say you have seen it but you're not missing out if you decide not to watch it.

How The West Was Won

This is an awesome all around film. I was thinking this may just be a shoot em up cowboy western, but it's so much more than that. This three hour film is basically a history of, well, how America expanded West. It covers most of the 1800s and has an impressive cast list that includes seven Oscar winners and ten other nominees. It's a stack lineup with the big names being James Stewart, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Debbie Reynolds, Gregory Peck and a whole lot more. The film is also split up into a few different segments that each had their own director and four different cinematographers, which is pretty impressive. You had The Rivers, The Plains, The Outlaws, The Civil War, and The Railroad. There were quite a few different stunning actions pieces including a tense river rapids scene, a harrowing buffalo stampede, and some wonderful train action. The film honestly has it all and feels like a genuine history lesson that does leave a lot of negative issues out but does actually briefly touch on some which seems about on par for the early 60s. They have some sex and violence and show a guy getting shot in the stomach where blood comes out his back, wasn't expecting that. There's some great laughs and some really oh shit moments where you can't believe they actually tried that stunt on screen. I'd say the weakest part of the film was the Gregory Peck and Debbie Reynolds part where they just don't really have any chemistry and feels tacked on for other reasons and to try and spice up The Plains crossing I guess. But the rest of the acting is fantastic. The film looks amazing in Cinerama. This was the second and final film shot with that camera which had three lenses and sort of was a precursor to widescreen format. The directors and actor hated it, but it makes for a gorgeous film and seeing some of those shots of the western scenery are breathtaking. I absolutely recommend watching this film because it will make you want to learn everything you can about the West and watch a lot of old timey Westerns. Just a marvelous film through and through.

Lilies of the Field

I have always wondered what this film was besides being what gave Sidney Poitier his historic Best Actor win. It always seemed to me like it was a big cultural film about race and in some ways it is. But in reality, it is just a very simple story about strangers coming together to help out on a singular goal. It's a short hour and half film and we see Poitier stop because his car is overheating and get convinced to stay and help a group of nuns. You could also say that a black man gets conned by white nuns to do their work for them without paying him. That's the pessimistic view of the film, but not entirely inaccurate. Poitier is fine in the role but doesn't really do any heavy lifting in his performance. The whole tone of the film is very hopeful and positive, if slight. The racial part of Poitier being black does come up a couple times, but it doesn't outweigh the story itself and is handled well without dwelling on him being black. Having just watched it, the film doesn't seem to have a lasting impression for me. Maybe I was expecting it feel more important than it just being a simple story about a man helping a group of nuns build a chapel. The performances are fine, the look of the film was fine, the story itself is fine. It might be on me for expecting a bit more than it was, but it is a good film. Another review I read said that the film lacked any heat, which I would agree with. There's a lack of any tension to make this film a bit more compelling than just a good people come together and do a thing. I'd say watch it for yourself and see if you connect with more than I did.

 

This is a pretty diverse group of nominees for the early 60s. Cleopatra is a film everyone should know because it's scene as a huge box office bomb and still gets talked about to this day. It is indeed too long and too boring for how epic this film should actually be. One time is enough for this one. Hate to say it, but outside of Sidney Poitier's historical win, Lilies of the Field isn't that great of a film and doesn't feel Oscar worthy at all. I'm okay with its inclusion for Poitier, I guess, but it's a simple story that doesn't really do much. Doesn't really feel uplifting and doesn't feel important for racial reasons or anything or like it's taking a stand. Replace Poitier and it for sure isn't on this list. Tom Jones was interesting. Still no real idea why it blew up and became such a big hit. People must have loved how modern it felt. But it's obvious from what the director said that there could have been more done for this film. It has good acting and some interesting moments but it didn't quite connect with me. America, America was great. Elia Kazan is one of the greatest directors ever and this deeply personal film shows why. I was fully invested and enjoyed seeing the crazy journey. Not his best work at all, but still up there with them. How The West Was Won kinda feels like cheating. Take an inventive new camera that makes the screen feel like you're right there inside it and shoot breathtaking scenes of the beautiful wilderness and add in a ton of big name actors and you get a really awesome film. It's like a greatest hits of the whole Western genre. It touches on all different facets and we get mostly great stories from each of them. I could easily watch this over and over if it were on TV whenever. One of those films that will suck you in and leave you wanting more. A nice winner for me. Ready to start winding down the 60s, though, so let's get to it.

Oscar Winner: Tom Jones
My Winner:  How The West Was Won
America, America
Tom Jones
Lilies of the Field
Cleopatra

Leading Actor 1963

All big names and of course Poitier's historic win are what you are drawn to at first look. Hoping the performance matches the historic win and just looking forward to all these big name actors putting in some work.

1963 Best Actor

Sidney Poitier - Lilies of the Field

There are a lot of expectations that come with watching Poitier's historic win. First black man to win an Oscar and only the second black person to win after Hattie McDaniel in Gone with the Wind. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume or expect that this is some iconic work or that the performance is amazing or must see. The reality is that this is just some fine Sidney Poitier work, but not at all amongst his best. Which makes it feel a bit underwhelming and brings up an honest question of was this the Academy just giving the award to Poitier for reasons other than him giving the best performance of the year? Even Poitier himself said that he wasn't sure if it was just because he was Hollywood's token black actor. It feels right that Poitier does have an Oscar and many actors have Oscars for what many would consider not their best work. For this performance, Poitier plays an out of work construction worker who is heading west and stops in the desert when his car overheats and he meets some nearby nuns to get some water. They convince him to stay and do some work for them and then that's the story. Poitier stays to help build a chapel for them with the help of the locals. It's a good performance. It's a Poitier performance. He really doesn't have to do much, if any, heavy lifting for the story. There's not any real emotional scenes or anything where the tension gets turned up or anything that would show off his acting chops or stretch himself as an actor. The tone of the film is pretty even all the way through and Poitier stays a somewhat reluctant participant who is mostly positive and upbeat like the film. There's nothing complex about the character or the performance even though it's begging to be handled with some more depth, which of course is no fault of Poitier's. It's just a simple role that was rewarded for whatever reason and we can celebrate Poitier as the first black actor to win for a leading role and celebrate him paving the way for others down the line.

Albert Finney - Tom Jones

This is a tough one to judge when Albert Finney himself said he was bored with the film and just their and didn't like his portrayal. Couple that with the director, Tony Richardson, who also stated he hated the film he made as it was incomplete and botched. So how much praise can we heap upon a man who says he hated his own performance? Finney is great as the eponymous Tom Jones. He is a playboy who actually loves one woman, yet has so many adventures that he bangs all kinds of women. He is a likable fellow and we are charmed by his dalliances as he moves from woman to woman. Obviously the Academy voter wants to live vicariously through him. I think the character's charm is the Finney is so likable and that we want to be him. He serves the film well, his breaks of the fourth wall are legendary, and we must enjoy what he gives us. He never has to do any heavy lifting and doesn't need to do anything emotional or tense. Just be a charming, good looking dude who can be forgiven for fucking everyone including someone who was supposed to be his mom. If someone hates their own performance, can we really champion it to be a winner? No, I don't think so and this is not the last we see of Finney. He has a lot of success after this. Good performance, you have been better elsewhere.

Richard Harris - This Sporting Life

This nomination is like a mish mash of Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. I'm talking about On the Waterfront and Raging Bull of course, but this performance feels like it owes a ton to those two guys. I get Raging Bull is twenty years later but it has the same feel of a guy going to the extreme to make his presence felt. Harris, besides eventually being the original Dumbledore before he tragically died early, was a two time Oscar nominee, this being his first. This film is pretty interesting because it does have such a Brando vibe to it. Harris plays a miner who gets into a fight after work one day and is noticed and asked to join the local rugby team where he becomes a star. He lives with a widowed woman that he is in love with but she isn't sure about starting any relationship and still mourns her husband. There is a lot of intensity in Harris' performance. A lot of it comes from him just being a huge brute. A bullheaded, uncouth lout that wants to be liked but is wary of what people think of him. He wants respect above all and by the end of the film he realizes that him being a great player doesn't matter as people only see him as this big ape who is good at rugby and don't care about him as a person. There's a lot of melancholy in Harris' performance, as well. You would think becoming famous and having money would solve your problems, but it really only exasperates them and shines a light on who people truly are. But the performance is full of this hulking intensity that never really leaves the film. Even when Harris has lighter moments it is still there simmering under the surface ready to bubble up. There are times where it definitely feels like Harris is acting and maybe even channeling a Brando type of performance. It sometimes comes off as strained and like moving around the scene grimacing and shaking a fist is what he relies on. I enjoyed the performance, though, and part of me wonders if I saw this before Brando in his film, if I'd appreciate this more. I like that Harris tries to bring a lot more into such a seemingly simple man who is big and strong and plays rugby. I think the scenes with Rachel Roberts, the widow, are interesting because they can be so caustic and combative yet you still see the humanity and the terror underneath their characters. She is scared to be hurt again and forget her husband and at the same time she has to deal with people calling her a slut for being with him. And Harris has to deal with the same thing of people constantly asking about her and it's such a weirdly complex relationship because of the actors ability to make these characters real and somewhat unlikable. Harris gives a really interesting performance that I think some people will really love.

Rex Harrison - Cleopatra

This was Harrison's first of his two nominations and it honestly felt like a flip of the coin determined if it would be him or Richard Burton nominated here. I don't mean that as in the two were so unbelievable that at least one of them had to represented. No, more like the film was so big, the studio had to have someone get nominated. I lean more towards Burton's Mark Anthony than Harrison's Julius Caesar. But I am also a Burton stan so I am a bit biased. Neither probably should have been nominated. What is there to really say about Harrison? We all have ideas of what Caesar should be like and I think Harrison fails at feeling like an actual leader and Roman Emperor. He is very witty and has great quips and can hurl insults like no other. That's the silver tongued Harrison we know and it would be used to great effect in his win for My Fair Lady. But here it just doesn't seem to fit the character. He and Elizabeth Taylor don't have very much chemistry between them, which kinda makes sense when she and Burton were together on the film and were more natural together. Harrison is not bad by any means. He's very profession, it's just that he doesn't fit the role perfectly. I don't feel like it makes the film any worse, but Burton in the role may have been better. That's mostly the point I wanted to make. It's fine, not at all great, and probably just came along for the ride with the film like so many others past and present.

Paul Newman - Hud

I can't ever get enough of Paul Newman. I've only got two more nominations of his after this one, but I know he'll show up in more films than that. He's one of my favorite actors ever because of how effortlessly cool he is and because he is such a strong actor. That effortless coolness he exudes was something that he didn't want people reading into his performance here. He plays the eponymous Hud and is the son of Melvyn Douglas's cattle rancher. Newman is basically the opposite of his father who is this old wise rancher content to live a quiet life on his land and not worry about much else. Hud likes to live the fast life and does whatever he wants including banging married women, getting drunk, fighting, bugging the hell out of his hired help, Patricia Neal, and just living to try and make money. Newman wanted to play it like a villain and come off as an awful person, but everyone took it more as this cool anti-hero character who plays by his own rules and that's due in large part to just how natural Newman's own charm comes off on screen with little effort. He is protective of his family when it comes down to it, helping fight some guys with his nephew and yelling at some folks on his father's behalf. There's hints of trauma in his early life that maybe he was responsible for, the film doesn't really say. This kinda tells why he became the person he is. He also almost rapes Neal's character in a drunken stupor and I think that is where the villain Newman wanted to be comes out. And really what is there to be said of Newman's acting ability that hasn't been said a million times already? Just watch how natural he is and how unscripted he makes scenes feel which obviously wasn't the case. Watch the nephew, Brandon deWilde's (a previous Oscar nominee himself) character and how his acting at times feels like acting. You compare that to Newman and it's night and day. He's just one of those all time actors and it was interesting to see him play a villain or anti-hero in this film. He's got flaws and Newman shows that his character is far from perfect and it's a lot of fun to see him reach those depths and show off a bit more of his abilities.


Big names. Classic films. Decent performances. That hurts to say, but they don't quite match the reputations other than Newman. But what can't that man do? Harrison just feels like he comes along for the ride of one of the biggest films ever. Like they had to nominate him or Richard Burton and Harrison had not been nominated before. It's fine but nothing to write home about. Finney said that he didn't even much care for his performance and was bored at times. I think he's decent enough as Tom Jones, but that film just didn't hit with me at all. Finney would have much better nominations and performances later on. Harris was a big surprise. Sure he reminds me of Brando a lot, but it's a very effective performance and honestly would be number two for me. Newman would get the win if not for Poitier, but Newman puts in stellar work. Good stuff in the old meets new Western. But how can I dethrone Poitier? It feels wrong, even though his performance is kinda average for him and he did way better work after this. At least he got this win and it's a well deserved for the actor kind of win. A decent group of performances, but probably not as good as these big names would lead you to believe, unfortunately.

Oscar Winner: Sidney Poitier - Lillies of the Field
My Winner:  Sidney Poitier - Lillies of the Field
Paul Newman
Richard Harris
Albert Finney
Rex Harrison

Leading Actress 1963

Some notable names and only Roberts is not multi nominated in their career. Makes me want to watch her with a bit more attention to see if she stacks up against the rest. Hoping for some good films along with the performances.

1963 Best Actress

Patricia Neal - Hud

It's kind of interesting and maybe somewhat telling that both of Neal's nominations came after tragedies in her life. Her second nomination for The Subject Was Roses came after she had some strokes or brain issues where she had to relearn how to walk and talk and felt like the Academy rewarding her for her efforts and tipping their cap to a previous winner. For her win here as Alma, the hired help for a cattle ranch, she had just lost her daughter to measles and flew home to London to be with her family in the middle of filming when there was downtime for her. I wouldn't doubt that the sympathy vote helped her win for this role, as insensitive as that sounds. It's also interesting that this is I believe the shortest Best Actress winning role at just under 22 minutes of screen time. You really could argue she is more Supporting than anything. I guess because she is the only woman of note in the film is why she counts. In the original book, her role was actually a black woman who was the hired help. That may have been interesting to see if they kept that intact, but it was the early 60s. Neal plays a live in maid essentially who cooks and cleans for the all men family. She has to deal with Paul Newman drunkenly hitting on her and at one point sexually assaulting her and has to play it off all cool like. That is the part where Neal excels when she has to dish right back to Newman, basically roasting him at times to diffuse the inappropriate tension. She has to be the one to deflect everything that comes her way, even the grandson gets flirty with her. It's a sad role because she is just an object for Newman to fawn over and be belligerent with while she takes it. We don't really get to know a whole lot about her character other than she is used to how she is treated which is why she is so good at the repartee with Newman. It's a lot of internalized rage that she never gets to let out and just pushes further down. Neal's character actually admits she's into him but knows that men like that have only hurt her in her past life. Some of that melancholy and hurt come out in the performance and I'm sure Neal was drawing on her own recent personal pain to make that sense of emotion come through on screen. This performance is mostly a woman dealing with being hurt, in the past and in the present, and having to live with that. I feel like this is way more of a supporting role than leading and feels like we don't get to know Neal's character all that well. It's still a good performance and I enjoyed what she brought to the film as a counter to Newman and all the testosterone, but not sure about a win for this one, I'll have to see.

Leslie Caron - The L-Shaped Room

This was one of those British kitchen sink dramas from the late 50s and early 60s that focused more on realism than lords and manors and all that. Caron plays a young pregnant French woman who rents a room at a boarding house in London and kinda just wants to be alone. But throughout the film she befriends the other tenants who are all outcasts like her. This was Caron's second Oscar nomination so her performance here has intrigued me enough to be excited for her first one. This is such a genuine performance by Caron. It's a quiet, understated performance that is wholly believable of a woman unsure of what to do with herself and her situation and just wanting to be withdrawn from the world. The other tenants bring her out again and become something of a little outcast family. Caron portrays her character in such a real way. There are no dramatic overacting bits, no histrionics, no big grand moments. Just a tender portrayal of a woman going through a bit of an emotional mess helped through by some loving friends with their own flaws. This is a strong but quiet performance of a woman going through a bit of a personal crisis in a realistic manner. It's a good performance, maybe not quite up for the win but it made me want to seek out more films from Caron.

Shirley MacLaine - Irma la Douce

This one feels more like the Academy really loved MacLaine and wanted to reward her than it being any kind of Oscar worthy work. I hate that I have to say that but this performance doesn't do a whole lot for me. MacLaine plays a prostitute named Irma in Paris who eventually falls for Jack Lemmon's character. It's basically a screwball comedy where Lemmon starts out as a cop who busts Irma along with all the other streetwalkers before he is fired, to him becoming Irma's pimp and lover, to concocting a scheme to play a wealthy English lord so that his love won't bang other men. It's a what could possibly go wrong kind of story and it's hilarious at times and Lemmon is fantastic. MacLaine is very good in her role but it's honestly not something I'd ever vote for. She portrays her prostitute Irma in a very comfortable way. She's just doing a job and she cares more for her dog than the men and we see just how detached she is. There isn't any deeper characterization or some kind of statement on working women or anything serious. She is just playing a role in a comedy and doing a great job at that role, but not anything amazing. MacLaine herself didn't really like the script and felt if she won the Oscar she would feel nonplussed for the role. So this tells me the Academy loved her more than even MacLaine even loved her own performance. It's a funny film, albeit a bit long, but worth watching once at least. Not really something that could have won realistically.

Rachel Roberts - This Sporting Life

This was a very interesting film. The story is about Richard Harris who is a miner who gets into a fight after work and is noticed and asked to be on the local ruby team where he becomes a star player. Seems like a fun story, but it's super intense due to both Harris and Roberts and their relationship and also Harris just being a giant brute looking for respect throughout the entire film. Roberts plays the widowed woman with kids that Harris boards with and Harris is infatuated with her. Obviously this is Harris' film and Roberts really feels more like a supporting character for most of the film. A lot of the interactions she has is her being kinda meek and like she's stepping on eggshells to not rile up Harris. She is also still dealing with the trauma of her late husband and feels like this man wanting her is making her process her grief. She doesn't want to forget her husband and she definitely feels pressured by Harris. Roberts has to play his little game for most of the film as she keeps him content and voices her concerns. Now this isn't like a totally abusive thing. Harris isn't beating her or coercing her and Roberts does sleep with him but that feels more like just placating him. Roberts is really good at just playing the reserved widow who is uncomfortable with starting a new relationship after losing her husband. I think that's why it's somewhat of a welcome surprise at the end when she finally explodes on Harris and tells him off. It's certainly some cathartic emotion for the character and for Roberts to finally have that moment. That is her Oscar scene and probably bumps the performance up a bit for me. Still feels mostly supporting and her ending is anticlimactic if I'm being honest. But it's a quietly strong performance from Roberts that rises to the occasion when necessary.

Natalie Wood - Love with the Proper Stranger

The thing I like most about Ms. Wood is her big, expressive eyes. She does a lot of acting in this performance with only her eyes and that's a skill few possess and can master. Emoting with the eyes is tricky because it does have to have emotion behind it and not just be wildly looking around and blinking. But that's what I liked most about the performance because instead of staying wide eyed and super focused like most actors, she's glancing around and moving her eyelids to convey thought and whatever emotion she is feeling at the time. I know it sounds dumb as hell, but it genuinely makes her performance feel so much more authentic. You will have to watch her to see what I mean. It also works in the context of this story where she plays a young woman who we find out is pregnant after a one night stand with Steve McQueen who doesn't even remember her. I actually thought this was going to be a deep look at abortion as it heads down that road, but she stops herself and then the two start falling for each other. So I thought then it would be a nice little love story of an almost shared trauma uniting two people. But then it turns into a very boring and superficial quirky love story. Wood moves out of her parents home and starts dating a clumsy, fat, older guy who treats her well and wants to marry her. But then McQueen comes back into the picture, treats her like a broad, and gets kicked to the curb before a real cheesy, completely unearned ending. In the beginning of the film I was thinking that this was a very strong performance and was starting to think it could become a classic given the story to that point. But the film lets Wood down by not giving her as much to do in the end besides being the pretty woman choosing a guy. I wanted the movie that explores the issue of abortion or of connecting after almost going through with it and it being much more than a simple romantic love story. Of course, none of this is Wood's fault. I thought she was amazing in the beginning and she's perfectly fine throughout the rest of the film, but it's a letdown for sure because she was so good right out the gate. The film neuters her and that's a shame because this could have been a classic performance for Wood.


Hmmm. Sometimes it can be very difficult to figure out who the winner should be. I think a lot of people might think I'm crazy putting MacLaine last, but her performance did nothing for me and I know she's been way better before and after this. Roberts was a very interesting film and performance. Very quiet and meek and cautious until the end when she explodes. It's good but feels supporting for most of the film, hiding behind Richard Harris. Caron is actually starting to sneak up on me after watching her. It's what is completely necessary for that film and I appreciate how she doesn't go over the top or get too heavy into acting. Just feels natural and real and it may creep up more over time. Wood was very good and I enjoyed her. She may tend to overact a little bit, but she is so expressive and doesn't quite meet expectations in a good way for her character. I am leaving Neal with the win even though that is really a Supporting performance if you ask me. It also feels like they gave her a win because her daughter died which is kinda icky. Can't really change it because nothing else felt like a winner to me. This year really felt like a category of two's and three's but no real winner. I'll take that over some other years though!

Oscar Winner: Patricia Neal - Hud
My Winner:  Patricia Neal - Hud
Natalie Wood
Leslie Caron
Rachel Roberts
Shirley MacLaine

Supporting Actor 1963

I feel like I am out of ideas for any funny or witty or interesting intros to these reviews - not that I ever had any like that before. But what else am I supposed to say? I have seen none of these films and some of the names aren't familiar. I am interested to see if Douglas deserves his first of two Supporting wins. Let's find out.

1963 Best Supporting Actor

Melvyn Douglas - Hud

I was very interested in seeing this performance because I had heard a lot of great things about Hud and because Douglas had already won a second Oscar for a performance that I didn't care for at all, but was also nominated for Best Actor for a role I enjoyed. So what was I gonna get with this one? And this is only possible because I'm going backwards in time that I can be like how does this compare to you from almost 20 years later. Kinda cool way to review performances but I know going the natural way has it's moments, too. Anyway, we are here for this beautiful black and white film about a family in rural Texas and their issues. No this is not a Last Picture Show review, though that film probably does owe a lot to Hud and James Wong Howe, the Oscar winning Cinematographer for this film. I may be talking a lot about the film because it was somehow NOT nominated for Best Picture which is insane. Douglas plays Paul Newman's father, an old cattle rancher who is faced with losing his herd to hoof and mouth disease. He is the wise elder rancher, mostly sounding sad and worn out with his gravelly voice. His lifestyle and generation is coming to an end and people like his son are taking over, more interested in instant gratification and only caring about themselves than anyone else. Some call it moral degradation, but others call it progress and the two characters of Douglas and Newman butt heads in this regard. Douglas does a great job of portraying that sort of forlorn longing of a different, better time. There is a lot of tension between him and his son and Douglas's character isn't happy that his grandson looks up to Newman. There is a lot of reserved sadness in Douglas's performance that fits perfectly with the character who is losing his livelihood. He doesn't play it too broadly or animated. His moments of anger with Newman feel earned and as a culmination of pent up frustration at who his son has become. There is hope that his grandson can be better but also hopelessness that he's on the wrong path. The nuance and depth in this older rancher is what Douglas brings to the performance and is what helps it compete with Newman's anti-hero figure. It's a quietly strong performance that really does make the film better, especially when balancing out Newman. I can definitely see why this performance won and am glad that it was a worthy nomination.

Nick Adams - Twilight of Honor

I have said it a bunch of times before here, but I love this category and I love coming across names and films I've never heard of. Is it going to be a new favorite, a sleeper hit, a huge disappointment, or even outright terrible? That's the Oscar gamble (new blog name?!) and one that sometimes pays out. This film was really entertaining to me and I really enjoyed watching it. Mostly due to the main lead, Richard Chamberlain, who plays a young lawyer called on to defend an impossible to beat murder charge. It's a trial film and Chamberlain was apparently real hot on TV at the time and is legit a good looking dude and really charming and likable. He just oozes personality. The man he is defending is Nick Adams. A lot of things I read compared it to Anatomy of a Murder from the year before and felt it was a lesser imitation. I haven't watched that one yet, but this is one of those who do you believe stories. The bit of difference from other films like this is we see both sides of the story acted out as if it were happening when they are being told. That's where Adams earns his nomination. He essentially plays two different characters. There is the aggressive, violent loner who meets a teen girl in a bar and marries her and later they get picked up by some big shot cowboy in New Mexico and that older man ends up dead. The other side is the meek, nervous simpleton who gets caught up with a teen girl who takes advantage of him and ends up getting him to kill the old cowboy. Adams plays both sides of the character wonderfully because in both instances you fully believe he is that version of the killer. It's fun to see that dual performance and while it's not groundbreaking or important acting, it sure does make the story better. There's no real Oscar moment, it's just simple, effective work. I'm still unsure which version of the character was the truth and that's the sign of a good story and good acting. Interesting to note that Adams campaigned hard for the Oscar and was considered the front runner before Melvyn Douglas won. This lead to a decline in roles and after a couple years of being nominated, he died of a drug overdose. Pretty tragic because who knows what might have been if he had been given more interesting roles and didn't spiral into depression in part because he lost the Oscar.

Bobby Darin - Captain Newman, M.D.

Dang, this is another really fantastic film. This was singer Bobby Darin's attempt at winning an Oscar a la Frank Sinatra. He saw Sinatra win one and was like yeah I can do that. And kinda almost did! Before we get into all that, though, the film is about Captain Newman, played by Gregory Peck. That right there should hook you in. It's also got Tony Curtis, Eddie Albert, Dick Sargent, a young Robert Duvall, Angie Dickinson, and a lot of really good small time actors giving some great performances. The film is about Newman who is a shrink and is dealing with military guys with PTSD and other after war traumas. Super fascinating to see this dealt with on the big screen, honestly. Darin is a Corporal who survived a crash of his plane he was a gunner in and he is dealing with that survival guilt. Not as much screen time as Sinatra but Darin makes up for it. And I hate comparing the two but how can you not? Anyway, Darin legit has an Oscar scene that lasts a few minutes when he is taken into a room and they use sodium pentathol to get him to recreate his trauma. What transpires after is legit some amazing work, but also harrowing. I'm not gonna lie, if you are tasked with pretending to be doped up and then live a trauma for what was like five minutes or more, you deserve a nomination. It was a great portrayal of the traumatic moment and Darin just bouncing back from from it after seals it. I really enjoyed his very short performance. I am someone who has been to war but I can't speak to traumas and all that, but Darin really does knock it out of the park. I dunno, I think his Oscar moment should be studied because it feels real. And there is no shame and there is no holding back. I legit love the film and think it's a hidden gem. It's not this big Oscar film, it's just this important film about how veterans were treated. That's my focus and it's a great film in dealing with that. Darin does add to how well the film does for me.

Hugh Griffith - Tom Jones

Reading up on this film and performance, you would think this one from Griffith was a failure. Apparently he came to set most days drunk off his ass and halted production numerous times and had a big issue with the other actors on the film. But he was a previous Oscar winner for Ben-Hur only a couple years earlier. I think that is why he was nominated, along with how well the film did overall. Nominate what you know and go with that. Griffith played Squire Western, who is taking care of Sophie Western who the playboy Tom Jones actually loves. Griffith's best moments are when he is arguing with Edith Evans. They have great chemistry and their back and forth is a lot of fun to watch. She maintains the stiff upper lip, he goes crazy and falls in hay and upsets animals and all that. He matches the energy of the film with it's manic feel and Griffith represents the film well. This isn't a winning performance but it at least matches the film and is interesting to watch given the hot mess behind the scenes.

John Huston - The Cardinal

You know John Huston. As an actor, a director, a producer, probably a writer. You know him. But this is his only actual acting performance nomination. It feels like he has more, but I guess 15 other nominations will take care of that. Huston won his only two Oscars for Writing and Directing The Treasure of The Sierra Madre.What's crazy is that Huston felt like he had won like 4 more Oscars! Now, this was never going to win unless the Academy really wanted to honor Huston, but he was still producing great material so that wasn't likely. Huston does play the Cardinal, well one of the Cardinal's anyway. He comes off as John Huston and if you've seen him act or just in interviews or wherever kinda doesn't fit a clergyman but also fits this specific character. He's kind of a hard ass Cardinal who mentors Tom Tryon, who is really great in his leading role. He really reminds me of a young Daniel Day-Lewis in looks. Wish he would have done more work but I guess he got bored and became a writer mostly. Anyway, Huston mostly just has a couple big scenes where he is interrogating Tryon to see what his aspirations are and if he is too ambitious and if he truly believes and all that. He really livens up the scenes and the film overall, which is feels very long at two and a half hours and Huston is only in it periodically. His other big scene is where he is comforting a dying priest who is his friend, played by Burgess Meredith. It's so fine dramatic work that is not overwrought or showing off. It matches the character and helps us see a bit more into this character's psyche and who he is deep down. If you watch this film, Huston will definitely leave a mark and will most likely be the main thing you think about when remembering The Cardinal, which should speak for itself. Not a winner but a decent acting performance from an old pro.

I really love that this category always seems to give me interesting films and/or performances. There's almost always something I can point to as being why I love this category. For this one, it's the lesser known films that turned out to be good and have some good performances. Griffith was a previous winner in the Best Picture winning film and he absolutely came along for the ride. He was pretty meh to me in the role but was a bit lively and funny at times. But it just didn't really connect with me. Adams does a good job with his role and I actually liked Richard Chamberlain's main character role way more, but Adams holds up okay. Never gonna win know matter how hard he campaigned, the nomination was the reward for a career tragically over way too soon. A real what could have been story. Huston is fun and does liven up his film also. But he plays John Huston more than an actual character. He's enjoyable in that regard but nothing give an Oscar for. Darin is pure Oscar bait and I loved it. It's fun when folks like this really go all out to try and win and deliver a pretty decent performance. I liked that very long scene where he re-enacts his trauma. Good stuff and kinda unexpected. Never going to win, though. Douglas feels like the only legit choice for a win and I feel he deserves it. His quietly strong rancher just adds so much to his film and goes toe to toe with Paul Newman. Easy win for him, though this should have been his only win. But that's the Academy for you. I like this category more for the films it got me to watch because I enjoyed them all for the most part and that's partly what I am really here for anyway.

Oscar Winner: Melvyn Douglas - Hud
My Winner:  Melvyn Douglas - Hud
Bobby Darin
John Huston
Nick Adams
Hugh Griffith

Supporting Actress 1963

This will be a pretty quick category for me. One of the rare times when there has been three nominees from the same film. You always wonder if they all deserve it or if they just came along with a film that was well liked overall. I imagine the truth will be somewhere in the middle. Does the winner deserve her win or was there vote splitting between the three? These questions and more answered down below!

1963 Best Supporting Actress

Margaret Rutherford - The V.I.P.s

Well, having watched this one before the others, I am left scratching my head and asking more questions instead of getting any answers. It's a baffling decision to nominate Rutherford for this performance in this unfortunately boring film. Even more baffling to give her the damn Oscar for it. She plays a Duchess who is flying for the first time and has to get a job because her estate is out of money or something. All of these people get fogged in at an airport in London, so we jump from each of their stories. Rutherford doesn't really have much of one, she is simply the comedic relief of the film that at times is way too melodramatic for its own good. She is actually funny in her brief scenes, but that's it. She's this bumbling, pill popping, haughty, fish out of water mess. Mostly funny, but also there are times where you just want her to get on with it and do something interesting. She never does and their is no emotional payoff or character arc being completed. I wouldn't even say she's supporting to any of the big name actors in the film like Orson Welles, Richard Burton, and Elizabeth Taylor. Rutherford mostly just stays to herself and only offers up the comedic relief for the film. I am going to assume that either the vote split allowed Rutherford to win or the Academy loved her career and gave her an award for it. Or maybe I will come to find out she was the only real choice as I finish up watching these performances!

Diane Cilento - Tom Jones

I would guess this is the surprise of the film and the category. I don't know her history other than she had recently married Sean Connery at the time, but she seems to have come along for the ride with the film. I fully believe that she just was a choice because the film did so well. She plays Molly, who is like a town whore I guess, no disrespect meant. Her characterization is just that and she seems to revel in that role but it never leaves that basic characterization. She is only in the beginning of the film for a bit and I think used to highlight Tom Jones' promiscuous, playboy ways. She is the lusty wench as referenced in the film. People will search for elaborate descriptions of the performance that just aren't there. Cilento is just glad to be nominated because it's not that great and entirely forgettable.

Edith Evans - Tom Jones

There is always concern that when you get a film with multiple acting nominations, especially in the same category, that maybe one of them is not well earned. Well, I can't say that Evans didn't earn this one as I like her the most out of the Tom Jones nominations. I love the way she says Brother and honestly she adds a much needed stiff upper lip to the film. It's a period piece that doesn't feel stuffy at all yet need someone to ground the film in reality and I think Evans does that. Also, she is just charming as the aunt to Sophie who is the woman Tom Jones actually loves. She adds a certain presence to the film and just does so much more with her role than the other women nominated, no knock against them! She butts heads with her brother who is responsible for Sophie and their bickering is hilarious and her staunchiness, which I don't think is a word, is commendable. I basically mean she stands up to him and keeps her haughtiness, which is a word, to great effect. I have begun to enjoy Evans' performances that I have reviewed for the project. This is her first nomination of three, so my last time reviewing her, but I hope to see more of her in some of the films moving backwards in time. A great actress who got recognized way late in life. She is the best of the three in this film.

Joyce Redman- Tom Jones

Okay, so now the third woman from Tom Jones to be nominated. I feel like Redman, who we just saw nominated for Othello which was not that memorable, was nominated here for the food eating scene. I think this is probably an iconic scene that you may have seen already. Certainly parodied before, the scene is Albert Finney and Redman eating different foods seductively. Apparently this took over three hours to film and led to them both throwing up multiple times as they were eating the food. It's actually a great scene and I can understand that in 1963 that was probably ground breaking stuff. It was also supposed to be a bit controversial as we are led to believe their hooking up was incestuous. It's revealed at the end of the film, she is not his mother, but her little wink to the camera is pretty great and shows how good Redman is in the role. She comes in late and molds the story and has a lasting impact. Redman, as mentioned by another reviewer, had to embody the film with the beginning silent film take, the naughtiness, the fourth wall breaking. She did a lot with so little. Not a winner and probably came along for the ride with the love of the film overall, but Redman worked what she was given and I enjoyed the performance.

Lilia Skala - Lilies of the Field

Or should it be Lilias of the Field? Okay, terrible joke aside Skala really is more of a leading role. She dominates a lot of the film as Mother Maria, the head nun who convinces Sidney Poitier to stay and help build a chapel. She is a very stubborn and forceful woman who has more good intentions than anything nefarious. She believes that God has sent Poitier to help build the chapel and does what she can to keep him there. She works well with Poitier's character, but as mentioned in my review for the film itself, it's missing something. We learn that the nuns came from Germany having escaped over the Berlin Wall and Poitier calls Skala Hitler at one point because she is so demanding. There feels like she has some dark underlying emotions, but it never gets explored and the film maintains it's more positive and upbeat tone. Skala does well with talking in German and broken English and being believable as a tough, stubborn mother superior. A lot of her performance is different facial expressions which can be tough to pull off without looking too goofy, but she does. It's a fine performance, but I don't really consider it a supporting one since she squares off with Poitier. I could honestly see her getting the win over Rutherford, though, if things played out a bit different.


And the answer to the above question is yes, there probably was some vote splitting letting Rutherford get the win. I am not a fan of Rutherford because she doesn't add much more than some brief comic relief and that certainly isn't Oscar worthy. Cilento doesn't get much screen time and doesn't have much to do besides be a pretty lady. That's it, so a legit fifth spot for her. Rutherford drops down far because her performance is so spare and pointless to her film. Skala in the middle for a role that was mostly brooding, stern mother superior. Though there does feel like she has something just under the surface of the performance begging to come out but it never does. That's why the other two Tom Jones ladies come in at the top. Evans was just kinda fun and actually added a bit to the film. Redman had the most to do out of everyone nominated here and by that along is the reason she wins. Sometimes that's just how it is. She affects the film more than any other besides maybe Skala but also gets to have a bit of an arc. Not a great year at all and a reason having multiple nominees from the same film is pointless. You are always going to nominate a lesser performance because the Academy got so infatuated with the film. I am sure there are 1-2 other amazing performances from this year that we missed out on. Really bad year honestly and I just want to get on to some better Supporting women.

Oscar Winner: Margaret Rutherford - The V.I.P.s
My Winner:  Joyce Redman - Tom Jones
Edith Evans
Lilia Skala
Margaret Rutherford
Diane Cilento