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