Leading Actor 1968

This year has a couple of interesting nominations that I have been waiting to watch for a long time. I'm thrilled to finally get to them and I know I say that every year but it's still true here. I'm very interested in Robertson, Arkin and O'Toole as I have heard a lot about those or at least know a lot about the actors. Should be a good category to review.

1968 Best Actor

Cliff Robertson -Charly

A lot of people know this story even if they haven't ever seen the film or read the book Flowers for Algernon. I really know the story from The Simpsons episode where Homer has a crayon removed from his brain and becomes super intelligent. It's a classic episode and shows how much the story has permeated popular culture. So that's what Charly is about: Cliff Robertson is a retarded guy who has some procedure done to him that makes him hyper intelligent. Robertson secured the rights to the story and starred in the film, obviously, but he knew he had some gold here. I do like that Robertson never waded into the I am Sam territory of playing a retarded person. It's never, ever over the top and his physical manifestations come across as normal. Yes, he is slow but Robertson endears him with some humanity and we start to root for him. Once Charly becomes smart, Robertson transforms the character into one that is kinda like a robot. He has no humanity and no softness to him. Robertson lowers the voice and even becomes a bit creepy. He stalks his former night teacher and then attacks her once she lets him in and then they become a couple. I hate that trope in film and it rings super hollow. I don't like them together and I resent what Charly becomes only because he happens to be smarter. Smarter equals more dangerous? It's a weird revelation and it is where the performance goes off the rails. It's not a fault of Robertson as he does what the script wants but the goodwill he earned as the simple retarded guy is gone when he assaults a woman. We feel for Charly initially and we are expected to feel for Charly once we realize he is going to end up being retarded at the end. But I have no compassion for someone like that and that is a failure of the film. Robertson does a good job at playing these different iterations of Charly, but I can't be happy about it. Maybe this was a reaction to seeing a performance that showcased a mentally retarded fellow, I dunno. Robertson does a great job in both variations of the character but it still has to be believable and likable. Robertson is fine in the role but is he worth the win? I'm not sure.

Alan Arkin - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

We know about Arkin's later win for Little Miss Sunshine and nomination for Argo, but I was always surprised that he seemed to have a really great start to his career because his Oscar win was really my introduction to him. I've been eager to finally get to his first two nominations to see what they were like. And oh boy, I love this performance a lot. A lot a lot. Arkin plays a guy who is a deaf mute that moves to a new town to be closer to his deaf mute friend who gets admitted to a mental institute. In this new town, Arkin meets a bunch of different people who seem to be as lonely as he is. As a deaf mute, Arkin doesn't say a single word in the whole film. That's what is so impressive to me about this performance. Arkin has to convey all these emotions and feelings and thoughts and actions without saying a word. With a lot of other, less capable actors this would be a mess. But Arkin has so much emotional depth in this character that I enjoyed watching him immensely. And Arkin doesn't ham it up or be too outgoing or anything. He brings a lot of subtlety and nuance to the performance that really adds to the character overall. Walking alone on the street and he signs to himself as if he's just talking to himself like a normal person. His face isn't more expressive than it needs to be which I loved. It felt like his character was naturally a quiet guy beyond the deaf mute thing and Arkin doesn't turn it into some sort of pantomime performance. He connects with other characters and shows empathy and patience and tries to do what's right and find the good. Arkin has to do so much while also doing so little and he allows us to connect with the character because he makes him almost universal but unique. It's just a really fantastic performance and I especially love when people can create something complete from very little. His deaf mute character is a person, not just a stereotype and it makes the ending so heartbreaking and emotional. Everyone should watch this film just to see Arkin's performance.

Alan Bates - The Fixer

This film, to me, was pretty interesting. It's one of those films that no one has really heard of, let alone seen, so it's neat to go into it without any expectations. I've seen Bates in quite a few other films on this journey but this was his first and only nomination. It seems appropriate that he earned a nomination because he was in so many films that were seemingly loved by the Academy. This film is about a Russian Jew who goes into hiding because the Jews are being arrested and killed and helps rescue a government official who is passed out drunk in the snow. Official guy gives him money and let him stay at his big house and then his daughter tries to sleep with Bates. Eventually, he gets found out to be a Jew and is jailed and tortured over some made up charge of killing a boy in a ritual sacrifice and then accused of being a part of a Jewish revolution. The film is obviously about the mistreatment of Jews in Russia and how Bates' character deals with all of it while maintaining his innocence. He's a really good guy who just happens to be of a different culture and is punished for that reason. Bates is very good at playing up the innocent man and getting you to become emotionally vested in dire circumstances. He is incredulous at the accusations of killing a boy and even becomes tearful at the description which shows us his humanity but to the accusers looks like guilt. There's a lot of strength in this performance from Bates who has to show us a broken man who still tries to carry on and maintain his innocence. He doesn't play it as purely a victim, there's humanity in the performance as well as some righteous anger and contempt at times. But it's the emotion at the core of the performance that makes this an interesting nomination to actually watch. The pain is real and heartfelt and we as an audience feel it ourselves. I will say the film drags on a bit too long and Bates has a lot of scenes in his cell where he is losing his sanity that sometimes are brilliant and sometimes seem a bit much. It's not really Bates' fault, though, as he does a great job with the heavy material in the second half of the film. I won't even get into the fact that everyone has British accents in a film about Russians and Russian Jews. It's a good performance and this is the kind of thing I like experiencing with this project.

Ron Moody - Oliver!

Moody originated this role on the London stage adaptation but wasn't even the first choice for the producers of this film. He was a fall back choice it seemed, but it worked out pretty well for all involved. How many times have we seen stage roles get nominated at the Oscars with the same person in each? There are so many of these types of nominations you wonder why producers don't just go with what works instead of trying to get Peter O'Toole or Peter Sellers to star for you. Moody, in case you don't know, plays Fagin. He is the head of the gang of young pickpocket kids and is that sort of stereotypical old Jewish creepy looking guy. Obviously Moody is done up to look at bit more villainous and scary (though Bill Sikes is the real villain in this film unlike the book). Moody plays the role perfectly to me. He has created it and lived within it for so long it comes off as natural. His singing and dancing is effortless and he gets you liking him at times, too, even though he's not the greatest guy ever. This is a musical and Fagin has one of the more memorable songs in "You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two." He's good with the songs and being animatedly villainous but ultimately with a good heart, I think. He just wants to steal stuff and hide away and not get mixed up with kidnapping and all that, even though he employs child labor but whatever. I think that Moody gets swept up with the love for Oliver! and gets his nomination that way and maybe as a hey, we recognize you from the stage version kinda thing. But Moody is good as Fagin and it's very much his role and it's one of those things you take away remembering about this film. Before I had even seen the film, I knew of Fagin and that's due in part to Moody doing a good job in the role and being memorable enough to make it to the pop culture lexicon. It's a good performance but was never going to seriously win.

Peter O'Toole - The Lion in Winter

Peter O'Toole deserved an acting Oscar over his long and storied career. The Academy had many chances to do so and this was one of those instances. O'Toole plays Henry II, the second time he was nominated for playing the monarch (Becket being the other time). O'Toole looks and feels comfortable in the role and he is on the top of his game here. I fully believe that starring opposite of Katharine Hepburn helped balance out this performance. By that I mean, O'Toole can be a bit theatrical in some of his roles, but he is balanced here with Hepburn's old Hollywood style and the two create some memorable performances. It's a treat watching the two acting titans go toe to toe with each other without upstaging the other. The film and this performance can be described as intense. Henry II has brought his sons together and estranged Queen to name an heir. So there are lots of twists and turns as he flip flops on who to choose and there are many intense scenes of actors just talking or arguing back and forth and it's fun to watch. That's mainly what the film is as a whole which is lots of dialogue and actors going against one another in a room. O'Toole is a big part of why this film is successful and it's simply because he is one of the best actors to ever live giving some of his best work on screen. A lot of that work is in how he can play all these different emotions with the character. He can be righteously angry, mired in grief, clever and cunning, tender and passionate. He can turn on those emotions in the blink of an eye and always makes it look convincing and well measured. He takes us through those twists and turns and keeps us hooked. It's a great performance from a great actor - simple as that.



A lot of people feel like this is one of the worst Best Actor decisions ever. I'm inclined to agree that this is not a good win. Peter O'Toole is the absolute and correct winner without a second thought. His Hnery II is so freaking good. Especially over a retarded role that becomes smart. I am actually also really into Arkin's role who has to do so much without ever saying a word. And he acts it as if it's a normal role. He doesn't overact and just plays his character. If not for O'Toole, Arkin is my winner hands down. So freaking good. I actually like what Alan Bates did over Robertson because he had a tougher assignment. He had to play a Russian Jew tortured and acting against himself in a cell and had to show a lot of emotion. Robertson is decent but not at all a good winner. I don't like retarded persons being subject to wins or even nominations. I don't think the acting is ever authentic or worthy of these people. Moody brings up the rear because he just is there. Not a very good performance or role and just not at all exciting in this group of pretty exciting performances. Can't wait for the next year.

Oscar Winner: Cliff Robertson - Charly
My Winner:  Peter O'Toole - The Lion in Winter
Alan Arkin
Alan Bates
Cliff Robertson
Ron Moody

Leading Actress 1968

The tie! All that needs to be said.

1968 Best Actress

Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter

I was not a fan of Hepburn's fourth and final win for On Golden Pond. It wasn't that good of a performance and it was a waste of a Best Actress Oscar. Not gonna lie, I was worried coming into this won where she tied with Barbra Streisand and won her third Oscar that it would be similarly undeserved. But that's not really the case with this performance. Hepburn is on top of her game starring opposite of Peter O'Toole. The two go head to head and just deliver great performances while balancing each other out to where neither style overtakes the other. Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine, the estranged Queen of Henry II who is in jail. Henry summons her and his boys to a Christmas gathering to declare his heir and then intrigue abounds as the story twists and turns with backstabbing and machinations. Hepburn gets to play this plotting woman who wants to see Henry choose their son Richard and has all of these scenes where she is attacking other characters with her words in a clever way or fending off these dialogue attacks from the same. It's a push and pull game where Hepburn at times has the upper hand and comes off as confident and assured and bitingly condescending and ruthless and all those strong adjectives. Other times she loses the war of words and seems resigned or aware of her defeat as she vows to strike back with more precision and cunning. She is best when she and O'Toole are going at it because you can tell there is still great respect between the two royals and even some attraction still, but it also feels like posturing to get the better of the other and it's thrilling to watch. The two are acting titans and seeing them at their best is an absolute treat. I also like Hepburn manipulating her sons who it would seem she both loves and hates equally depending on how it affects her own goals and aspirations. The whole film is like this with everyone trying to play the rest and seeing Hepburn in her sort of laconic old Hollywood style play these men for fools is why we watch film. I had gone in to this thinking the tie might have been some bullshit, but this seems like a well earned win. These are two really great performances so I can see why the Academy produced a tie.

Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl

The second of the two winners, Streisand won her Oscar in her debut film role. And what a debut it was! This is unequivocally Babs' film. Like completely and totally hers. She had originated the role on Broadway for a couple years before this, so naturally she is very comfortable in the role of Fanny Brice. The story is about a girl who comes from humble beginnings to become a huge star in NYC, which apparently isn't true at all, but that's Hollywood. The supporting characters had a much bigger impact and role on stage, but they all fall to the wayside in the film version as Streisand just takes over. Her opening number is pretty great as she sings about being the best ever and you feel like it's Streisand singing about herself. And how you feel about the performance may really come down to how you feel about Streisand as an entertainer. I'm not her biggest fan by any means and don't really care about her persona, but she is really great in this performance. Maybe because it is her debut that what annoys me about her ends up being a positive in this film. She's funny and her comedic style works well with the story. She can obviously sing amazingly well and some of these songs are classics you've heard many times before. She can even dance and do a little bit of ballet. She does it all and that energy comes through the screen. It also make sense that she had a heavy hand in what happened with the film, from the directing to the hair and make up to the lighting. She annoyed director William Wyler but he allowed her because she is stubborn but also because we see what the result was. It's a powerhouse, star making performance and one that wasn't going to be overlooked. This is definitely the best Streisand performance I have seen - impressive for her debut.

Patricia Neal - The Subject Was Roses

I don't want to be dismissive, but I think a lot of this nomination is due in part to Neal having suffered a series of strokes a few years earlier and this being her big return to film. I do think that's what got her nominated even though it is a very good performance. She had the health issues and had to memorize the lines and movements of her character and at times didn't believe in herself but kept going. The Academy rewarded her and it feels like a deserved nomination no matter what. Whereas Jack Alberston and Martin Sheen, who originated the roles on Broadway, were comfortable in the roles but Neal brought something different. Albertson and Sheen have that theatricality to their performances, Neal has a more film quality aspect to hers. She is more quiet in the role while the other two have a very demonstrative presence in the film. They yell and posture and try to be alpha while Neal just quietly says her lines. The film is based on a son returning home from WWII and the married couple are having problems that keep coming up while he is home. She is a caring mother who has waited for him to come home for 3 years and is mad he can't remember that his favorite meal is waffles because that's what she's dreamed about in that moment for years. It's a quietly strong performance by design because of the strokes and because the other two men take over. Neal disappears for a long stretch so maybe this isn't quite leading but she is the only woman besides a small 10 second part from a girl in the club. Anyway, Neal is acting in a different film at times from Albertson and Sheen. She didn't originate the role like they did so she is bringing something different and cinematic to the role. She has a presence even when being quiet and it's felt throughout the film. It's a good performance that makes more sense when you learn she was coming back from a series of strokes. It might not be the winner but I have no problem with it being nominated.

Vanessa Redgrave - Isadora

I have been pretty ambivalent about Redgrave's nominated work during this project. This is my fifth of her six nominations and while I can definitely say she is a great and well respected actress, a lot of the work she has been in just hasn't been for me. This film is another one of those kinds of stories and performances. I was only somewhat aware of who Isadora Duncan was before this film. She was an American dancer in the early 1900s who had a lot of acclaim and was a sensation all over Europe and Russia. She had many lovers and was mostly a free spirit type of person. This film is all about her life even though I would say it doesn't go too deep into who she is as a person. Redgrave does a great job at being fully invested in the character. She goes all out in the couple of dance scenes and we can feel her energy and artistic expression come through the screen. The dances aren't really my thing and look like just a bunch of flailing around but Redgrave gives them her all as she whirls around and prances and dances in a unique style. I feel that those are the scenes where Redgrave really shines and especially in her final dance scene when she is being booed and heckled and spontaneously rips off her top while dancing. There's a lot of confidence and chutzpah to her performance in this scene and most of the dancing throughout the film. As for the rest of the film, meh. Redgrave is fine as Isadora and has a lot of charm and personality that men love and throw them self at her. She has a bubbly personality almost and is very carefree and wild at times, which makes sense as she is a very free form kind of dancer and artist. Redgrave displays all of these characteristics perfectly. It's just that the film doesn't really endear me to the character and it is mostly boring overall. Redgrave is the best part of the film and the only reason to watch and though she carries this weight, it doesn't really affect her much. She does her thing well and we get a good performance that could have probably been so much better with a more interesting story around her.

Joanne Woodward - Rachel, Rachel

I have always had trouble with coming up with how to write about Woodward's performances. None of her previous work that I've reviewed has wowed me but it was also never bad by any means. In my last review of hers, I noted how much I liked her quiet, restrained acting. To me, that is what Woodward has been so far in what I have seen. She is this dignified, restrained, minimalist type of actress. She is not launching herself into hysterics or getting overly dramatic or doing anything other than what looks to be calculated acting. It's simple looks that can convey a whole monologue's worth of feeling or description of what she's thinking. For her, less is more and I have always been a big fan of that style of acting. In this film, Woodward plays a middle aged school teacher spinster who lives with her mother and is expecting another dull summer. Things happen and her life takes on new meaning and direction. But her character is a sort of meek and mild woman with nervous energy who has a lot of thoughts and visions in her head of how she would react in a situation like her walking into town and thinking everyone is looking at her weirdly and her dropping dead or at least fainting. This doesn't actually happen, but we see it portrayed on screen because that's what she's thinking. It's interesting in showing how her character deals with things but also means Woodward has to do a lot with only voice over saying something completely different. I think the restrained acting style really goes well with this nervousy, skittish woman because when hit on by a guy she bumbles around and is frazzled without being so demonstrative about it. It's quivers in her voice or quick glances and not running into people or things or causing a scene. It's looks of frustration and anger when dealing with her overbearing mother. All of those little things add up to quite the complete performance and helps contribute to a fully realized character arc. She's a late bloomer but we see the change and the awakening and it feels authentic. I have become more interested to see her Oscar win with each new review of hers. This is a quietly strong performance that will be in my consideration for the win.



This was a phenomenal category! It was the first and only tie in the acting categories and I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. Maybe you could argue that Streisand's debut trumps Hepburn's third win and second in a row, but they are equally great. I'm just gonna roll with the Academy on this one because separating the two seems a bit sacrilegious. And none of the other three even come close so this works out for me. Redgrave is last because the film is boring and the performance is really only interesting because of the dance scenes for me. Everything not dance is mostly boring. Neal does a good job with the character but she is clearly here because she bounced back after some strokes to act again and be good at it. I can respect that. Woodward was maybe the best I've seen from her so far in this project. I enjoyed the performance and appreciated what she brought to a very different role. So there we have it for 1968. A pretty good year overall with no stinkers and I'm eager to move on.

Oscar Winner: Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
                           Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
My Winner:  Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
                       Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
Joanne Woodward
Patricia Neal
Vanessa Redgrave

Supporting Actor 1968

Here are some names and films I've been wanting to get to for a long time and now I finally can. Very interested in a couple of these. No big interesting introduction, let's just get to it!

1968 Best Supporting Actor

Jack Albertson - The Subject Was Roses

Everyone knows Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka. Very few people seem to know that he's an Oscar winner and was a well respected actor in theater, too. He was only a Grammy short of the EGOT. In fact, this role was one that he initially did on Broadway along with Martin Sheen and was what he won his Tony Award for. It's also one of those roles that many people agree was a good win, yet no one seems to talk about it these days. Albertson plays the father of the story and it's a play based on the return of Sheen from WWII. Albertson and Patricia Neal are fighting at every opportunity and the son being back allows for a lot of issues to be addressed. It's based off a play so you know you're getting a film that relies heavily on character interactions. I would say that Albertson is more of a co-lead with Sheen but here we are. I think Albertson is so good. He's theatrical for the most part, especially in those scenes where it's just him and Sheen. Neal grounds the whole film and allows Albertson and Sheen to seem more animated. What I want to say is that Albertson is so comfortable in this role for obvious reasons but it speaks to a place of truth. It feels so real and authentic that you might think your own father is having his issues with you. The wife adored Sheen and Albertson felt he needed to be needed to be coddled less and then the son goes off to war and he still holds him to a higher standard than Neal who is excited for her baby to be back. It's one of those family dramas that works better as a play but I still really dig this as a film. Albertson's best scenes are the ones where the family goes out clubbing and they are all drunk and he is trying to convince his wife to sleep with him but she resists because we have inferred that he slept with other women before and it's still raw. Their interactions are so natural and realistic that you see people you know in these characters. It's just a really great acting job from Albertson that was lived in with a Tony win and was rewarded by the Academy. We can debate that it probably isn't Supporting but I get when people say this was a good win because you watch this and just recognize how good Albertson is.

Seymour Cassel - Faces

Go read my review for Lynn Carlin because it will give some much needed info I don't want to repeat here but I kinda will anyway. Cassel is a young man that Carlin and her girlfriends pickup at a nightclub. Or rather he gets them out of their table and onto the dance floor and they take him home. They are all starved of attention from husbands they don't seem to care about and who don't seem to care about them. He focuses on each one but early on catches the eye of Carlin who mostly sits back and watches as he dances with the other three and flirts like crazy. The real prize is Carlin. Cassel, though, is really up for the part. Full of youthful energy and charm, he seems harmless and tries to take care of these lonely women. He has great chemistry with Carlin and their part of this film is the only part that is interesting to me. Their attraction is palpable and I wanted to see more. Give me a whole film on them and this could be an even better film. The big thing is that these two feed off of each other but also benefit from working with each other. Their performances are better because of each other and Cassel works best as the playboy. I mean that because he doesn't have to do all the machismo posturing like in the first half of the film so he can just be chill and weird and sexy and himself and still come off pretty good. It's a good performance that is also begging for a little more depth and time on screen. But that's supporting roles in a nutshell and Cassel is good in the role.

Daniel Massey - Star!

So Fox wanted to try and replicate the success of The Sound of Music and then undertook Doctor Doolittle, Star!, and Hello, Dolly! All of these under performed at the box office and were huge bombs. It's because of the garbage campaign systems that were allowed that those three except Star! were nominated for Best Picture. Nowadays terrible films like these wouldn't make it, yet in the 60s they took up undeserving spots. Luckily all Star! managed was a head scratching nomination in this category (okay, they actually had 7 total nominations, mostly in sound and design and all that, but you get it, not a Best Picture nomination like the others mentioned). Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan. Massey plays Noel Coward who was a theater hotshot. He composed songs and created and directed plays and acted and did all things theater. I have no reference of who Noel Coward is, so I can't say whether or not Massey is spot on or terrible or what. I just know he plays a kind of stereotypical gay British theater bloke. Enunciates, surly, witty. But I don't know what he's actually known for as that seems to be from the 30s to 60s. He does have an Honorary Academy Award from 1942 for a war time film he made. Massey is fine in the role. I know I've spent no time talking about his performance but it's fine for what the role is and that's to be a comedic foil for Julie Andrews and then every once in a while bring her back down to earth. I think he gets nominated because Fox pushed for it and because people wanted to vote for Noel Coward who I imagine was a big deal to some of the voters back then. This is certainly no hidden gem or anything, which is what I was hoping for.

Jack Wild - Oliver!

You know, I was worried this would be a terrible nomination. If you've read any of my blog for awhile, you know I loathe child actors. Most of them overact or don't actually act at all and are just told what to do and say and don't mine any depth or nuance out of their characters. It's got to take a lot to wow me and I can't even think of any off the top of my head besides maybe Saoirse Ronan in Atonement but I don't know how old she was for that one. This isn't one that wows me but it is one that I'm okay with as a performance. Wild is the Artful Dodger who I remember being a bit more mischievous and clever than in this film. My memory might not be the best but this Artful Dodger doesn't get a lot to do other than introduce Oliver Twist to the Fagin's gang of kids. But Wild doesn't annoy me, he doesn't over act or try to be the star. He doesn't mug for the camera or come off too slick and precocious. He's actually playing a character and doing his best to be the Artful Dodger and I can appreciate that. Wild can actually sing and dance and be what the story needs him to be to move everything along. It's also possible that in seeing the kid who plays Oliver Twist, it makes me like Wild more because Oliver is an awful actor and was dubbed over because he couldn't sing. Compared to him, Wild does indeed look like an Oscar contender. He isn't really, though I do enjoy the performance for what it is and that's a small little victory I'll take for a child performance.

Gene Wilder - The Producers

Sometimes this project throws a film at me that I am just thrilled to watch because I forget it's even one I have to watch and it's like this added bonus. A couple of them have been Mel Brooks film like this one and Blazing Saddles and it's just so great to just take a break and laugh my ass off while watching someone like Gene Wilder. Because who the hell doesn't love Gene Wilder?! I am so glad he's an Oscar nominee and I'm glad I get to watch him in this. He's an unbelievably funny man and his comedy is so different than most. Just full of deadpan and exaggerated expressions and sly comments and he's just a big mishmash of these different styles that become uniquely him. I can't do justice in describing his humor, you just have to watch his work for yourself - which you should have already because he's a cultural icon! In this film, Wilder plays an accountant who helps Zero Mostel try to come up with the worst play ever to get him money. It backfires as Springtime For Hitler is a hit! It's hilarious to see Wilder and Mostel scramble when they realize they whiffed big. The bulk of what got Wilder the nomination is in the beginning of the film when Wilder is in the office and explaining to Mostel exactly what he needs to do to not have a successful play. It becomes super successful and the hilarity ensues. But the funny is mostly in the early parts of the film when Wilder gets to be himself. He reacts ridiculously and it's super funny. His role is great and we can laugh along with him throughout the film. What a great nomination.


Some very good performances in this category and then we get a dud like Massey. I was really hoping that it would be some hidden gem, but it was just a dud. Massey isn't awful, but the performance isn't there. It's just like an imitation of someone you don't know and that's it. Wild doesn't really get all that much to do but at least he wasn't an annoying child actor. Cassel was very good in his brief time, but felt like he needed a bit more to do. Great in his limited time, though. Wilder was and always will be a hoot to watch on screen. He was awesome here and it would have been so wonderful if he was an Oscar winning actor for his comedic talents. Albertson, though, is the winner. He's so good in the role he was so comfortable in. Very good win that's not talked about and it's a shame because we know him as the decrepit Grandpa Joe who jumps out of bed to go see Willy Wonka and not for this really wonderful performance. Overall an interesting year that I wish was more consistent all the way through.

Oscar Winner: Jack Albertson - The Subject Was Roses
My Winner:  Jack Albertson - The Subject Was Roses 

Gene Wilder
Seymour Cassel
Jack Wild
Daniel Massey

Supporting Actress 1968

I am sitting here writing this in August of 2020 and wondering if we are even going to have an Oscars season this year. We have barely had any films come out and everything is getting pushed back and I'm hoping stuff can come out in time but I'm highly doubtful. It's feeling like we won't have a ceremony next March or whenever. Completely unprecedented but I'd also like a stacked ceremony and not some random terrible films that would have never sniffed the ceremony. Time will tell but Id figure I'd mention it for posterity sake. These are a group of women I don't really know with some interesting films I've been anticipating for awhile so I'm excited to start this off.

1968 Best Supporting Actress

Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby

This film gets bandied around as being one of the best horror films or one that a lot of people respect and reference. But this film didn't seem like it was much horror at all. If anything, you might call it a bit creepy at times but it's more of a mystery for me. I was trying to figure out what was going on and if it was real. I wasn't scared or unnerved or anything. This was a timid horror film that deals with Satan and witches and an anti-Christ, I assume that's what the baby is anyway. The only emotions I had were being mildly creeped out at the rape scene and more interested in seeing if Mia Farrow was crazy or if this was real. Gordon plays an old married neighbor of Farrow's and she is a witch (I think). I always thought that this was supposed to be a creepy performance and one that was so revered because she was a great villain, but I didn't get much of that. Maybe my expectations were too high and maybe I was thinking of a different film/performance but this one always gets high praise when talked about. She is more of a comedic kick to the story as the intrusive neighbor who can't help but be overly nosy and burdensome. She has this interesting slurry way she talks as if she's combining a lot of words together and also tired of talking. She pops in and out with Farrow and gives her stuff to drink and is always checking in and just being the overbearing old neighbor. She does have some menace to her but mostly it's the creepy vibe we get. I was fully expecting a lot more to the performance. I think Gordon is fine at the role she's given and she does pull it off naturally. You know there's more to her bubbling underneath the surface but we don't really get to see it except for the brief moment at the rape scene. My disappointment is because I was expecting something very different which is all on me, but this also isn't too varied of a role. She does the concerned elderly neighbor thing that is meant to be more than just loving concern. I'll have to see the others to figure out if this is a strong performance or a weak one to win.

Lynn Carlin - Faces

This is a John Cassavetes film, so going in I knew to expect something raw and real. It's made in the cinema verite style in black and white, so it's right in your face and their faces (ha!) and has this improvised quality to it. The first half of this film mostly features John Marley (who we know from his Love Story nomination and The Godfather opening) and Gena Rowlands. Carlin is the wife of Marley who he wants a divorce from and is stepping out and seeing Rowlands who is a prostitute, I think. We don't see much of Carlin in the first half except for a brief exchange where the two giggle and laugh in bed and it seems pretty innocuous. But once Marley says he wants the divorce, Carlin goes out with her girls to a dance club and the group of girls bring back Seymour Cassel, a young playboy, to her house. This bit of the story is where I really fell in love with Carlin's performance. It's mostly wordless and just full of these looks and faces from Carlin. Her face just tells so much about what she's thinking and feeling and expresses so much with just a glance or roll of the eyes it's amazing. She's actually super attractive in those moments because she is playing hard to get knowing she already got his attention earlier and is just waiting for everyone else to leave. They have great chemistry and the performance is made by her looks. It really is simply fantastic acting. I kinda wished that's where it would end after they go to bed. Her final act is kinda perplexing to me because - spoilers - I guess she took too many sleeping pills and had to be revived by Cassel forcing her to puke. It's not explained if she did it on purpose or in the moment of having fun or what (maybe someone can enlighten me on that) but it felt weird for the character. She seemed so assured of herself and in control but maybe that's where real life hits and we see she didn't take the divorce announcement very well by sleeping with a random young guy and trying to kill herself. The very end is her and Marley getting into it without anything being discussed and it's apropos of the times. But I really enjoyed that middle half of Carlin's performance so much. The rest was good but that really elevated her in my mind. Not sure where she will end up in the rankings but this was a nice little surprise for me.

Sondra Locke - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

This was a very surprising film and one I had always wanted to see because of the title being so cool sounding. It's about a deaf mute played by Alan Arkin who moves to a new town to be near his deaf mute friend who gets sent to a mental institute. He rents a room at a house that has a mercurial teenage girl, Locke. She is a different kind of girl. Tall, spindly, a bit gaunt. She is comfortable talking to Arkin's character who is much older and the subtext is almost a little creepy because it's like Arkin is into her and vice versa but it also is like two lonely people finding each other and bonding in being different. She is older than her age but still very young emotionally and it's hard to balance that in a performance but Locke does her best. At times it's uneven, but she is a teenage girl who is a bit tempestuous. Locke is this fast talking Southern girl who is almost like a tomboy but who at times in the story is concerned with appearances. There's a lot of dichotomy in this character that Locke has to work through and with and deliver something that is difficult for any veteran, let alone a newcomer like herself. She also makes it feel like a real character, too. Locke is a girl trying to figure out life in a small Southern time that doesn't seem to offer much of a future for her. She wants to play piano and adores classical music, trying to describe it to Arkin so he can understand it's impact and feeling. The performance has a few of these really great authentic moments and Locke is mostly up to the task of creating a believable character in the film. Some of her work is still a bit raw and not perfect, but overall it's a pretty good performance. Only real issue is that Locke is a leading performance through and through and you know how much I hate when the Academy puts them in the wrong category. But performance is good and her chemistry with Arkin is very good, definitely worth a watch.

Kay Medford - Funny Girl

After watching Funny Girl, it seems wild that anyone other than Barbra Streisand could be nominated for this film. This is her star vehicle and one that she had a big hand in making. Therefore all the other characters get kinda get the short shrift. Medford plays Rose Brice, the mother to Streisand's Fanny. She barely has any screen time and most likely gets nominated because the film itself did so well. From what I understand, the role was much bigger in the stage production so maybe that was factored in for people who had seen it before. I'm saying all this because there's really nothing to the performance. What's weird is seeing all the actressexuals or stans online who love the role and Medford and write glowingly about her. She may be wonderful but all she does is play a a wise quipping mother. She has a few one liners but it's not really anything with depth or substance. She will make you laugh and maybe think of your own mother or grandmother if they are the same way, but just not much there because the focus is all on Streisand. I liked how someone else summed up this performance as being supporting, but not essential. That's the truth and Medford is lucky to be nominated.

Estelle Parsons - Rachel, Rachel

Parsons is here in large part because the Academy loves rewarding those that have recently won Oscars with more nominations. It's like an afterglow effect where the Academy is like well we loved you before and then you did this performance we also like, here's another nomination! Sometimes they can be well earned, usually they are not. Parsons had just won the year prior for Bonnie and Clyde and this feels a little like going back to the well but also she is in a rather interesting film with a role I don't think had been seen much at that point. Parsons plays the school teacher friend of Joanne Woodward who is a middle aged spinster. Parsons is sorta more carefree at the school and with her attitudes from what we can see in the few scenes she has in the beginning with Woodward. She takes her shy friend to a religious revival and that overwhelms Woodward who leaves. When Parsons checks on her, she too is caught up in the moment and passionately kisses Woodward who recoils and runs away. That's obviously when we realize Parsons character is a closeted lesbian and makes her earlier carefree attitudes make sense. We see her a couple more times try to apologize to Woodward and then Woodward comes to her towards the end for help and that's the performance. I think the lesbian revelation was a bit intriguing for the time and to see two women kissing, too. Parsons is good in the role and matches that carefree attitude I keep mentioning but that is also at odds with her religious zeal. Parsons makes this character who is seemingly at odds with herself work as one character instead of a collection of tropes needed for the story. It's good work and you can see why she had just won an Oscar but it would have been better with a more cohesive arc to it.


I love that I am getting all these actresses and performances I've never heard of or seen at all. It makes this category way more enjoying when I have no idea what to expect and can go in super blind to almost everything. Now I did have some expectations for Gordon's performance, but not the others. Medford is barely a performance at all and squeaks in only because they loved Streisand and the film so much. I'd rather she be replaced with something more substantive. Parson had just won and gets in on that win and not really her performance here. It is a little interesting, but not overwhelmingly so. Locke is a leading performance that got relegated to supporting for who knows what reason. But she is clearly lead and very good in the role. Carlin was a revelation for me. I loved all her little subtle glances and looks and how she did so much with very little acting. I maybe didn't like the arc but it felt a bit true to life.  I think it was very good for the times. Gordon is talked about as one of those sort of iconic roles of the crazy old lady. I liked the performance but I didn't get the whole scary nature of the film. She was just a nosy neighbor with ulterior motives. I think it's a decent enough performance but one that I was expecting more from based on all I've heard about it over the years. Maybe that sullies my perception of it but I think for now, Carlin edges her out for my win. I can say this was an interesting year even if it wasn't the greatest.

Oscar Winner: Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby
My Winner:  Lynn Carlin - Faces
Ruth Gordon
Sondra Locke
Estelle Parsons
Kay Medford

Best Picture 1969

This is a pretty good mixed bag. You've got a period piece, a musical, a foreign political thriller, a buddy film, and the winner about a male prostitute. A very diverse lineup that I'm eager to dive into.

1969 Best Picture

Midnight Cowboy

I can't believe it's taken me so long to finally watch this film. I know I'm going to be saying that a lot in the future but it's still true. I've put off watching some classics like this because it was on the project eventually. And it's crazy because I feel like I've seen most of the film already, whether it was individual scenes or something that got referenced or parodied in another film/TV show. It was really worth the wait, though, to see all the iconic moments in one viewing. This film has a lot of them and is one hell of a directed film. John Schlesinger did a great job of expressing the inner feelings of Joe Buck with such visceral scenes inter cut throughout. I love all the flourishes he brings to the film whether it's camera movements or dream sequences or the flashback scenes of Joe's life or the black and white shots of NYC. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman deliver riveting performances that seemingly contrast each other even though they are mostly the same. They are these sad sack losers who struggle to get by and have to scrounge and grift to live or try and sell themselves in Joe's case. But Joe has this hopeful sheen to him that only fades a little bit as the city gnaws at him from every direction. And Ratso sees Joe as his golden ticket, or at least an easy mark, before they join up. It's this weird, perverse look at these two lost souls trying to scratch out an existence. It feels like it should be this really depressing film, but it's not. It's got a weird optimistic vibe I can't quite put my finger on but maybe it's Voight's performance doing that for me. This was the first and only X rated film to win Best Picture, though the film was later downgraded to R as it's not really risque or anything. I enjoy the 60s vibe it has and really love the musical choices. The theme is so good, maybe it's what also adds to my optimistic feeling about the film. The ending is sad but it's a new beginning for Joe. I'm liking how layered this film is and how it's getting me thinking all about it's themes. Just a really great film and one that is more than initially meets the eye. A really interesting way for the Academy to end the 60s with this as the winner.

Anne of the Thousand Days

Anne is the costume drama period piece film that was all the rage in the 60s with the Academy. After this year, it fell out of favor but just look at the 60s and see all of those British royal dramas. The Academy certainly had a type this decade and this was the one. I will say for the record that I love a good period piece film, but they obviously have to be good or better for me to really enjoy them. I liked this film as a whole. I think Richard Burton is a great actor and Genevieve Bujold was actually the best part of the film for me. I also think that most people by now know the story of Henry the VIII and have seen some iteration of it at some point, whether it be The Tudors or another film covering the story. Henry wants a male heir to the throne and his first wife, Catherine, is only producing a daughter and stillborn sons. So he divorces her while cutting off ties with Rome and marries Anne Boleyn in hopes of that male heir. She also can't produce a son so he chops her head off. It's almost a knock against the film that I know the story so well and have certain ideas about the characters already. This film focuses on Henry and Anne to the detriment of any other character, but that is the story they are telling. Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas More are not as well rounded or impactful as they could or should probably be. That's on me for wanting more from characters that the story was never going to focus on. The film is dense, too. I kinda like that it has a lot of dialogue and doesn't have a ton of scenes of hunting or dancing and feasting and all of that. It lets the actors do their thing, mainly Burton, and moves the film right along. It is a dense two and a half hours, though, so I feel like you have to be in the mood for it. I think most people arrive for Burton but stay for Bujold as she is the revelation in this film. This feels like a natural fit for the Academy and the Best Picture group, it's just that this type of film was quickly on its way out.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

You just gotta love a Paul Newman and Robert Redford buddy film. Throw in Director George Roy Hill and the magic just seems to happen. This is basically a precursor or trial run for The Sting because it has a lot of the same elements. The three struck gold literally with Oscar for that film, but this one is also a great film on it's own. I love the sepia toned beginning where we see an old timey film of the two characters before we see Newman and Redford. The shot where the sepia tone fades away into color is pretty cool even today and just shows how stylish Hill was as a director. The film has so many iconic moments like when the two guys jump into the river to get away from the posse chasing them, to the Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head song, to the memorable final scene. It's just that super cool Newman/Redford film that everyone loves because they are incredible actors with unmatched chemistry in a highly entertaining film. And it's a really simple film for the most part. It's not this long historical epic or this detailed, serious look at the lives of these two outlaws. It's just a snippet in time of these two friends and I like that about the film. I don't care if it's not that historically accurate or whatever. It's just fun to watch these two guys have a great time on screen. I had kinda forgotten the middle part of the film when I watched it but really loved how we never saw the posse up close. They were a boogeyman chasing the men like the Terminator across some desolate open country and I enjoyed that we didn't get to see much of them except as a dot in the distance. The film is just scene after incredible scene of these amazing moments and it's easy to see why the public and the Academy responded the way they did. I'm surprised they didn't show any acting love but the Academy never could seem to pin down Redford and his performances. This one is highly recommended and probably one you've already seen.

Hello, Dolly!

Hello, Dolly! was the last gasp of a certain era of film. It was a big budget musical that was barely able to break even, despite it have Barbra Streisand headlining and Walter Matthau for the laughs. It was shelved for a year due to a dispute between the producers of the actual Broadway play who didn't want it running at the same time as their show. Also, Streisand and Matthau hated each other and you can see on screen that they have zero chemistry. Not to mention that Matthau can't sing to save his life so having him in a musical just seems like a really poor idea from director Gene Kelly - yes, that Gene Kelly. His direction is actually pretty wonderful throughout the film as there are a lot of grand musical numbers with complicated choreography. That's the one thing to admire about the film other than some of the recognizable songs. It's also brightly colored so it's pretty nice to just look at and not in an awful technicolor sense where the colors look fake or enhanced. The opening to the film is also pretty neat where the colors change and then a train moves in the distance before the city scene explodes with action. There are a lot of these touches from Kelly that makes the film watchable. It's just that I don't like the characters really at all. Matthau is all wrong for the part, I'm not a fan of Streisand but it's like she's acting in a different film, and the others are just kind of there or too country bumpkin like. It's also needlessly long as some of the numbers go on way too long. The film is over two and a half hours and it feels even longer. I like musicals a lot, so this isn't coming from a place of hate for the genre or anything. But as grand as this film is and wants to be, it never quite measures up to itself. I think that's all due to the poor casting choices that kept me from ever becoming involved in the story. There's also just a lot going on onscreen throughout the film where it seems like Kelly thinks more is better. It's not. It almost cripple Fox as a studio for being such a huge flop and it's so weird that big flops like this that didn't even get universal critical praise or anything somehow ends up in the Best Picture field. I suspect it's much like Doctor Doolittle being a huge flop and still getting nominated because the studio pushed so hard with their campaigning to try to make money back. It's a relic of it's time and it's genre but I'm not sure it belongs with this group.

Z

This is an incredible film! It won Best Foreign Film for Algeria though it was a French-Greek made film. It was only the second foreign film to be nominated for Best Picture at the time after Grand Illusion did it in 1938. It's interesting watching this now after the first foreign film finally won Best Picture in Parasite. It also kinda fits with what's going on in the country and the world because this is a tight political thriller and investigative film. The film is about the assassination of a political opposition leader and the principled magistrate trying to find out the truth amidst all the political corruption of the current party and police. It's a super tightly paced film that zips along. It surprised me with how quickly it hooked me and just how fast it moved. It's like there are no wasted scenes and everything shown and done is only to help clarify and get to the ending. Just superb editing and writing abound as I felt so much frustration at the freedoms and truths that were being extinguished. It was amazing to see just how corrupt the people in power were even in the face of facts and the moral truth. That definitely parallels our current state in this country so it was interesting to see it from a French-Greek story from the late 60s. No matter how much the world changes, it still stays the same. Especially great in the film was the magistrate, Jean-Louis Trintignant, who was in the BP nominated Amour a few years ago in 2012. It's like he's come full circle for me as he was tremendous as the principled magistrate getting to the bottom of what really happened even with his boss and other government people telling him to back off or only accept made up stories. These are the kinds of foreign films that we need more of at the Oscars. Something tells me with the Academy becoming more inclusive that we may see a trend toward finally rewarding foreign films more. This is a must see for sure even if you don't think you like foreign films and reading subtitles. This will suck you in and leave you amazed.


Wow, a diverse group for sure! And really an enjoyable group, too. Hello, Dolly! brings up the rear as it wasn't all that fun to watch with poor casting choices, but I did like some of the songs. I did find myself singing the It Takes a Woman song in my head after I watched it. That's gotta count for something! Definitely the fifth choice though and probably could have been left off. Now, I did like Anne of the Thousand Days, mostly for Burton and Bujold who crushed it. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is just a great Newman/Redford film that I can watch any time it's on and be engrossed. But the toughest choice, which surprised me, was in choosing my winner between Z and Midnight Cowboy. Z is flat out fantastic and amazing and just a thrilling film from start to finish. Midnight Cowboy I think just hit me in the right way to where I feel for both characters tremendously. Plus the direction is really top notch and I feel like it really influenced a generation of filmmaking. That's why I'm sticking with it as my winner, but Z is just a hair below and that could probably change the next time you ask me about it. Those top two (three, really) films are all so good and highly recommended. Not a bad way to start out the decade!

Oscar Winner: Midnight Cowboy
My Winner:  Midnight Cowboy
Z
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Anne of the Thousand Days
Hello, Dolly!

Leading Actor 1969

These are all huge names so I am expecting the category to be extra competitive this year. I am looking forward to some of these because I've been waiting awhile to see them in action finally. This one should be pretty awesome.

1969 Best Actor

John Wayne -True Grit

Let's be real right off the bat, this is simply a career Oscar for John Wayne and nothing more. I grew up watching John Wayne westerns and war films and just adored him. He was a movie star through and through and this is the Academy saying thanks for all you've done for Hollywood. Wayne himself admits Burton should have won and this wasn't his best work - and he's right. About it not being his best work and, well, possibly Burton winning - we shall see about that. But Wayne just plays his normal movie star self in this film. The remake by the Coen Brother's almost 50 years later is way better and Jeff Bridges is leaps and bounds better as Rooster Cogburn. There's nothing more to this win than simply the Academy liked him. I could talk about the actual performance but honestly if you've seen one John Wayne performance you've seen them all. I don't even think he's particularly good here. He's been better in other films of his and this was a guy just not doing much in the film. He's mostly sitting around or on horseback. So when I do look back at Wayne having won and being among all the winners, it doesn't feel wrong at all. But you also can't help but roll your eyes a little knowing John Wayne has an Oscar and Peter O'Toole was only given an Honorary one later in his career. There's lot of other actors like that, too. Hell, just look at Burton! Seven nominations and not even an Honorary one like O'Toole. Not a strong win but I guess it kind of makes sense a little if you don't think too hard on it.

Richard Burton - Anne of the Thousand Days

I gave Burton my win for the first nomination I reviewed of his back in 1977 for Equus. That was his last of seven nominations and I flat out loved it. It blew me away. I mentioned then that I was looking forward to his other work and here we are watching him as Henry the VIII. It's a story everyone knows and we've all seen many different iterations of Henry in all variations of media. So going into this was like, okay, what can Burton bring to the role that makes it worth watching. And the answer to that is Richard Burton. He just has a certain style as an actor where he is very theatrical in his performance. His Henry is loud and brash and dominating like a king should be. But Burton imbues the performance with a lot of emotion, some say too much. The knock I read is that it can be too much from Burton and his broad style. But I'm all in for it. He's not spouting off stuffy old English in some drawn out aristocratic, enunciated voice. He's bellowing his lines and talking like a normal person but it all some calculated by Burton to show off Henry's larger than life personality. He's not just hamming it up, he's acting like an impetuous king who wants to seem important at all times and like he's the one behind all the machinations.  In one moment he will be telling Anne how much he loves her and wants to be with her in overtly romantic way and then the next after she insults him he roars about being the king and how he can have her head. I like that Burton can swing these extremes back and forth with ease while also maintaining a cohesive performance throughout the film. I actually really like when Burton is calm and collected the most because it makes Henry human to us. I think this is a good performance but it's nowhere near the level he was at during Equus for me. I've still got a few more performance of his to watch and I know he will deliver in those. This is a good version of Henry the VIIIth, though.

Dustin Hoffman - Midnight Cowboy

"Hey! I'm walking here, I'm walking here!" I'm pretty sure everyone knows that iconic line and it seems like everyone knows that it was an unscripted moment that Hoffman rolled with and it fit the character so they kept it in. It's a classic line and shows the dedication of Hoffman to staying in character no matter what. Hoffman's sad sack Ratso Rizzo is full of affectations. We all know how Hoffman loves to take on interesting roles like these especially if he can put his spin on it. Ratso has a lot going on with his character. Hoffman gives him a nasally high pitched voice, he coughs a lot, he's got a pronounced limp, is always disheveled and sweaty. It's a very put upon character and performance but Hoffman keeps it from being merely an amalgamation of parts. It becomes a fully fleshed out character. He is almost the opposite of Joe Buck in that he is the street vermin who knows the underbelly of NYC and does whatever he can to survive. But eventually throughout the film we see the two men bond in a symbiotic relationship and friendship and it's one that gives a little hope to their situations. I think in lesser hands Ratso would have been way too over the top and dominated the film. It would have been an annoying character shifting the focus of the story. But Hoffman expertly crafts a character that we eventually take pity on and see as being a good guy even if he's a street rat. It's a physical performance as much as it is an emotional performance. Ratso longs for company and you can tell he respects Joe. It's an interesting dichotomy between the two and you can't have one without the other. It's why I totally understand both of them getting nominated in this category. I think it's just going to come down to preference on who you like more. Hoffman does good work and gets you feeling about a street bum, a nice achievement.

Peter O'Toole - Goodbye, Mr. Chips

Peter O'Toole is one of the greatest actors ever. Which is why I am so glad that this project introduced me to his other, less widely known work. His previous four nominations that I've seen were all wildly interesting and indicative of an actor who was not scared to take on any role. I enjoy all of those because they are so telling that he was more than just a Shakespearean actor and more than just Lawrence of Arabia. I'll get to those roles soon enough, but first is this one. This is a remake of a film that already won a Best Actor Oscar for Robert Donat back in 1939. And this remake starts with a long Overture and is partly a musical and is way longer than it needs to be. But it has a lot of heart. O'Toole plays a shy school teacher who uses every second of his class time. He's kind of a stick in the mud until he meets a woman who is a stage actress and they eventually hit it off and get married. She's full of life and just a positive person and presence in his life, lifting him up from being boringly academic. By the end something happens that you can probably guess but we see a changed man who is well liked by his peers and students. I actually like most of the songs in this film but O'Toole is definitely not much of a singer, but I guess he's earnest in his trying. It's also not that challenging of a role for O'Toole, minus the singing. His charm and biting wit is put to good use but I don't think anyone is going to be clamoring for this to be what wins O'Toole his first Oscar (because he never won an acting one, only getting an Honorary award in 2002). I think he's perfectly fine, but doesn't have much heavy lifting to do in the role save for the final big scene when the incident happens and he is giving a speech to his students. It showcases how great he is as an actor but it really only leaves you wanting more scenes of that quality in the film. It's a decent performance, but obviously O'Toole has been much better in his career.

Jon Voight - Midnight Cowboy

It's interesting how these things work out. I'm not a fan of the current Voight and his politics and opinions, yet I have loved most of his acting work from the beginning. This was Voight exploding onto the scene with his big, tall Texan hustler. From the opening scene he had me hooked. He's got this big dopey, aw shucks personality that fits an idealistic Texas boy with big dreams of going to NYC and hooking up with all the hot rich women to a T. But that personality hides a dark secret that is probably driving his decisions in life to be who he is and go where he's going to get away from the memory of it. The flashbacks tell the tale of his rape and having to watch a girl he was with get raped, too. That's heavy stuff and most likely fuels him to move away and take ownership of his sexuality. He becomes the one getting paid for, or at least trying to, and he becomes the dominant part when hustling guys. I think that Voight mixes this intensity well with the golly gee naive boy part of his personality, the one that trusts everyone he meets. He also has this pervasive optimism that affected me and made me hopeful for his finally getting a break. But then we get a scene late in the film where Joe is with an older guy trying to get money to send Ratso to Miami and he roughs the guy up and gets violent. This shift works because of the desperation he feels in helping his friend and because NYC has hardened this naive young man into being someone jaded by his interactions. The friendship part of the story is probably the best part of the performance. Voight and Hoffman develop this very real friendship that feels real and gives us hope for the both of them. It is this symbiotic relationship that starts out rocky, but their being together is fun to watch. They play off each other so well and it really deepens the impact of both of their performances. In lesser hands, Joe Buck would have come off as hokey or completely unbelievable as a character. But Voight crafts a perfect representation of the character that makes the film seem so much more real to me. His work is why it's so sad at the end when he brings Ratso closer to him on the bus. It's also why we are optimistic his life is changing for the better in that moment, as well. It's just really great work from Voight with a character that seems pretty hard to nail down and he does just that.



This category is actually pretty hard to judge who to win. I don't think Wayne deserves it for this performance. It's not that great at all and you've got a couple other performances here that are easily better. I'm sure that Voight and Hoffman split their vote. I can also see Burton and O'Toole splitting the vote between themselves. Both were due for a veteran win and gave decent enough performances even if it wasn't their best work by a wide margin. I think I'm gonna give my win to Burton. I mean I already did in 77, but if I give it here maybe that changes things in the future? Also, both Voight and Hoffman have their Oscars and O'Toole shouldn't be winning for this one in my opinion. So Burton by default but this is just a weird category altogether. I'm fine with Wayne having won but we all know it's for his career and nothing more. Really this is just up to whoever you like or whatever narrative you want to push. Or flip a coin. I hope 68 offers up something with a little more clarity.

Oscar Winner: John Wayne - True Grit
My Winner:  Richard Burton - Anne of the Thousand Days
Dustin Hoffman
Jon Voight
Richard Burton
Peter O'Toole
John Wayne

Leading Actress 1969

I haven't seen a one of these but there are names I've been looking forward to watching. I'm very curious to see what my first foray into the Best Actress race of the 60s is going to be like. Hopefully it's a great precursor for the rest of the decade.

1969 Best Actress

Maggie Smith - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie

I have been mostly lukewarm to all of Smith's nominations and her one win so far in this project. Some are decent enough and have moments of greatness, but nothing has impressed me for an actress who is a two-time Oscar winner and highly regarded. That doesn't mean I don't think Smith isn't great, she is, but her nominations haven't been amazing. This is probably the best performance of hers that I've seen yet. I totally get the win and feel it's deserved. This is one of those teacher films where Smith is a different kind of teacher. She praises fascists and dresses in color and has her own little group of girls she teaches that follow her every word and she dotes on more than others. She also is seeing the choral teacher who is religious and an art teacher who is married. She also has a head mistress who hates her and wants to get rid of her. Jean is progressive for the times and in her prime as she says so often. But it becomes evident as the film progresses that she is indeed a bad influence who can't own up to what she spews to young, impressionable girls. She's a vain woman who adores having these girls hang on her every word. Jean doesn't see any of this in herself. Smith does so well with portraying this idealistic woman, though. That's why I feel she earned this Oscar. She can play this self righteous teacher who will talk up fascism and thinking for yourself and inspire a girl to go to the Spanish Civil War and get killed and not feel any remorse or wrong doing in her influence. She plays it as a woman caught up in her own little world, too blind to see the harm she can do. I do like how authoritarian yet charming she can be, especially in the early part of the film. She seems like the quirky teacher and we get sucked into Smith's acting and see her as this harmless progressive woman who is in the right. One review I did read had a line that said Smith is "technically stunning, but emotionally distant" and I somewhat agree. I like when Smith gets all passionate in this performance yet her eyes never blink or move and it feels like she's rehearsed what she's saying a million times until she got the tone down pat since she can't act with her eyes and top half of her head. If you watch it, you'll understand what I mean. And so I do feel she is technically stunning with all the right moves, yet not all there emotionally that we can connect with. That's in those more passionate times, but expressions are a huge part of acting and this performance demands it. Smith cannot act with her eyes in this film and it leaves a hole in the performance. Besides that, the performance is very good and layered more than just a simple quirky teacher role. Almost a dual role for Smith, it's an accomplished performance, though I still have to see if it wins this year.

Genevieve Bujold - Anne of the Thousand Days

Everyone should know this story. It's about Henry VIII and his search for a woman who could provide him a male heir to the throne. More specifically in this film, it's about his time with Anne Boleyn, played by Bujold. She is a French Canadian actress, I looked because I was wondering if this was going to be one of those European nominees who is a starlet that the Academy likes so they nominate and I was worried if it would be hard to understand her. But all that went away when I watched her performance. She is a revelation in this film. Her accent comes out at times, but that wasn't an issue. What was great to see is that we are introduced to her as this fierce girl who has no problem stepping up and telling the king no, fuck off. It was so great to see that the character was a badass woman who stood up to Henry and repeatedly told him no she didn't want to marry him she was in love with someone else. But it was Bujold who made that badass woman routine believable and one to root for. Right off the bat that's what we see from her. I liked that her being pretty wasn't really the focus of her worth as a character. Yeah, she catches Henry's eye at a dance but she's just a girl out here trying to live her life. I also like that it took awhile before she finally caved in to Henry. But before that happens, Anne starts understanding real quick how much power she has holding out in having sex with Henry. That leads to a great scene where she finesses Cardinal Wolsey and that's all thanks to how great Bujold is in the performance. In these moments, we are looking at her as an equal to the King and the Cardinal. I will say I wasn't a big fan of having Anne eventually just break down and say she loves Henry but we had to get there some time, some way. It's also when Anne kinda steps off to the side in the middle of the film as the religious stuff takes over and Henry figures out how to wed his new love. The performance picks up again towards the end of the film where after no male heirs, Henry moves on decides to kill Anne. We get a fantastic scene where Bujold and Burton are talking before her execution and she is quite simply overpowering Burton in the moment. Bujold to me is the best part of the film. When she's able to do her thing and not just be confined as some chick who is pretty and there to just sit by Henry. She is very much the focus of the film and she carries that responsibility well. It's a really terrific performance and it's a shame I don't know her from anything else.

Jane Fonda - They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

This was Jane Fonda's first Oscar nomination for a very strange and interesting film. I always thought that this was a Western, but the reality is much different as this is about a dance marathon in the Depression era. I never would have guessed that in a million years. I guess dance marathons were a big thing during the Depression as a way for people to win money and would last for days and days. Fonda plays a woman who is entering with a guy who is sick and gets kicked out before it even begins so she has to team up with Michael Sarrazin's character, someone she has never met. Fonda's character is so angry and cynical at the world and everything going on. She verbally attacks a pregnant woman that is there asking how is she going to feed her child during these terrible times and Fonda just gets angry and upset at the woman. She has so much frustration and hate which is in contrast to Sarrazin's character who is mostly chill and trying to see the positives and just exist in the world. It's an interesting dichotomy and watching Fonda navigate that as well as continue to get worn down by the dancing and the mental and physical toll it takes on them. You see a woman in desperation trying to win money by being the last one dancing. It's like a microcosm of all the problems people face and who is suffering during the Depression. Fonda represents those that are angry and who are ready to just give up. Watching her in this performance, you can see how good of an actress she is and you can see those flashes of what will become her great performances in her career. She's very serious and committed to the role which is what I've come to expect when watching a Fonda performance. I wasn't let down at all by her first nomination, though sometimes it did seem like she was acting in a different film because she was so angry and frustrated. The ending is quite shocking and it exposes the true heart of Fonda's character and clues you in on why she is so fed up. Like I said earlier, it's a very interesting film with lots to say about it's characters. Fonda fits the role well and you can easily see why she would become a two-time winner in the future.

Liza Minnelli - The Sterile Cuckoo

I completely forgot that Liza had another Oscar nomination under her belt before she won for Cabaret. It was nice to see a younger Liza and how dynamic she was even in one of her first real performances as an adult. It's even more interesting to compare this to her winning work only a couple years later in 1972 where she was an energetic, magnetic sexpot. This film is about a quirky, eccentric young girl off to college who meets a boy on a bus and they quickly become a thing. But it's also quickly apparent that Liza's Pookie is the weirdo and goof that she claims everyone else is. The first almost half of the film is Pookie talking a mile a minute and changing the topic just as fast. She won't shut up and it almost becomes annoying but you see what kind of person Pookie is and we see what kind of an actress Liza is. She is this needy girl who needs to latch onto someone because it seems that she wasn't close to her father and her mother died in childbirth so she blames herself. This is a girl who probably has some undiagnosed mental health issues and we watch as Liza treads through those choppy waters. This is where Liza shines since she has this ability to mix all kinds of emotions on her face to where you can't tell if she's happy, scared, nervous, angry, or what. It perfectly captures how emotionally turbulent Pookie's mind is. As we finish the film, we see Pookie become increasingly needy and clingy as she feels she is losing her guy. I'm sure the performance resonates much more with women who have been in that scenario but I do think it's quite effective from Liza. Her vulnerability with the character is almost as impressive as her rapid fire, upbeat persona in the beginning of the film. I think this is a very good performance from Liza as we see exactly what she is capable of doing. It also makes her Oscar win a bit more impressive because she totally amped up the qualities of Pookie and added in the razzle dazzle and sexuality. The film itself is mostly a bore, though, and the only reason to watch is to see Liza dominate the screen.

Jean Simmons - The Happy Ending

These are the nominees and names where I can go on and on about not knowing who they are and the film being little seen in today's world and all that but I need to start cutting down on doing that or that's all I'll be typing as I go back in time. How's that for a run on sentence? Anyway, this film wasn't one that I really enjoyed, though it is certainly a product of the 60s and that has a little merit in watching it. Simmons plays a housewife who got married young and dropped out of college to do so and now years later is miserable. She's an alcoholic stashing vodka all over the house in perfume bottles and in the back of the toilet tank. One of those types who drinks when she wakes up. She's had her issues with drinking and it's made her marriage tough. She's also bored and feels like she's missing out on life. There have been lots of problems and one day on her anniversary she decides to randomly fly to the Bahamas alone. The film utilizes flashback scenes where we watch her get alcohol poisoning and get rushed to the hospital or have a disastrous anniversary party where her husband flirts with a younger blonde woman. The tone of the film yo-yo's back and forth from super serious dramatic acting where Simmons looks forlorn and miserable and on the verge of a breakdown to a more jovial, loving Simmons happy with life. Sometimes that's in the same scene like a flashback that has too much going on or a current scene in the Bahamas where it bounces around from emotion to emotion. It's a bit tiring and I don't feel Simmons quite pulls it off. She's decent at best but I feel like a lot of the other actors in this film outshine her. And that's not just one or two, it's quite a few. I found myself being more interested in everyone but Simmons in this film as she struggles to get me invested in her story and her performance. I unfortunately don't have anything else to compare Simmons to because I've never seen anything else with her in it. I feel like this kind of movie where she is playing so many volatile emotions at different times almost needs a reference point. And the fact that I think it needs that at all shows that it's not a strong performance to me. I will get another chance to watch a nomination of hers in the 40s when I get to Hamlet, so that should be interesting. I just really wasn't feeling this performance that seemed to get overshadowed at every turn and when she should have shined, it fell flat. This one could have been much better than it was.



This was a good introduction to the 60s, I think. Three of the ladies were in the early parts of their long, rewarded career and then two others that I was interested to see who exactly they were. One of those was Simmons who didn't really wow and the film seemed kind of like part of the times with it being about an independent woman. Simmons is fine and I'll get another chance to review her but the film just missed big with me. Then we get Liza's first. It was a great introduction to her and she had so much energy that you can see what she's going to become later on. Smith gets her first of two wins and it didn't really wow me. It was fine but I just don't think I'm much of a Maggie Smith fan. I can recognize that she's good, but just not for me. I think I've got one more from her coming up. Then we get to Fonda's first. There was buzz from what I read that she would have won if she hadn't gotten into political trouble before the voting and I can see that. She plays the performance very serious and has that wild moment in the end of the film that you don't see coming. It's good and sign of things to come for her, too. The highlight of this year was Bujold, though. She was very good in her role and really made Anne into an actual character and not just some plaything for Henry. She was my easy winner and I'd be interested to see what anyone else thinks because this was a very wide open year. I just hope the quality can stay at this level and get better as I start my journey through the 60s.

Oscar Winner: Maggie Smith - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie
My Winner:  Genevieve Bujold - Anne of the Thousand Days
Jane Fonda
Maggie Smith
Liza Minnelli
Jean Simmons

Supporting Actress 1969

So stoked to be in the 60s finally and ready to start full steam ahead. I think it's become much easier to do these older years instead of the current ones simply because I haven't seen most of the films and it's all new to me and fun to see what kind of films they are. This category offers up a couple names I've already reviewed before and two that I don't know at all. I'm excited to dive in and see what they have to offer.

1969 Best Supporting Actress

Goldie Hawn - Cactus Flower

I don't think most people realize that Goldie was a two-time Oscar nominee, let alone that she actually won an Oscar. This was essentially her film debut, though she had a small part in another film before this. She was known from Laugh-In on TV, but this was her first big break in film and she won an Oscar for her efforts. Now is the Oscar actually deserved? Hard to say right now for me as this is the first one I'm reviewing for the group, but I'd probably lean towards no. The basic gist of the plot is Goldie plays a woman dating Walter Matthau, who is a dentist. He lies to her and says he's married so he can give himself an out if he wants to. But Goldie wants to meet his estranged "wife" who doesn't exist so Matthau gets his nurse, Ingrid Bergman, to play the role. Only Bergman is in love with Matthau and hijinks ensue. It's a comedy, though the funny moments are few and mostly dated. I didn't think it was rip roaring funny or anything. Goldie is almost really a lead actress in this as the whole film is focused on her. She's fine in the role, if not a little annoying and grating at times. She has that gee whiz charm and plays the naive, innocent young girl to a T. I'm sure her being a pretty young blonde woman has a lot to do with her win and nomination. She has good comedic instincts which is why she would play that role so often in her career. But it's a thin role with a flawed performance that only seems to get by on her utter charisma and infectious charm. If you're a fan of her, you'll probably love it. If you are a fan of strong performances, you're going to be left lacking and wishing the Academy wouldn't get swept away by pretty young women like Goldie so often.

Catherine Burns - Last Summer

It's funny how sometimes real life lines up with a nominee or film that you've never heard of before. There was an article online about Burns right around the Oscars earlier in 2020 and it was a fascinating piece talking about how Burns was nominated in her first film role but then after a few years disappeared from the public eye and Hollywood. She grew to hate the film that made her an Oscar nominee and briefly famous and hated Hollywood for focusing on how different she looked from most women and made her hate the whole process. She went on to do theater and then just local theater and became a writer and died in 2019 in complete obscurity. Just a reminder how shitty this business can be. But Burns is really striking in this indie film that definitely felt like it was from the 60s. It stars a young Barbara Hershey and two other young men who are all vacationing at a beach in the summer and sex and drugs and life all happen when they meet up and become friends. Burns is introduced later on as the fourth piece playing a much younger girl (though oldest in real life by a couple years). She wants to fit in with these teens who are all beautiful looking but who also relentlessly tease and deride her for being too serious and weird looking and too proper and intellectual. Burns plays this girl as super shy at times but also so lonely and desperate to fit in. She also has the most natural acting ability of the group and sticks out from the others because she brings real feeling to the performance. She has a monologue in the middle of the film where she tells how her mom died and the camera focuses on her for a good while as she goes through the scene. It's a lot of great realistic acting and very understated in contrast to the film itself. It's the highlight of the film because it's this flash of brilliance that leaves you wanting more from Burns. The rest of her performance is very good, too, but this was her peak. And it all leads to a heartbreaking, dark ending that makes you feel so bad for Burns' character. When you compare this work to Hawn's win, it just makes you want to give up on the Oscars. This is great acting that we sadly didn't get to see more of because Hollywood chewed her up and spit her out before she knew what was up.

Dyan Cannon - Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice

This was the first of Cannon's three nominations and I honestly kinda forgot about her role in Heaven Can Wait from 1978. That wasn't much of a nomination and I wasn't really into it. She was also nominated in 1976 for writing and directing a Live Action Short film which is pretty cool for real. As for this first nomination, Cannon actually impressed me in such a very 60s film, which I know I've been saying a lot in this category so far. She is the Alice in the title and her husband is Ted, played by Elliot Gould. Their friends go on a retreat and have this revelation about their marriage and sex and all that and Cannon finds it weird at first and then alarming that they just admit to having affairs and then she kind of accepts it at the end after going to therapy for her own issues. It's quite the character arc for a supporting role and it's a really strong performance because of that. Cannon is the anchor for the audience and is what keeps the film from jumping off the deep end into its own ridiculousness. We see ourselves as Alice who finds her friends kinda funny at first but we follow along with her as she goes through the emotions of these people. It's a very 60s film in that respect of peace and love and share your feelings and let's be frank and open about sex. Cannon, though, is the sorta normal wife and mother. She has this great scene where she visits her therapist and it's that acting like with Burns above where she just kinda acts on her own for a few minutes, though the therapist does chime in a little bit. But it's that serious acting where the person gets to shine and show how real and raw they can be in touching all these different emotions in the span of a couple minutes. I enjoyed that scene a lot and felt it's probably why she was nominated. It reminded me a bit of Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story, albeit to a lesser degree. The rest of the film sees her completing the arc and she also has really great chemistry with Gould, even if it's isn't too sexy. Her ending is also fun to watch where she just decides to say screw it and takes her clothes off and we get their awkward attempt at an orgy of sorts. I think it's a good performance where the film only let's her truly shine once but that doesn't stop her from delivering a very satisfying arc for her character.

Sylvia Miles - Midnight Cowboy

This is quite the performance. And by that I should really be saying cameo. Miles is in this film for about 5 minutes, but what a few minutes they are! I enjoyed Miles in her other nomination for Farewell, My Lovely in which she had a brief performance as a boozy, flirty confidante to Robert Mitchum. There must be something about Miles in short performances (there's a joke in there somewhere). But back to this film. Miles shows up in the beginning of the film when Jon Voight gets to NYC. He flirts with her while her dog is using the bathroom on the sidewalk and we instantly get her New York personality when she tells Voight the Statue of Liberty is peeing in Central Park. They go up to her penthouse and start undressing while she talks on the phone with her husband as she moans Oh, baby! as they proceed to the bed. The deed is done and then we get the funny scene of Voight trying to get Miles to pay him and she gets wildly upset and throws a tantrum and he ends up paying her some cab fare money. And that's it. But Miles is like a whirling dervish just zipping through the scene and leaving as quickly as she entered. Now, did she really deserve a nomination for this super short performance? Probably not, but she is damn memorable in the role. I think it's the disgust as she screams when he asks her to pay as if the realization that he's only sleeping with her for money and not because she's attractive that sells the performance. But yeah, really probably shouldn't have been nominated and just came along for the ride with the film.

Susannah York - They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I was always intrigued by the name of this film since I always thought it was going to be a Western or something like that. But this is definitely not a Western. This is a film about a dance marathon in the Depression era which I guess was a thing back then. York plays Alice, an aspiring actress hoping to get noticed as this is taking place near Hollywood. She's blonde and pretty and British and her first scene is one in which she starts doing a part from a George Bernard Shaw play to show off. It's quite the introduction and lays the groundwork for how serious her role and performance will be. Eventually we see she is pretty disappointed that the audience isn't filled with stars and film people that will notice her for a big break. Then the dance marathon continues for days and days and days and the dancers are tired mentally and physically. That's when we start to see York look rather ragged and start to lose it mentally with how much the pressure of dancing and wanting to be discovered and the disappointment starts to take a toll on her. We see this gradual decline as she spirals further into a breakdown culminating in her standing wide eyed in her clothes under a running shower with Gig Young trying to get her to come out. Her stare is haunting as we see just how much all of this has broken her and it's great acting by York. There are other moments in between where we see her unstable personality at play, like when she loses it that someone stole one of her dresses. The whole film is an exercise in sanity for the dancers and York shows just how dangerous that instability can be for someone. I think it's pretty good work watching York spin the decline as she does and I fully see why she was nominated here.


I think it's safe to say that this group impressed me overall. I think Hawn is a terrible winner and she is really a lead in her film that is all about her. Plus, I'm just not a Goldie fan. Her shtick doesn't work for me and this win screams the Academy trying to crown the new hot young thing. It's a bad win, honestly. Especially because Burns gives an amazing performance that laps Hawn a hundred times over. She's got this innocence to her that's hard to act out, it's something within her. Her monologue is riveting acting and just sets her apart from the others. It's incredible work that should have been rewarded but Hawn is the pretty blonde the male voters want to fuck, so here we are. York is fourth simply because I enjoyed her little arc. It may not be the greatest performance but it did what it needed to do within the film. Miles is third because she explodes into her film, gets wild, and then is gone in a scream. It's memorable and fun and I'll take this over Hawn any day. Cannon is my runner up because she has a great scene almost like Burns but also has a satisfying arc and good chemistry with Gould. It's a full performance and one that may have won in a really down year. I mean, that kinda sounds like awful praise but you get what I mean. I just enjoyed her and the film. It sucks that the Academy made a poor choice with Hawn when a terrific choice was staring them in the face. Hopefully this isn't a harbinger of what's to come in the 60s for me.

Oscar Winner: Goldie Hawn - Cactus Flower
My Winner:  Catherine Burns - Last Summer
Dyan Cannon
Sylvia Miles 
Susannah York
Goldie Hawn

Supporting Actor 1969

I am soooo happy to finally be in the 60s! This always felt like it would take forever to get to, if I ever did. Now we are getting into decades where I don't know a lot of the names and the films that are nominated so everything is new with the possibility of finding more hidden gems. That's what I love the most about doing this project. This category has some known names and actually has the very first African-American nominee in the category. I'm excited to see my first helping of the 60s will bring.

1969 Best Supporting Actor

Gig Young - They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I have already talked about it a bit with Jane Fonda's review, but this is a strange, interesting film. I always thought it was going to be a Western film but that's definitely not what this is about. It's about a dance marathon which I guess was all the craze back in the Depression era. Young is the emcee and promoter of the event. Most of his performance is him narrating on stage to a listening audience what the couples are up to on the dance floor. He's got the polished emcee thing down pat and also does commercials for sponsors of the event and comes up with things to do to add excitement to the dance like having derbies. Mostly we see him on stage but he does interact with the dancers during their allotted breaks every hour or whatever it is. I would say that's more where Young is able to shine since anyone can emcee and do a good job at it. Young is almost like the villain of the story, though maybe antagonist is more apt as Young isn't evil or nasty or anything. He talks to some of the dancers and has one scene with Susannah York where she has mentally broken down and is in the shower with her clothes on and Young is able to get her to come out. He eventually lets Fonda know towards the end that the money they will win is kinda bogus as they will have to pay him back for costs incurred in putting on the event, which has gone on for over 1200 hours. Young has good energy in the emcee role and shows off his manipulation of the dancers when he's interacting with them one on one. It's two sides to the same role that give this performance some more depth than simply being a guy up on stage describing the action. Not having seen all the rest of this group so far, this was Young's third nomination and I wonder if this was a veteran win. Especially because from what I read, this was a departure for Young going away from comedic and happier roles. I guess I'll see how true that is at the end of this, but this is a decent enough performance that I can see it winning on its own merits.

Rupert Crosse - The Reivers

Rupert Crosse was the very first black nominee in the Supporting Actor category. It's crazy to me that it took until 1969 to have a black man nominated here. Crosse was part of The Actors Studio made famous by Lee Strasberg and tons of other famous actors. Crosse did a lot of TV work and a couple of films of which this was his last one before he died young of lung cancer. It's weird that we never hear about Crosse and I guess that's because his career was over too soon. In this film he plays Ned, a friend of Steve McQueen's in this adaptation of the William Faulkner book. It's about two guys and a young boy who drive to Memphis from Mississippi and have a few adventures along the way. It's part comedy and part drama and Crosse mostly plays a comedic role. He's a jovial black man always messing with McQueen's character and dancing and laughing and just having fun. At first, the performance felt almost a bit minstrelsy. Like an over exaggerated cliche of the happy black man but Crosse eventually settles into the role and keeps it from tipping too far into stereotype. There are some moments where the character gets more to do than just be there for comedic value like when an old, fat, racist sheriff tries to arrest their group. Crosse digs into the serious nature of those moments because you feel like it's coming from a place of experience. He stands up to the sheriff and it's probably the most dramatic part of the film. Towards the end of the film, Crosse gets to be a little more helpful and teach the boy with them how to race and again do more than just be there to laugh at. We see flashes of what Crosse can do, but the role doesn't call for much more than the broad comedy we get from a supporting role. It's not amazing on its own, but being the first black nominee has it's merits and this is worth watching for that fact alone. Wish we could have got to see more from Crosse before his untimely death, who knows what could have been.

Elliot Gould - Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice

I really enjoy Elliot Gould as an actor. He always seems to be funny without doing much and is perfect for many of the roles he played throughout his career. In this film, he is the Ted in the title and his performance is one mostly of disbelief and incredulity and bewilderment. He just has that look about him throughout the film as his friends first discuss this retreat they went to that has left them sharing their feelings and being peaceful and open and honest to a fault. Then when Carol tells them Bob had an affair and eventually when Bob tells them that Carol had an affair, Gould just reels like he's not sure if he should be shocked and disgusted or impressed at their honesty. His performance is also pretty hilarious to me at times. I don't know why but I find his subtle humor to be so funny and he's very good at the physical humor in this as well. The scene with Alice in bed is perfection from both of them but especially Gould, like when he goes to get her birth control and fumbles with the drawer and takes it out and has trouble putting it back in. Reading that sounds terribly unfunny but he makes it special. There's nothing really flashy about the performance and it does feel a bit same all the way through, but he serves the role so well and makes the film better because he is in it. His bathroom break at the end of the film is also really funny to me and it's done in this matter of fact way. That's the genius of Gould to me, though. It's not much of an arc but it is a pretty fun performance.

Jack Nicholson - Easy Rider

This is a gorgeous film to watch with all the scenes of the bikers out on the road throughout America. It's also Nicholson's first Oscar nomination and thus my final time reviewing his work. This is a great film to close out on then as we see the young Nicholson and the sparks of what would become a legendary career. Nicholson is, to me, the best part of this film. He pops into the film and steals the show for the entire time he's on and is the only real character in the film. Nicholson plays a a guy that Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda meet when they are put in jail for crashing a parade on their bikes. He wakes up after a drunken night in jail and helps get them out since he's a lawyer. He then agrees to go to New Orleans for Mardi Gras with them and is a breath of fresh air in the film. Nicholson has this southern twang and actually gets to say things and be like a real life person. He's funny and charismatic and we see how great he will become in the future in this short performance. A lot of it is because he's the only real character in the film as Hopper and Fonda are more into being moody and looking cool or being high and drunk. But Nicholson manages to inject some life into the film with his presence alone and he's sorely missed when he's gone. This is a good first nomination and I'm glad I got to watch so many of his performances throughout this project.

Anthony Quayle - Anne of the Thousand Days

At first I was thinking of Anthony Quinn when I got to Quayle but this is definitely not Quinn. Quayle plays Cardinal Wolsey. If you know anything about Henry VIII you know about Cardinal Wolsey. You'd also know about him if you've seen the wonderful show, The Tudors. Knowing that, you realize that the Cardinal is a force behind the scenes and someone with great power during that time. It's unfortunate that we don't see any of that in Quayle's character. We get very brief flashes but his contribution to the events is never really touched on as this is a story about Anne Boleyn. So saying all that, Quayle just kind of gets to play the stern religious man for the first half before he exits the film. Henry gets what he wants and there's not much resistance from Wolsey. For someone that I know has a great impact on the story, it was disappointing that we got a neutered Wolsey and that Quayle didn't have all that much to do. Wolsey is mostly just the token religious guy hanging around and that's about it. I certainly wanted more and it's unfair to Quayle to not give him much of a performance. Maybe it would have been better if it was Anthony Quinn instead?


This is a pretty good start to the 60s, all things considered. The big question in this group is between Young and Nicholson. I like what Young did and now for sure see it as a veteran win but in reality who else was going to win here? Nicholson is my winner but it was his first time out for the Academy. For me, he injected much needed life into a dead film. Yeah, I love the motorcycle scenes in his film, but it was just meandering to nowhere until Jack showed up and saved the film. That's a true supporting role and why he gets my win. Now Quayle gets last because, through no fault of his own, he just plays a character that doesn't get to shine like he does in other iterations of the story. It was disappointing to see. Crosse is next because there is some things to like in the performance though it is far from being very good. It's more historical than anything else. Gould just makes me laugh. I love him as an actor. He's the easy third. Young gets second by virtue of Jack just being so good. But I'm not upset at all since Nicholson has three Oscars anyway and Young has his one. As I said, a decent start though not overwhelming by any means. Hoping to find some gems along the way through the 60s, though!

Oscar Winner: Gig Young - They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
My Winner:  Jack Nicholson - Easy Rider
Gig Young
Elliot Gould
Rupert Crosse
Anthony Quayle