-
-
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.I’ve read that less than two weeks after the 1968 Oscars, Time magazine mentioned the Academy’s generalized concerns over “excessive and vulgar solicitation of votes” and said “many members agreed that Cliff Robertson’s award was based more on promotion than on performance”. Peter O’Toole losing for The Lion in Winter that year was definitely the most disappointing out of all his losses. If he couldn’t win for that with the person who beat him in mind, that was probably the sign that he was never going to win a competitive Oscar.
ReplyCopy URL
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.Robertson winning over O’Toole and Arkin is such a tragedy. Peter was horribly denied for his two most iconic roles. This one especially stings because he didn’t lose to an undeniable role like Peck’s Atticus Finch. Robertson won for a mediocre and problematic film. He was the sole nomination for that mess and it’s a shame that his campaign was “vulgar” and “excessive,” as noted by Time magazine.
ReplyCopy URLRobertson winning over O’Toole and Arkin is such a tragedy. Peter was horribly denied for his two most iconic roles. This one especially stings because he didn’t lose to an undeniable role like Peck’s Atticus Finch.
Although Amy Thomasson of InSession Film believes that Gregory Peck only won that Oscar because of the role itself. She thinks anyone who ended up playing Atticus Finch still would’ve come out victorious for Best Actor no matter what. I couldn’t disagree more. While she could’ve been right in hindsight, the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird was released in 1962, which was only two years after the original novel was published. So at the time, the role of Atticus Finch didn’t have the iconic status it would go on to have today (and Peck’s performance in the movie partially helped with that). But what the fuck does Amy know? She not only thought Peter O’Toole was robbed for Lawrence of Arabia, but she also thought Daniel Day-Lewis did not deserve Best Actor for Lincoln in 2012 (Bradley Cooper had her vote that year). She thinks that anyone who ended up playing Abraham Lincoln in a biographical film directed by Steven Spielberg and written by Tony Kushner still would’ve won the Oscar no matter what.
ReplyCopy URLI believe there was various narratives that secured the victory for Gregory Peck. The novel had previously won the Pulitzer Prize in fiction, so expectations were high and the adaptation seemed important socially and politically. Peck was playing a white liberal hero and that must have seemed a safe and valid choice to make.
Now, the film would justifiably be deemed as being a “white savior” film; but at that time in history it must have seemed as being just progressive enough to garner support. Roger Ebert, for example, reviewed the film in 2001, and gave the film only two and half stars and he stated it was mostly a “time capsule” and sometimes “implausible.”
We also can not reject the narrative that Peck had lost four previous nominations for Best Actor and was overdue. He was a popular actor and this nomination seemed like the perfect opportunity to reward him, his impressive career, and the film.
ReplyCopy URLPeter O’Toole not winning the Oscar for “The Lion in Winter” is one of Oscar’s biggest hatchet jobs and robberies. “Charly” is a hack job, and Cliff Robertson didn’t even attend the Oscars the year he won! He was filming something in the Philippines at the time and couldn’t get away. It’s unfortunate to hear that he used dirty tactics and excessive campaigning in order to win.
ReplyCopy URLHis loss in 1962 I get (I mean Peck was undeniable). His loss in 1964 I get (Harrison was going to win easily). 1968 I get (Cliff is god in that but I always assumed it was Arkin’s to lose). 1969 I don’t get cuz he was easily the best of the group. 1972 I get why (I mean Brando was beyond perfection). 1980 I get cuz that was an easy win for Bobby. 1982 I still think he was the best of the group. And his nom for Venus still confuses me.
ReplyCopy URLSpeaking of 1969, guess who also didn’t like John Wayne’s portrayal of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit? Author of the novel himself, Charles Portis. Apparently after seeing the film, the author was so incensed at Wayne’s portrayal that he sent Wayne a picture of, IIRC, an overweight, tired, past-his-prime man smoking a pipe slouching in a chair and wrote “that’s Rooster Cogburn”. Apparently, it hurt Wayne’s feelings. Hearing that anecdote made me think Jeff Bridges’ version was closer to Portis’ image.
ReplyCopy URLDidn’t Peter play the same role in Becket? He didn’t win for that either. Not sure why his loss here is necessarily controversial.
The loss is controversial because it’s considered one of his best performances, and compared to the other men who beat him, Cliff Robertson’s performance is not particularly popular.
And it’s a shame O’Toole’s biggest performance had to compete against Gregory Peck, but if someone had to take it, Peck’s is truly one of the all time greats, and regardless of any narrative he had, his performance is absolutely perfect and that alone earns him the win. Very few performances can so effortlessly inhabit a previously established character. Even Harper Lee, who wrote the part based on her father, admitted that she can’t get Peck out of her mind when reading the book. His impact on the role is that enormous.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
