MovieChat Forums > Bus Stop (1956) Discussion > Oscar stupidity, 1956

Oscar stupidity, 1956

posted 14 years ago by hobnob53
26 replies | jump to latest

The 1956 Academy Awards were noted for a bunch of screw-ups and embarrassments.*

But rarely has a season seen such a completely idiotic pair of decisions made: nominating Don Murray, and not nominating Marilyn Monroe.

Don Murray is a good actor, but here he was loud, obnoxious, thoroughly over the top and altogether not good: a poor performance. Yet he received a supporting actor nomination. (And in a clearly leading role, although this is hardly the only instance of someone being nominated in the supporting category because the studios felt they couldn't win in the leading category.) Marilyn, by contrast, was never better, quite subtle and affecting, yet she was ignored by the Academy, which turned to old reliables like Katharine Hepburn to fill their quota of five nominees for Best Actress.

The obvious reason was that Murray, though in his film debut, was already known as a "serious" actor of "meaningful" parts, while Marilyn was just a sex symbol who flaunted her breasts and jiggled. No one bothered to really see what they were watching.

A shameful, stupid pair of decisions, more blatant since Monroe was clearly so vastly better in her role than Murray was in his.

*For example: Nominating the writers of the Bowery Boys comedy High Society for the Best Motion Picture Story Oscar by mistake, because those doing the nominating mixed them up with the writers of the Grace Kelly musical of the same name -- not to mention that the Bowery Boys film was released in 1955, not '56, and that the intended High Society should have been nominated in the adapted screenplay category, since it was based on the screenplay for The Philadelphia Story. Or having to nullify all votes cast for Michael Wilson for writing the adapted screenplay for Friendly Persuasion because he was blacklisted. Or awarding the Oscar for Best Motion Picture Story to "Robert Rich" for The Brave One, only to learn he was the blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo! Not a good year for thoughtful nominations.

[–] dmnemaine 14 years ago

Don Murray played loud and obnoxious and over the top because Beau IS loud, obnoxious, and over the top. He's that way because he has no inkling how to act in social situations. Believe me, there are people exactly like that. He gave an excellent performance. In fact, no one in this film gave a bad performance.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Thank you, I understand that Beau is loud and obnoxious and has no idea how to behave in social situations outside of the ranch. That doesn't mean that Murray had to play him so relentlessly one-dimensionally, which is what I think he's done. Granted, the character was written as a near-moronic caricature, but it's quite possible to portray Beau in a somewhat more restrained manner and still convey the type of person he was -- which we, the audience, get in the first two or three minutes anyway. Marilyn managed depths of character that Murray never approached. Her ultimate attraction to Beau would have been far more understandable had Beau not been presented as such a loud, shallow dolt.

Murray may have been too much under the sway of the director, Joshua Logan, in this, his screen debut, so he might deserve some leeway for his over-the-top performance (Beau isn't over the top; the way he's played is). But it's still an un-nuanced acting job. The key to Beau is to show him a bit more realistically than the one-note buffoon Murray primarily portrays him as. Yes, occasionally Murray makes him more believable (and less annoying), especially near -- though not at -- the end. But his yelling, whooping and shouting was mostly boring, repetitive and unimaginative. Better direction, some needed restraint and just plain being less boorish and loud, while still conveying over-eagerness and awe at his trip and finding "Cherry", would have worked vastly better than Murray's tone-deaf monotony. A "bad" performance? At a minimum, not one deserving of an Academy Award nomination.

In any case, it was a lead performance, not a supporting one, and Marilyn was certainly robbed of a nomination she had earned. Also, Murray did much better work in later films, yet was never nominated again.

[–] JVIvies 14 years ago

Wonder why the Academy fell asleep at the switch on this one?????

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Neither the first nor last time. People are always being overlooked or unjustly nominated. In my OP above I wrote about the trio of monumental screw-ups the Academy made that same year in the then-three screenwriting categories. But the list of people ignored by the Awards -- in some cases, never even nominated; in others, not winning against plainly inferior competition -- is long, and pretty much an annual complaint.

Again in 1956, for example, Kirk Douglas should have won for Lust for Life, but people were so taken with Yul Brynner's "exotic-ness" that they gave him the Oscar for The King and I. (Interestingly, the New York Film Critics, usually deemed the second-most prestigeous awards, gave their Best Actor nod to Douglas, not Brynner, whom they'd all seen on stage in King.) Best Picture went to Around the World in Eighty Days, which has not held up well at all: overlong, snail's-paced, bloated and empty...but a big public relations deal at the time.

Granted, we all have our individual tastes and prejudices, but some things do seem to have a broad consensus. I think if it could, the Academy would take back some Oscars, such as those given for Rocky in 1976, The Greatest Show on Earth in 1952, Oliver! in 1968, and a number of others that seemed overly important in their day but which haven't aged at all well against their competition.

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 14 years ago

Why the hell wasn't Heston nominated for his portayal of Moses?

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Hey OSK -- One reason may be that, to the best of my knowledge, not one actor or actress in a DeMille movie ever received an Oscar nomination for their work in one of his films. Unsurprisingly: C.B. wasn't as interested in the nuances of performing as he was in having his two-dimensional characters intone their lines in a very stolid manner. (The Ten Commandments was nominated for Best Picture but Cecil himself didn't get a nom for Best Director.)

I know how much of a Chuck devotee you are, but his performance as Moses wasn't particularly great: certainly not in the last half where he had to appear bellowing platitudes in heavy-handed scenes, far from his best acting. He was much better in the film's first half, pre-exile, when he was simply Moses, not...MOSES.

More to the point, why wasn't he nominated for what was probably his finest performance, and I believe his favorite role, 1968's Will Penny?

(Personal aside: I'm in Essex right now, for a few more days. Not too far, by comparison with the States anyway. Haven't been to the SOTI board for months. Must return again before long. I'm sure you've all missed me!)

[–] winterm-1 14 years ago

while i accept Marilyn's lack of nomination was obscene- she was excluded because the studio hated her - Don Murray was perfect imo. His character does change and soften when Cheri finally ropes him in at the end. He is obnoxious and loud, then confused when he finds that doesn't work for him, then softer and considerate once he has been taught a lesson

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Hello winterm-1: I think one reason I find Murray's performance so weak -- far from "perfect", in my opinion -- is that a basic premise of his character is so thoroughly unrealistic in the first place.

Bo is supposed to have grown up on and never left an isolated ranch in Montana: hence his boorishness and ignorance of the ways of society. But this movie was made in 1956. I'm an American and know the country pretty well, and the likelihood of such a set-up by the mid-50s was virtually non-existent --certainly to a man in his 20s, as Bo was supposed to have been. (Murray was actually 30 in 1956, as was Monroe.) Fifty years earlier such total isolation might have been somewhat credible -- though even then it'd be stretching things considerably -- but in mid-20th-century America such utter, absolute isolation and lack of any knowledge or understanding of the outside world would be well-nigh impossible. There were newspapers and magazines (even Bo admitted to looking at a "girly" magazine). Radio had been around for decades, as had movies and other entertainments, and while Montana is an enormous state it's not exactly inaccessible -- it does have roads and trains and planes and people can readily get from one place to another, and this was the case long before 1956. Even television had penetrated most of the remoter portions of the state by the mid-50s. Not to mention that Bo would have to have had some schooling (I know they say he didn't have any formal education, but there are laws that would have rendered this point none-too-credible either), medical appointments, and some other rudimentary contacts with the "outside world". Add to this the fact that none of the other ranch hands seemed so out of touch with society and its ways -- how come they weren't as ignorant and out-of-it as Bo? And no matter how remote the ranch, people who live and work on one always make a point of going into town as often as possible, for supplies, persoanl matters, and just plain human contact -- no matter how distant the nearest town may be. This has always been a critical fact of ranch life, especially remote ranch life, and it's simply not believable that Bo would have been kept alone on the ranch, cut off from all other human contact, for over two decades, to the point where he knew nothing of the wider world.

This is a major and frankly ridiculous flaw in the character's make-up and renders Murray's over-the-top loutishness even less convincing. I agree that near the end Murray is permitted to show a deeper side to his talent but for most of the film he's just loud without being moving or interesting, as an actor should be in his role. He certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy.

On another subject, I don't quite agree that 20th Century Fox "hated" Marilyn, but the studio clearly did have its problems with her, and it seems probable that Fox deliberately snubbed her in promoting the year's Oscar contenders, especially in the Best Actress category, where two of the five nominees -- Deborah Kerr for The King and I and the ultimate winner, Ingrid Bergman for Anastasia -- were in Fox films.

Finally, I saw your post on the thread concerning Marilyn's accent. I agree that her accent was actually pretty true-to-life and suited her character well. In fact, another problem with Murray's performance is that his accent, or his manner of speaking, was broad and unreal. It didn't sound anything like a genuine rural western accent of the day, but more like a Hollywood version of such an accent.

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 14 years ago

Hiya hob, you're darn right we've missed you on the SOTI boards. I use the collective term "we've" as a matter of habit. I just posted something on there yesterday about the disgusting treatment of Sarah Palin since the shooting.
btw- I love "Bus Stop", my fav MM movie. Don Murray is bleeding superb in it, but I disagree with you about Heston's acting in the last part of TTC. Chuck's portayal is probably a major factor in the amazing popularity of this great movie.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Hey OSK -- Thanks for the kind words, and I think I'll mosey over to the SOTI board when I'm done here.

I can't say Bus Stop is my favorite MM movie, even though I think it's her best performance. In fact, I actually don't care much for the film; many things about it -- its plot, dialogue, characters, etc. -- just don't particularly appeal to me. Not that I think it's a bad film, and I do have it in my collection. Just not one I feel much for. But at least this shows I can distinguish between appreciating someone's acting, and still not really care a lot for the film itself.

I prefer many other films she was in; not because they were all necessarily "better" (not all were, by a long shot), but, to me, just more enjoyable. This includes some films Marilyn appeared in early in her career but in which she played just small supporting roles, pre-stardom: modest pictures like The Beautiful Blonde From Bashful Bend, As Young As You Feel, even the Marx Brothers' so-so Love Happy, are far more entertaining -- not "greater" or "more important" -- films, for me, than Bus Stop. More centrally, I much prefer such major MM films as The Asphalt Jungle, Niagara, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, The Seven Year Itch and of course Some Like It Hot. Even that misfire The Misfits is a more intriguing film (possibly because it was her and Gable's last), though it certainly is rough going at times.

Quite obviously, I thoroughly disagree with you about Don Murray in the perhaps aptly-abbreviated BS.

But you raise an interesting issue about Heston's relative contribution to the success of The Ten Commandments. The problem with judging such a thing today is of course that the movie is what it is, immutably, and we can't really imagine anyone else portraying Moses (or for that matter, anyone else playing the Pharaoh but Yul B.). But had Heston not worked with DeMille four years earlier I wonder whether he'd have been chosen to star in TTC. That is, was he an obvious or inevitable choice? We later became used to Chuck being typecast in epics but that was decidedly not the case in 1956; only The Greatest Show on Earth might remotely qualify for that designation, and he didn't play some larger-than-life historical or literary figure in that. His other films up to that time had been mostly action or adventure films, with a couple of crime and romantic dramas thrown in, all of a routine scale or importance (and many of these among my favorite Heston films). Heston was an important star, but not quite yet the major one he would become, in large part thanks to TTC.

My point is that I don't think, looking at the real situation of his career at that time, that there was anything inevitable or certain about his getting the role of Moses...and this in turn calls into question the degree of responsibility for the film's huge success that can reasonably be attributed to him. Frankly, I don't think much of it can be. The film was an almost guaranteed blockbuster; it was a huge spectacle done by a master at such things. Heston may have achieved top stardom thanks to it but I doubt many people saw it because "Charlton Heston's in it!". That he was an asset to the film is undeniable, and he may have played the part better than anyone else might have; it's probably fair to say that many people liked the film even better because of his performance. We can never know. But I think it's clear that the movie carried Heston, not the other way around. Had someone else played Moses, I'm sure the film would have been just as big a success, and would continue to be so today.

But as big a film as it was, as I said previously, it still conformed to C.B.'s rather two-dimensional requirements for his characters and actors, which in turn is a major reason why neither CH nor anybody else ever got an Oscar nomination for appearing in one of his films. It took a much more intelligent epic, Ben-Hur, to give Heston the sort of complex part that required deep acting and won him his Oscar.

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 14 years ago

The worst Marilyn movie I attempted to watch was some turkey with Richard Widmark. Boy, what a stinker! MM really irritates my wife, and if I want to watch one of her movies I have to wait until she goes shopping.

Yes hob, you are right, TTC would have been a success whoever played Moses, but Heston actually BECAME Moses to me, such was the power of his performance. I haven't a clue who else was in the running apart from Heston, but I'm sure glad he got the part. I only wish Chuck had waved to C.B. a few years earlier, and he could had got the role of Samson instead of that big slab of meat called Mature.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

The Marilyn movie you refer to was called Don't Bother to Knock (although in Britain it was/is titled Why Bother to Knock?), 1952. She's the loony hotel babysitter, with Widmark an innocent victim (!!!). I quite agree with you, I dislike this movie. Some have claimed it was her first "breakthrough" role, a "serious" part in a serious movie, but while people may have first really taken notice of her at the time, she was vastly better two years earlier in Asphalt Jungle, albeit in a smaller part. (She was incredibly sexy in that film, and played the role of a gold-digging tease perfectly. I think her real breakthrough was Niagara, which is a much better film anyway.)

I also agree with you about Heston "becoming" Moses to us all -- even near the end of his (public) life, he was being called "Moses" by his supporters. It's probably his defining role, more even than Judah Ben-Hur. I'd like to know if anyone else was in the running for the part, too -- I've never heard, and my guess is that DeMille most likely wanted him from the start. (The fact that he was a Paramount contract player at the time wouldn't have hurt his chances either!) But when you say he became Moses for you, it sort of proves my previous point: the movie made Heston, not the other way around. I don't think anyone else could have done the part so well either, but he was lucky to have been cast and subsequently catapulted to the front rank.

Love your comment about how you wish he'd waved at CB sooner! Of course, in 1949, Chuck hadn't yet made it to Hollywood, and no one there knew him. But I think Victor Mature (who I always liked because he never took himself too seriously) actually was a better Samson, because the role was a "lighter" one, if you will, the film campier or less serious, than The Ten Commandments. Moses required some gravitas that Samson didn't, which is why I think Samson fit Mature's personality better than it would have Heston's. But Samson and Delilah is another film where people so long ago accepted the actor in the lead role that it's hard to imagine anyone else in the "part" (if you'll excuse the hair reference).

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 14 years ago

That Marilyn Monroe-Richard Widmark movie should be renamed "Don't bother to watch".
You are right, Victor Mature didn't take himself too seriously, and it shows in some of his performances. Although Heston hadn't made his Hollywood debut at the time, he was still a far more capable actor than Mature, and he'd been in loads of top class tv productions (some classics). He would also have gotten himself in better shape than Victor Mature, who had bigger tits than Hedy Lamarr!

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

"Don't Bother to Watch"!!! Can I steal that?

No question Heston was a much better actor than Mature, but there was a decade between them and they had different Hollywood experiences. Actually, Mature's talent is held in considerably more esteem today than it was back when. He was actually very good in such films as My Darling Clementine, Kiss of Death, Cry of the City, Easy Living, The Robe, Violent Saturday as well as The Big Circus and many others, and he appeared in a wide variety of genres, even musicals. But Mature's refusal to take himself too seriously is at least refreshing compared to the innumerable egoists in the business, then and now. I don't know if you've heard it, but in the 1980s Mature applied for membership in a country club in Palm Springs and was turned down because the club didn't accept actors. Mature responded by asking the club to reconsider on the grounds that, "I'm no actor, and I have 64 pictures to prove it." I don't know if they admitted him, but it was a nice riposte.

You realize, of course, you're quoting Groucho Marx, on why he hadn't seen Samson and Delilah: "I never go to any picture where the man's tits are bigger than the woman's."

I don't think Chuck had done "loads" of top TV by 1949-50, if only because at that point there wasn't much of any kind of TV in the US. It really took off from about 1950 on. I know he'd done some, but the networks ddin't quite cover the nation yet, and programming was still a bit sporadic. I should look at his credits. I think he did more TV in the early 50s.

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

hobnob,

Following you a bit so you can know we CAN agree on things cinematic. Pax!

Nice post and I AGREE with you completely! In this sphere, I've been a admirer of yours for some time.

Thanks

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

cwente,

When I saw you had replied to this post I suspected that, whatever you said, it would be done in a gentlemanly and generous fashion. Even better that we agree -- in fact, had you not said that yourself, I was planning to do so.

I'm sorry for our cross words on the other site. I know you've replied to it but I haven't looked yet. I will always read whatever you have to say, even if I think it best to lay things to rest and move on and not reply directly. But while we strongly disagree on some things, I do respect you, and feel no animus whatsoever.

Thank you for your kind remarks here. I'm in England now with my wife and it's after 2 AM and we've got to get some sleep. I only stole a quick look at my emails and needed to reply to yours, no matter what the hour.

You take good care, and I'll talk with you soon. Civilly!

hob

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Thank you. I shall look forward to it.

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 14 years ago

Nice to see you both acting like gentlemen.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

What else? We ARE gentlemen (maybe a little feisty at times, but . . .)!

Thanks

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Indeed! Anyone says we ain't gentlemen, we gonna beat 'im upside his head!

More seriously, friends disagree and do quarrel, but if they're at base respectful, they stay friends, and I regard cwente as a friend, just like my good mate OSK and the rest of the SOTI gang (temporarily "stopping" at this site).

Off topic save for Heston (which I guess is still off-topic, on Bus Stop), I saw El Cid here in Britain yesterday. Haven't seen it in a long time, though I have the DVD. Quite good. No Oscars there, either.

[–] OswaldshotKennedy 14 years ago

I was working hob. Was the "El Cid" shown the cleaned up Scorsese version?

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Not sure what the "Scorsese version" you refer to is. I take it by that you mean it's been restored to its original splendor, not bowdlerized. [!] But I really don't know what BBC2 ran.

[–] HarlowMGM 12 years ago

Much as Marilyn deserved a nomination that year, to be fair it was a really tough race that year with many excellent performances. Carroll Baker in BABY DOLL, Nancy Kelly in THE BAD SEED, Katharine Hepburn in THE RAINMAKER are sensational (I've never seen the winner, Ingrid Bergman in ANATASIA, not a fan of hers, don't remember much about Deborah Kerr in THE KING AND I, may have seen it as a kid on tv but I know it was a very popular picture). I think if BUS STOP had been released in 1957 or 1958 Marilyn would have very easily been nominated and I frankly think she came in sixth in 1956, at the least seventh, in terms of votes.

Fox may have thrown it's votes to Bergman given that was also a 20th Century-Fox film but since they have MM under contract and not Ingrid it would have been in their best interest to promote Marilyn. However, I don't think the studios really controlled who won, the winners and studios over the years (at least post-1950) are pretty varied.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Well, it's usually the case that there are so many good performers worthy to be nominated that narrowing them down to just five is difficult, even a bit ludicrous.

Even so, nominating Katherine Hepburn for The Rainmaker seems more a case of nominating a reliable and respected performer for what was decidedly not one of her more memorable roles, in a film otherwise devoid of any nominations (at least any major ones). Kelly and Baker were good but they could have as easily been bypassed. Kerr was a superb actress but The King and I was by far the least noteworthy of her six nominated performances, more routine and undemanding than her others, and of course she didn't even do her own singing. Bergman is good in Anastasia, but mannered and a tad artificial, and here too it was more politics than merit that got her the nomination and the Oscar: Hollywood was "forgiving" her for her sinful transgression of 1949 in deserting her husband and young child for Roberto Rossellini and a slew of bad films in Italy (her divorce from RR made this forgiveness possible).

Both Bergman and Kerr were in Fox films so if Fox had an interest in promoting one or the other actress it must have been a close call. But studio politics was another major factor that killed Monroe's chances at a nomination. Remember that Monroe had just come back from having walked out of Fox and gone to New York to enroll in the Actors' Studio, owing to her dissatisfaction with the parts Fox was offering her. She was so popular that Fox swallowed hard and got her back, and gave her a more meaningful role in Bus Stop. But the studio hadn't forgiven her for walking out, so at Oscar time made sure she was slighted. Monroe was such a box-office powerhouse that Fox really didn't have to "promote" her, and could afford to diss her -- at least up to a point -- if they felt it necessary. Fox did ultimately fire her from the set of Something's Got to Give in 1962, a film that was never completed.

Finally, back then actors were usually given nominations only for "serious" films, or if they were considered "serious" performers. Marilyn was never taken very seriously as an actress (she was publicly ridiculed and laughed at for joining the Actors' Studio and sudying "The Method"), so this, too, added to the general air of dismissiveness that nixed any chances of her ever getting an Oscar nomination...even for a more-or-less "serious" film like Bus Stop.

Incidentally, as I write this, today -- August 5, 2012 -- is the 50th anniversary of Marilyn Monroe's death. Amazing to realize it's been fifty years...fourteen more than her lifespan.

[–] Veltaine 12 years ago

The film was rushed. Logan wanted to see the back of it. Hollywood hated Marilyn, and vice versa. As for Murray's nomination, well, I can't think of an explanation. Maybe they wanted to twist the knife in Marilyn's back, but what's strange is why Murray was in the Supporting Actor category, when he was clearly the leading man.

I agree, though, she deserved at least a nomination. She owned that role.

"My car is outside."
"Naturally."

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

To this day, studios often enter actors in the supposedly "easier" category of Supporting Actor (or Actress), where the competition is considered less severe and a truly leading performer can be nominated, and even win, more easily than against stiffer lead competitors.

Hence Don Murray's supporting nomination for an obviously lead role. Look at similar decisions in the 50s. The next year, Fox put another new performer, Diane Varsi, who certainly had a lead role in Peyton Place, up for the supporting AA so that she wouldn't take away from Lana Turner in the leading contest. In 1954, Eva Marie Saint received the Supporting Actress Oscar for what was clearly a leading part in On the Waterfront.

On the other hand, in 1950 Anne Baxter insisted that she be nominated for Best Actress, not supporting, for All About Eve, since she played the title role. That was a close call; despite her playing Eve, it was close to a supporting part. But Fox bowed to her demands, and the predictable result was that both she and Bette Davis lost the Oscar. Years later Baxter conceded her ego had gotten out of hand, and she should have gone for the supporting nod.