Seriously? Man, Peter O'Toole has gotten the short end of the stick waaaaay too many times. (Honorary Oscar not withstanding)
I'm not knocking Charly- if you like it, fine. But to beat one of the great performances of the decade from one of the greatest actors ever to have lived? That's just wrong. Leave it to the Academy. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8093247
Totally agree. Another Oscar travesty in a long line of notable stupid choices. I also have nothing against Cliff Robertson and his performance in Charley was quite good, but doesn't come close to O'Toole in Lion. Oscar is always a sucker for "cause" awards. In addition to Robertson, did the following really deserve their Oscars, or was the Academy just honoring the "correct" expression of sentiment and values rather than the best acting: Dustin Hoffman in Rainman, Jodie Foster in The Accused, M. Matlee in Children of a Lesser God, the former Mrs. Reagan (Jane Wyatt) in Johnny Belinda, Roberto Bellini in Life is Beautiful, and Kate Hepburn for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and On Golden Pond (she absolutely deserved it for Lion). I could go on and on. Perhaps the Academy should consider reforming its approach to choosing winners, but it seems to get it wrong more often then it gets it right, and that is saying alot in a field where such decisions are subjective to begin with (i.e., if it is clear the Academy was wrong, it must have been very clearly wrong).
shareGood points, all. I suspect the list of nominees and awardees that were truly lousy choices could fill a small book. Many years ago I began a list of those that were truly screwed out of at least a nomination, but gave it up as an endless task. Lou Gosset Jr's brilliant and innovative characterization of the alien in "Enemy Mine" always comes to mind. Aside from the Sci-Fi-type awards, he was completely ignored. That insult to true acting was evidence enough for me that the Academy Awards are about as fair and rational as the Nobel Peace or Literature Prizes, which have become merely big, steaming piles of politically correct fecal matter, and the awards ceremonies themselves merely modern-day morality plays.
The pattern seems to have increased since the 60s, though perhaps it's just because I notice it more.
Enemy Mine, it was one of the first movies my husband and I watched..... I got so engrossed with Gosset's character, I forgot who he was and was crying at the end. That was not my normal reaction to SciFi - and one of many movies I watched with him (my husband, not Gosset) that I wouldn't have otherwise.
shareGossett won for Officer and a Gentleman.
sharePeter should have won Oscars for this, "Lawrence" and "Venus".
Certainly the fact that he was never a Hollywood insider hurt him a good deal: 6 times out of 8 he lost to an American actor. 3 of them (Brando, Peck and Wayne) were also certified Hollywood legends and DeNiro was one in the making. The 2 times he lost to a fellow Brit, the person in question (Harrison, Kingsley) was in the Best Picture winner. Rex was the predictable winner in 1964: O'Toole and Burton arguably split votes, Sellers took many from them as well, and Quinn, a previous two-time winner, wasn't getting a third Oscar. The Academy would have never overlooked the possibility to award Kingsley's exercise in mimicry (they love their biopics)to award Peter's star turn in the very little "My Favourite Year". There was nothing he could do against Brando and DeNiro's legendary performances, his movies just couldn't give him the power to oppose them. He should have immediately won for "Lawrence", but Peck had already four noms and there is a genuine sense of affection for his performance too; it's not too surprising that he got it in the end. Many voters may have thought that Peter was fresh and he could have waited. I think this kind of reasoning also played a role in his unfortunate Oscar track: the man was obviously ridiculously talented, one who had given such a miraculous performance the first time he had been attached to an important movie could have won it every year from then... well, it didn't happen.
Anyway, his loss to Robertson is probably the most perplexing one. Peter had won the drama Globe, the movie had great Oscar traction (it won actress and screenplay), he had many more things going for him than his fellow Brits Bates and Moody did and Arkin and Robertson didn't seem logical choices either. Cliff in particular is an actor that was never rewarded for his film work before or after that. His career didn't need to be rewarded with any kind of life achievement. "Charly" wasn't an important or resonant movie. The disability factor might have been one of the main reasons he won, but what MJC4861 said got me interested. I didn't know that Robertson was married to Dina Merrill (or, if I did, I had forgotten about it). The theory about Dina and her big bucks might make sense. Truth be told, I don't think Cliff is a bad winner and I might have even appreciated his award in a different year. But 1968 should have been year of the lion's roar.
hi ladylavende I looked at your ratings of the movies you have rated and all of them were the same as mine, not a single exception, very weird.
I didn't understand why The Princess Bride is your #10 when you have rated it with 8?
And I agree Peter O'Toole had great perfomances.
I have LONG felt this way and was glad to see someone else did too. I should think this thread would be flooded with responses.
While I liked Charly and thought it was a very worthy offering- it pales in comparison to TLIW- The acting, the direction, the screenplay and the sets in TLIW are all authentic and absolutely fabulous!
Both of Peter O'Toole's performances as Henry II were wonderful, but especially this one. He IS Henry, you believe him, he doesn't seem to be acting (much like Spencer Tracy, who never had a false moment on screen) and he is just mesmerizing as Henry the II. It's sad the academy punishes cavorters and rewards any movie about someone that is deficient in anyway. I heard someone joke once about the "tard" award and it does seem true. (no disrespect intended towards anyone struggling to overcome adversity.)
When, oh when, will the Academy award statues based on acting and talent?
It was nice they gave Peter a lifetime achievement award, but he should've won in 1968.
I have always felt that this was the worse loss of O'Tooles career....In most of the other cases he lost to either an actor giving a masterful performance (Ben KIngsley in Gandhi for example, or Marlon Brando in the Godfather, or Deniro for Raging Bull (anyway it was John Hurt who got robbed that year)even Forest Whitaker this year: or against some veteran actor giving an exceptionly fine performance: Gregory Peck, Rex Harrison (that year he was also hurt because he and Burton were up against each other) John Wayne.....But in 1968 O'Toole was well and truly robbed.......Its a shame he and Katharine Hepburn werent honored together, for both of them were at their very best
shareAmen!
you said it well & that movie was a tour-de-force in every sense of the word & yes--- this year was the biggest travesty of all!
recount! ;)
Agreed, this was the performance that should have got him an Oscar. It's not only O'Toole's best performance, but I think it's one of the best performances of all time. It's an example of two great actors really bringing out the best in each other.
It isn't the first time the Academy has gotten it wrong, and won't be the last. In a way I think it's sort of a "badge of honor" to have been nominated so many times and not won - especially when you look at the Academy's track record. Alfred Hitchcock, Marilyn Monroe, Richard Burton, Cary Grant - not bad company.
"Push the button, Max!"
One of the reviews of this movie posted on imdb bemoans the "travesty" of John Wayne beating Peter O'Toole for the Oscar for 1968. It was posted in 2001.
I wish this person would fix it. Surely he's learned in the intervening six years that Wayne got the Oscar the following year, and was not competing with O'Toole for "Lion in Winter." Cliff Roberston got it for "Charley" in '68. John Wayne did beat O'Toole the following year though - Peter was nominated for "Goodbye, Mr. Chips." And frankly, Wayne was better that year.
dustinthewind25: "John Wayne did beat O'Toole the following year though - Peter was nominated for 'Goodybe, Mr. Chips.' And frankly, Wayne was better that year."
Hilarious. I thought everyone knew that Wayne's Oscar was for his career, not just this performance. Wayne won the Oscar, but none of the critics' awards. Most of those were won by Jon Voight for 'Midnight Cowboy,' though O'Toole won one for 'Chips.'
I cannot fathom that anyone with half a brain could watch 'True Grit' and 'Goodbye, Mr. Chips' without telling the difference between a star turn and an acting performance.
Well, it's all a matter of taste and opinion, and what personally appeals to the individual in a performance. I think Peter O'Toole is a wonderful actor and definitely should have won an Academy Award by now, his performances are greatly appreciated by me, and with all due respect to Cliff Robertson, I think O'Toole should have won for "Lion."
What I find fascinating is how different people react to things like this. See, I respect your opinion and the fact that you and I differ, that you feel that Wayne didn't deserve the Oscar, that you didn't appreciate and enjoy his performance in "True Grit" as much as I did - to me it's on the subjective side, and it's good to have different opinions and different points of view, and share what you think. Personally, I don't really gauge how I feel about a performance by what "everyone" thought and by who won what critic's awards. That aside, what I can't fathom is the need to insult and belittle somebody who doesn't share your perspective. Could be that's the half of my brain that's not there.
Wayne was better that year
I agree. I think Wayne gives a great performance in "True Grit". He's playing against his image. Cogburn is a drunken rascal, not the typical heroic, strong, dignified role Duke usually played.
I also agree that the Academy mainly gave him the Oscar for his career of work, but it was one of those happy coincidences that he also gave a deserving performance.
Hoffman, Voight, O'Toole, and Richard Burton (Anne of the Thousand Days) were all worthy nominees, but I'd still pick the Duke.
"Push the button, Max!"
I grew up on Waynes movies, still love many of them (particularly 'The Shootist') but when watching the Duke up there on the screen, I'm always aware that I'm watching John Wayne ... unlike 'TLIW' where I totally forget its Peter O'Toole I'm watching ... he IS Henry.
Wayne had his moments in 'The Shootist' (in terms of forgetting the 'star') but never did I have to remind myself that 'Hey, this is Wayne ...' like I have with O'Toole ... and in more than one of his films.
I know the topic isn't O'Toole vs Wayne - but the comparison/differences between 2 actors couldn't be more stark, so ...
Anyhow, a mesmerizing performance by O'Toole.
The Academy loves giving awards to the disabled or those who play disabled parts (the deaf Marlee Matlin in 1987, Dustin Hoffman in 1989, Daniel Day-Lewis as the real-life Christy Brown in 1991, and the vet without arms who won the Best Supporting award in 1947.) Plus I read in critic Danny Peary's book Alternate Oscars (in which he picked the winners) that Cliff Robertson, whose wife Dina Merrill is the daughter of the legendary cereal heiress Marjorie Merriwhether Post, paid big bucks to lobby for his Oscar in the most shameless bid in Academy history.
Apparently, a lot of money is involved in the Oscar derby, which is why the bigger names almost always win. The Academy also loves bluebloods: the people with geniune class.
By the way, Katherine Hepburn and Cliff Robertson both also came from wealthy uppercrust East Coast establishment families. As did Humphrey Bogart, Glenn Close and Brooke Shields, all of whom are cousins.
I think the Academy figured Peter O'Toole would be around for a long time; his "debut" and first Oscar nom for 1962's Lawrence of Arabia.
I don't know much about Cliff Robertson, but I think Oscar voters didn't want to let this him get lost in the shuffle, whereas O'Toole garnered his 3rd Oscar nomination for The Lion In Winter. Critics and moviegoers knew O'Toole would be back with more impressive performances.
To my knowledge, Robertson hasn't earned many awards for much of his career.
O'Toole should have AT LEAST three Oscars, and possibly more. And he deserved a Supporting Oscar nod for The Last Emperor which he somehow didn't get.
There may be honor among thieves, but there's NONE in politicians!
O'Toole should have won an Oscar for this film, I agree.
shareHe should have won for this and My Favorite Year. In hindsight I think the Acadamey would have given him the Oscar back in 1972 since Brando didn't even accept the award. He should have gotten a nom for The Last Emperor, but he would have lost to Connery.
shareJohn Wayne should have won for The Searchers....clearly his finest acting performance....showing wide range of emotion and conflict.
shareIn the same year that Cliff Robertson got the oscar for best actor Ron Moodys fantastic performance as Fagin in Oliver was criminally overlooked.
shareThe Academy doesn't tend to like British actors. While many Brits have gotten awards before they will give an Oscar to a good American actor, occasionally a crap American actor, over the Brit. There's a whole lot of problems with the Academy Awards, they are corruptable and profit driven. They make a good starting point but not much else. They also don't acknowledge non-english speaking performances, while critics do.
"You haven't got the feel of this at all, lad. Use all your voices. When I bellow, bellow back."
I SO AGREE WITH YOU......O'TOOLE WAS ROBBED
shareI thought Cliff Robertson was excellent in the first part of Charly while his character was retarded; after the surgery that fixed him, both the performance and the film became dull and flat. O'Toole was 100% captivating from start to finish in The Lion in Winter, and it is a true travesty that he wasn't honored along with Hepburn for giving the truly superlative male performance that year.
shareI really liked Cliff Robertson at the time and was glad he won. But I now know that Peter O'Toole was definitely robbed, and it is one of many stains on the prestige of winning an Academy Award. I do not believe, however, that it had anything to do with any anti-British feeling on the part of the Academy. British actors like Laurence Olivier, Alec Guinness, David Niven, Rex Harrison, Paul Scofield, Vivien Leigh, Simone Signoret (winning in a VERY British film), all winning in the postwar era before 1968 belie that claim.
But to me the biggest travesty in the Oscars was Rex Harrison winning in 1964 over Peter Sellers' staggering brilliance in DR. STRANGELOVE.