Mr Gazzara was robbed of a Best Actor Oscar Nomination
why wasn't he nominated for Best Actor Oscar--he should of won,least they could of nominated him for a grand performance...
shareI don't think the film did all that well critically or financially so I'm not sure that it was ever in the running, but Gazzara was certainly worthy. A superb performance - and a Supporting Actor nomination for Denholm Elliott would have been fully deserving too. Splendid performances in a terrific film that deserves to be much better known.
Having lived in Singapore for the past eight years it is fascinating to see this movie, filmed in secret in a Gonzo/underground style. It was banned here until 2006 due to its sordid controversial subject matter and portrayal of Singapore.
The nominees were:
Dustin Hoffman, Kramer vs Kramer(winner)
Jack Lemmon, The China Syndrome
Roy Scheider, All That Jazz
Al Pacino, And Justice for All
Peter Sellers, Being There
..whose slot should have Ben Gazzara been given?
In any event, this strikes me as the movie with the largest starring role ever for Gazzara, and a very good one to play. That in of itself was an honor.
I wasn’t a fan of Being There and didn’t care for Sellers’ performance, but I know I’m in the minority there.
I haven’t seen And Justice for All... but it’s generally considered a lesser performance by Pacino.
The others are all good although only Hoffman and Scheider would contend for my personal nominees list.
But you are quite correct - this is an important, if not widely-known, film and a wonderful role for Gazzara, which is what really counts.
I wasn’t a fan of Being There and didn’t care for Sellers’ performance, but I know I’m in the minority there.
I haven’t seen And Justice for All... but it’s generally considered a lesser performance by Pacino.
The others are all good although only Hoffman and Scheider would contend for my personal nominees list.
---
This analysis is a reminder that whenever somebody "gets robbed" of an Oscar nomination...its because 5 others came in ahead. And NOT necessarily five better performances.
A famous example: in 1960, Anthony Perkins gave an interview before the Oscar nominations where he said of his first performance as Norman Bates(Psycho) --"I think I'm going to be nominated; Janet too." Janet -- Leigh -- WAS nominated(for Best Supporting Actress.) Perkins was NOT. Director Alfred Hitchcock cabled Perkins: "I am ashamed of your fellow actors."
But look at the five who WERE nominated:
Spencer Tracy(ostensibly the greatest American actor) in Inherit the Wind
Laurence Olivier(ostensibly the greatest British actor) in The Entertertainer
Jack Lemmon(in the Best Picture winner, The Apartment)
Trevor Howard(for Sons and Lovers, a British "art" film)
Burt Lancaster -- the WINNER -- for his "perfect role" as big, brash phony evangelist Elmer Gantry. (Lancaster was a big star -- bigger than Perkins -- who had "paid his dues.")
No room for Perkins. Oh, maybe Trevor Howard's slot, or Spencer Tracy's?(Tracy said of his nomination: "I need another award like I need a hole in the head.)
---
But you are quite correct - this is an important, if not widely-known, film and a wonderful role for Gazzara, which is what really counts.
--
Since Gazzara(like Perkins) never really got such a major role again, it would have been nice, I think, to "trade in" for Pacino(who was nominated many times and eventually won) . Sellers would die soon and never have such a great role again; Scheider was fine - he sang and danced -- and never really got an Oscar caliber role again. Jack Lemmon's nod seems not "desperately necessary" -- he'd won two Oscars and was really in a supporting role in The China Syndrome.
I'd give Ben Gazzara in "Saint Jack" either Pacino's or Lemmon's 1979 slot.
I certainly agree on the 1960 Best Actor slate - along with the line-up from two years later, easily one of the strongest ever. While I would certainly have made room for Perkins - probably by sliding Howard into supporting (it's a smallish role) - it's hard to argue with any of them. Tracy would actually be my least favourite - I found Inherit the Wind rather heavy-handed - but he is excellent as always.
From what I understand, while Psycho was a huge hit, it wasn't considered a great film by all of the critics at the time so in hindsight it's not that surprising that, given the genre, it was overlooked. I hadn't heard that anecdote about Hitchcock calling Perkins - interesting, and justified.
I certainly agree on the 1960 Best Actor slate - along with the line-up from two years later, easily one of the strongest ever.
---
Well, when you start with Tracy and Oliver in the same year -- that's pretty strong. And Elmer Gantry is arguably the greatest and most fitting role Burt Lancaster ever got(I know he's quite the villain in Sweet Smell of Success, but Gantry has heroism and remorse to go with the villainy.) Jack Lemmon in The Apartment was a "star arriving" it was HIS year, too (and he would get progressively worse and more whiney over the decades.) Its like the Trevor Howard slot is the only one available.
But what made things embarrassing for Perkins is - he actually THOUGHT he would get nominated, and told the press that. Perhaps he was blinded by the blockbuster success of Psycho(in the same interview, Perkins noted that Psycho was the "biggest black and white hit in movie history."
--
While I would certainly have made room for Perkins - probably by sliding Howard into supporting (it's a smallish role) - it's hard to argue with any of them.
---
Hard indeed. Though I tell ya, I was never a fan of Lemmon's rather flibbergibbet acting, even in the very great "Apartment." Perkins could have THAT slot, if it were up to me. (And Lemmon could still win later for Save the Tiger.) The problem for Perkins is...he'd never really have a shot at an Oscar role again. This was as good as it got.
---
Tracy would actually be my least favourite - I found Inherit the Wind rather heavy-handed - but he is excellent as always.
---
I"ve been working my way through "Inherit the Wind" on streaming...a bit here, a bit there...and I'd tend to agree. Tracy gives off the air of almost "doing the role in his sleep" -- extremely well, but almost like the movie doesn't matter as much as it should to him.
From what I understand, while Psycho was a huge hit, it wasn't considered a great film by all of the critics at the time so in hindsight it's not that surprising that, given the genre, it was overlooked.
--
All true. People around in 1960 have TOLD me that Psycho was considered pretty much a "drive in horror hit" and not much more. It had to "grow its reputation." Also , Oscar voters had gotten younger and changed by the 70s, when movies like The Exorcist, Carrie, and Jaws could get Oscar nominations.
And yet, in 1960, I think Perkins KNEW how special he was in Psycho. He knew it was as great a performance as he could ever give.
---
I hadn't heard that anecdote about Hitchcock calling Perkins - interesting, and justified.
---
I think what Hitchcock knew was exactly how harmful Psycho and Norman Bates would be to Perkins...Perkins had sacrified for Hitchcock in taking the role(for not much money) and it might hurt him(it did...but it didn't, as Psycho II, II, and IV proved.) Hitchcock had told Perkins in convincing him to do Psycho..."Tony, you ARE this movie" -- and Hitchcock knew that was true; it played differently with a sweet young sensitive man in the scary lead.
BTW, I've been watching both Tracy in Inherit the Wind and Olivier in parts of The Entertainer and clearly..they both had a lot of LINES to remember...great big long actorly speeches(both were working in converted stage plays) so..TECHNICALLY they had harder roles than Perkins did.