Big Magilla wrote:Quick answer: yes, the voting was over, MLK was assassinated three days before the scheduled Oscar ceremony which was delayed a week, the first and only time a scheduled Oscar show was postponed.
To prove I can be the nitpickiest guy around: The delay was only for two days -- King was assassinated Thursday (April 4th); the show had been scheduled for (as was then traditional) Monday the 8th, but postponed to Wednesday the 10th, so as to be after the King funeral.
And there was a subsequent delay of one day in 1981, following the assassination attempt on Reagan.
As to the rest: I was 16 in 1968 -- not quite as awards-savvy as in later years, but an avid follower of the buzz, and I have to respectfully disagree with a few of the premises here.
Magilla sort of brushes off In the Heat of the Night winning the NY Critics' prize + Golden Globe -- but that had been the dominant best picture profile for the previous decade: Around the World in 80 Days, Bridge in the River Kwai, Ben-Hur, The Apartment, West Side Story, Tom Jones, My Fair Lady, A Man for All Seasons. I grant 1967 was a more competitive year than many of those, but In the Heat... certainly wasn't a long shot -- it was a major contender. In fact, Bonnie and Clyde, having won neither of those two prizes, was a weaker bet, and I wasn't surprised at the time that it did so poorly in the end.
The Graduate was of course in the race, by virtue of its directing prizes from NY, the Globes and, most importantly, DGA. But, even back then, I remember it being a noticeable oddity, that Mike Nichols tended to win his awards solo (something William Goldman later pinpointed in his book The Season). Nichols' three Tonys (including his third that very year) didn't carry along the plays to victory, and his NY win was the only award The Graduate won there. (Compare that to the preceding two years, when Fred Zinnemann and John Schlesinger had won the best picture/director tandem.) So, even though The Graduate had the premier forecaster of Oscar success, there wasn't any particular confidence the film would take best picture in the bargain.
As far as editing: yes, it was outrageous Dede Allen wasn't a nominee for Bonnie and Clyde, seeing she was widely thought to have been instrumental in constructing the film. But the Academy branches back then were hilariously cliquish, and it wasn't atypical that Dr. Dolittle would get a pointless mention instead. The branch changed a lot over the years, and I'd say, especially, her Wonder Boys nod decades later was at least partly in apology.
To the best actor slate: yes, Poitier seems like a strong choice to replace Steiger -- it was widely seen as weird that he didn't make the cut as is, seeing he'd had such a strong year. And, if Heat is gone as an entry, it solves the problem he had in real time: split focus between Heat -- clearly the stronger film but award-dominated by Steiger -- and To Sir, With Love -- where he was definitely the whole show, but the film was more lightly regarded (though a huge box-office hit). Blake's performance was extraordinary, but he might well have been left out again.
As for the win...I suppose a Tracy win is possible, but I rather think Paul Newman would have triumphed. It would have been his fourth very strong nomination without a win, and Cool Hand Luke was a very popular, well-regarded film (it would have easily made today's expanded best picture ballot). Even at the time, it was the feeling among my film-buff friends that, had Steiger not been so viewed as overdue (thanks to The Pawnbroker), Newman would have taken the prize.