Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:31 pm**

I think that Michael J. Pollard was a heavy favorite -- his role was more showy than Hackman's, as well as being pretty lovable -- and there was a great deal of affection for him at the time.

Parsons was the favorite for Supporting Actress, although I remember at the time columnist Sidney Skolsky said that New York Academy members were heavily behind Carol Channing.

Tee is absolutely right. Rod Steiger was considered America's greatest actor in 1967/68. How strange that seems to hear now.

Edited By Damien on 1239147202

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:13 pm**

There often weren't front-runners in supporting categories back then, at least not in the way we have them today, because the most predictive critics' award, NY, didn't start awarding in support till 1969, and the Golden Globes often gave prizes to people not even nominated for Oscars.

I don't think anyone thought Kellaway or Cassavettes were likely winners. The question was whether the Bonnie guys would divide the vote, as so many multiply-nominated films had in the year just prior (supporting actress '65, actor '64, supporting actress '63). Seen today, Hackman is the clear standout, but at the time there was significant support for Pollard (who was marginally more famous, having played Hugo in the original Broadway Bye Bye Birdie). Kennedy seemed the prime beneficiary of the split, and, despite a less-than-distinguished career otherwise, I think he's deserving for the performance.

Supporting actress seemed fairly split to me, though in retrospect Parsons made the most sense -- Richards was fine but a bit bland, Channing too out-there, Ross beautiful but undistinguished. Like, I believe, Magilla, I was rooting for Mildred Natwick, whose line readings I can still recall 40 years on ("I feel like we died and went to heaven -- only we had to climb up"). And I thought her veteran status (and Barefoot's financial success) might give her a chance at the win. But the film was just too minor in the end, as Bonnie rallied for at least one major prize. (A bit like the way Joe Pesci kept Good Fellas from suffering a shutout years later)

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:46 pm**

As I recall, Kennedy was a slight favorite over Gene Hackman. Parsons became the presumptive winner when critics' favorite Marjorie Rhodes (The Family Way) failed to make the cut. Her toughest competition was probably Mildred Natwick.

Edited By Big Magilla on 1239126425

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:30 pm**

Were George Kennedy or Estelle Parsons widely predicted?

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:14 pm**

Pictures at a Revolution is essentially a book-length expansion of the '67 chapter in Inside Oscar, but a quite good one. I thought I knew the period pretty well, yet there were all kinds of stories that were brand new to me (like how Dustin Hoffman's off-Broadway triumphs had runs truncated by his leaving the casts).

Steiger seemed to me a sure-bet for best actor in an era where there weren't nearly so many sure-bets as there are now. There was hangover from The Pawnbroker, critical raves (and a NY Critics' award), and fairly widely-held feeling at the time that, with Brando off doing weird things, Steiger was America's best film actor. (An opinion that didn't hold for long) Only the off-chance of sentiment for the late Tracy stood between Steiger and a win.

Hepburn's win was seen as at least partially a way to award Tracy without denying Steiger, but it also was a way of resolving a difficult best actress choice. The two critical favorites were Evans and Dunaway. Evans, virtually unrecognizable in The Whisperers, was hampered by her film's tiny-ness and, I'll say it, dullness -- even by Bryan Forbes standards, the film lacked life beyond the amazement of the Evans transformation. Dunaway was a strong presence, but not so overwhelming as to trump her unknown status and the film's love it/hate split in Hollywood. It's probably significant that today alot of people would choose Anne Bancroft (who, as a recent winner, wasn't even viewed as in the race) -- to me that shows how unhappy many are even today with a Evans/Dunaway choice. So, enter Hepburn (much as she did in '81) -- too long unrewarded, a sentimental choice in a film that went down easily with the masses.

1976 and 1969 would both be interesting years to rehash in fuller form, though in different ways. 1969 was more or less Stage 2 of 1967 -- New Hollywood dominated the film scene, but still found it difficult to be accepted by the Oscars (Dolly, Anne of Thousand Days, and the barely-hip Butch Cassidy getting best picture nods over They Shoot Horses, Alice's Restaurant, The Wild Bunch, etc.)...except when it came to a best picture winner, with Midnight Cowboy startlingly winning. In '76, by contrast, the most conservative candidate won best picture, but over a field of films that proved just how dominant New Hollywood had become in the years after '67 and '69.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:26 am**

Eric wrote:I'd love to see similar book-length examinations of other zeitgeist-reflective Best Picture line-ups, though I guess very few could possibly compare to 1967. Still, 1976 springs to mind.

1969.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:50 am**

I would like to add my vote for Steiger and Hepburn as the correct lead actor choices in 1968. They both had stiff competetion (Beatty and Dunaway were pretty close seconds) but I not only enjoyed those performances but I came to very much admire both characters.

Tracy's decision to give his blessing to his daughter's marriage after much soul searching is an iconic moment in film history. But Sheriff Gillespie's decision to work with and later respect and befriend Detective Tibbs in mid-1960's small town Mississippi was a lot more courageous.

Dustin Hoffman said at the time that he was stunned by "all the colors" Steiger showed in his character and I see what he means every time I watch the film. Gillespie does not experience a sea change in his life. You can tell he will not likely be giving his blessing to his daughter's mariage to a black man or socializing with blacks. But extraordinary circumstances required him to do many things and experience changes he never would have expected. And he showed a great deal of personal courage throughout. And Steiger is wonderful in showing all these aspects of his character. Some have said that this was a makeup Oscar for The Pawnbroker. Maybe it was, but I think it was the best performances of the five men.

BTW, there is a moment in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner I get a kick out of every time. I guess it shows how I am of a very different generation from Stanley Kramer. Tracy's character is supposed to be an enlightened liberal, especially when it comes to race relations. But there is a scene which opens with the following line from Tracy to Poitier: "You mean they [blacks] have no natural sense of rhythm?" I know it is not meant to be a put down or a negative stereotype, but I have always thought a man like Tracy's character would not say something like that.

Edited By kaytodd on 1239115946

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:42 am**

I'd love to see similar book-length examinations of other zeitgeist-reflective Best Picture line-ups, though I guess very few could possibly compare to 1967. Still, 1976 springs to mind.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:01 am**

I haven't read the book but something tells me I ought to.

I have read reviews of it though, and it does seem accurate in the telling. Four of the five nominees were phenomenons. Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate signaled new directions for the movies. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner started out as one thing (a Stanley Kramer treatise on inter-racial marriage) and ended up another (a warmhearted crowd-pleaser) while In the Heat of the Night, the first movie I saw three or four times while still in theatres before the Oscars, was the film that encapsulated the era and was a fitting winner days after Martin Luther King's assassination.

The original Doctor Dolittle stories were great charmers. The score, while far from great, is at least catchy. The movie, though, is a mess. Fox's shenanigans in pushing it with the Globes and then the Oscars had nothing on Universal's later ploys beginning with Anne of the Thousand Days.

The Graduate. over time, has become my favorite film of that year followed by Bonnie and Clyde, In the Heat of the Night, In Cold Blood, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Cool Hand Luke "and all the rest", to quote Oscar Hammerstein, "is talk".

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:48 am**

I found Pictures at a Revolution to be an absolute non-stop page-turner. The unique way it ties together the development of the five films that make up the 1968 Best Picture race almost makes it read like a thriller at times. And the genesis and development of Bonnie and Clyde is just downright compelling. A must-read for anyone on this board. It's worth it alone for all the backstage, behind-the-scenes scoops littered throughout its pages.

Clearly, I've retained a lot of what I read. All those facts I was spewing below were directly from memory. Except Steiger's quote, of course...I looked that up

Edited By flipp525 on 1239108821

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:58 am**

rain Bard wrote:How many of you fols have read Pictures at a Revolution? Talk about a page-turner. At least for me; a lot of the detail on these films was unfamiliar to me prior to reading it. I'd be curious to know if someone with more familiarity had any issues with the presentation of events in that book.

Reading it also inspired me to finally see Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, the last of the five BP and/or Best Director nominees I'd not seen yet. My favorite scene is the one where Tracy and Hepburn go for ice cream.

What a great book; it inspired me to rewatch four of the Best Picture nominees (there was no way I was sitting through Dolittle again - although it was fascinating to read that Poitier was almost in that film as well).

The Graduate gets my vote.

Edited By paperboy on 1239098468

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:04 am**

Big Magilla wrote:
Reza wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Katharine Houghton, Hepburn's "niece" who plays her "daughter" in the film has long been rumored to be her illegitimate daughter.

I had no idea....never having come across this news item. Who is the rumoured father? Hughes or Tracy?

Hughes, I think. The rumor is that Houghton is not only Hepburn's daughter but that she lied about her birth date as well, that she was born in 1941 before Hepburn met Tracy, not 1945 as she claims.

Hepburn was constantly working either on stage or screen yet she was mysteriously not seen anywhere between 1940's The Philadelphia Story and 1942's Woman of the Year. What was she doing?

Very much like Loretta Young ''dissapearing'' and returning with an adopted child, later revealed to be her own daughter with Clark Gable.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:02 am**

rain Bard wrote:My favorite scene is the one where Tracy and Hepburn go for ice cream.

My favorite scene is the one where Hepburn tells off Virginia Christine.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:46 am**

How many of you fols have read Pictures at a Revolution? Talk about a page-turner. At least for me; a lot of the detail on these films was unfamiliar to me prior to reading it. I'd be curious to know if someone with more familiarity had any issues with the presentation of events in that book.

Reading it also inspired me to finally see Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, the last of the five BP and/or Best Director nominees I'd not seen yet. My favorite scene is the one where Tracy and Hepburn go for ice cream.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:13 am**

Reza wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Katharine Houghton, Hepburn's "niece" who plays her "daughter" in the film has long been rumored to be her illegitimate daughter.

I had no idea....never having come across this news item. Who is the rumoured father? Hughes or Tracy?

Hughes, I think. The rumor is that Houghton is not only Hepburn's daughter but that she lied about her birth date as well, that she was born in 1941 before Hepburn met Tracy, not 1945 as she claims.

Hepburn was constantly working either on stage or screen yet she was mysteriously not seen anywhere between 1940's The Philadelphia Story and 1942's Woman of the Year. What was she doing?