Best Actor 1962
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
People don't seem to realize what a big deal Divorce Italian Style was in 1962. Because it treated marriage with such carefree irrevrance -- as well as being very frank (in a lighthearted way) about sex and adultery, it caused a sensation. I was only seven, but I remember my parents going to see it at our local theatre in my hometown with a population of 7,500 and they and their friends couldn't stop talking about it. It was just as groundbreaking in its own way as La Dolce Vita was, and as 8 1/2 would be.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
1962 was a terrific year for movies and performances, and, like many, I'm faced with a Bette Davis/Gloria Swanson-level coin flip in terms of which great performance to select.
Lancaster is solid in Birdman of Alcatraz, but I think this is clearly the least impressive of his nominations, and actually the only one I wouldn't even consider a win-possibility.
I'm with the consensus on Mastroianni here. It's certainly odd to see him nominated for this relatively lightweight effort, when he wasn't cited for the landmarks that bookended it. But he wasn't remotely undeserving for Divorce—Italian Style, and his hilarious deadpan is the great center of a wickedly funny movie.
Jack Lemmon is very good in the very sad Days of Wine and Roses. I think casting a typically sunny actor in this role was a brilliant choice -- it makes his character's descent into alcoholism just that much more heartbreaking. But I very likely would have voted for the actor at least once before (if not twice, if not three times), so I have no problem with holding off here, particularly when faced with...
Gregory Peck vs. Peter O'Toole, the type of race that makes you wish you WEREN'T an Oscar voter forced with choosing between these two brilliant creations. Peck is just perfect as Atticus Finch, commanding the court room with quiet intensity rather than theatrics, his performance is an emblem of honest-to-god human goodness without arrogance. I think his win in this category is one of the best ever. And as for O'Toole, he's glorious, in a tremendous showcase of charisma, physical force, and humor. It's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Peck's role -- T.E. Lawrence is all about seizing attention -- but no less worthy of the prize, and in fact, it's disappointing such a wonderful turn went without an Oscar.
I really don't know how to choose. I like To Kill a Mockingbird a little more than Lawrence of Arabia, but I like O'Toole more as an actor overall than Peck. This is definitely the best chance to vote for Peck, while O'Toole has many more impressive opportunities down the line. But I'm not certain O'Toole would definitely get my vote in an upcoming year, and this is his career high point as well. I like that votes have been about evenly split so far.
Today, I voted for O'Toole, whose role is more central, and who has, I think, a more dynamic acting showcase. But I'd never want to lead the campaign to take away Gregory Peck's very well-deserved Oscar.
Lancaster is solid in Birdman of Alcatraz, but I think this is clearly the least impressive of his nominations, and actually the only one I wouldn't even consider a win-possibility.
I'm with the consensus on Mastroianni here. It's certainly odd to see him nominated for this relatively lightweight effort, when he wasn't cited for the landmarks that bookended it. But he wasn't remotely undeserving for Divorce—Italian Style, and his hilarious deadpan is the great center of a wickedly funny movie.
Jack Lemmon is very good in the very sad Days of Wine and Roses. I think casting a typically sunny actor in this role was a brilliant choice -- it makes his character's descent into alcoholism just that much more heartbreaking. But I very likely would have voted for the actor at least once before (if not twice, if not three times), so I have no problem with holding off here, particularly when faced with...
Gregory Peck vs. Peter O'Toole, the type of race that makes you wish you WEREN'T an Oscar voter forced with choosing between these two brilliant creations. Peck is just perfect as Atticus Finch, commanding the court room with quiet intensity rather than theatrics, his performance is an emblem of honest-to-god human goodness without arrogance. I think his win in this category is one of the best ever. And as for O'Toole, he's glorious, in a tremendous showcase of charisma, physical force, and humor. It's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Peck's role -- T.E. Lawrence is all about seizing attention -- but no less worthy of the prize, and in fact, it's disappointing such a wonderful turn went without an Oscar.
I really don't know how to choose. I like To Kill a Mockingbird a little more than Lawrence of Arabia, but I like O'Toole more as an actor overall than Peck. This is definitely the best chance to vote for Peck, while O'Toole has many more impressive opportunities down the line. But I'm not certain O'Toole would definitely get my vote in an upcoming year, and this is his career high point as well. I like that votes have been about evenly split so far.
Today, I voted for O'Toole, whose role is more central, and who has, I think, a more dynamic acting showcase. But I'd never want to lead the campaign to take away Gregory Peck's very well-deserved Oscar.
I haven't seen Mastroianni, but he's not eligible in my book anyway. I'm aware of the fact Peck stepped down from mount Rushmore to film TKaM, but I'm not an American nor am I Marco's father's son, so though I find him to be commendable - he certainly projects the right blend of authority and integrity, I still don't see it as the grand performance other claim it to be. A perfectly respectable nominee though, as was Lancaster. Lemmon was very good – along with Missing this is probably his finest dramatic turn. But for me it's a very obvious choice. O'Toole's performance is the stuff cinematic myths are made of – the perfect combination of role, acting, physical presence and back then I guess the excitement at the emergence of a new, charismatic star. I'm happy to give the award for the year of my birth to such a great performance.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
In a very good cinematic year, we might also have seen nominations for Tom Courtenay in Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear, or James Mason in Lolita.
Not that I can figure who to boot from the Academy list -- a very solid roster.
Yes, it seems silly Marcello Mastroianni was passed over for the two Fellini landmarks in '61 and '63, but got sandwiched in for a much lighter effort in between. It feels a bit like Dennis Hopper's Hoosiers nomination -- not as great an achievement, but about all voters could stomach at the time. However, one shouldn't jump from that to underrating the very funny Divorce-Italian Style, or Mastroianni's stellar contribution. He well rates the nod here.
It's true Burt Lancaster in subdued mode can be just flat, but I think Birdman of Alcatraz is a solid film (though only Frankenheimer's second-best on the year), and Lancaster's effort is worth noting.
Days of Wine and Roses is a respectable but not earth-shattering treatment of alcoholism, elevated by the two central performances. Jack Lemmon could be a drag in Serious Important Roles -- late in his career I think he sacrficed his best acting instincts to solemnity -- but here he's close to his golden comedy period, and he makes a very solid transition to drama. Another well-rated nomination.
But, like many, I have to decide between the other two nominees. I've said these years '59 through '62 offer difficult choices, and none moreso than this year, when two actors with long resumes give, for me, the great performances of their careers, in legendary films.
Peter O'Toole has had, in Academy terms, a bizarre career -- giving the serious/major performances voters prefer early (when he was, in their eyes, unproven) and then, at the point when sentiment might have kicked in, being highlighted for performances in lightweight or oddball films unlikely to get across-the-baord support. In retrospect, Lawrence is his great screen achievement, and one would like to support that.
But that, of course, would mean denying Gregory Peck, in his most iconic and moving performance. For Academy members, this was an easy choice -- the five-time nominee over the rookie. For us, knowing the future, it's more difficult.
I'd truly vote a tie if that were feasible. I'm happy to see the vote (temporarily) a deadlock. But, aware that I have opportunities to vote for O'Toole again -- even if for not as exceptional work -- I have to fall in the Gregory Peck camp here.
Not that I can figure who to boot from the Academy list -- a very solid roster.
Yes, it seems silly Marcello Mastroianni was passed over for the two Fellini landmarks in '61 and '63, but got sandwiched in for a much lighter effort in between. It feels a bit like Dennis Hopper's Hoosiers nomination -- not as great an achievement, but about all voters could stomach at the time. However, one shouldn't jump from that to underrating the very funny Divorce-Italian Style, or Mastroianni's stellar contribution. He well rates the nod here.
It's true Burt Lancaster in subdued mode can be just flat, but I think Birdman of Alcatraz is a solid film (though only Frankenheimer's second-best on the year), and Lancaster's effort is worth noting.
Days of Wine and Roses is a respectable but not earth-shattering treatment of alcoholism, elevated by the two central performances. Jack Lemmon could be a drag in Serious Important Roles -- late in his career I think he sacrficed his best acting instincts to solemnity -- but here he's close to his golden comedy period, and he makes a very solid transition to drama. Another well-rated nomination.
But, like many, I have to decide between the other two nominees. I've said these years '59 through '62 offer difficult choices, and none moreso than this year, when two actors with long resumes give, for me, the great performances of their careers, in legendary films.
Peter O'Toole has had, in Academy terms, a bizarre career -- giving the serious/major performances voters prefer early (when he was, in their eyes, unproven) and then, at the point when sentiment might have kicked in, being highlighted for performances in lightweight or oddball films unlikely to get across-the-baord support. In retrospect, Lawrence is his great screen achievement, and one would like to support that.
But that, of course, would mean denying Gregory Peck, in his most iconic and moving performance. For Academy members, this was an easy choice -- the five-time nominee over the rookie. For us, knowing the future, it's more difficult.
I'd truly vote a tie if that were feasible. I'm happy to see the vote (temporarily) a deadlock. But, aware that I have opportunities to vote for O'Toole again -- even if for not as exceptional work -- I have to fall in the Gregory Peck camp here.
-
Snick's Guy
- Temp
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:43 pm
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
This is a difficult choice: Does one go for the supremely iconic performance or the truly great one?
As for the also-rans (and it's a pretty impressive pack)
Burt Lancaster is stolid and affecting in Birdman of Alcatraz, but when he pares down his natural effusiveness, he comes across as a teensy bit dull. (The performance is akin to his "Doc" in Come Back, Little Sheba.)
Peter O'Toole is enormously characteristic, but T.E. Lawrence remains a cypher, thanks to Robert Bolt's muddled screenplay and David Lean's simple-mindedness.
Divorce, Italian Style is a terrific social comedy that well deserved its Original Screenplay award. Marcello Mastroianni is wonderfully dead pan and self-effacing and very funny. It's a marvelous performance but not quite expansive enough for the win.
Essentially, Gregory Peck IS Attiicus Finch, at least he was in the public's perception of him. As a man, Peck was a liberal do-gooder and in that regard his role in To Kill A Mockingbird fit him perfectly. BUT, this character is a small-town lawyer in the Deep South in the 1930s, and there's not even the hint of a drawl in the actor's speaking voice. If the film had been set in Ohio, it would be a perfect melding of actor and performance.
Jack Lemmon is astonishingly good in Days of Wine and Roses -- he is by turns harrowing, funny, pathetic, hateful, sympathetic, but always completely real, This is a great performance, and stands alongside Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend as the best portrayals of alcoholics ever.
Now, even though Lemmon deserves it on merit, if I was an Academy voter in 1962, I probably would have voted for Peck, because Lemmon already had an Oscar and Peck and Atticus Finch blended together so impeccably. But in these polls, I base my vote strictly on which performance I feel is best, so I'm giving it to Lemmon's superb work.
My Own Top 5:
1. Jack Lemmon in Days Of Wine And Roses
2. Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird
3. Marcello Mastroianni in Divorce, Italian Style
4. James Mason in Lolita
5. Robert Preston in The Music Man
Edited By Damien on 1304409480
As for the also-rans (and it's a pretty impressive pack)
Burt Lancaster is stolid and affecting in Birdman of Alcatraz, but when he pares down his natural effusiveness, he comes across as a teensy bit dull. (The performance is akin to his "Doc" in Come Back, Little Sheba.)
Peter O'Toole is enormously characteristic, but T.E. Lawrence remains a cypher, thanks to Robert Bolt's muddled screenplay and David Lean's simple-mindedness.
Divorce, Italian Style is a terrific social comedy that well deserved its Original Screenplay award. Marcello Mastroianni is wonderfully dead pan and self-effacing and very funny. It's a marvelous performance but not quite expansive enough for the win.
Essentially, Gregory Peck IS Attiicus Finch, at least he was in the public's perception of him. As a man, Peck was a liberal do-gooder and in that regard his role in To Kill A Mockingbird fit him perfectly. BUT, this character is a small-town lawyer in the Deep South in the 1930s, and there's not even the hint of a drawl in the actor's speaking voice. If the film had been set in Ohio, it would be a perfect melding of actor and performance.
Jack Lemmon is astonishingly good in Days of Wine and Roses -- he is by turns harrowing, funny, pathetic, hateful, sympathetic, but always completely real, This is a great performance, and stands alongside Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend as the best portrayals of alcoholics ever.
Now, even though Lemmon deserves it on merit, if I was an Academy voter in 1962, I probably would have voted for Peck, because Lemmon already had an Oscar and Peck and Atticus Finch blended together so impeccably. But in these polls, I base my vote strictly on which performance I feel is best, so I'm giving it to Lemmon's superb work.
My Own Top 5:
1. Jack Lemmon in Days Of Wine And Roses
2. Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird
3. Marcello Mastroianni in Divorce, Italian Style
4. James Mason in Lolita
5. Robert Preston in The Music Man
Edited By Damien on 1304409480
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Another very good group of nominees. It's actually possible that at least four of these nominees gave one of the best performances of their respective careers this year - and if you consider that we are talking about actors like Lemmon, Mastroianni and O'Toole (plus Gregory Peck), this says alot. And Burt Lancaster was very good too.
Lemmon's is a dramatic tour-de-force - a wonderful performance, but then we have honored him before and we, or at least I, will probably honor him again.
Mastroianni's movie and performance are both beloved here in Italy - Divorce Italian Style is like an evergreen, a movie that I think any Italian has seen at least once in his or her life. And his is a great grotesque performance - though not so grotesque maybe, because some Sicilians do, and especially did, act like that. The movie is important as it led to the absurd "crime of honor" law being canceled - Italians who miss the Italy of those days, the Italy of La Dolce Vita, relaxed and human, shouldn't forget that back then there were medioeval laws like this one - basically, anyone who killed his/her wife/husband after catching her/him with a lover, was put in jail for just a very short time rather than for life as it should have been for "normal" murders. But if the movie is still so popular, it's because its merciless portrayal of Latin machismo is somehow valid even today - and Mastroianni is perfectly, bitingly satirical.
If it's between O'Toole and Peck - as it definitely is - it's not because their performances are necessarily much better, but because they are both very charismatic - in both cases, a perfect combination of actor and character, so perfect that it doesn't have to do only with the art of acting, but with the magic of cinema, too. These are legendary movies and legendary roles - so it's difficult and probably unfair to make a choice, and if we do, as we must, the choice probably, in my case certainly, will be influenced by factors that don't have much to do with objective criticism but with personal memories and affection.
That's why I voted for Gregory Peck.
Lemmon's is a dramatic tour-de-force - a wonderful performance, but then we have honored him before and we, or at least I, will probably honor him again.
Mastroianni's movie and performance are both beloved here in Italy - Divorce Italian Style is like an evergreen, a movie that I think any Italian has seen at least once in his or her life. And his is a great grotesque performance - though not so grotesque maybe, because some Sicilians do, and especially did, act like that. The movie is important as it led to the absurd "crime of honor" law being canceled - Italians who miss the Italy of those days, the Italy of La Dolce Vita, relaxed and human, shouldn't forget that back then there were medioeval laws like this one - basically, anyone who killed his/her wife/husband after catching her/him with a lover, was put in jail for just a very short time rather than for life as it should have been for "normal" murders. But if the movie is still so popular, it's because its merciless portrayal of Latin machismo is somehow valid even today - and Mastroianni is perfectly, bitingly satirical.
If it's between O'Toole and Peck - as it definitely is - it's not because their performances are necessarily much better, but because they are both very charismatic - in both cases, a perfect combination of actor and character, so perfect that it doesn't have to do only with the art of acting, but with the magic of cinema, too. These are legendary movies and legendary roles - so it's difficult and probably unfair to make a choice, and if we do, as we must, the choice probably, in my case certainly, will be influenced by factors that don't have much to do with objective criticism but with personal memories and affection.
That's why I voted for Gregory Peck.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6398
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Seen all but Jack Lemmon's.
This is a tough category. I really liked all the 4 performances I've seen. Marcello Mastroianni's performance in Divorce - Italian Style may not be as iconic as his non-nominated performances in 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita but it's a solid comic turn. Burt Lancaster really soars as the title character in The Birdman of Alcatraz. Though I've heard some criticism that he made his character a tad too sympathetic. The real guy he played wasn't quite as sympathetic.
This leaves two very iconic performances: Peter O'Toole and Gregory Peck. I'm pretty sure in any other year, O'Toole would've won this in a cakewalk but he's up against Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird and that killer closing speech in the courtroom is really an actor's showcase. It's tough but I'm gonna have to agree with the Academy on this one.
This is a tough category. I really liked all the 4 performances I've seen. Marcello Mastroianni's performance in Divorce - Italian Style may not be as iconic as his non-nominated performances in 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita but it's a solid comic turn. Burt Lancaster really soars as the title character in The Birdman of Alcatraz. Though I've heard some criticism that he made his character a tad too sympathetic. The real guy he played wasn't quite as sympathetic.
This leaves two very iconic performances: Peter O'Toole and Gregory Peck. I'm pretty sure in any other year, O'Toole would've won this in a cakewalk but he's up against Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird and that killer closing speech in the courtroom is really an actor's showcase. It's tough but I'm gonna have to agree with the Academy on this one.
Peck vs O'Toole........and Peck wins this in my books.
I like all the performances nominated this year.
My picks for 1962:
Gregory Peck, To Kill a Mockingbird
Peter O'Toole, Lawrence of Arabia
Jack Lemmon, Days of Wine and Roses
Marcello Mastroianni, Divorce, Italian Style
Burt Lancaster, Birdman of Alcatraz
The 6th spot: Tom Courtenay, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner
I like all the performances nominated this year.
My picks for 1962:
Gregory Peck, To Kill a Mockingbird
Peter O'Toole, Lawrence of Arabia
Jack Lemmon, Days of Wine and Roses
Marcello Mastroianni, Divorce, Italian Style
Burt Lancaster, Birdman of Alcatraz
The 6th spot: Tom Courtenay, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner