Best Supporting Actor 1967

[ITALIANO]

George Kennedy was actually a very good actor, and I can understand why he won for Cool Hand Luke - it's a pity that, almost right after, he started wasting his talent in a myriad of unworthy, though certainly well-paid, roles in big-budget movies.

Bonnie and Clyde is easily the best of these movies, and a very well acted one. Gene Hackman was very good in it, but obviously he went on to even better, and bigger roles; Michael J. Pollard was a one-of-a-kind actor, who didn't get to have a great career, partly, I guess, because he wasn't that easy to cast. But he's extremely well-used in this movie, and I don't see any reason not to vote for him.

[Greg]

I think Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a mostly entertaining movie that doesn't deserve to be taken remotely seriously as drama.

Isn't that because Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is actually a comedy of manners?

[The Original BJ]

Beginning with this year, there are quite a bit more fields where I've seen all five nominees; guess that's not surprising given that '67 sort of ushered in the "modern" era of moviemaking.

I think Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a mostly entertaining movie that doesn't deserve to be taken remotely seriously as drama. And, I guess, Cecil Kellaway falls into the same category: half-way likable in his role, nothing I could choose as the year's best.

If you're going to nominate someone from The Dirty Dozen, John Cassavetes's tempestuous hothead is probably the one it should be. But I'm not sure any of the cast needed to be cited at all -- Dirty Dozen is an enjoyable enough action flick, but hardly an acting showcase for anyone.

I find the acting in Bonnie and Clyde to be exemplary across the board -- even the bit parts make an impression. And Michael J. Pollard is no exception. His C.W. is bumbling and dim, but also hugely sympathetic -- there's real sadness to the way his character seems to be caught in the wake of the criminal behavior of people who should know better. It's too bad he never found another role as indelible as this one, but he'd be worth saluting.

George Kennedy is another actor whose career didn't necessarily HAVE to be rewarded with an Oscar, but I think he's very strong in Cool Hand Luke. His is the kind of classic character performance that steals scenes throughout the movie while also being supportive of the other actors. He's lively and fun when he needs to be, but cedes moments to his costars when appropriate. As far as winners go, I think he's a completely unobjectionable choice.

But, like most, I went with Gene Hackman. He finds just the right rollicking energy for his role -- he's frighteningly funny, with a mad, off-kilter ferocity to him that makes his performance the most dynamic in the film. There are obviously numerous opportunities to honor this great actor in the years ahead, but I see no reason to hold off voting for him for this wonderful breakthrough role, an early triumph in a landmark movie.

[Sabin]

Clicked on this link to read the posts and I'm actually surprised that I have seen all the nominated performances.

Not much to say about most of them. This is Hackman's.

[OscarGuy]

This was tough for me as I thought any one of Hackman, Pollard or Kennedy could have been a satisfactory winner. But I chose Kennedy simply because it was such an excellent performance in an otherwise passable film.

[mlrg]

George Kennedy - Cool Hand Luke

[Reza]

My picks for 1967:

1. Gene Hackman, Bonnie and Clyde
2. Peter Finch, Far From the Madding Crowd
3. George Kennedy, Cool Hand Luke
4. Michael J. Pollard, Bonnie and Clyde
5. John Cassavetes, The Dirty Dozen

The 6th Spot: Cecil Kellaway, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

[Precious Doll]

1. Barry Humphries for Bedazzled
2. Gene Hackman for Bonnie and Clyde
3. John Furlong for Common Law Cabin
4. Gene Wilder for Bonnie and Clyde
5. Michael J. Pollard for Bonnie and Clyde

[Mister Tee]

Now that we're in my active time, I can throw in a few fellows who were on my "maybe" list prior to nominations. Warren Oates -- who sadly never got any kind of nomination -- had a notable enough role in In the Heat of the Night that I thought he might score mention. Harry Andrews did a splendid job backing up James Mason in the largely-forgotten The Deadly Affair. And Scott Wilson, along with Robert Blake in lead, was sadly ignored for In Cold Blood (before someone says it, yes, it would probably have been borderline category fraud -- but I thought Blake's Perry Smith so dominated In Cold Blood anyone else was support).

Of those that made it, the most disposable is surely Cecil Kellaway, whose character is a smug liberal creation (actual such Irish priests had more than a little racial resentment in them -- Kellaway's blithe tolerance is fantasy). And it's not as if the actor redeems the conception: the moment when Kellaway does a few bars of "We Can Work It Out" is the most cringe-worthy by any nominee this year.

I'll give a window into my 15-year-old soul by telling you, at the time, my choice for a supporting nominee from The Dirty Dozen was Telly Savalas; everybody I knew thought his character was the coolest. The Academy did better by choosing Cassavetes' commendable work. But a movie as trash-leaning as The Dirty Dozen doesn't deserve to compete here, against two of 1967's best movies.

It's hard to believe now, but Michael J. Pollard was easily the more famous of the two Bonnie & Clyde entrants. He'd made a splash playing (hold onto your seats for this) Hugo, Kim's boyfriend in Broadway's Bye Bye Birdie. C.W. Moss was a clear breakthrough for him, and the size of his role (unlike Hackman, he's there for almost the entire film) made him the more likely of the two to win back in 1968. But it's not even revisionism for us now to look and say Gene Hackman is the clear standout -- in fact, gives the best performance in the film. HIs Buck just bursts with life.

Bonnie & Clyde, of course, had difficulty with Oscar voters all around (need we mention the grisly screenplay outcome?), so a split ballot was deadly to these two actors' hopes, and a boon to George Kennedy. But it's not as if Kennedy's win was undeserving. He rather quickly turned into a standard-issue Universal contract-player, but in Cool Hand Luke he does truly memorable work, whether in support of Newman or on his own terms. At the time, honestly, I was rooting for him.

But looking with the critical eye of history, I have to go with Hackman -- especially since he failed to win with us for his wonderful Popeye Doyle (though I rather suspect he'll win the next time he turns up, as well). A salute to a guy who turned out to be one of the finest actors of last half of the 20th century, and kicked it all off in fine style with this deserving performance.

[Big Magilla]

I liked all five nominees.

Cecil Kellaway doesn't do much in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner but what he does he does with a great deal of charm. It's a nice late career nod for the actor who turned down the role that might have made him a screen immortal in Miracle on 34th Street, which went instead to his first cousin, Edmund Gwenn.

John Cassavetes was still better known for his acting than his writing and direction when he received his first Oscar nomination for his small time Chicago hood turned war hero in The Dirty Dozen. It was probably his best on-screen performance, but the nomination was enough.

A win by anyone other than one of the other three nominees, however, would have been unthinkable.

Michael J. Pollard seemed to be the breakout supporting player in Bonnie and Clyde when it was first reelased, but by yer's end awards started going instead to Gene Hckman and Estelle Parsons. Pollard rebounded with a Bafta.

Hackman won the National Society of Film Critics Award as Warren Beatty's brotehr in the film and veteran George Kennedy, of course, took home the Oscar for Cool Hand Luke. Prior to his win Kennedy was most familiar to audiences through his TV work, especially his role in the long-running Phil Silvers Show in the late 1950s.

It's close, but Hackman gets my vote.

[MovieFan]

Both Hackman and Kennedy are tremendous but Hackman gets my vote here.

Funnily enough George Kennedy did a interview recently where he said he thought Hackman gave the best performance of the nominees and even thought Hackman would win in 67. I also got ther impression from him that he wasnt a fan of Michael J. Pollard's performance

[ksrymy]

It's rare when we get so many great and worthy nominees two years in a row.

Cecil Kellaway is great but he's outclassed by every other performer in the film. On that principle, I have to eliminate George Kennedy as Paul Newman was much better in the same film.

It's sad that this was Cassavetes' only nomination as I believe him to be criminally underrated.

So it's between the Bonnie and Clyde fellows. Michael J. Pollard gives a very puppy-doggish, innocent performance that is a magnificent contrast to Gene Hackman's brash, greasy bank robber. I'd be comfortable voting for either one but Hackman's work is standard Hackman and Pollard had his one moment with this film.

I'll vote for Pollard although Hackman is better.