Best Actor 1963
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
What an easy choice........Newman all the way. Although, Finney and Harris are also superb. How absurd that Mastroianni was not included.
Incidently if you look closely beyond the bloat of Cleopatra you will come to appreciate Rex Harrison's performance. It was also probably a case of the Academy finally recognizing Harrison as he had appeared in so many classic films over the years. Who knew then that he would get to play his acclaimed stage part in My Fair Lady in the film version just a year later and would actually be a winner. Jack Warner had been actively trying to persuade Cary Grant to accept the part in the film version. I think if he had already been assigned the role of Higgins just before the 1963 nominations were announced he would never have been nominated for Cleopatra.
My picks for 1963:
Paul Newman, Hud
Marcello Mastroianni, 8 1/2
Richard Harris, This Sporting Life
Albert Finney, Tom Jones
Tom Courtenay, Billy Liar
The 6th Spot: Sidney Poitier, Lillies of the Field
Edited By Reza on 1304686535
Incidently if you look closely beyond the bloat of Cleopatra you will come to appreciate Rex Harrison's performance. It was also probably a case of the Academy finally recognizing Harrison as he had appeared in so many classic films over the years. Who knew then that he would get to play his acclaimed stage part in My Fair Lady in the film version just a year later and would actually be a winner. Jack Warner had been actively trying to persuade Cary Grant to accept the part in the film version. I think if he had already been assigned the role of Higgins just before the 1963 nominations were announced he would never have been nominated for Cleopatra.
My picks for 1963:
Paul Newman, Hud
Marcello Mastroianni, 8 1/2
Richard Harris, This Sporting Life
Albert Finney, Tom Jones
Tom Courtenay, Billy Liar
The 6th Spot: Sidney Poitier, Lillies of the Field
Edited By Reza on 1304686535
Not only Paul Newman was a very good actor; he was also nominated in years when, especially today, in retrospect, it's certainly tempting to vote for him (it will happen even in more recent years) - not because his competition was always necessarily weak, but because, for example in this 1963, his main opponent objectively belongs to a movie which is more famous than seen by many.
Harrison's quiet approach to Julius Ceasar was subtle compared to the loud behavior (both on and off-screen) of his two much publicized co-stars; but also too British - this was ancient Rome after all, not Oxford - and anyway the movie is so bad that nobody connected to it should have been nominated for an Oscar (let alone win - nobody remembers this, but Cleopatra won Best Costume Design over The Leopard, which has maybe the best costumes in the history of movies, and Best Special Effects over The Birds).
Sidney Poitier's win was historically important and for good and right reasons - but his movie is bland and his performance non very convincing.
Hud may be one of Newman's best and most popular roles, but it's true that he's been even better in other movies, and as I said I have decided that I will only vote a second time for him, so I must save it for one of his later nominations (at the moment I still don't know which).
It's between the two British guys, completely different actors in completely different movies. Finney is very good in a film which back then must have been perceived as more revolutionary and more daring (from many points of views) than it seems now - some of its devices were much imitated over the following years. It's still good and Finney's relaxed, intelligent performance should be taken into consideration for a win...
... but then I, like others, have gone with Richard Harris. Harris could be very good - and he's at his best in This Sporting Life - though like other actors of his generation he later seemed to waste his talent - and for example his second nomination, many years later, came for a movie which I personally found dreadful when I saw it back then (it was still better than Orca The Killer Whale though, I suppose). An interesting, uncompromising, edgy, young actor, Harris in 1963 didn't have any chance of winning and the nomination itself must have been a kind of surprise at the time; today he definitely deserves to win.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1304671254
Harrison's quiet approach to Julius Ceasar was subtle compared to the loud behavior (both on and off-screen) of his two much publicized co-stars; but also too British - this was ancient Rome after all, not Oxford - and anyway the movie is so bad that nobody connected to it should have been nominated for an Oscar (let alone win - nobody remembers this, but Cleopatra won Best Costume Design over The Leopard, which has maybe the best costumes in the history of movies, and Best Special Effects over The Birds).
Sidney Poitier's win was historically important and for good and right reasons - but his movie is bland and his performance non very convincing.
Hud may be one of Newman's best and most popular roles, but it's true that he's been even better in other movies, and as I said I have decided that I will only vote a second time for him, so I must save it for one of his later nominations (at the moment I still don't know which).
It's between the two British guys, completely different actors in completely different movies. Finney is very good in a film which back then must have been perceived as more revolutionary and more daring (from many points of views) than it seems now - some of its devices were much imitated over the following years. It's still good and Finney's relaxed, intelligent performance should be taken into consideration for a win...
... but then I, like others, have gone with Richard Harris. Harris could be very good - and he's at his best in This Sporting Life - though like other actors of his generation he later seemed to waste his talent - and for example his second nomination, many years later, came for a movie which I personally found dreadful when I saw it back then (it was still better than Orca The Killer Whale though, I suppose). An interesting, uncompromising, edgy, young actor, Harris in 1963 didn't have any chance of winning and the nomination itself must have been a kind of surprise at the time; today he definitely deserves to win.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1304671254
It's not that he's my favorite film personality of all times, but still it's a pity Harrison's showings at the Oscars solely associate him with over stuffy behemoths of movies such as Cleopatra, MFL and Dr Doolittle. For his sake I'll try and think about him in the likes of Blyth Spirit.
Whether he had made some kind of Mephistophelian bargain or not, Poitier's success and ability to be accepted did come at the expense of being less free and daring as an actor. The charisma and commanding presence are there, but there is always something held back. And LotF is just too trifling to be really in contention.
Tom Jones was fun when I first saw it in the '70s and probably more so in the early '60s, but yes, in later viewing it did turn out to be somehow working too hard at being light on its feet. Finney is fun but again, in retrospect, him being a little bit too stocky for the part seem to describe not only his physical appearance.
And then there are these two great angry young men, fighting the world around them and loving and abusing these older, non glamorous, world weary women, sensationally played by extremely strong actresses. Since in this game Newman's already got an extra vote from me (had this been an all comers affair I'd pass him back in '58), and since he will be at least a 3 time winner overall as far as I'm concerned, I'll allow my self to be generous and vote for the equally good Harris.
Edited By Uri on 1304660780
Whether he had made some kind of Mephistophelian bargain or not, Poitier's success and ability to be accepted did come at the expense of being less free and daring as an actor. The charisma and commanding presence are there, but there is always something held back. And LotF is just too trifling to be really in contention.
Tom Jones was fun when I first saw it in the '70s and probably more so in the early '60s, but yes, in later viewing it did turn out to be somehow working too hard at being light on its feet. Finney is fun but again, in retrospect, him being a little bit too stocky for the part seem to describe not only his physical appearance.
And then there are these two great angry young men, fighting the world around them and loving and abusing these older, non glamorous, world weary women, sensationally played by extremely strong actresses. Since in this game Newman's already got an extra vote from me (had this been an all comers affair I'd pass him back in '58), and since he will be at least a 3 time winner overall as far as I'm concerned, I'll allow my self to be generous and vote for the equally good Harris.
Edited By Uri on 1304660780
I've only seen Finney and Newman. From what I understand from Damien's book, it took a lot to rob Paul Newman that year. It took Tom Jones to become ridiculously in fashion and the sentiment to sweep Poitier in from under Finney's feat such that Newman became an after-thought.
Saw Tom Jones ages ago. Didn't care for it. I would have understood a win for Finney though. Not that I would agree with it. I remember liking Hud quite a bit. It's absence from Best Picture is mind-boggling, and Newman is clearly in outstanding form here.
Saw Tom Jones ages ago. Didn't care for it. I would have understood a win for Finney though. Not that I would agree with it. I remember liking Hud quite a bit. It's absence from Best Picture is mind-boggling, and Newman is clearly in outstanding form here.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Well, for me, the stretch of tight contests between wildly qualified candidates comes to an end. I'm not saying I actively dislike the candidates over the next few years, but I don't find the same must-win quality in any performance till 1966 gets here.
As we've discussed in the previous thread, Mastroianni should be here. Not much more to say about that.
Rex Harrison mostly benefited critically, as Magilla suggests, from simply not being the publicity-sluts that Liz and Dick had been for the two years leading up to Cleopatra's release. I finally forced myself to plow through the whole four hours or so of Cleopatra about 15-20 years ago, but for the life of me I can't remember much about Harrison's performance. Scratch him.
I still enjoy Tom Jones, and Albert Finney carries the film perfectly well, but there doesn't seem to be any heavy acting burden on him.
One of the complaints about the world-events-influenced outcome of this race has always been that it denied Paul Newman an Oscar. But, honestly, I don't think Hud is one of Newman's great creations. He makes a worthy enough nominee, but I think even his Color of Money work is more prize-worthy.
Sidney Poitier's win was such an event, and so credited to the moment in American history, that there's a tendency to underrate his ability. He carries the movie with great aplomb; without his amused detachment, the whole thing might be much harder to take. I make him my solid runner up.
But my pick is Richard Harris, both for his very strong breakthrough performance -- easily the best of this group -- and because he represents the British angry young man genre, one surprisingly unrewarded by the Oscars. There were all sort of best actress nominees from Brit films in this period -- including, of course, winner Julie Christie. But few of the men got recognized -- Burton in Look Back, Finney in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Courtenay in Long Distance Runner were all ignored. So Harris can stand in for all of them as well.
As we've discussed in the previous thread, Mastroianni should be here. Not much more to say about that.
Rex Harrison mostly benefited critically, as Magilla suggests, from simply not being the publicity-sluts that Liz and Dick had been for the two years leading up to Cleopatra's release. I finally forced myself to plow through the whole four hours or so of Cleopatra about 15-20 years ago, but for the life of me I can't remember much about Harrison's performance. Scratch him.
I still enjoy Tom Jones, and Albert Finney carries the film perfectly well, but there doesn't seem to be any heavy acting burden on him.
One of the complaints about the world-events-influenced outcome of this race has always been that it denied Paul Newman an Oscar. But, honestly, I don't think Hud is one of Newman's great creations. He makes a worthy enough nominee, but I think even his Color of Money work is more prize-worthy.
Sidney Poitier's win was such an event, and so credited to the moment in American history, that there's a tendency to underrate his ability. He carries the movie with great aplomb; without his amused detachment, the whole thing might be much harder to take. I make him my solid runner up.
But my pick is Richard Harris, both for his very strong breakthrough performance -- easily the best of this group -- and because he represents the British angry young man genre, one surprisingly unrewarded by the Oscars. There were all sort of best actress nominees from Brit films in this period -- including, of course, winner Julie Christie. But few of the men got recognized -- Burton in Look Back, Finney in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Courtenay in Long Distance Runner were all ignored. So Harris can stand in for all of them as well.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
A very solid lineup, with one glaring exception.
That exception would be Rex Harrison's total waste-of-space nomination for the never-ending Cleopatra. And, of course, this left Marcello Mastroianni's great and iconic 8 1/2 work without an invitation to the party.
The others are all quite good. Richard Harris in This Sporting Life is one of the best examples of the British cinema's angry young men. He commands the screen with brute force in this sad story of a working class man's inability to rise up the social ladder. And the relationship between his character and Rachel Roberts is fascinating, as he uses her, abuses her, and tries to love her. A powerful, complex performance.
Albert Finney is a consistently impressive actor, yet it's hard to find a place where he unequivocally should have won an Oscar. He's very funny in Tom Jones -- charming, dashing, and delightful -- and it's hard to imagine the movie without his roguish wit at the center of it. But there's stronger work on the ballot.
Lilies of the Field is a small movie, but it has some lovely moments, many of them courtesy of Sidney Poitier. It's fairly telling that the first leading Oscar for a black actor went to a role where the character's race is a virtual non-issue. But I wouldn't want to underrate the actor's work either -- he's a very appealing, good-hearted presence here, and is Oscar is far from an embarrassment.
But I think Hud is Paul Newman's greatest performance, and I must vote for him yet again. (I picked Newman in '58 by a close margin; I held off voting in '61 because I'm missing The Mark, but he's my clear choice in that race so far.) Hud is a glorious creation -- a swaggering, brash, anti-hero whom Newman invests with both alluring surface magnetism and rich inner torment. And, despite similarities between the characters of Hud Bannon and Fast Eddie, his entire presence feels completely different than it does in The Hustler. A fantastic performance, and I vote for him this time without question.
That exception would be Rex Harrison's total waste-of-space nomination for the never-ending Cleopatra. And, of course, this left Marcello Mastroianni's great and iconic 8 1/2 work without an invitation to the party.
The others are all quite good. Richard Harris in This Sporting Life is one of the best examples of the British cinema's angry young men. He commands the screen with brute force in this sad story of a working class man's inability to rise up the social ladder. And the relationship between his character and Rachel Roberts is fascinating, as he uses her, abuses her, and tries to love her. A powerful, complex performance.
Albert Finney is a consistently impressive actor, yet it's hard to find a place where he unequivocally should have won an Oscar. He's very funny in Tom Jones -- charming, dashing, and delightful -- and it's hard to imagine the movie without his roguish wit at the center of it. But there's stronger work on the ballot.
Lilies of the Field is a small movie, but it has some lovely moments, many of them courtesy of Sidney Poitier. It's fairly telling that the first leading Oscar for a black actor went to a role where the character's race is a virtual non-issue. But I wouldn't want to underrate the actor's work either -- he's a very appealing, good-hearted presence here, and is Oscar is far from an embarrassment.
But I think Hud is Paul Newman's greatest performance, and I must vote for him yet again. (I picked Newman in '58 by a close margin; I held off voting in '61 because I'm missing The Mark, but he's my clear choice in that race so far.) Hud is a glorious creation -- a swaggering, brash, anti-hero whom Newman invests with both alluring surface magnetism and rich inner torment. And, despite similarities between the characters of Hud Bannon and Fast Eddie, his entire presence feels completely different than it does in The Hustler. A fantastic performance, and I vote for him this time without question.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
This is the only year in which I agreed with all six of the top awards.
It may well be that Sidney Poitier's win was in part due to the civil rights movement and the fact that no black perfomer had yet won a lead Oscar, but I think his charismatic performance in Lilies of the Field speaks for itself. His chief competition that year, Paul Newman in Hud and Albert Finney in Tom Jones were also award worthy but all three seemed to be in for the long haul and whichever two lost this year would likely have many more opportunities, as indeed they have. It took Newman another 23 years and Fnney has yet to win, but they have certainly have had their share of at-bats whereas Poitier hasn't, so I see no reason for revise my long-standing opinion.
Richard Harris was a worthy nominee for This Sporting Life, although I would have been just as happy to see Stathis Giallelis nominated for America America in his stead.
As for Rex Harrison in Cleopatra over Marcello Mastroianni in 8 1/2, I've never gotten that one. Harrison may have been better tahn Liz and Dick but there really is no reason to give that bloated epic any nominations other than "perhaps" a few technical nods, emphasis on "perhaps".
It may well be that Sidney Poitier's win was in part due to the civil rights movement and the fact that no black perfomer had yet won a lead Oscar, but I think his charismatic performance in Lilies of the Field speaks for itself. His chief competition that year, Paul Newman in Hud and Albert Finney in Tom Jones were also award worthy but all three seemed to be in for the long haul and whichever two lost this year would likely have many more opportunities, as indeed they have. It took Newman another 23 years and Fnney has yet to win, but they have certainly have had their share of at-bats whereas Poitier hasn't, so I see no reason for revise my long-standing opinion.
Richard Harris was a worthy nominee for This Sporting Life, although I would have been just as happy to see Stathis Giallelis nominated for America America in his stead.
As for Rex Harrison in Cleopatra over Marcello Mastroianni in 8 1/2, I've never gotten that one. Harrison may have been better tahn Liz and Dick but there really is no reason to give that bloated epic any nominations other than "perhaps" a few technical nods, emphasis on "perhaps".