In Part 2 is is an extract from a very long article by Pauline Kael [1919 to 2001]of The New Yorker. She was their resident film critic between 1968 and 1991 and has been ranked as high as 4th in lists of the greatest all-time critics.
The article was published in March 1966 when [many feel because of his stances in support of black and Indian races in America] Marlon was under the kind of savage attacks that he experienced in the decades following his refusal to accept an Oscar as a protest about how he felt the Indians were still being treated. Other historians have suggested that in the period Kael was writing about there was even a hidden boycott against Brando’s films in some Southern States in America.
The article possibly explains the reasons for strange and at times quite silly negative things people like Joel Hirschhorn have written about Brando in more recent times and the apparent intense depth of their antagonism towards him that even lesser talents have never experienced. It is for example telling that in part the attacks recorded by Kael in 1966 were forerunners to the beatings that people like Hirschhorn and even British politicians gave Brando over his ability to command large fees after his Last Tango/Godfather massive comeback.
Conversely it also gives us a clue as to why Brando was considered such a social and cultural phenomenon who transcended movies that he ended up in for example Time Magazine’s 100 Most influential people of the 20th Century. It might also serve as a timely caution to those about to get starry eyed over Oscar hype to keep in mind the bigger picture always going on beneath the radar in the film community.
PAULINE KAEL: MARCH 1966
It is one of the uglier traditions of movie business that frequently when a star gets big enough to want big money and artistic selection or control of his productions, the studios launch large-scale campaigns designed to cut him down to an easier-to-deal-with size or to supplant him with younger, cheaper talent. The press and its columnists and film critics etc are the moguls’ outriders
In the case of Brando, the most powerful ladies were especially virulent because they were obviously part of what he was rebelling against; in flouting their importance, he might undermine their position with other new stars who might try to get by without kowtowing to the blackmailing old vultures waiting to pounce in the name of God, Motherhood, and Americanism. What was unusual in Brando’s case was the others who joined in the attack.
It was now open season on Brando: Hollis Alpert lumbered onto the pages of Cosmopolitan to attack him for not returning to the stage to become a great actor–as if the theatre were the citadel of art. What theatre? David Susskind was shocked that a mere actor like Brando should seek to make money, might even dare to consider his own judgment and management preferable to that of millionaire producers. Dwight Macdonald chided Brando for not being content to be a craftsman.
Almost without exception, American actors who don’t accept trashy assignments make nothing, not even superior trash. Brando accepts the trash, but unlike the monochromatic, “always dependable” Gable, Brando has too much energy or inventiveness just to go through the motions. And when he appears on the screen, there is a special quality of recognition in the audience: we know he’s too big for the role. Brando is still the most exciting American actor on the screen.”
The Oscars do go at times to some very deserving people: take Marlon Brando for instance and – well Marlon Brando again. However just as often they are about a lot of relatively ordinary people scratching and patting each other on the back and engaging in the hyperbole that everyone there is some kind of genius or at least “great guy”.
The Work Horse doesn’t like negativity on his site and probably likes to get into the swing of Oscar Night by convincing himself that all the nominees and winners are at least half as wonderful as Micklewhite, Leach, Willis and The Thin Woman and – well again Sir Maurice, Archie, Brucie and “Thins”.
However whilst I agree with WH that we should stay away from controversial things like political opinion, religious convictions and negativity such as private life gossip, I don’t think it is very healthy to have a completely sanitized site in relation to at least movie matters.
[Like that sewer in Guys and Dolls into which the gambling community had gone underground; was peopled with Damon Runyon’s well-dressed characters in flashy suits such as Sinatra’s Nathan Detroit , Brando’s Sky Masterson and Sheldon Leonard’s “Brucie” -sorry “Harry The Horse”; but was made to look on screen like an ice cream parlor in which birthday parties were being held with the celebrators singing gambling songs like “Luck be a lady tonight” and “I’ve got the horse right here. His name is Paul Revere!”]
George C, Marlon and I were never completely comfortable with the Oscars with Brando suggesting they should really be called The Bankers’ Awards and the Great Scottie labeling them a “Meat Parade”. In the past they have also been spoken of as “Fashion Parades” and some cynics have remarked that they are really a stable that is opened up annually for a herd of “Clothes Horses” and “Show Ponies” to stomp around.
I personally have no fancy tags to throw at the proceedings and whilst I don’t want to be a “party pooper” and will give honor where honor is due, I do like to keep things in proportion.
So I acknowledge that many of those swanning-about trying unconvincingly to look and sound modest but all the time inwardly screaming [as Paul Newman gigolo did outwardly in 1962’s Sweet Bird of Youth] “What about ME! What about ME?” are not much beyond being ‘famous for being famous’ and couldn’t be relied upon to open a can of beans let alone a movie.
Accordingly I’ll help kick off the comments on this page by bringing some advance- balance to matters via the list in Part 2.
Hi Bob, glad you copied your comment here the other page was temporary methinks. Bruce throws out a lot of temporary pages we might not be able to tell the difference in the future. Hmm I’m not even sure this is a real UMR page, aren’t those links at the top? Wait a sec this page is temporary too [Bob gasps in horror]. If it’s not on the index page no one will find this page ever again. [Bob bites his nails] 🙂
Scott and Brando were fully deserving of their Oscars, it’s just a shame they were rejected by the winners. To paraphrase King Feisel again from Lawrence of Arabia “take the honor gentlemen, be a little kind”.
It reminds me that in the 1953 modest programmer The Veils of Bagdad [2nd feature over here to Rock Hudson’s Back to God’s Country – were they meaning Manchester with that title?] Victor Mature has been sent to induce an Arab Prince to betray his people and side with the Yanks – or Brits.
‘Brit’ heroes with American accents were fashionable in those days!. Hollywood only employed a real Englishman for example when they needed a wimp in the plot as a contrast to the Yankee hero. For example in Mature’s 1956 Safari English Ian Crmichael-type John Justin is beside Janet Leigh when she falls into a river and is being swept away . Instead of diving in after her Justin runs back to the camp for Mature who of course saves the day!
Anyway in Veils of Bagdad Mature offers the Prince a vast sum of money for betrayal of his own people and the latter responds ” I believe in YOURcause. The Money’s of no consequence – but I’ll take it anyway!” Take care and enjoy your weekend.
WhatCulture SITE: 20 WORST PERFORMANCES OF PAST DECADE
“Too bad they give out just 4 Razzies a year.” WhatCulture
Disclaimer: Many of these people I’ve never heard of so please forgive me if I have slightly misspelt some of the names.
20/Jai Courtney/A Good Day to Die Hard – sorry Work Horse
19/Kellan Lutz/Legend of Hercules
18/Ronda Rousey/Mile 22
17/Sharlo Copley/Oldboy
16/Entire cast of Slender Man
15/Ken Jeong/ The Hangover Trilogy
14/Die Antwood/Chappie
13/Nicolas Cage/Trespass
12/Cara Delevinge/Suicide Squad
11/Johnny Depp/Mortdecai
10/Chad Donella/Saw 3
9/Sam Worthington/the Clash of the Titans films.
8/Leslie Mann/The Other Woman
7/Marlon Wyans/50 Shades of Blacks
6/Entire cast of Movie 23
5/Entire Cast of Left Behind
4/Kevin James/The Grown Ups movies
3/Nicola Peltz/The Last Airbender
2/Kirsten Stewart/The Twilight Saga
1/Adam Sandler/Jack and Jill
STEVE: Please see posts today from First in the Field [in response to WH]-Jace escapes again by the skin of his teeth! He invariably demonstrates in his flicks the appropriateness to action movies of that time-worn line “With one bound he was free!”
However I am sure that the Part 2 list throws hand grenades into several of your comfort zones! Many of those listed are unknown to me as they are to First in the Field; but I suppose it’s possible that next time I come across them, many of their number will be brandishing Oscars!
Actually I watched Parker and found it entertaining enough. It is no classic – Jace doesn’t do classics – but with J Lo co-starring there could be said to be at least on a basic level “something for everybody” in it.
Jace’s 2015 Wild Card is showing at 11.05 PM this Thursday on our 5STAR Channel over here and I have it marked down for viewing. What fool on this site said that Bob couldn’t exist outside HIS comfort zone? My TV review magazine awards it a respectable 3 stars [who really needs Hirsch?] and says “Anne Heche and Sofia Viagra – sorry Vergara- add the glamour.”
Jace is certainly no fool: where The Meg is absent “Stathy” is careful to people his movies with eye-catching females, though I suppose he has to have someone to take off his shirt for; but any thoughts yourself about Wild Card? You know I would also welcome them.
Hi Bob, I think you’re warming up to Jace, two more films and you’ll be asking Bruce to include him in the next edition of his film book. 😉
Maybe I was too harsh on Parker, I’ll give it another shot when it turns up again. Hey at least he wasn’t included in the Razzie hall of fame.
I’ve seen the list for this years Razzie nominations and poor old Sly is in there again for Rambo Last Blood. He always gets nominated. Cats will probably be the big winner. Bruce Willis is nominated for Glass. Here’s a link –
Oh yeah Bob, forgot about Wild Card, I haven’t seen that one. If you do see it let me know what you think and I’ll check it out next time its on.
HI STEVE: I’m glad you replied because I always like to have your views on contentious issues. It’s difficult for me to comment on Cider House Rules because I enjoy Sir Maurice so much in EVERTHING that I find it hard to make distinctions between his performances; and in relation to the rest of the selections I have strong feelings about only the following:
1/O’Toole should have got the Oscar for ”Orance”
2/Bogie should have got the Oscar for Casablanca [or In a Lonely Place or Caine Mutiny] but NOT for African Queen, which he did. It should have gone that year to Mumbles for Streetcar, not just a tour de force in acting but a landmark performance which historians say changed American acting forever. However as I have indicated to WH Old Hollywood was so sentimental at one time about screen priests [particularly Irish American ones] and drunks [especially cantankerous ones like Bogie in African Queen] that anyone who played them was often showered with so much Oscar and other awards love that the love affairs that they enjoyed could well have been banned as obscene under the Hayes Code. See also 6 and 7 in Part 2
3/Newman should have won for The Verdict.
4/Judy should have won for A Star is Born. I think that double prejudices were at work there: (1) favouritism towards supposed ‘class’ acts like the future Princess. (2) a snobbish attitude towards performers like Judy who were associated with ‘light entertainment” movies. Although I tease WH about The Thin Woman I have always thought that Myrna suffered from the fact that although she did drama in a lot o films much of her best work was in screwball comedies and the excellent but formulistic Nick and Nora series so that many judges couldn’t – or wouldn’t – see that she was as good an all-round actress as most of those Hollywood divas who did pick up multiple awards for ‘dramatic’ roles. How else does one explain her not getting even a single nomination of ANY kind in competition?
“Full many a flower of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom’d caves of ocean bear.
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”
These are Oscars that I personally think were undeserved but were not included in the lists I gave you:
5/Jimmy Stewart for Philadelphia Story. Although he is one of my all- time Top 5 fave actors I thought Jim got this one because of the snobbish homage paid to screwball comedies. In my view Jimmy’s pal Hank should have got it for Grapes of Wrath and indeed that is Stewart’s own stated opinion.
6/Bing’s win for Going my Way and nomination for Bells of St Mary’s. He played the same character in both films, Father Chuck O’Malley and his performances were just laid-back standard Crosby fare for my money. Now I loved Bing and “standard” Crosby was of good quality most of the time but I thought his success in receiving those accolades once more reflected Hollywood sentimental attitude to Irish American priests and other religious figures on screen. It is indicative I think that at the 1945 Oscars Barry Fitzgerald got for Going My Way BOTH a nomination for the Lead role AND a win for best supporting role because he too played a priest in that film; and that Ingrid Bergman got an Oscar nomination[and won a Golden Globe] for playing a nun in Bing’s Bells of St Mary’s. It’s almost as if Hollywood in those days was terrified of being accused of atheism if it didn’t fall over itself in paying homage to religious performances on screen; again, in 1944 Jennifer Jones got the Oscar and a Golden Globe for her role of religious character Bernadette Soubirous in 1943’s The Song of Bernadette. It’s all bit of a cod really.
7/ Nicolas Cage for Leaving Manchester. I have long felt that this Oscar was given out because of Hollywood’s continuing fascination with screen drunks.
8/I agree that it’s a pity Jace missed out for The Meg; but there is consolation for at least one of the pair of us in that he DID receive for 2006’s Crank an award of Most Offensive Male Actor from The Women’s Film Critics Circle [aka Joels in Skirts].
Regarding item 6 in Part 2 of my posts to you today I forgot to mention that Charles Bickford also got an Oscar nomination for playing a priest in Song of Bernadette.
I feel that it defies the law of averages to say the least that 5 people playing between them 3 priests,a nun and another religious figure in 3 movies within 3 years should all be turning in great performances and in one cas repeat performances over two of those movies.
I do not therefore have the confidence that you and WH seem to have that The Oscars necessarily recognise and/or reward the greatest acting in any one year. This is why I never take them too seriously and indeed feel that they are usually dictated by one or more of sentimentality; prejudice; favourotism and cliquishness.
HI BRUCE: Thanks for your feedback. As always you make some pungent points that I find food for thought. I think I would go for the compromise that one source suggested whereby solid performers with a long contribution to the movies are honoured via ceremonial procedures that are not labelled “Oscar”.
However I accept that you Yanks do seem to have in your DNA the hyperbolic addiction to calling a thing that which often it is not. For example back in the Lendl/Wilander era of the 1980s, the prestigious year-end professional tennis Finals were held in the US and were, as they still are today, regarded as secondary in status to only the 4 Grand Slams.
That induced the Americans to attempt to get the Finals designated as a 5th Grand Slam – ie the States would have TWO Grand Slams!; but the central tennis authorities held firm and refused to allow it: A Grand Slam is a Grand Slam is a Grand Slam they insisted.
I agree that ideally politics of all of the ‘office’ [“It’s Marlon’s turn!”] constitutional and cultural varieties should be kept away from entertainment as far as possible
However politically-sanitizing the Oscars would not be consistent with the way of the world generally and all aspects of Hollywood film production have ALWAYS been awash with political considerations of the various kinds
For example, and these are just a few of many examples: (1) as Trumbo and DeNiro’s 1991 Guilty by Suspicion illustrated the studios were up to their necks in assisting the McCarthyites back in the “red scare” days and even harmless thespians were black-listed for their political views” (2) to protect its German box office grosses Hollywood allowed the Nazis to set up shop in Tinseltown premises so that the 3rd Reich could vet and edit films that were critical of Hitler and his war machine. Anyway keep safe.
THE DAILY BEAST
The Academy Awards [possibly best known as The Oscars] are undoubtedly the most eagerly awaited event in the Hollywood calendar [except maybe for the year end accounting when the money men count their receipts for the preceding 12 months!].
However not everybody within the Hollywood community have always been wholehearted in their approval and here are a few of the more negative comments:
“The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade. I don’t want any part of it.” [George C Scott].
“The Academy Awards has been founded as a way for the movie men to capitalize on their profits.” [Marlon Brando].
“Sadly I always feel that he honorary Oscars are at times in effect rewards for failure when they are given out to performers who have not been considered worthy of a normal Oscar by their peers.” [Tinseltown Tittle Tattle anonymous-letter correspondent]
“Honouring the best is a sham rationale. It was impossible to do: how could my performance in The Godfather truly be compared against Paul Winfield’s in Sounder, for example, or Peter O’Toole’s in The Ruling Class? Even more absurd, how could I possibly be in competition with Al Pacino, for the same film, for two performances that were so intrinsically tied together?” [Marlon Brando].
“I think the honorary Oscar category should largely be done away with as I regard it as a too often back-handed compliment to performers whose contemporaries never appear to have thought they were the “Real Deal” at Oscar time down the years, but who have kept their noses clean and maybe made a lot of money for Hollywood. I tend to think of it as a device in reserve to hand out to many popular people a career all-embracing ‘wooden spoon’ whose recipients are in effect being told that [artistically anyway] “You are specialists in failure.”
I qualify that by saying see it as OK to commemorate in some way long service to the movies business, but such awards should not be labelled “Oscar” as in a way that mitigates the achievements of those who have obtained Oscar via recognised merit.
I have no doubt that many of the recipients think it their just deserts, feeling like Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront “I SHOULDA been a contender,” but to me Oscars are special and sacrosanct and should not be merged with other kinds of recognition however merited – its like allowing clean and dirty dishes to all submerge together in a kitchen sink.” [Editorial East Coast Eye].
Hey Bob. Great points on the Oscars. Not sure I agree with your take….but I do appreciate you sharing it. I think the Honorary Oscars, when given to legends of film, makes for some of the best moments on the Oscar show. Lately…..the honorees…..have not exactly been legends. I loved Eli Wallach….I was glad he got a Honorary Oscar…but not thinking he would be somebody I would give the award to. When they gave it to Cary Grant….that was a great Oscar moment…but he was a legend. Now they give 4 to 5 a year….and then do not even show their speeches on the show.
As for Oscars themselves…..good quotes from many of the greats….but it is still a great way to shine the light on Hollywood…..they are quickly coming up on 100 years. For all the ones that do not like the Oscars…on the acting side…only Brando and Scott have refused the award….that leaves about 360 acting winners that gladly accepted the win.
I do think the awards are getting way too political….seems like quotas are being put in place…versus picking the best performances for the year. There will always be snubs. I think Christian Bale, Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy got those snubs this year. Good stuff as always.
HI FELLAS With The Oscars again in the offing it’s not just The Work Horse who is getting excited: Oscar-related articles old and new are coming out of the woodwork.
In Part Two I attach a list extracted from a 4 March 2018 article written by Michael Weyer of “The Richest” entertainment site. It mentions 10 stars in supporting or lead roles who got Oscars which Michael thinks they didn’t deserve.
In his wider article he goes into considerable detail in supporting his contentions, but I have confined myself to listing in each case just the “undeserving” winner and the other contender[s] who Michael thinks were more deserving of an Oscar in the category and year concerned.
Previous comments by Steve would suggest that he agrees with the entry ranked No 5 at least – so watch what you say Lensman: The Work Horse and I may not know where you live but WH has your E Mail address!
PART 3: ACTORS/ACTRESSES WHO WERE “ROBBED” OF OSCAR GLORY
THE RICHEST Entertainment site- Michael Weyer article 4 March 18.
In Order of merit these thespians should have received Oscars for the movies listed according to Michael.
1/PETER O’TOOLE Lawrence of Arabia [1962]
2/GLENN CLOSE Fatal Attraction [1987]
3/JUDY GARLAND A Star is Born [1954]
4/AL PACINO Godfather Part 2 [1974] & Dog Day Afternoon [1975]
5/MICKEY ROURKE The Wrestler [2008]
6/PAUL NEWMAN The Verdict [1982]
7/DENZEL WASHINGTON Malcolm X [1992]
8/ELLEN BURSTYN Requiem for a Dream [2000]
9/CATE BLANCHETT Elizabeth [1998]
10/BOGIE for Casablanca [1942]
What! – no mention of Statham, even on a ‘losers’ list!
Hmmmm….interesting list….even with Sir Michael on the list. I have seen both Cider House and Magnolia many times….and I admit Cruise is good in his supporting role….but I would actually give the Oscar to Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense. To me that was the best performance of the five. Caine’s acceptance speech is classic…as he mentions each of his fellow nominees. Of the 10…I think I agree with #4 the most. Holliday is fine in the role…but Davis is at her best in All About Eve. Good list…and one that makes people think.
Hey Bob….as for the ones that were robbed….I agree with Peter O’Toole in Lawrence Of Arabia and Paul Newman in The Verdict….the rest….I think I like the winners. Though I could see people arguing against Art Carney’s win over Pacino in 1974…but I really liked Carney in Harry and Tonto. Good lists. Thanks for sharing them.
Interesting lists Bob, thanks for posting them. Do you agree with any of that?
My thoughts? Let’s see, yes Al Pacino should have won an Oscar for either Dog Day Afternoon or Godfather II that year. Peter O’Toole should have won Oscars for Lawrence, Becket, The Lion in Winter and My Favorite Year.
Forget Magnolia Tom Cruise should have won his for Born on the 4th of July but they gave it to an Irishman, oh well. [shakes head]
I enjoyed Marisa Tomei’s performance in My Cousin Vinny, but was it really Oscar worthy? pfft
Judy Garland was robbed in 1954. What a blunder.
Jason Statham wasn’t even nominated for The Meg, what were they thinking?
Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth was more impressive than Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. But I enjoyed both films.
Unless I’m mistaken Bruce has a UMR page on Actors and Actresses who should have won Oscars. I know Bruce is fascinated by the subject.
Hey Bob….I admit….I really enjoy awards season. I think Steve does too. Thanks for putting these comments together.
HI BRUCE: Thanks for your own thoughts on the lists. I may not get a response from Steve as beefy action heroes are not mentioned.
“All great minds think alike,” as the saying goes: Michael Weyer does say that Haley Joel would have been his own 2nd choice as a worthy winner that year in the category concerned. The main thrust of Weyer’s argument in relation to that particular category was though “Anyone but Sir Maurice!”
However (1) I have no doubt that Osmert’s second Christian name alone would have made him a fave with you! (2) I wonder also if sentimentality towards a good child performance doesn’t inflate its value to an extent.
A standing joke among film critics and historians used to be that a performance could attract potential Oscar love before filming even began if it was by a “cute” child or an adult acting a priest or a drunk [think for example (1) Bing’s back to back win and nom respectively in both Going my Way and Bells of St Mary’s/Old Cantankerous in Boys Town and (2) Milland in Lost Weekend/Thomas Mitchell in 1939’s Stagecoach].
Over here we find it hard to understand why Yanks go into stitches of laughter over rude and obnoxious children on screen. A friend of mine won’t let his kids watch American juvenile television sitcoms like ”I Carly” and “Victorious” because he thinks they encourage young people to be unduly disrespectful to adults.
I can’t help wondering too what Hirsch would have thought of those lists. He’s bound to have had some unique -some might say strange- thoughts of his own.
In Part 2 is is an extract from a very long article by Pauline Kael [1919 to 2001]of The New Yorker. She was their resident film critic between 1968 and 1991 and has been ranked as high as 4th in lists of the greatest all-time critics.
The article was published in March 1966 when [many feel because of his stances in support of black and Indian races in America] Marlon was under the kind of savage attacks that he experienced in the decades following his refusal to accept an Oscar as a protest about how he felt the Indians were still being treated. Other historians have suggested that in the period Kael was writing about there was even a hidden boycott against Brando’s films in some Southern States in America.
The article possibly explains the reasons for strange and at times quite silly negative things people like Joel Hirschhorn have written about Brando in more recent times and the apparent intense depth of their antagonism towards him that even lesser talents have never experienced. It is for example telling that in part the attacks recorded by Kael in 1966 were forerunners to the beatings that people like Hirschhorn and even British politicians gave Brando over his ability to command large fees after his Last Tango/Godfather massive comeback.
Conversely it also gives us a clue as to why Brando was considered such a social and cultural phenomenon who transcended movies that he ended up in for example Time Magazine’s 100 Most influential people of the 20th Century. It might also serve as a timely caution to those about to get starry eyed over Oscar hype to keep in mind the bigger picture always going on beneath the radar in the film community.
PAULINE KAEL: MARCH 1966
It is one of the uglier traditions of movie business that frequently when a star gets big enough to want big money and artistic selection or control of his productions, the studios launch large-scale campaigns designed to cut him down to an easier-to-deal-with size or to supplant him with younger, cheaper talent. The press and its columnists and film critics etc are the moguls’ outriders
In the case of Brando, the most powerful ladies were especially virulent because they were obviously part of what he was rebelling against; in flouting their importance, he might undermine their position with other new stars who might try to get by without kowtowing to the blackmailing old vultures waiting to pounce in the name of God, Motherhood, and Americanism. What was unusual in Brando’s case was the others who joined in the attack.
It was now open season on Brando: Hollis Alpert lumbered onto the pages of Cosmopolitan to attack him for not returning to the stage to become a great actor–as if the theatre were the citadel of art. What theatre? David Susskind was shocked that a mere actor like Brando should seek to make money, might even dare to consider his own judgment and management preferable to that of millionaire producers. Dwight Macdonald chided Brando for not being content to be a craftsman.
Almost without exception, American actors who don’t accept trashy assignments make nothing, not even superior trash. Brando accepts the trash, but unlike the monochromatic, “always dependable” Gable, Brando has too much energy or inventiveness just to go through the motions. And when he appears on the screen, there is a special quality of recognition in the audience: we know he’s too big for the role. Brando is still the most exciting American actor on the screen.”
The Oscars do go at times to some very deserving people: take Marlon Brando for instance and – well Marlon Brando again. However just as often they are about a lot of relatively ordinary people scratching and patting each other on the back and engaging in the hyperbole that everyone there is some kind of genius or at least “great guy”.
The Work Horse doesn’t like negativity on his site and probably likes to get into the swing of Oscar Night by convincing himself that all the nominees and winners are at least half as wonderful as Micklewhite, Leach, Willis and The Thin Woman and – well again Sir Maurice, Archie, Brucie and “Thins”.
However whilst I agree with WH that we should stay away from controversial things like political opinion, religious convictions and negativity such as private life gossip, I don’t think it is very healthy to have a completely sanitized site in relation to at least movie matters.
[Like that sewer in Guys and Dolls into which the gambling community had gone underground; was peopled with Damon Runyon’s well-dressed characters in flashy suits such as Sinatra’s Nathan Detroit , Brando’s Sky Masterson and Sheldon Leonard’s “Brucie” -sorry “Harry The Horse”; but was made to look on screen like an ice cream parlor in which birthday parties were being held with the celebrators singing gambling songs like “Luck be a lady tonight” and “I’ve got the horse right here. His name is Paul Revere!”]
George C, Marlon and I were never completely comfortable with the Oscars with Brando suggesting they should really be called The Bankers’ Awards and the Great Scottie labeling them a “Meat Parade”. In the past they have also been spoken of as “Fashion Parades” and some cynics have remarked that they are really a stable that is opened up annually for a herd of “Clothes Horses” and “Show Ponies” to stomp around.
I personally have no fancy tags to throw at the proceedings and whilst I don’t want to be a “party pooper” and will give honor where honor is due, I do like to keep things in proportion.
So I acknowledge that many of those swanning-about trying unconvincingly to look and sound modest but all the time inwardly screaming [as Paul Newman gigolo did outwardly in 1962’s Sweet Bird of Youth] “What about ME! What about ME?” are not much beyond being ‘famous for being famous’ and couldn’t be relied upon to open a can of beans let alone a movie.
Accordingly I’ll help kick off the comments on this page by bringing some advance- balance to matters via the list in Part 2.
Hi Bob, glad you copied your comment here the other page was temporary methinks. Bruce throws out a lot of temporary pages we might not be able to tell the difference in the future. Hmm I’m not even sure this is a real UMR page, aren’t those links at the top? Wait a sec this page is temporary too [Bob gasps in horror]. If it’s not on the index page no one will find this page ever again. [Bob bites his nails] 🙂
Scott and Brando were fully deserving of their Oscars, it’s just a shame they were rejected by the winners. To paraphrase King Feisel again from Lawrence of Arabia “take the honor gentlemen, be a little kind”.
HI STEVE Thanks and good quote.
It reminds me that in the 1953 modest programmer The Veils of Bagdad [2nd feature over here to Rock Hudson’s Back to God’s Country – were they meaning Manchester with that title?] Victor Mature has been sent to induce an Arab Prince to betray his people and side with the Yanks – or Brits.
‘Brit’ heroes with American accents were fashionable in those days!. Hollywood only employed a real Englishman for example when they needed a wimp in the plot as a contrast to the Yankee hero. For example in Mature’s 1956 Safari English Ian Crmichael-type John Justin is beside Janet Leigh when she falls into a river and is being swept away . Instead of diving in after her Justin runs back to the camp for Mature who of course saves the day!
Anyway in Veils of Bagdad Mature offers the Prince a vast sum of money for betrayal of his own people and the latter responds ” I believe in YOURcause. The Money’s of no consequence – but I’ll take it anyway!” Take care and enjoy your weekend.
WhatCulture SITE: 20 WORST PERFORMANCES OF PAST DECADE
“Too bad they give out just 4 Razzies a year.” WhatCulture
Disclaimer: Many of these people I’ve never heard of so please forgive me if I have slightly misspelt some of the names.
20/Jai Courtney/A Good Day to Die Hard – sorry Work Horse
19/Kellan Lutz/Legend of Hercules
18/Ronda Rousey/Mile 22
17/Sharlo Copley/Oldboy
16/Entire cast of Slender Man
15/Ken Jeong/ The Hangover Trilogy
14/Die Antwood/Chappie
13/Nicolas Cage/Trespass
12/Cara Delevinge/Suicide Squad
11/Johnny Depp/Mortdecai
10/Chad Donella/Saw 3
9/Sam Worthington/the Clash of the Titans films.
8/Leslie Mann/The Other Woman
7/Marlon Wyans/50 Shades of Blacks
6/Entire cast of Movie 23
5/Entire Cast of Left Behind
4/Kevin James/The Grown Ups movies
3/Nicola Peltz/The Last Airbender
2/Kirsten Stewart/The Twilight Saga
1/Adam Sandler/Jack and Jill
STEVE: Please see posts today from First in the Field [in response to WH]-Jace escapes again by the skin of his teeth! He invariably demonstrates in his flicks the appropriateness to action movies of that time-worn line “With one bound he was free!”
However I am sure that the Part 2 list throws hand grenades into several of your comfort zones! Many of those listed are unknown to me as they are to First in the Field; but I suppose it’s possible that next time I come across them, many of their number will be brandishing Oscars!
Actually I watched Parker and found it entertaining enough. It is no classic – Jace doesn’t do classics – but with J Lo co-starring there could be said to be at least on a basic level “something for everybody” in it.
Jace’s 2015 Wild Card is showing at 11.05 PM this Thursday on our 5STAR Channel over here and I have it marked down for viewing. What fool on this site said that Bob couldn’t exist outside HIS comfort zone? My TV review magazine awards it a respectable 3 stars [who really needs Hirsch?] and says “Anne Heche and Sofia Viagra – sorry Vergara- add the glamour.”
Jace is certainly no fool: where The Meg is absent “Stathy” is careful to people his movies with eye-catching females, though I suppose he has to have someone to take off his shirt for; but any thoughts yourself about Wild Card? You know I would also welcome them.
Hi Bob, I think you’re warming up to Jace, two more films and you’ll be asking Bruce to include him in the next edition of his film book. 😉
Maybe I was too harsh on Parker, I’ll give it another shot when it turns up again. Hey at least he wasn’t included in the Razzie hall of fame.
I’ve seen the list for this years Razzie nominations and poor old Sly is in there again for Rambo Last Blood. He always gets nominated. Cats will probably be the big winner. Bruce Willis is nominated for Glass. Here’s a link –
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/razzie-award-nominations-2020-complete-list-nominees-1267859/item/worst-picture-1267858
Oh yeah Bob, forgot about Wild Card, I haven’t seen that one. If you do see it let me know what you think and I’ll check it out next time its on.
HI STEVE: I’m glad you replied because I always like to have your views on contentious issues. It’s difficult for me to comment on Cider House Rules because I enjoy Sir Maurice so much in EVERTHING that I find it hard to make distinctions between his performances; and in relation to the rest of the selections I have strong feelings about only the following:
1/O’Toole should have got the Oscar for ”Orance”
2/Bogie should have got the Oscar for Casablanca [or In a Lonely Place or Caine Mutiny] but NOT for African Queen, which he did. It should have gone that year to Mumbles for Streetcar, not just a tour de force in acting but a landmark performance which historians say changed American acting forever. However as I have indicated to WH Old Hollywood was so sentimental at one time about screen priests [particularly Irish American ones] and drunks [especially cantankerous ones like Bogie in African Queen] that anyone who played them was often showered with so much Oscar and other awards love that the love affairs that they enjoyed could well have been banned as obscene under the Hayes Code. See also 6 and 7 in Part 2
3/Newman should have won for The Verdict.
4/Judy should have won for A Star is Born. I think that double prejudices were at work there: (1) favouritism towards supposed ‘class’ acts like the future Princess. (2) a snobbish attitude towards performers like Judy who were associated with ‘light entertainment” movies. Although I tease WH about The Thin Woman I have always thought that Myrna suffered from the fact that although she did drama in a lot o films much of her best work was in screwball comedies and the excellent but formulistic Nick and Nora series so that many judges couldn’t – or wouldn’t – see that she was as good an all-round actress as most of those Hollywood divas who did pick up multiple awards for ‘dramatic’ roles. How else does one explain her not getting even a single nomination of ANY kind in competition?
“Full many a flower of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom’d caves of ocean bear.
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”
These are Oscars that I personally think were undeserved but were not included in the lists I gave you:
5/Jimmy Stewart for Philadelphia Story. Although he is one of my all- time Top 5 fave actors I thought Jim got this one because of the snobbish homage paid to screwball comedies. In my view Jimmy’s pal Hank should have got it for Grapes of Wrath and indeed that is Stewart’s own stated opinion.
6/Bing’s win for Going my Way and nomination for Bells of St Mary’s. He played the same character in both films, Father Chuck O’Malley and his performances were just laid-back standard Crosby fare for my money. Now I loved Bing and “standard” Crosby was of good quality most of the time but I thought his success in receiving those accolades once more reflected Hollywood sentimental attitude to Irish American priests and other religious figures on screen. It is indicative I think that at the 1945 Oscars Barry Fitzgerald got for Going My Way BOTH a nomination for the Lead role AND a win for best supporting role because he too played a priest in that film; and that Ingrid Bergman got an Oscar nomination[and won a Golden Globe] for playing a nun in Bing’s Bells of St Mary’s. It’s almost as if Hollywood in those days was terrified of being accused of atheism if it didn’t fall over itself in paying homage to religious performances on screen; again, in 1944 Jennifer Jones got the Oscar and a Golden Globe for her role of religious character Bernadette Soubirous in 1943’s The Song of Bernadette. It’s all bit of a cod really.
7/ Nicolas Cage for Leaving Manchester. I have long felt that this Oscar was given out because of Hollywood’s continuing fascination with screen drunks.
8/I agree that it’s a pity Jace missed out for The Meg; but there is consolation for at least one of the pair of us in that he DID receive for 2006’s Crank an award of Most Offensive Male Actor from The Women’s Film Critics Circle [aka Joels in Skirts].
STEVE
Regarding item 6 in Part 2 of my posts to you today I forgot to mention that Charles Bickford also got an Oscar nomination for playing a priest in Song of Bernadette.
I feel that it defies the law of averages to say the least that 5 people playing between them 3 priests,a nun and another religious figure in 3 movies within 3 years should all be turning in great performances and in one cas repeat performances over two of those movies.
I do not therefore have the confidence that you and WH seem to have that The Oscars necessarily recognise and/or reward the greatest acting in any one year. This is why I never take them too seriously and indeed feel that they are usually dictated by one or more of sentimentality; prejudice; favourotism and cliquishness.
Good further points from Steve and Bob.
HI BRUCE: Thanks for your feedback. As always you make some pungent points that I find food for thought. I think I would go for the compromise that one source suggested whereby solid performers with a long contribution to the movies are honoured via ceremonial procedures that are not labelled “Oscar”.
However I accept that you Yanks do seem to have in your DNA the hyperbolic addiction to calling a thing that which often it is not. For example back in the Lendl/Wilander era of the 1980s, the prestigious year-end professional tennis Finals were held in the US and were, as they still are today, regarded as secondary in status to only the 4 Grand Slams.
That induced the Americans to attempt to get the Finals designated as a 5th Grand Slam – ie the States would have TWO Grand Slams!; but the central tennis authorities held firm and refused to allow it: A Grand Slam is a Grand Slam is a Grand Slam they insisted.
I agree that ideally politics of all of the ‘office’ [“It’s Marlon’s turn!”] constitutional and cultural varieties should be kept away from entertainment as far as possible
However politically-sanitizing the Oscars would not be consistent with the way of the world generally and all aspects of Hollywood film production have ALWAYS been awash with political considerations of the various kinds
For example, and these are just a few of many examples: (1) as Trumbo and DeNiro’s 1991 Guilty by Suspicion illustrated the studios were up to their necks in assisting the McCarthyites back in the “red scare” days and even harmless thespians were black-listed for their political views” (2) to protect its German box office grosses Hollywood allowed the Nazis to set up shop in Tinseltown premises so that the 3rd Reich could vet and edit films that were critical of Hitler and his war machine. Anyway keep safe.
THE DAILY BEAST
The Academy Awards [possibly best known as The Oscars] are undoubtedly the most eagerly awaited event in the Hollywood calendar [except maybe for the year end accounting when the money men count their receipts for the preceding 12 months!].
However not everybody within the Hollywood community have always been wholehearted in their approval and here are a few of the more negative comments:
“The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade. I don’t want any part of it.” [George C Scott].
“The Academy Awards has been founded as a way for the movie men to capitalize on their profits.” [Marlon Brando].
“Sadly I always feel that he honorary Oscars are at times in effect rewards for failure when they are given out to performers who have not been considered worthy of a normal Oscar by their peers.” [Tinseltown Tittle Tattle anonymous-letter correspondent]
“Honouring the best is a sham rationale. It was impossible to do: how could my performance in The Godfather truly be compared against Paul Winfield’s in Sounder, for example, or Peter O’Toole’s in The Ruling Class? Even more absurd, how could I possibly be in competition with Al Pacino, for the same film, for two performances that were so intrinsically tied together?” [Marlon Brando].
“I think the honorary Oscar category should largely be done away with as I regard it as a too often back-handed compliment to performers whose contemporaries never appear to have thought they were the “Real Deal” at Oscar time down the years, but who have kept their noses clean and maybe made a lot of money for Hollywood. I tend to think of it as a device in reserve to hand out to many popular people a career all-embracing ‘wooden spoon’ whose recipients are in effect being told that [artistically anyway] “You are specialists in failure.”
I qualify that by saying see it as OK to commemorate in some way long service to the movies business, but such awards should not be labelled “Oscar” as in a way that mitigates the achievements of those who have obtained Oscar via recognised merit.
I have no doubt that many of the recipients think it their just deserts, feeling like Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront “I SHOULDA been a contender,” but to me Oscars are special and sacrosanct and should not be merged with other kinds of recognition however merited – its like allowing clean and dirty dishes to all submerge together in a kitchen sink.” [Editorial East Coast Eye].
Hey Bob. Great points on the Oscars. Not sure I agree with your take….but I do appreciate you sharing it. I think the Honorary Oscars, when given to legends of film, makes for some of the best moments on the Oscar show. Lately…..the honorees…..have not exactly been legends. I loved Eli Wallach….I was glad he got a Honorary Oscar…but not thinking he would be somebody I would give the award to. When they gave it to Cary Grant….that was a great Oscar moment…but he was a legend. Now they give 4 to 5 a year….and then do not even show their speeches on the show.
As for Oscars themselves…..good quotes from many of the greats….but it is still a great way to shine the light on Hollywood…..they are quickly coming up on 100 years. For all the ones that do not like the Oscars…on the acting side…only Brando and Scott have refused the award….that leaves about 360 acting winners that gladly accepted the win.
I do think the awards are getting way too political….seems like quotas are being put in place…versus picking the best performances for the year. There will always be snubs. I think Christian Bale, Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy got those snubs this year. Good stuff as always.
HI FELLAS With The Oscars again in the offing it’s not just The Work Horse who is getting excited: Oscar-related articles old and new are coming out of the woodwork.
In Part Two I attach a list extracted from a 4 March 2018 article written by Michael Weyer of “The Richest” entertainment site. It mentions 10 stars in supporting or lead roles who got Oscars which Michael thinks they didn’t deserve.
In his wider article he goes into considerable detail in supporting his contentions, but I have confined myself to listing in each case just the “undeserving” winner and the other contender[s] who Michael thinks were more deserving of an Oscar in the category and year concerned.
Previous comments by Steve would suggest that he agrees with the entry ranked No 5 at least – so watch what you say Lensman: The Work Horse and I may not know where you live but WH has your E Mail address!
IN REVERSE ORDER WITH LEAST DESERVING AT NO 1
10/KEVIN SPACEY [1999] American Beauty Should have gone to Denzel Washington or Russell Crowe
9/MARESI TOMEI [1992] My Cousin Vinny. Should have gone to Judy Davis or Miranda Richardson
8/HELEN HUNT [1997] As Good as It Gets. Should have gone to Judi Dench as Queen Victoria in Mrs Brown
7/CUBA GOODING JR [1996] Jerry Maguire. Should have gone to Edward Norton or William H Macey
6/MERYL STREEP [2011]The Iron Lady. Should have gone to Viola Davis for The Help
5/SIR MAURICE MICKLEWHITE [1999]The Cider House Rules. Should have gone to Tom Cruise for Magnolia.
4/JUDY HOLLIDAY [1950] Born Yesterday. Should have gone to Bette Davis in All About Steve.
3/KIM BASINGER [1997] L A Confidential. Should have gone to Julianne Moore or Gloria Stuart.
2/MIRA SORVINA Mighty Aphrodite [1995] Should have gone to Joan Allen or Mare Winningham.
1/ROBERT BENIGNI [1997] Life is Beautiful. Should have gone to Nick Nolte, Edward Norton or Sir Ian McKellen.
PART 3: ACTORS/ACTRESSES WHO WERE “ROBBED” OF OSCAR GLORY
THE RICHEST Entertainment site- Michael Weyer article 4 March 18.
In Order of merit these thespians should have received Oscars for the movies listed according to Michael.
1/PETER O’TOOLE Lawrence of Arabia [1962]
2/GLENN CLOSE Fatal Attraction [1987]
3/JUDY GARLAND A Star is Born [1954]
4/AL PACINO Godfather Part 2 [1974] & Dog Day Afternoon [1975]
5/MICKEY ROURKE The Wrestler [2008]
6/PAUL NEWMAN The Verdict [1982]
7/DENZEL WASHINGTON Malcolm X [1992]
8/ELLEN BURSTYN Requiem for a Dream [2000]
9/CATE BLANCHETT Elizabeth [1998]
10/BOGIE for Casablanca [1942]
What! – no mention of Statham, even on a ‘losers’ list!
Hmmmm….interesting list….even with Sir Michael on the list. I have seen both Cider House and Magnolia many times….and I admit Cruise is good in his supporting role….but I would actually give the Oscar to Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense. To me that was the best performance of the five. Caine’s acceptance speech is classic…as he mentions each of his fellow nominees. Of the 10…I think I agree with #4 the most. Holliday is fine in the role…but Davis is at her best in All About Eve. Good list…and one that makes people think.
Hey Bob….as for the ones that were robbed….I agree with Peter O’Toole in Lawrence Of Arabia and Paul Newman in The Verdict….the rest….I think I like the winners. Though I could see people arguing against Art Carney’s win over Pacino in 1974…but I really liked Carney in Harry and Tonto. Good lists. Thanks for sharing them.
Interesting lists Bob, thanks for posting them. Do you agree with any of that?
My thoughts? Let’s see, yes Al Pacino should have won an Oscar for either Dog Day Afternoon or Godfather II that year. Peter O’Toole should have won Oscars for Lawrence, Becket, The Lion in Winter and My Favorite Year.
Forget Magnolia Tom Cruise should have won his for Born on the 4th of July but they gave it to an Irishman, oh well. [shakes head]
I enjoyed Marisa Tomei’s performance in My Cousin Vinny, but was it really Oscar worthy? pfft
Judy Garland was robbed in 1954. What a blunder.
Jason Statham wasn’t even nominated for The Meg, what were they thinking?
Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth was more impressive than Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love. But I enjoyed both films.
Unless I’m mistaken Bruce has a UMR page on Actors and Actresses who should have won Oscars. I know Bruce is fascinated by the subject.
Hey Bob….I admit….I really enjoy awards season. I think Steve does too. Thanks for putting these comments together.
HI BRUCE: Thanks for your own thoughts on the lists. I may not get a response from Steve as beefy action heroes are not mentioned.
“All great minds think alike,” as the saying goes: Michael Weyer does say that Haley Joel would have been his own 2nd choice as a worthy winner that year in the category concerned. The main thrust of Weyer’s argument in relation to that particular category was though “Anyone but Sir Maurice!”
However (1) I have no doubt that Osmert’s second Christian name alone would have made him a fave with you! (2) I wonder also if sentimentality towards a good child performance doesn’t inflate its value to an extent.
A standing joke among film critics and historians used to be that a performance could attract potential Oscar love before filming even began if it was by a “cute” child or an adult acting a priest or a drunk [think for example (1) Bing’s back to back win and nom respectively in both Going my Way and Bells of St Mary’s/Old Cantankerous in Boys Town and (2) Milland in Lost Weekend/Thomas Mitchell in 1939’s Stagecoach].
Over here we find it hard to understand why Yanks go into stitches of laughter over rude and obnoxious children on screen. A friend of mine won’t let his kids watch American juvenile television sitcoms like ”I Carly” and “Victorious” because he thinks they encourage young people to be unduly disrespectful to adults.
I can’t help wondering too what Hirsch would have thought of those lists. He’s bound to have had some unique -some might say strange- thoughts of his own.