Brandon deWilde in Hud
Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love
Showing posts with label 1963 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1963 Best Supporting Actor. Show all posts
Best Supporting Actor 1963: Results
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Brandon deWilde in Hud
Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love
Best Supporting Actor 1963: Nick Adams in Twilight of Honor
Nick Adams received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Ben Brown in Twilight of Honor.
Twilight of Honor is about a young defense attorney (Richard Chamberlain) defending a man accused of murdering a man considered to be a great man.
Twilight of Honor is a not so cheap rip off of Anatomy of a Murder. It is about the defense of a murderer, that really is not trying to prove the man innocent but rather trying merely to show that the victim was not all that much of a victim instead. The only problem is the film is no Anatomy of a Murder. The court rooms do not have the same showmanship and power. The story does not have the same interesting degree of moral ambiguity as that earlier film did due to the fact this film shows the earlier events unlike Anatomy of A Murder.
Most important though is Chamberlain is no James Stewart as an inexperienced defense attorney, James Gregory is no George C. Scott as the prosecutor, Joey Heatherton is no Lee Remick as the the not particularly trustworthy wife of the accused, Claude Rains is not Arthur O'Con... oh wait actually Rains is quite good, though underused, in this as the older mentor with an ailment, but even though he was indeed nominated for an Oscar for his performance Nick Adams is also no Ben Gazzara as the accused.
It is interesting that many people were gunning for that Oscar this year as Bobby Darin was supposedly quite upset about losing, and Adams supposedly also spent quite a bit of money on a campaign to win as well. I think both probably should have seen Hud, and Adams could have saved his money. Adams portrays the accused murderer rather simply, maybe a little too simply for the part, where is Ben Gazzara in the similar role had a certain complexity in the role in which you never quite knew was going on in the mind of his character.
Adams actually for the most part in the trial scenes just attempts to show that his character is one confused man unable to understand the fallout surrounding the crime he is accused of, and unable to deal with his own wife's unfaithfulness, and the town's want for his death. He is pretty much just confused and pathetic here as Ben Brown, which actually does fit the part. He does allow us to sympathize him within his difficult his situation, and he as well does bring to life his inability to understand how he has come to his situation.
Adams shows a very very different man though in his scenes before he became accused of murder with his own life on the line. Adams plays his part very differently as a strange loner of sorts, James Deanish in a way actually. Although a more violent loner. He still is many ways an unassuming character at times, but he tries to bring a more threatening quality to his performance here that just does not meld as well with the rest of his performance during the trial.
I suppose his character is in a vastly different situation than before, but the transition change is not well established, and the difference in his performance may be just a little too great. It is not made entirely convincing that the potinetially violent loner is the same as the very confused and pathetic man accused of murder. I will say his trial scenes are effective enough that this is not a bad performance, the scenes set before the trial though could have great, but Adams never fulfills their potential.
Twilight of Honor is about a young defense attorney (Richard Chamberlain) defending a man accused of murdering a man considered to be a great man.Twilight of Honor is a not so cheap rip off of Anatomy of a Murder. It is about the defense of a murderer, that really is not trying to prove the man innocent but rather trying merely to show that the victim was not all that much of a victim instead. The only problem is the film is no Anatomy of a Murder. The court rooms do not have the same showmanship and power. The story does not have the same interesting degree of moral ambiguity as that earlier film did due to the fact this film shows the earlier events unlike Anatomy of A Murder.
Most important though is Chamberlain is no James Stewart as an inexperienced defense attorney, James Gregory is no George C. Scott as the prosecutor, Joey Heatherton is no Lee Remick as the the not particularly trustworthy wife of the accused, Claude Rains is not Arthur O'Con... oh wait actually Rains is quite good, though underused, in this as the older mentor with an ailment, but even though he was indeed nominated for an Oscar for his performance Nick Adams is also no Ben Gazzara as the accused.
It is interesting that many people were gunning for that Oscar this year as Bobby Darin was supposedly quite upset about losing, and Adams supposedly also spent quite a bit of money on a campaign to win as well. I think both probably should have seen Hud, and Adams could have saved his money. Adams portrays the accused murderer rather simply, maybe a little too simply for the part, where is Ben Gazzara in the similar role had a certain complexity in the role in which you never quite knew was going on in the mind of his character.
Adams actually for the most part in the trial scenes just attempts to show that his character is one confused man unable to understand the fallout surrounding the crime he is accused of, and unable to deal with his own wife's unfaithfulness, and the town's want for his death. He is pretty much just confused and pathetic here as Ben Brown, which actually does fit the part. He does allow us to sympathize him within his difficult his situation, and he as well does bring to life his inability to understand how he has come to his situation.
Adams shows a very very different man though in his scenes before he became accused of murder with his own life on the line. Adams plays his part very differently as a strange loner of sorts, James Deanish in a way actually. Although a more violent loner. He still is many ways an unassuming character at times, but he tries to bring a more threatening quality to his performance here that just does not meld as well with the rest of his performance during the trial.
I suppose his character is in a vastly different situation than before, but the transition change is not well established, and the difference in his performance may be just a little too great. It is not made entirely convincing that the potinetially violent loner is the same as the very confused and pathetic man accused of murder. I will say his trial scenes are effective enough that this is not a bad performance, the scenes set before the trial though could have great, but Adams never fulfills their potential.
Best Supporting Actor 1963: Hugh Griffith in Tom Jones
Hugh Griffith received his second and final Oscar nomination for portraying Squire Western in Tom Jones.
Hugh Griffith portrays Squire Western the father of Tom Jones's (Albert Finney) love interest Sophie Western (Susannah York). Although he is a Squire is a very uncouth man. He stands as a jovial fellow who likes Tom Jones, but refuses Jones as a proper husband for Sophie due to the societal problems in the match up constantly told to the squire by his very very proper sister (Edith Evans). Griffith's whole point here is just to be funny as was his basically his point in his Oscar winning turn in Ben-Hur. The difference here is Griffith appears throughout with his comedic antics, unlike Ben-Hur where he just appeared in a group of scenes almost entirely together to put some humor in that film.
It makes sense though for Griffith to perpetuate throughout this film though as this is wholly a comedy unlike Ben-Hur where Griffith stood as the only comic relief in the film. Due to the fact that he is just one of the acts in an entire comedy show he has less of an impact than he had in Ben-Hur, but he still is an enjoyable part of the film which is Tom Jones. Tom Jones certainly is an interesting sort of film that is a comedy, but Griffith and every other actor never plays it like they are in a comedy, except maybe the few fourth wall breaks. Griffith the entire time of his routine that comes in and out of the film but it is always in the character of Squire Western.
I suppose it should be noted that Griffith apparently was drunk during filming, best shown when he actually fell right off his horse after mounting it. Even though I would say his drunkenness to shine through his performance, but I would also say it works for Squire Western. He has a manic, uncontrollable energy that works for Squire Western who is suppose to be a bit of his rocker at all times. It is an enjoyable performance that doesn't have a boring moment, and does bring life to all of his scenes. His character is suppose to be a basically insane presence Griffith certainly is that presence.
Hugh Griffith best moments though come with Edith Evans. Griffith as the Squire is as uncouth as the Squire's sister is proper. The two have an enjoyable dynamic and both actors play off of each other extremely well. None of their scenes are wasted, and their scenes of chasing after Sophie are some of the most enjoyable moments in the film. Griffith stands as just an enjoyable part of an enjoyable film. I would not quite put his work up with his Ben-Hur work since I love the idea of Griffith playing the smartest man in the room, but there certainly is nothing wrong, in fact is very enjoyable, though with Griffith playing the drunkest man in the room instead.
It makes sense though for Griffith to perpetuate throughout this film though as this is wholly a comedy unlike Ben-Hur where Griffith stood as the only comic relief in the film. Due to the fact that he is just one of the acts in an entire comedy show he has less of an impact than he had in Ben-Hur, but he still is an enjoyable part of the film which is Tom Jones. Tom Jones certainly is an interesting sort of film that is a comedy, but Griffith and every other actor never plays it like they are in a comedy, except maybe the few fourth wall breaks. Griffith the entire time of his routine that comes in and out of the film but it is always in the character of Squire Western.
I suppose it should be noted that Griffith apparently was drunk during filming, best shown when he actually fell right off his horse after mounting it. Even though I would say his drunkenness to shine through his performance, but I would also say it works for Squire Western. He has a manic, uncontrollable energy that works for Squire Western who is suppose to be a bit of his rocker at all times. It is an enjoyable performance that doesn't have a boring moment, and does bring life to all of his scenes. His character is suppose to be a basically insane presence Griffith certainly is that presence.
Hugh Griffith best moments though come with Edith Evans. Griffith as the Squire is as uncouth as the Squire's sister is proper. The two have an enjoyable dynamic and both actors play off of each other extremely well. None of their scenes are wasted, and their scenes of chasing after Sophie are some of the most enjoyable moments in the film. Griffith stands as just an enjoyable part of an enjoyable film. I would not quite put his work up with his Ben-Hur work since I love the idea of Griffith playing the smartest man in the room, but there certainly is nothing wrong, in fact is very enjoyable, though with Griffith playing the drunkest man in the room instead.
Best Supporting Actor 1963: John Huston in The Cardinal
John Huston received his only acting Oscar nomination for portraying Cardinal Glennon in The Cardinal.
The Cardinal tells of the rise as well as the troubles of a catholic priest Stephen (Tom Tryon) through his many years in the church.
John Huston joins others directors Vittorio De Sica, John Cassavetes, Eric Von Stroheim, as also an actor nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Luckily unlike De Sica, and Stroheim he was nominated plenty of times for his writing and his directing, and properly won for both. Huston though received this nomination from his very first credited performance as an actor. Although it should be noted that Huston continued as an actor and certainly would have been very deserving of a nomination and even a win for his performance in Chinatown. Huston instead though was only nominated for this film.
This does not mean that Huston was undeserving of a nomination here, since seeing him here does make it a little surprising that Huston did not act sooner in his career. Huston's personality, and especially his voice just command a certain undeniable presence. Although I can't say it is particularly difficult to steal a scene from Tom Tryon, Huston still deserves credit for doing so. Huston absolutely does control every scene he is as the superior to Tryon's priest. Huston commands the screen with absolute sway which certainly works well for his character who is suppose to be a domineering man.
Huston does bring some life to the picture as the Cardinal in charge of Stephen. This is a time where I think I do need to give most of the credit to John Huston. There is not anything especially special about what he says to Tryon's character early on other than question some of his rebellious behavior, and accuse him of being overly ambitious. His character is a rather typical authority figure here, and his lines are pretty much the same. Huston though has a certain energy, and even a charm the livens up the scene greatly. Huston really handles the whole powerful Cardinal with ease, and even a certain joy that seems effortless.
He also has two more dramatic scenes one where he is attending to a sick priest played by Burgess Meredith, and another where he tries to convince Stephen to really thing about whether or not he wants to continue to be a priest or not. Huston is very effective in both of these scene really bringing a weight to the scenes that Tryon just is not able to do. Huston though is not in the film nearly enough or given enough to do for this to be a great performance, which is unfortunate since he is the best part of the film. I wish it had been about him because Huston gives a strong effective performance he makes something out of a character that really could have been nothing.
John Huston joins others directors Vittorio De Sica, John Cassavetes, Eric Von Stroheim, as also an actor nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Luckily unlike De Sica, and Stroheim he was nominated plenty of times for his writing and his directing, and properly won for both. Huston though received this nomination from his very first credited performance as an actor. Although it should be noted that Huston continued as an actor and certainly would have been very deserving of a nomination and even a win for his performance in Chinatown. Huston instead though was only nominated for this film.
This does not mean that Huston was undeserving of a nomination here, since seeing him here does make it a little surprising that Huston did not act sooner in his career. Huston's personality, and especially his voice just command a certain undeniable presence. Although I can't say it is particularly difficult to steal a scene from Tom Tryon, Huston still deserves credit for doing so. Huston absolutely does control every scene he is as the superior to Tryon's priest. Huston commands the screen with absolute sway which certainly works well for his character who is suppose to be a domineering man.
Huston does bring some life to the picture as the Cardinal in charge of Stephen. This is a time where I think I do need to give most of the credit to John Huston. There is not anything especially special about what he says to Tryon's character early on other than question some of his rebellious behavior, and accuse him of being overly ambitious. His character is a rather typical authority figure here, and his lines are pretty much the same. Huston though has a certain energy, and even a charm the livens up the scene greatly. Huston really handles the whole powerful Cardinal with ease, and even a certain joy that seems effortless.
He also has two more dramatic scenes one where he is attending to a sick priest played by Burgess Meredith, and another where he tries to convince Stephen to really thing about whether or not he wants to continue to be a priest or not. Huston is very effective in both of these scene really bringing a weight to the scenes that Tryon just is not able to do. Huston though is not in the film nearly enough or given enough to do for this to be a great performance, which is unfortunate since he is the best part of the film. I wish it had been about him because Huston gives a strong effective performance he makes something out of a character that really could have been nothing.
Best Supporting Actor 1963: Melvyn Douglas in Hud
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Melvyn Douglas won his first Oscar for portraying Homer Bannon in Hud.
Melvyn Douglas after portraying dashing and suave early in his career had a successful second coming, particularly in terms of Oscar success, in his portrayal of wise old men. Melvyn Douglas portrays Homer Bannon an old Fashioned cattle rancher faced with possibly losing his entire head of cattle to a disease. He is the grandfather of Lon (Brandon deWilde) and the father of Lon's Uncle Hud (Paul Newman). The conflict between Homer and Hud and how their influences affect Lon is the main theme of the film. Homer representing the old ways of honesty, against Hud who almost only cares about himself and his own instant gratification.
Douglas is simply terrific in the role and instantly embodies Homer seemingly without effort. Douglas simply is this aged rancher there is not a single doubt of this due to Douglas's performance. He never once let's us question this man, in his face, his way, Douglas shows us a long history of not only this man, but a history of a certain way of life. Douglas as Homer represents his old fashioned way, all while still being a man. He never just becomes a simple symbol he always makes Homer a real man, but still is able to be this embodiment of the old west nevertheless at the same time.
Douglas is incredible in the role the goodness of Homer, and his love of his land, his cattle and his moral way life is always made absolutely clear by Douglas. Even though Homer is a purely good character, Douglas never turns him into a simple man. This goodness that Douglas conveys that is within Homer is wonderfully portrayed by Douglas. It is simple part of Homer than cannot be swayed in any way, Douglas simply makes Homer the great old rancher he should be. Although a usually calm and collected man Douglas brings to life the way Homer feels everything around him brilliantly.
In every scene where Homer sees what seems that everything will be taken from him that he has spent his whole life working for, there is a quiet sadness that Douglas conveys. He never shows Homer to be a man who becomes depressed from a single challenge, but as his problems mount and the fate of his ranch become more and more obvious Douglas shows quietly the sheer weight of these problems as they lie in Homer. Douglas subtly conveys this pain in Homer than prevails through him, and Douglas shows that he is no so concerned over the fact he is losing his livelihood, but rather losing his way of life he has always held dear.
Douglas creates a heartbreaking portrait of this rancher because of how well he internalizes the entire loss of Homer. Douglas never for a moment overplays this but brings it to life flawlessly. His great moment comes in when he watches his whole life's work literally killed in front him. Douglas is face keeps within the man who is Homer and does not show some overblown agony. Douglas rather is far more effective by truly conveying this man's agony as a man like Homer who show it. Homer does not breakdown, but instead he quietly shows the horrible loss he feels through his world worn face in smallest but truly moving expression.
The most pivotal aspect of his performance though is probably his depiction of Homer's relationship with his son Hud. What is amazing about this is they don't exactly hate each other, after all they work with each other, and Hud times shows genuine concern for Homer. Douglas and Newman are incredible by making such a complex relationship between the two. Hud more often attacks the man and his principals rather loudly at times, but most of the time Homer stays silent as Hud stays loud. Douglas though is just as powerful as Newman in Homer's portrayal of his silence. He shows the experience Homer has with Hud, and Douglas always conveys the complete disappointment in his son.
Douglas is far more effectively throughout by almost staying silent in regards to Homer's feelings to Hud. He shows that this problem between the two has gone on long, and therefore his reactions to Hud always with a great deal of knowing. When he finally does speak directly against Hud it is an exceedingly powerful moment that Douglas built to with the silence marvelously. Homer does not speak out against any of Hud's insults toward him but rather his attempts to influence and in a way corrupt Lon. Douglas is amazing as he shows Homer's convictions against Hud's ways, he shows that for Homer it is not just a personal fight between the two, but one of principals.
This is an absolutely great performance by Melvyn Douglas. He is Homer simply in this performance and creates an incredible, memorable, and heartbreaking portrait of this man. Douglas absolutely does make the film as I find he realizes his side of the old, perhaps even better than Newman realizes the side of new. It is a great portrayal by Douglas there is not a wasted moment in this performance. There is not a single reaction, expression or line that Douglas does not put his absolute most into. This is a flawless portrayal and one of the most deserving Oscar wins period.
Douglas is simply terrific in the role and instantly embodies Homer seemingly without effort. Douglas simply is this aged rancher there is not a single doubt of this due to Douglas's performance. He never once let's us question this man, in his face, his way, Douglas shows us a long history of not only this man, but a history of a certain way of life. Douglas as Homer represents his old fashioned way, all while still being a man. He never just becomes a simple symbol he always makes Homer a real man, but still is able to be this embodiment of the old west nevertheless at the same time.
Douglas is incredible in the role the goodness of Homer, and his love of his land, his cattle and his moral way life is always made absolutely clear by Douglas. Even though Homer is a purely good character, Douglas never turns him into a simple man. This goodness that Douglas conveys that is within Homer is wonderfully portrayed by Douglas. It is simple part of Homer than cannot be swayed in any way, Douglas simply makes Homer the great old rancher he should be. Although a usually calm and collected man Douglas brings to life the way Homer feels everything around him brilliantly.
In every scene where Homer sees what seems that everything will be taken from him that he has spent his whole life working for, there is a quiet sadness that Douglas conveys. He never shows Homer to be a man who becomes depressed from a single challenge, but as his problems mount and the fate of his ranch become more and more obvious Douglas shows quietly the sheer weight of these problems as they lie in Homer. Douglas subtly conveys this pain in Homer than prevails through him, and Douglas shows that he is no so concerned over the fact he is losing his livelihood, but rather losing his way of life he has always held dear.
Douglas creates a heartbreaking portrait of this rancher because of how well he internalizes the entire loss of Homer. Douglas never for a moment overplays this but brings it to life flawlessly. His great moment comes in when he watches his whole life's work literally killed in front him. Douglas is face keeps within the man who is Homer and does not show some overblown agony. Douglas rather is far more effective by truly conveying this man's agony as a man like Homer who show it. Homer does not breakdown, but instead he quietly shows the horrible loss he feels through his world worn face in smallest but truly moving expression.
The most pivotal aspect of his performance though is probably his depiction of Homer's relationship with his son Hud. What is amazing about this is they don't exactly hate each other, after all they work with each other, and Hud times shows genuine concern for Homer. Douglas and Newman are incredible by making such a complex relationship between the two. Hud more often attacks the man and his principals rather loudly at times, but most of the time Homer stays silent as Hud stays loud. Douglas though is just as powerful as Newman in Homer's portrayal of his silence. He shows the experience Homer has with Hud, and Douglas always conveys the complete disappointment in his son.
Douglas is far more effectively throughout by almost staying silent in regards to Homer's feelings to Hud. He shows that this problem between the two has gone on long, and therefore his reactions to Hud always with a great deal of knowing. When he finally does speak directly against Hud it is an exceedingly powerful moment that Douglas built to with the silence marvelously. Homer does not speak out against any of Hud's insults toward him but rather his attempts to influence and in a way corrupt Lon. Douglas is amazing as he shows Homer's convictions against Hud's ways, he shows that for Homer it is not just a personal fight between the two, but one of principals.
This is an absolutely great performance by Melvyn Douglas. He is Homer simply in this performance and creates an incredible, memorable, and heartbreaking portrait of this man. Douglas absolutely does make the film as I find he realizes his side of the old, perhaps even better than Newman realizes the side of new. It is a great portrayal by Douglas there is not a wasted moment in this performance. There is not a single reaction, expression or line that Douglas does not put his absolute most into. This is a flawless portrayal and one of the most deserving Oscar wins period.
Best Supporting Actor 1963: Bobby Darin in Captain Newman M.D.
Bobby Darin received his only Oscar nomination for portraying Corporal Jim Tompkins in Captain Newman, M.D.
Captain Newman M.D. tells various stories of a soldiers psychiatric ward head by Captain Newman (Gregory Peck).
Bobby Darin best known as a singer apparently tried to pull a Frank Sinatra by attempting to break into dramatic acting through a supporting turn in a film about the military. This film is ripe for Oscar baiting with several of the performances being very broad particularly by Eddie Albert, and by Bobby Darin. The only person who tries to downplay his character's mental instability is Robert Duvall. Darin though was nominated though and I have a feeling this was largely due to his name, and fame as a singer, as well as just how baiting this role was.
Darin has several scenes of Corporal Tompkins either when he is refusing to tell about his traumatic experience in the war or his big Oscar scene where he does tell his story during the war. Darin is full on ACTING in these scenes. He actually is not bad, and does have a great deal of conviction in the role. His big confession scene is especially indulgent to Darin who just acts up a storm. A big storm that does have a certain effectiveness, even if it is quite a scatter shot approach, he wants something to stick, and I can't say he fails in this regard.
His huge Oscar scene though really does go on for way way way too long. It just keeps going and going, and considering how Darin desperately wanted to win the Oscar, I would not be surprised if it was Darin who pushed for his scene to go long as long as it does. As if Darin just desperately wanted to prove he had acting chops, and just wanted that Oscar really really badly. Again Darin is actually fine in the scene but I think it would have been a far more effective and memorable scene if it had been shorter. As it is it becomes far too self indulgent, and forced by nature muting Darin's performance.
Another flaw though comes in the film itself which is too episodic. The three main cases just do not meld perfectly and the film could have used tighter editing. Darin whole character placement in the film is far from perfect making his transitions and transformations once again muted. When we do see Darin though he does his best to bring Topkins along his way. Firstly showing a man avoiding his problems, than conflicting over revealing his pain, showing his pain, than finally dealing with it. Darin does his best in all of these phases but the film does not bring it together well enough.
Darin does well throughout the film giving an effectively natural enough performance throughout. I won't say it ever becomes an amazing performance, but than again the weaknesses of the film perhaps prevented it from doing so. Darin does certainly not go for the underplaying route he leaves that to Robert Duvall, which is perfectly fine actually since he does succeeds in bringing some of the pain of this soldier to life. This is far from a perfect performance, and yes it is an early example of Oscar bait to the extreme, but I would still say this is a good performance.
Bobby Darin best known as a singer apparently tried to pull a Frank Sinatra by attempting to break into dramatic acting through a supporting turn in a film about the military. This film is ripe for Oscar baiting with several of the performances being very broad particularly by Eddie Albert, and by Bobby Darin. The only person who tries to downplay his character's mental instability is Robert Duvall. Darin though was nominated though and I have a feeling this was largely due to his name, and fame as a singer, as well as just how baiting this role was.
Darin has several scenes of Corporal Tompkins either when he is refusing to tell about his traumatic experience in the war or his big Oscar scene where he does tell his story during the war. Darin is full on ACTING in these scenes. He actually is not bad, and does have a great deal of conviction in the role. His big confession scene is especially indulgent to Darin who just acts up a storm. A big storm that does have a certain effectiveness, even if it is quite a scatter shot approach, he wants something to stick, and I can't say he fails in this regard.
His huge Oscar scene though really does go on for way way way too long. It just keeps going and going, and considering how Darin desperately wanted to win the Oscar, I would not be surprised if it was Darin who pushed for his scene to go long as long as it does. As if Darin just desperately wanted to prove he had acting chops, and just wanted that Oscar really really badly. Again Darin is actually fine in the scene but I think it would have been a far more effective and memorable scene if it had been shorter. As it is it becomes far too self indulgent, and forced by nature muting Darin's performance.
Another flaw though comes in the film itself which is too episodic. The three main cases just do not meld perfectly and the film could have used tighter editing. Darin whole character placement in the film is far from perfect making his transitions and transformations once again muted. When we do see Darin though he does his best to bring Topkins along his way. Firstly showing a man avoiding his problems, than conflicting over revealing his pain, showing his pain, than finally dealing with it. Darin does his best in all of these phases but the film does not bring it together well enough.
Darin does well throughout the film giving an effectively natural enough performance throughout. I won't say it ever becomes an amazing performance, but than again the weaknesses of the film perhaps prevented it from doing so. Darin does certainly not go for the underplaying route he leaves that to Robert Duvall, which is perfectly fine actually since he does succeeds in bringing some of the pain of this soldier to life. This is far from a perfect performance, and yes it is an early example of Oscar bait to the extreme, but I would still say this is a good performance.
Best Supporting Actor 1963
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Bobby Darin Captain Newman, M.D.
John Huston in The Cardinal
Melvyn Douglas in Hud
Hugh Griffith in Tom Jones
Nick Adams in Twilight of Honor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
