This message has been deleted.
-
felstein — 13 years ago(July 03, 2012 04:57 PM)
Yes, brilliant in "Lion" even more so when you realize that O'Toole was only in his mid-30s and was completely convincing as a man in his 50s. This was the performance that could have netted him the Oscar, were it not for the ferocious (and notorious) Oscar campaign waged by Mr. Robertson.
In '64, he and Peter Sellers effectively canceled each other out for the #1 spot, so the academy gave it to #2, Rex Harrison.
In '69 he didn't stand a chance against the s16d0entiment vote for John Wayne. O'Toole may have gotten the sentiment vote in '06 had he not recently received the lifetime achievement award.
And in '62, '72, '80 and '82 he simply had the misfortune of being up against four of the greatest and most iconic performances in the history of cinema. -
mojo2004 — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 02:10 PM)
I was surprised to learn that he had never won an Oscar. But then my girl Stanwyck never won either. The Academy is a joke.
Neither did Angela Landsbury, who will receive an Honorary Oscar at next year's ceremony.
State of the Union (1948) !!??
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)!!??
Absolutely criminal!
Sheldon:"Was the starfish wearing boxer shorts? Because you might have been watching Nickelodeon." -
scitchymoto — 13 years ago(July 10, 2012 04:19 PM)
He really ought to have won it for Lawrence. Did people realize that O'Toole's performance in that film would become so iconic? Peck gave an equally great performance in To Kill a Mockingbird though, and I suppose the Academy would have preferred to honor a star of American cinema rather than an Irishman-cum-English stage actor.
-
michael1951 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 11:21 AM)
Peck won solely because Atticus Finch was the feel-good character for white liberals. O'Toole definitely deserved it over Peck, but I'd personally say that Jack Lemmon deserved it most of all for
Days of Wine and Roses
. (But it's a close call between O'Toole and Lemmon.)librarything.com/profile/CurrerBell -
ShellOilJunior — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 01:11 PM)
He should've won several Oscars but the fact he didn't serve as a reminder one shouldn't put much stock in award shows.
O'Toole's performances will be remembered for many many years. That's better than any Oscar. -
goleafsgo27 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 02:08 PM)
People, please! He wasn't robbed, nor snubbed. He simply never received quite enough votes to win. No way of knowing just how close some of those votes were. Years or decades later, some of those votes may seem puzzling when seen through our modern filters. He gave man5b4y splendid performances which will live on as long as our culture does. He received a lifetime Oscar. Very, very few do.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much.
ALOTO -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 08:19 PM)
'No way of knowing just how close some of those votes were'
And this is what fascinates me when awards are judged as being deserved it not. If the votes are that close, I think it should be declared a tie, since it virtually is
