He should have been nominated for best supporting actor and then won the Oscar for it. Jon was in the lead. It's clear as day. The Academy screwed that one up.

They both gave their BEST performances and Voight should have won.

One of few valid points you have made of late IY and I hadn't thought to follow up on that. Hoffman won some international awards, likely after the fact; but no major precursor Oscar awards for a win, only second\third place.
Voight may have had an edge over Hoffman and it would be interesting to know who came in second. I have no gripe with Wayne's win and Burtonwhom I am not a fan ofcould have been a close second, due to his popularity and loss a few years earlier.

Actually, Voight won 2 precursor awards.

If that competition were today, Hoffman would probably win, because it seems the acting Oscars have lately gone to those who portray physically or mentally damaged characters.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

I read that Wayne brought the Oscar to Burton's dressing room when Burton was in a play shortly after the 1970 ceremony and said he didn't deserve to have won the Oscar, but Burton did.

Rascal I love Jon Voight in this role. And I'm so pleased that you found Joe Buck to be warm and easy to relate to. So did I!!! Joe was the one I thought especially needed protection and love; the book goes more into his character. It really is kind of a sad tale. But Ratso was already pretty set in his ways.

Did Hoffman have an edge over Voight? That appears to be general consensus; but Voight had the less showy role and was a warmer, more relatable character. It may have also been harder to pull of the layers and illicit the sympathy he did. Voight had his good looks to help; but was also expressive and his face was full of nuance and emotion. He could be read like a book and I think he really understood Joe Buck. We may have sympathized with Ratso's ill health; but his characternah! Sometimes, I think I am laughing at Ratso and not with him and that is more due to the 'acting' performance of Hoffman. Voight, was more real.

I have heard that while he was indeed grateful for his win, the Duke himself thought that Hoffman's role was wizard and wondered if the Academy goofed and gave the Best Actor Oscar to the wrong performer!
I don't apologize. I'm sorry, but that's how I am. - Homer Simpson

Hoffman was brilliant playing Ratso and he's no fool, making sure his next role was the exact opposite of Benjamin Braddock. To get the part he showed up on the NY streets panhandling and scruffy so Schlesinger could see his potential. I love this film and believe it's the only time two actors are nominated in the same category and mention another nominee in their film. "No one is buying that cowboy crap. John Wayne are you trying to say
that John Wayne's a fag?"

It was a case of Hoffman and Voight delivering the greatest double lead performances ever and they split the vote between them. Add that to the fact that Wayne was at the end of his career and you have an impossible situation.
Yes, I'd agree with that.

It was a case of Hoffman and Voight delivering the greatest double lead performances ever and they split the vote between them. Add that to the fact that Wayne was at the end of his career and you have an impossible situation. Considering the film's subject matter and it being rated X at first, it's amazing it did so well with nominations. But, that was because it was so well done in every aspect that the film had to get some acclaim from the academy.

Hoffman could very easily have won for Midnight Cowboy.
But the last time I was torqued off with the Oscars was West Side Story winning for Best Picture over my choice, The Guns of Nsvarone. But then I turned 13.

I don't begrudge the Duke his Oscar, as many feel he should have received an earlier gong for The Searchers. But Dustin's Ratso is just a wonderfully compelling, tragi-comic role. At the same time I think he was lucky to win for Kramer vs Kramer a decade later. I don't think he would, or should complain.
Midnight Cowboy and Tootsie contain my two favourite Hoffman performances.

Wayne's Rooster was larger than life but had his tender, quiet moments when his horse went down, LeBouf's death,and Mattie's grave injury.

Wayne's popularity made him unstoppable, plus he had good reviews and had Paramount behind him. Whoever came in second (I think that would be Burton) then he came a distant second.

Can you believe that John Wayne won the Oscar that year for True Grit.

You could say it was unfortunate for Hoffman, that Wayne was in the running for actor for 69'. Wayne still gave an excellent and worthy performance, in a film I find just as enjoyable; but for different reasons. Can't comment on Burton's or O'Toole's performance and since I don't really like them, I probably wouldn't rate them. I would have honored a win for either Hoffman, Voight or Wayne and we don't know if Hoffman was runner up.
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, was lucky to walk off with the 3 majors that it did, considering it's controversial subject matter at the time and I am pleased that academy voters showed some integrity here.

I was thinking the very same thing: How is that Hoffman didn't win an Oscar for this performance. Voight was incredible as well. Can you believe that John Wayne won the Oscar that year for True Grit. Talk about true grit, Midnight Cowboy had is hands down. I've watched this film about a half dozen times and I am always moved by these two characters. Tonight I saw a lot of negative comments about how lousy this film is..some said they just don't get it. To to be able to bring such desperation to the screen - to see deeply into the souls of two unforgettable charactersfor those who said they just don't gettoo bad for you for missing all the hope and wonder the human spirit can offer.

There's a fine line between acting and overacting. You don't want to chew up the scenery in Times Square circa 1969, which could have been fatal in such a toxic environment.

"Hoffman was fine as well but bordered on "look at me I'm acting."
What?

I've come to appreciate Wayne's performance more each year especially after the remake which was a good movie in its own right. JW caught the right balance between humor and pathos, civility and harshness. Hoffman was fine as well but bordered on "look at me I'm acting."

To end this, because I do want to end this, I live in New York and have had the opportunity to speak to many acting hopefuls. Some of them study the performances of Hoffman and Burton as part or their education. NONE of them studies the performances of John Wayne.

Why do you want to end this? This is an open forum and it is not for you to say that something ends. Everything is not all about what you want. Is this what you have been used to in your life, getting your own way? I also couldn't care less about acting hopefuls, who study method actors who think that their craft of acting, is something more special and self-important than what it really is. Egos reign supreme and Burton and Hoffman had\have huge ones. Is this what is being studied, the ego?
I have only seen a handful of Burton and Wayne films and while I have enjoyed some of them and most acting enthusiasts would give Burton the edge as a Thespian, It doesn't deter from the fact, that Wayne still gave a decent and award worthy performance in TRUE GRIT. He was also less pretentious than Burton, whom Montgomery Clift, didn't regard very highly as an actor either.

Well I am going to go out on a limb here but I do think that Wayne on Broadway would have been abit less more mesmerizing than Richard Burton.
To end this, because I do want to end this, I live in New York and have had the opportunity to speak to many acting hopefuls. Some of them study the performances of Hoffman and Burton as part or their education. NONE of them studies the performances of John Wayne.
A question, have people become more stupid? Wayne was a huge star even when I was growing up. But even then, as people flocked to his films, not even his biggest fans would have said he was a great actor or even an actor at all. Back then, when his popularity was at his highest, it was a commonly held belief/opinion that he was not much of an actor.

Why are my comments more ridiculous? As an "actor" Wayne was pretty wooden.

You are the one that made the comment it was ridiculous for Wayne to win an Oscar, I just threw it back at you. Within his own persona and acting skills and the films that he made, Wayneand I am not a huge fan of his, same as Burton or O'Toolemade a huge impact on the film industry\box office and the public. Just because he wasn't a theatrical and pompous sounding English gentleman who did Shakespeare, doesn't mean he was any less talented, charismatic or capable or giving a decent and entertaining performance. He certainly gave one in TRUE GRIT and he got acknowledged with an Oscar. Good for him!
Do you really think that Wayne was a better actor than Peter O'Toole or Richard Burton? Because almost no one else does.

Could O'Toole and Burton do what Wayne did well? Burton did some action films and they both starred in THE LONGEST DAY-62'which I haven't seenbut they could both be considered as having a commanding presence and it would all depend on the script and direction. Wayne was a different actor and to say Burton & O'Toole were better is subjective and it would depend on the material and presentation. And who is "almost no-one else"? That is assumptive and you really can't speak for others, who knew about these actors. It would depend on personal taste.
I was lucky enough to see Burton perform on Broadway. He was mesmerizing.

I am certain he was and if you had seen Wayne on Broadway, would he have been mesmerizing too? Don't underestimate his talent.