Sellers should have won the Oscar!!!!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Being There
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 03:58 AM)
As I'm sure most of you already know, Peter Sellers was nominated for Best Actor Oscar for his role. The award was given to Dustin Hoffman but IMO, the fact that Sellers didn't win was a miscarriage of justice. I'm not knocking Hoffman's performance but this was clearly Sellers' best performance and he deserved to win more than Hoffman did. I read or heard a long time ago that the Academy Award Committee later regretted not having selected Sellers after the latter had died (something they obviously could not have known was going to happen four months later) but - and no pun intended - that's academic now. Along with Steve McQueen not winning the Award for
Papillon
, Sellers not winning was a travesty. -
HijodelCid — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 08:30 AM)
The most touching moment of Sellers' performance is when Dr. Allenby asks Chance whether Chance really is his name, and CHwho, through most of the story has wandered about in a daze, seemingly not understanding what is happening around himperks up and smiles, happy that he is at last recognized for who he is.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein) -
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 03:43 PM)
Excellent point! This is one of the few non-comedy roles Sellers played and he did it
par excellence
thus demonstrating how versatile his talents really were. Also, he once said that he had no real personality of his own; he assumed the personalities of the roles he played and since Chance was a very simple man who basically lived in a world of his own creation, IMO, only Sellers could have played this role because only Sellers could truly identify with this character. It's sad in a way because Sellers' talents were finally revealed in what would turn out to be one of his last films. It's a shame this film was not made earlier in his career. -
pilarinhavana — 10 years ago(October 22, 2015 03:22 AM)
Yes, his performance is extraordinary, though his work in Dr Strangelove and Lolita are as good, and the Oscar folks tend to always get it wrong. Once they were able to make amends by awarding Paul Newman for the Color of Money, but was really giving it to him, I think, for his Fast Eddie performance in The Hustler.
-
IkuharaKunihiko — 10 years ago(November 22, 2015 05:38 AM)
I am a little biased, since this is one of my favorite films, but yes - Sellers should have been awarded for this fantastic role in a fantastic movie.
Hoffman is a great actor, of course, but I think "Kramer vs. Kramer" was a tad too conventional and melodramatic at times. Hoffman was due to finally get the award, after he was ignored for his outstanding roles in "Lenny", "The Graduate" and "Midnight Cowboy", and unfortunately, they gave him one on the expense of Sellers. -
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(November 24, 2015 03:41 AM)
I agree with you. Hoffman's performance in
Kramer vs Kramer- while great - was not worthy of an Oscar. The role was not terribly demanding like his role in
Rain Man
(for which he definitely deserved to win) was. Sellers' performance was far more creative and much better played. It's quite possible that the Committee knew that Hoffman was going to win and Sellers, along with the other nominees, was just a filler to show that there was the illusion of competition for the award. As I said, along with McQueen in
Papillon
, Sellers role of Chance remains the greatest performance in cinematic history never to have won an Oscar.
- while great - was not worthy of an Oscar. The role was not terribly demanding like his role in
-
Picnic10 — 10 years ago(November 28, 2015 09:48 AM)
Peter Sellars made a brilliant spoof of Richard III reciting The Beatles A Hard Day's Night. Peter Cook could have probably played Chance but it would have been a character that he was playing- Cook would have still been in there inhabiting Chance more like a driver controls a vehicle. Sellers WAS Chance. It was Oscar-worthy to me with some fine supporting performances.
-
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(November 28, 2015 10:46 AM)
Though I like Peter Cook, he was not the comedy genius that Sellers was. And you're absolutely right; Sellers
was
Chance. Had any other actor played this role, it would have just been an actor playing a part rather than embodying it like Sellers did. Even today, almost 40 years after the release of this film, if it were to be remade now, I honestly cannot think of any modern-day comic actor who could play the role with the same finesse as Sellers did. The closest person who might have been able to pull it off was the late Robin Williams but even then, not with the same flair as Peter Sellers. As you said, we'll never see the likes of him ever again. -
Picnic10 — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 01:35 PM)
The exact traits of Chance - of innocence , opportunism and duty combined are in danger of extinction because a) how to be innocent in a world with so much information b) how to truly retain innocence even in being opportunistic when you have enough information to know the full implications and c) how to be dutiful in a sarcastic, cynical, individualistic world where socialism in any true form has been labelled archaic, in stages, by governments for 35 years or more? For someone to truly play Chance now, they'd probably be caricaturised as autistic. But autism is, I am sure, repressed emotional and/or intellectual genius or need. It is repressed because its expression could confuse, stifle, belittle or cause other merer mortals to think that too much is expected of them and could result in unwarranted ridicule. Even if he isn't what most would define 'street smart', I see Chance as a kind of genius - just like a mathematician sometimes deals with constants, he lives for constants, trying to move from one gilded station to another, not allowing the messy uncertainty that clouds others minds, that many others in a capitalist and pseudointellectual political world feed off. Prolonged uncertainty could destroy him so he is above politics. I think he genuinely is a natural philosopher who many would unfairly take to be a simpleton. Who could play this - Tom Hanks already did.
-
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 01:52 PM)
Yes, Tom Hanks! Excellent choice. I should have thought of him also. But you are right that if this film were made today, it would have to be a period film going back at least before the Internet and before cable television. Yes, Hanks would be the perfect choice. But I don't see Chance as an opportunist - that word to me has negative connotations of someone looking to get ahead through conniving means. Chance was simply at the right place at the right time. He never understood what had happened to him. Yes, maybe he was autistic because he never once set out to hurt anyone. When the attorneys handling his patron's estate asked him if he had any claims against that estate, you get the impression that Chance didn't understand what the attorney meant because Chance responded by saying "I don't think so". Chance lived in a world of his own because he didn't understand the world around him.
-
telboyD — 9 years ago(April 23, 2016 01:12 PM)
Nah Tom Hanks would have just been 'Tom Hanks' as always. I'm not saying he isn't a great actor - he is! - but he's a 'personality actor'. He knows it, and that's why he's possibly the greatest at his trade, along with the likes of Jimmy Stewart, Paul Newman or John Wayne. Sellars was entirely the opposite - a 'character actor', through and through. I'd go so far as to say that, along with Alec Guinness, he's the ultimate Character Actor's character actor. You have to remember Sellars is acting his socks off throughout; consistent accent, body language, total characterisation all that beep takes huge amounts of concentration, and Sellars was the master. Go back to The Goon Show and you see, he was doing it right from the beginning. It's about time he was afforded recognition as one of the true masters.
-
ragingbull1965 — 9 years ago(April 23, 2016 01:20 PM)
But don't you think that the role of Forrest Gump also required tremendous concentration? The role of Gump comes the closest in similarity to the role of Chance. Each persona was essentially a man-child that basically just coasted through life without any real ambitions or plan. But no matter where life took them, they always seemed to land on their feet. Therefore, I will respectfully disagree with you and say that Hanks is the only other actor who could have played Chance if
Being There
was to be remade today. -
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(November 25, 2015 01:27 PM)
I never read any such comment but I don't think that was the reason, thought I could be wrong (certainly not the first or last time). Whatever the reason, he was robbed and no matter the reason, one is just as good as another and nothing can change the injustice that was done.
-
ecjones1951 — 10 years ago(December 23, 2015 10:48 AM)
If you're keeping track, this is one of those in between times you were wrong. OK, OK, relax. The reason I did not post the source you required previously was that I could not remember which book it was in, so now, here you are.
Grossing Out's- future, however, had been put in doubt after Sellers saw Ashby's outtake ending, which he felt undermined the impact of
Being There.
In a rushed and emotional telex set to Ashby in March 1980, he said, "I must reiterate once again that the outtakes you have placed over the credits do a grave injustice to the picture for the sake of a few cheap laughs. It breaks the spell, do you understand? Do you understand, it breaks the spell!" "as I said in my previous telegram there's not much point in the film going to Europe as I saw it last night." Sellers believed that the outtakes had hurt his chances of winning the Best Actor Oscar, so in an attempt to repair their friendship, Ashby changed the European prints to have the regular ending Sellers favored.
*Grossing Out
was the movie Ashby and Sellers were planning to do next.
Nick Dawson.
Being Hal Ashby: Life of a Hollywood Rebel
Screen Classics, 2011
That's on page 226, btw. As the kids say, "hope this helps!"
- future, however, had been put in doubt after Sellers saw Ashby's outtake ending, which he felt undermined the impact of
-
ragingbull1965 — 10 years ago(December 23, 2015 01:52 PM)
Thank you for posting. As someone who has never liked technicalities, I would sincerely hope that the final decision did not come down to something so trivial but I guess when something goes down to the wire, anything can be used as a tiebreaker. At any rate, if indeed this was the reason why Sellers did not win, then all I can say is that the judges did not take the outtakes in the spirit in which they were intended. Yes your post helped a lot. It's the one new thing I learned today (well, I learned something else new from another poster regarding another topic but you rank up there also).