No connoisseur of films would pardon the academy for this goof!
-
sanjay_kn — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 09:47 AM)
they all goofed and did not want to nod this famed actor. He was simply phenomenal. A gross injustice by the academy which was the worst of the sins done to the british actors( who can act without going through the rigor of method acting to convey the truth.
Acting is an art. you do not always have to kill yourself to portray the truth like method acting does!). Method acting works for exclusive roles and not all the time( most of the things we do in life laugh, cry,scream don't have to go through any special rigor)
Sir oliver also believed the in the craft and not living the character to play the character( he got for rebecca and this one is much epic!)( orson wells was also natural just like my man james dean was. Brando was both though) which has been made infamous by the brandos, hoffsmans and neros!
this is an irrefragable error committed by the academy. The movie is about him, the movie gets best film, best director and not best actor? wtf? Without him there is nothing there!
I am not surprised he even refused to accept life time achievement award!
I am not saying because he is gone. I have said it long time ago! -
mark-1589 — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 09:57 AM)
Sanjay, get a grip. I happen to agree with the choice of Peck. However, I will agree that not awarding him the Oscar for "The Lion in Winter" WAS one of the greatest travesties ever perpetrated by the Academy.
-
sanjay_kn — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 10:05 AM)
choice of peck was pure holly-wood bias( they could have given him for- mobby dick-I do not care!). The mocking role was a good role it was not epic like this one. this was just ridiculous cinema magic. So director deserves for making a movie and not the guy who bought it to life? Come on now!
this was a once in a life time role! I get pissed off ever time I come across lawrence. I know how deeply he was hurt( the news report confirms now)
I have gone back and seen- mocking bird- performance too and peck hardly broke a sweat there. The award was pure bias tilted towards a holly-wood heavy-weight who had missed on previous occasions! -
eolloe — 12 years ago(January 07, 2014 05:07 PM)
Sanjay, get a grip.
Let me co-sign this.
Lawrence of Arabia was hardly "the greatest film in the history of mankind!"
The cinematography was captivating and the score was magnificent, but the story was rather boring, quite frankly. I could hardly make it through all 3+ hours.
And if it hadn't been for those gorgeous blue eyes, I wouldn't have!
(To Kill A Mockingbird wasn't all that great a film, either, and I wasn't all that impressed by Peck's performance in it as much as I respect Peck otherwise. But you have to consider the events that were occurring in US society at the time of the film's release that must have weighed on the minds of everyone who saw the film then, and also consider that 1963 wasn't one of the strongest years for film.) -
molarmaven59 — 12 years ago(January 14, 2014 12:37 PM)
To Everyone:
First, I was old enough to have lived through these two films.
The bottom line at the time:- Peck was a sentimental favorite in a politically correct film about racial issues. Peck was not young.
- Hollyweird was biased against anything, that tried to show the Arabs in a positive light. Who has run Hollywood?
I remember the press releases, and there was a prejudicial undercurrent against LoA. Also many felt that Mr. O'Toole,
was a "newcomer" and would have plenty of time for his Oscar.
-
mark-1589 — 12 years ago(February 02, 2014 12:20 PM)
"2. Hollyweird was biased against anything, that tried to show the Arabs in a positive light. Who has run Hollywood?"
Is that why it won SEVEN Oscars including best picture and best director. Sorry, but, much like the Arabian Desert, your theory don't hold water. -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 01:04 PM)
' who can act without going through the rigor of method acting to convey the truth.'
Don't mind me if I laugh, but MOST actors can(without "method acting)
At any rate, I don't know who the other societies awaded, but was going to check.
'So director deserves for making a movie and not the guy who bought it to life?'the movie gets best film, best director and not best actor'
Nothing unusual or unjustified in general about that; one job is exclusive of the other. The opposite also happens -
sanjay_kn — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 01:17 PM)
this one was deliberate and we all know it.
the method actors are notorious in trying to do outrageous things in real life to portray the character( it works for exclusive roles). Like nero losing weight, tom hanks gaining weight, hoffman not taking shower for weeks and coming on the set. The whole gang has no need to know that you have to live the role to play the role. The 'method acting' is one of the method and not the only the way of doing acting. A good actor also knows when to use what technique to get the job done( oliver and toole are superb. To some extant daniel these days does that. Johnny is a natural. And marlon was not just all method. He had plenty of tricks up his sleeve).
This movie was tools as much as leans masterpiece.
this one was a goof. you are entitled to disagree of course! -
mojo2004 — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 11:57 AM)
This is who he lost to in 1968?? Cliff Robertson for 'Charly'??
His acting in 'The Lion in Winter' amazes me to this day. Man , I need a drink!
Also nominated that year:
Alan Arkin The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
Alan Bates The Fixer
Ron Moody Oliver!
Sheldon:"Was the starfish wearing boxer shorts? Because you might have been watching Nickelodeon." -
hachmom-1 — 12 years ago(January 18, 2014 05:01 PM)
One can argue one way or another about 62 (or most O'Toole's other losses-he had very bad luck with nominations) but 68 was a travesty.
It is not our abilities that show who we truly areit is our choices