Mike’s Top Ten of 1968
I always think of 1968 as the year where Hollywood dumped out all the old reserves before they could start anew, but that’s not really what it is. You look at the movies that came out — a lot of classics are in this year. Though admittedly, a lot of the below-the-line stuff are ‘old’ Hollywood kind of films.
Five of the most famous movies ever made came out this year. And I can say for sure two or three of my favorite 100 movies of all time are on this list. It’s a way better year than I usually consider it to be. Though I will say — a lot of the lower-tiered stuff is weaker this year than it is most others. Mostly it’s an oddball assortment of weird stuff I like because it’s totally unlike most other stuff. (more…)
The Oscar Quest: Best Picture – 1968
Talk about a really tough year. 1968 is, quite literally, the transition year for Hollywood. This is the year the business went from Old Hollywood to New Hollywood. (Oscar-wise. In terms of the actual movies, the transition was there until 1970/1971.) The year before this, you had the landmark films like Bonnie and Clyde, and the year after this, you’ll see one of them win Best Picture. Here — you get the last gasp of old Hollywood. All the choices here as so unabashedly old Hollywood. And in return we get a pretty weak set of nominees. 1966, this would have been a good list. 1968 — not so much.
Oliver! wins Best Picture, mostly because it’s the lesser of five evils. If you’re gonna give in, might as well have fun with it. The film also wins Carol Reed his twenty years-overdue Best Director statue (talked about here), which is not a great decision, since Kubrick really should have won for 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Carol Reed needed to win, so it has to be acceptable. (This year feels a lot like 2006, where there was no winner, and someone needed to win Best Director, so they went and voted for their film too for Best Picture, because, “Why not?”) Best Actor was Cliff Robertson for Charly (talked about here), which I don’t particularly like, simply because this was Peter O’Toole’s one chance to really win. Best Actress was a tie (the only exact tie in Academy history) between Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter and Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl (talked about here). They were the best in the category, so it worked out fine. Best Supporting Actor was Jack Albertson for The Subject Was Roses (talked about here), which was a fine decision, he was really great in the film. And Best Supporting Actress was Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby (talked about here), which I wouldn’t have voted for but is a fine decision.
So, overall, they did the best with what they had to work with for 1968. Still, though — it’s pretty weak. But, it is a prime example of “out with the old.” I do like it for that reason.
BEST PICTURE
And the nominees are…
Funny Girl (Columbia)
The Lion in Winter (Avco Embassy)
Oliver! (Columbia)
Rachel, Rachel (Warner Bros.)
Romeo and Juliet (Paramount) (more…)
The Oscar Quest: Best Director – 1968
Where to begin here… I guess let’s do the recap first.
Oliver! wins Best Picture for 1968. It was the best choice among the nominees, though it was admittedly a very weak set (one of the weakest of all time). Cliff Robertson wins Best Actor for Charly (talked about here), which I feel is a bad decision, and think Peter O’Toole should have won his well-deserved Oscar instead. Best Actress was a tie between Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter and Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl (talked about here). The two were the best in the category, so it works. Best Supporting Actor was Jack Albertson for The Subject Was Roses (talked about here), which is cool, though I can’t help but wish that Gene Wilder won for The Producers. And Best Supporting Actress was Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby (talked about here), which, even though I’d have gone another way, is a good decision.
I’ll get this out of the way now, which will save me time when I talk about all the nominees: this is, indeed, one of the worst decisions of all time. Stanley Kubrick should have won this in a landslide. However, this is a completely acceptable scenario, because — not only did Carol Reed win for directing the Best Picture of the year, but him not winning Best Director for The Third Man in 1950 is the single worst decision of all time in that category. So it’s only fitting that he should win his Oscar in the second worst decision of all time in the category. Sure they fucked up, but at least they remedied one of them. (Plus Kubrick got a Special Effects Oscar, so it’s not like he went totally empty-handed. And, I like the fact that he never won, because it makes me think he was above the Academy, which is something I think we’d all like to believe.)
BEST DIRECTOR – 1968
And the nominees were…
Anthony Harvey, The Lion in Winter
Stanley Kubrick, 2001: A Space Odyssey
Gillo Pontecorvo, The Battle of Algiers
Carol Reed, Oliver!
Franco Zeffirelli, Romeo and Juliet (more…)
The Oscar Quest: Best Actor – 1968
1968 is one of the weakest overall Academy years. Oliver! is a great film, don’t get me wrong, but it probably shouldn’t have won Best Picture. Then again, the film most of us would have liked to see win Best Picture, 2001: A Space Odyssey, was never going to win. It was way too ahead of its time to win. I understand that. I just feel the rest of the year around it was so weak that what we ended up with was a good film winning in a shitty category, which feels like a weak choice.
Carol Reed wins Best Director for Oliver!, which I find fitting, because him losing Best Director for The Third Man is the worst decision of all time in the Best Director category, and this decision, which made up for that one, is the second worst decision, since he beat Stanley Kubrick for 2001, who clearly should have won. So, in a way, they cancel out, but in another way, they’re both terrible. Then Best Actress was the only exact tie in Academy history, with both Katharine Hepburn winning for The Lion in Winter and Barbra Streisand winning for Funny Girl (talked about here). Honestly, Streisand should have won, so the tie works out just fine. Best Supporting Actress was Jack Albertson for The Subject was Roses (talked about here), which I guess is okay, even though I couldn’t not vote for Gene Wilder in The Producers there. And Best Supporting Actress was Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby (talked about here). I can’t really complain about it, despite the fact that I’d have voted for Sondra Locke in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter.
Which brings us to this category. What a fucking terrible decision they made here.
(Note: This was written before Cliff Robertson died. I chose to leave it as was because — opinions shouldn’t change because people are dead.)
BEST ACTOR – 1968
And the nominees were…
Alan Arkin, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
Alan Bates, The Fixer
Ron Moody, Oliver!
Peter O’Toole, The Lion in Winter
Cliff Robertson, Charly (more…)
The Oscar Quest: Best Actress – 1968
History was made here. You hear that? History, I tellz ya! But before we get into that, let’s recap the year.
Oliver! wins Best Picture, the best choice among a weak set of films. Almost all of them are good films, but none is really a “Best Picture.” Carol Reed won Best Director for the film, which, is a good decision based on the fact that him not winning for The Third Man is the worst Best Director snub of all time, according to me. Which, humorously enough, makes this the second biggest Best Director snub. Reed winning his well-deserved Oscar deprived Stanley Kubrick of his well-deserved Oscar for 2001: A Space Odyssey. It’s oddly poetic.
Cliff Robertson wins Best Actor for Charly, which is a good film and a decent performance, but not one that should have won, especially with Peter O’Toole never having won an Oscar (for amazing work in Lawrence of Arabia and Becket before this) and being so fucking great in The Lion in Winter. The choice is baffling. Then Best Supporting Actor was Jack Albertson for The Subject was Roses (which I talked about here), and Best Supporting Actress (which I talked about here) was Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby.
As for this category, it’s the only exact tie in Academy history. (The other acting tie was within 3 votes.) And since the two that tied were the #1 and #2 in the category, the only side effect was an extra Best Actress winner and Katharine Hepburn eventually having four Oscars. Which, as I’ve discovered, isn’t so bad. None of her wins is egregious. Even here, she managed to tie with the person who should have won.
BEST ACTRESS – 1968
And the nominees were…
Katharine Hepburn, The Lion in Winter
Patricia Neal, The Subject Was Roses
Vanessa Redgrave, Isadora
Barbra Streisand, Funny Girl
Joanne Woodward, Rachel, Rachel (more…)
The Oscar Quest: Best Supporting Actor – 1968
1968 is a weak year. In all. Mostly because none of the Best Picture choices were particularly strong. Oliver! was the best choice they had there. Even if they’d have nominated 2001: A Space Odyssey like I wanted them to, I know they’d have never voted for it. The Academy isn’t cool like that. They don’t like weird shit.
Carol Reed wins Best Director for Olliver!, a good decision on its own (he got so royally fucked for The Third Man), but, Kubrick was really the one who should have won there. Best Actor was Cliff Robertson for Charly, which was a bad decision, because he beat Peter O’Toole, who really should have won that category and got the Oscar he so richly deserves. Then Best Actress was a tie between Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter and Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl. Streisand should have won there, so even though there’s a tie, it’s a good decision. Best Supporting Actress was Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby, which is a good decision, even though I’d have gone another way.
So that’s 1968. Pretty ho hum in general. Nothing particularly great. And then there’s this category, which also seems by the numbers. It doesn’t help to make this year any interesting.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – 1968
And the nominees were…
Jack Albertson, The Subject Was Roses
Seymour Cassel, Faces
Daniel Massey, Star!
Jack Wild, Oliver!
Gene Wilder, The Producers (more…)
The Oscar Quest: Best Supporting Actress – 1968
1968. A pretty drab year. Not a bad one, because, they did make the best of what they had. But, not a very interesting one. Five relatively ho-hum Best Picture choices. Funny Girl, The Lion in Winter, Oliver!, Rachel, Rachel and Romeo and Juliet. I’d agree that of those choices, Oliver! is probably the best decision. (That or The Lion in Winter. Which feels too on-the-nose.) I think we’d all have something to rally around if, instead of the Paul Newman directorial effort on the list (you know that’s why they nominated it), they nominated 2001: A Space Odyssey instead. (I just heard like ten people go, “Oooh, yeah.”)
Also this year, Cliff Robertson wins Best Actor for Charly. Personally I’d have given Peter O’Toole his richly deserved Oscar for The Lion in Winter, but, whatever. Best Actress was a tie (the only exact tie in Academy history), with both Katharine Hepburn (The Lion in Winter) and Barbra Streisand (Funny Girl) winning. Streisand was the one who should have won, so, at least she tied. Then Best Supporting Actor was Jack Albertson for The Subject was Roses (which I agree with, even though I’d have totally voted for Gene Wilder in The Producers). And finally, even though Stanley Kubrick really deserved Best Director for 2001, Carol Reed wins for Oliver!. This I’m actually very okay with, because Carol Reed deserved an Oscar twice over for his direction of The Third Man (which he got passed over for in favor of All About Eve. You tell me which was the better directorial effort there. [Oh yeah, it also beat Sunset Boulevard. Just sayin’.])
So, that’s why I consider this a pretty drab year. Not necessarily bad, but also — not as good as it could have been.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – 1968
And the nominees were…
Lynn Carlin, Faces
Rosemary Gordon, Rosemary’s Baby
Sondra Locke, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
Kay Medford, Funny Girl
Estelle Parsons, Rachel, Rachel (more…)
B+ Movie Blog 