Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Montgomery Clift was the sentimental favorite, not just for the performance alone for which he either waived his fee or took scale (forget which), but for having lost three times previously for The Search, A Place in the Sun, and From Here to Eternity. He and Judy Garland were the expected winners.

Was Clift a serious contender this year? The Chakiris win is such a headscratcher.

mlrg wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 4:26 pm Just finished The Mark for the first time.

I think Rod Steiger was pretty good in it. Aside from Reza’s mention as a 6th spot no one else mentions him. I think he was very deserving of a nomination.

Steiger is so natural (all right: un-hammy) he's hardly recognizable as the same actor.

Reza wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:18 am Voted for Gleason here.

My picks for 1961:

1. Maximillian Schell, Judgement at Nuremberg
2. Jackie Gleason, The Hustler
3. Montgomery Clift, Judgement at Nuremberg
4. George Chakiris, West Side Story
5. George C. Scott, The Hustler

The 6th Spot: Rod Steiger, The Mark

I would throw out Chakiris and add instead Fernando Rey for Viridiana.

Just finished The Mark for the first time.

I think Rod Steiger was pretty good in it. Aside from Reza’s mention as a 6th spot no one else mentions him. I think he was very deserving of a nomination.

Before we dispense with 1961, I'd like to give a shout-out to two actors whose performances were more deserving of awards recogniton than most of the nominees in this category.

Keir Dullea would win widespread notice in 1962's David and Lisa, but he first attracted attention as the death row inmate who all but steals The Hoodlum Priest from star Don Murray.

Horst Buchholz had been seen before, most notably in Wet Asphalt; Tiger Bay and The Magnificent Seven, but he had what seemed to the beginning of a major career opposite Leslie Caron, Maurice Chevalier and Charles Boyer in Fanny and James Cagney in One, Two, Three. Allthough he acted until his death in 2003, his Hollywood career sadly fizzled out after 1962's Nine Hours to Rama in which he played Gandhi's assassin.

It's easy to understand why Maximilian Schell was considered Leading - he is, in fact, a co-lead in an ensemble piece, and also putting him on the same level as Montgomery Clift's and Judy Garland's cameos would have been even more unfair.

This is an unusually good selection - so, of course, they had to spoil it by picking the least deserving for the prize. George Chakiris, who today looks as if he's an extra from Interview with the Vampire, was back then a handsome guy, with an undeniably strong screen presence which may have been mistaken for "star quality", and he was the nominee from THE movie of the year. After the Oscar, he made a few important movies in Europe - in which he was never very impressive, and honestly often quite wooden.

The other four are better - including Peter Falk, but his movie is really too minor for him to be taken seriously.

Montgomery Clift's contribution to Judgement in Nuremberg is unforgettable, and he provides the movie with something dangerously close to Truth; it is, though, one of those one-scene roles that I only take into consideration if there's no real alternative (as in Beatrice Straight's case).

And in this case there isn't just one alternative, there are two, and both from the same movie. The Hustler is a movie of great performances, and Jackie Gleason and George C. Scott should probably share this prize; having to choose, I've picked Scott, whose extremely subtle performance may be his second best ever.

Mister Tee wrote:I've never had the sense Maximillian Schell's role was supporting, and have no idea why so many here seem convinced it is.

I agree 100%. A big pet peeve of mine is category fraud. This is one of the rare instances where the Academy didn't give in to it. Remember folks, there can be more than one lead in a film.

In Inherit the Wind they were equals with Fredric March getting a Golden Globe nod while Spencer Tracy got the Oscar nomination.

Mister Tee wrote:I've never had the sense Maximillian Schell's role was supporting, and have no idea why so many here seem convinced it is.

One thing that stuck out to me is that the opposing attorney is always relegated to support (George C. Scott, James Mason, etc.) and this is one of the few times it's been otherwise. But the role, as glorious as it is, still seems supporting due to the fact that he is up against classic leading man Spencer Tracy.

First time in ages I've seen four of the five. I don't see Peter Falk getting much love, so I'll vote.

I saw Judgment at Nuremberg a couple of years ago and had some reservations about it re: Burt Lancaster's performance as The Good Nazi, the prosecution taking the stand, etc. Members of this Board chalked it up (and aggressively so) to being what Stanley Kramer had to do to get it made, etc. I've never had any doubt that Schell was Supporting. The story is Spencer Tracy's.

Clift is supporting, almost a cameo. We all know what Kramer had to do to get anything resembling a lucid performance from him and he's certainly effective, but I can't say this really deserves an Academy Award. There's no point in saying that if he weren't Montgomery Clift, he wouldn't get the nomination, because if he weren't Montgomery Clift, he wouldn't have given this performance. I just don't think it deserves an Oscar.

It's been a while since I saw West Side Story. George Chakiris always struck me as very good, but never as deserving of an Oscar. It's a coattails victory. Not one of the worst ones.

For me, it's between Gleason and Scott. I remember being prepared for the awesomeness that is Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats, and he certainly is an impressively mythologized presence in the film, but it's George C. Scott all the way.

(EDIT: Officially running very late today. Ran out of time. What Tee said.)

I've never had the sense Maximillian Schell's role was supporting, and have no idea why so many here seem convinced it is.

I'm a tremendous admirer of Montgomery Clift in general, but at this point in his career he was so struggling with his demons that I don't think he had the juice to do this role justice. I don't like the performance much, and I'm glad voters didn't make this one of their "we missed your good work, so we'll catch up with something half-assed" make-ups.

I saw Pocketful of Miracles for the first time when I was in grade school, so I've always had a soft spot for it, despite the fact it's not particularly good. I do find Peter Falk one of the enduringly likable things about the film. Not enough to win, but enough to rate the nomination.

I think the primary reason George Chakiris won -- apart from the fact that West Side Story was vacuuming up every award in sight -- is how much liveler he was than Russ Tamblyn in what you'd have thought was a more dominant role. This isn't one of Oscar's biggest mistakes, but it wasn't one of its shining moments, either...not with The Hustler on the ballot.

Jackie Gleason gives his best screen performance in The Hustler (far more restrained than the bathos he brought to things like Gigot), but George C. Scott is the standout. As I said in the best actor thread, the scene he and Newman share in the bar is an acting clinic -- an evenly matched bout between two of the best actors of the era, at their peaks. Scott is the obvious choice for me (maybe the best of the last ten or so races we've covered).

My choices:

1. Murray Melvin for A Taste of Honey
2. Gunner Bjornstrand for Through a Glass Darkly
3. Jackie Gleason for The Hustler
4. George C. Scott for The Hustler
5. James Garner for The Children's Hour

Voted for Gleason here.

My picks for 1961:

1. Maximillian Schell, Judgement at Nuremberg
2. Jackie Gleason, The Hustler
3. Montgomery Clift, Judgement at Nuremberg
4. George Chakiris, West Side Story
5. George C. Scott, The Hustler

The 6th Spot: Rod Steiger, The Mark

A very problematic year.

The New York Film Critics did not have a supporting actor category in 1961 so they gave their Best Actor award to Maximilian Schell for what was clearly a supporting role as teh impassioned defsne attorney in Judgment at Nuremberg. That set teh stage for his being nominated for and winning the Golden Globe and the Oscar in that category over some very strong competition. At the same time it left teh supporting actor category bereft of a clear would-be winner.

Pocketful of Miracles is a mess of a movie. Producer-star Glenn Ford had more say in how the film was made than director Frank Capra whose last film it proved to be. A remake of Capra's classic Lady for a Day, the film works best when Bette Davis (third choice after Jean Arthur and Helen Hayes) as Apple Annie is on screen, but the Ford bootlegger scenes drag on and on. Peter Falk provides some needed comic releif as his sidekick but it's not enough.

George C. Scott is an actor I've never been able to warm up to. The only thing I really like him in is Patton in which his cold, off-putting manner is perfect for the part. Techncially fine, he just doesn't do anything for me.

George Chakiris' win is clearly on the coat-tails of his film. He was heavily publicized for having played Riff (Russ Tamblyn's character) in London before playing Bernardo in the film version of West Side Story so voters may have been impressed with his seeming versatility. The nomination makes sense as a companion to Rita Moreno's elctrifying Anita, but that's about all he should have gotten.

Jackie Gleason was never known for his subtlety so it came as a pleasant surprise that he could be such a sublte presence as Minnesota Fats in The Hustler - a deserved nominatioin.

The best, though, is Montgomery Clift, touching and moving in his brief appearance as a victim of Nazi experimentation in Judgment at Nuremberg. He gets my vote but only because Maximilian Schell is not an option.