Best Actor 1967

[Sabin]

(Mister Tee » Sat May 28, 2011 12:58 pm)

In the Heat of the Night, as I've probably said here before, was a very unlucky movie (or as unlucky as an Oscar best picture winner can be). Any other year in that '61-'68 stretch, it would have been viewed as a refreshingly low-key alternative to the costume-and-bombast batch that voters were otherwise voting for almost automatically. (It also, as an aside, serves as a bridge to the "even small movies are now shot in color" era -- five years earlier, it would have been a black-and-white film, as likely would have succeeding best picture winners like Midnight Cowboy, The French Connection, Cuckoo's Nest and Rocky) It's a mistake to remember In the Heat of the Night as some warm/fuzzy paean to the civil rights era. It's a relatively tough film for its time (a friend of mine who's black says the moment Poitier slapped the rich white guy resonated with him more than anything he'd ever seen in a movie till then), and it's also got a comic/ironic perspective. Though "They call me MISTER Tibbs" is the line most often quoted, the moment that sticks out for me is "I'm a police officer" -- that told us the filmmakers had a sense of humor that was going to keep the film out of Stanley Kramer territory.

I absolutely agree with the last point. "They call me MISTER Tibbs" is a line about reinforcement. When he says "I am a police officer", that is the impacting one, the one that declares his status but screams "You idiots!". I'm not sure if he says "I'm" or "I Am" but it certainly feels like "I Am." And it's absolutely no fuzzy paean to civil rights. It is a film about ultimately finding respect because Lord knows, they are not friends by the end of it. There is such self-loathing on Gillespie's part when he opens up to Tibbs about his life over a bottle of whiskey, and the same is not reciprocated. Perhaps I undersold the screenplay in my earlier post, but the heated charge that comes from the scenes seem just as much product of Steiger and Poitier as the script. Some of that is due from reading Pictures at a Revolution, but that's a very good point about it being a small movie shot in color whereas otherwise would be in Black & White, and low and behold the bold new manner of color cinematography that Haskel Wexler pioneered for this film in shooting African-American skin would go overlooked.

In the Heat of the Night may have "robbed" The Graduate & Bonnie and Clyde, but I don't know anyone who considers it in the lower rung of winners that decade.

[OscarGuy]

Okri: May 27, 2011, 9:54

I voted for Beatty.

Does knowing what happens before and after the nomination/winner's year make it easier or harder to vote?

Fact of the matter: I'm gonna be voting for Hoffman (eventually) and I've already voted for Newman and Steiger for better work. I know that Beatty would never receive my vote for anything else (actor, writing, director, whatever). So to toss a ballot his way for this seminal movie is easy. Admittedly, it's not that great a performance, but it is an iconic one.

[Mister Tee]

I don't know I've ever heard widespread revisionist contention that Hoffman's performance was the year's clear best. Michael Gebert picks him, but Danny Peary goes with Orson Welles in Chimes at Midnight. There certainly has been revisionism noting Bonnie & The Graduate as way better films than In the Heat of the Night, but that revisionism arose, oh, about May 1968. Backing up my view that much revisionism amounts to the passionately comitted sticking to their guns long after the half-hearted have ceased caring enough to argue.

In the Heat of the Night, as I've probably said here before, was a very unlucky movie (or as unlucky as an Oscar best picture winner can be). Any other year in that '61-'68 stretch, it would have been viewed as a refreshingly low-key alternative to the costume-and-bombast batch that voters were otherwise voting for almost automatically. (It also, as an aside, serves as a bridge to the "even small movies are now shot in color" era -- five years earlier, it would have been a black-and-white film, as likely would have succeeding best picture winners like Midnight Cowboy, The French Connection, Cuckoo's Nest and Rocky) It's a mistake to remember In the Heat of the Night as some warm/fuzzy paean to the civil rights era. It's a relatively tough film for its time (a friend of mine who's black says the moment Poitier slapped the rich white guy resonated with him more than anything he'd ever seen in a movie till then), and it's also got a comic/ironic perspective. Though "They call me MISTER Tibbs" is the line most often quoted, the moment that sticks out for me is "I'm a police officer" -- that told us the filmmakers had a sense of humor that was going to keep the film out of Stanley Kramer territory.

Steiger was indeed the Actor of the Moment, which ensured his victory. What you have to understand about Hoffman is, apart from those who'd seen his brief off-Broadway appearances, he was an absolute new face, which created the usual "How do we know he's not just playing himself?" quandary. This probably accounted for his not being a sure nominee. (Though I don't think anyone considered Richard Harris a more likely contender. The Globes back then sometimes made ridiculously off-base choices) It was the complete change of pace peformance as Ratso two years later that made people sit up and say, Whoa, this guy Hoffman really is an actor. If there's been revisionism about Hoffman's career, it may be the feeling on the part of some -- a feeling I don't share -- that Hoffman's character work is stunt-y, which leads them to come back to this initial, less showy performance and deem it his best. This may especially be true for people who only started viewing his films in the last 20 years, at which point most of his finest work was in the past, and his fussy character attempts got to be annoying.

[Sabin]

I actually just watched In the Heat of the Night again for the umpteenth time a week ago while the Board was down, and while I voted for Hoffman, I've also seen The Pawnbroker, and it's fairly clear that Rod Steiger was A Man Due. In the Heat of the Night is a very good film that likely would not make my top ten list, but derives an incredibly amount of strength from the scenes between Poitier and Steiger. The screenplay clearly suggests racial tensions larger than these men, but my God do they pull it off! It feels like their scenes are about the fate of the civilized world at times, and not in any kind of preachy way. They're both outstanding, and I doubt anybody could begrudge Steiger's win, as I said coming after The Pawnbroker AND bolstering this emotional weight in In the Heat of the Night...

...but this is a case where revisionist history is right. The winner should have been between Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate, and with so many comedies owing so much to the latter film, it becomes impossible to separate its success from its almost disembodied lead performance. How many comedies would we see feature the same kind of, as Gebert wrote, lead performance "one step out of synch with reality"? And how many would be intolerable? I say Hoffman's off-kilter weirdness connects just as deeply and passionately as Steiger's directness. Beyond this, while Hoffman's performance may not be as visibly challenging as Steiger's, I could see more than one other actor playing this Sheriff (whose name, I right now forget), but the immortal against-typecasting WASP-to-Jew transformation that has become Benjamin Braddock is a name 'I'll never forget because it is Hoffman and not Redford.

But In the Heat of the Night "robbed" Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate. However, I say the real robbery that year was not one film robbing one or two others for Best Picture, or Sidney Poitier being "robbed" by one or two white men who clearly served more proxy to civil rights on behalf of Poitier, but that Quincy Jones lost for In Cold Blood and wasn't even nominated for In the Heat of the Night. Incredible music that did an immeasurable service for its respective films.

[Big Magilla]

I'm willing to bet that of the 9 votes Hoffman has received so far, more than half the voters haven't even seen Steiger's performance.

I would think that they have, but I also think that most of those voting for Hoffman were born well after 1967 and can only relate to their two films in their historical context.

At the time I appreciated the civil rights aspects of In the Heat of the Night as well as the taut script and across the board fine acting, but another thing I liked about it that no one talks about any more is that it was the first whodunit and only the second suspense film (after Rebecca} to win a Best Picture Oscar and that made it extra special in my book.

I don't think it was until there was another mystery that should have won the Best Picture Oscar (1974's Chinatown) that I began to think that we should have waited another seven years for a whodunit winner and given the award in 1967 to one of the two groundbreaking films of that year, Bonnie and Clyde or my particular favorite, The Graduate. I've never wavered, though, on my choice of that year's Best Actor especially since by then we had seen much more from Hoffman who was, as Sabin suggests, the surprise nominee for me at the time,over Poitier.

[Reza]

I'm willing to bet that of the 9 votes Hoffman has received so far, more than half the voters haven't even seen Steiger's performance.

[Sabin]

I'm just surprised to see that Dustin Hoffman didn't even win the Golden Globe. That means his nomination was likely somewhat in doubt, fourth or fifth behind the others and in the running with Harris and Blake for a nom, nowhere near a win. These days, he's widely considered to have given one of the defining performances in one of the defining comedies of that era.

I don't know about anybody else, but this will be the only time I vote for Dustin Hoffman.

[Big Magilla]

Is this the tightest race we've had thus far?

I thought revisionist history pointed towards something close to a Hoffman landslide. I look online and I see that he lost the Golden Globe to Richard Harris for Camelot, so maybe not.

What would Richard Harris winning a Golden Glonbe at the time have anything to do with revisionist history?

I can understand how and why The Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde quickly became cultural phenomenons and have long since left In the Heat of the Night in the dust as films overall, but I am surprised that Dustin Hoffman, who has six more opportunities of winning, three of them very strong opportunities, would now be considered to have given the male performance of the year over Rod Steiger.

I can understand why Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Dustin Hoffman have more appeal for modern film buffs than some of the actors they were up against in Oscar races of the day, but the same actors winning the same awards year after year is more like the Emmys or the People's Choice awards than the Oscars.

[Reza]

My picks for 1967:

Rod Steiger, In the Heat of the Night
Dustin Hoffman, The Graduate
Paul Newman, Cool Hand Luke
Spencer Tracy, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Sidney Poitier, In the Heat of the Night

The 6th Spot: Lee Marvin, Point Blank

[Sabin]

Is this the tightest race we've had thus far?

I thought revisionist history pointed towards something close to a Hoffman landslide. I look online and I see that he lost the Golden Globe to Richard Harris for Camelot, so maybe not.

[Bruce_Lavigne]

No matter the circumstances, I can't give Spencer Tracy any kind of endorsement, or even a pass as an acceptable nominee, this year. I simply can't take any element of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner on any terms other than those of the movie's overall ridiculousness. (I remember once seeing a fine documentary about Beah Richards in which she laughingly dismissed the movie, including the "love conquers all" speech at the center of her own performance, as the stupidest thing she'd ever seen.)

If ever there was a year when I'd vote for a tie, it's this one. In the Heat of the Night isn't exactly the topical powderkeg it may have been once upon a time, but the performances of Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger still have their power to fascinate and impress. I'd gladly give them a joint Oscar; theirs is one of my favorite acting "duels" of all time. Steiger, nominated by himself, wins this one for me without hesitation.

None of that takes away from my admiration for Hoffman, Newman, or Beatty, all of whom have been adequately and rightly praised here.

[ITALIANO]

Yes, a very good bunch of nominees, one of the best probably in this category - so good actually that it seems strange, today, that at the time Rod Steiger's eventual win was quite expected. But then Steiger was probably considered overdue, and I'd say rightly so (it doesn't have anything to do with this year or with the Oscars, but he was also one of the few American actors who could convincingly play Italian, as his superb performances in Time of Indifference and Hands Over the City show).

But we have given Steiger our Oscar already here, so we are free to honor someone else. Not Tracy, though he's the best aspect of the badly dated, but much beloved, movie he's in. Not Newman who's won more than once already and will definitely win again, though this is one of his best performances for sure. And, I'd say, not Beatty, though he's perfectly cast, and quite subtle even, in what is today rightly considered a classic.

Because young Dustin Hoffman's signature role in The Graduate is, even more than just a very good performance, a cultural icon, from the time that American cinema still provided us with cultural icons. Hoffman will win here again, twice maybe, and even I will vote for him once in the future. But icons are icons, and The Graduate deserves his Oscar.

[FilmFan720]

I've been going back and forth on this race all week, not sure where to vote. Surely, in another year, I would have no qualms about voting for any of these candidates.

Spencer Tracy is fine in his last role, and he certainly elevates the material given to him, but I have a hard time awarding elevating material. Paul Newman is his excellent self in Cool Hand Luke, but the film is one of my least favorite of this period of Newman, and I think a nomination surfeits here.

Warren Beatty is being given the short shrift here, I think. If not for Hoffman and Steiger, he would probably win in a walk. It might be his best performance, one where he isn't afraid to keep shades of the character that a lot at the time would have balked at playing, but does so with a subtlety and maturity. It is a wonderful performance, and one of the reasons his film works so well.

Steiger and Hoffman, though, both carry their films on their shoulders in performances that in many ways seem like early precursors to the 1970s style of acting that is so praised these days. I voted Hoffman here, only because I like his film much better and I think he has the more uphill battle going on in the film (just the fact that Benjamin is always so loveable, no matter what despicable things he may do, is the greatest testament of all to his performance). I can't begrudge a vote for anyone else, though.

By the way, is this the most iconic lineup the Academy ever put together in any category. All five of these films are iconic films, all have become ingrained in some way as classics, and all remain talked about, "important" cinema 45 years after their release. Four of these five have appeared on AFI Lists for Best Films of All Time (Two of them appeared on both lists), and the fifth is the kind of quoted classic that remains a part of the lexicon today. Can anyone think of another comparable one?

[Greg]

I've seen all the movies except Cool Hand Luke on TV. I agree with the Academy's decision and my choice is Steiger by a nose as I consider all the others close runner ups.

[Uri]

This is a rare case I have no problem with anyone on the list.

Judging solely based on the quality of performance and characterization, the best one is probably the least "significant" one. Once again, Newman is quite perfect and in its own non declarative way, his Luke is as poignant a commentary on the zeitgeist as any of his other more celebrated opponents. But yes, the other four were in films that were each a contemporary cultural phenomenon and Newman can't win every time, so he's out.

Tracy's turn is so iconic one's bound to suspense whatever better judgment one might apply elsewhere. At least if one's aware of the off screen stuff as well. But sentimentality is a rather poor artistic argument and GHCtD is the kind of vehicle one should never win cinematic awards for.

Steiger is very good, and like most of his film, he doesn't hammer in the massage too obviously (poor Potier is once again cornered into doing it with that Mr. Tibbs staff). But it's not as out-there turn as the one he gave in The Pawnbroker.

Beatty is the straight man (I'm not going to go there) in B&C – he's very engaging and effective but he's the least intriguing presence there.

So I too go along with Hoffman for the performance that beyond its own particular qualities people have already mentioned here, declared the arrival of a new, unheard of before Hollywood. This moment of the emergence of Hoffman as a major star is a way the popular or even populist manifestation of the direction filmdom was heading to the following decade. This particular performance bares such a cultural significance that even without its substantial artistic strengths it should be honored.