Best Actor 1974

[Big Magilla]

I'm a little surprised by the voting on this one myself. Although Pacino started out stronger, Nicholson had caught up with him and at one point may have been ahead, but Pacino is leading once again by 2 votes. Maybe it will change again.

[Reza]

I think everyone agrees that Nicholson and Pacino were both due for a win by 1974. However, I get the feeling that people are voting here for Pacino mainly because this is the only chance they'll get to vote for him (as there were stronger contenders in all the other years he was nominated) and they also feel that they can vote for Nicholson in the 1975 poll and where he is expected to win with a landslide. Keeping in view the actual nominees, and not withstanding personal choices of Hackman or Dreyfuss who were not nominated, the best performance is by Nicholson for Chinatown. Surely this is not only my personal opinion? There's no rule that says an actor cannot win two years in a row even if it means Pacino going emptyhanded. Or am I wrong in this assumption?

After many years I watched again last night Harry and Tonto. It is a lovely film with a wonderful performance by Art Carney and greatly aided by Bill Conti's marvelous score. However, Carney's win was clearly a sentimental vote. Nicholson, Hoffman and Pacino are all better than him.

[Uri]

I'll depart from the (so far) consensus here and next eliminate Al Pacino. I know there's been alot of latter day praise for his performance here, but it wasn't rated all that highly at the time: all the nominees except Finney, plus Hackman and Dreyfuss, finished higher in critics' voting. I think what might have happened is, as Pacino devolved more and more into a hamola over the years, this non-flamboyant performance looked better in retrospect. I imagine it seems ungrateful to knock any sign of subtlety on Pacino's part, but, for me, this is an example of less being less. I think Pacino is so subtle here he's almost inert; he's the dull center of an otherwise fascinating film, and he gets no consideration from me.

It was said that love songs are hardly ever about the actuality of love but almost always about either the beginning or the end of it. The Godfather was about the falling in, Part III was about the falling out. Part II was fascinating for being about the keeping of a momentum, a rare case of a piece which is neither about creation nor destruction but about maintenance. And what you call dull is Pacino getting the essence of what his film is about.

Anyway, in my perfect world it would have been Dreyfuss and Hackman instead of Finney and Carney, with Hackman as the actual winner, since Pacino had already been honored as a lead in '72. But as it is, I'll join the ranks of those who say it's between Nicholson and Pacino. I guess the logic thing to do is unite '74 and '75 into a Biennale like affair and declare a tie between them. But sticking to the rules, for all the reasons other than the actual fine tuning evaluation of the performances per se, I vote her for Pacino.

[Sabin]

Correct. Sorry.

[Big Magilla]

Interestingly enough, the Golden Globes omitted Finny for James Garner for The Gambler.

James Caan, not Garner.

[Sabin]

RE: The Hackman omission vs. the inclusion of Finney has been discussed enough here. I won't chime in additionally, but he would likely be my call. Interestingly enough, the Golden Globes omitted Finny for James Garner for The Gambler.

Carney's win should not be derided. He was quite good, but in lieu of his competition, I rank him fourth. I already voted for Pacino for The First Godfather and I'll be voting for him next year. I haven't seen Lenny in ages, and while I know that Hoffman is excellent in this film, I'll be giving this one to Jack Nicholson properly capping off the great era of his career. He'll now plunge head-first into caricature territory. And while this certainly is the right approach for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, his restraint is incredibly powerful here.

In retrospect, this lineup probably came down to Pacino and Nicholson in the two most subdued performances of their careers, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

[FilmFan720]

I've been going back and forth for the whole day on who I wanted to vote for here, and decided to read through everyone's posts to see where the support was lying (although I had a feeling that it would be pretty split). I was shocked to find that Mister Tee almost to a T (no pun intended) hit my thoughts on this race. So, if you are interested in learning about my vote, read his post...except I cast the vote for Carney, not Hoffman. And Hackman would have won my vote had he been nominated.

[Bruce_Lavigne]

This year's Nicholson/Hoffman/Pacino troika is rightly cited as making this one of the strongest Best Actor fields, but for me, Gene Hackman would have been an easy winner had he been nominated for The Conversation. It's not that the others aren't as deserving as most of my winners; it's just that I find Hackman that much more compelling.

Finney is definitely the one who robbed him of a nomination. He gives an enjoyable performance in a fun role... but so what?

I'll second BJ's comparison of Carney's win to How Green Was My Valley's; both are certainly all-time terrible Oscar winners given their old-fashionedness and the superior competition, but are really quite wonderful in their own right. I have no problem with his nomination.

Hoffman is at his best in Lenny, but I've got no affinity for the film; I don't know that I'm going to vote for him again after doing so for Midnight Cowboy, and I'm okay with that.

I didn't vote in the '73 race; I haven't seen Save the Tiger, and even though I've heard nothing to make me think I'd vote differently if I ever did, still don't feel right voting for a year in which I haven't seen the winner. If I had voted there, however, I would've done so for Jack Nicholson. And when we do '75, I'm going to vote for Jack Nicholson. So I won't be voting for him here, even though I'd rank his Chinatown performance slightly ahead of The Last Detail on his list of career accomplishments.

Given my ideal lists of nominees each year, I'd probably end up voting for Pacino in 1990 for Godfather III; not a great movie, certainly, but a fine performance, and in a year with no so-strong-he-must-win candidate, I'd have no problem doing the lifetime-achievement thing for him. Brando outshines him (and all other contenders) in '72; Nicholson is my pick for '73; Hackman would win here in my perfect world; Nicholson next year... Pacino simply isn't my #1 choice any of the years he turns in actual award-worthy work. But with no Hackman here, and two Nicholson wins on either side, I have no problem voting for him here.

[Mister Tee]

Mister Tee, was Hackman expected to get nominated? He seemed to have done well with the critics that well I remember he won the National Board of Review and he came runner up to Nicholson in the New York Film Critics. You would have thought the race would have been Hackman vs. Nicholson that year. I liked your analysis of Hoffman, but in regard to Pacino, would you say Hackman was almost the same way, I heard people say Hackman was too subtle

I don't know if you want to go by me, but I went back and checked my old notebooks and found I'd predicted the five nominees on the nose, with Hackman and Dreyfus as my two back-ups.

You're probably correct, that the recessiveness of Hackman's character played a role in his being passed over despite critics' praise (though an NBR win didn't mean nearly as much in those days as a NY or National Society one). But you also don't want to overlook the box office factor -- The Conversation (along with Duddy Kravitz) was rather low-earning compared to the other quite successful films involved. In fact, I viewed it as something of a miracle the film got into the best picture race -- a miracle likely connected to all the year-end publicity Coppola was getting for Godfather II.

BJ, I'm pleased to hear your praise of Lenny. The film, just as much as Hoffman's performance, appears to have been given short shrift by history (few even mentioned how closely The People vs. Larry Flynt mimicked its elements). I, like you, find it a really exciting piece of filmmaking -- not quite up to Cabaret, but a hell of a follow-up.

[mlrg]

Jack Nicholson - Chinatown

[The Original BJ]

This could have been one of the very best lineups ever, in one of the very best years ever, had voters nominated Gene Hackman's terrific work in The Conversation. As it stands, it's still a very strong group overall.

The exception, to me, is Albert Finney, who I like in a lot of movies. But here, hidden beneath a cake of makeup, with a silly accent, I'm a lot less impressed. I just think this performance (and the movie that contains it) are far too ludicrous to merit any kind of serious awards attention.

Art Carney's win is what you might call a How Green Was My Valley-type Oscar. In both races, something more old-fashioned beat more cutting edge work. And yet, I think in both cases, revisionism has unnecessarily devalued the victor. Carney's performance in Harry and Tonto is lovely. He's often very funny, in a completely human, recognizable way. And there's poignancy to his performance as well. The actor has a wonderful monologue about how he wished he had traveled when he was younger, but never could find the time, and looking back, realizes time was all he had. Carney's work is full of touching moments like this, that give this small movie surprising power. But, at the end of the day, Harry & Tonto is minor compared to the three behemoths on the ballot, and I can't endorse Carney's win at the expense of a trio of the very best actors of the era at the height of their glory.

Lenny isn't a movie people talk about all that much anymore (at least compared to Fosse's musicals), so I was surprised when I got to it to find it a truly thrilling piece of filmmaking. And Dustin Hoffman is exceptional -- electric in the stand-up sequences, harrowing as he battles his off-stage demons, and displaying a complete lack of sympathy in some scenes that seemed to mark a departure (at least in my eyes) from most of his earlier performances. He would be a very strong choice. But I've voted for him before, and will do so again, and this isn't one of the actor's most iconic performances.

It is very tempting to vote for Al Pacino here. Count me among those who think the actor would have made an outstanding Best Actor choice in '72; since I couldn't vote for him then, here would be an excellent place to enshrine Michael Corleone. However, I think Pacino's arc is more dynamic in the first Godfather film -- the actor has more to do as Michael goes from outsider to head of the family in Part I. He's still terrific in Part II, as his character plummets to tragic depths, but I prefer watching him become the godfather. And given that, in my world, he would already have received a Best Actor statue for this character, I'm going to give my vote in a field with several great performances to...

...Jack Nicholson in Chinatown. J.J. Gittes is one of the great, iconic characters in all of film history, and Jack's performance is both a throwback to all those memorable gumshoes of the '40's and a blisteringly complex portrait of a '70's anti-hero. Nicholson relishes Robert Towne's terrific dialogue, with cynicism and hardboiled humor, and is both commanding of the screen and generous to his costars. He's a great foil to John Huston and a great lover to Faye Dunaway, and it's nearly impossible to imagine anyone else in this role. Given what would come just one year ahead, I imagine some might hold off voting for Jack, especially given the strong competition this year. But I'm still going to pick him for his marvelous star turn, though I have about equal enthusiasm for Pacino and Hoffman.

[MovieFan]

I think 1974 is probably the year the cultural ferment of the 70s and Academy taste were closest to in-sync. It was the only year where the dominant actors of the era -- Hoffman, Nicholson and Pacino -- were all nominated. DeNiro, still in his rookie stage, was there in support. And Gene Hackman and Jon Voight (in Conrack) gave performances that might well have been cited had the year not been so strong. The era was, as we all know, not as kind to actresses, but two who contributed greatly -- Burstyn and Dunaway -- were on the slate, and overseas icon Liv Ullmann was only omitted via technicality. In directing, Coppola and Fosse had their second of three one-on-one face-offs that decade, and the remainder of the list -- Cassavettes, Polanksi, Truffaut -- is beyond stellar. Then go to the writing categories, and you find the legendary Robert Towne, Paul Mazursky, and even Mel Brooks in his brief period of cultural centrality. Except for the stray mentions of The Towering Inferno, this was one of the most exciting and representative set of nominees in history.

Perhaps it's appropriate, then, that both lead acting categories were toss-ups, both in terms of at-the-time predictions and in my ability to select today . Honestly, I look at this best actor list and it's still a tough choice.

I know Gene Hackman is the popular "he was robbed" choice today, but if there's one whose omission I particularly regret, it's Richard Dreyfuss in The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz -- an absolute breakout performance that's leagues better than either of the ones that subsequently got him nominated.

I guess the first of the actual nominees to be eliminated is Albert Finney, who had alot of fussy fun playing Poirot, but certainly doesn't resemble an actual human being. I enjoyed the work in much the way I sort of enjoyed the film -- as an effort at high entertainment that played decently despite a heavy hand at the helm.

I'll depart from the (so far) consensus here and next eliminate Al Pacino. I know there's been alot of latter day praise for his performance here, but it wasn't rated all that highly at the time: all the nominees except Finney, plus Hackman and Dreyfuss, finished higher in critics' voting. I think what might have happened is, as Pacino devolved more and more into a hamola over the years, this non-flamboyant performance looked better in retrospect. I imagine it seems ungrateful to knock any sign of subtlety on Pacino's part, but, for me, this is an example of less being less. I think Pacino is so subtle here he's almost inert; he's the dull center of an otherwise fascinating film, and he gets no consideration from me.

Jack Nicholson was finally accepted as a cover-of-Time Magazine movie star with the release of Chinatown, for me the great movie of 1974. But, while I like Jack's work in the movie, I don't think it's up to the level of his performances the year before or the year following. It's a very strong movie-carrying movie star role, but not a great enough feat of acting to rate best actor.

Since I believe that, and since Nicholson was generally seen as the one Art Carney upset, I can't say I was deeply disheartened by Carney's victory that year, even though it was clearly a triumph of the sentimental vote. Not that Carney wasn't good: he was very good in a sensitive, intelligent film, and he'd been highly praised by critics. But if he'd been Art Smith, unknown actor, rather than Art Carney, beloved TV institution, there's no way he makes the Oscar list. For me, he's actually my runner-up.

But my choice at the time, and still, is Dustin Hoffman in Lenny. I was at that point a "Dustin must win to avenge Midnight Cowboy" zealot, which may have affected my view a bit. But, honestly, I've always been amazed at how under-rated this performance was, especially since it represented yet another complete change of pace for Hoffman. Only near the end, when his Lenny Bruce flashed a smile at the judge, did I see even a hint of the Dustin with whom I was by then so familiar -- prior to that, he seemed to be operating with a totally different center of gravity. It may be that critics didn't single him out for this work (though he make a showing in NY voting) because, as Magilla suggests, he didn't gibe with their memories of Lenny Bruce. (I remember a Village Voice critic at trhe time saying "Hoffman does as well as possible playing someone nearly everyone claims to have known personally") All I can say is, my first exposure to Lenny Bruce's persona (as opposed to his material, which I'd seen Cliff Gorman do on Broadway) was watching The Lenny Bruce Performance Film a few weeks after I'd seen Fosse's film -- and I was astounded at how close Hoffman had come to approximating him without a hint of imitation.

As I said at the top, it's a tough choice, but, as I also said some threads ago, I expect to be promisicuous in voting for Dustin. He gets my vote this year.

Mister Tee, was Hackman expected to get nominated? He seemed to have done well with the critics that well I remember he won the National Board of Review and he came runner up to Nicholson in the New York Film Critics. You would have thought the race would have been Hackman vs. Nicholson that year. I liked your analysis of Hoffman, but in regard to Pacino, would you say Hackman was almost the same way, I heard people say Hackman was too subtle

[Mister Tee]

I think 1974 is probably the year the cultural ferment of the 70s and Academy taste were closest to in-sync. It was the only year where the dominant actors of the era -- Hoffman, Nicholson and Pacino -- were all nominated. DeNiro, still in his rookie stage, was there in support. And Gene Hackman and Jon Voight (in Conrack) gave performances that might well have been cited had the year not been so strong. The era was, as we all know, not as kind to actresses, but two who contributed greatly -- Burstyn and Dunaway -- were on the slate, and overseas icon Liv Ullmann was only omitted via technicality. In directing, Coppola and Fosse had their second of three one-on-one face-offs that decade, and the remainder of the list -- Cassavettes, Polanksi, Truffaut -- is beyond stellar. Then go to the writing categories, and you find the legendary Robert Towne, Paul Mazursky, and even Mel Brooks in his brief period of cultural centrality. Except for the stray mentions of The Towering Inferno, this was one of the most exciting and representative set of nominees in history.

Perhaps it's appropriate, then, that both lead acting categories were toss-ups, both in terms of at-the-time predictions and in my ability to select today . Honestly, I look at this best actor list and it's still a tough choice.

I know Gene Hackman is the popular "he was robbed" choice today, but if there's one whose omission I particularly regret, it's Richard Dreyfuss in The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz -- an absolute breakout performance that's leagues better than either of the ones that subsequently got him nominated.

I guess the first of the actual nominees to be eliminated is Albert Finney, who had alot of fussy fun playing Poirot, but certainly doesn't resemble an actual human being. I enjoyed the work in much the way I sort of enjoyed the film -- as an effort at high entertainment that played decently despite a heavy hand at the helm.

I'll depart from the (so far) consensus here and next eliminate Al Pacino. I know there's been alot of latter day praise for his performance here, but it wasn't rated all that highly at the time: all the nominees except Finney, plus Hackman and Dreyfuss, finished higher in critics' voting. I think what might have happened is, as Pacino devolved more and more into a hamola over the years, this non-flamboyant performance looked better in retrospect. I imagine it seems ungrateful to knock any sign of subtlety on Pacino's part, but, for me, this is an example of less being less. I think Pacino is so subtle here he's almost inert; he's the dull center of an otherwise fascinating film, and he gets no consideration from me.

Jack Nicholson was finally accepted as a cover-of-Time Magazine movie star with the release of Chinatown, for me the great movie of 1974. But, while I like Jack's work in the movie, I don't think it's up to the level of his performances the year before or the year following. It's a very strong movie-carrying movie star role, but not a great enough feat of acting to rate best actor.

Since I believe that, and since Nicholson was generally seen as the one Art Carney upset, I can't say I was deeply disheartened by Carney's victory that year, even though it was clearly a triumph of the sentimental vote. Not that Carney wasn't good: he was very good in a sensitive, intelligent film, and he'd been highly praised by critics. But if he'd been Art Smith, unknown actor, rather than Art Carney, beloved TV institution, there's no way he makes the Oscar list. For me, he's actually my runner-up.

But my choice at the time, and still, is Dustin Hoffman in Lenny. I was at that point a "Dustin must win to avenge Midnight Cowboy" zealot, which may have affected my view a bit. But, honestly, I've always been amazed at how under-rated this performance was, especially since it represented yet another complete change of pace for Hoffman. Only near the end, when his Lenny Bruce flashed a smile at the judge, did I see even a hint of the Dustin with whom I was by then so familiar -- prior to that, he seemed to be operating with a totally different center of gravity. It may be that critics didn't single him out for this work (though he make a showing in NY voting) because, as Magilla suggests, he didn't gibe with their memories of Lenny Bruce. (I remember a Village Voice critic at trhe time saying "Hoffman does as well as possible playing someone nearly everyone claims to have known personally") All I can say is, my first exposure to Lenny Bruce's persona (as opposed to his material, which I'd seen Cliff Gorman do on Broadway) was watching The Lenny Bruce Performance Film a few weeks after I'd seen Fosse's film -- and I was astounded at how close Hoffman had come to approximating him without a hint of imitation.

As I said at the top, it's a tough choice, but, as I also said some threads ago, I expect to be promisicuous in voting for Dustin. He gets my vote this year.

[anonymous1980]

I've seen three performances here and all three performances I really, really liked. Dustin Hoffman was pretty impressive in those really long, rambling monologues in Lenny. Jack Nicholson was also likewise terrific in a more understated role in Chinatown and Al Pacino is also memorable in The Godfather Part II, continuing his performance from Part I. It's really a case of an eenie-meanie-manynie moe for me. I'll go with Al Pacino.

[MovieFan]

No question, Al Pacino in The Godfather Part 2. Gene Hackman should have got in for The Conversation