Best Supporting Actor 1972

[nightwingnova]

Pacino clearly is lead.

[ITALIANO]

the Italy music (the most widely played theme at the time) was lifted from an earlier Rota score, so the film was stripped of the nod, .

The one who found out that should have got a kind of prize, because that movie, Fortunella, was a far from famous one. It was a vehicle for Giulietta Masina, fresh from her Cabiria success, but directed, rather than by her husband (who only had a hand in writing it), by playwright Eduardo De Filippo. Masina had been nominated for a Silver Ribbon for it, but the movie hadn't been a hit and had vanished from sight quickly even in Italy (I'm not even sure that it had been shown in the US). Still, if you get to see it, the main theme from Godfather - or, let's say, the main theme from Fortunella - is admittedly there, and it's exactly the same.

Sometimes we forgive category frauds, sometimes we don't, but of course we are human beings and human beings are contradictory by nature. In this case most of us don't, and it's true that having the young, intense and definitely leading Al Pacino compete with the other four is unfair - plus, it makes voting for Joel Grey (like I did) easier. Not that it would be that difficult anyway: Grey's one-of-a-kind screen presence may have limited his career as a film actor, but in this movie it's just perfect, and memorable in an almost iconic way (and let's face it, not many characters in recent movies will be as clearly remembered forty years from now as his is today. But then the whole level of this competition - Grey, Pacino, Duvall, Caan, even Albert - belongs to an American cinema which doesn't exist anymore).

And no, I wouldn't say that Cabaret's reputation today is the same as Ordinary People's. It may be a musical, but it appeals to those, like me, who generally hate musicals, and not only because it's so brilliantly made - it comes from a prestigious literary source, it deals with significant events and issues... Historically and critically, it's still important - I don't know about its influence on today's filmmakers, but that counts less because, of course, it belongs to a kind of movies which doesn't get made often anymore (and as far as musicals go, some of its songs are still known and sung today). It's probably true that its technical inventiveness doesn't look as revolutionary now as it must have back then, but not only scenes from it, even just frames, would be easily recognizable even by those who haven't seen the movie itself.

[Big Magilla]

In 1979, Apocalypse Now was viewed as an ambitious but flawed film by most critics; it finished nowhere in the NY Critics voting -- where Kramer vs. Kramer, Breaking Away, Manhattan and 10 were all viewed more favorably. But Ebert named it his best film, and has pushed that meme ever since. These days, you have alot of people who assume that was the prevailing view in the day.

I remember well the Siskel/Ebert dispute over 1979's best film. Siskel's pick was Hair, my second favorite film of the year behind Breaking Away.

[Mister Tee]

It's of course all speculation/opinion as to why one film ends up enshrined higher than another. I think the factor BJ cites is not insignificant. Most critics in 1972 were males, and, still today, both film schools and film studies departments are male-dominated (not to mention...umm...internet film discussion boards). That their taste would run more to a virtually all-male-cast gangster film over a musical is not surprising.

I'd also point to one particular male critic -- Roger Ebert -- who's played a major role in shaping ex-post-facto opinion about films of the 70s and 80s. I've probably mentioned here before a that friend of mine in college once said the key to winning issues in student government was being willing to hang around after everyone else got tired and went home. Ebert had his bully pulpit of a TV show for years after other critics departed the scene, and he used it to promote his opinions as universal. In 1979, Apocalypse Now was viewed as an ambitious but flawed film by most critics; it finished nowhere in the NY Critics voting -- where Kramer vs. Kramer, Breaking Away, Manhattan and 10 were all viewed more favorably. But Ebert named it his best film, and has pushed that meme ever since. These days, you have alot of people who assume that was the prevailing view in the day. Similarly: Raging Bull was not universally viewed as the best film of 1980 (it ran a distant third in NY, behind Ordinary People and Melvin and Howard), let alone the film of the decade. But Ebert insisted it was, over and over, and nowadays it's seen as an article of faith.

How this connects to Godfather/Cabaret? Ebert swooned over Coppola's film, and gave Cabaret the cold shoulder. When Fosse's effort came up with ten nominations, Ebert opined (I remember the phrasing because it galled me so) "You've got to figure a movie like Cabaret benefits from everyone thinking no one else is going to vote for it". This despite the fact that, for openers, Pauline Kael, as well as his soon-to-be TV partner Siskel, were avid fans. I wouldn't underestimate how much Ebert's role as America's dominant film critic through recent decades helped establish The Godfather as massively superior to Cabaret.

There's also some personal element to it. Coppola was part of the Malibu crowd from the 70s, who, we know from Easy Riders Raging Bulls, shmoozed the press regularly, creating a sort of legendary status for themselves (to the point where John Milius, who never made a movie I care about, is spoken of with reverence by many). Fosse was 15 years older than this bunch, a New Yorker with a long Broadway reputation preceding his film emergence, who in fact continued to do NY stage work rather than staying in Hollywood and churning out one film after another. Thus, he was never in "the club" -- despite the fact that three of his five films were best picture/director nominated, the press never seemed to view him as central to the times. (And this sense lives on: in Rebels on the Backlot, David Fincher happens to mention that Fosse's work was a great influence on him. Waxman's comment is "He seemed to be serious about this" -- as if the very notion of Fosse as significant filmmaker is absurd)

As far as the whole "people don't like musicals anymore"...that was true for alot of us at the time Cabaret opened. Even though my early years of exposure to theatre were dominated by musicals (The Sound of Music, Oliver, Man of la Mancha), by the early 70s I (and everyone I knew) was sneering at them as moss-backed relics. I waited for TV to look at (and laugh at) the Hello, Dolly! movie, and, despite its Oscar presence, I didn't bother seeing Fiddler on the Roof till a year after its opening. Even going into Cabaret, I was skeptical. But what I found was something that simply defied all my expectations -- a deeply cynical take on human nature (totally in line with the times) that was, in style terms, beyond anything I'd ever imagined for the screen. Reza is correct: even if you hate musicals, Cabaret is a different animal from those films you're thinking of. I had to jawbone most of my friends into going to see it -- but then many of them ended up going to see it again, they were so blown away. I had the same feeling about Fosse's work that many people around in the 40s claim to have had about Citizen Kane: it opened my eyes to what a film could be, what a director could provide. To me, that was easily deserving of a best directing Oscar.

I don't want to really get into "that's why it's better than The Godfather", because, truly, I think The Godfather's a terrific film -- either of these two would look like a miracle stood next to most recent best picture winners. But, for me, The Godfather is a purely classical work. Perhaps the epitome of the classical style: beautifully composed, perfectly orchestrated. But not, for me, innovative in the slightest; there was no "shock of the new", which Cabaret had provided me in spades. (I'd say every other film Coppola did in that decade pushed the envelope further than Godfather) That's why I can't quite understand the mass tendency to deify it.

Oh, one unlikely person who really admires Fosse. Does anyone remember Sofia Coppola's Oscar acceptance speech in '03? She singled out Wong Kar-wai and Fosse as influences. Had it not been for the fact she appeared presenting with her father earlier that same evening, I'd have suspected she was trying to give Dad a poke.

[Big Magilla]

In spite of how much better than expected Cabaret did with the Oscars, I noticed one very surprising snub for it. It failed to get even a nomination for Costume Design.

Probably because German designer Charlotte Flemming's work was not known to members of the costume branch nor was she, presumably, a guild member. The only nomination she reecived was from BAFTA. BAFTA had a three way tie in the catoegory with the award split between Alice's Adventures in Wonderland; Macbeth and Young Winston. The other non-winner in the category was The Godfather.

The BAFTA awards for 1972 are very interesting. Cabaret was nominated for ten and won seven awards including Best Picture. The Godfather was nominated for five and won one - for Best Film Music (Nino Rota). Its other nominations were for Best Actor (Brando); Supporting Actor (Duvall) and Most Promising Newcomer (Pacino). Brando lost to Gene Hackman for The French Connection; Duvall to Ben Johnson for The Last Picture Show and Pacino to Joel Grey for Cabaret. Liza Minneli had won Best Actress for Cabaret and Cloris Leachman Best Supporting Actress for The Last Picture Show.

Note that The Godfather was not nominated for Best Picture. Cabaret won that one over A Clockwork Orange; The French Connection and The Last Picture Show. The nominations and the awards kind of indicate that it's not just in retrospect that it seems that 1971 was a better year overall than 1972. The Brits, at least, knew it then with most of the nominations and wins going to films that were released in the U.S. the year before. As for 1971, the Brits honored mostly homegrown stuff that year. Best Picture, Actor (Peter Finch), Actress (Glenda Jackson) and Director (John Schlesinger) went to Sunday Bloody Sunday while Best Supporting Actor (Edward Fox) and Actress (Margaret Leighton) went to The Go-Between.

[Greg]

In spite of how much better than expected Cabaret did with the Oscars, I noticed one very surprising snub for it. It failed to get even a nomination for Costume Design.

[Big Magilla]

You guys make some interesting points. Yes, film hoistorians are predominently men who champion the films they personally like. Wikipedia lists 105 film historians, only a handful of whom are women, so right off the bat things are skewered. There's also the herd mentality which accoutns for the same films beign deemed the "greatest" decade after decade while equally worthy films are are brushed aside.

Those who want to do their own reserch and form their own opinions are limited to what's out there. Today we have greater resources than those of us who were around in 1972 had. Then we either had to see a new movie in the theatre or an old movie on TV or in a revival house. However, we could only see what the programmers programmed. Today we have home video and internet streaming, which makes the selections more accessible and immediate. Still, we're limited to what's available. It's sad that those who know Cabaret at all know it from the badly worn prints that until now have been the only thing available. That could change:

"The 2012 TCM Classic Film Festival will take pace Thursday, April 12 - Sunday, April 15, 2012, in Hollywood. Passes are on sale now through the official festival website: http://www.tcm.com/festival/.

The following is a roster of newly added screenings and appearances:

Opening Night
Cabaret (1972) - World Premiere 40th Anniversary Restoration, featuring appearances by Liza Minnelli and Joel Grey*
One of the most acclaimed films of its era, Bob Fosse's Cabaret stars Oscar-winner Liza Minnelli as an American singer looking for love and success in pre-World War II Berlin. Joel Grey, who is currently co-starring in the Broadway revival of Anything Goes, earned an Oscar as the ubiquitous Master of Ceremonies. And Michael York co-stars as a young English teacher whose eyes are opened by what he experiences. Fosse also earned Oscar gold for directing this perfect showcase for his unique choreography and imaginative visual style.
* schedule permitting"

Hopefully this will lead to a remastered DVD and Blu-ray release.

[Reza]

Personally, I'd put it mostly down to the fact that as great and inventive a film as Cabaret may be, it's still, when all's said and done, a musical, and when movie musicals fell out of fashion, they seem to have fallen far and fallen hard. Using my own early experience as a template, I'd wager that my aforementioned "cineastes and wannabe cineastes under 35" have probably seen The Sound of Music and various Disney musicals (animated and otherwise) as children; saw West Side Story when they got a little older; were directed towards Singin' in the Rain and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg once they decided they wanted to get serious about their cinematic education; probably saw Chicago because it was a well-received success in their lifetime... and that's it. And again, I'm talking about people who are well-versed in the works of such popularly out-of-fashion directors as John Ford, Douglas Sirk, and Brian De Palma; who are as likely as not to be well-read on feminist film theories and have seen many "women's pictures;" and who aren't (or at least don't think of themselves as) the type of person who simply assumes they don't like musicals. That's just the extent to which movie musicals, in the modern popular consciousness, seem to have become a minor cinematic curiosity that's chiefly of interest to theater-folk rather than movie-lovers.

Cabaret may be a musical but it's like no other musical that one has seen - especially the likes of which you mention in your post. Chicago probably comes closest to it, being pretty much a different sort to the ones that came out of Warners, Fox, MGM or the later gargantuan Broadway adaptations. I don't think such musicals (Cabaret or Chicago) would only be of interest to theater-folk. I think the ''different'' nature of both (even if they are musicals at the end of the day) would be and have been interesting to movie-lovers as well.

[Bruce_Lavigne]

Personally, I'd put it mostly down to the fact that as great and inventive a film as Cabaret may be, it's still, when all's said and done, a musical, and when movie musicals fell out of fashion, they seem to have fallen far and fallen hard. Using my own early experience as a template, I'd wager that my aforementioned "cineastes and wannabe cineastes under 35" have probably seen The Sound of Music and various Disney musicals (animated and otherwise) as children; saw West Side Story when they got a little older; were directed towards Singin' in the Rain and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg once they decided they wanted to get serious about their cinematic education; probably saw Chicago because it was a well-received success in their lifetime... and that's it. And again, I'm talking about people who are well-versed in the works of such popularly out-of-fashion directors as John Ford, Douglas Sirk, and Brian De Palma; who are as likely as not to be well-read on feminist film theories and have seen many "women's pictures;" and who aren't (or at least don't think of themselves as) the type of person who simply assumes they don't like musicals. That's just the extent to which movie musicals, in the modern popular consciousness, seem to have become a minor cinematic curiosity that's chiefly of interest to theater-folk rather than movie-lovers.

[The Original BJ]

Let me piggyback on what Bruce Lavigne wrote: I tend to find myself surrounded by two types of people, both socially and professionally -- cineaste/Hollywood types, and musical theater folk. The latter, of course, are very familiar with the film version of Cabaret. The former, I'd argue, are not, especially in comparison to The Godfather, which I hear discussed all the time among movie-buffs/makers. There's certainly no doubt that The Godfather's legacy as an all-time great isn't remotely in jeopardy, but it's surprising that a movie as "amazingly inventive" (as Mister Tee rightly put it) as Cabaret doesn't even seem to be spoken of in the same breath as Coppola's classic anymore by cineastes (obviously, this board contains some exceptions.)

The question I'd throw out is...does the fact that accounts of film history are, by and large, written by men have anything to do with this? Is it surprising that, of the two tremendously well-reviewed American films this year, the more stereotypically masculine one has since found its place in film history as a major classic, while the other is known mostly as the screen version of a great musical? (Mister Tee, you've previously discussed the aspects of Cabaret that made it a groundbreaking film, but one doesn't often hear Cabaret referenced when folks bring up the great landmark films of '70's cinema -- no, it's the more male-driven efforts that get hailed.) Thoughts?

[Bruce_Lavigne]

I of course am the wrong person to judge what history makes of this, because I was always in the Really Like Godfather/Love Cabaret camp, which was never a critical majority. But I don’t see how this qualifies as something for the Ordinary People/Raging Bull pile – that was a case where a film many of us deemed mediocre won simply because it was less abrasive. I think most people still see Cabaret as an amazingly inventive film – compare it to the other Broadway adaptations of the era and it seems to come from a different planet.

In my experience, history hasn't been much kinder to Cabaret than it has Ordinary People: Generally, if anybody (who wasn't there in '72) has even seen it, it's because they feel obligated to see what to make of "the movie that almost beat The Godfather," and while most of those people certainly recognize it as a very good movie (if nowhere near as worthy of enshrinement in the All-Time Classics Hall of Fame as The Godfather) and one of the best movie musicals, they aren't a very big group. Today, among cineastes and wannabe cineastes under 35, Cabaret probably isn't even the second best-known of the movies that received Oscar nominations for '72; that would be Deliverance, or, since I'm thinking about viewers who aren't subtitle-phobic, possibly The Discrete Charm of the Bourgeoisie. I majored in film for four years, I consider myself moderately well-read in terms of film criticism, pretty much all of my friends are what I'd call movie buffs, and outside of this board, I had literally never heard a single person talk about Cabaret, except as a stage production, until it made the most recent AFI top 100 list. (For the record, I don't say that any of this is right or wrong; that's just my observation.)

As to the topic at hand: I voted for Grey. I disqualify Pacino right off the bat on the grounds that he's the lead (and were he nominated in that category, I'd still vote for Brando over him), and while Caan and Duvall are both superlative, Grey creates such a singular, memorable character out of virtually nothing that I can't in good conscience not pick him. One of the best winners this category has ever seen.

[Mister Tee]

Let me try and put the Godfather/Cabaret nexus into what perspective I can.

Both films were in theatres prior to the 1971 awards -- Cabaret in February, Godfather by mid-March (the Oscars were in early April that year). Both were exceedingly well reviewed and successful, though Cabaret merely did well; The Godfather, based (like Love Story, The Exorcist and Jaws in the same period) on a publishing phenomenon, was a pre-sold blockbuster -- combined with the great reviews, it became the film that knocked The Sound of Music out of the all-time number one slot.

Many of us assumed both films would be major players in the following year's Oscars, though the media narrative solidly favored The Godfather. At that 1971 show, Alan King made a lame joke – “If Fiddler on the Roof doesn’t win tonight, there might be some angry letters from the anti-defamation league; but imagine what’ll happen next year if The Godfather doesn’t win”. (So, to answer your question, Greg, no, I don’t think anyone was afraid of Cosa Nostra reaction. In fact, all reports were that real-life Mafia folk loved The Godfather) And, over the summer, Variety ran a front-page-headlined story proclaiming the film’s outlandish critical and commercial success made it more or less a slam dunk for Oscars.

When actual awards season rolled around (a blessedly lighter stretch than we endure today), The Godfather fared better than Cabaret at the respected critics’ groups, but didn’t actually win anything, because those critics were embarking on a We Love Subtitles binge – Cries and Whispers won NY, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie took National. (Duvall and Pacino did win acting prizes from the groups) The Globes were more in line with expectation, going with the film/Brando/Coppola – though of course Cabaret competed under musical/comedy, where the film and Liza won. And Joel Grey took the supporting trophy.

At the Oscars, The Godfather found it a bumpier ride. In those days, all the tech branches did like the makeup/visual effects branches do today: compiled a preliminary list of contenders (ten, in this case). And The Godfather, to the astonishment of all, found itself left off the list of ten for art direction – despite having been considered one of the great period recreations in recent film history. Then, on nominations day, it was further omitted from the cinematography slate (read Inside Oscar for the branch politics that caused that and other Gordon Willis snubs). And the hits kept on coming even after nominations day: the film had been cited for its score, but further investigation uncovered the fact that the Italy music (the most widely played theme at the time) was lifted from an earlier Rota score, so the film was stripped of the nod, which left it tied with Cabaret at 10 nominations apiece.

Still, when the film won at DGA, it seemed Coppola’s effort would be triumphant in the end. Even the early Oscar evening victories for Cabaret didn’t seem decisive – musicals often won sound; Cabaret’s editing was considerably more noticeable than Godfather’s; cinematography and art direction were of course won without Godfather competition. But then there was the complete stunner, as Fosse won best director. The Godfather did of course rally to win best picture, but, in context, it was something of a limping victory; most saw Cabaret as the night’s champ, simply from the high number of prizes (most we’d seen since ’64), and the surprise element.

I never heard any speculation that anyone was putting Coppola in his place. There may have been some desire to support Fosse, who was familiar enough in Hollywood from his stint as an MGM dancer in the 50s. There may simply have been boredom with the idea that the race was over in August when that Variety headline appeared. And, I’m certain, there was at least some desire to pay homage to two very well-liked films, either of which would probably have won the year prior or the year subsequent. (Fosse told how everybody he met prior to the awards, assuming – like Fosse himself -- he was going to lose, expressed regret that “You’d win if you were up against anything but that movie”)

I of course am the wrong person to judge what history makes of this, because I was always in the Really Like Godfather/Love Cabaret camp, which was never a critical majority. But I don’t see how this qualifies as something for the Ordinary People/Raging Bull pile – that was a case where a film many of us deemed mediocre won simply because it was less abrasive. I think most people still see Cabaret as an amazingly inventive film – compare it to the other Broadway adaptations of the era and it seems to come from a different planet. And seeing Coppola got his own directing Oscar a mere two years later (at the expense of Roman Polanski, who waited 28 years for his make up), it’s hard to make a case for this being one of Oscar’s great injustices.

[Big Magilla]

The mob's initial concerns over The Godfather were alleviated when Coppola and company agreed to substitue "family" for "mafia". If the mafia were to do anything it would have been to disrupt the filming not retaliate against Academy members for awarding it Oscars.

Anyway, some people, now as then, actually think How Green was My Valley; Ordinary People and Cabaret were better films than Citizen Kane; Raging Bull and The Godfather. Granted we're in the minority among the general public but not necessarily among Academy members of the day.

Both Cabaret and The Godfather had strong support. Both films had opened early in the year, Cabaret in mid-February, The Godfather in mid-March and were considered Oscar front-runners all year long.

To many at the time, The Godfather winning Best Picture after it had won only two other Oscars while Cabaret had won nine inlcuding Best Director, was the real quandary.

[Greg]

Either way, forget Ordinary People over Raging Bull! Forget How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane! The fact that Cabaret won as many as it did and The Godfather so few is a true puzzler! And one that fewer people seem to know about today. That it failed nominations for Best Cinematography tells me it was truly viewed as a populist triumph and not entirely the artistic one it’s viewed as today. But I digress…

One thing I have been curious about is what impact did fear of the Mafia have on the Academy? Could it be the big wins for The Godfather Part II were more than just making up for The Godfather winning what seemed to be too few awards; but, a feeling among Academy members that they could safely vote for what they wanted for The Godfather Part II after The Godfather won Best Picture and "nothing happened." Again, any imput from people around and involved at the time would be appreciated.

[Sabin]

I can vote here as well!

The trio of nominations for Caan, Duvall, and Pacino make Coppola’s slight for Best Director all the more puzzling. I suppose it points to some degree of player hating for the young whippersnapper to knock it out of the park so early. Or hero worship towards Theater Import Bob Fosse, which has served well Mike Nichols, Sam Mendes, and…well…almost Rob Marshall. We all know now the stories of the troubled production of The Godfather, but how well documented were they in 1972? Was Coppola viewed as an ingrate, an enfant terrible? Or was he seen as the lucky recipient of a great film, with the true credit going elsewhere? Either way, forget Ordinary People over Raging Bull! Forget How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane! The fact that Cabaret won as many as it did and The Godfather so few is a true puzzler! And one that fewer people seem to know about today. That it failed nominations for Best Cinematography tells me it was truly viewed as a populist triumph and not entirely the artistic one it’s viewed as today. But I digress…

The nominations for James Caan and Robert Duvall are certainly fine and relatively deserving. They’ve certainly become some kind of iconic by today. But in my opinion, there are only two supporting performances in the first two Godfather films that merit stand-out nomination status, and they are from the second film. John Cazale and Robert DeNiro, whose performance is less outstanding than just quite successful in evoking another actor’s presence without straining too hard. The quiet of Duvall’s performance makes his nomination all the more indicative of a sweep that was not to come. I’m going to presume that one of the film’s strengths at the time was how much of an unknown Al Pacino must have been and how relatively unexpected (barring a reading of the [trashy] book) his ascension must have appeared especially when standing next to Caan’s fiery Sonny. His exit is well-known today. At the time, it must have been rather shocking. Either way, both performances are quite good. Neither merit a win in this specific lineup.

Neither does Eddie Albert. A comedy like The Heartbreak Kid is almost unimaginable today. The fact that a comedy could assume an audience would be able to identify with such antisocial behavior is testimony to the changing of the guard. I’ve never seen Green Acres so I have no strong attachment to Eddie Albert’s persona or what he may have done to subvert it here. I admire that a comedy like The Heartbreak Kid could feature a father figure of such dimension, but there’s no getting around that he’s a bit outclassed.

Cabaret is quite good and Joel Grey does an excellent job. Considering the film was released in February, I can easily see how Grey could adopt an early front-runner standing that nobody in sight could conceivably challenge and how Al Pacino’s nomination could throw the whole race on its head. It would be like Leonardo DiCaprio performance in The Departed getting nominated for Supporting against year-long front-runner Eddie Murphy (And how did that work out for him?). But this is a race that does have probably the best performance of Al Pacino’s career, at least the only instance in which he consistently remained authentically in the moment in front of the camera. It’s true that the fact that Joel Grey’s performance doesn’t allow for the same range of opportunities afforded to Pacino shouldn’t be held against the relatively deserving especially considering that it is blatant category fraud. So, while that shouldn’t work against Joel Grey, what works for Al Pacino is that he is Al Pacino in the first Godfather film.

How much changes in forty years! I look online and see the Globes cited Pacino [correctly] as a lead. No surprise there. They chose Caan and Grey, and who took up the final three? James Coco for Man of La Mancha, Alec McCowen for Travels with My Aunt, and Clieve Revill for Avanti!. I can’t imagine any of these three were seen as terribly viable candidates.