If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 1967

     After covering a category from my favorite year in cinema (2007) last week, this week I keep the good vibrations going by covering a category from what is probably my second favorite year in cinema, 1967. Being before my time, to say 1967 is my second favorite year in cinema may sound a bit peculiar and random, like it was drawn out of a hat in a raffle, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The late 1960's was an interesting time in the world of cinema, just as it was in almost everything else. The radical shift in culture opened up the medium to more experimentation, as well as the ability to go places and do things that the moral norms would not have allowed before. For instance, "The Graduate", one of my favorite films of all-time (which we will be discussing more about later in this article), tells the story of a young man having an affair with his neighbor's wife, a woman who is very much his senior. Not only does the film tell this sordid perverse tale of seduction and robbing from the cradle, it does so in a humorous manner, which makes the film the inimitable classic that it is, but would also have been too offensive to the sensitivities of the populace just a few years earlier. Previously, a story about such outrageous promiscuity would only be told in the utmost dour, melodramatic fashion ("Peyton's Place" anyone?), but being a new time and era, Mike Nichols and company were brazen enough to push the genre in new and exciting places (like Robert Altman would do for war films three years later with "M*A*S*H"). Another example from 1967 of the deconstruction of the old norms in favor of the establishment of new ground rules is the film "Bonnie and Clyde". The film caused and enormous stir for its (at the time) graphic depiction of violence. Formerly, while there was definitely a lot of violence in films' plots, when it got down to the real action, the violence was mostly implied or sanitized. "Bonnie and Clyde" took this trick and spun it, causing a ruckus in the short-run, but creating a whole new language of cinema and paving the way for countless films down the road (like almost every Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino film).

     It's this sort of radical thinking about the conventional practices of cinema that endears 1967 to my heart (the only year with two films in my Top 10). It also makes deciding between nominees very difficult, especially for this Best Actor category. It is a truly impressive lineup (probably one of the greatest single categories in Oscar history), with every nominee being a household name giving one of their signature performances. It truly is ridiculous the amount of talent displayed in this category. I don't say this often, but you have to give credit when credit is due, so to the Academy, big kudos for the Best Actor nominees of 1967. It may be your masterpiece. In fact, I don't really have any viable substitutes for any of the nominees. Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" I guess could be two possible candidates, but the movie was released in 1966 in some countries, so I'm not really sure of their eligibility for the year. The only other possible nomination-worthy performance that comes to mind is Lee Marvin in "The Dirty Dozen", which, had he been nominated over my fifth ranked performance in the category, would have been fine by me, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an improvement. Before I get into the rankings, I would like to stress one more time how difficult the process was this week. In particular, deciding between the top two performances was incredibly agonizing, as both performances rank up there with my all-time favorites. In the end, I made a decision for better or worse, because I don't believe in wimping out and doing a stupid "tie" like too many critics do on these sorts of lists. Just know that the difference in my mind between the first and second ranked performance is miniscule, microscopic, infinitesimal, as they both rapidly approach the limit point known as perfection.
  

5. Warren Beatty in "Bonnie and Clyde"

     This is the film and the role that really made Warren Beatty a star instead of just "Shirley MacLaine's younger brother". Playing the male half of the notorious Depression-era bankrobbing couple, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, Beatty plays the man as sort of a naive simpleton who simply robs because he doesn't see a better way of "getting along". When joined by Bonnie Parker, he clearly feeds off her admiration (even though he is incapable of doing anything about it for most of the film), and this leads to the duos infamous string of robberies that made the national stars. Even though I praised the film in the opening for it's contribution to loosening the chains on movie violence and what could and could not be shown in theaters, as a film in and of itself, it's good but overrated. Meant as a exploitive "B-Picture", it took off like wild fire and made the studio tons of money, but it still has many of the sensibilities of a "B-Movie". Particularly, the film heavily romanticizes the the criminal couple, which leads to an exaggeration of all the character's traits and desires. Beatty's Clyde is a single-minded fellow with buried aspirations for greatness that are magically brought forth when in the presence of a beautiful lady such as Bonnie. No man though as singularly bland as Clyde is at times in film, could ever become the charismatic anti-hero, even under the influence of a wild-eyed temptress such as Bonnie Parker, that the films makes him out to be. It's a credit to Beatty's acting skills that he makes the character as believable as he does, pulling off the boob-to-gangster transformation with almost complete genuineness. In the end though, the weaknesses in the film's overwrought romanticization of it's doomed heros holds back Beatty's performance from making it to the big leagues, but it is still a fine piece of acting that deserves much of the credit it receives.

4. Spencer Tracy in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"

     The very first Retro-Review on this blog (and its second post overall), was a write-up of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" (which you can read by clicking here). I ended up giving the film an 8/10, but if you read the review (or as you'll see if you plan to read it in the future), you know it was pretty critical commentary for such a high rating. The movie has countless flaws. It has a convoluted plot that was designed with the express purpose to get a social message across. It throws in one wrench after another to manufacture a sense of increasing dramatic tension. It includes incredibly awkward scenes that are meant to be a change of pace, but instead come off as sloppy incoherent asides. It trades heavily in the use of stereo-types and the unnatural manipulations of it's characters. At times the film has the tone of a sunday school teacher giving pre-schoolers a lecture on the sins of mankind, didactic and self-righteous to the extreme. Why then, does a film with such numerous and glaring blemishes, deserve an 8 out of ten? The acting. Off hand, I can think of no other film which owes so much to its cast, and is propelled to such a high level by their performances. The crown jewel of this heroic ensemble is without a doubt Spencer Tracy in his final role (he died only 17 days after shooting finished and was very sick during the filming of the movie). Just like with "Judgement at Nuremberg", Tracy once again manages to save Stanley Kramer's bacon from becoming little more than a bloated exercise in self-congratulatory moral superiority of progressivism and all their ideals. How Tracy takes something as contrived and calculating as the script for "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", and manages to create a character of a truly human nature, with authentic emotions and thoughts, is beyond me. If I treated the Oscars like Olympic figure skating or diving, where they take degree of difficulty into account, I would probably have to put Spencer Tracy on top of this list. Acting should be scored on merit alone though, so while flaws with the plot do effect his overall rank, the fact that I have any positive words to say at all about his performance and the film, given the type of film that it is, just goes to prove what an amazing actor Spencer Tracy was even to his dying day. Despite the fact that he won two Best Actor Oscars, I can't help but feel his legacy is still undervalued by far too many. He was one of the greats.

3. Rod Steiger in "In the Heat of the Night"

     How easy it would have been for Rod Steiger to play the part of Gillespie, a Southern Mississippi sheriff, with the subtlety of a speech given by a Grand Wizard at a KKK rally. When it comes to racist Southerners, Hollywood gives them the same treatment they give to German Nazis. They turn them into buffoonishily evil cartoon characters, who have no other motivations or thoughts except how much they hate minorities. Now, as much as I hate to admit it, there unfortunately are some people who closely approximate these cartoonish characters and their mindset, but the problem with many of these films is that they blanket cover everyone in the region as absolutes, totally indistinguishable monsters. The overall effect is a contrivance that is not unlike roboticist Masahiro Mori's "uncanny value", we can sense something phony and it weakens the overall argument being made. In contrast, this is what makes "In the Heat of the Night" such a great movie, because while it contains some extremely racists characters, it also makes room for conflicted characters that resemble more regular human beings. In particular, this is accomplished through Steiger's Gillespie. Gillespie is a man who doesn't like to upset the apple cart. He is somewhat racist, which isn't surprising given the area he grew up in, but it's in no way an ideology he feels any passion towards. He is most interested in living his life without making waves, but unfortunately for him, when Poiter's Virgil Tibbs accidentally gets caught up in a murder mystery, he is forced to go headlong into solving the case and disturbing the town's usual equilibrium. In other words, Gillespie is a man of nuance and mixed emotions, and Steiger nails the role down to a tee. Along with Sidney Poitier, the two actors create a back and forth that feels very natural, reluctant partners in crime who may not make the best of friends, but are there when they need each other. Steiger's performance comes off as very instinctual, which is exactly what is called, because over analyzing the part would have destroyed the very essence of the character, a laid back man in a tough situation. While I wouldn't have made him the winner of this year, Steiger's performance is more than deserving, and the Academy has absolutely nothing to hang down its head at over rewarding Steiger's superb performance.

2. Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke"

     "Cool Hand Luke" ranked as my fifth favorite film of all-time, and a lot of that is due to Paul Newman's performance as the titular character in the greatest role of his long and storied career. Cool Hand Luke is one of my favorite heroes in the history of cinema. He is the ultimate existential warrior, rebelling against life to prove he is the master of his own domain. He keeps no court other than his own, and he proves time and time again that he is willing to be anyone or do anything if it fits his ultimate goal. His boldness and absolute freedom with which he views life is an inspiration to his fellow prisoners, but while he never disparages them from taken solace in his actions (until near the end), he is never beholden to their love and admiration. He is a man apart, a man alone. Always calm, always in charge. Good old Cool Hand Luke. This sort of role is not easy to pull off. An aloof rebel such as Luke can not be established through a lot of dialogue and long-winded speeches. It has to be done through presence and facial expressions. People have to know the minute they see Luke, that he is no ordinary man and it has to be believable that he could be an almost Christ-like figure to his fellow inmates. Like all great acting then, it can't be accomplished through dissection. It must be accomplished through a transformation, a new type of being, and this is exactly what Paul Newman does. We don't see the decisions that Luke makes (or Paul Newman for that matter), because that would be inauthentic, we only see Luke as he is, a man making it up as he goes along. The movie rests on Newman's charisma, and it passing with flying colors. I would put up Newman's performance in "Cool Hand Luke" against any of James Dean or Marlon Brando's famous roles, because it is on that same level of total devotion to becoming the character. Paul Newman is a great actor, and Cool Hand Luke is easily his best performance, which should give you an indication of just what an amazing performance this is.

1. Dustin Hoffman in "The Graduate"

     As I said at the outset, it was very hard to pick between my top two choices in this category, but in the end I went with Dustin Hoffman over Paul Newman because when I thought about it, I just couldn't imagine anybody other than Dustin Hoffman playing the role of Benjamin Braddock in "The Graduate".  It's a fairly complicated role. Benjamin is a man with no direction, not even a compass, and he is surrounded by a world he hates. Just as it seems there is no purpose to his existence, he founds some, however awkwardly, in his tryst with the wife of his father's colleague and neighbor. This is clearly a ruse though, for when he falls in love with the older woman's daughter, he finally gains the feeling of true meaning once again. Hoffman strikes the right notes in every step he takes in the film. At the beginning of the film when he is lost in a sea of endless unappetizing options, we feel his detachment from the world. Later, after the scandalous affair begins with Mrs. Robinson, we feel his bravado of a man who is coming into the world, as the relations with an older woman clearly goes to his head. Then, after their initial rough start, we feel his sincere love and passion for Elaine, as he is willing to continually hound her until they can be together again. And at all times throughout the movie, we feel his vast naivete about everything he does. What amazes me about the performance though is that while all the transitions I just described accurately chronicle the changes of Hoffman's character from a dramatic point of view, at the same time this is going on, Hoffman manages to flawlessly pull off comedic moment after comedic moment. The man's timing is impeccable, and the greatest thing of all is the comedy derives naturally out of the events of the story. There are no punch lines, or gags, of wink of the eyes. It's all played straight but you'll be hard pressed to find a funnier film. One man has rarely able to simultaneously accomplish so much as Dustin Hoffman does in "The Graduate", which is why after much tough deliberation, I rank him as the Best Actor of 1967.

     While I relished the opportunity to discuss such great movies from a great year, that's going to be it for this week, so until next week, leave any messages you have down below.