Academy Awards?

My personal feelings about the Academy Awards are mixed: I’m not naive enough to feel all the awards are given on merit alone, yet I’m not cynical enough to believe all awards are given on the basis of press agency rather than performance or achievement. So, like it or not, the Academy Awards for 1968 are now part of history and, like it is every year, it is now time for film critics and gossip columnists to rehash the events of that perennial April evening and try to come up with some sort of comment of the film industry (and it is an industry).

A writer can approach the Academy Award from two directions; he can climb on a high horse and blast everyone involved (as did TIME’S anonymous film critic this week, bitterly denouncing almost everyone from some reason or other-Katherine Hepburn didn’t show up, Barbra Streisand wore a see-through outfit. Cliff Robertson didn’t deserve to win, etc. etc.), or the writer can pull a Shirley Eder and concentrate on the glamour (“Isn’t it a shame Cliff Robertson’s director wouldn’t let him be there to win.”). In this dissertation, there’s going to be a little bit of both.

For those who’ve been hiding in a cave for the last few weeks, we’ll review this year’s winners. Best. Picture--01iver! Best Actor-Cliff Robertson for CHARLY. Best Actress-a tie: Katherine Hepburn for THE LION IN WINTER and Barbra Streisand for FUNNY GIRL. Best supporting Actor-Jack Albertson for THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES. Blest supporting Actress--Ruth Gordon for ROSEMARY’S BABY. Best Director-Sir Carol Reed for OLIVER! Best Screenplay (based on material from another medium)-James Goldman’s THE LION IN WINTER. Best Screenplay (written directly for the screen)--Mel Brooks’ THE PRODUCERS. For purposes of this article we’H work backwards through the list.

THE PRODUCERS was certainly an extremely funny, well-written movie. Indeed, it’s probably the funniest American comedy in years (THE GRADUATE being a comedy-drama). But it should be remembered that another nominee in this category was Kubrick and Clarke’s screenplay for 2001: A SPACE ODYESSEY. To my way of thinking, 2001 will be around, and regarded as a classic, long after the rest of this year’s films have been forgotten.

I will not argue THE LION IN WINTER’S winning of screenplay award. It was a well-written, if ultimately empty and vapid play, and the film’s pretty much the same.

I do argue with Sir Carol Reed’s winning of best director. As I said in my review of OLIVER!, his direction was one of the weak points of the movie. Again, I think this award should have gone to Kubrick, or at least to Roman Polanski for ROSEMARY’S BABY.

Ruth Gordon certainly deserved her award for supporting actress. Likewise, Jack Albertson deserved his. Albertson’s been around for a long time, veteran of vaudville and countless TV situation comedies. Albertson played the role of the father in THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES on Broadway, as well as on tour (I saw him at the Fisher and thought he was magnificent in the. role). About the only argument here is that he wasn’t really a supporting actor, he was the male star of the film. But that’s one of the inequities of the Academy’s nominating system.

I personally thought Cliff Robertson was the only choice for best actor. His competition: Peter O’Toole, who is always artily pretentious; Alan Bates, a competent but hardly great actor; Alan Arkin, who always gives fine, sensitive portrayals and was probably Robertson’s onlwly real competition; and Ron Moody, who was very good as Fagin in OLIVER! Moody’s basically a stage actor, though. Robertson’s performance is more fully discussed in the accompanying review of CHARLY’

The best actress category provided lots of surprises this year. Not only was it the first tie vote, since 1942 (and only the second in Academy history), but co-winner Katherine Hepburn was the first actress ever to win three Oscars, and only the second to win twice in a row (she won in 1967 for GUESS. WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, a movie that must have set the civil rights movement back about ten years). Hepburn is a good screen actress, but not that good. She didn’t deserve to win for DINNER, and I think both Joanne Woodward and Patricia Neal gave better performances than she this year. Neal should have gotten the award for THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES.

Barbra Streisand is something else again, but I don’t know what. She’s a show biz legend at 27, being the first entertainer ever to win an Oscar, an Emmy, a Tony (for the stage version of FUNNY GIRL), and a Grammy for the best record. Whether or not she is an all-time great entertainer is something only time will tell. And it is true shesaved the multi-million production, of FUNNY GIRL from total disaster. But is that reason enough to win an Oscar?

Of the five nominated pictures (ROMEO AND JULIET, FUNNY GIRL, OLIVER!, RACHEL,. RACHEL, and THE LION IN WINTER), ROMEO AND JULIET was undoubtedly the best. Why didn’t it win? Said one critic, “It’s been done before.” But so had HAMLET, and it won picture award in 1948. OLIVER! was a good movie. Best film of 1968 it was not.

So, had I my way, the list would have read thus: Best Picture-ROMEO AND JULIET; Best Actor-Cliff Robertson; Best Actress— Patricia Neal; Best Supporting Actor-Jack Albertson; Best Supporting Actress-Ruth Gordon; Best Director-Stanley Kubrick; Best Screenplay from another medium-THE LION IN WINTER; Best Original S creenplay —2001: A SPACE ODYESSY by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark.

That takes care of nominess. But as we all know, some of the best films and/or performances never end up on the Academy lists. For instance, 2001 was not nominated for best picture. And it certainly was the best film of 1968. Mia Farrow and Anne Heywood were not nominated (for ROSEMARY’S BABY and THE FOX, respectively). Both should have been. Whereas both “Mother” and “Father” from THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES were n-ominated, “San” Martin Sheen was conspicuously absent. Bergman’s HOUR OF THE WOLF was not among the best foreign film nominees.

There are always those that are left out, just as there are always those who shouldn’t have been included. But, that’s the way it is. In the long run, many of the “forgotten” films and performances will be remembered and treasured after the winners are forgotten, or consigned to a “1968 Academy Award Winner” list in some almanac (did you know Ernest Borgnine won the 1955 Best Actor Award?). History will justify some winners, forget others, and indicate , a non-nominee should have won. It f is always thus.

And wasn’t it a shame Cliff Robertson’s director wouldn’t let him take time off to pick up his award?