Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1966: Results

5. Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles- Crenna gives a solid performance that seems to create a more complex character then the film even wanted.

Best Scene: The captain tries to prevent a mutiny.

4. Orson Welles in A Man For All Seasons- Welles in one scene gives complex portrait of Cardinal Wolsey that is worthy of the complex man.

Best Scene: Wolsey tries to persuade More to support the King's divorce.

3. Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles- Attenborough gives a moving performance that effectively conveys his character story almost entirely in his physical performance.

Best Scene: Frenchy talks to Maily for the last time.

2. John Hurt in A Man For All Seasons- John Hurt is the perfect weasel informant here by showing the motivation of what makes such a man.

Best Scene: Richard Rich testifies against Thomas More.

1. Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly- Good Prediction Mark feel free to name a year and a performance. This year came down to the comedic and almost leading work of Walter Matthau against Lee Van Cleef's classic villainous turn. Like Wallach against Nakadai this was not an easy choice but I have to choose one so I am going Van Cleef's chilling performance as the titular Bad.

Best Scene: Angel Eyes has Tuco tortured.

Overall Rank:

1. Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
2. Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie
3. John Hurt in A Man For All Seasons
4. George Segal in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
5. Robert Shaw in A Man For All Seasons
6. Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles
7. Orson Welles in A Man For All Seasons
8. Toshiro Mifune in The Sword of Doom 
9. Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles
10. Frank Gorshin in Batman 
11. Aldo Giuffrè in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 
12. Burgess Meredith in Batman 
13. James Mason in Georgy Girl
14. Harry Andrews in The Deadly Affair
15. Leo McKern in A Man For All Seasons
16. Maximilian Schell in The Deadly Affair
17. Jack Palance in The Professionals
18. Michael Hordern in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum 
19. Denholm Elliot in Alfie
20. Ralph Bellamy in The Professionals
21. Eiji Okada in The Face of Another
22. Eli Wallach in How to Steal A Million
23. Nigel Davenport in A Man For All Seasons
24. Cesar Romero in Batman
25. Hugh Griffith in How To Steal A Million
26. Robert Ryan in The Professionals
27. Cliff Osmond in The Fortune Cookie 
28. Yuzo Kayama in The Sword of Doom
29. Antonio Molino Rojo in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
30. Ichiro Nakatani in The Sword of Doom
31. Woody Strode in The Professionals
32. Luigi Pistilli in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
33. Corin Redgrave in A Man For All Seasons 
34. Antonio Casas in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
35. Mako in The Sand Pebbles
36. Laurence Olivier in Khartoum
37. Phil Silvers in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum 
38. Mario Brega in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
39. Cyril Cusack in Fahrenheit 451  
40. Jack Gilford in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum
41. Ned Glass in The Fortune Cookie
42. Buster Keaton in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum 
43. Ralph Richardson in Khartoum
44. Alfie Bass in Alfie
45. Roy Kinnear in The Deadly Affair
46. Alan Bates in Georgy Girl 
47. Simon Oakland in The Sand Pebbles
48. Michael Crawford in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum 
49. Neil Hamilton in Batman
50. James Hong in The Sand Pebbles 
51. Colin Blakeley in A Man For All Seasons
52. Reginald Denny in Batman
53. Peter Bowles in Blow-Up
54. Charles Boyer in How to Steal A Million
55. Alan Napier in Batman
56. Bill Owen in Georgy Girl
57. Stafford Repp in Batman
58. Richard Johnson in Khartoum
59. Cyril Luckham in A Man For All Seasons
60. Graham Stark in Alfie
61. Ron Rich in The Fortune Cookie
62. Charles Robinson in The Sand Pebbles

Next Year: 1987 lead

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1966: Richard Attenborough and Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles

Richard Attenborough did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning the Golden Globe, for portraying Frenchy Burgoyne in The Sand Pebbles.

Richard Attenborough evidently could not catch a break with academy when it came to his acting as even though he won the Golden Globe for his performance and his co-star Mako did manage to be nominated. Richard Attenborough plays one of the ship mates on the warship the San Pablo that resides in the back waters of China. Frenchy is one of the few decent men on the ship and one of the few who befriends the lead character Holman plated by Steve McQueen. Attenborough puts on a bit of an accent in the role to make his character American it starts strong and then quickly softens close to his normal accent it never is a distraction though.

Attenborough plays a bit of an opposite of his character in Morning Departure as in that film he played one of the worst men on a sea vessel and in this film he plays one of the best men. Attenborough has a fairly large supporting performance but it is very quiet part in the scheme of things particularly since French lets Holman make most of the big actions during the course of the film. The subplot of Frenchy as a character is that he becomes smitten with a Chinese woman who is basically up for sale and he wants to save her from having to be prostituted to anyone especially not one of the sleazy crewmen of the San Pablo. Even when Frenchy takes his course to save her it still is a low key affair for French.

Richard Attenborough was the perfect choice for the part as Attenborough is the master of a magnetic yet still low key presence. This is great for Frenchy as much of Frenchy's personal conflict in the film is conveyed by reaction shots of Attenborough from him seeing her to the proceedings scenes of he unease at her potential fate to his determination to save her. Attenborough never makes this feel like a limitation as he Attenborugh conveys exactly as he needs to in every instance. There is nothing loss and even though it is mostly silent in nature Attenborough let's us see exactly what Frenchy is going through. Every little frame you catch Attenborugh presents Frenchy's personal story with quite a strong power and poignancy.

Later on the film there are some longer moments where we see Frenchy as he marries the woman and tries to see her even though the men have been banned from the town. Attenborough is very moving in these scenes bringing out the sense of love in Frenchy quite effectively in their wedding scene and even more so when he visits her later by swimming through the cold sea. Attenborough is terrific showing the physical ailment of French effectively as he is dying from hypothermia and importantly in the final moments of Frenchy, Attenborough still reinforces the emotional power of the scene through the genuine tenderness in his performance. Attenborough is excellent in the role. I only wish his character's story was not cut off as abruptly as it is as I found Frenchy's romance far more affecting then Holman's romance.

Richard Crenna did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Lieutenant Collins in The Sand Pebbles.

Richard Crenna plays a rather thankless role as the captain of San Pablo Collins. For most of the film he fulfills just the role of the good captain who is trying to things together on his ship while he has everyone do their duty. Crenna is very good because he doesn't make the captain a foolish commander as they are often portrayed in films like this and I could have easily this character portrayed that way as well. Crenna though avoids this by infusing the right honesty in the part. Whenever the captain has to take care of something very serious going on and he is forced to make a decision, the struggle to do the right thing is there in captain due to Crenna's performance.

Like Attenborough's performance a great deal of Crenna's best moments are silent although the difference here is that Crenna gets far fewer scenes to go on. There are two very strong scenes one is when the captain is forced to scare away angry locals as his men are ready to mutiny and refuse to follow orders. Crenna's has a great moment of split second intensity as he portrays the captain trying to stay strong even with so many problems around him. The other scene is even shorter as he is alone in his cabin with the ship seemingly having nowhere to go. The captain is interrupted and he holsters a gun. We see his face for a second and that is all Crenna needs to show the despondent man Collins has become suggesting that this situation is something he thought he would never have to deal with.

The only problem I would say for Crenna is the film seems to want a simpler character then the character Crenna wants to create. Late in the film the captain is treated as if he is insane and just a man who wants war for the sake of it. Crenna really does not give such a man in his performance instead bringing much more depth to the part by showing the weight of his position in his performance. Crenna never leaves the captain as a thick headed commander, but finds what there is beneath a man of his position. Again with Attenborough, although I would say to an even greater degree as Crenna really gets the short end of the stick most of the time, Crenna actually suggests that there could have been a more interesting story for captain Collins if the film had given him greater focus.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1966: Orson Welles and John Hurt in A Man For All Seasons

Orson Welles did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in A Man For All Seasons.

Anthony Quayle actually was Oscar nominated for portraying Cardinal Wolsey in the inferior film about King Henry VIII's divorce Anne of the Thousand Days. His performance left much to be desired as he reduced the man to no more than a yes man who beckoned to the King's every call and not much else. Orson Welles portrays the Cardinal in this film in one brief moment, a major scene, and a brief scene whereas Quayle had several scenes in which he was allowed to portray the Cardinal. In both films his character technically has the same purpose. He starts out as a man serving the King by trying to get all to support the King's divorce then quickly at the end is a man of regret after he has failed to make everything work for the King and is soon to die from illness.

Wolsey was not just a yes man and was as chancellor of England whose power was only second to the King's. Why or how he got to this position as portrayed by Quayle is a complete mystery, but Welles makes it known in his one major scene. Welles has the impressive power of personality needed for a figure of Wolsey's status. He is just doing the King's work yet Welles brings the right subtle knowing in his performance. Wolsey is more than a yes man in Welles's performance as he tries to convince Thomas More (Paul Scofield) to go along with the King's whim Welles makes Wolsey a master of the double talk and within the talk Welles shows that Wolsey is wholly aware of the farce but will do his duty as the servant to the King as he should.

Welles in his single scene shows Wolsey to be a cunning man and in doing so suggests how he came to be a man of such great power. With Welles, which was so lacking in Quayle's performance, there is the power of personality needed for a man of Wolsey's status. Although obviously the film never gets into much of Wolsey's path or his rise to power Welles's is able to suggest the history of the man even though we never do see it. There is clearly far more to his Wolsey we don't see with Welles unlike Quayle who made Wolsey a very shallow and uninteresting figure. Welles's brief final moments of a depressed and dying Wolsey are quite effective showing the end of a much longer journey than we are privy to.

Orson Welles's does not give an all time great performance as Wolsey but it is a terrific example of what a great actor can do with a limited role. Cardinal Wolsey in the scheme of A Man For All Seasons really is not that important and very well could have been played in a forgettable fashion. The film would not have suffered much from it, but Welles bringing as much devotion to the part makes it a better more interesting film as whole. Welles in his three scenes, two of which are extremely short, gives a performance that would have been worthy of a leading turn as Wolsey. The historical Wolsey was clearly a very complicated man and Welles gives a performance that brings the depth needed to bring Wolsey to life.

John Hurt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Richard Rich in A Man For All Seasons.

John Hurt rather than having basically one showy scene for himself early on like Orson Welles is found throughout A Man For All Seasons. He plays Richard Rich who is a young man who hangs out around Thomas More's house trying to get More to recommend him for or give him a post of some importance. Rich's character is basically the opposite of Thomas More's in terms of their morality. More's story consists of him staying with his values even if it means his own death, Rich is far more flexible in this regard. Rich is the secondary direct antagonist in the film, Cromwell (Leo McKern) is the main direct antagonist, and King Henry (Robert Shaw) never quite comes right out as the villain even though he is. Hurt doesn't play him as a villain though particularly early in the film.

Hurt takes an interesting approach as Rich who he plays as a pathetic man but a pathetic man who does not want to be one. Hurt's earnestness in the role is absolutely genuine and technically there doesn't seem to be anything evil about his pleads. Hurt is quite good because although it is obvious in his performance that Rich wants a quick way for advancement without really doing much of anything for it, he portrays it very honestly though in terms of the emotions of it. Hurt's shows the wishes of Rich although selfish and rather lazy in nature there isn't anything intentionally malicious in his behavior. Hurt portrays Rich as a man who does want to do some sort of right for More, and wants More to do see him as a man can do right even if Rich doesn't really know what that means. 

There is one terrific scene with Hurt as the film progresses as Rich is still hanging around More, but has been tempted to be an informant by Cromwell. It is basically their falling out point where Richard tries one last time for More to give him a position while he threatens More he will start working for Cromwell otherwise. The way the More family actually talks about Rich after he leaves suggests Rich perhaps was meant to be more villainous at least in conception. The way Hurt plays it though makes for a much more powerful scene. In the scene Hurt is incredible in the desperation he expresses as Rich asks one more time. He is making a threat at the same time but only a weak pathetic one and Hurt is actually quite moving showing that what Rich would want most is not to go down the wrong path and have More's approval.

After that point Rich becomes Cromwell man although Hurt doesn't have that many lines he is great in portraying Rich's slow turn to becoming morally reprehensible. At first Hurt shows well the hesitations Richard feels to fully go over to Cromwell's way of thinking and completely forget his past with More. As time passes though Hurt portrays Rich as rather not having to bear witness to More anymore and there is one moment that is especially chilling by how much Hurt earns the change in heart which is when it is Rich who actually suggests to Cromwell that they torture More to get the confession they desire out of him. Hurt's movement from a man who could possibly be redeemed to the weasel informant who is close to being morally bankrupt.

John Hurt's very best scene though comes in Thomas More's trial and he is called in to be the man to give the evidenced needed to make it so More will be executed. Hurt is brilliant in the scene starting out with such pompousness as Rich has found himself in an even greater position because of his testimony. Hurt has Rich start out in his immoral way barely noticing More as he starts but as he gets the the point in which his testimony will condemn More he changes in his manner. Hurt conveys the feelings of respect in More, although repressed, are haunting him as he tries to finish his testimony which will sign Thomas's death warrant. Hurt shows Rich's faces the implications of the deed in his mind and Hurt is outstanding as he portrays Rich struggling hard to keep his face as an enemy of More. 

A Man For All Seasons has many strong supporting turns from its illustrious cast but my favorite performance belongs to John Hurt in only his third appearance in a feature film. Where Orson Welles made the most of his role despite the extreme limitations put upon him due to his screen time, Hurt takes an approach to the role that gives a strong motivation to Richard Rich's betrayal and even allows a certain sympathy by showing the humanity in his treachery. Rich could have easily been portrayed just a one note whelp who seemed to be a bad man from the start. John Hurt instead shows the transformation of a man who could potentially be decent man to a pitiful informer. He gives a far more interesting portrait of a man's corruption by showing the failed attempt to resist it.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1966: Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Lee Van Cleef did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

Lee Van Cleef plays the titular bad of the film which is the antithesis of his role in the Sergio Leone's previous effort For A Few Dollars More where he played the heroic Colonel Mortimer. Despite the extreme change in character type for Cleef he still is perfectly at home in Leone's film especially in his very first appearance which is a classic moment of brilliance as the dark figure of Angel Eyes slowly comes from a distance to a secluded farm house to talk to a family man about a mysterious man who changes his names and some misplaced money. The built up is tremendous just to the point in which Angel Eyes finally first speaks and Van Cleef deserves a great deal of the credit for the strength of the scene.

Angel Eyes only joins the man apparently in a meal the man starts to slowly break down as Angel Eyes watches him. The break down is made inevitability through Van Cleef's uncompromising stare which oozes in menace. Van Cleef doesn't say a thing for quite awhile but makes it undeniably clear what the purpose of Angel Eyes's visit is. When he finally does speak there is no loss in the intensity of the situation and Van Cleef makes Angel Eyes a truly threatening presence in the way he portrays Angel Eyes's attitude in the questioning. Van Cleef gives Angel Eyes an unwavering assurance of his own skills in his profession and his ability to intimidate. Van Cleef has such a viciousness of his conviction as he shows that Angel Eyes knows what he does to people.

One of the things that makes Angel Eyes the bad and Tuco (Eli Wallach) different is the manner of fun found in their character. Eli Wallach's performance has a welcoming quality despite his rough hide and we can have some of the fun Tuco has right along with him. Lee Van Cleef's performance does not although for this same kind of fun even though Van Cleef makes it clear, particularly in the scene where he dispatches one of the men who hired him, that Angel Eyes has plenty of fun himself. Van Cleef makes it a most unpleasant enjoyment though that Angel Eyes feels and it doesn't help that Angel Eyes expresses the most pleasure when he is terrorizing or killing someone. Van Cleef has the perfect evil smile and makes Angel Eyes a fearsome villain who loves seeing a job through although he won't anyone else share in his enjoyment. 

Lee Van Cleef does something very important in his early couple of scenes up to the point where he is introduced as the bad because his appearances are sparing for quite awhile after this point as the film switches focus over to Tuco and Blondie (Clint Eastwood). Van Cleef needs to make a strong impact quickly to make it so remember him for the rest of the film and know exactly what it means when he appears again. Van Cleef absolutely fulfills this need for the part and makes a tremendous impact early on setting up exactly who his character up as a fierce villain who is the appropriate threat he should be. Also to be much more to the point about things Van Cleef brings that visceral sting to his performance as Angel Eyes that basically all the best cinematic villains have.

When Van Cleef does appear again it is in POW camp for confederate soldiers that Tuco and Blondie have found themselves in and Angel Eyes is acting as a Union captain he likely impersonated. In this series of scenes Van Cleef again is excellent in his portrayal of Angel Eyes although he creates a rather interesting dynamic in his attitude. When still dealing with people he doesn't really know he carries that same self assured killer tone but when he talks to Tuco and Blondie Van Cleef adjusts his performance in an interesting fashion. Van Cleef drops his other act and is far more casual to Tuco and Blondie properly showing that the three of them all do know each other therefore Angel Eyes's usual methods won't really work as Tuco and Blondie can't be made afraid of Angel Eyes in that way.

Van Cleef is great as he changes to Angel Eyes pretty much laying things out in the bluntest way possible. Van Cleef doesn't portray Angel Eyes trying to use fear to get the information from Tuco, as Tuco knows him too well, instead he plays it straight all the way. As Tuco is tortured Angel Eyes stay very calm letting his henchman do most of the work. Angel Eyes mostly watches occasionally moving out of the way, smoking his pipe, and calmly bringing a quiet question or comment in between Tuco's screams and grunts. Van Cleef's calm reserve works wonders for the scene as he shows that Angel Eyes knows he's going to get what he wants and personally can take fairly easy knowing that it will work. My favorite moment in the amazing scene is Van Cleef's delivery of the mocking "How's Your Digestion Now?" as it so perfectly exemplifies how comfortable Angel Eyes is with this brutality.

The final duel of this film is a glorious piece of film making from the editing, to the direction, to the score by Ennio Morricone and as well the acting. The actors do so much in just their silent expression of the scene not only building the tension but also each actor suggests which is especially noticeable when re-watching the film. Wallach basically keeps a strong stare which seems aimed at Angel Eyes no doubt to inflict revenge for his torture, Eastwood keeps Blondie assured the entire time suggesting properly the information he knows about the duel that the other two do not. Finally Van Cleef portrays a very different Angel Eyes from the beginning of the film who finally sees that he might be outmatched losing that confidence and for once as the desperately tries to watch both men at once not knowing which one to try and shoot first.

Lee Van Cleef doesn't have the showiest role in the film (that would be Wallach) or the coolest (that would be Eastwood) nevertheless he never lets Angel Eyes be forgotten or overshadowed despite also having the least screen time and development of the three. :Lee Van Cleef leaves his impression right along the other two finding his own distinct path in the film by making his impact strong and fast making it so the bad always a known factor even when the film would rather follow the good and the ugly. This is a great performance by Lee Van Cleef  which proves right along with his previous film with Leone that he made both a great hero and a great villain. Lee Van Cleef started his career in westerns as a henchman to the main villain being there to be killed, bossed around by the main villain, or to be easily beaten up by the hero. His turn at Angel Eyes suggests that Van Cleef should have been the one in charge all along.

Read More

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1966

And the Nominees Were Not:

John Hurt in A Man For All Seasons

Orson Welles in A Man For All Seasons

Lee Van Cleef in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Richard Attenborough in The Sand Pebbles 

Richard Crenna in The Sand Pebbles

Read More