|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Nov 18, 2018 18:07:12 GMT
One of AMPAS' greatest travesties?
I've been on a Kirk kick as of late, and my opinion of the guy improves with time. He was prone to histrionics and his career really dried up after the 60s, but damn...what a 20-year run he had. He worked with nearly every great name in Hollywood and put his stamp on just about every genre. He was bold and brash, intrepidly playing morally-bankrupt bastards but delivering a wrecking ball to McCarthyism by proudly advertising Trumbo as the writer.
My question is, what the hell was the academy doing when they neglected his combined work (Detective Story/Ace in the Hole) in '51? I know that that was an unusually strong year for Best Actor, but for a guy who was obviously appreciated (nominated for Champion) and for movies that were honored in any other areas (though not nearly enough in the case of the acerbic Ace in the Hole, a movie way ahead of its time), you wonder just what the fuck they were (or weren't) thinking.
I think Kirk oversells it a bit in Detective Story, but his work towers in Ace in the Hole and like Ebert noted in a review several years back, there's nothing in that performance that feels dated; it's totally fresh and modern. I think I'd still lean towards Clift and Brando that year, but there was clearly a "Big 3", and the third was shamefully ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 18, 2018 18:34:38 GMT
The problem, as you say, is this: 1951 was an unusually strong year for the category. Bogart, Brando and Clift speak for themselves, having the beloved films to their names as well as their performances. March was an Oscar veteran with an acclaimed stage role to his name. Kennedy, the forgotten fifth, was also very well-liked at the time. Douglas, in comparison, had two films that one could argue he likely split support between, although I think that they were never going to go for Ace in the Hole -- it was too cynical and bleak for them. Detective Story would've been the one that got him in, but honestly, I think four of the actual nominees are better than he was in that (I'd rate him over Kennedy, but that's still an underrated bit of work in itself). Detective Story is, for me, very much the Parker and Grant show. Douglas is good in it, but he's much better in Ace.
In short, I think Kirk just got unlucky with the timing. His nomination the following year might've had some "makeup/goodwill love" on it from his banner year the prior season.
|
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Nov 18, 2018 20:41:51 GMT
The problem, as you say, is this: 1951 was an unusually strong year for the category. Bogart, Brando and Clift speak for themselves, having the beloved films to their names as well as their performances. March was an Oscar veteran with an acclaimed stage role to his name. Kennedy, the forgotten fifth, was also very well-liked at the time. Douglas, in comparison, had two films that one could argue he likely split support between, although I think that they were never going to go for Ace in the Hole -- it was too cynical and bleak for them. Detective Story would've been the one that got him in, but honestly, I think four of the actual nominees are better than he was in that (I'd rate him over Kennedy, but that's still an underrated bit of work in itself). Detective Story is, for me, very much the Parker and Grant show. Douglas is good in it, but he's much better in Ace. In short, I think Kirk just got unlucky with the timing. His nomination the following year might've had some "makeup/goodwill love" on it from his banner year the prior season. All good points. He definitely deserved his nomination for The Bad and the Beautiful, which was very much an "actor's movie". It's ridiculous he only received 3 nominations considering all of the excellent work he did. It's preposterous, looking back, that he was also skipped for Paths of Glory and Spartacus (he probably would have been for the latter if Ben-Hur didn't steal all of the Oscar glory just the year prior.) I'd also personally nominate him for Lonely Are the Brave (my favorite Kirk performance and his favorite role), but that was such a little movie in a major year for Best Actor. A Best Supporting Actor bid for Out of the Past would have been deserved too. What's your own opinion on Kirk and his work? Got any favorites? Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 18, 2018 21:06:51 GMT
All good points. He definitely deserved his nomination for The Bad and the Beautiful, which was very much an "actor's movie". It's ridiculous he only received 3 nominations considering all of the excellent work he did. It's preposterous, looking back, that he was also skipped for Paths of Glory and Spartacus (he probably would have been for the latter if Ben-Hur didn't steal all of the Oscar glory just the year prior.) I'd also personally nominate him for Lonely Are the Brave (my favorite Kirk performance and his favorite role), but that was such a little movie in a major year for Best Actor. A Best Supporting Actor bid for Out of the Past would have been deserved too. What's your own opinion on Kirk and his work? Got any favorites? Cheers I've long argued that while Brando certainly dominated the early '50s in a way no other actor did, Kirk probably owned the entire decade in terms of sheer consistency and acclaim. He was pretty well robbed of nominations for his Kubrick collaborations and I think he's immense in Lonely Are the Brave (and it's testament to the staggering year that 1962 was that he barely scrapes into my own lineups there) as well as being a fantastic Doc Holliday in Gunfight at the O.K. Corral that I'd argue was definitive until Val Kilmer swaggered onto the scene. I'm not overall the biggest Bad and the Beautiful fan, but his screen presence cannot be denied, and he flat-out should've won in '56 for his Van Gogh (again, a definitive portrayal until Tony Curran's take on Vince in Doctor Who; give that man a more straightforward vehicle for that character and it's a surefire Oscar winner). From the 1940s right up until Lonely Are the Brave, one could make the very compelling argument that Kirk was the best American actor working in terms of consistency, profile, versatility and ambition. |
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Nov 18, 2018 21:18:26 GMT
I certainly concur with that statement; that roughly two-decade stretch was just staggering. I still maintain that Clift was the best actor of that time period, but for sheer body of work I have to concede that Douglas was "the guy".
Each gets the nod over Brando, from me.
Nice chatting with you by the way...just like old times! Hope life's been great.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 18, 2018 21:25:42 GMT
I certainly concur with that statement; that roughly two-decade stretch was just staggering. I still maintain that Clift was the best actor of that time period, but for sheer body of work I have to concede that Douglas was "the guy". Each gets the nod over Brando, from me. Nice chatting with you by the way...just like old times! Hope life's been great. Yeah, I'd agree that in terms of American actors, Clift still reigns supreme by a hair. Overall, I'd give the edge to Dickie Attenborough, who still doesn't get the credit he should. Life's been good on my end. Hopefully the same goes for you. |
|
