Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Eight: An Analysis

 

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER EIGHT: 

AN ANALYSIS

In the annals of black actors who have won Oscars, certain names come quickly to mind. Hattie McDaniel. Sydney Poitier. Halle Berry. Morgan Freeman. Denzel Washington. There are other names that would crop up with some thought. Will Smith. Louis Gossett, Jr. Whoopi Goldberg. Viola Davis. Mahershala Ali. Others may get a mention but have not had as big a post-Oscar career as their talents may have promised after their recognition. Jennifer Hudson. Cuba Gooding, Jr. Mo'Nique. 

One name that probably gets left off or is altogether forgotten is Forest Whitaker. However, Whitaker is indeed an Oscar winner for Best Actor. I figure that some people were surprised to see Whitaker presenting Best Actor to Oppenheimer's Cillian Murphy alongside Sir Ben Kingsley and Brendan Fraser was the first that they had ever even heard of Whitaker being a Best Actor Oscar winner. It is almost certain that hardly anyone knows of, let alone remembers, the film for which he won: 2006's The Last King of Scotland.  

This is not a slam on Forest Whitaker or The Last King of Scotland by any means. Rather, this is a look at how I think Forest Whitaker, on his first and so far, only nomination, won over Peter O'Toole on the latter's eight and final nomination. 

In certain respects, O'Toole had as good a shot in 2006 to finally win a competitive acting Oscar as his fellow nominees. Some of his previous nominations were the sole nominations O'Toole's films received (1972's The Ruling Class, 1982's My Favorite Year). When your acting nomination is that film's only nomination, your chances of winning go considerably down. 

Glenn Close is a prime example. Despite the tide of sentimentality for her seventh nomination, Close's nod for The Wife was that film's only nomination. The Wife had a tough road to climb, especially when facing off against the ten nominations for eventual winner Olivia Coleman's film The Favourite. That film included Best Picture among its nominations. That makes me think that Academy members were watching The Favourite screeners more than they were The Wife screeners. 

Moreover, the sense of inevitability for Close may have ironically doomed her. The mindset of "well, since Close is going to win anyway, I might as well vote for Coleman" may have ended up swinging the Oscar to the latter. It was a most curious sense of non-urgency when it came to Close's The Wife nomination. There was, I think, a sense that since it was already a certainty that Close was going to win in a cakewalk. That being the case, there was no rush to pick her since "others" were going to.

It is not impossible to win Best Actress or Actor when you are the only nomination your film gets. Julianne Moore, Kathy Bates and Joanne Woodward managed to win for Still Alice, Misery and The Three Faces of Eve respectively. Men have done it too, such as Cliff Robertson for Charly. Yet, I digress.

Unlike his past nominations, O'Toole's turn in Venus being that film's only Oscar nomination was not a hinderance. In 1972, he faced off against Marlon Brando and The Godfather's eleven nods (ten if you don't count Nino Rota's revoked Original Score nomination). 1982 had O'Toole face off against the Gandhi juggernaut of eleven nominations. 2006, however, there was no great, overwhelming film or specific nomination to crush O'Toole's chances before they even began.

In a bizarre turn of events, all but one of his fellow nominees found himself in the exact same situation of being their film's only nomination. The nominees for Best Actor of 2006 were:

Leonardo DiCaprio in Blood Diamond

Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson

Peter O'Toole in Venus

Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness

Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland

Out of those listed, Gosling, O'Toole, Smith and Whitaker all were their film's only nomination. DiCaprio was the only nominee who came from a film that had more than one nomination (Blood Diamond had five counting his). Surprisingly though, DiCaprio was the one who somehow seemed the least likely to win. While Blood Diamond got five nods, it lost all of them. Moreover, DiCaprio and his costar Djimon Hounsou were the only above-the-line nominations Blood Diamond got. It wasn't in Best Picture, Director or Screenplay. Two of its nominations were for Sound back when the category was split into Mixing and Editing. This indicates little to no support for Blood Diamond, and by extension, none for DiCaprio to win.

As such, this suggests a pretty open race where any of the sole nominees could have won. Therefore, Peter O'Toole had a good chance to finally win. O'Toole also had an apparent wild card in his favor: an overdue narrative. 

Gosling was 26 years old at his nomination, the youngest of the five and one of the youngest in history. DiCaprio was 32, Smith was 38, and Whitaker was 45. This is a comparatively young slate of Best Actor nominees. Out of the five, two (Gosling and Whitaker) were on their first nomination. Smith was on his second, DiCaprio on his third. I would argue that none of them had a sense of urgency to award them an Oscar for a body of work.

O'Toole, however, was both age 74 and on his eighth nomination without a win. Venus could have served as his de facto Lifetime Achievement Oscar. It would be a way to reward O'Toole for an incredible body of work that had gone unrecognized.

Unfortunately, O'Toole already had a legitimate Honorary Academy Award, presented in 2002. As such, the memory of his eloquent acceptance speech was probably still fresh when Venus was nominated. That, I think, ended up being a strong factor in him losing yet again.

Winning a competitive Oscar after receiving an Honorary one is not impossible. Both Henry Fonda and Paul Newman managed to win Best Actor for On Golden Pond and The Color of Money respectively. Interestingly enough, both won Best Actor the year after they received Honorary Oscars. Could O'Toole have won if Venus had been released in 2003 instead of 2006?     

I would say no. Fonda and Newman were beloved by Academy members and the industry at large. They were longstanding members of the Hollywood community. O'Toole never was. He was always a bit of an outsider. Peter O'Toole was deeply respected and admired. I, however, do not think that he was loved. Even if he was, I do not think that he was loved in the way that Fonda and Newman were.

Henry Fonda and Paul Newman had other factors that helped them win competitive Oscars post-Honorary Oscars. On Golden Pond and The Color of Money were hit films and popular with audiences. On Golden Pond received ten nominations and was the second-highest grossing film of 1982. The Color of Money received four nominations and starred Tom Cruise, who is still one of the biggest names working today. 

Venus was not a hit film. It was not popular with audiences. It received one nomination. 

I would add a wild card with Henry Fonda. It was well-known that Fonda was in declining health and would die five months after the Oscar ceremony. I think that was a factor in Fonda's win.

Still, it was still theoretically possible for Peter O'Toole to ride out to a sentimental win. Even if his Honorary Oscar was still fresh in voters' memories. Even if Venus was not a hit. Even if he was not known to be dying. So, why did he ultimately lose?

I put it down to love. I think all the other nominees were respected. They may have even been liked. Their performances were respected. However, I think voters genuinely love Forest Whitaker. Again, by no means am I saying that it was sentiment and sentiment alone that got Forest Whitaker his Oscar. He is excellent as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland. He shifts effortlessly from jolly to psychotic. That nice guy Forest Whitaker showed a tremendous range is a credit to his acting skill.

So, why did Whitaker win overall? I think we can eliminate DiCaprio. He struggles whenever he tries for an accent. His Rhodesian accent was, like all his accents, forced and focused on the technical aspects versus the character. Smith was to my mind in a similar boat. It was not so much an accent that hurt him. It was, in retrospect, too calculated and mannered. I could see a lot of acting. I could not see Chris Gardner. 

That leaves O'Toole, Gosling and Whitaker as the strongest contenders. O'Toole has wonderful moments in Venus. He balanced the comedy and drama well. However, I think simply few people watched Venus to mount a serious campaign. Sadly, the nomination was the win.

O'Toole was also in my view overshadowed by Ryan Gosling. He was a standout in Half Nelson. His Daniel Dunne is a complex, complicated and contradictory figure. He can be idealistic and enthusiastic. He can also be brutal and crumbling. Gosling shows this young man as both good and self-destructive, with no easy or pat solutions to his own self-inflicted crises. 

I think what kept him from winning was his age. Perhaps voters thought that he was too young. There would be other times where he could get recognized. 

Gosling? Too young. O'Toole? He already had an Oscar, Venus might not be what he should win for, and few people saw it. Smith? Maybe trying too hard to win be having a series of Oscar clips versus an actual film. DiCaprio? Bad accent. Little enthusiasm for Blood Diamond. With that, there could be a consensus winner. He is well-liked in the industry. He gave a strong performance. Maybe it was not a major film, but with no real major competitor to rally around, Forest Whitaker wins the Oscar.

My one issue with Forest Whitaker's win is that I never felt that he was a Lead. Had he been nominated for Supporting Actor, I would be a firm champion of his win. However, The Last King of Scotland is actually not about Idi Amin. The film is actually about Amin's Scottish physician, James McAvoy's Nicholas Garrigan. He is the lead character. The film is really about Garrigan, not Amin. As such, I struggle with the idea that Whitaker should have been a Lead Actor nominee, let alone winner.

Peter O'Toole lost his eighth and final Best Actor nomination for a variety of reasons. He was his film's sole nomination. He already had won an Honorary Oscar. He was respected, but not loved, by the film industry. Could he have won? I think ultimately that he wouldn't have. I think all those factors did him in.

Finally, who do I think should have won? Here, for what it is worth, is how I would rank the nominees:

Ryan Gosling

Peter O'Toole

Forest Whitaker

Will Smith

Leonardo DiCaprio

I would have voted for Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson for Best Actor. Peter O'Toole and Forest Whitaker are neck-and-neck. What tilts it slightly towards O'Toole for me is that he is a definite Lead performance. Whitaker, however, is iffy as whether or not he is a Lead or Supporting character. Will Smith tried too hard in my view to be dramatic. Leonardo DiCaprio should just stop trying to act with accents.  

In conclusion, the Academy made the right choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar for his eighth and final nomination.