Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Three: An Analysis

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER THREE: 

AN ANALYSIS

This one hurts.

The 41st Academy Awards were looking back with their various selections in both Best Picture and Best Actor. The five nominated films for Best Picture were two musicals, a historical film, a Shakespearean adaptation and one contemporary drama. Two of those nominated films also found themselves among the five Best Actor nominees.

The first was our perennial Oscar bridesmaid Peter O'Toole. His nomination for The Lion in Winter was one of that film's seven nods. The other Best Actor nominee was Ron Moody for Oliver! which had the most overall nominations at eleven. The Lion in Winter was the historical film. Oliver! was one of the two musicals (Funny Girl being the other). The other three nominees seemed to have a very small chance of winning.

One of the Best Actor nominees was Alan Arkin for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. That film received two nominations for Arkin and Sondra Locke in Supporting Actress. The other two were their film's only nominations: Alan Bates in The Fixer and Cliff Robertson for Charly. Films that receive only one nomination rarely win in their nominated category. In the four acting categories, the chances of a win from its sole nomination are even lower. 

Again, it is not impossible for an actor or actress to win the Oscar despite having only one nomination. Overall, though, circumstances have to be such that such a win is plausible to logical. Such a thing does not appear to be the case here. In other occasions, an actor winning in their category despite being that film's only nomination has other factors that push them to victory. There can be an "overdue" narrative where someone wins the Oscar after many failed nominations. There can be a weak field where that sole nominee can overpower the others. Conversely, there can be such a strong field where that sole nominee can end up as a consensus choice after the others beat each other up.

So far, none of those factors appear to be in play. Three of the five nominees (Bates, Moody and Robertson) were on their first nomination. One (Arkin) was on his second. O'Toole was the most nominated of the five and he was just on his third. Curiously, those same three first-time nominees (Bates, Moody and Robertson) would never be nominated again. Alan Arkin would be the only one of this year's five apart from O'Toole to return to the Oscar race; eventually he would win a competitive Oscar, although it took almost forty years for him to get his chance.  

As a side note, the lack of nominations save for Best Actor curiously would, in the future, affect O'Toole as the years and nominations went on. Out of the five future nominations that he would receive, only two would be for films where he was not that film's sole nomination. In 1969 his film Goodbye, Mr. Chips would get two nominations. In 1980, O'Toole's nominated performance in The Stunt Man would be one of that film's three nominations. His fifth, seventh and eighth nominations would be just for his performance and for nothing else. 

This nomination would also be the last time that O'Toole's nomination came from a film that was up for Best Picture. 

Everything looked to be set for Peter O'Toole to win on his third nomination. It would have not been a surprise if he had won. He was not overdue per se, but he was in a successful film that eclipsed his fellow nominees in terms of box office and nominations save for Ron Moody.  His reviews were mostly positive. He was facing three nominees who were both on their first nominations and their film's sole nominations. 

He was also, in a curious turn, recreating a previous performance. O'Toole's second nomination was for playing the same role as King Henry II. He had been nominated four years earlier for his performance as Henry II in Becket. The Lion in Winter was not a sequel. However, Peter O'Toole joined a rare group of actors who were nominated multiple times for playing the same character. 

Looking at past history, it looked like Peter O'Toole was the odds-on favorite. He was not a prohibitive frontrunner. However, he looked to have the strongest chances of winning. However, when Burt Lancaster opened the envelope, it was not Peter O'Toole's name that he read out. So, what happened?

First, let us look at the competition that year. The nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role of 1968 were:

Alan Arkin in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter

Alan Bates in The Fixer

Ron Moody in Oliver!

Peter O'Toole in The Lion in Winter

Cliff Robertson in Charly

It looked to be a two-man race between Peter O'Toole and Ron Moody. Two of the three first-time nominees (Bates and Robertson) were going up against stronger competition. As stated, Bates and Robertson were their film's sole nomination. Arkin was one of only two of his film's nominations. This race does not seem to have someone dominate the film. There, however, does not seem enough of a strong competition as to have Academy members make any of them a consensus choice. 

The Academy thought well enough of The Lion in Winter to give it seven nominations and three wins. The Lion in Winter made Oscar history when Ingrid Bergman announced Best Actress. Opening the envelope, Bergman said, "The winner...it's a tie!". Bergman was so shocked that she muddled Katharine Hepburn's film as "Lion in the Winter" instead of The Lion in Winter before announcing Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl also won Best Actress. However, Hepburn's costar in Lion in the Winter lost Best Actor to an actor whose film received one nomination. 

How exactly did Cliff Robertson win for his first and only nomination? How was this somewhat small film able to overcome the more nominated film? I can guess that there may have been one to two factors. First, Robertson played a mentally challenged individual in Charly. A performance that shows a character with physical or mental limitations seems to be taken as an acting feat. That might have swayed enough voters to see Robertson playing someone who starts out mentally challenged, transitions to genius and then reverts to his original state as authentic acting.

The second factor is not a pretty one. Robertson may simply have had a better Oscar campaign. It was well-known that Charly was a passion project for Robertson. He had played the character on television. He had bought the film rights to guarantee that he would star in a film version. He even hired the screenwriters, firing the first (William Goldman) when dissatisfied with the results. Robertson hustled hard for his film. That hustle probably included campaigning for the nomination and the eventual win. 

While I figure the other nominated films campaigned for Oscars, I think O'Toole was not glad-handling prospective Oscar voters like Robertson was. Neither he nor Bates nor Robertson attended, though in fairness Robertson was filming in the Philippines and was denied permission to attend. 

Time Magazine a few weeks after Robertson's surprise win made an example of him as essentially buying votes. Robertson or his team took out full-page ads in all the trade publications that it could, pushing and promoting his nomination. This kind of campaigning is nothing new. Perhaps the nadir was the campaign that The Alamo costar Chill Wills launched for Best Supporting Actor. His ads saying that his costars were praying harder for Wills than those at the Alamo were so garish that they became an embarrassment to all concerned. 

Exactly how and how many voters were swayed enough to tip the race to Robertson over O'Toole is purely speculative. However, it ultimately worked as Cliff Robertson won the Best Actor Oscar. I think in the long run, though, it was a Pyrrhic victory. Few people nowadays remember that Cliff Robertson won Best Actor for Charly. I think few people nowadays even remember Charly. A contemporary of mine expressed genuine shock when I told him.    

Peter O'Toole, as stated in past analyses, was respected. He, however, was not loved. Never underestimate the power of love when it comes to selecting Oscar winners. I also think that there is something of a wild card here. Cliff Robertson and Alan Arkin were the only Americans nominated for Best Actor that year. Could anti-British sentiment have played a role in O'Toole's defeat? It does not strike me as likely, but not impossible.

And now, for my ranking. Going from Best to Worst, my ranking goes as follows:

Peter O'Toole

Ron Moody

Alan Arkin

Alan Bates

Cliff Robertson

I look on Robertson's win and O'Toole's loss as simply inexplicable. Peter O'Toole dominated the screen as Henry II. He was a man filled with rage, with schemes, but also with great fears. O'Toole makes Henry II a man full of lust for life. Proud to the point of foolishness but with a sharp mind, O'Toole's performance towers over all his fellow nominees.

I flipped a bit between Ron Moody and Alan Arkin for who should be in second place. I still could be persuaded to flip them and have Arkin second and Moody third. Curiously, Moody and Arkin were the only nominees to attend that year's ceremony. I ultimately put Moody ahead of Arkin because Moody had to do more. He had to do the singing and dancing in Oliver! However, Moody also had to show some dramatic and comic non-singing and dancing moments. Moody's Fagin was a schemer and survivor. He was, in his own way, protective of his gang of tween hoods. He had to maintain a balance between Oliver Reed's brutal Bill Sykes and Fagin's more conciliatory manner. In turns amusing and dramatic, Ron Moody did an excellent job.

Alan Arkin was hampered a bit in that more often than not he looked the same in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. By that I mean that he had to do a lot of staring to communicate as his character was a deaf-mute. It is a curiosity that two of the nominees were for playing disabled characters. Again, I think Arkin did a fine job in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. I could flip him and Moody. Ultimately though, Moody barely edges Arkin out.

Alan Bates in The Fixer is pretty much forgotten now. The Fixer is as of this writing unavailable either on DVD or streaming. If Bates' performance or The Fixer itself were better known and/or remembered, I still would have ranked it lower. Bates was pretty one-note in The Fixer. The subject of antisemitism is an important one. However, both the film and Bates' performance had a sluggish quality to them that made them fall short of being good, let alone Oscar worthy.

Cliff Robertson goes at the end because of a curious reason. This sounds odd, but Robertson is too smart for this character. You can see a calculated manner to his Charly Gordon. I found it too methodical, as if he was concentrating on how to make Charly this mentally disabled person. He was never Charly Gordon to me. He was Cliff Robertson. The acting was too pronounced, too calculated, for me to think it should outrank any of the others. It did not help that Charly and Robertson became almost laughable in the third act. Charly's transition to a hippie biker or biker hippie was in turns goofy and bizarre. 

I think Cliff Robertson's Best Actor win for Charly will rank as one of the worst Best Actor wins of all time when I do a Best Actor Retrospective. It is pretty much a forgotten win which has not stood the test of time.

Peter O'Toole should have won Best Actor for The Lion in Winter over Cliff Robertson for Charly.

In conclusion, the Academy made the wrong choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar on his third nomination.