Two great performances, two Best Actor nominations, each significantly better and more powerful than the actor who was "given" an Oscar for being who he was rather than for giving a great performance.
Two great performances, two Best Actor nominations, each significantly better and more powerful than the actor who was "given" an Oscar for being who he was rather than for giving a great performance.
Ron, that's true in theory -- but in retrospect , I am glad that the man who created Ethan Edwards, the Quiet Man and the Ringo Kid, among many others, did win for Rooster Cogburn - he was iconic of course but he was a talented actor too.
Joe Buck and Ratzo Rizzo are wonderfully memorable characters and both of these fine actors won Best Actor Oscars later. This was the Duke's last chance.
Two great performances, two Best Actor nominations, each significantly better and more powerful than the actor who was "given" an Oscar for being who he was rather than for giving a great performance.
Ron, that's true in theory -- but in retrospect , I am glad that the man who created Ethan Edwards, the Quiet Man and the Ringo Kid, among many others, did win for Rooster Cogburn - he was iconic of course but he was a talented actor too.
Joe Buck and Ratzo Rizzo are wonderfully memorable characters and both of these fine actors won Best Actor Oscars later. This was the Duke's last chance.
They could have given him a special Oscar. A competitive Oscar win remains, to me, ludicrous. I never found him the least bit "talented" as an actor. He was a talented personality..at playing and being himself. Enjoyable, yes, but never on a level anywhere near such "actors" as Peter O'Toole or Richard Burton, much less Hoffman and Voigt...or even Rock Hudson, James Dean or Tony Curtis. Oscars are not supposed to be about taking a "chance" to honor someone who never previously merited a nomination. "True Grit" and Rooster Cogburn were enjoyable cinema, but not more.
Two great performances, two Best Actor nominations, each significantly better and more powerful than the actor who was "given" an Oscar for being who he was rather than for giving a great performance.
Ron, that's true in theory -- but in retrospect , I am glad that the man who created Ethan Edwards, the Quiet Man and the Ringo Kid, among many others, did win for Rooster Cogburn - he was iconic of course but he was a talented actor too.
Joe Buck and Ratzo Rizzo are wonderfully memorable characters and both of these fine actors won Best Actor Oscars later. This was the Duke's last chance.
They could have given him a special Oscar.
When? when he was dying ?
A competitive Oscar win remains, to me, ludicrous.
Competitons amongst actors playing widely disparate roles ARE ludicrous , not just in this case.
I never found him the least bit "talented" as an actor. He was a talented personality..at playing and being himself.
So you think that he played himself as Ethan Edwards (THE SEARCHERS) and Thomas Dunson(RED RIVER) -- for example.
Enjoyable, yes, but never on a level anywhere near such "actors" as Peter O'Toole or Richard Burton ...or even Rock Hudson, James Dean or Tony Curtis.
But yet none of them ever won an Oscar.
Oscars are not supposed to be about taking a "chance" to honor someone who never previously merited a nomination.
He was previously nominated for SAND OF IWO JIMA.
"True Grit" and Rooster Cogburn were enjoyable cinema, but not more.
Hmm - many consider TRUE GRIT a classic.
Im not a huge Wayne fan but I think that his career is remarkable and that he won an Oscar for TRUE GRIT because the Academy voters thought that he deserved one , for whatever reasons - I doubt that Hoffmann and Voight begrudge his win. And I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY btw.
