Still Angry about 1965 Oscars

This message has been deleted by an administrator

This message has been deleted by an administrator

No. I think it was Christies year to win. Darling was up for BP too and while Julie should have won for The Sound of Music, I wished it had been released a couple of years before. That way Andrews could have played Eliza Doolittle.

I know, I'm reaching. But of her stage roles Eliza was the best and the best suited to Andrews.

I'm sure Andrews pulled quite a few votes from Christie, but she and won the year before and was a relative newcomer. A talented one, but she was only about 30.

Btw, Ordinary People isn't that bad. Also it's a story about upper middle class WASP. The Academy was more comfortable. A lot of worthy nominees haven't won BP for one reason or another.

It's been a long time, man. Oscars aren't important; they're decoration, nothing more.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

Andrews didn't deserve her win for POPPINS-64'. Had she not won for this, she may have won for SOM. I haven't seen Christie's film; but from what I have read, she still sounds like a deserving winner.

I think Andrews was quite deserving in both years.

Andrews didn't deserve the Oscar for The Sound Of Music OR Mary Poppins. Christie deserved it for Darling and Kim Stanley should have won for Seance On A Wet Afternoon.

While Hepburn didn't do her own singing, she was a big box office draw at the time and better looking than Andrews. If Andrews was whining about it, I suppose it could have been an understandable disappointment over not having the opportunity to play Doolittle on the screen; but she just didn't have the box office clout at the time. She was being naïve and I suppose like you have mentioned entitled. I don't care for either of these musicals and I loath Sound Of Music, so Andrews or not in MFL, I couldn't have cared less who was cast.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩