MovieChat Forums > Sweet Bird of Youth (1962) Discussion > Ed Begley's Oscar???

Ed Begley's Oscar???

posted 17 years ago by miriamwebster
16 replies | jump to latest

Any theories on why Ed Begley earned Academy Award for this? His performance as cliched overbearing Southern political boss was okay, but was nothing really special and bordered on hammy--the sort of thing Sydney Greenstreet had done far better (with no awards) in half a dozen similar roles like Flamingo Road. As far as I know, it wasn't even like this was a belated career award for having been repeatedly overlooked in the past. Subtlety was simply not his forte. Mystifying.

[–] jncn 16 years ago

The role should have been played by Burl Ives of "Tin roof." I love Begley but not in this role. I agree with you.

[–] jonchopwood 15 years ago

The Academy didn't want to give it to Omar Shariff, a new comer.

------------------------------------------------

"Why do people always laugh in the wrong places?"
--T.E. Lawrence

[–] Ebb_Cruz 15 years ago

He was perfect as the self absorbed, over-the-top, greedy Southern politican. A great supporting performance, and a deserving winner.

It'll be the people's palace of Iraq, like Graceland is to us.

[–] Loomis_Orange 15 years ago

Ed Begley Sr. played the Boss? WoW - Never looked at the credits on who played him. His son is very likable on "Living with Ed"

I really dig this movie. Geraldine Page is a treasure for sure.

"Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night?"-Jack Kerouac

[–] jayraskin1 14 years ago

Ed Begley Sr. was okay, but he didn't really deserve the Academy Award for this movie. He didn't really stand out as Burl Ives did three years earlier in Tennessee Williams "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" where he upstaged both Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor.

I think he lucked out because all four of his competition were brand new actors, or at least, brand new to the movie academy. Omar Sheriff had been an Egyptian star for ten years, but "Lawrence of Arabia" was his first Hollywood movie. Telly Savalas had been doing television for three years, but "Birdman was his first real movie role. Victor Bueno likewise had done bit parts on television for three years before his first movie role in "Baby Jane." Terrence Stamp, who, in my opinion, deserved the Academy Award for "Billy Bud" was a newcomer and had only done one other movie that same year.

Begley was the only real movie veteran. He had been acting in movies and television for fifteen years and this was his first big role. Also he had done good work in "12 Angry Men" five years before, so I think the Academy voters really wanted to reward him for that movie too.

[–] HarlowMGM 13 years ago

Begley's competition however wasn't Burl Ives from a film four years before - it's the other four nominees. His performance is very good, and no it's not as memorable as Ives' in CAT, but again this is 1962 not 1958. Plenty of Oscar winners have won some years in performances that might not have been nominated in another year and certainly many a winless supporting performance has been given that was better than ones that did win the Oscar. I thought Begley was excellent in an admittedly "stock" character of the small town kingpin; at the least he certainly deserved his nomination and I'd say he was as good as any of his competition in 1962. The big question for me is what in Shirley Knight's colorless role of Heavenly possibly deserved the Best Supporting Actress nomination? Madeleine Sherwood is more memorable in her small part; I'd say even Dorothy Konrad in the bit part as the plump old butt kisser Mrs. Maribelle made a more memorable impression than the admittedly talented Knight in her thankless part.

[–] jayraskin 13 years ago

i agree Begley deserved a nomination. However, I thought, Victor Buono, Telly Salvalas, Omar Sharif, and Terence Stamp all gave as good or slightly better performances. Buono would have been my vote. When you're in a film with Bettie Davis at her best and you can still make your character memorable, you deserve an oscar.

I agree that Knight shouldn't have been nominated. It was good, but not terrific. The kids, Patty Duke and Mary Badham, were stand outs that year and I suspect everybody knew that Knight's performance didn't stand a chance.

[–] don-lockwood 11 years ago

I'm fine with Shirley Knight being nominated. She was quite good, the only appealing, wholesome character in the film; today you would call her the "heart of the movie," and that often gets a nomination. Sherwood is memorable and quirky but not really given enough for me to say she was worthy of a nomination.

However, 1962 was one of the best years for actors. I personally think Collin Wilcox and Brock Peters, and to a lesser extent Robert Duvall, were ripped off for To Kill a Mockingbird. Long Day's Journey into Night had several worthy supporting actors - Jason Robards, Dean Stockwell, and Ralph Richardson. Back to Supporting Actress: Shelley Winters had one of her best roles in Lolita (certainly given more to do than in her Oscar-winning performance in The Diary of Anne Frank), Shirley Jones (arguably lead) was wonderful singing in The Music Man, and Joan Crawford wasn't given enough credit as the tortured victim in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Then there's Gypsy: Natalie Wood did a nice job, and Rosalind Russell, though mostly dubbed, is still volcanic, even if playing herself. Page was terrific, but it's easy to see why it took her as long as it did to win an Oscar. She's stagy and mannered. Gloria Swanson and Vivien Leigh, not to mention two of Page's rivals that year, Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis, were all true movie stars who were more convincing at playing over-the-top characters without seeming too over-the-top. Of course, Sweet Bird of Youth isn't the best Tennessee Williams story, so Page is limited by the material.

There's another thread here on Best Actress. I think Page was the least deserving of the excellent five nominees. Considering that Hepburn and Davis had other, richer, more nuanced performances in their long careers, I'm happy for Anne Bancroft, as she brought a special kind of dignity and strength to Annie Sullivan. But I might have voted for Lee Remick, especially since it ended up being her only nomination. She was just incredible portraying the effects of alcoholism in Days of Wine and Roses, as was her costar Jack Lemmon. It's a much more powerful film and performance than Page and Sweet Bird of Youth.

As for Begley, yes, on paper he looks like a great win. On paper none of the other nominees had the steady career or type of character to win enough votes.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

Page was terrific, but it's easy to see why it took her as long as it did to win an Oscar. She's stagy and mannered

. I think that's good insight, and I'd tend to agree. There was always a somewhat meandering-quality in her acting, likely for the reason you stated.

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

Plenty of Oscar winners have won some years in performances that might not have been nominated in another year and certainly many a winless supporting performance has been given that was better than ones that did win the Oscar.

Harlow comes though again; yes, that's what makes the "winners" meaningless overall.

[–] sirjeremy 10 years ago

Agree, the newbie factor is what did the other four in. I watched Sweet Bird of Youth for the first time recently and am OK with Begley's win but I feel Bueno should have won this one for one of the most singular supporting performances of all-time. I read that Sharif, who won the Golden Globe, was considered the favourite, by the way.

[–] dracher 9 years ago

Ed Begley played the role with depth of understanding and absolute sincerity. It is easy to experience the power of such a magnificent piece of characterisation, and conclude, from the comfort of your seat, that the performance was over the top or borderline "Hammy"; however it is more likely to be the fact that you have never experienced the power of such as Boss Finley, or invested time and energy in a character study of such a person, in the way that Ed Begley would no doubt have found it essential to do.

Men like Boss Finley, can be seen for what they are by a child or a simpleton, yet they command city hall, corrupt entire police forces, and ruin peoples lives, with the same ease that they would eat a cob of corn or break wind. The power base and drive of such a man is akin to a nuclear reactor, it takes a lot of excessive energy to drive an actor to overplay such a character, and Ed Begley one of the world's finest character actors, was far too experienced, to ever allow himself the grave fault of overplaying.

Having said this, the best work of the finest character actors, has always been done at the knife edge, the very doorstep of overplaying.

I advise that you look again at his performance, look beyond the obvious outward manifestations, and experience the layers of the character. The hate, the jealousy, the lust, the power addiction, the fear and the vulnerability of the man behind the character.

It is a very rare thing to encounter a human being who is evil for the sake of being evil, and Boss Finley is, sadly, no rarity.

regards,
It is not what we have, but what we do with what we have that constitutes success in life.

[–] Gus-69 8 years ago

His performance was a caricature. Way over the top. Hardly a recognizable human being, more like a cartoon. Such an outdated style of acting. Maybe his Oscar was a career achievement award.

----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 4 years ago

It was a category without a strong frontrunner - Omar Sharif won the Golden Globe for Lawrence of Arabia but that's a fairly passive role as I remember - so the veteran in a showy role managed to eke out the win. Begley is okay in the film - a bit over the top with not much in the way of nuance, but much lesser performances have won.