MovieChat Forums > The Sand Pebbles (1966) Discussion > Why it did not win an Oscar?

Why it did not win an Oscar?


Read it somewhere that it has to do with the fact that The Sand Pebbles conveys a strong anti-war theme, definitely not music to the ears for the Establishment. How sad if there is any truth in it.

reply

I don't know why it did not win an award.

It was a suspenseful movie.
I can understand why it was popular.

But my guess is this.

The film:
• is violent
• is depressing
• has a sad ending (death scene)

I cannot remember any academy award winner which was all three.

The ending is also the end of the lead character, but not the end of the plot.

I never read the novel, but for the sake of continuity, it would have been more complete (not necessarily "better") to end the movie with the status of the SAN PABLO and the status of the conflict, so that the audience walks out of the theater with some sense of closure.

As it is, we walk out with -- what? nothing?

reply

Those three reasons do generally work against an Oscar win. However, much more than that was as work in 1966/67 for it to not win. It was critical of US policy when Vietnam was just starting to become the controversial war which time proved it to be. Anti-establishment films generally don't win. It is a very good movie, but not necessarily considered a four star movie,despite our admiration for it. Much more highly recieved, groundbreaking, and iconoclastic films were out that year (Blow Up, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Georgie Girl). Finally, the Oscar went, as can usually be predicted, to a 'noble' more highbrow film about self sacrifice, honor, and history, A Man for All Seasons... a more palatable film for the middle classes. 'Controversy' rarely wins these things unless its a 'safe' controversy which people feel easier with...(In the Heat of the Night over Bonnie and Clyde, Gentlemen's Agreement over Crossfire, and Crash over Brokeback Mountain).
Also, in answer to your final question... I disagree... we walk out out of seeing The Sand Pebbles with plenty.... Thoughts... Insights... Points of discussion... sadness for the madness we humans create... inspiration to call it out for what it is. I don't need 'upbeat' endings for a movie to be great.

reply

My guess is that it was too cerebral to win and Oscar.

reply

So A Man for All Seasons and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? are dumb popcorn films?

"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?"

reply

Considering the time that this was made and the political climate in the US, a movie critical of US 'policy' more than likely wasn't going to get a warm reception by the masses.

Because the world is rushing toward entropy. What's your excuse?

reply

[deleted]

Good point. I am not a kid either. So 'public support' is the radar of what is moral and ethical? I'll jump in my time machine and go back to the Civil War south and assure African Americans of that. Then I'll jump to New York in the industrial age and tell the eight year olds in factories that. Then the darned women fighting for the right to vote a few years later. They'll all be consoled that they are in the wrong because 'public support' is against them.
But we digress.... we we discussing The Sand Pebbles....have you anything to contribute on the movie? But hey, thanks for clarifying.

reply

I don't know if you meant to reply to me, but I never mentioned Vietnam.

As you should already know, the typical American's attitude at the time was more of a 'We couldn't be wrong/our leaders wouldn't take us astray' ilk. 'We' were right in WWII, Korea, Cuba... not to mention all the other areas we were fooling with.
The movie challenged not only policy, but attitudes as well.

Because the world is rushing toward entropy. What's your excuse?

reply

Cheapbird, No, I wasn't responding to your post. You are very wise in your comments.

reply

Sorry there Eddy, I was replying to Citizen... But thanks!

You guys must view in flat mode. I use the nested mode to see who's replying to whom...

Because the world is rushing toward entropy. What's your excuse?

reply

Might be true, it was McQueen's best part of all time. That is for sure.

reply

Well, it was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actor. So Hollywood did give it some recognition. However, going 0 for 8 made it just about the all-time "loser" for number of nominations with no Oscars.

reply

As I mentioned on another film, it had the misfortune of going up against "A Man for All Seasons" - a much more conventional and, quite frankly, better film. Now I think "The Sand Pebbles" is an excellent film, and its refusal to depict events and characters in a black-and-white manner is really appealing to me. But it's very hard to say that it was a better film than "A Man for All Seasons", I'm sorry.

PEDECARIS ALIVE OR RAISULI DEAD!

reply

[deleted]

A Man for All Seasons deserved Best Picture but McQueen should have been awarded Best Actor.

reply

I have no idea. It should have won all 8 + more. Its my favorite movie so I can't really understand it, A Man for All Seasons better be the most perfect film of all time!!!!!!

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

reply

As history it was utter hokum, particularly in its portrayal of Thomas More, but as a piece of filmmaking it was pure gold.

reply

Actually, I'd venture that "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was the best offering that year, with Burton's performance the best of the year. Simply put, that film should have swept the top awards. That's not to say that I dislike "The Sand Pebbles" and "A Man For All Seasons," I actually love both of them, but "Virginia Woolf?" is something else.

__
"I'm vilifying you for God's sake - pay attention!"

reply

I think if The Sand Pebbles had been released in a year other than 1966 it would have taken home a number of statuettes. However, I do think AMFAS deserved every award it got, and then some.

Nothing that happens on Earth is unknown to Santa Claus!

reply

"Why it did not win an Oscar?"

For the same reason CITIZEN KANE didn't won the oscar: Too sophisticated and adult.

I'm still at awe and amazed that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN won the oscar. Somebody made a thankfully "big mistake" with that one, i guess. It's so rare when the right movie gets the right award. Didn't happened with THE SAND PEBBLES, unfortunatly.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

A lot of the "whys" posted here can certainly be considered as reasons it did not win an Oscar. But if you check those actors and films that did win that year you'd be hard pressed to deny their just rewards.
A Man For All Seasons
Paul Scofield (A Man For All Seasons)
Walter Matthau (Fortune Cookie)


Sometimes it's just that the competition was better.

I loved the book and the film regardless.

~LjM
Way down deep I'm very superficial.

reply

I have a weird outlook I spoze, but I've never liked the notion of "non-movie" people winning acting or directing Oscars. Yes, Paul Scofield had immense talent, but I don't consider him a "movie" person if only because he appeared in so damn few of them. I feel the same about Shirley Booth and Luise Rainier (sp?). I'll withhold judgment on Jennifer Hudson until I see if she tries to make a go at movie acting. I guess I'd exclude Harold Russell and even Marlee Matlin because their disabilities made it difficult for them to sustain movie careers even if they'd wanted to. (yes, I know Ms. Matlin used to show up on TV fairly regularly). Now Steve McQueen was a "movie" type to me and I feel he got shortchanged by the Academy in '66.

reply