Gene Hackman Should have won

I imagine the studio wanted nominations for both Melvyn Douglas and Gene Hackman without them being in competition within a category. Hence the Supporting category for Gene, even though they had equally important roles, both brilliantly played.

As George C. Scott sent his Oscar back, not having even been at the ceremony, it's a shame there couldn't be a second vote in these circumstances, awarding the Oscar to another. Although I do have some sympathy with Scott's reason...

Perhaps Hollywood likes to give the Oscar to actors interpreting mentally challenged people. This was the first of two occasions that Gene lost out in such circumstances, the other being when Dustin Hoffmann in Rain Man snatched Best Actor from Gene in Mississippi Burning. And that was Gene's first nomination since 1972 - 17 years...he should have won that one too.

Gene has said that many people have come up to him, years after the film was released, thanking him and saying it was a film that needed to be made. I got the feeling this was from children of fathers similar to Tom, where these children said "my mother/brother/sister thank you for it - my father doesn't thank you for it...".

I do hope your relationship with your Dad was stronger than his relationship with his father. It's a tough film, but deals so honestly with situations that so many have to face, and make decisions about.


“Instant gratification takes too long.”

Gene was amazing in this, but he should have been nominated in lead, not support - there was nothing supporting about this performance at all, and then I also agree that Scott should still have won. Gene should also have been nominated in '74 for The Conversation and in '01 for The Royal Tenenbaums. I gues though he did won two very deserved oscars, so we can't complain too much.

Everything was Beautiful and Nothing Hurt!