Timothy Bottom's portrayal of Sonny Crawford was one of the most impressive performances I've ever seen. His was also the central character that held the story together. How is it he wasn't nominated for an Oscar? Was it because Ben Johnson got the nomination instead, and they wouldn't nominate two best actors from the same film?
shareHe didn't have a supporting role, which means you think he should have been nominated for Best Actor. That was very unlikely: young actors, then and even now, rarely snag lead actor noms.
share'very unlikely: young actors, then and even now, rarely snag lead actor noms'.
-------------------
Since when?
James Dean,Marlon Brando,etc, were
Everyone you mentioned, except for Bottoms, was in fact nominated.
sharealthough it was an ensemble piece,sonny was clearly the lead,and 1971 had established actors like hackman,finch matthau,etc that were nominated over him.
the academy has a bit of a bias about young male actors..theyll nominate women in their early 20s,but seldom men..brody,at,29,is the youngest male ever to win..
[deleted]
I agree, Timothy's performance was fantastic. He carried the film very well. I was especially impressed by his speechlessness and facial expressions in the final scene (with Cloris Leachman). He should definitely have gotten an Oscar nomination for Best Actor.
shareTimothy Bottoms' performance was exceptionally great. He allowed the others actors to "try" to stand out---but everybody I've talk too said they only looked at Timothy when he was on the screen. The incredible thing is--he was so real it didn't appear to be acting, but rather an embodiment of Sonny--a REAL person, not a character.
share[deleted]
Timothy's performance is quite simply not the type that gets you nominated; it's 95% reaction-based. He's just not as overtly impressive as everyone else in the cast, which is probably why he wasn't nominated.
Interestingly, reaction shots are where less accomplished actors fail. Tim Bottoms not only succeeds - he takes it to the next level. It's an exceptional performance, wonderfully collected and the very best in the whole film.
Never mind 'nominated, I'd say he should have won Best Actor that year.
The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.
the academy has a bit of a bias about young male actors..theyll nominate women in their early 20s,but seldom men..brody,at,29,is the youngest male ever to win..
One cannot evaluate this question without assessing the 5 performances that DID get selected, and judging which one, if any, should get bumped.
I've seen 3 of the 5. No way you bump George C. Scott on merit; I think the only reasons he didn't win are because 1) he won the prior year, and 2) became the first actor to tell them to stick it. I'd also hate to deny Gene Hackman one of the few non-gimp Best Actor Oscars of the last 50 years.
The two I haven't seen are Peter Finch and Topol. I know that Finch's taboo-breakjng performance stunned 1971 audiences with it's frankness, and there's no questioning his acting cred; and Topol's performance in a smash adaptation of a beloved play pleased too many people to be denied.
Which leaves us Matthau in "Kotch". I take a back seat to no one in my admiration of Matthau, who delivered in one performance after another, including stuff like this and "The Couch Trip" and a few others where he was the ONLY reason to watch. But "Kotch" is a mediocre, instantly forgettable movie, and Matthau's performance did nothing to mitigate that.
With all due respect to the late great and beloved Matthau, were I czar, I would have bumped him for Bottoms.
I don't think Bottoms's performance merited any Oscars or other awards as he was too much given to sort of expressionlessly moping around. He was better in The Paper Chase two years later.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
He's so good in the Paper Chase, really carries the film with his surprising energy.