Houseman's Oscar- deserved or no?

[deleted]

Yes, I agree it was somewhat one note. I suppose Houseman's long time Hollywood association behind the scenes and the novelty of making something of a film debut at such advanced age had something to do with his winning. As for the other roles, probably Gilford's dramatic portrayal of Jack Lemmon's business partner was the most impressive coming off a lifetime of light hearted characters. I also loved Randy Quaid's tragically doomed Marine on a last hopeless trip to the brig living the best days of his life. Great year for film!!!!

No matter what kind of an actor he was or how his later roles were, or for that matter, just how much he actually acted in this particualr role (as opposed to playing a version of himself), as an attorney who is rather fresh from law school I would say that his potrayal of Kingsfield, while a bit stylized, fairly well captures the self important and pompous natures of law professors during lectures. For example, at the end of the first year all the prof's gave "go forth and do good thing speeches" and all were applauded. However, one professor, a very intelligent man, took the theatrical aspect of making a grand exit from the room, so that he could go out to a thundering ovation. HOwever, it was so contrived that he left his books and things laying on the lectern, making it necesary to return for them moments later. While I didn't have any profs exactly along the lines of Houseman, he was a fair representation of those that I did have.

Just thinking about movies that came out in 1973......how about Dustin Hoffman for Papillon? Did he get any consideration? Seems like a role that would have gotten notice. Certainly better than Houseman's.

In retrospect, looks like one of those fluke Oscar wins. Basically unknown (to public, anyway) guy with long-time industry connections comes out of seemingly nowhere in late-year-end release in which he has exceedingly large "supporting" part.

Performance was certainly authoritative but by no means nuanced (not that there was much chance for character shading as written). If Edward G. Robinson (who, per some sources, was original choice) had played it, Oscar would have made more sense--a career award.

Thirty years after the fact, biggest puzzle is why this film caught on with the public the way it did. Almost seems like it was riding coattails of Love Story.

I've seen the movie, but didn't know about the other nominees. Of the list posted, Houseman was probably the best choice.

As for the role, he didn't do anything so outstanding than any other stoic-look-down-the-nose-snooty actor couldn't have done. He just has that professor look and mannerism, and from that point of view, he didn't have to act...just be himself.

No, I don't think he deserved the award. His character was important to the film, but it was essentially a one dimensional role. At no point did I get a real grasp of his basic humanity. This is more of the writer's fault than Houseman's, but still, it was not an Oscar-worthy perfromance.

I vote Yes. The role became a early-70s icon, at the end of the time when students were questioning their professors' authority, and carried on into the 80s in those indeleble Smith, Barney TV commercials.

It's a wonder that Houseman doesn't have a billable part in any Orson Welles movies. (He may be among the anonymous background characters in Citizen Kane, though.) Ham rivalry?