I didn't think it was. Despite Houseman's competence, I found the role one-note.
What do you think?
Dave
I thought Houseman did a great job, as did Jason Miller in "The Exorcist".
In medical school in the 90's, my pathology teacher pulled the "dime" stunt on a fellow student in the 90's. He said "Adam, here's a quarter. Call your mother and tell her you're not going to be a doctor." I felt like telling the teacher that I saw that film.
I was actually really disappointed in The Paper Chase, both as a movie and the fact that Houseman won the Oscar. While he did a good job with the role, I didn't think there was much to the role, as it wasn't a multi-layered character. Kingsfield was very stern and rude and that was about it.
The much more deserving choice that year was Jason Miller in The Exorcist. I always felt it was his heartfelt performance that carried that film.
"You waited 40 days to cry."
http://www.scottgingold.com/lost.html
The test of the worthiness of a best actor's Oscar needs to be based on a kind of ratio, the power of the actor's performance divided by the power of the role that he takes on. Under that formula John Houseman most certainly deserved it. The Kingsfield character was a very powerful one, one-dimensional as one might have found it, and Houseman's performance certainly approached a large percentage of what could have been created in it.
Hollywood often blows it and doesn't consider the above formula. Jack Nicholson certainly didn't deserve the best actor Oscar that he got for his role in As Good As It Gets, that certainly should have gone to Robert Duvall for his incredible performance as the preacher in The Apostle. That preacher's role was an incredibly powerful one, Jack Nicholson's mere odd boyfriend role didn't have much depth to it at all and he shouldn't have even been considered for an Oscar for it.
[deleted]
I once knew someone who studied Law in the USA and he said that there were rather a few professors around the character that Houseman played.
I suspect that he was helped because he was known as a producer in Hollywood.
Its that man again!!
I'd have gone with Houseman based on the power and memorable-ness of his character, Professor Kingsfield. And 2nd? Jack Gilford, as Jack Lemmon's moral accountant forced to choose between ethics and financial hardship or going bad and coming out ahead.
shareHonestly, Jason Miller gave the best performance out of the nominees IMO, his work in the Exorcist is that of perfection and still one of those most haunting performances I have ever seen.
However, I do think Houseman was great in this and it makes sense to me how he won, it's a powerhouse of a character.
To whatever degree the it was one-note was due to it always showing him relating to his students. Only one very short scene scene with his daughter. If he had been shown relating in scene with his peers, it would have given Houseman a chance to expand the character.
shareI think Houseman deserved the Oscar. Of the other nominees, Gilford would be my second choice, but a distant second. If Gilford had won, SAVE THE TIGER would have certainly gone down in history as the worst movie ever to feature two Oscar-winning performances by people named Jack.
Of the non-nominated supporting actors, I think Robert Shaw deserves consideration for his scenery-chewing performance in THE STING, and John Hillerman deserves a nod for his subtle dual role in PAPER MOON.
Should have nominated De Niro from Mean Streets as he was the second best supporting thing of 1973 - at worst. As for Houseman being one-note, well, supporting turns are rarely much "rangey" as it were. More about making a real strong, vivid impression on these limited notes, casting a shadow on the film that looms larger than the often limited screentime would lead one to expect.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Good points, franz, except that top-billed DeNiro should have been nominated for the lead in Mean Streets, not Best Supporting Actor.
shareHm, De Niro does seem to be top-billed for some reason. However, he clearly plays second fiddle to Keitel, with considerably less screentime - not enough to go down as a lead, imo.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
One-note performance indeed! It is THE note, perfectly sounded that creates a character for the ages.
shareMy first reaction was, of course! But later I realized after reflecting on Edward Herman's death (the Robot Pimp) at age 71 which was the same age the Houseman was when he played Kingsfield in The Paper Chase, maybe not so much. Houseman went on to live another 15 years and the term oscar winner always follows his name while we remember Herman for his many enjoyable supporting roles and bit parts. Houseman's performance was iconic, no doubt, but was it really enough to so distinguish his performance in the movie and his legacy (as an actor) from Herman's own? Of course Houseman had many other significant accomplishments in his life outside of his Oscar. Still when you look up Herman you see a solid bit player and when look up Houseman, putting aside his work as a producer, you see Oscar winning actor.
In the end I am still going with yes, but a hesitant yes.
But the Oscar is officially an award for a best single performance, not a lifetime achievement award. I'm a big Herrman fan myself, but I think his character has the fewest "Oscar bait" moments of anyone in Hart's study group. Houseman deserved the award imho; he seems to dominate the entire movie, even the scenes that he isn't in!
shareYes he deserved it. Now, it is an iconic performance. Can't say that about a lot of actors' performances. He made that role his own.
share