O'Toole is over

email this story
read comments (25)
post a comment

The decision of the Florida Film Critics to give Peter O'Toole a kiss-of-death, gold-watch, career achievement award is unfortunately symptomatic of the thinking out there, which is that O'Toole can't win against Will Smith and/or Leonardo DiCaprio in the Best Actor competish, but let's gather round and show our respect, etc. O'Toole's decision to wait until mid-January to show up in Los Angeles probably sealed his fate. I wish it were otherwise and I'm genuinely sorry, realizing he's been coping with forces beyond his control. All hail Becket!

Blowing off "Apocalypto"<< previous | next >>Fascist Mirren-Whitaker

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 27, 2006 at 5:40 AM

comment #1

EDouglas says ...

Can't win against Will Smith and/or Leonardo Dicaprio!? Jeff, Forest Whitaker is the clear frontrunner right now with O'Toole offering the only competition.

Posted by EDouglas at December 27, 2006 7:08 AM

comment #2

kmoore says ...

To EDOUGLAS: I understand what Jeff is saying, remember critics and the academy are to different bodies. I don't think Forrest will have a much support from the Academy as Will or Leo.

After seeing "Pursuit" I feel the academy will eat Will's performance up and come back for seconds.

Posted by kmoore at December 27, 2006 7:18 AM

comment #3

Rob says ...

Smith has this one in the bag.

Posted by Rob at December 27, 2006 7:45 AM

comment #4

EDouglas says ...

"I don't think Forrest will have a much support from the Academy as Will or Leo."

I dunno about that... usually when a lead actor/actress has as much overwhelming support as Whitaker and Mirren do this early in the game, they're shoe-ins to win. I can't imagine that people who actually work in the industry will be very impressed with Leo in Departed/Blood Diamond, at least compared to his performance in Aviator. I can see Will offering some competition, sure, but Leo? no way.

Posted by EDouglas at December 27, 2006 8:57 AM

comment #5

Goulet says ...

What baffles me the most about the DiCaprio buzz is that I thought Damon was much better in The Departed. Yet, no one's talking about his performance...

Posted by Goulet at December 27, 2006 9:27 AM

comment #6

Craig Kennedy says ...

Peter O'Toole was terrific as always, but I loathed Venus. It's a testament to O'Toole's appeal even as an old man that I didn't walk out on the film right about the time that infernal Corinne Bailey Rae song from the trailer kicked in.

O'Toole winning an Oscar for this would be worse than a lifetime achievement award because with the latter, Venus can be quickly and mercifully forgotten.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at December 27, 2006 9:48 AM

comment #7

Movie fan09 says ...

jeff-
children of men is using your review quote.

Posted by Movie fan09 at December 27, 2006 9:51 AM

comment #8

William Goss says ...

Wow. You REALLY don't care for those Florida critics, do ya?

Posted by William Goss at December 27, 2006 10:29 AM

comment #9

Edward Havens says ...

The sad part is, O'Toole will win the Oscar for Venus, which would be a shame. It's telling that, in the scene where his character is being bombarded of remembrances of his past, the sounds all come from The Ruling Class, which is still his best film work. But this is why the Oscars are overall meaningless. Is a Robert Redford a better filmmaker than Martin Scorsese? Of course not. Ordinary People won in 1980 because it was the kind of sappy sentimental crap that was popular with the Academy at the time (see Kramer vs. Kramer or Chariots of Fire or Terms of Endearment for supporting evidence). But it is Raging Bull that has and will continue to endure the test of time. Reds is finally being revisited as the classic a number of us knew it was, while the very few even remember Chariots of Fire know it to be quite treacly.

If the Academy gives the award to any other actor than O'Toole this year, they'll not hear the end of it from armchair pundits, even if they know in their hearts it's a first-rate performer in a second-rate performance in a third-rate film.

Posted by Edward Havens at December 27, 2006 10:59 AM

comment #10

florida25 says ...

Personally feel that O'Toole is still likely to take it from Whitaker . If not O'Toole or Whitaker, than DiCaprio who gave two terrific performances in "TD & BD".

I would round out the final five with Gosling and Watanable.

I don't feel Smith's performance was even in the same ballpark as the above mentioned

Posted by florida25 at December 27, 2006 11:45 AM

comment #11

RoyBatty says ...

IRONY DEFINED: making hay of the fact that any group would give O'Tool a Lifetime Achievement award in lieu of a best actor one that, for all intents and purposes, would in fact be a lifetime achievement.

There's actually a nice symmetry that both he and Burton never won, another reminder of just how truly pointless the Academy Awards are.

It was just his dumb luck that the last two times he justifiably went up for the awards (THE STUNTMAN and MY FAVORITE YEAR) his competition included: Deniro for RAGING BULL, Duvall for THE GREAT SANTINI, Hurt for THE ELEPHANT MAN (all '80), Kingsley for GHANDI, Newman for THE VERDICT and Hoffman for TOOTSIE. (mind you, these were his main competitors, there were also two performances by Jack Lemmon [TRIBUTE, MISSING] as well)

Posted by RoyBatty at December 27, 2006 12:16 PM

comment #12

Hallick says ...

By the time the Academy voters get to check off the box for Best Actor, Whittaker will have been much loved, DiCaprio will too, and the same for Smith. O'Toole could still win it if the movie and his performance connect and there's a feeling in the air that its his turn to be feted.

All of this ridiculous lead up time to the god damned awards can backfire on a frontrunner when you now have MONTHS to get sick of the idea of so-and-so winning. Helen Mirren's guaranteed win is already stale as hell and the nomination aren't even out yet. But she's way stronger than any of the three actors leading talk in their category.

Posted by Hallick at December 27, 2006 1:04 PM

comment #13

tholl-yung says ...

It is dumb luck and the lead-up is a bit ridiculous. Good to hear, "Smith's performance was(n't) even in the same ballpark as" the competish. Viva Venis.

Posted by tholl-yung at December 27, 2006 4:44 PM

comment #14

RoyBatty says ...

"All of this ridiculous lead up time to the god damned awards can backfire on a frontrunner when you now have MONTHS to get sick of..."

Did you mean to make that WEEKS and perhaps make the opposite argument???

Because otherwise that statment is downright ridiculous. If anything, shorting the window between nominations and the actual show has only benefited big splashy roles in major films. There is no time for either a performer or a film to capitalize on unexpected wins in the critics awards leading up to the Globes and Academy nominations.

Posted by RoyBatty at December 27, 2006 5:07 PM

comment #15

MathewM says ...

The Academy Awards is starting to look a lot like Christmas--the hype starts earlier and earlier each year.

Posted by MathewM at December 27, 2006 7:09 PM

comment #16

Hallick says ...

"Did you mean to make that WEEKS and perhaps make the opposite argument???"

No. By the time the final ballots are in for the Oscars, somewhere in mid-February(?), frontrunner fatigue (which is in the air already, but to what consequence, I have no idea) will have had almost a quarter of a year to seep into the voters' minds. Look how fussy our Mr. Wells has already gotten with Mirren and Whittaker always winning the critics' awards.

And since the Oscars hopefuls have been dissected and analyzed to death this year like never before, a nominee like O'Toole might be in a unique position to come along in the 11th hour and play the spoiler since he ISN'T being talked about as much as the big three are, and therefore might seem like a refreshing change, unfair as that would be.

Posted by Hallick at December 27, 2006 9:25 PM

comment #17

Arnzilla says ...

Actually, the Florida film critics haven't awarded O'Toole anything this year. Variety.com fixed that article since Wells posted the link. The O'Toole thing was done by the Las Vegas critics a couple of weeks ago.

Posted by Arnzilla at December 27, 2006 9:47 PM

comment #18

tholl-yung says ...

Excellent reporting Arnzilla, then there's hope for O'Toole at the Oscars. Viva Venus.

Posted by tholl-yung at December 27, 2006 9:59 PM

comment #19

renorambler says ...

I forget the stats but I believe I've read that the vast majority of ballots for the Oscar winner are cast almost immediately after they are received. Meaning, the backlash has to already be in full swing by the time they are in member mailboxes to have much effect. Maybe. I think Sasha over at Oscarwatch had some stats about the mailing percentage/timing thing. Seems like that is where i read about it.

Posted by renorambler at December 27, 2006 10:31 PM

comment #20

jjgittes says ...

Man, I am really stunned by some of the comments here, especially Jeff's insistence on this DiCaprio / Smith thing. DiCaprio is toast Jeff.

The race comes down to Whitaker, Smith, O'Toole - and Whitaker is gonna have the edge here, with O'Toole as a possible spoiler.

First of all, DiCaprio was very good in "The Departed", and his performance in "Blood Diamond" is ok, but overrated - no one cares about that film. He may actually cancel himself out and not even get nominated......but, he damn sure isn't winning for those roles.

That leaves Whitaker, Smith, O'Toole.

Smith can't beat Whitaker, - this is similar to last year with PS Hoffman where anyone who sees Whitaker's performance is going to vote for it, it's clearly on a different level.....unless they have a compelling reason not to.

The only possible "compelling reason" is that Smith drains enough votes from Whitaker and O'Toole gets that "white, over 50, in love with classic Hollywood" block of the Academy to come out in numbers that put him over......ala Polanski a few years back.

The race is between Whitaker and O'Toole as a possible dark horse........everybody else is just there for the parties afterwards.

Posted by jjgittes at December 28, 2006 3:05 AM

comment #21

vansmith says ...

Smith is more mainstream and more people have seen the film, Whitaker and O'Toole cancel each other out, DiCaprio was good in The Departed but it was a one note performance. When do the nominations actually come out...

Posted by vansmith at December 28, 2006 6:54 AM

comment #22

vansmith says ...

By the way, im new to the site but have been reading it since April, im a novelist leaving in west hollywood....from NY....

Posted by vansmith at December 28, 2006 6:58 AM

comment #23

Josh Massey says ...

Ugh, why is everybody still claiming DiCaprio is going to "cancel himself out?" He's clearly going to be nominated for "The Departed" - after "Blood Diamond" tanked, that was written in stone.

Posted by Josh Massey at December 28, 2006 7:01 AM

comment #24

Rob says ...

I'm telling you, it's Smith's to lose - he goes semi-gritty and gives a powerful and compelling performance in a mainstream hit that's just un-schmaltzy enough to allow people not to be embarrassed to vote for it.

Whitaker has 20 minutes of screentime in a graphically violent movie that hasn't connected to a wide audience or really been fully embraced by critics. He is not in a PSH situation.

Posted by Rob at December 28, 2006 8:32 AM

comment #25