Biggest Oscar upset: Peter O'Toole will win, after all
Peter O'Toole's prospects to win best actor have rallied considerably in the past few weeks. Up till now, Forest Whitaker looked unbeatable while he swept through all of the early kudos — and I mean ALL (critics, Globe, SAG) — while marching toward what looked like an Oscar inevitability.
A few months ago I was O'Toole's earliest trumpeteer, warning all ye in kudosland that hear ye, hear ye, Oscar's Biggest Loser was heading this way, demanding homage from his minions at long last. But he didn't arrive as promised. He ditched the Toronto Film Festival, snubbed the Golden Globes, and shunned Los Angeles as if he'd heard a nasty rumor that Prohibition was back. It was starting to look like O'Toole didn't care that he'd lose the Oscar next. So I had to ditch him, too, and put my pundit's money chips on Whitaker.
But then suddenly O'Toole came roaring back to ole rascal life as soon as Oscar nominations came out. He flew to New York for a whirlwind of TV talk shows — especially all of The Cool Ones like Letterman, "Daily Show" and, ahem, "The View" — where he charmed every host and every viewer. Then he FINALLY arrived in Los Angeles on Feb. 5 for the nominees' lunch, letting everyone under the California sun know that he's not only back in the game, but that he'll back later to attend the Oscar show on the 25th, so, please, count him in as a real player. Referring to the rousing ovation O'Toole got from the L.A. luncheon crowd, he told the L.A. Times, "Having somewhat presumptuously said I was still in the game some time ago and to find out I still am in the game and to have been dealt a really lovely hand, I am going to play it for what it's worth."
The Times' Q&A chat with O'Toole by Susan King appeared in print on Feb. 8. That timing is crucial because about half of the ballots were probably still out at that point. That article had huge visibility and charming content as he recalled hilarious memories of working with Katharine Hepburn on "The Lion in Winter." "She called me 'Pig' or 'Henry' depending on her mood," he said. "And I called her 'Old Nags.'"
Last Sunday night while sitting with four academy members at the Eddie Awards, I discovered 2 votes for O'Toole, 1 for Leo DiCaprio and 1 for Forest Whitaker. Three close friends of mine who belong to the academy tell me they voted for O'Toole. Granted, I've heard lots of votes for Whitaker, too, and a surprisingly high number for DiCaprio. Leo's really in this game, too.
But it's rare that Oscar voters opt for villain roles like Whitaker's, especially when they're supporting. Yeah, yeah, there was Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs," but that was the best-pic winner and voters frequently like to give the stars of the top champ a ride to the winner's circle. Bottom line: Oscar voters are sentimental folk and never before have they snubbed an actor eight times. Many times in the past we've seen one actor sweep all of the early awards, then lose on Oscar night to a veteran. "Mona Lisa" star Bob Hoskins' early romp derailed by Paul Newman's Oscar win for "The Color of Money" comes to mind. So does the thrashing Jessica Tandy ("Driving Miss Daisy") gave to Michelle Pfeiffer ("The Fabulous Baker Boys").
Peter O'Toole will prevail this Sunday night because he rallied exactly at the right time. As every brilliant actor knows, great moments of dramatic triumph are all about timing.
Photo: Based upon the actual votes I've tabulated, the best-actor race is actually quite close between Forest Whitaker, Peter O'Toole and Leo DiCaprio. I'm back to betting on O'Toole, who's rallied impressively in recent weeks. (Miramax)
Dear Judy,
I have seen both "Venus" and "The Last King of Scotland;" in fact, I have seen all five nominees for Best Actor. The race is tightening between O'Toole and Whitaker not just because of sentiment but because O'Toole is fabulous. I am not a PR rep for O'Toole and am hardly the first person to suggest that Whitaker's role is closer to supporting than lead. Whitaker is terrific, but he is probably in less than half the movie. You have to take into consideration point of view here, and the movie is definitely told from the point of view of the Scottish doctor. And just because Whitaker has the more showy role doesn't make it a greater performance. I think an argument could be made for either actor wining, but I am betting on O'Toole.
Posted by: Brigit Collins | February 24, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I hate when they give awards for sentiment rather than performance. I love O'Toole and I am sure he is awesome in the role and I look forward to seeing it shortly. BUT, having seen Whittiker's multi-faceted performance in a LEADING role (whoever said it was supporting either didnt see the movie or is an O'Toole PR rep) it is simpy unbelievable that anyone could pasas him over. On the other hands, those doeps out there passed over "Citizen Kane" so anything is poosible.
I'll be watching!
Posted by: Judy | February 24, 2007 at 07:48 AM
I really want O'Toole to win! I mean, Leo is still really young, and Whitaker.. this is his first nomination...and it's really a supporting role. O'Toole has been around forever, and has delivered some of the greatest performances, many more than Leo and Whitaker.
Posted by: Annika | February 23, 2007 at 05:36 PM
There are quite a few factors supporting the likelihood of a win for Peter O'Toole:
Expertise. Although his "Venus" role was not as showy as others, his acting skill was clearly on display. The moments that showed his power also revealed the depth of his skill.
Sentiment. The voting block of Academy members most likely to vote for O'Toole is quite large. This includes veterans from the 1940s, 50s and 60s, as well as all the baby boomers and non-Americans, with the latter contingent maybe more willing to vote for a European nominee.
Hollywood politics and vote splitting. If Leonardo DeCaprio is attracting more votes than anticipated, as has been suggested, a lot of it may relate to perceived problems in the nominations process. Many feel his work in "The Departed" is better than in "Blood Diamond." He may be getting support that represents a backlash about rules that unfairly eliminate great performances due to technicalities. All of this could hurt Forest Whitaker's chances more than O'Toole's, since Whitaker is considered the frontrunner.
Demographics. Although Whitaker won the SAG award and the actors branch of the Academy is by far the largest block of voters, Academy actors tend to be older and more experienced as a group than those in SAG. One would think that this would help O'Toole's chances.
A prediction for O'Toole is daring -- but quite plausible.
Posted by: Pierre de Plume | February 23, 2007 at 09:16 AM
I hope and pray that the one-and-only Peter O'Toole will finally win on Oscar night. How many times can the Academy rob this prodigiously gifted actor? A screen artist of the highest order, O'Toole is a gift to the cinema on a par with Hepburn, Chaplin, and Garbo. Think back on his performances in "Lawrence of Arabia," "The Lion in Winter," "The Ruling Class," and "The Stunt Man." Many would argue that he should have won for those films as well, but timing, it seems has never been on O'Toole's side. Let's hope the timing is right on Sunday.
As for who gives the greater performance, O'Toole or Forest Whitaker (and I believe the race is solely between these two), that's like comparing apples to oranges. In "Venus," O'Toole gives a beautifully modulated performance of rare depth and poignancy, and it's his film from beginning to end. Forest Whitaker is stunning in "The Last King of Scotland," but it's more of a supporting role, as the film is told from the point of view of McAvoy. Frankly, I'm surprised that the consensus early on closed in around Whitaker, as it's a repellent and not particularly complex character.
Make no mistake, if Peter O'Toole does win on Oscar night, it won't be a consolation prize or purely out of sentiment, like Paul Newman for "The Color of Money" or Henry Fonda in "On Golden Pond." O'Toole has never shied away from tough material (I've been known to describe him as an "acquired taste") and some people have found "Venus" off-putting, although it's certainly less off-putting than "The Last King of Scotland."
Big is not always better.
Posted by: Brigit Collins | February 23, 2007 at 09:03 AM
C. Lambert wrote:
"Whittaker portrays a genocidal-despot of disgusting character. I have always had issues with awards given to portrayals of these individuals. This is not a fictional character... this is a mass murderer. Whittakers role exists because of the story of an evil man. Awarding actors who portray people like Idi-Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol-phot, Ted Bundy, Henry Lee Lucas or a long list of other vile human beings seems immoral to me. ...
DO NOT GIVE THIS AWARD TO WHITTAKER!!!"
What an asinine and ridiculous statement. You remind me of the folks who refused to vote, or even see, "Brokeback Mountain" last year because the content, as they saw it, skeeved them out. You can't disqualify an actor from awards consideration just because the character they play happens to be the lowest of the low in real life. Yeah, Idi Amin was a despicable person, but that's what makes him a fascinating character, and what makes Forest Whitaker's performance so vivid and complex. One of my friends pointed out that Whitaker's performance is all the more remarkable just because he had to play such a despicable man. ("Most actors have no frame of reference for that kind of behavior," she said. "What do you tap into to play a despot?) And those are the kinds of performances that actors yearn to play, and that audiences yearn to see. The wackiest part of your premise is that it seems that had Idi Amin been a complete work of fiction, you would have no problem with Whitaker getting Oscar consideration. It's the reality of Amin that offends you. Well, it should offend you that Idi Amin actually existed, but don't blame Whitaker for doing his job as well as he could.
Posted by: Dave W. | February 22, 2007 at 02:59 PM
Tom, you always make these brave predictions but they never come true. It seems like you always make a different choice; if the prediction doesn't come true, then you are like "it was just a guess..." but if it does come true, then you are like "look at how good I am!" Of course, we have no idea what is on the card inside the envelope, but how accurate are you feeling??
Posted by: Mark | February 22, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I have a friend who works at a school where many "industry" people's children attend and the buzz is as follows:
Best Actress: Helen Mirren is a lock.
Best Actor: Forest Whitaker is the likely winner but there's sentiment for Peter O'Toole--and O'Toole may have his Al Pacino moment...awarding O'Toole for his body of work and past losses more than a good performance in a so-so movie.
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson is a lock--but more so because it makes a great Cinderella story for the press..go figure...but little Amy Breslin is soooooo noooottt a frontrunner...Dakota Fanning could have done this role in her sleep...
Best Supporting Actor: it's a neck and neck run between Alan Arkin and Eddie Murphy...with Eddie up front by a nose...There may be sentiment for Alan Arkin because he's older than Eddie and more of a movie veteran...a split in votes may doom both and go to either Jackie Earle Haley or Mark Wahlberg
Best Director: looks like Marty's year
Best Picture: the buzz is down between BABEL and THE DEPARTED...they're realizing LMS is really very lightweight and not a strong contender...
these "industry" parents are already stressing this whole week from what I've been told by my friend...that it stresses out their children as well....oh my!
Posted by: Frankie R. | February 22, 2007 at 08:34 AM
I thought Forrest Whittaker was great in LKOS, but this maybe the last chance the acadamy has to honor O'Toole. I don't Leo is really in the game. I am not sure the voters are going to vote for all the winners of the other awards. I have recently seen and heard thst Cate Balnchet was gaining momentum and Eddie was running close with Alan Arkin. I am still not over the Dreamgirls snub for best picture and will be furious if Jennifer Hudson looses. I am honestly torn between Eddie And Alan even though I think Eddie's role was more challenging than an old man sitting in the back of a van cusing.
Posted by: Mike | February 22, 2007 at 04:57 AM
Dear Tom,
I would love, love, love for Peter O'Toole to finally win a best-actor Oscar. I say this with great admiration not only for O'Toole's legend as one of the most supreme big-screen stars of my lifetime but also with due respect to those in his category for their individual excellence.
I have now in my signature two sets of Oscar predictions: the first notes my initial predictions on the day nominations were announced (Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007), and the second is a revised set of predictions greatly influenced by the homestretch of pre-Oscar Directors Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild of America, and Producers Guild of America awards. None of it from me is personal; I'm just interested in from which set of predictions will be more in tune with what materializes once Oscar has spoken.
Posted by: DS0816 | February 21, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Forrest Whittaker wil win. His performance was more compelling.
Posted by: Larry | February 21, 2007 at 09:07 PM
"I don't think Academyites vote for villain roles, especially when they're supporting parading as lead, although there is one notable exception (Anthony Hopkins, "Silence of the Lambs")." --- How about Denzel Washington in Training Day?
A Peter O'Toole upset would be a truly memorable moment in the Oscar books, but I think Whittaker gave the better performance of the two (however we all know O'Toole is a legend who has given so many great performances - but he had been rewarded for that with a lifetime achievement award for that). I think the fact that Leo is pulling in a lot of votes might actually reduce the chance of O'Toole winning. Don't forget, everyone, that Sir O'Neil predicted a Felicity Huffman upset over Reese Witherspoon last year ;-)
Posted by: Antony | February 21, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Your mouth to God's ear, as my mother-in-law used to say. The Academy has long shown a tendency to respect its elders, so maybe this indeed will be O'Toole's year. I certainly hope so, after waiting decades to hear what will surely be one of the great acceptance speeches in Oscar history.
Posted by: Linda C | February 21, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Two problems with the "sentimental" theory for O'Toole:
1. The time to collect your only competitive Oscar is the year after your honorary Oscar, just like Henry Fonda & Paul Newman (or Charlie Chaplin, if you count his freak 1972 musical-score Oscar for his 1952 film "Limelight", right after his second honorary Oscar in 1971). O'Toole waited a few years too late to cash in.
2. The "sentimental" road to the Oscar largely stopped working in 1996, when Lauren Bacall lost to Juliette Binoche. (I know from experience; I blew my Supporting Actress predix on both Bacall that year and Gloria Stuart the next.)
O'Toole might have won if he'd done a better sales job; but unlike you, I read his campaign as more like Martin Scorsese's "don't use the O-word" route. The problem is, once you realize Clint Eastwood has bagged more than his limit of Oscars (except perhaps for Best Actor), Scorsese doesn't have any real competition; O'Toole does. I still think Forest Whitaker will win, though Leo might upset if O'Toole steals enough of Whitaker's votes.
Posted by: RBBrittain | February 21, 2007 at 08:03 PM
My hopes lay with O'Toole... becuase his role is brilliant... his career is brilliant... and the feeling I get, the goosebumps and respect towards a legend of the screen when the audience rise to their feet and applaud... is brilliant.
Whittaker portrays a genocidal-despot of disgusting character.
I have always had issues with awards given to portrayals of these individuals.
This is not a fictional character... this is a mass murderer.
Whittakers role exists because of the story of an evil man.
Awarding actors who portray people like Idi-Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol-phot, Ted Bundy, Henry Lee Lucas or a long list of other vile human beings seems immoral to me.
Irregardless of the acting.
There is a vast difference between a fictional character like Hannibal Lecter, Vito Corleone etc, and those who represent the reality of our society.
I expect some dictator or mass murderer at some point in the future will be quoted as stating "Somebody will win an oscar for portraying me someday".
As I sit and think... I cannot recall the Academy Awards ever honouring a NON-fictional evil character of this nature (Idi-Amin) in it's history.
The only "evil" roles to have won have been fictional... and with the exception of Lecter (a psycopath) they were more "flawed" than evil.
The only exception to this rule is Charlize Theron winning for "Monster". An extremely sympathetic real-life character within a very sympathetic and heart-wrenching film.
A far cry from a genocidal-dictator.
DO NOT GIVE THIS AWARD TO WHITTAKER!!!
Posted by: C. Lambert | February 21, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Leo delivered two great performances last year, so I guess a lot of people want to reward him for that. But of course, it won't be enough votes to win...
Posted by: Dennis | February 21, 2007 at 04:10 PM
I'm sure O'Toole will get a lot of votes. Maybe even make the final vote tallies rival Whitaker's. But I just don't see him pull off the win.
Perhaps it's because you've been trumpeting O'Toole for some time (and it was a great performance, by the way), but that early support makes this prediction seem like wishful thinking.
But if O'Toole wins, great. Any kind of non-Babel upset makes for a great show. I'm not opposed to O'Toole winning, but I just don't see it happening.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | February 21, 2007 at 03:20 PM
Great article and, if O'Toole does win, it will be proof that there is a God!
Posted by: Steve | February 21, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Well, Mr. O'Neil, you've called the last few years winners (including the CRASH & MILLION DOLLAR BABY upsets). So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put my money on O'Toole. As for DiCaprio, there are certain actors who fit the category of "it's not a question of if or when he/she wins an Oscar, it's for what role" and he's one of them (along with Kate Winslet and Johnny Depp!) He might have actually stood a real shot of winning this year had he been nominated for THE DEPARTED instead of BLOOD DIAMOND. But alas...
Posted by: FilmNerdJamie | February 21, 2007 at 02:51 PM