Tom Jones (1963) - Worst Best Picture ever?

I'll have to watch it again, after reading your post. I remember really liking it as a young teen, but back then I didn't know the works of Osbourne or Richardson, and hadn't had to read the endless novel for university. I liked the anachronistic aspects...

It can't be worse than the stylistic followup adaptation of Moll Flanders with Kim Novak and Angela Lansbury which I recently watched (most of.)

This is not meant to be an excuse for what you hate about the movie--but have you read the book?

Somebody explained to me what was in the Academy's mindset to award that film at that time. To the Academy, this is what a 'New Wave' film looked like to the Academy, in the way old people must think the youth of today are like and threw that movement a bone. I haven't seen it. There are surely much better Richardsons that are just better in quality and much more cinematically daring. Tony Richardson had just done A Taste of Honey and Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner so he had built up a lot of critical backing just on the festival circuit at the time.

I have to imagine at the time that of the competition, it seemed more consensus-leaning too.

The nominees:
America, America
Cleopatra
Lillies of the Field
How the West Was Won

Cleopatra was too much of a controversial, lightning rod due to it being far over-budget (put Cleopatra's budget into inflation for 2014 numbers, it is more expensive than Avatar) and Burton and Taylor made a scandal that I am sure angered quite a bit of Academy members to ever consider it. I actually like the movie but I have to agree with Mankiewicz's original assertion to split the films into two parts. It is clearly made that way.

America, America is another passion project by an equally controversial figure in Elia Kazan. It is also just as long as Cleopatra but despite its on-location shooting, it is in grainy black and white, looking even rougher than the film Kazan was honored with a decade before with On the Waterfront, but this time a cast of unknowns than Kazan's mix of rep players and respected character actors, many of them dubbed with dialogue, and perhaps it was just a miracle this got nominated. It would honestly have been my choice for that year but nothing like it has ever won before or since, unless you want to count The Godfather Part II, but that had stars and a budget.

Lillies of The Field also would've been a nice choice but it seems the consolation prize was Sidney Poitier breaking the color barrier in the Leading Actor category. If you watch his speech, the surprise and excitement of that moment far exceeded any award given out that night. Anne Bancroft couldn't wait to walk Sidney off stage to celebrate. Poitier, was not prepared and I think there seemed to be a strategy for voters. The older crowd is going for the period piece but Poitier is our guy, rather than Albert Finney who seemed to be favored because Tom Jones was winning everything. I love Albert Finney. He should've won something by now but I like that I have no excuse to watch Tom Jones had he won for it.

How the West Was Won is a weird nomination. Dare I say it is an experimental, anthology film but on steroids with an all-star line-up of Western Directors and cast. I have vague memories of watching this. Some work better than most. I guess this is like, 'At least somebody tried it' nomination because I can't find a comparable Best Picture nomination to this. This is the type of picture that goes straight to television, split out.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 06:49 PM

There definitely was a "hip" factor at the time to having a film based on, arguably, the first classic novel as adapted by the current bad boys of theatre. Richardson and Osbourne were, as I know you know, seen as the start of a new theatrical style, and I have zero doubt that played a part.

I just wish it played more as intended (a "bawdy" parody). It doesn't. I can easily forgive the crappy and choppy production values if it were half as good as a Jon Waters film, or (as I said) Monty Python.

Maybe this was (in a way) the forerunner of both of those.

---

Hud is a MUCH better picture. I've seen it many times. I would pick that over Tom Jones.

And I agree, Stanley Kramer should have had a Best Director nomination for It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, even if the movie wasn't nominated. Speaking of that film, I could see it getting nominated if something like Around the World in 80 Days can win it.

---

It may not be a great or even a very good movie, but I like it. Which is a great deal more than I can say for dozens of movies that have won the best picture oscar.

So I'd have to say no, it's not the worst.

You are far from alone, henrik.

Just read the user reviews on IMDb.com. Many people love it.

---

The Leopard (which I LOVED) really only got critical plaudits upon re-appraisal. The fact it was such a box office bomb probably hindered its chances too. While the film is actually quite subversive (Kathy Acker has an amazing piece on it) I assume at the time the Academy might have been trying to change their image and thinking an epic period piece was old hat. Or maybe not given the awards in the surrounding years.

I have to say, as I continue with my Best Picture journey from start to finish, the 1960s are proving to be a fascinating roller coaster ride. You can feel it in the choices for the top Oscar, with everything from a traditional huge spectacle (like Lawrence of Arabia) to the "new" Tom Jones, and at the end of the decade you get "Oliver!" followed by "Midnight Cowboy."

There was definitely a pull in opposite directions about what "best" meant to people back then.

And with previous decades, you can sense the change and progression as well, but it's more of a smooth arc, rather than pendulum swinging back and forth repeatedly between old and new.

---

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 10:01 PM

The sixties was the craziest decade for these awards and it did not necessarily produce great winners. Just a real perplexing bunch of nominees when you really look at it even for just one year, but then you contextualize it year to year and then it just gets stranger. Each year there seemed to be picks to be a rebuke of the previous year. They seemed a little aware over how much was perceived that they loved musicals, fine in the early 60s, it was the best-selling music, but exhaustive in the latter half of the decade.

In the Midnight Cowboy year alone you had Goldie Hawn winning for Cactus Flower. This was before Lily Tomlin's breakout, and she said by the time she signed up for Nashville in the 70s that she was always seen as Ernestine, so imagine the feeling about Hawn, the Laugh-In alumna winning for Best Supporting Actress before she had shown any real craft.

Julie Christie won for Darling in the year The Sound of Music swept. That does read like not just anoint an up and comer but also make sure it is anybody Julie Andrews winning twice again. Then you have the director for Women in Dunes being nominated for Director that year. There always seems to be the attitude for when an imminent sweep is about to happen that crazy nominations are thrown in the hell of it and that year in particular had some curve balls.

You also have my all-time favorite (or notorious), 'THEY WON FOR THAT?!?!?' honor which was Lee Marvin for Cat Ballou. Oh, Lee. Poor Richard Burton could not catch a break at any point that decade all while he had his best work.

No year of the decade really feels too agreeable. It's all so messy. There definitely felt like there were culture wars within the Academy. I have to imagine the whiplash of 67-68-69 was quite a trip. They still managed to give John Wayne his first Oscar and Katharine Hepburn two (one that she deserved, the one where she tied with Streisand), but goodness.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 10:43 PM

Oh dear. Keep in mind the course I had was a killer, and we had under a week to read Tom Jones. I remember liking it a lot at first, and then just wishing I could have the whole thing done with. And yet, like I said, I liked the movie. I should re-watch (and if I didn't have 6 other books to read in the next three weeks for term, I would consider re-reading, too.)

Why are you lumping it with Vanity Fair? Just curious since that was considerably later...