Hi
This is a great site, and I cant believe the forums are so active. Truly amazing that years later the Godfather films are still actively dicussed on a daily basis.

My question is why didnt Al Pacino win best actor for Godfather II? Its a brilliant performance and an absolute joy to watch. Im just cant believe that he could have been beaten. I wasnt alive during the cinema releases so if anyone that knows what happened back then I would love to know.

Its also for a college report Im doing for film studies.

Thanks.

G'day Gareth

Maybe Pacino didn't win because 2 has already won best picture, director, screenplay and De Niro had won best supporting role. Anyway he was much better in 1.

But at least he got the BAFTA!

Would it be rude to note than an Australian has brought up the topic of failure given the recent form of Ponting and co?

I dunno why he lost. I consider it to be among the worst robberies on Oscar history, losing to Art Carney in Harry and Tonto (no knock against Art, R.I.P., but I dunno how he beat Pacino.)

But then again, how did "Mona Lisa Vito" win Best Actress?

Has the 4 the test started? You're right -terrible form. But would it be rude to point out that you guys were still not able to win the last test, considering said form?

Don_Andrew thats exactly how I feel. I literally had to find out what the story was. Withoug taking anything away from the genius that is De Niro I feel Pacino's performance was as good if not better.

It's quite simple. He didn't win because he didn't get enough votes.

comedian

Actually, marlon the 'comedian' is absolutely right.

Academy Awards are won based on votes from peers in the industry. The reason Art Carney won and Pacino & the other 3 nominees did not...is that (for whatever reason)Carney got the most votes in the Best Actor category.

Plain & simple.

Apple

Cheers for the replies. I am of course aware how the system works...I guess I was wandering what the reason was that he didnt get the votes. I mean there's always a certain abstract or undefinable quality to certain time periods and eras/years etc. I thought maybe someone who was around in 74 or 75 may have had some insight. For example when Halle Berry won her oscar there was some controversy around that - I wont bother going into the issues(I have nothing against Halle it was literally the first example that came into my head).

True, that there have been several occassions when the voting is based on sentiment for the actor/actress more than acting merit. I haven't seen Harry & Tonto for many, MANY years...but I do recall that Carney was quite wonderful in the role.

Perhaps the fact that this television actor known mainly as a goofball sidekick made such a smooth transition to a SERIOUS starring movie role...combined with the fact that this might be the only time he'd ever receive a nomination...factored in to the decisions of those who voted for him. Looking back 30+ years, of course we GF fans cannot fathom Pacino losing the Oscar. But at the time, many apparently found it fitting to vote for someone else.

Another example of this was when Elizabeth Taylor won Best Actress in 1960 for 'Butterfield 8'. Many including Taylor consider this role and movie little more than trash, and she's given FAR superior performances before and since. However, Liz had nearly died that year and emotion/sympathy from voters may have been on her side.

Grace Kelly beating out Judy Garland who was the presumed hands down winner for Best Actress in 1954 is another. Not to take anything away from Kelly who gave a magnificent performance in 'The Country Girl'. But Garland's 'A Star Is Born' has since become a classic, and even today people are butting thier heads as to how anyone else could've gotten a vote...let alone the majority of votes over Judy. My personal theory is that by then she had such a terrible reputation of being difficult to work with, that many may have voted against her just out of anger and resentment.

Apple

The academy is often behind the times on its awards, and during the time the GF was made especially so. Distin Hoffman in The Graduate got passed over by John Wayne for instance.


In later years they gave one to Henry FOnda for On Golden Pond (which stunk) simply becuse he was old and dying and had never won one.

There's no doubt that sentimentality was a factor for actors nearing the end of their career. I don't think that has been a factor in recent years, but that's not to say it couldn't pop up if an old timer has a meaty role.

But regarding Al's performance in GF2. I don't see him winning (blasphemy!, heretic!). Michael Corleone is a kind of one dimensional character; sullen, angry, somber. Granted he creates that character to the utmost, but I would lean toward an actor who can portray a character with a wide range of emotions and a window into his soul. Michael Corleone is a tough character to like in GF2 and not easily understood. A bad seed. That also may have factored against his vote tally.

If you ask me, I'd say the roles for which Pacino REALLY deserved the Oscars were:

The Godfather (over Joel Grey in Cabaret - who admitted he thought Pacino would win)

Dog Day Afternoon

Dick Tracy (though I cannot fathom Joe Pesci losing that year)

It's also true that sometimes just ONE other performance is what gets between you & Oscar!

Apple