This film was robbed at the Oscars. Lemmon was brilliant, seen four of his films for the first time this week. This was my 2699th film.
http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4995990Top 1000 Voter share
There's no way the Academy would have ignored Gregory Peck for "To Kill a Mockinbird" that year!! He had been a stara longer than Lemmon, and he is unforgettable in that role. Besides, 1962 was a very competitive year. Peter O'Toole also deserved the Oscar for Lawrence of Arabaia (he never won a competitive Oscar). Lee Remick is terrific (she had a beautiful voice) but that was the year of Katharine Hepburn in "Longs Day Journey Into the Night" (she won at Cannes) and Bette Davis in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane." Everybody took votes aways from each other. Ann Bancroft won but it could have been any of the other four. Joan Crawford was not nominated for "Baby Jane", but she had the pleasure of receiving Bancroft's Oscar during the ceremony.
Jack Lemmon was a wonderful actor in the 50's and 60's. After that he became an insufferable "ham". He won for "Save the Tigger", one of his worst performances. But the Academuy loves "hams" up to this day. That's why Jack Nicholson wins all the time, and Al Pacino received his Oscar, not for The Godfather Part II, but for "Scent of a Woman" (his most over-the-top performance).
Please try to see the original Playhouse 90 version of Days of Wine and Roses. Clift Robertson and Piper Laurie are even better than Lemmon & Remick. Laurie is the most underrated actress in movie history. Her performance in "The Hustler" is one of the best ever. Had she been nominated as best supporting actress (instead of as best actress) she would have won for sure. The same thing happened to Shelley Winteres in A Place in the Sun.
When talking about Day of wine and Roses we all think about Lemmon and Remick and Mancini and Blake Edwards. Nobody remembers J.P. Miller who worte the screenplay for both the TV and the movie version. It was an original screenplay. He was not even nominated for an Oscar!! This is the best film ever made about "Alcoholic Anonynmous" (there's also I'll Cry Tomorrow), you can see all the 12 steps in actions. The only problem is that Lemmon's alcoholism progresses to fast from being a social drinker to becoming a cronic alcoholic. Usually alcoholism takes years to progress, and by the time a man is pushing middle-age (like Lemmon at the beginning of the picture) he is already in one of the advanced stages. But you can go from not drinking at all and becoming a chronic alcoholic in a few years (like Remick's character). I'm not sure if I was able to express this idea properly.
By the way, someone in this Message Board asked why the song "The Day of Wine and Rose" got the Oscar if, in the picture, it was not a song but a theme music (instrumental). I was also under that wrong impression, but you can listen to the song (with lyrincs) in the initial credit sequence, sung by a choir. During the rest of the movie you only can hear the music. The same happened with Love Is a Many A-Splendored Thing (you can listen to the lyrics very briefly, sung by a choir). Both songs needed to be showcased better on the screen.
How many movies have you seen so far??
From 1985 to 1997 I saw 7,000 films. Basically every single film I ever wanted to see. To this day, I have not been able to see Sirens of Atlantis with Maria Montez.
Thanks for your reply. My vote history is the films I have seen I believe. I started seriously in 2003 onwards. My first post has the link to me vote history. Do you have your vote history?
http://tinyurl.com/privacy-06Click trailer,watch&vote plz share
Robbed? Lucky!, to have been nominated Cliched film skirts with Reefer Madness-like over the top scenes of drunk behavior Lemon isn't powerful and all his sweating thanks to glycerin and the agony he goes through actually comes closer to comedy 4 actors not nominated that year were more deserving, and their performances have stood the test of time: Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear(62), Jason Robards in Long Day's Jouurney into Night(62), James Mason in Lolita(62), and Robert Preston's classic musical-comedy performance in The Music Man(62). O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia and Peck as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird were deservedly nomiinated. Other outstanding performances overlooked that year would include Peter Selllers (Lolita) Keir Dullea (David and Lisa) Robert Ryan(Billy Bud) and Laurence Harvey (The Manchurian Candidate) Lemon was lucky! His doing a "serious" role and tackling a "serious" subject surely helped him.
shareFirst off,I just want to let you know , this is not a rant,it's a well thought out opinion. I'm neither angry or upset. I just wanted to reply to you.
"Reefer Madness" ?
"Reefer Madness" was a laughable,contrived government backed effort to scare young people and maybe older people,out of using marijuana. It's way overacted and the most of the effects of use dipicted are outrageous exaggerations! Only a very naive' teenager back then would take that to heart.
This movie was a step in the right direction for Hollywood taking on a more realistic subect. If it had been filimed in color,it would rival the best of any serious movie from the 1970s. This movie was ahead of it's time,not behind.
I find your observation to be very short-sighted and not very well thought out. The way movies play is just how they wre made then,they all worked with what knowledge they had at the time.
From what I saw,it seems they researched about alcoholism and the medical illnesses brought on by it as well as being prefectly factual about the Alcoholics Anonymous organization.
Are you a Dr. by the way? Most likely not,so who ar you to say that Lemmon & Remicks portrayls aren't accurate? Every person who is an alcoholic behaves differently. There are people who really would act like Lemmon did in the greenhouse becasue they want liquor that badly.
Just like Lee Remick abandoning her family for the same reason. I doubt you were around when either of these two films were made,which is another reason i don't accept your comparison of them.
HaPpIpUPpI 13 *Arf!*
Actually my response to Days of Wine and Roses is that it's laughable and contrived. Not as ridiculous as Reefer Madness which was 20+years earlier but even for its time DOWAR is naive, simplistic.
share... but even for its time DOWAR is naive, simplistic.
I don't find DOWAR naive or simplistic at all. Neither do I find it funny. Makes me wonder what your experience is of alcoholism.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"