Biggest Losers: Oscar Edition

The two actors who received the most Best Actor nominations without winning an award were Peter O'Toole (to date, nominated 8 times - he was given an honorary award in 2003, but has yet to claim a competitive Oscar) and Richard Burton (who received 7 nominations before his death, and was never even given an honorary prize). The film that united them, for which they were both nominated for Best Actor, was 1964's Becket. Winner of the Best Adapted screenplay Oscar that year, it was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Glenville), and Best Supporting Actor (John Gielgud).

O'Toole earns his second Oscar nomination here playing King Henry II, ruler of England in the late 1100s. Burton earns his third nomination playing Thomas Becket, a drinking buddy promoted by the King to the role of Chancellor, and eventually to Archbishop, with the expectation that Becket will cater to his desires and end his troubles with the church. To the King's dismay, Becket takes the Archbishop position seriously, opposing the ruler more effectively that any of his predecessors ever dared. A vulgar and arrogant man who sees himself as the only civilized man in England, King Henry sees his subjects as dogs or possessions, spends most of his time drinking and eating gluttonously while his people starve, shows utter contempt for anything and anyone beneath him, and appoints Becket in order to get tax money from the churches to fund a war against France. Becket, though cold and distant, shows sympathy and compassion toward the people, tries to act as a civilizing influence on his King, and seeks to find a meaningful purpose in his life. When King Henry rules in such a way that the power, and possibly even the existence, of the church is threatened, Becket severs their friendship in order to ensure the church's survival, leading King Henry to seek revenge against his former friend.

An historical drama about a time and place with which I have almost no familiarity, centered around a hero who gives up a life of debauchery in order to come to the defense of the Church against the government, is not typically the type of film that I would find enthralling. But I was enthralled by this film, due almost entirely to the two lead performances. It is easy to see how both Burton and O'Toole lost the Oscar that year. Certainly both were worthy, but it seems likely that the two, being nominated for the same film, split their votes, leaving the award to go instead to the nominee for that year's Best Picture winner (Rex Harrison, for My Fair Lady). Of the two, Burton was probably more deserving of the award. O'Toole was thoroughly convincing as the monarch, a spoiled man-child torn between his obsessive love for his friend and his unflinching need to be obeyed in his every wish or command. However, his performance had an occasional tendency to fall back on overwrought emotion and loud yelling. Burton, on the other hand, was pitch-perfect in every scene, always finding just the right tone to make me believe in and sympathize with this man whose change of heart and of lifestyle could easily have come across as hokey, contrived, and unbelievable.

Movie trivia question: This actor, another frequent non-winner in the Best Actor category (0 awards out of 4 nominations) has had much better luck in the supporting category, winning both times he was nominated in that category. The two films for which he won will be reviewed soon.