Did Paul Newman win for the wrong movie?
Friday, May 1, 2020 at 8:20PM 
Throughout the history of the Academy Awards, many a winner conquered their statue not because they were the best of the year, but because they had a grand filmography in need of golden recognition. Career Oscars are a bittersweet sort of honor, though. On one hand, it feels just to see living legends rewarded with Hollywood's most coveted trophy. On the other, the win sometimes comes from such a minor work it doesn't feel representative of the artist's true genius. In terms of acting prizes, Paul Newman is one of the most flagrant cases of a winner that was rewarded for his career rather than the merits of one performance. By the time he won a competitive Oscar, he had been nominated seven times already and had even won the first of two Honorary prizes. He might have agreed with those judgments, considering he wasn’t even present to receive the statuette.
At least, that's what most people seem to believe about the great star's Best Actor trophy for 1986's The Color of Money…
The sequel to 1961's The Hustler is an easily negligible footnote on most of its maker's histories. Despite being shot with awesome brio by Michael Ballhaus and sharply cut by Thelma Schoonmaker, this is one of Martin Scorsese's most modest efforts. It brings together Tom Cruise and Paul Newman, two generations of Hollywood stardom, with little fanfare or self-importance. While one may appreciate the snazzy virtuosity of masters of cinema lending their craft to a small affair, some of the people involved seem to be working on autopilot. Unfortunately, Newman's one of those unfortunate individuals.
Reprising the role of Fast Eddie Felson, a pool player of mythic skill and hustling ambition, the actor plays up a sense of effortless cool peppered with hints of a curmudgeon's frustration at the arrogance of youth. Very seldom does Newman dig into the psychology of Eddie and it seems as if Scorsese is happy to let him coast. Only occasionally, when confronted with screen partners such as Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio or Forest Whitaker does he come alive. It's then that we get glimpses of what could have been a performance on par with his nervy work on the '61 movie, suggesting the self-aware passions of an addict in love with the grift.
Those few morsels of inspiration don't make for a satisfying win. In the same year, Bob Hoskins rose above all the other Best Actor nominees for his work in Neil Jordan's Mona Lisa, and then there are the great performances that weren't even nominated like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly and Erland Josephson in The Sacrifice. That said, when would a Newman victory have felt deserved? We already mentioned his first go-around as Fast Eddie, but allow us to present five other nominated masterworks worthy of the Academy Award in the actor's filmography.
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF (1958)
This film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' play removes a lot of what makes the original text interesting, defanging it in the process. It's a bit of a mess, with 50s conservative values tensely battling with a story of complicated sexual dynamics. Fortunately, the cast is extraordinary and manages to bring to the forefront some of the hard edges that were sanded off for the big screen. Newman, in particular, invokes his character's psyche with bullying intensity. He is an inchoate miasma of loss and betrayal curdled into all-consuming contempt for others and himself. Lost in alcoholic self-loathing, this is a wreck of a man that still pulses with sexual energy, making the screen sizzle with his smolder.
Newman would have certainly been a more interesting winner than David Niven for a near-supporting turn in Separate Tables.
HUD (1963)
Paul Newman was an actor whose presence was always characterized by movie star charisma and a magnetic sex appeal. In Martin Ritt's Hud, the actor puts these aspects of his persona on full display but twists them into something malevolent. The titular Hud is a destructive force of aggressive masculinity, but both the other characters and the audience seem preternaturally drawn to him. Maybe it's the fact there seems to be a hidden core of decency hiding within his vileness, one that the man chooses to ignore, preferring to give himself to his animal urges and their cruel permutations. If ever a movie star better weaponized their screen presence, I haven't yet watched their movies.
One wouldn't want to take away Sidney Poitier's historic win for Lilies of the Field, but Newman is the Best Actor of 1963. Poitier would have been a better winner in '67, for instance, when he was bizarrely snubbed for his work in the Best Picture-winning In the Heat of the Night.
COOL HAND LUKE (1967)
Speaking of the '67 Best Actor race, Newman, once again, proves to be the best option among the Academy's nominees.
Directed by Stuart Rosenberg from a screenplay based on Donn Pearce's novel, Cool Hand Luke is a strangely beguiling convolution of Christ-like parable and a portrait of mid-century virility. Holding it all together, Newman once again makes good use of the particularities of his star persona, calibrating them according to the demands of a complicated role that must be human and symbol at the same time. His most impressive scenes, however, are ones where the actor simplifies the complexity of the screenplay, finding something achingly real in its prison life episodes, be it the silence of a son looking on his dying mother or the physical struggle of devouring 50 eggs in an hour.
THE VERDICT (1982)
After not receiving one single nomination throughout the 70s, Paul Newman returned to the Academy's favor with two back-to-back nominations in '81 and '82. We're here to discuss the latter one for Sidney Lumet's The Verdict, a disciplined character study in the shape of a procedural. Of all his directors, Lumet was probably Newman's most challenging collaborator, prompting the actor to go deeper than he initially planned. The result is a formidable bit of acting, full of details that add a sense of reality to every scene. The most impactful moment comes near the end, when Newman's character, an alcoholic lawyer, must give his final statements in court. This sort of scene has been done to death, but Lumet's version defines its platonic ideal, choreographing the camera in sync with his actor's steady rhythms and letting Newman dominate the screen as an orator that seems to be trying to convince himself as much as he is persuading the jury.
1982 featured a tight Best Actor race and it's certain many would choose to give the Oscar to Dustin Hoffman and his Tootsie or Ben Kingsley's Gandhi. That said, I can't help but prefer Newman's work.
NOBODY'S FOOL (1994)
By 1994, Paul Newman was already an Oscar winner, so the need to reward him was no longer pressing on the Academy's voters. That's partly why Tom Hanks won his second consecutive Oscar for Forrest Gump, while the veteran actor was left hanging.
Still, out of the Academy's vaguely uninspired selection of Best Actor contenders, Newman shines as the best in the bunch, only challenged by Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption. Nobody's Fool features one the actor's most relaxed works, so beautifully underplayed as to look effortless, like he's merely being in front of the camera instead of performing another man's life. However, a lot is going on for those who care to examine his craft, from the delicate tonal balance the script demands of its cast to the way Newman illustrates his character's past without ever having to spell it out with expository dialogue. It's graceful work, glorious in its apparent simplicity and affecting emotional registers.
It's safe to say that The Color of Money is Paul Newman's least impressive nominated performance. When we further consider his work in The Long Hot Summer, Butch Cassidy, and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and Slap Shot among other unnominated works, we can see that he did win for the wrong movie. Do you agree with this conclusion or would you have still awarded Newman in 1986 and only 1986 like AMPAS did?
You can stream The Hustler on Direct TV and HBO NOW, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof on Fubo, Hud is available on Hulu and Amazon Prime, Cool Hand Luke on Direct TV and Nobody's Fool is on Amazon Prime. Those movies, as well as the other titles mentioned in this piece, are all available to rent or buy from Amazon, iTunes, and other services.
Reader Comments (40)
Newman's Oscar history is like so many others: nominations and perhaps a win for the wrong performance(s). I think Newman's better in The Sting, Butch Cassidy, and The Long, Hot Summer than he is in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I've never seen The Color of Money, though, so I can't speak to that.
To answer your question, yes...he won for the wrong movie. In his respective lineups, I would have easily given him the win over ALL the nominees in 58, 61, 63, and 81. While I personally wouldn't have awarded him for all (because Oscar rarely nominates the most deserving), a win for Hud in particular would have been SO deserving. And yes, he's fantastic in Cool Hand Luke, and I know that performance is particularly loved and iconic for many reasons, but I'm all in for Rod Steiger's career win that, while not his best work, is still a very moving and beautifully played performance that deserves more credit and love. And I also would place Hoffman above Newman that year.
Excellent piece. Totally agree with your article.
This was a career Oscar they wanted to honor him with a win.
I love Newman in Hud. I think Poitier won because Homer Smith is a more likable character than Hud Bannon.
I love Newman in Nobody's Fool. Newman already has an honorary Oscar and a Best Actor win within the past decade. He lost because enough was enough.
I love Newman in The Road to Perdition, but Chris Cooper was undeniable that year for Adaptation.
SUCH a complicated Oscar history! In my opinion.....
Role he should've won for but wasn't even nominated:
THE LONG HOT SUMMER. Simply because it is his bets performance on screen IMO (not by far, but that's because he gave so many great performances). Caveat: Charles Laughton also should've won that year for WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, so I would have been divided and would probably have ultimately given it to Laughton for his age and third nomination than for Newman on his first.
Roles he should've won for because they're among his top five performances:
1. THE HUSTLER. Although Spencer Tracy for JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG was equally deserving that year (both better for the solid but also a but showy Maximilian Schell in the same film)
2. NOBODY'S FOOL.I agree with Claudio that either Newman or Freeman should've won over Hanks that year
Roles he should've won for because he was the best nominee that year:
HUD, ABSENCE OF MALICE (in a relatively weak year), THE COLOR OF MONEY (I agree with Claudio in that it is not his best role, but I disagree in another aspect because I believe it is the equal to Hoskins, and so I was happy for Newman to get it because of his Oscar history up to that point).
Personally, I'm not a fan of Newman's performance in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF: he's just too one-note for me, I guess (but I'm a big fan of Taylor and Ives' performances).
He would make for a great winner for:
#1 NOBODY'S FOOL (1994)
or
#2 THE VEREDICT (1982)
.
And his performance in 2002's ROAD TO PERDITION (2002) should have earned him a second competitive Oscar. Such a "veteran star performance" and he was too iconic to die with only 1 competitive win... but I'm okay with Chris Cooper's win for ADAPTATION
Lancaster was great in Atlantic City in that year and Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa is definitely worth a watch, so it's hard to push for the later performances. I haven't seen Nobody's Fool. But Hud is phenomenal and represents his high point, with The Hustler a close second in my book.
I’d certainly take Color of Money and Newman’s performance in it over what he’s serving in 1981. It’s not a great win, but I wouldn’t call it bad work either. I completely agree with what you said about him sparking best with Mastrantonio and Whitaker - when he’s on, he’s *on*. Have yet to see all his competition for Hud and Cool Hand Luke but he’d certainly be deserving there, and I’d have been more than happy if he won for The Verdict.
I just count myself lucky to have grown up during the time of Paul Newman. He looked like a greek god, and turned in dependable acting performances decade after decade.
My personal choice for an Oscar would have been "Hud". But all things considered, giving Newman 1 honourary Oscar and one competitive Oscar worked out alright.
I'm a big fan. I would probably vote for him almost every year except for Cat and The Veredict.
The Color of Money is very good and he has a great final shot.
His Oscar should have gone to Bob Hoskins in Mona Lisa.
But he should also have Hud-walked his way into wins for The Hustler, Hud and Cool Hand Luke.
Cool Hand Luke.
Paul Newman is...even giving my Dog his treats. Lemonade is good, too.
I dont think it's bizarre that Sidney Poitier was not nominated in 1967. The problem is that he was competing for a nomination against himself for 3 films!
* In the Heat of the Night. He was competing against Rod Steiger, also in Heat...
* Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Back at that time, there was no way Poitier would have been presented as Best Supporting Actor. So he was also competing against a co-star: Spencer Tracy. This film received much Oscar love. It got 10 Oscar nominations! Three more than In the Heat of the Night.
* To Sir, with Love. He was wonderful in it too.
Interesting that you don't mention any of the other nominees for 1967, which was a stacked category. Warren Beatty in Bonnie and Clyde, Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate, Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, and the eventual winner, Rod Steiger in In the Heeat of the Night, all of them doing iconic work. While I do agreee Newman was the best of the bunch that year, he was the only one in the lineup who wasn't in a Best Picture nominee and I'm sure that hurt his chances (especially in a lineup THAT strong).
Also, I'm one of those people who loves Forrest Gump, so even if I thought he was amazing in Nobody's Fool, I can't take that one away from Tom Hanks (especially because the film doesn't work without him). I also think he's amazing in The Verdict, but again, another very strong lineup (I also think Jack Lemmon is terrific in Missing, as is Peter O'Toole in My Favorite Year, even though I don't love that film, and my vote would go to either Dustin Hoffman or Ben Kingsley that year).
I love Newman in everything - I'm so glad he has an Oscar. Is "The Color of Money" his best performance? Probably not, but at least they didn't miss their chance to award him the way they did with O'Toole, Burton, and so many legendary others.
He should've won it for The Hustler or Cool Hand Luke. I love The Color of Money but that was a "here's your overdue Oscar" win.
So happy to see the love for Hoskins in Mona Lisa. Damn good performance and film, and should have taken that Oscar.
I would vote for Newman in Hud and Cool Hand Luke.
Cat would be on the list, but it's tough to distinguish my admiration for the performance from the ... well just pure sex appeal. Those eyes! Have never seen the other nominees that year from The Defiant Ones or The Old Man and the Sea... so I'll reserve judgement.
James -- I can completely see the appeal of Poitier in Lilies of the Field. His Homer is a loveable character while Hud is a wonderful performance exactly because of how repulsive his actions often are. While that's my favorite Newman performance, it's the loss I mention here which least upsets me.
Ed -- His performance in Road to Perdition is a wonderful last nomination. He'd be my runner-up behind Cooper among the Academy's nominees.
zig -- I too love Lancaster in Atlantic City. He'd be my choice out of the 1981 Best Actor nominees.
LadyEdith -- He won one competitive Oscar and two honorary ones since he got one for his film work and a Jean Hearsholt trophy for his Humanitarian work. I agree with your other comments about Newman and, I must say, so does my mother. Paul Newman is her favorite actor of all time and she was the one that introduced me to a lot of his pictures. For the past few days, we've been having a Paul Newman marathon as research for this piece and it has been a ton of fun.
Peggy Sue -- Despite some of my harsh words, I quite like The Color of Money and think it's underrated. Ballhaus's lensing is often extraordinary and the way Schoonmaker cuts some those pool scenes is just exquisite. Also, Mastrantonio completely deserved that Oscar nomination.
Marcos -- I read Pictures at a Revolution and see why Poitier missed the '67 line-up. Still, it feels wrong for him to not be there. Hell, he had a leading part in 40% of that Best Picture race.
Richter Scale -- I'm sorry if it seemed like I was shortchanging the rest of those year's nominees. It's an amazing group of contenders, though I'm not a big fan of Beatty or Tracy. You're also right about '82 - I'd even rank O'Toole and Lemmon above Kingsley. It's a stacked field. In the end, there were several parts I had to cut off from this piece because it was turning gigantic and I was starting to focus more on the races themselves other than Newman. I hope the finished text is still good, even if not as thorough as it could be.
Tyler -- Poor Burton and O'Toole deserved so much more than what they got from the Academy.
This post is so good and so accurate. I would have given the Oscar to Newman for the five films you’ve mentioned — Cat on a Hot Tin Roof; Hud; Cool Hand Luke; The Verdict; and Nobody’s Fool. Cool Hand Luke in particular is my favorite performance.
I recently watched Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Beyond it being an awful movie, it bummed me out because even if In the Heat... had never happened, Newman still would have lost to Spencer Tracy. What a shame!
I’m glad Newman has an Oscar but The Color of Money is mediocre at best. Bob Hoskins was best that year.
@Andy: You give 5 Oscars to Newman? I think that is not objective! Wie all love him, but thats TOO MUCH I think.
Beautiful read ! I adore Newmans work - and also believe he must have been a very humble and wonderful human being... And yes you are right - wrong performance... you article for me also raises the question: would he have had a more challenging partner then Cruise would it it be a more interesting movie?
My Oscar for him (without considering the importance of Poitiers win) would be HUD - followed by NOBODY'S FOOL or COOL HAND LUKE.
No to 82 - as Kingsley's Gandhi is for me still unbeatable - I revisited it last year and was completely blow away.
All in all 10 nominations.
What a legend !
I’d say he should’ve won for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. And clearly I need to see Nobody’s Fool.
This is such a great read and what thefilmexperience is all about,in depth discussions on niche subjects,keep them coming Claudio,Newman's win is much like Julianne's,Leonardo's,Morgan's,Sean's first one,wrong movie but right time.
An idea for a future Almost There Sigourney in The Ice Storm one of the best 90's films underdiscussed,she must have been in the 6th spot and should have won.
For me he should have won for The Hustlers (in Judgement I think Tracy, Clift and Dietrich are better than Schell). The Colour is not his best perf but I’m glad he hot a competitive one, along with the honorific ones.
Poitier could have one in 1958 beating Niven (I like him but I’m not a fan of his perf)
My vote would’ve been a Best Actor for Hud. Would’ve been great to have that film, Streetcar Named Desire and Network all be three Acting winner films.
Great article about one of the most captivating movie stars of all time. As far as I know Paul Newman never made a movie called Long Shot though... He did, however, make a great bawdy hockey comedy called Slap Shot in 1977!
94 - Travolta
82 - Hoffman, by a landslide
67 - Newman, but the ideal winner here would be Poitier so we could give Newman the win for his masterpiece of acting
63 NEWMAN
58 Newman
I haven't seen William Hurt's performance in Children of a Lesser God, but of the other nominees for '86, James Woods gets my vote for Salvador. I think Newman is pretty routine in The Color of Money. I think he would have been a worthy winner for The Verdict and/or Nobody's Fool. Possibly Hud, too, but I haven't seen Poitier's winning performance. And he's terrific in Road to Perdition, but no complaints from me about Chris Cooper's win.
There is a long history of actors winning for the "wrong" performance, but that is what the ceremony is for. Someone must be crowned Best. You could write multiple articles on actors who won in the wrong year or didn't win ever. In a perfect world, Edward G Robinson would have an Oscar and Paul Lukas wouldn't, Barbara Stanwyck would and Tatum O'Neal wouldn't. For my revisionist ceremony, Paul Newman would have won for Hud.
Paul Newman should have won for The Hustler, and he's as my eventual choice in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Hud and Cool Hand Luke. Especially 1958 when he, Curtis and Poitier are infinitely better than David Niven. 1986 was clearly Bob Hoskin's year, but I don't mind him winning, and I think the picture itself is better than its current reputation.
Hmmm... so Paul Newman worked on “The Color Of Money” knowing he would never win a competitive Oscar...?...and portrayed his character as if he wasn’t totally invested in the game of pool....?
“Of course, you always had that detached quality as if you were playing a game without much concern over whether you won or lost, and now that you’ve lost the game, not lost but just quit playing, you have that rare sort of charm that usually only happens in very old or hopelessly sick people, the charm of the defeated. - You look so cool, so cool, so enviably cool.”
So enviably cool.
So many great performances. He won for the right role in the wrong movie. It should have been for The Hustler. I remember when the movie was released, and everyone was all over this performance for an Oscar, especially since he won the honorary Oscar the year before. It's as if the Academy suddenly realized he needed a competitive win. I love Paul Newman, but this is a film I don't think much about when I consider his career.
I'm a big fan of The Color of Money actually. It's not anyone's best work (except for the luminous Mary Elizabeth) but it's a great movie! I'd disagree with the notion that everyone's on auto-pilot. I particularly adore how slick it is and in my mind shows how much Scorsese can lifts even the most average script. All that said even I would've voted for Bob Hoskins!
Wasn't there an interview out there where even Newman himself said he knew he won for the wrong performance? Or am I mixing my male stars? Agreed!
He would've made a really great winner in 58 (for The Long Hot Summer especially), 61, 63, 67, 82 and 94. I'd maybe throw in 02 if we're stretching it a bit. He's pretty magnificent in all of those performances. He would have my vote from the Academy's batch in 58, 63 and 67 and is battling it out for the top spot in 61 and 82.
I'd probably give it to him for Cool Hand Luke. I can live without Steiger's win, or alternatively would also give it to him for Hud and would happily give Poitier a win in 58, 61 or 67 for great performances and better than the one he won for (he is pretty good in Lilies of the Field regardless).
We should include Al Pacino as a Lead Actor winning for the wrong film.. Scent of a Woman is just terrible. Pacino should have won for Dogs Day Afternoon.
Personally, I think most actors/actresses win for the wrong performance. I think in 1981, Newman was even nominated for the wrong performance. While Absence of Malice was by far the better film, I thought his work in Fort Apache, The Bronx was more deserving.
Newman should have three Oscars—for Hud, The Verdict and Nobody’s Fool.
Poitier should’ve won in 58, and in 67, Steiger was the rightful winner.
I am not very familiar with Paul Newman but have seen him in:
- Cat On a Hot Tin Roof
- The Verdict
- The Color of Money
I think he is amazing in Cat. The electric tension between him and Taylor is fascinating. And they both dig deep and made their characters multilayered.
In The Verdict he is more subtle compared to Cat and I wanted more and more. He has a very good chemistry with Rampling as well
I need to see more of his filmography before dazzling him with Oscars. But I do agree that Color is not his strongest work
Pfan -- I apologize for the mistake. I meant Slap Shot, the 1977 hockey comedy directed by George Roy Hill. Sometime, I'll go a whole week without mixing up any names or movie titles on any of my articles and I'll hooray in triumph. Until then, I'm sorry and thankful for people pointing these things out. As always, thank you.
Any woman who doesn’t think that Paul Newman is handsome, with his beautiful, blue eyes, doesn’t see straight. I loved him in The Verdict, From the Terrace, Cool Hand Luke, and The Hustler. I think that he should have won an Oscar for his performance in The Verdict. I never saw The Color of Money.
There is so much to say about Newman, his evolution as an actor, and his career not only as a film icon, but also as a humanitarian. All that aside, however, I think The Color of Money was as good a performance as he ever delivered. Perhaps it’s too laconic for some folks as he makes it look too easy, too effortless. But just rewatch the opening scene (which certainly nods at the points made about his play with Mary Elizabeth). You can pretty much thought-bubble everything he is thinking as he sits stretched out in that chair, seemingly doing nothing but watching a “home-movie” (as Fast Eddie put it). And the contrast between his performance and Cruise’s is so great, so real. Tom is a youthful hot-shot and you can see it as he acts with his entire body. Newman is in that wonderful, fine-wine twilight of his career. And he gracefully shows it by acting merely with his finger-tips. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought the performance was minimalist in the most elegant manner. Needless to say, I think he deserved every ounce of that statue.