Oliver (1968) (2 Viewers)

[Cineman]

Well, as a few members have pointed out, this is all in the eyes of the beholder -- a total matter of opinion.

I love OLIVER!, yet I avoided it for well over a year because I, too, was pissed that it won the Oscar. I finally caught it on a double bill at a drive-in and was blown away. The design, cinematography and performances won me over completely. I had to hit an indoor venue when the film was re-issued in order to see what I had missed at the drive-in, and was blown away a second time. The choreography is outstanding, the music actually pretty memorable for a 60's musical, and despite a rather lackluster performance by Mark Lester as Oliver, the cast was dynamite. I can't take my eyes off Ron Moody whenever he's onscreen (Oscar well-deserved!), and Shani Wallis is gorgeous and dimensional, making her death all the more resonant. Yes, and this was the zenith of child actor Jack Wild, whose cockney sounded perfect and whose character stood out among many more famous actors. The movie stuck to Dickens rather closely if you ignore the musical numbers. I wondered why in hell I had for so long refused to see this.

I'm with you on this, Dick. The weak link in Oliver! was Mark Lester's performance as Oliver. I just think he was too young to play the role. Not too young for the role, just too young and delicate as a little kid to pull it off. He was very cute but that's about it. Plus the singing dub for him was notably awful.

That said, Oliver! was clearly the best made, best PRODUCED movie of the 5 nominees for the Best Picture Oscar. I have always maintained that it is much easier to find better movies in a given year that were not nominated for the Best Picture Oscar (2001, The Searchers, Vertigo, being prime examples) but that the Academy gets it right the vast majority of times among the ones that are nominated. And 1968's Oliver! win is no exception, imo. They got it right that time, too.

After all, Oliver! didn't just win the Best Picture Oscar, it won a total of, as I recall, 8 Oscars that year. Which is more than was won by other, presumably less "controversial" Best Picture winners like Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather and Casablanca.

And this is coming from someone who saw Oliver! only twice in the theater on its initial release, once by my choice and a second time due to a promotional screening for a high school fund raiser. Meanwhile, I must have gone to a theater to see two other 1968 Best Picture nominees, Funny Girl and The Lion in Winter, over ten times each!

But the fact is Oliver! was an overall better production and greater filmmaking achievement than either of those personal favorites. Funny Girl, which will always remain firmly among my top 10 favorite movies, suffers from a rather weak second half save for Barbra's electrifying and emotionally devastating final song. And The Lion in Winter, which I could not get enough of in its initial release and will watch anytime with anyone to this very day, is so driven by MAJOR Star Power, remarkably clever and powerful writing but almost nothing else production-wise (that was the year Peter O'Toole definitely deserved and should have won the Oscar for Best Actor,imo), that one overlooks the fact that it is much closer to a filmed play than a movie-movie.

But Oliver! does not suffer from those deficiencies. As a movie, it gets better as it moves along right up to the final scene and it isn't easy to point to an element (other than the Mark Lester issue) that could have been done better or should have been done differently. I just think it has gotten a bad rap because of the ensuing 2001: A Space Odyssey fan and critic following and that it is one of those movies that represents the late '60s/early '70s transition in popular film.

Considered a "weak" Best Picture Oscar winner or not, I have no problem going on record today in opining that any of the Best Picture Oscar nominees of that year, Funny Girl, The Lion in Winter, Romeo and Juliet OR Oliver!, with the possible exception of the little seen Rachel Rachel, is a better movie than any of the WINNERS of the Best Picture Oscar of the past 10 years or so.

 

[Ethan Riley]

On another board, I ran a series of polls meant to pick the worst BP winner - "Oliver!" made the final nine. (We eliminated five in that round - it didn't go to the final four.)

In my poll, the final was between "Crash" and "Broadway Melody", with a "win: for "Crash".

Which in my mind means that "Broadway Melody" is probably the choice as worst of all. It's gonna get fewer votes than "Crash" because so many fewer people today have seen it - but it STILL almost "won" the poll!

Geez--I wish all movies were as lousy as "Oliver."

Simple solution: don't like it? Don't buy it. Case closed. I'd like this movie whether it won an Oscar or not. There's no such thing as a "best picture." The Academy is a bunch of crap; the studios lobby hard to get films nominated. I think the Oscars take too much critical thinking away from moviegoers. Then all of the sudden it's THIS is the "Best" and THAT is "not the best." Judge the damn films for yourselves, and support the ones you want. Who cares what a bunch of bribe-taking Academy voters thought back in 1968...

 

[Cineman]

After all, Oliver! didn't just win the Best Picture Oscar, it won a total of, as I recall, 8 Oscars that year. Which is more than was won by other, presumably less "controversial" Best Picture winners like Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather and Casablanca.

Just checked the Oscar database and found I got the numbers wrong on this. Although it was nominated for 11 Oscars, Oliver! won four, which still puts it ahead of The Godfather, Casablanca, and a few other Best Picture Oscar winners, but not Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Bill Coolidge]

To me Oliver is one of the great musicals. The songs, performances and choreography were all wonderful. The DVD seemed rather bland to me and I am hopeful the blu-ray does the movie justice.

 

[Cineman]

To me Oliver is one of the great musicals. The songs, performances and choreography were all wonderful. The DVD seemed rather bland to me and I am hopeful the blu-ray does the movie justice.

I would have thought that, at the very least, someone in control might have considered a wider release of an Oliver! Blu-ray to coincide with the wave of interest in the theatrical and Blu-ray release of Les Miserable. I mean, it isn't as though the provenance and genre are wildly dissimilar.

To boot, Oliver! is a much better movie than Les Miserable, has a better score, is far better directed and acted, actually did win the Oscar for Best Picture and did so at a time when the competition was truly formidable.

 

[Robin9]

As I have stated before, I adore this movie, and am looking forward to the release. I see from perusing the thread that people have very strong feelings about the film, but nobody is on the fence. Well, to each his own. (I am the one person alive who has no desire to watch Star Wars, so.....)

You are not the only person alive who has no desire to watch Star Wars.

 

[Matt Hough]

Actually, you still haven't gotten it quite right about Oliver!'s Oscar wins: it won five competitive awards: Picture, Director, Art DIrection, Sound, Music Scoring plus a special award for Onna White's choreography. It's usually credited with six wins.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Geez--I wish all movies were as lousy as "Oliver."

Simple solution: don't like it? Don't buy it. Case closed. I'd like this movie whether it won an Oscar or not. There's no such thing as a "best picture." The Academy is a bunch of crap; the studios lobby hard to get films nominated. I think the Oscars take too much critical thinking away from moviegoers. Then all of the sudden it's THIS is the "Best" and THAT is "not the best." Judge the damn films for yourselves, and support the ones you want. Who cares what a bunch of bribe-taking Academy voters thought back in 1968...

I'm glad they're not or I'd never go to movies.

Not sure why you felt compelled to pick on my post - I just mentioned a poll I ran elsewhere and how "Oliver!" performed in it...

 

[John Morgan]

I love OLIVER. It is my favorite big budget, old fashioned musical of the period. John Green’s arrangements and orchestrations are absolutely superb, and I think as good as any musical. The characters, the acting, the art direction, the choreography are first rate.
I don’t mind Mark Lester at all. He plays the part wonderfully as written. He is an abused young kid that really is an observer of the events around him, so he really doesn’t have a lot to do as compared to the more eccentric characters. I don’t mind his dubbing at all. (and it is better than Boris Karloff’s in CHARLIE CHAN AT THE OPERA.)
I could care less about the Academy Awards and who won, who lost, who was nominated…..
I saw it originally when it opened, but can’t comment on my memory from that long ago. I do know I was disappointed in the previous video releases for various reasons. One question I have is the sound recording. Even the original LP and CD of the soundtrack sounded pinched to me, as did the latest DVD. The music just didn’t have the depth, fullness it deserved and since this lack has always been there, I wonder if it is in the original mix and nothing can be done about it.
But with the hope that TWILIGHT TIME can include the isolated score, this is a day one purchase for me.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I'm glad they're not or I'd never go to movies.

Not sure why you felt compelled to pick on my post - I just mentioned a poll I ran elsewhere and how "Oliver!" performed in it...

Really? I took your mentioning Oliver's low ranking in that poll as a passive/aggressive act. It's clear you don't like the film--you're the one who called it "goopy," after all. Wow--harsh words! If you don't like Oliver, don't watch it. And don't find subtle ways of bashing it in an Oliver thread.

I for one couldn't be more pleased to see it on blu-ray. What else do we really need to say? That "Oliver" isn't as good as other films? I don't get that. It's like a pointless argument. That it doesn't deserve to be "best picture?" Nothing deserves to be "best" picture. "Best Picture" is phrase adopted by the Academy that becomes utterly pointless when discussing films. The "Best picture" of any year is the picture YOU think is best. Don't be disappointed because the frickin' Academy did not designate your favorite film with that appellation. Don't love your favorite films less because of something the Academy did. The hell with the Academy.

 

[David_B_K]

I don't think the polls that were quoted were meant to be an argument against the film's quality. Rather, they were quoted to support the notion that 3,000 copies from TT would be sufficient. I like the film well enough. I quite like Ron Moody, Shani Wallis, Oliver Reed and Jack Wild, as well as the choreography. My only complaint with it is the poor dubbing of Mark Lester's singing. I assume it really was young Mark singing, because he was so closely miked. A better singer would have blended in with the other singers. However, I don't like the film enough to pay TT prices for it. I'm inclined to think 3,000 copies are enough; but I could be wrong.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Really? I took your mentioning Oliver's low ranking in that poll as a passive/aggressive act. It's clear you don't like the film--you're the one who called it "goopy," after all. Wow--harsh words! If you don't like Oliver, don't watch it. And don't find subtle ways of bashing it in an Oliver thread.

I for one couldn't be more pleased to see it on blu-ray. What else do we really need to say? That "Oliver" isn't as good as other films? I don't get that. It's like a pointless argument. That it doesn't deserve to be "best picture?" Nothing deserves to be "best" picture. "Best Picture" is phrase adopted by the Academy that becomes utterly pointless when discussing films. The "Best picture" of any year is the picture YOU think is best. Don't be disappointed because the frickin' Academy did not designate your favorite film with that appellation. Don't love your favorite films less because of something the Academy did. The hell with the Academy.

Actually, if you read the post to which my poll responded, it said that "Oliver!" routinely popped up among the three most-hated BP winners - I said it didn't fare that poorly in mine.

I've not been passive-aggressive at all in this thread - I and others have openly indicated our dislike for the film.

This isn't a thread reserved solely for "Oliver!" lovers - it's fair game to discuss reasons some of us don't like it. I'm not sure why you seem to sensitive to the mild criticisms found in the thread.

BTW, this may be the first time in history the word "goopy" has been regarded as "harsh words"!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

This isn't a thread reserved solely for "Oliver!" lovers - it's fair game to discuss reasons some of us don't like it...

Absolutely correct.

Nobody is using this thread to trash the film. There have been some who have
expressed their love for the film and some (like myself) who feel indifferent to it.

Nobody should be taking any offense to less than positive comments. This thread
is open to debate and everyone should be attempting to be respectful to each other.

 

[Robert Crawford]

To be honest, the list for past Best Picture Oscar winners not being well thought of today is becoming quite long. There is almost 1-2 winners every decade that can be described as not deserving of that award.

Back to our passionate, not in agreement, but respectful discussion.

 

[Dick]

Geez--I wish all movies were as lousy as "Oliver."

Simple solution: don't like it? Don't buy it. Case closed. I'd like this movie whether it won an Oscar or not. There's no such thing as a "best picture." The Academy is a bunch of crap; the studios lobby hard to get films nominated. I think the Oscars take too much critical thinking away from moviegoers. Then all of the sudden it's THIS is the "Best" and THAT is "not the best." Judge the damn films for yourselves, and support the ones you want. Who cares what a bunch of bribe-taking Academy voters thought back in 1968...

This is the truth, but it's worse than that -- cinema has gone from being art to being strictly commerce. Yes, it always was that for studio executives (with exceptions like Thalberg and Disney), but now it has become that even for audiences! We all compare these godawful box-office "take" numbers... everything is judged by how much it grossed, especially in the first weekend! Entertainment Weekly made the grosses lists that Variety had always been reporting (to a smaller, very specific readership of mostly industry people) available to the general public, and even t.v. programs began touting this crap. It just ain't what it was in, say, the 60's, when you went to a movie, enjoyed it or didn't, and probably had an experience you would remember for many years, without hearing so much as a whisper about how much money it took in. Pathetic.

 

[Cineman]

Actually, you still haven't gotten it quite right about Oliver!'s Oscar wins: it won five competitive awards: Picture, Director, Art DIrection, Sound, Music Scoring plus a special award for Onna White's choreography. It's usually credited with six wins.

You are right. I missed Sound and forgot about the Honorary Award to Onna White. My (inaccurate) tally of 4 seemed low to me, too, but didn't recheck the database to make sure. And now I do remember re-releases touting its "Six Academy Awards" instead of 8 (or 4!).

At least that Honorary Award was specifically for her work on Oliver! as opposed to when Gigi was occasionally touted for its "10 Academy Awards" even though that tenth one was an Honorary Award to Maurice Chevalier "for his contributions to the world of entertainment for more than half a century", and not specifically for his performance in Gigi. For years I would see posters and re-release ads for Gone With The Wind touting it as a "Winner of 10 Academy Awards!", when it turns out one of those ten was a Special Award for William Cameron Menzies, which was proper because it was indeed for his production work on Gone With The Wind, but the the tenth one was apparently counting Thomas Mitchell as one of its Oscar Winners. The thing is, Mitchell won the Supporting Actor Oscar that year for Stagecoach, not for Gone With The Wind. hehe.

At 6 Oscars that really does put Oliver! in rare company. It is surprising how many Best Picture Oscar winners finished with less than 3 or 4 other category wins over the years.

On a side issue, it is amazing to me how many people who claim to be movie fans also seem to be truly and deeply offended by the notion of the Academy Awards/Oscars. To me, it is like someone claiming to be an avid baseball fan but recoiling at the very thought of a MVP designation or that the Baseball Hall of Fame even exists. Wherever energy exists for a product, service, art or craft, there will and ought to be outlets and niches for commerce to do its thing in exploiting that interest. The fans will have something else to think about, talk about and spend their money on. Why not? It's fun.

 

[Cineman]

It just ain't what it was in, say, the 60's, when you went to a movie, enjoyed it or didn't, and probably had an experience you would remember for many years, without hearing so much as a whisper about how much money it took in. Pathetic.

Also, before the opening weekend wide release of Jaws turned the opening weekend box-office gross report into some weird new "RAVE review!" of a movie (although in the case of Jaws, it really was a good movie), most top tier, likely Academy Award candidates were only released in two or three theaters in major cities, often for weeks or months, before the wide release. That being the case, none of them could benefit from a Monday morning "Number 1 Movie!!" headline standing in for a "RAVE review!!". They actually had to be good enough to survive Friday's, Saturday's and SUNDAY'S critical response as well as good word-of-mouth by movie goers at those selected theaters over the next weeks or months before a wide release of it would hope to trigger a "Number 1 at the box-office!" report.

 

[Matt Hough]

At least that Honorary Award was specifically for her work on Oliver! as opposed to when Gigi was occasionally touted for its "10 Academy Awards" even though that tenth one was an Honorary Award to Maurice Chevalier "for his contributions to the world of entertainment for more than half a century", and not specifically for his performance in Gigi. For years I would see posters and re-release ads for Gone With The Wind touting it as a "Winner of 10 Academy Awards!", when it turns out one of those ten was a Special Award for William Cameron Menzies, which was proper because it was indeed for his production work on Gone With The Wind, but the the tenth one was apparently counting Thomas Mitchell as one of its Oscar Winners. The thing is, Mitchell won the Supporting Actor Oscar that year for Stagecoach, not for Gone With The Wind. hehe.

Actually that count of 10 awards for Gone With the Wind is accurate. It won 8 competitive awards and TWO special awards: for William Cameron Menzies (as you said) and a Class III special award (in certificate form, not a statuette) to Don Musgrave and Selznick International for "pioneering the use of coordinated equipment in the production of Gone With the Wind." (Maybe for that huge crane and track used to film the train depot sequence?)

That's where the number ten came from.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Actually that count of 10 awards for Gone With the Wind is accurate. It won 8 competitive awards and TWO special awards: for William Cameron Menzies (as you said) and a Class III special award (in certificate form, not a statuette) to Don Musgrave and Selznick International for "pioneering the use of coordinated equipment in the production of Gone With the Wind." (Maybe for that huge crane and track used to film the train depot sequence?)

That's where the number ten came from.

I think they may have also been counting David Selznick's winning the Irving Thalberg Award that year as another win for GWTW.

 

[Ethan Riley]

On a side issue, it is amazing to me how many people who claim to be movie fans also seem to be truly and deeply offended by the notion of the Academy Awards/Oscars. To me, it is like someone claiming to be an avid baseball fan but recoiling at the very thought of a MVP designation or that the Baseball Hall of Fame even exists. Wherever energy exists for a product, service, art or craft, there will and ought to be outlets and niches for commerce to do its thing in exploiting that interest. The fans will have something else to think about, talk about and spend their money on. Why not? It's fun.

Because the Oscars are rubbish. The Oscars do a filmgoer's thinking for him. The Oscars tell people what they should like or dislike. People actually believe that a "best picture" is deserving of that title. Meaning, all the other films produced that film are not the best picture; that they're somehow inferior because they were not validated by the politically-charged, easily-swayed nominating committee. The Oscars are not an arbiter of taste and art and craftsmanship; they are an arbiter of commerce. That's what they've become. Every year, the studios send out the films they wants as notches on their belts. Once nominated, the studios wine and dine the voters shamelessly. Nobody's supposed to know about it. It's not supposed to happen. Yet it does.

And anyway, since when are the Oscars about movies anyway? After Oscar night, all I hear about is what some crap starlet wore on the red carpet. Nobody's talking about movies; they're talking about gowns. It's such a joke. So, to utterly fly in the face of your logic, I absolutely love movies and want nothing to do with the Oscars--because they stand for the exact opposite of "love for movies."