The Oscars snub that enraged Paul Newman: “I’m not a particularly vindictive man”
Paul Newman was no stranger to the Academy Awards throughout his career. He was nominated for Oscars in five different decades, from his first ‘Best Actor’ nomination for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in 1959, right up to his final nomination for Road to Perdition in 2003. In total, he received ten nominations, but only won one competitive Oscar when he took home ‘Best Supporting Actor’ in 1987 for The Colour of Money.
In truth, losing out on so many Oscars never seemed to bother Newman all that much. He was comfortable with his status as one of Hollywood’s most beloved leading men, and continuously being in the Oscar conversation likely aided him in making risky choices with his career from time to time. For instance, between 1968 and 1987, Newman directed five films, four of which starred his lovely wife Joanne Woodward, and they were a far cry from many of the films he made as a movie star.
Indeed, Newman’s 1968 directorial debut Rachel, Rachel surprised critics and audiences alike with its subject matter and the genuine sensitivity Newman brought to the picture. This was only a year after Newman gave an indelible performance as prisoner Luke Jackson in Cool Hand Luke, and cemented his status as an icon of modern masculinity. Yet, the first movie he chose to direct was a quiet, remarkably well-observed character study of the sexual awakening of a shy 30-something teacher in small-town Connecticut.
Rachel, Rachel was a pioneering film in many respects, not the least of which was its filmmaking style. This was a movie more concerned with character than plot, and it was minimalist in terms of its dialogue. Newman once noted how he tried to make a film that “gives penetrating perceptions and comments on the human condition”, and he undoubtedly succeeded.
The film was also remarkable in how it tackled subjects that would have been taboo at the time in mainstream movies. It would have been extremely rare for a film to explore the sexual desires of a repressed young woman in all their messy, complicated glory, and even more unusual for any film to address lesbianism, let alone in the nuanced way Rachel, Rachel did.
To Newman’s delight, despite being turned down by many of the major studios when he pitched them the film, Rachel, Rachel was a box office success. It also notched four Oscar nominations, including ‘Best Picture’ and ‘Best Actress’ for Woodward, which was music to Newman’s ears. He had always felt his wife was an incredible actor who had never quite gotten her due, and he made the film as a showcase of her talents.
However, one Oscar nomination was conspicuous by its absence: ‘Best Director.’ How could Newman have made a film the Academy considered one of the best movies of the year, yet he wasn’t in the frame as one of the best directors? In Paul Newman: A Biography, the star admitted, “Well, it was pretty hard to win the New York Film Critics Circle Award as best director for that film and then not even get nominated for the Oscar. But I’m not gonna whine about it.”
Still, despite any lingering disappointment Newman may have felt about being personally snubbed, he did have the last laugh because the movie was so acclaimed and touched so many people’s lives. “I’m not a particularly vindictive man,” Newman smirked, “But I must say, I now read the letters of rejection I got for the film with a certain quiet pleasure. There is, shall we say, a good deal of inward chuckling.”
