Why has a legendary actor like Al Pacino been awarded with only one Oscar?

Since I agree Al Pacino is a legendary actor and it’s a fact the he has ‘only’ won 1 Oscar. The only question is, why?

Besides his win for ‘Scent of a Woman,’ he has been nominated 7 others times - that alone puts him in ratified air among the most nominated of all time (hence Legendary).

I won’t go through why he didn’t win each time, but let’s take a look at the more notable ones:

1973: The Godfather (Best Supporting Actor)

Michael Corleone is one of greatest film characters of all time and Pacino, it could be argued, gave his greatest performance. So, why didn’t he win?

The Oscars are a Hollywood invention and the Hollywood film community is a VERY small town. Pacino was upset he didn’t receive a Best Actor nomination (Marlon Brando did and for the same movie). He publicly denounced the process and the Oscars. He was seen as a “New York” actor who sneered at Hollywood. Of course it shouldn’t have made a difference but it did.

In 1973, the majority of Oscar voters were from the 1930–1950s Studio System Era and they didn’t like people who didn’t like Hollywood. That year’s winner, Joel Grey, had a 20 year background in the industry and he was reprising his Tony winning performance as the Emcee in Cabaret. At the time, Cabaret was a big hit and the PR machine got behind Grey. 45 plus years later, Cabaret feels dated and the Godfather is still regarding as one one best of all time. Re-vote now, Pacino wins.

1974: Serpico (Best Actor) 1974, Pacino stars in Serpico, a gritty, filmed on Streets of New York, biopic/crime cops/ corruption drama. Pacino is terrific as Frank Serpico and his transformation from 60s rookie cop to 70s undercover narcotics officers parallels the changes in Society during that time. The film itself is a little long and some of the characters fairly one dimension. Still a very strong Pacino performance and a worthy Best Actor nod. The winner was Jack Lemmon in Save the Tiger.

I am a huge fan of Jack Lemmon in both comedy and drama - but this wasn’t one of his best and the picture and theme (middle aged man lost in the changing times) was slow, depressing and virtually unseen - it wasn’t a big movie. But go back and look at 1973. Lemmon was a Studio System HOFer and Pacino was still seen a punk New York actor by the Academy. In a year with a lot of good performances in some less the perfect movies - The popular Lemmon took home the prize. Revote: Pacino wins Oscars #2

1975 The Godfather Part 2 (Best Actor) 3 of 4 in a row nomination for Pacino. The Godfather Part 2 - is usually mentioned as the greatest sequel of all time and is the only time where both the original and the sequel both won Best Picture Oscars. Part 2 is two very different stories, The story of young Vito (played by the youthful Robert De Niro Best Supporting Actor Winner) and Michael’s (Pacino) story of trying to modernize the Mafia while still ruling with an iron fist resulting in his third nomination. I think for me, it was the second best performance that year, the best being Jack Nicholson in Chinatown. Nicholson’s performance elevated Film Noir from it’s 40/50s inceptions to something new, different and Oscar worthy. Huge star turns by Faye Dunaway and director John Houston made this a very special experience and again, one that holds up quite well. But Jack didn’t win and of course we know Al didn’t win. The Winner was Art Carney in Harry and Tonto. Carney became a household name in the 50s playing Jackie Gleason’s sidekick on the Honeymooners. Carney, a serious actor, seems to resent the offish, comical and somewhat dimwitted character he played, Ed Norton. After the Honeymooners his career wasn’t as successful and was never really thought as lead movie actor. Along comes Harry and Tonto, a sentimental tearjecker, the story of a man and his cat as they see the world via greyhound. Especially back then, never underestimate the sentimental favorite in an Oscar race. Yes, lead actors in two of the greatest films of all time, lost to a guy and his cat. Revoted today, Jack Nicholson in a nod over Pacino.

Let’s skip to the year Pacino won, 1993, A Scent of a Woman. Why this year finally, why this one. Three reasons:

1. It was a solid, if not somewhat schmaltzy and over the top performance.
2. The competition was not as strong as most of the other years he was nominated
3. Perhaps most importantly after 7 other nominations without a win and a 20 year history in Hollywood - he WAS the sentimental favorite. Yes, it finally came around.
   

Why is Taxi Driver (1976) considered as one of the greatest film of Hollywood?

Let me preface this by saying that Martin Scorsese (the director of Taxi Driver) is my favorite filmmaker of all time, and Taxi Driver is probably my favorite film of his. I think this movie is the definition of a masterpiece and is one of the best films ever made.

Taxi Driver is a brilliant film because it’s a terrifyingly realistic depiction of how radicalization can and does happen every single day. For a film that was made nearly 45 years ago, it is incredible how relevant it feels. If you want to understand school shooters and religious extremists, Taxi Driver will give at least a little insight into the mindset of the people who commit these heinous acts of violence.

As a filmmaker, Scorsese has a fascination with flawed protagonists ) who the audience both relate to and are terrified of. Any of the modern TV anti-heroes like Walter White, Don Draper, Nucky Thompson and others all owe a debt of sorts to Scorsese anti-heroes. Scorsese has a unique gift for creating characters who the audience feels locked into to, almost as if we’re experiencing the film from the character's perspective rather than the neutral position most filmmakers use. Scorsese is also a vehement pacifist who hates violence and has been known to faint at the sight of blood. Scorsese does not justify or glorify violence, in fact he seems rather critical of society’s attitudes towards violence.

The message of Taxi Driver seems to be that lonely and desperate people just want attention, and that society only gives attention to regular people if they commit horrific acts. Society is fascinated with violence and will, in a sense, reward violent people by giving them the attention they crave.

Taxi Driver seems to be inspired by Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of John F. Kennedy. Oswald was a depressed and lonely young man in his 20’s who felt ignored by society, got caught up in a political ideology he didn’t really understand, committed an extreme and meaningless act of violence by assassinating a president who he didn’t have any strong feelings about. Travis Bickle is almost identical to Oswald in these respects, right down to the fact that he attempts to assassinate a politician who he knows almost nothing about (we never even learn if Pallantine is a Democrat or a Republican). The fact that Taxi Driver inspired another act of political violence (the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan by a man who - you guessed it - had no strong feelings on Reagan one way or another) is only further proof that its message is an important one.

I said earlier that Taxi Driver is a “terrifyingly realistic depiction of how radicalization can and does happen every single day”. It’s terrifying for two reasons. The first is the one I’ve already discussed, that society rewards people for committing violent acts. The second is that the audience falls for Travis’ charms. Scorsese believes that cinema is an illusion of sorts, and the illusion in Taxi Driver is that the audience ignores the very clear signs that Travis is a dangerous sociopath and fails to realize it until the final scenes of the film when the illusion breaks, by which time it is to late to stop the waking nightmare than this film is.

But the rest of society is still under that illusion. Travis is rewarded for his ‘bravery’ and given the fame and attention he’s been seeking the entire time, and the only thing he’s learned is that extreme violence is the way to escape from the pit of loneliness and despair. The audience is horrified by the ending because it’s almost like they’ve awaken from a terrible nightmare but everyone else is still deep asleep. This is Scorsese’s biggest indictment on society in the film.

Travis is a little weird and intense, but he’s ultimately likable and the audience can connect with him more than they’d like to admit. Many of his extreme views are things that many people can connect with, especially those who live in New York or another big city. Consider this quote from the film:

This city is like an open sewer, it’s full of filth and scum…we should flush it down the fucking toilet.

—Travis Bickle, Taxi Driver

…and that’s something that many New Yorkers or other big city residents have thought at one point or another. Additionally, many of Travis’ internal monologues (represented as voiceovers in the film) are very clear signs of mental illness, and yet the audience (at least on a first viewing) can relate very deeply to many of them because they’re so unusual and yet so honest. So sincere. So true. Take this one:

The headaches got worse. I think I got stomach cancer.

—Travis Bickle, Taxi Driver

…which is completely ridiculous, and in some absurd way is relateable and endures Travis to the audience. I can’t be the only person who’s a massive hypochondriac and assumes I have cancer whenever I don’t feel well, can I? This sort of internal monologue is so rarely seen in film, the type that doesn’t convey information but conveys deep emotional insecurity and the type of thoughts we usually share with no-one else. These monologues help the audience understand Travis and see more and more of themselves in him (aided by Scorsese’s claustrophobic direction which often locks us into Travis’s point-of-view), which only makes it more horrifying when Travis begins his murder spree and reveals the monster he has been all this time.

It’s not horrifying because Travis becomes a monster. It’s horrifying because he’s been one the entire time, and we as the audience realize that we ignored it and projected ourselves onto this horrible person.

There are whole levels to Taxi Driver that I haven’t even come close to explaining, like the idea of cyclical fate and how the film treats New York like a Möbius Strip that Travis is unable to escape from. Not to mention that Scorsese is on the top of his game, creating a visually masterful and stylish look for the film that is wholly unique and recognizable, aided by Bernard Hermann’s iconic score:

So that’s why Taxi Driver is considered a great movie. It’s a stylish and well-acted movie with a terrifying central character that manages to both endure himself to the audience and make them question their entire life.