George Roy Hill was known as an Actor's Director and totally deserved this. Funny thing was CD Marion Dougherty's cast The Sting and oversaw the casting for The Exorcist too.
Sting deserved it. Absolute beauty of a film. Leaves me with a big smile on my face every time i watch it. The other nominees are awesome to. But George Roy Hill deserved this.
thank you! my grandpa was his first cousin, so my dad & him are second cousins, and he's my second cousin once removed. thanks for saying he deserved one of these.
1. Even though I prefer the Sting over the Exorcist, Friedkin should have won the Oscar for Best Director. His directing style in Exorcist is really amazing. Either Friedkin or legendary Ingmar Bergman should have won Still I really appreciate George Roy Hill as director 2. David Niven = Amazing actor and guy 3. Walter Matthau = Truly great comedian and actor 4. Shirley McClaine = One of the best actresses 5. Still cannot believe that Ingmar Bergman never won an Oscar 6. Peter Bogdanovich should be nominated for Best Director for Paper Moon
For me it was a toss up between Hill and Friedkin. The Exorcist is an amazing technical achievement, but The Sting is a marvel of cross-cutting (multiple story elements happening concurrently). That is not easy to do.
George Roy Hill was an interesting guy - he only made 14 features in his career. His two mega hits were BUTCH CASSIDY and THE STING but interestingly enough his two best movies were films he made with Redford and Newman separately - THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER and SLAP SHOT.
Whether you love or hate The Exorcist, there's no denying that it is a powerful film, and should have won the best picture, but was too controversial for the older academy members at the time and horror films rarely win the best picture oscar, and Billy Friedkin did an amazing job at bringing this story to the screen when nobody thought it could be done.
The Sting was the safe selection, but The Exorcist was a greater directorial challenge. It is a delicate and controversial subject that can be reduced to camp and silliness or absurdity if not handled correctly. Friedkin navigated the material adroitly and treated the subject with respect. He assaulted the audience while respecting their intelligence at the same time. A lot of imagination and consideration went into the sound effects, photography, editing, makeup and acting - and he had to work with a 12-13 year old girl as a lead in an intense role.
Friedkin was feigning respect with that applause. He hated "The Sting", thought it was a lighthearted piffle, and said to the press "there is no question The Exorcist is the best movie of the year!"
I'm a Friedkin fan, but I really liked Hill's speech. There was no "Look how great I am." That you get with other directors, he knows it's all about collaboration.
I love the sting, super enjoyable and great movie. But this awards should have definitely gone to ingmar bergman, specially if you consider that he never won an oscar and that he considered this to be his best movie. Great competition though!
I agree! my grandpa and George R. Hill are first cousins, my dad and him are second cousins, so, he's my second cousin once removed. The Sting and American Graffiti are both really great movies (I am 15) and I personally choose American Graffiti more then The Sting. but, they are both great movies.
Doesn't matter if Ingmar Bergman said it was his best movie, or if he had never won before. The award is given to the best directorial achievement of that year. Although The Sting is a great film, and has solid directing, Roy's work it can in no way be compared to what William Friedkin achieved with The Exorcist.
Since Friedkin won two years prior, he wasn’t going to win this go round (even though it would’ve been well deserved). Plus horror pictures never performed well at the Oscars around this time in the top categories (the fact TE won screenplay is something of a minor miracle but yay it did) GRH was rewarded for directing good old fashioned slick Hollywood entertainment. Plus I think he had some goodwill from directing Butch Cassidy, another massive hit.
Friedkin had won in 1972 ceremony and the academy would not award him a second statuette so soon again. Only John Ford and William Wyler have won more than 3 Oscars for directing. Ford did not deserve all of them in my opinion.
He was the first director to make two films that grossed $100 million each, yet so little is known about him. He was brilliant
Man, what a year. 5 bona fide classic films, all of superb quality. Good luck finding a single film from 2023 as good as any of these films
Past Lives
George Roy Hill! A great acceptance speech. Short and well said.
George Roy Hill was known as an Actor's Director and totally deserved this. Funny thing was CD Marion Dougherty's cast The Sting and oversaw the casting for The Exorcist too.
George Lucas when Walter said George:
🤩😳🤬😢👏👏
I know EXACTLY how he feels.
Sting deserved it. Absolute beauty of a film. Leaves me with a big smile on my face every time i watch it. The other nominees are awesome to. But George Roy Hill deserved this.
George was a marine and flew missions in WWII. He was a legit badass but also a true artist.
He also was a Marine nightfighter pilot and instructor at Cherry Point during Korea
This feels like an apology from the Academy for not giving him the award for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
George Roy Hill earned one of these.
thank you! my grandpa was his first cousin, so my dad & him are second cousins, and he's my second cousin once removed. thanks for saying he deserved one of these.
1. Even though I prefer the Sting over the Exorcist, Friedkin should have won the Oscar for Best Director.
His directing style in Exorcist is really amazing.
Either Friedkin or legendary Ingmar Bergman should have won
Still I really appreciate George Roy Hill as director
2. David Niven = Amazing actor and guy
3. Walter Matthau = Truly great comedian and actor
4. Shirley McClaine = One of the best actresses
5. Still cannot believe that Ingmar Bergman never won an Oscar
6. Peter Bogdanovich should be nominated for Best Director for Paper Moon
Friedkin did win Best Director for The French Connection.
Check out Miss Ross in full 1970's Afro at 1:15!!!
For me it was a toss up between Hill and Friedkin. The Exorcist is an amazing technical achievement, but The Sting is a marvel of cross-cutting (multiple story elements happening concurrently). That is not easy to do.
The Sting had great directing.
So has the others nominees.
Good choice!
William Friedkin deserved it
RIP Legend
Ingmar Bergman never won an Oscar for directing. (Silence. The sound of a clock ticking loudly in the parlor. More silence.)
George...
Lucas: *perks up*
roy hill..
Lucas: *embarrassed* smiles shyly
Cassidy was not too shabby. Much oblige Mr. Hill.
lol, Friedkin is foreshadowing Wes Anderson's look here!
George Roy Hill was an interesting guy - he only made 14 features in his career. His two mega hits were BUTCH CASSIDY and THE STING but interestingly enough his two best movies were films he made with Redford and Newman separately - THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER and SLAP SHOT.
His best film was Slaughterhouse-5 (1972) which of course was ignored by the Academy
Was really rooting for Billy Friedkin.
The Sting was Best Picture but Friedkin was Best Director that year.
George Roy Hill deserved this but I can't believe Peter Bogdanovich wasn't nominated for Paper Moon.
George Lucas is amazing!!!!
Robert Manning
You can say that again. American Graffiti fucking rules.
*was
@@OrphanedZombie *is
sorry to say, the exorcist is the best film in that year's oscar list, the directing was completely amazing!!!
Whether you love or hate The Exorcist, there's no denying that it is a powerful film, and should have won the best picture, but was too controversial for the older academy members at the time and horror films rarely win the best picture oscar, and Billy Friedkin did an amazing job at bringing this story to the screen when nobody thought it could be done.
Bertolucci and Bergman deserved much more the award!
I don't think Mr. Bertolucci would win Best Directing award because of that Rape scene in Last Tango in Paris.
Bertolucci he is won in The Last Emperor
The Sting was the safe selection, but The Exorcist was a greater directorial challenge. It is a delicate and controversial subject that can be reduced to camp and silliness or absurdity if not handled correctly. Friedkin navigated the material adroitly and treated the subject with respect. He assaulted the audience while respecting their intelligence at the same time. A lot of imagination and consideration went into the sound effects, photography, editing, makeup and acting - and he had to work with a 12-13 year old girl as a lead in an intense role.
Friedkin was feigning respect with that applause. He hated "The Sting", thought it was a lighthearted piffle, and said to the press "there is no question The Exorcist is the best movie of the year!"
Shirley Maclaine is gorgeous!
He also should've won for Slap Shot
The Sting was entertaining. Only sick people would think the same of The Exorcist. Hill's Oscar is well-deserved.
Friedkin deserved the Oscar that year
the Oscar should be for william friedkin
I'm a Friedkin fan, but I really liked Hill's speech. There was no "Look how great I am." That you get with other directors, he knows it's all about collaboration.
streaker year
Hill won for Butch Cassidy.
No, he didn't.
A little advice for my fellow directors: ya gotta shake tha fucking tree
William Friedkin should have won for The Exorcist.
I thought William Friedkin won the second Oscar from The Exorcist.
I love the sting, super enjoyable and great movie. But this awards should have definitely gone to ingmar bergman, specially if you consider that he never won an oscar and that he considered this to be his best movie. Great competition though!
I agree! my grandpa and George R. Hill are first cousins, my dad and him are second cousins, so, he's my second cousin once removed. The Sting and American Graffiti are both really great movies (I am 15) and I personally choose American Graffiti more then The Sting. but, they are both great movies.
Doesn't matter if Ingmar Bergman said it was his best movie, or if he had never won before. The award is given to the best directorial achievement of that year. Although The Sting is a great film, and has solid directing, Roy's work it can in no way be compared to what William Friedkin achieved with The Exorcist.
Since Friedkin won two years prior, he wasn’t going to win this go round (even though it would’ve been well deserved). Plus horror pictures never performed well at the Oscars around this time in the top categories (the fact TE won screenplay is something of a minor miracle but yay it did) GRH was rewarded for directing good old fashioned slick Hollywood entertainment. Plus I think he had some goodwill from directing Butch Cassidy, another massive hit.
Two words. American Graffiti.
To good Acceptance speech.
In my opinion, William Friedkin should have won.
William Freidkin
Friedkin had won in 1972 ceremony and the academy would not award him a second statuette so soon again. Only John Ford and William Wyler have won more than 3 Oscars for directing. Ford did not deserve all of them in my opinion.
Ingmar Bergman deserved this for Cries and Whispers. Yep. Scorsese should have been nominated.
should've been cassavetes
Even though he hadn't directed a film in 1973?
BERGMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FTW!
William Friedkin was so much better.
I couldn’t have told you who George Roy Hill was.
He was the guy who directed Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
Maybe you should just stick to the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 I don’t do Marvel-at all, but thanks for being so condescending, asshole.
The other other 4 deserve better before this man :/
Bertolucci was robbed!
Arthur, if you say Bertolucci was robbed it must have been at gunpoint; Last Tango is pretentious, pointless and tedious.
its all about the last emperor of china
Maria was also robbed of her decency
The oscar is not made for you, George.
Which one?
Billy got cheated. American Graffiti is my favorite movie, though.