In my opinion, Sellers had a far more interesting performance. I'll preface this by saying I am not a fan of Kramer vs. Kramer, and thought it was quite overrated. That being said, I thought the performances were a highlight. But while I thought Hoffman was quite good, and think he's an incredible actor, I just didn't think it was as special as Peter Sellers as Chance the Gardner.
Hoffman was very good, but he wasn't anything unique to me. At least as a modern viewer I felt like it was good, just nothing to write home about. I'd already seen plenty of great dramatic performances. But Sellers was something else. I don't believe I've seen anything quite like it. The voice and mannerisms are so perfect. And he captures the tone perfectly. Being There has a very quiet and somewhat melancholic atmosphere, combined with incredible comedy. Sellers really sold that atmosphere and tone. He was able to do both simultaneously, which is a really rare thing to see.
I think playing a blank slate is very difficult. Chance has no ego, past, or real motivation. He is empty but everyone projects onto him. He can't be too funny or too empty because the movie wouldn't work. It's more complicated than the more naturalistic performance Hoffman gave, in my opinion. I feel like the comedy bias, and the film being ahead of it's time really killed it's chance for the oscars (didn't even get a best picture nom). But it still holds up so well today.
I'd argue that Sellers should have won for Dr Strangelove
57
Rich-Revolution4115Apr 3, 2026
+22
sellers was robbed twice then because strangelove is absolutely insane how he pulled off three completely different characters in one film
the academy has always been weird about comedy performances though, like they treat them as lesser art or something which is bs because nailing comedy timing while still being dramatic takes way more skill than people give credit for
22
philamentApr 3, 2026
+7
Same for McGuiness’ 8 roles in “Kind Hearts and Coronets”.
7
Expensive-Sentence66Apr 3, 2026
+1
The fact he's able to have two characters on the screen at the same time without the aid of CGI or camera tricks, and both characters are completely seamless and totally unique was pretty amazing.
1
yawaworhtlanosrepApr 3, 2026
+1
And Strangelove and Being There are so much more than comedy
1
Zealousideal_Dog3430Apr 3, 2026
-1
I think performing as separate characters in a movie is an overrated accolade. That's an actors job; to perform as different characters. It's not more impressive when they do it on the same set as opposed to different ones.
What's impressive about his Strangelove performance is how each so perfectly enhances the comedic tone each segment he was in was going for. Every segment he's in is just that much better when he's on screen.
-1
rotates-potatoesApr 3, 2026
+2
Actors study and rehearse for roles.
It is very impressive to do that for multiple roles in a film. Your point is like saying it’s no big deal for someone to be first chair violin, first chair clarinet, and first chair timpani in an orchestra. You wouldn’t say “that’s what musicians do, they play instruments” I hope.
2
Zealousideal_Dog3430Apr 3, 2026
+1
No, but I'd also say you gave a bad example as to an equivalent. You wouldn't say mastering one instrument is the same as mastering another.
Yes, actors study and rehearse. I think there's very few cases where each of their characters in a single movie is meaty enough where it takes more effort/talent/skill to prepare and perform each of them than someone performing a single character.
1
casualreader22Apr 3, 2026
+20
I think they said on TCM after a screening that Sellers was furious they used a blooper reel during the end credits without his permission and was convinced it cost him the Oscar.
20
doctor_xApr 3, 2026
+4
Yes! It was a baffling shift in tone after a remarkably poignant ending. I don’t know what the studio was snorting… oh, wait, of course I do.
4
ricoimfApr 3, 2026
+9
Having rewatched both a few weeks ago I actually disagree with you. Sellers would really have deserved it with Dr Strangelove, being there is still a superb performance but I think Hoffman was slightly more versatile in his role.
But interesting to read your take on this!
9
t-hrowaway2Apr 3, 2026
+10
Hoffman as Ted Kramer is one of my favorite performances of all time. He is so perfect in the role and really becomes the character throughout the film. I do think it’s his strongest performance up until that point in his career, which may have aided him in winning the Oscar in a stacked year of iconic nominees.
Sellers absolutely would have deserved to win for Dr. Strangelove, fifteen years earlier.
10
Human_Drummer4378Apr 3, 2026
+5
Yeah, the monotone nature of Sellers' performance was perfectly executed but there's a ceiling for that kind of acting choice.
5
metalunamutantApr 3, 2026
+4
Interestingly, Sellers afterwards said he believed he was passed over for that Oscar because director Hal Ashby played a blooper reel of clips of Sellars over the End Credits.
Sellers thought that blooper reel poisoned the end of the movie -- that it made the audience gloss over the serious dramatic role and just remember that silly blooper end credits reel as they left the theater.
4
bones_boyApr 3, 2026
+5
Such a random post!! Love it! Couldn’t agree more. 👍🏽
5
ZorroMeansFoxApr 3, 2026
+5
Here's what I posted regarding this film and Sellers deserving the Oscar just yesterday:
**Being There**. The awestruck silence of the audience during the poetic, mystical final moments (and reverberating afterwards) was a wonderful thing to be a part of.
Then the "Blooper" scene during the credits ruined everything. The audience groaned and grumbled and complained afterwards how the mood had been soured.
Peter Sellers famously remarked that including this moment wherein he broke character is the reason he lost that year at the Oscars --and I agree completely.
5
connect1994Apr 3, 2026
+4
Being There is a magical and beautiful film. I totally agree, Sellers was magnificent
4
badwolf1013Apr 3, 2026
+3
Actually, I feel that both Jack Lemmon and Al Pacino deserved it more than either of them.
Sellers should have won for Dr. Strangelove, but the strength of Being There depended too heavily upon how other actors played off of Sellers' understated performance to say that he was anywhere near the "best" that year.
3
SeaworthinessKey3654Apr 3, 2026
+1
I just watched And Justice for All - Al was brilliant, and I do think he deserves the win. It’s a fantastic, underrated movie - and too many people think of the “you’re out of order” as a meme. For one thing, there’s so much more to Al’s performance than that, and for another he’s magnificent…you need to see that scene in context of the film
1
badwolf1013Apr 3, 2026
+1
It’s really a brilliant movie. Both Being There and And Justice For All were satire, but AJFA was so smart that you didn’t realize it.
1
SeaworthinessKey3654Apr 3, 2026
+1
Yes, well said!
It’s underrated because it’s at the end of Al’s remarkable 70’s run where he was not only in all-time great movies, but gave all time great performances
IMO this is one of his best. I love Arthur - he‘s such a decent, warm hearted man, full of compassion…who is juxtaposed against the cynical, often cruel, world of the so-called justice system. He’s also funny - Al is so good at comedy, and no one knows. It’s just a really wonderful, human performance
1
HumerousMonikerApr 3, 2026
+1
I’ve never seen Kramer vs Kramer, but I always just imagined it as Michael Richards vs Michael Richards. The mental image seemed like it would be better than any other possibility so didn’t dig any further.
Now you’ve ruined that for me.
1
Expensive-Sentence66Apr 3, 2026
+2
Hoffman was more dynamic and hence he was more likely to get the trophy.
Seller's performance was far more subtle which enabled the cast around him to shine....I mean make totally asses out of themselves.
Being There is one of my favorite films of all time, and the ending is one of the most unique and ingenious scenes in cinema. Certainly has generated a lot of discussion over the decades. I think I know what it means, but will keep it to myself unless somebody is curious.
If it's any consolation to Sellers Kramer vs Kramer is kind of locked in it's decade in terms of relevance. Being There however is disturbingly just as relevant today, and in some respects more so. That's...not a good thing. That film makes some some pretty brutal jabs at media, politics, and social classes that haven't aged a minute. The scenes with the President.....my god. Good stuff. Just imagine today "Well, you know Donald...."
Fantastic film. We lost Sellers too soon.
2
tessavellumApr 3, 2026
+5
100% agree. Sellers as Chance is insane so subtle but hilarious, and the vibe he gives the whole movie is unmatched. Hoffman’s great but kinda standard Oscar fare, whereas Sellers feels like something you’ve never seen before. Being There is peak understated genius.
5
FocusFlukeGyroApr 3, 2026
+3
Being There was a pleasant surprise. It reminded me a bit of Forest Gump.
3
Equal-Temporary-1326Apr 3, 2026
+3
*Kramer vs. Kramer* was a very groundbreaking movie at the time because in legal dramas that revolved around divorce and child custody, there'd had never been a mainstream movie at least that was from the dad's POV and made them more of the sympathetic character. And it's actually the mother who left the family instead. So, it's fundamentally a role-reversal film for what you'd otherwise ordinarily see in that genre.
But I get it, it's not for everyone. Just wanted to point that out.
3
somnambulistrexApr 3, 2026
+2
I like Being There quite a bit, but the performance is very one note. Obviously that's essential for the movie, but it doesn't make for a best actor award (typically. Billy Bob Thorton would argue otherwise).
2
TacticalTurtleNeck_Apr 3, 2026
+2
There are numerous examples of the Academy being f****** morons. This is up there with the best ones. It’s why I don’t put too much stock in them.
2
angusthermopylaeApr 3, 2026
+2
Roy Scheider also could have won for *All That Jazz*
2
robreddityApr 3, 2026
+1
I like to watch teee veeeeeee
1
brickyardjimmyApr 3, 2026
+1
I've had the chance to watch both and I think it's a closer call than that. I didn't know those were in the same year. Let's put it this way, had the Oscar gone to Sellers, I think it would have been well-deserved. And no one would have complained. Hoffman was really good Kramer.
1
gautsvoApr 3, 2026
+1
Hoffman deserved it, but Roy Scheider would've been a fine w*****, too.
1
Agitated_Ad6191Apr 3, 2026
+1
I haven’t seen Being There (though one of my absolute favorite books), so I can’t comment on Sellers performance. But there is no need to talk bad about Hoffman’s performance in Kramer vs Kramer. It was amazing, it still is to this day. And besides that, it’s an acting award, it’s not a clear contest like a 100 meter race to determine who crossed the line first and there is no further discussion. We have two great performances here, two great artworks… and nobody can objectively say one is better than the other.
Everybody has an opinion on the many awards handed out over time, everyone has their own subjective preferences. Bottom line, don’t take it too serious.
35 Comments