Best Actress 1980

Time has come for a new Best Actress year… The 30s and the 80s were the ones not discussed at all until now. And I picked the 80s, and from this decade: a year I had a moral obligation towards; because I had postponed it since forever and it deserved to be talked about [I also have the choice for the 1930s prepared ever since before switching countries. Since next spring, I’m reactivating the draws]

Obviously (from the title): 1980. Not glamorous, but quite different performances. I have seen 3 and 1/2 movies :) and I’m anxious to (re)discover them. There WILL be controversy. But no reason for much talking…

I give you the 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen for 1980:

from left to right, I have the pleasure to introduce:

• Goldie Hawn, in Private Benjamin
• Mary Tyler Moore, in Ordinary People
• Ellen Burstyn, in Resurrection
• Sissy Spacek, in Coal Miner's Daughter
• Gena Rowlands, in Gloria

.

.

.

Sissy will be first (probably next week, I dunno) because she’s the winner. I am announcing now that I don’t judge singing when it comes to a movie; to me, it’s all about the emotion you display while lip-synching or actually singing. This doesn’t suggest that I like or dislike the performance (as I haven’t finished seeing it again yet), just that Grammy noms won’t affect my judging. We’ll see…

Final conclusions - Best Actress 1947

And now… the end is near… and so I face… the final conclusions! Yay! :)

It was an interesting line-up; but then again, it always is. Many/most of these performances are unknown to general public. Many Oscar fans (me included 2 months ago) know about these 5 performances just by reading about them, hearing extreme opinions (Loretta’s case) or seeing them written in an Imdb line-up. That’s why this blog is so great for me: because I get to discover them and Oscar movie knowledge is always power! :D

We had 3 heavy drama performances, 1 drama-romantic and 1 comedic-wannabe – romance-wannabe – drama. All had something special and just a couple (2 to be exact) managed to cross the finish line and create performances most worthy of this category. However, it was an easy win for me! In this 1947 ranking, the emotional connection was an essential factor for me, probably like in no other year. This criterion is what pushed a performance up to a deserved 4 and another one down to 5. And it’s this criterion that made the winner decision so obvious.

Here is MY ranking. Unlike in any other conclusions, I’m just quoting from the actual analysis done for each of ladies. [you can click on the name for the full-stuff or just scroll down]. The ladies:

1. Susan Hayward, Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman

"When she’s ready for a drink or talking about how to make one, you can feel the passion in her words and most of all: the thirst! (…) Angie might get smashed-up, but Susan is always in control of the character, lifting it from standard writing to a human being. (…) Because Susan makes it look so believable, you can’t help but admire the talent and get caught in the story of a woman."

2. Rosalind Russell, Mourning Becomes Electra

"The staginess of her performance is in the spirit of the material. And what Rosalind adds is honest emotion, making Lavinia the only relatable character of the film. (…) It really is a journey for her character and Rosalind manages to underline such changes in Lavinia. Even with the overacting at times, it’s still impressive to watch and I felt a relief every time she entered a scene, as I knew something real was finally happening."

3. Joan Crawford, Possessed
"When she’s good, she’s terrific, warming our hearts and creating a relatable character! But when she’s bad… she forgets about the character and what she created before. (…) I keep going back to the beauty of the piano scene, but then remember the awful decisions in the end… "

4. Loretta Young, The Farmer's Daughter

You can find some “small elements of greatness in her performance: not in the flashy Swedish accent or the boring humor, but in the quiet scenes where we finally see some heart and (almost) true emotions. It’s mostly where the screenplay doesn’t f*ck it up and Loretta, using acting experience, is able to give us a warm, natural character.”

5. Dorothy McGuire, Gentleman's Agreement

"An intelligent performance, just not a thrilling one. (…) There are a couple of good things to be said about it, mostly about its consistency. But truth is: even though I can understand the character, I still didn’t have an emotional connection with Dorothy’s performance. ”

The Academy’s choice is not difficult to read if you look carefully. I don’t agree with it, but I definitely don’t hate it. There’s a strong emotional connection that Loretta creates in the last 20-30 minutes that is hard to forget. I still think about it and this are the highest 2 stars I’ve given so far. If only there would’ve been more of drama in The Farmer’s Daughter… In the end, it was also a popular choice.

Anyway: the runner-up for the win was probably Rosalind due to popularity, with Hayward because of quality on 3rd, Joan as 4th and Dorothy last.

Other Best Actress years discussed so far:

1957

1965

1977

1992

2000

2007

2008

What’s next?

In a couple of days I’ll announce the year I’ll do next, and finish hopefully just in time for the 2009 Best Actress nominations. Getting back to it, it’s a year from the 2 decades unexplored, and I was meant to deal with it for a long time now. It’s just as I like them: low-key and not the most glamorous. :)

Dorothy McGuire, in Gentleman's Agreement approximately 43 minutes and 36 seconds
37.2% of the film

The film

A reporter pretends to be Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism, and personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

I did enjoy this Best Picture winner. It’s easy to watch and uses good tricks to make you want to see more, even though you can anticipate at times what will happen. Slower in the last 20 minutes, it’s still an essential movie (for its time) about discrimination.

Dorothy McGuire as Kathy Lacy

While thinking about this performance, the word coaster came into mind (I think Stinkylulu invented it), referring to a performance that received Oscar attention just because it was part of a big Best Picture movie and probably would’ve been ignored otherwise. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad performance, but it’s not flashy enough or… excellent enough to stand by itself. To me, Dorothy’s performance is not a full success, but I blame my subjectivity a bit. At the end of the movie, I almost didn’t remember her…

Dorothy plays Kathy, a high-class New York divorcee, but with a kind heart, who falls in love with a journalist. His investigation strategy to pretend to be Jewish becomes a burden on their relationship. Judging by screentime, the role qualifies as a leading one, but the film is mostly about Peck’s journalist. Dorothy gets a couple of good scenes, even though she’s mostly playing supportive and reassuring, until true colors pop-up.

Dorothy’s Kathy benefits from probably the most difficult dialogue of the film. She does it justice for most part, even though some of her acting choices feel strange. Like in the proposal scene; it wasn’t bad what I was seeing, just a bit too melodramatic, unexpected and not as dynamic as the scene could’ve required. That being said, Kathy is not the most exciting character; not just because she’s a device for the leading man but also because she’s a bit sleepwalking through the film. I am not seeing the energy to keep me interested, and I guess this could also be Dorothy’s fault.

It IS an intelligent performance, just not a thrilling one. To Dorothy’s credit, she manages to tell us a bit about Kathy even when the screenplay didn’t really ask for. Her presence is reassuring throughout the film, but the key moments are in 2 big fat (potential-wise) scenes. As minutes go by, the viewer is suggested to start asking himself: is Kathy anti-Semitic? We know she’s not a hateful person, and she’s open-minded, but does she consider Jewish people inferior?

The answer comes in the scene by the door, in her big speech telling her fiancé that she can’t take his accusations anymore. It’s a nicely written monologue and she does admit that she was happy not being born Jewish, just as someone’s happy for being beautiful and not ugly, young and not old. It’s an honest confession and Dorothy’s acting is convincing, actually good. But I still felt like it could’ve been more.

Her best scene is unfortunately one of the film’s worst: a restaurant conversation between her and John Garfield’s character where she’s faced to admit that not taking action against discrimination is almost as bad as being the hateful person. The dialogue is too explanatory and the scenes lack subtlety, but even so Dorothy is her ok self, bringing some tears which are a nice twist.

There are a couple of good things to be said about this performance, mostly about its consistency. But truth is: even though I can understand the character from the perspective on discrimination, I still didn’t have an emotional connection with Dorothy’s performance. It might just be me, but I didn’t care; and I always need to be at least a bit emotionally moved by the acting. It’s a performance that could really work for others and in essence it’s an intelligent one, but for me: .

In a couple of days I’ll post the final conclusions for 1947.

Reassuring Marion of my love…

It has started again fellow, bloggers. People bitching about her Oscar win almost 2 years ago! It’s a trend encouraged by a certain blogger and I’m posting this just to make my perspective clear.

.

Say what you want, but to me it’s simple. Marion’s Oscar winning performance as Edith Piaf is one the best this category has EVER seen. The makeup helped a lot, but look beyond that: it’s a heartbreaking, emotional, well-balanced, efficient performance! The scene where she realizes her lover had died is one of the most emotionally devastating scenes this decade had given us!

.

I don’t know how good she is in Nine and I’ll be as objective as I can when time comes! And yes, Julie Christie was great in Away from Her but that’s no reason to hate Marion’s win! To me, she REALLY deserved it!

.

Thank you, Marion for your inspiring performance! And let’s hope the bitching slowly goes away as people realize what a magnificent performance you’ve given us!

.

.

[this post has no intention to upset people. :) just fighting back, with love, as I feel there’s not enough support out there]

Dear reader,

I just wanted to say Hi from Athens (where it looks like I'll stay till January). I'm also posting a photo of mine taken today (true, not for this blog) to put a face on Alex in Movieland, in case u forgot how I look like :)

Have a great Sunday!
And 1947 is continuing...

Joan Crawford, in Possessed

approximately 77 minutes and 17 seconds
72.4% of the film

The film

A woman is found wandering Los Angeles, unable to say anything other than "David". Admitted to hospital she is coaxed into recounting her recent life.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

The movie has some serious story problems. It starts great and the direction is fine throughout the film. But Possessed can’t really decide what it’s about: a love story, a murder, schizophrenia? So it ends up messy, especially the last 30 minutes or so.

Joan Crawford as Louise Howell

I’m trying to remember a performance I talked about here in the past year and a half which gave me as much trouble as this one! Joan Crawford is terribly good here, but also annoyingly bad. She hits the excellent note and then falls in a screenplay trap, over-abusing the clichés. I’m thinking Angelina in Changeling or Cate Blanchett in The Golden Age, but still they can’t beat Joan. So writing about this performance is quite frustrating for me.

Don’t get me wrong, I know Joan had her own style of acting: rigid and exaggerated. And it worked for her many times. It even works a bit here, until she loses control of the performance. Joan plays Louise, a nurse who can’t get over the playboy that dumped her. And no wonder, as it proves that Louise’s overbearing attitude is a result of schizophrenia, or bipolar as it would probably be called today. The biggest challenge of the role: keeping it believable as Louise slowly surrenders to her mental disease and making us understand the process.

I’ll start with the good stuff: Joan makes a hell of entrance in the film, surprising me with the simplicity of her acting. We all know Joan was a great crier and she uses it wisely in the break-up scene, never forcing it and creating a relatable character ever since the first frames. [Oops, and I didn’t mention the first scenes where she walks around like a crazy person: same thing – achieving a lot through surprising simplicity and understanding of the character].

Joan is great at underlining the ups and downs of Louise. We understand her battle trying to get over this man and trying to fight her instinct which tells her to keep harassing him. Joan is excellent in expressing the vulnerability of the character, both the heartbreak part of it and also in the hospital scenes, and how insecure Louise is around David.

And even as the haunting thing starts happening and she sinks more into schizophrenia: Joan does it well at first. It’s not what we’d want for the story, but we get it. She hears stuff that’s not there, imagines things that didn’t happen, Louise starts mixing reality with images created by her own mind. Joan’s haunted look is delicious and she’s always great at playing with the camera (you can feel the acting experience!). But then she takes it too far…

As the story goes less believable, so does Joan’s acting. She goes for crazy, when she should’ve toned it a bit. Joan goes from a natural drama to B-series horror movie performance. The shooting scene alone at the end is ridiculous in many ways. Joan falls for the cliché of the screenplay and loses her biggest asset: the connection that she had with the audience ever since the beginning. Why, Joan? Why? It could’ve been your best performance!

Joan said it was the toughest role she ever had to play. And I agree it’s not easy especially considering the little accurate information about mental illness back then. When she’s good, she’s terrific, warming our heart and creating a relatable character! But when she’s bad… she forgets about the character and what she created before. How can you rate it? I keep going back to the beauty of the piano scene, but then remember the awful judgment from the end… Mixing a 2 and a 4, or maybe a 1 and a 5, I get . Wow, the potential. I’ll probably go one way or another in a couple of years.

Rosalind Russell, in Mourning Becomes Electra

approximately 88 minutes and 51 seconds
56.9% of the film

The film

An adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's play. As an updated Greek tragedy, the film features murder, adultery, love and revenge. All taking place after the American Civil War.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

It’s a hard movie to decide on: on one hand, it’s a costume drama with an interesting cast and a lot of tragedy to keep it fun. But unfortunately it also has infinite dialogues and shaky acting. Great potential, though.

Rosalind Russell as Lavinia Mannon

I actually believe this is the first drama I’ve seen Rosalind Russell in. I guess many of us are aware that she was an excellent comedy actress; I much enjoyed The Women, His Girl Friday and Auntie Mame. But getting to this performance… nothing funny about her character. As the film is constructed as a tragedy, there’s nothing left for Rosalind to do than to bring the finest overacting to the stage… excuse me: screen. The role is tricky, as the text requires theatrical without making excuses.

Rosalind plays Lavinia, the daughter of a wealthy family during civil war. Her long devotion for her father and resentment towards her unfaithful mother provoke the tragic events of the film. Though true leading only in the second half, her presence on screen is always remarkable and necessary as she is the one always pushing the movie forward and disconnecting the rest of the stars from their zombie-like acting.

It’s a bit hard to see her as this innocent young lady in the first part of the film (in all fairness, the role might’ve required a younger casting), but she totally sells the frigidity of Lavinia, her passive anger towards the fact that her mother stole her man, the stiffness of her reactions. To some, it might look like bad overacting and it’s true that during the film I myself had some problems with small details like much-too-sudden head movement and over-interpretation of stuff that could’ve gone subtly.

But as I said in the beginning, the staginess of her performance is in the spirit of the material. And what Rosalind adds is honest emotion, making Lavinia the (only) relatable character of them all. For example the scene where she’s looking at her father’s window with a strange anxiety and maybe childish jealousy. And as the tragedy starts happening, there’s always a silent sneakiness about her and the eyes acting is very good / suggestive for the most of it.

In the last part of the film, the role requires for her to step into the shoes of her mother (who’s played terribly by Katina Paxinou) – I don’t understand this direction, meant probably to show that Lavinia is growing into a woman as charismatic and secretive as her mother was. But considering how lousy Katina did her job, Rosalind easily manages to elevate all those features, shaping a believable, mature & charming Lavinia.

There are a lot of monologues that Rosalind has to do. She gets to play innocent, arrogant, guilty, she is stressed by her brother who exploits her vulnerability (a nice decent chemistry with Michael Regrave) while at the same keeping her claws on all of his actions. It’s a fierce character and Rosalind benefits of the fact that she’s easily the best of the acting group; so by comparison, she’s gold. It really is a journey for her character and Rosalind manages to underline such changes in Lavinia. Even with the overacting at times, it’s still impressive to watch and I felt a relief every time she entered a scene, as I new something real was finally happening. .

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that tour-de-force in the ending, when she wonderfully chews all those scenes. And that line: I don’t need God or anyone else to forgive me. I forgive myself! :) brilliant.





Ps.: I have posted the film on youtube. If you want to check it, click here. Also, her screentime was calculated for the 159 min version that I have (just saying, cause I know they’re many different editing versions out there).

The Supporting Actress Smackdown... 1956. It really was written on the wind that she'll win... :P

I had the pleasure of participating in another Stinkylulu Supporting Actress Smackdown. The year was 1956 and the nominees were quite special and very different. I didn't go nuts for any of them, but all are special performances.

We had: a sexy blonde, an evil kid, an angry drunk, a tough spinster and a crazy old lady. :D they all sound so actressy...

Click HERE to see how it all went. There's also a clipreel that I've made. Enjoy.

Susan Hayward, in Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman

approximately 68 minutes and 56 seconds

68% of the film

The film

The fictional story of Angie Evans, a nightclub singer who interrupts her career to marry struggling songwriter Ken Conway. As he discovers success, she turns into an alcoholic, gradually destroying her life.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

It’s a soap opera, but because Susan is great, the film is easy to sit through. When I expected it to go for giant clichés, it stepped a bit back and that was good.

Susan Hayward as Angie Evans

For a long time, I almost didn’t know who Susan Hayward was. I always confused her: first, because I wasn’t familiar with her movies, none that would have a reputation or that I had seen and second of all… well, because years ago I wasn’t as informed as I am today :) my first reason, however, is justified. Susan Hayward is a 5 times Best Actress nominee and she actually won for 1958. But why isn’t she more recognizable? Maybe because her films haven’t aged well, or because she never had a true movie hit! Whatever reason, I’m glad to finally discover her, cause boy does she deliver…

Susan plays Angie Evans, a night club singer who marries the guy she loves and gives up the career for family life. But as her husband becomes a famous singer, she begins to foolishly doubt her marriage and turn to heavy drinking as a confidence boost. The role sounds like TV drama, and it probably is, but because Susan is the one who plays it, she can take the shaky writing and give it life, like few can.

There are a couple of achievements in her performance, other than simply lifting & carrying the entire film. The most obvious acting excellence is the accuracy of playing a drunk. She would later be typecast in such a role, probably because she made it look so believable. Susan looks so natural with the glass in her hand. And even though the screenplay is pretty thin on making us understand reasons, Susan allows us to discover Angie’s insecurities and put a face on this bad habit.

When she’s ready for a drink or talking about how to make one, you can feel the passion in her words and most of all: the thirst! Susan understands the addiction and always gives us proof of the struggle! Sometimes drinking makes Angie a lighter person, someone who cracks jokes and doesn’t realize the visible effect that alcohol has on her. In other scenes, you can feel the desperation that sober Angie goes through; so the accuracy is fantastic, I guarantee that. Any other actress might’ve made it all look like a joke or a caricature, but Susan understands Angie or at least relates to feelings of desperation, anxiety, insecurity and always regret.

Another thing Susan does great in use her sweetness and cute looks to give some kind of likeability to the character. She sets the grounds for understanding the character and by doing so, she can also use her face and charm to make us like her, excuse her drinking, justify for her and in the end hope that she can beat it and not end tragically. I hate drunks, but because Susan makes it believable and goes deep into the character to tell us what her motivation is, I felt for her and somehow understood her action every time she reached for the bottle. As a viewer, I shared the struggle.

Susan gets to play a mother, a wife, a singer (great lip-synching) and the role of her life: a hard-drinking woman. Angie might get smashed-up, but Susan is always in control of the character, lifting it from a standard writing to a human being. The performance is not perfection, nor the most demanding role ever: but because Susan makes it look so believable, you can’t help but admire the talent and get caught in the story of a woman. Undoubtedly at least . Nicely done.

***I had to go mostly for close-up photos because of the image quality. The rest of them will have the usual good quality.

Happy Birthday to meeeee, Happy Birthday to meeeee...



Truth is I don't like it and it's like any other day. I don't feel 23 all of the sudden. It's just a silly convention. :) in my mind I will always feel 19.

But I will gladly eat the birthday cake that Marilyn is bringing me! It looks so pink and sweet! Thank you, Hollywood Goddess!

I will celebrate tonight (I'm still in Athens) with shopping, drinking McDonalds milkshake and watching the screener for District 9 on the dvd player!

October 19th... sounds so distant!



ps: if you're someone from work, please shhhhhhhh... I don't want a birthday party :P

Loretta Young, in The Farmer's Daughter

approximately 50 minutes and 7 seconds
55.2% of the film

The film

Katrin Holstrom leaves the farm to become a nurse, but is sidetracked into domestic service, romance, and politics.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

In all fairness, the movie did get just a little bit better upon a second viewing. But it’s still (to me) an unconvincing romantic comedy, which mostly lacks the humor and has too much simplicity in the storyline.

Loretta Young as Katrin Holstrom

I had the best of intentions while watching this performance. I knew it is considered one of the worst wins this category has ever had (I’ve heard Mary Pickford holds the title for Coquette). And you know what: it probably is! I can understand the nomination; better said: I can accept it. But the win itself was not a successful decision and the future profiles will prove it, I guess. It’s not awful as some said and because the screenplay is rather bad, you need to look carefully at her performance catching nuances that the story itself did not kill.

Loretta plays Katrin, a simple girl with a Swedish ancestry (and therefore accent) who leaves the farm and goes to the big city to become a nurse, ends up as a maid and (obviously) falls for the rich smart handsome & kind boss. Oh, yeah: and she ends up in Congress! The character is not complicated and the performance is thought to be something of a one-note: she needs to smile a lot, talk like she’s 5, look innocent and with a kind heart. However, Loretta manages to somehow lift the character.

The comedic department is not where she succeeds. For the performance to work as comedy, she would’ve needed a better screenplay: good lines, great timing, better construction of the character. She doesn’t get all this and it damages our perception: if the film is meant to be funny, so should the leading performance. But what I did get from Loretta’s comedic interpretation was just one laughter. One: when she says Yaaa and hits the guy in the head with the log. There really should’ve been more.

So when Loretta noticed that the comedy won’t save her, she attacked the performance from the dramatic side, doing so almost entirely in the second half of the film. Her biggest asset? The eyes! Beautiful ok, but expressive especially in key dramatic moments. Like the scene with her father towards the end, when she realizes that she should’ve fought when done an injustice! Good scene and an important acting moment. I didn’t go nuts for her playing the Swedish accent all the way, but I was warmed up by the kindness in her eyes, or the regret or the nervousness of being in love.

There is a scene before that one: Katrin is in the library and the butler gives her a speech to read (she needs it for a night school thing). It’s a beautiful scene because the speech is beautiful. But Loretta balances it very nicely, underlining the smart message of what she’s reading. And she also makes it believable and natural, as she herself discovers the meaning of those words at the same time as she’s reading them as properly as she can. Again: the eyes and her natural way of being do the work.

Loretta’s performance is hardly Best Actress winner material; but she’s not the only one fitting in this category. However, upon a second viewing I learned to appreciate much more the small elements of greatness in her performance: not in the flashy Swedish accent or the boring humor, but in the quiet scenes where we finally see some heart and (almost) true emotions. It’s mostly where the screenplay doesn’t f*ck it up and Loretta, using acting experience, is able to give us a warm, natural character. So it’s , but NOT 1.5. It’s a 2 alright, because in some ways she rises to the challenge.

Best Actress 1947

It was not the year I had initially planned to do. Not even the decade. But due to my ever lasting desire to see Mourning Becomes Electra, I got interested in this year. And after actually sitting through 3 hours of greek tragedy, I challenged myself to get my hands on these movies, because I knew this race had lots of drama; on screen & off screen. At first it might not look as a glamorous star-filled line-up, but look closer. The most recognizable are Crawford & Russell. But we also have one of the Best Actress veterans: Susan Hayward (I haven't seen any of her movies, but she had a total of 5! Best Actress nominations). Also, a Best Picture winner I have yet to see: Gentleman's Agreement and one of the most infamous BA winners slash Clark Gable lovers: Loretta Young.

I give you the 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen for 1947:

from left to right, I have the pleasure to introduce:

• Loretta Young, in The Farmer's Daughter
• Joan Crawford, in Possessed
• Dorothy McGuire, in Gentleman's Agreement
• Susan Hayward, in Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman
• Rosalind Russell, in Mourning Becomes Electra

I'll start with Loretta, but no sooner than next week. In the spirit of that, I'll just give a quote from Marlene Dietrich: [on Loretta Young] Every time she "sins", she builds a church. That's why there are so many Catholic churches in Hollywood.

Cheri / Mad Men

I don't make a habit of posting here stuff that's not related to Oscar's Best Actress category! However, I just wanted to shout one or two things! :D

About Cheri

I've seen it. I'm quite sure it's gonna have at least 1 or 2 technical Oscar nominations, but as that hasn't happened yet, I can't post something about it on the other blog: My Latest Oscar Film. So... I've seen it, I understand why some don't like it, but I digg it! I love that it's stylish & erotic and it's my type of film. I don't consider it to be great, but it's a classy effort. It will probably get nominations for Best Art Direction & Costume Design (for sure), but I don't understand why this film isn't also a major contender for Best Cinematography AND Best Original Score. Both of them superb. I just loved how it's all shot in shades of blue. It fits Paris. I don't think Michelle will get nominated, even though she would probably deserve it. And YES, I also believe Kathy Bates is a distraction for the film, but nice to see her anyway.

And the ending scene... I loved the small twist. I thought it was real & dramatic. I smiled. Didn't expect it.



About Mad Men

I've been watching Mad Men since last year, seen all the episodes, including season 1. I like it and usually can't wait for it. Just like Cheri, it's very stylish. And it's the type of drama that I like to see & I would also write. But how good were the last episodes????? Fabulous! The most recent one was very good, but the two before: Brilliant!!! Can this get any better? Four episodes left from Season 3 (I guess). Great show; nothing like it on the market right now!


Those two posters just looked so good put together.
That was all. I'll stick to Best Actress :D

Final conclusions - Best Actress 1957

.

.

.

.

The rating thing is always difficult to do, especially if it’s been a while since you’ve last seen that certain performance. Everything IS relative. But what remains at the end of a Best Actress year is the ranking [slash] in order of preference.

.

But before that, one or two ideas: 1957 was a good year, a good match for me because it’s mostly what I looked for: Best Actress years I know little, almost nothing about. I mean, I always know the nominees and trivia stuff, but I don’t always get to see the movies. So, when I started 1957 I had seen just 1. I watched again Peyton Place and seen the other 4 and fortunately enough nothing was predictable. I was filled with admiration for the talent of some (cough Magnani cough) and was happy to criticize others (I’m looking at you, Liz). So another fun year!

.
Here’s how I appreciated them, from best to not as good. Number 1 is a clear winner for me. And there’s a very very thin ranking difference between #2 and #3. The ladies:

.

.

.

.

1. Anna Magnani, Wild Is the Wind

Anna is a true force of nature and she gives us the most deliciously natural European acting style. The role seems written specifically for her and she’s all fire and music! The emotion she manages to display is terrific and always wins the heart of the audience. It’s a loud role done right and talk about her chemistry with Quinn!

.

.

.

.

2. Joanne Woodward, The Three Faces of Eve

Her biggest challenge was to not make it all look like a joke. The spotlight was exclusively on her: and for the basic package, she delivered. I DID SEE 3 different women and considering the over-simplicity of the screenplay, this really is a good performance much above the material. Despite limited experience, her acting decisions were chosen wisely and proved right for the role. Her transformation uncut scenes are a delight.

.

.

.

.

3. Deborah Kerr, Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

Her face and persona do half the job. Then it’s time for her acting skills to inject intelligence & emotion in this otherwise dull-written character. The result is a believable Sister Angela and although the performance doesn’t steal the show, it’s great subtle work. I also suspect it’s that type of actress-magic that grows on you with time. I truly believe Deborah had fun with it; a relaxed performance I have most respect for.

.

.

.

.

4. Lana Turner, Peyton Place

A big plus for the effort. I can see Lana struggling, waiting for her big splashy scenes. But before she gets to cry, she has to play matronly, frigid and by doing so: stay faithful to the character. That’s what I admired the most. Even after she overacted, she kept the essence of the character and finished the performance in a faithful, dedicated way. The injustices caused to her by her daughter are played beautifully and we get an understanding of what is going on emotionally.

.

.

.

.

5. Elizabeth Taylor, Raintree County

It’s definitely the worst of Liz’s Oscar nominated performances. The southern thing works for her just when it comes to the looks and playing racist bitch. The role itself is a bit too much… of everything and Taylor can’t rise above the weakness of the screenplay. Bad writing kills her and she doesn’t know all the maneuvers to escape! Her best scene is when she underplays insanity, a decision that would’ve also been useful in other scenes.

.

.

.

.

Even though I don’t really agree with the Academy’s decision to give it to Joanne, I can understand the vote. And as I like to guess who the runner-up was: Deborah Kerr 2nd for sure. Anna was too good to be ignored, so she was 3rd. Elizabeth 4th, because of the whole insanity thing and Lana… I think she was last in her chance of winning. It’s almost not even her movie.

.

.

Other Best Actress years discussed so far:

1965

1977

1992

2000

2007

2008

What’s next?

In a couple of days I will announce the Best Actress year I’m reviewing for October and (probably) November. I’ve already made up my mind and it’s gonna be from the 3 decades I haven’t attacked until now (30s, 40s and 80s). As I’ve said it before, I appreciate strange, less talked about years. But being a categorizing freak, I’d appreciate any year.

Deborah Kerr, in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

approximately 50 minutes and 49 seconds

48.1% of the film

The Film

A Marine and a Nun, both shipwrecked on a Pacific Island, find solace in one another as the two wait out the war.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

When a film is a bit uneventful (and not in the artsy way) but has nice landscape & cinematography, I’m partly satisfied. It’s the case here: not a boring film, but mostly vanilla on both concept & execution.

Deborah Kerr as Sister Angela

Let me start by saying that I am not the biggest fan of the style of acting that Miss Kerr usually used. It’s British, mostly quiet, subtle, dignified, depending the most on the screenplay. I respect such acting, I admire it. But it’s not what knocks me off my feet. As you might’ve noticed, I’m more into Anna Magnani-style or Meryl or Bette Davis. Yet I’m always opened to different types of actressing and I’ve always admired the ladyest of them all: Deborah Kerr.

Kerr plays Sister Angela, a nun stranded on an Asian island during WWII who has a fortunate encounter with an American soldier and they’re both trying to survive a Japanese invasion. It could be considered an intimate movie and because you have just two characters it’s mostly human interaction. Sister Angela is a perfect nun: she has tons of faith, she’s kind, modest and she would sacrifice herself for others. With a face like Deborah Kerr’s, it’s not difficult playing a saint.

For the most of it, the role requires being nice and kind, having a welcoming smile and a surprised look when anything out-of-the-ordinary occurs. Do not get me wrong: the nun is not dumb and she knows a bit more about life that we’d believe at first. We don’t get to know her past, but in the ocean of innocence and purity we notice small elements (to Deborah’s credit!) that suggest that she knows things about the world, but she chooses her own way of looking at life. Deborah brings an intelligent feeling to the performance. With some other actress, we might’ve taken her for dumb.

I kinda think of her as Melanie Hamilton (Gone with the Wind) with a nun’s veil. :) That’s why it’s a very likeable character! It’s not a complicated role, but Deborah makes it look like she’s injecting some acting into it, more than the role required. Her face of course does all the work. We feel for her when she’s eating raw fish and tries to brave it out and we understand her desperation when the man goes missing and she thinks he’s dead. This is Deborah’s biggest accomplishment to me: making us like Sister Angela, care for her, understand her and not seeing her as just another rigid nun.

Deborah is a natural, always believable and doesn’t overplay the saintful part. She manages to make Sister Angela’s clumsiness look adorable and proves lots of acting experience in the moments of tension. One of her best scenes is her unexpected but dignified breakdown when confronted with a drunk Mr. Allison. It’s good acting, without forcing it. Also: the scene of the first bombing and the honest fear that you could read in her eyes.

Was Sister Angela tempted by Mr. Allison? Would she have surrendered to his love feelings? I really don’t know the answer, but in a way I like it that Deborah doesn’t let us find out. Miss Kerr gives a good performance, with almost no flaws. She has ok moments for the most of it and she’s actually really good at times. However... However… this is not the most difficult or demanding role. And the casting itself solved half of the problem. I don’t want to take the credit away from her: Deborah does a fine fine job, but it’s hardly groundbreaking. – very well deserved.

.

.

.

This was the last performance for 1957. In a couple of days I'm gonna post the final conclusions.

A fearless event: Stinkylulu's Supporting Actress Smackdown

Time for another smackdown. I haven't participated since May I think when we did 1992, a year so chronologicaly close to the one we're talking about now. 1993!!!!! An interesting line-up: Holly Hunter, Anna Paquin, Rosie Perez, Winona Ryder & Emma Thompson that gave us very debatable performances (which is always good; to have something to talk about).

Anyway, it was another supermegapleasure for me to participate and I thank Stinkylulu (again) for including me.

So click here and see what some of us thought about the 1993 Best Supporting Actress category. You'll also find a clipreel I've made with great moments from these performances. Enjoy!