My vote - Best Actress 1999

For years I had stayed away from Boys Don’t Cry, fearing that the drama level is gonna make it really uncomfortable to watch. As I was contemplating what year from the 1990s to select, this felt attractive, as I hadn’t seen any of the films in a long time. I knew it wasn’t gonna be an excellent year, but that it had easy films to go through (other than Boys).

So the mostly unknown Hilary Swank won for a very independent film, beating out what would’ve been the safe choice: Annette Bening, the more experienced, Hollywood based actress, pregnant while campaigning, married to Warren Beatty and acting in the Best Picture winner. I think I also chose ’99 to prove that my love for Meryl Streep is objective enough in order to call her out for her worst Oscar-nominated performance.

Here is how I would have voted:

1. Hilary Swank, in Boys Don’t Cry

The role: Hilary plays Brandon Teena, a female-born transgender trying to find love as a man and risking his life by hanging around with the wrong kind of people.

The film: It’s important, but selective in what it decides to show, heavily dramatized and a bit exploitive.

The performance: People have been building up this performance as being something amazing and a game changer for this category. I don’t know if it came down to expectations, but I found it to be great and strong, yet not mind-blowing. While you can’t deny Hilary’s commitment and dedication to the role, my first problem was the believability: to me there was no way Brandon would’ve passed as a man. Putting this technical issue aside, I didn’t always connect with the character or understand his actions. It wasn’t until the more dramatic scenes that I found the richness of the performance: the police interrogation scene is strong and Hilary’s acting in the medical checkup scene is heartbreaking. While the performance has difficulty in finding a balance between trying too hard and unconvincing moments, it’s impossible to deny A) the extreme difficulty level and B) that she mostly pulls it out. A performance I can respect and support, but not love.

2. Julianne Moore, in The End of the Affair

The role: Julianne plays Sarah Miles, a married woman who has a passionate affair with a possessive writer, but chooses to suddenly end the romance.

The film: It takes itself a bit too seriously. It’s very watchable and I loved the subtle twist, but not a film I could care too much about.

The performance: I am not objective enough as to not give bonus points for the coolness of the performance. Never had Julianne looked better on screen: she is sensual, sexual and eventually a tragic figure. There are scenes where she just looks away silently and I am mesmerized and a bit fascinated, just like the jealous lover. The emotional scenes are properly played and sold to the viewers, but as I hinted it’s mostly about the mood her acting and her presence create. The performance is believable despite the lack of a real backstory and she is the only touch of interesting in quite of a boring film. I approved.

3. Annette Bening, in American Beauty

The role: Annette plays Carolyn Burnham, a highly ambitious real-estate agent with professional problems and an unhappy marriage.

The film: I was a bit doubtful about watching it again after 15+ years, but I enjoyed it quite a lot. The screenplay does the job and it’s beautifully directed.

The performance: It’s no easy task playing the bad cop in a relationship, especially when the film is focused on your male co-star. Adding to the problem, the character is quite uncool, uptight and not very likeable. So while I can’t love the performance, I like the comedic route that Annette is going for – sure, there are dramatic facts and scenes to care about, and they’re played quite well, but what I appreciated the most were the unintentional comedic tones she chose for the character, that it all fits the film’s requirements and that it’s quite the solid work. But this is not a scene-stealing performance and her co-star steals the spotlight.

4. Janet McTeer, in Tumbleweeds

The role: Janet plays Mary Jo Walker, a woman going from one town and bad relationship to another, bringing her teenage daughter along the way.

The film: Very simple, very basic, kind of forgettable. Not much to it beyond the leading performance.

The performance: There’s at least half a star bonus for the fact that Janet, an English actress, is playing the most distinctive type of American: a Southern woman; who’s also a bit trashy – so as far from Shakespeare as it gets. I had no problem in finding the performance to be convincing, but was put off a bit by the quality of the film and the lack of too many meaningful scenes. Specifically, there is just one scene (when the daughter runs away) that justifies the ranking, which happens to be one of the least loud of the character’s, but it’s one where I could find an emotional connection to Mary Jo. The overall loudness of the character didn’t bother me, it’s just something that I expected. An almost 3.

5. Meryl Streep, in Music of the Heart

The role: Meryl plays Roberta Guaspari, a single mother who starts teaching violin to children from a rough neighborhood.

The film: It’s totally boring and predictable. You’d think that if Wes Craven finally directed a family film, it would have some edge to it.

The performance: It’s one of the few situations where one could say I am sorry they cast Meryl Streep in this, and not Madonna, as originally intended. No one is immune to my critique, not even Meryl, who is quite bad in this. First, there’s the questionable casting, with 49 year old Meryl playing an early 30s Roberta for half of the film. Even beyond the age, it truly feels like a bad call – Meryl is too pompous, too precious, too loud here for the part. And it ends up with a fake feel to it. It’s where Meryl’s overacting doesn’t work the right way – every reaction, every look she gives is SO dramatic, so obvious, so overcooked. The intention of youthful energy translates as the edge of hysterical. Sad to report it’s one of the worst 2’s I’ve ever given. We can’t hand out nominations for just learning the violin.

Conclusion: The race for my #1 was closer than I expected, but I tried to stay objective. I thought Hilary would win by a landslide, but hard not to get lost in Julianne’s looks and sensibility. From then on, it was quite clear.

How the voting went: I am sure Annette gave Hilary quite a run for it. I am also convinced that the two of them gathered about 80% of the votes and there was no real chance for any of the other three to win.

Funny enough, the only actress who stole some critics’ awards from Hilary was Reese Witherspoon, whose performance in Election must’ve been too young-ish in tone for the Academy to nominate. But undoubtedly she was 6^th.

What’s next: Not fully decided yet. Maybe 2004. I haven’t seen Maria Full of Cocaine… I mean Grace.

          My vote - Best Actress 1962

Following my take on the rather dull 2016 Best Actress race, there was a real need to sink my teeth into a juicier Best Actress lineup, so I went for one that tends to be considered among the all-time best, with some urban legends and colorful roles.

Anne Bancroft won for recreating her Tony-winning stage role. Bette Davis later claimed that Joan Crawford sabotaged her potential win, but I suspect the race was closer than imagined with any of the 5 ladies having a decent shot.

Here is how I would have voted:

1. Katharine Hepburn, in Long Day’s Journey into Night

The role: Katharine plays Mary Tyrone, a drug addicted matriarch who over the course of a day relives the dark moments of her life.

The film: Eugene O'Neill’s semi-autobiographical (and most acclaimed) play is adapted in a very stagey fashion. It works at times; at other times it really needs some editing. Mostly excellent acting.

The performance: I went into this race having already seen this performance many years ago, but I was surprised to discover I didn’t remember this level of excellence. As far as I can say, this is a career best for Hepburn, which means a lot, and one of the best performances to ever grace the screen. It’s to be seen to be believed – the role offers a lot, but Kate surprised me with her complete dedication to the character’s vulnerability and mental state. The grandeur Kate sometimes carries to her performances is completely gone here – she perfectly captures the tragedy of the character, the struggle with addiction, the frustration of her clinical depression, in such a manner that completely dominates the screen without it feeling intentional. It’s acting magic and Top 5 best performances I’ve ever reviewed here. The camera is fascinated with her.

2. Bette Davis, in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

The role: Bette plays Baby Jane Hudson, a former child star with deep emotional issues, who now takes care of (and tortures) her invalid sister.

The film: For the first half it feels like a juicy B-movie, but Bette’s acting just keeps getting better and the film makes some bold choices. Hard not to like.

The performance: Just like Kate’s performance, this one’s also about dropping the vanity. This performance goes beyond the crazy makeup and the loud line-readings. As the last chapter of the film proves, Bette digs deep into finding the character and providing humanity beyond the big laughter and the cruelty. Sure, the superficial stuff is delicious and very few American actresses of that age and from that era would’ve had such fun with the role, without any intention of taking themselves seriously. But the fact that she also brings emotion and vulnerability and sells the backstory is a wonderful bonus and takes the performance to the next level. They’ll be talking about I’ve written a letter to daddy even 50 years from now.

3. Anne Bancroft, in The Miracle Worker

The role: Anne plays Annie Sullivan, the real-life miracle worker who teaches a girl who is deaf and blind to communicate.

The film: It was the first time I saw this film and I was very pleasantly surprised. It’s aged well and there’s something really special about the direction. Patty Duke rules. The ending made me cry.

The performance: There are a couple of key elements that make this a great performance. The emotion, the empathy and the passion are there, as you’d expect. But there is also wonderful charisma and Anne brings plenty of likeability to a character that can sometimes act a bit edgy. It’s easy to cheer for her and her journey, because Anne makes it believable and you do get caught in the character’s life and mission. It’s an intelligent performance, but subtly so, and also very energetic. Which takes me to the final but essential element of success: the physicality of the role. I was more than impressed with the interaction of the two leads, and there is a lot of sign communication, but also fighting, pushing, attacking that must’ve required a special choreography that both actresses perfectly deliver. It’s a dynamic and convincing performance.

4. Geraldine Page, in Sweet Bird of Youth

The role: Geraldine plays Alexandra Del Lago, a movie star whose career is on the rocks who ends up entangled in the personal and career ambitions of a young hustler.

The film: I am not its biggest fan because it doesn’t always land as interesting. Some performances are good, some ideas too familiar.

The performance: How does such a delicious, playful performance end up only as my #4?! Speaks a lot about the level of this field. In a way, I have an instinctive unjustified love for this performance. Just listen to that name: Alexandra Del Lago. What could be cooler? And she’s drunk and smokes pot and acts like a horny cat. And she’s theatrical and excellent at it. The personal struggles of the character fade by comparison to the others’, but there are two aspects to look out for: the movie star worried about ageing – and Geraldine nails this so-called worry – and the fun she is having with the performance. Nobody plays hysteria the way Geraldine does: the big reveal towards the end and the amused, vulnerable, playful reactions over the phone are played with great precision and even a comedic timing. It’s a juicy diva role done really well.

5. Lee Remick, in Days of Wine and Roses

The role: Lee plays Kirsten, a woman who marries an alcoholic and who starts losing control of her life as he pressures her to join his drinking habits.

The film: It’s a real drama, hard to enjoy because I found Lemmon’s character to be kind of disgusting, so sitting through the film was not a pleasant experience.

The performance: I feel like I am being somewhat unjust with this rating, but I guess it’s impossible not to compare it a bit with what the actresses ranked higher here got. Lee is good, but not distinctively good, meaning the potential stands in the role and the scenes (the big drunk scene in the hotel, the character’s last scene, etc), with opportunities coming from the page - and that she delivers. Her acting in such important scenes is good to great – especially the hotel scene, which is the Oscar one, but you don’t necessarily feel it’s something that another good actress from her generation couldn’t have delivered. It’s a solid, dependable performance that wins a lot even through its silent scenes. She brings some likeability to the film, but I feel there could’ve been even more. A very strong 3.

Conclusion: My #1 was easy to choose, also my #2. Anne and Geraldine feel on the same level to me, with Anne getting the edge for the difficulty factor of the role.

How the voting went: Maybe the 1^st time I am avoiding to assume a ranking here. I really do think it was close, and that even Remick was a contender. There are arguments both for and against each one’s chances of winning. So I have no idea, anyone’s game.

What’s next: 1999 I guess, since I’ve already watched again 4 of the 5 films. I’ll finally see Boys Don’t Cry for the first time. J

          My vote - Best Actress 2016

I am a bit angry at the lineup we got and in some ways my ranking is a bit of a fuck it, I am going with what I enjoyed most. Because it needs to be said, that with the exception of Jennifer Lawrence, any/all the other 4 nominees from last year’s Best Actress (Rampling, Blanchett, Ronan and Brie Larson) would easily win this category for me.

In a rich field that could’ve given us Amy Adams (perfect, 5 stars & almost career best in Arrival), Annette Bening (a performance of profound intelligence and wisdom in 20^th Century Women) and… get ready for it… Emily Blunt (haters will hate all they want; Girl on the Train is awful – not as awful as Jackie though – but she is superb & mesmerizing playing a troubled alcoholic), we ended up with this group. I couldn’t get excited: Meryl is wonderful, but she’s lucky her Meryl tricks really work here. The others don’t stretch too much either: Emma plays a young actress auditioning and being A smart-ass, Isabelle plays a cold distant bitch, Ruth plays a nicely behaved, soft spoken housewife and Natalie… bless her heart, she tries, but no point when you’re so wrong for the part and the director is so wrong for the film and the screenplay is crap.

With an open heart and mind, I mostly gave them another go.

Here is how I would have voted:

1. Meryl Streep, in Florence Foster Jenkins

The role: Meryl plays Florence, a socialite with a kind heart and many unfulfilled aspirations, who decides to give it a go as an opera singer.

The film: I liked it just a bit better now, because it’s indeed funny and catchy. Nothing groundbreaking, but strong performances and appropriate directing.

The performance: It would be easy to underestimate this performance and I needed a second view to be remembered of the dramatic layers. It’s not all about bad singing and eye-rolling (which are indeed very effective). Look at it carefully, there’s real character construction here. Surprisingly, the screenplay helps, as it alternates the comedy with stories of the character’s sad past – the scene with the doctor is heartbreaking, just like all the other scenes that deal with trauma and regret. Meryl brings much needed vulnerability which works to reflect emotion and empathy towards Florence; and also to give credibility to the giggly almost-teenagerish personality she has. The comedy itself is perfect – yes, with Meryl’s trademarks – but her divaness & extra gesturing really do work here.

2. Emma Stone, in La La Land

The role: Emma plays Mia, an aspiring actress in Hollywood, who falls for a good-looking jazz player and they sing and dance and play out their relationship.

The film: It works better on the big screen, because when I also checked it on my laptop and some of the magic was lost. I like its ambition, the songs are a plus, I salute the charismatic actors, while the director is clearly the star.

The performance: I almost gave it the win and I almost ranked it higher, but I won’t hide around the obvious: it’s not just the character’s description, but the role is not the biggest stretch. For what she has to do, Emma succeeds – she is charming, down to Earth (much needed for the role to function), has a beautiful voice and those expressive eyes. The film wouldn’t work without her; yet putting the technical aspects aside, the character is only this deep. She is so damn charming and uses this gift wisely. I respect the performance more than actually loving it.

3. Isabelle Huppert, in Elle

The role: Isabelle plays Michèle, a strong independent very tough woman, who won’t allow her life to change after being the victim of rape.

The film: I still think it’s quite offensive in the way it handles the topic of rape, but even so I can’t deny the power of some secondary storylines and it’s especially well directed.

The performance: I looked at it again and I don’t get it – this insane buzz around a performance that Huppert could play in her sleep; and not just that, but also the stubbornness against a touch more emotion or something impactful or a bit of an arc or something new or… something believable. It’s not a performance that moves me or that I can really feel empathy towards; it doesn’t impress me, it’s just flat. Of course, she’s Isabelle Huppert and even a simple line reading comes with some intelligence, elegance, determination, class, but why do I feel like she keeps holding back on the good stuff or no interest in putting that much effort. Where I found the performance to work best was in the mother-daughter, father-daughter and even mother-son relationships, which were interesting from the character’s perspective and had a bit more life in them, which is why I didn’t rank it lower.

4. Ruth Negga, in Loving

The role: Ruth plays Mildred, a black woman who marries a white man and suffers the legal consequences for it in 1960s America.

The film: I guess it has a certain charm to it, being almost poetic, if not a bit too slow and slightly boring at times.

The performance: …Which relates in many ways to the performance, as I wonder if the director somehow killed any intention of energy that Ruth would’ve injected in the character. Ruth has a very beautiful face and very expressive eyes and that helped a lot in a couple of scenes (two of them with her talking on the phone) where she gets to react in a more emotional way. The quietness of the performance can leave the impression we are not seeing enough, but also creates this aura of mystery around Mildred and if sensibility is something she was trying to convey, we get the message.

5. Natalie Portman, in Jackie

The role: Natalie plays Jackie Kennedy, the First Lady, in the hours and days following her husband’s violent death.

The film: Hated it. Not much to add.

The performance: Just because there are tears and big, important scenes doesn’t mean I automatically fall for it. First, she’s insanely miscast; I’m not talking about the voice or accent (though that pronunciation of Camelot is now stuck in my brain to bring back the bad memories), but just the kindness and sensibility that Natalie should show us and it’s just not there the way it should be – in a relatable way. No believable warmth, nothing human enough to grab on. From her own acting choices to the direction she’s given, it’s all pompous, pretentious, it lands as fake. So let’s just say I wasn’t moved; but this is not a 1 star because it’s clear the director’s the first one to blame (and I want to leave Anne Bancroft the exclusivity of being the only performer so far, for Agnes of God, to get the abysmal 1 star from me) for stirring her on this unfortunate path. And she does try try try, but I am not impressed.

Conclusion: My first reaction was that I don’t want to pick a winner, since I feel none of them deserves that Oscar, but I feel very confident now by going with Meryl.

How the voting will go: Emma will win, and Isabelle is the potential spoiler, with all the campaigning and buzz and fake buzz that have been going around. Meryl is 3^rd because she gives great speeches. Natalie must be 4^th and maybe Ruth last.

What’s next: Probably 1962, since I’ve already started seeing the films. And I need a GREAT year to make me forget about 2016’s lineup.