Emma Thompson, in Howards End

approximately 63 minutes and 42 seconds

46.2% of the film

.

.

.

.

The film

.

.

A man ignores his wife's deathbed wish to leave an estate to a woman friend.

.

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

Without a doubt, Howards End is one of my favourite films… not just of the 90s, but of all times. It's a period drama that just suits my taste, with an interesting screenplay, very smart direction and great acting.

.

.

.

.

Emma Thompson as Margaret Schlegel

.

.

The Best Actress category of the 1990s was dominated by 3 names: Meryl Streep and Susan Sarandon had 4 nominations each; and then there was Emma Thompson, with 3 Best Actress nominations. She came out of nowhere and quality-wise ruled the 92-95 period. Howards End is considered by many to be her best performance. And you know what? They might just be right.

As the film starts, you get the feeling that this movie is not about her character. Howards End dives right into the story and for the first part of it, Emma gets lost among all those characters. Emma plays Margaret Schlegel, a spinster-to-be, an independent woman at the turn of the century London, who lives an upper middle class life with her younger brother and sister (played by a free spirited Helena Bonham Carter). It would be impossible to tell the whole story of the film as there’s too much happening; you must watch it. Margaret will be courted by the widower of a good friend of hers, and complication will result.

We discover Margaret as an ordinary woman. She’s not beautiful and she has a simple way of being. She talks a lot, sometimes too much. She’s very well behaved, very polite and when she worries it’s just for the others. She has a lot of good-will, she’s very lively and almost always has a smile on her face. In the first part of the film I actually found her to be some kind of a geek, if that word is allowed. She’s simple, she doesn’t always fit in, she’s like an old maid with a good heart.

Emma does a good job in keeping Margaret under the radar. And we like her, we might actually identify with her, especially in the scenes involving the dying Ruth Wilcox (Vanessa Redgrave). These scenes help humanize Margaret, but also damage the performance, at least in my eyes. Because Ruth is such a strange woman, next to her Margaret seems the most natural person in the world; it helps the performance because we start to like Margaret and she’s the alter ego of the viewer. On the other hand, Vanessa Redgrave is that brilliant in the role (!) that for 15 minutes she totally overshadows what Emma is trying to act. Vanessa steals every scene she’s in and you can’t take you eyes off her. Once Ruth dies, Emma can return and claim her acting glory; but who we remember for 20 minutes is Vanessa and not so much Emma.

As the story becomes more complicated, so do Emma’s acting and storyline. As she becomes the unexpected object of desire of a wealthy man, she blooms; not from a virgin to a woman, but from a good-natured geek to a woman who’s still kind and lovely, but also fierce when the situation asks for it. She is loving and she knows how to talk to people (take her fiancé for example) without seeming cunning. Arguably, Emma’s best acting moment is also her one flashy scene: her crying after having the most serious fight with her fiancé. Her desperation is honest, natural, obvious given the situation; it’s a vulnerability she keeps for herself and that’s the moment of solitude, in front of a mirror, where she can let it go. Excellent acting moment.

To me, another great acting moment of hers is when she’s defending her pregnant sister and asking for something on her behalf. In this scene, she’s more like a mother, like a protective female lion, perfectly manoeuvring the art of reasoning without any intention of letting go. With the help of the great direction of James Ivory, in our eyes she’s no longer too talkative or ignorable, but a strong woman you like to watch and you can’t wait for her to come back on screen. Needless to say, the success of the character arc and this likeability of the character are thanks to Emma who puts real emotion in every scene. And she looks so adequate for this type of proper British film!

Emma is just as good as the film itself, and that says a lot. She understands the character and she knows when, how and how much to give or to show onscreen. Her performance is great and the character difficult, though, at first, it might not leave that impression. However. However! :) I’m going towards 5 stars, but I’m not giving them. The main reason was previously mentioned and it’s called Vanessa Redgrave. It may not be Emma’s fault, but for a good part of the film she’s not the one carrying it. So , at least for now. And I keep thinking this was a predictable, but rather an unusual Oscar choice, because of the unspectacular way of the character. They usually go for flashier performances.

***Special
Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009)


I'm not a fan of breaking the rules of the blog. Yet, when something will affect me in one way or another, I'll post about it. She was a great beauty. I don't know her career that well, but she's always seemed fascinating to me. Her long, courageous battle with cancer should be a lesson of strength for all of us.

I've just watched this special on her on 20 /20. This is the purpose of this post. If you've missed it or want to learn a bit more about her life, just click here.

and here for part 2.

Best Actress 1992







1992 it is. Not my first choice from the 90s, but definitely not the least wanted. All 5 are serious, mostly lesser-known performances. I had seen 3 of the films (Howards End multiple times) and I'm not sure about the other 2: they were on tv, but I've never watched them from beginning to end. I know I have a favorite, but we'll see how it goes. You never know, and that's what makes it fun. So the 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen for 1992 were:

.

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

• Mary McDonnell, in Passion Fish
• Susan Sarandon, in Lorenzo's Oil
• Michelle Pfeiffer, in Love Field
• Emma Thompson, in Howards End
• Catherine Deneuve, in Indochina

I'll start with Emma. :)

What comes next...




This time I've used the same lottery process for choosing a year (cause I find it impossible to decide by myself) as I did last time when destiny picked 1965. :D This time I knew I wanted a year from the 1990s, so there were 10 possibilities.

The winner is not a #1 choice and it doesn't have too much glamour. But I'm looking forward to discuss each of the performances. Here's the silly video; it was one take and with no cheating:

The conclusions - Best Actress 1965

I really really enjoyed all 5 performances, yet I didn't go crazy for any of them as a whole. Though they are very different, quality wise it was very hard to separate them. That's why I feel that this ranking is not a... final decision. My #1 was by far the hardest choice, also because of my increasing almost unexplainable love for Samantha Eggar; see the film (I've posted The Collector on youtube) and you might understand why.

In the end I can say it was a very interesting lineup and a pleasure to watch these ladies again. So here they are; you can click on the name to get to that certain performance:

1. Julie Christie, Darling

She understands her character more than anyone else. The bitchiness of Diana is no mystery for Julie Christie, who plays the part like it’s the most natural thing in the world. She has fun with it and it shows. It’s a playful, sexy, orgasmic performance with a touch of comedy that fits perfectly in the sarcastic spirit of the film. Perfect casting.

.

.

.

2. Samantha Eggar, The Collector

It’s a performance that grew on me. What seems shaky at first becomes a true great acting piece. Her eyes are her biggest asset, allowing Samantha to show us the frailty of her character. As the story unfolds, you begin to like her more and more and foolishly hope for a happy ending. It’s a terrified performance that works and that, without any warning, melts me everytime I think about it; it’s subjective and unexplainable.

.

.

.

3. Julie Andrews, The Sound of Music

It’s hard to get past the perfection of her singing. With musical experience on her side, Julie combines the voice with the comedy talent creating an iconic performance that’s so dear and easy to remember. Her charisma is beyond words and her lack of self consciousness is essential to the film. A sentimental favourite.

.

.

.

4. Simone Signoret, Ship of Fools

When she and Oskar Werner are on screen, you forget about the rest of the ship passengers. With a limited screentime of 25 minutes, Simone gives a true acting lesson by taking an odd romance and transforming it into a heartbreaking love story. Unfortunately, she’s just visiting the film, but the talent she displays is not to be challenged.

.

.

.

5. Elizabeth Hartman, A Patch of Blue

Elizabeth’s performance warms your heart and gives you lots to think about, as this truly is an important movie. Her best decision is to not take away from the character, so her performance is simple, precise and a great display of innocence. Elizabeth’s choice to let her character Selina outshine her is in favour of the film, but steals the spotlight from the actress herself, who becomes a vehicle for a remarkable character.

.

.

.

.

So, yes, I agree with the Academy: Julie Christie deserved her win! I always like to guess who was the runner-up for the Oscar: I guess Julie Andrews came 2nd, Samantha 3rd, Elizabeth 4th and Simone Signoret 5th.

.

Other Best Actress years discussed so far:

1977

2000

2007

2008

.

.

.

***What's next for my blog? I'm gonna do a Best Actress year of the 90s! It's gonna be picked lottery style just like 1965 was "chosen". I'm so curious & excited. Soon.

Julie Andrews, in The Sound of Music approximately 79 minutes and 31 seconds
49.1% of the film

The film

A woman leaves an Austrian convent to become a governess to the 7 children of a Naval officer widower.

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

I think it’s the most popular musical of all times. I’m addicted to the soundtrack and the technical part is great, but the film does have its flaws. Yet, it’s highly enjoyable and putts its money on the right person: Julie Andrews.

Julie Andrews as Maria

I admire a comedy actress’ capacity of ignoring the embarrassment of a scene and play it like it’s the most obvious & fun thing that has ever happened. This is the case with Julie Andrews for the most of the film. She’s such a great sport and talented actress than she can take an objectively absurd scene (do re mi or my favourite things) and make it into a wonderful and magical musical moment. Her lack of self-consciousness in the role is essential to the film’s success.

A big question pops up when discussing a musical performance: do you also count in the singing? I can’t make up my mind about it; but one thing is certain: Julie’s fabulous voice does influence my judging. But not blindly. I think it’s crucial in such cases to analyze the acting that’s going on while singing. Do the face and the body language express what the words of the song are supposed to? In Julie’s case, it’s a big yes. The best moments of her performance are when she’s singing, because she’s not just moving her lips, but also acting.

How about the rest of the performance? It’s mostly great, especially the comedy of it. Julie has a very expressive face and she looks beautiful, which always helps. Her beauty is just the right type to pull off the innocence of Maria. We have to believe that Maria is young; and a nun; and a virgin. :) All of this works out perfectly. The pure comedy scenes (one or two, not that many) are played with a great sense of comedy timing. The solid direction also helps and Julie does know how to put a smile on a face. No wonder that Von Trap stiff was charmed.

Talk about charming and romance: it’s all there. Julie makes Maria so sweet and likeable that the Captain is not the only one falling for it. We’re in it, even though the love story is so predictable. Julie’s natural charisma is too obvious to be ignored. Just like in Julie Christie’s case (Darling), the beauty and the attractiveness of the actress help complete the performance, do justice to the character and sell the film. It’s not a politically correct thing to say, but sometimes looks DO increase the quality of the performance itself.

The lacking in this performance must come from the limitations of the screenplay. There is no real big emotional moment or something that dramatic that would make me go: oh, so she can do that too. I’m not saying it’s a must have and I’m being too demanding; it’s just something I often search. Yes, she does get emotional scenes: and Julie plays them beautifully, capturing the hesitation of the nun falling in love (with the wrong man). And it’s a comedic performance so I get it that it must be judged differently. But still. And it’s the screenplay too that betrays her leading actressness towards the end, by including the Nazi plotline and putting Julie in the background of the film, with a reassuring presence, but not the dramatic punch/exit that we need from a leading actress at the end of a film.

Julie Andrews is a true blessing for The Sound of Music. The movie would probably be totally ignorable without her charm, excellent voice and comedy timing. It’s an iconic performance that’s either taken for granted or named as one of the best musical performances ever. I guess I’m somewhere in the middle, gravitating towards the greatness of it. It’s a spectacular performance, but at the end of the film I felt like I received a lot from Julie, but not everything. The film is not a vehicle for an actress and it shows. They could’ve given her even a bit more to do. I give Julie . I guess she would’ve won the Oscar had she not won it already the year before.

A special 1965 link

.

.

.

It's a link to my other blog, My Latest Oscar Film. There I've ranked the Best Picture and Best Director nominees of 1965. It's an interesting group.

.

.

And what's a bit more fascinating is that the directions of the films are quite better than the actual movies. It doesn't always happen to be that way.


So here is the link to the post.

Elizabeth Hartman, in A Patch of Blue

approximately 83 minutes and 18 seconds

79.7% of the film

.

.

.

The film

.

.

A blind, uneducated white girl is befriended by a black man, who becomes determined to help her escape her impoverished and abusive home life.

.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.
This is one of my all time favourites. It’s such a touching, emotional film that just fills me up with sadness and joy (in that order).

.

.

.

Elizabeth Hartman as Selina D’Arcey

.

.

It’s not an easy task having to separate the performance of an actress from the quality or the impact of the movie itself. I adore A Patch of Blue; and I love the leading character of Selina. But does this influence me in deciding how good was Elizabeth Hartman the actress in this portrayal? It doesn’t happen too often to find a film that’s better than the nominated performance. It’s usually the other way around, when an actress is much better than the material given. Truth is the character of Selina is so moving and well constructed that in a way it outshines the performance of our Oscar nominee.

I’ve made a courageous statement that must be explained. Selina is the centre of the film. She is the young teenager, blind and uneducated, raised in an abusive environment, under the dictatorship of an abusive mother. She is so kind and innocent (but not dumb, nor naive) that you could almost compare her to a saint or, better said, a martyr. It’s a very memorable character. So what Elizabeth Hartman has to do is to carry all these qualities of the character and make sure they are not altered in the process of putting them onscreen.

It sounds a bit robotic. But that’s how I objectively perceive it: the character is so well written that in many ways outshines the actress, whoever she may be. The best an actress can do is play it by the book and not trying to grab the attention by improvising Oscar bating scenes that would make the audience say: wow, she can really cry! Or scream!, - these would be actions that would not fit the character. Elizabeth Hartman knows better than that, so she plays Selina like she’s being told: simple, unsophisticated, unselfishly and completely dedicated to the message that the character and the story have to tell.

Elizabeth’s first big plus is not to her credit: her physical presence; she is delicate, with an innocent look, she has the right age to pull it off. And what she brings to this is the great body work: let’s not forget Elizabeth can’t really use her eyes in expressing emotion here. This is a great handicap for an actress and she has to try to make up in other aspects: her voice is soft, delicate. And her line readings (her screenplay dialogue is simple, touching, unsophisticated – yet effective because it’s very believable) are perfect. Even in the scenes where she’s mad, she doesn’t overplay it.

Her biggest credit is being faithful to the character and the mood of the film. Elizabeth can beautifully portray Selina’s surprise while tasting pineapple juice, yet she manages not make her look dumb, but sweet and delicate and so so likeable in the eyes of the audience. Elizabeth always remembers that Selina is also a character designed to manipulate the hearts of the viewers; the success of the intense emotional messages of the film counts of her ability of conquering our hearts, on making it believable and on sacrificing her ego in favour of the character’s infinite humility.

I’ve heard it before that simplicity is often enough harder to play than big loud emotions. In her debut role, Elizabeth dives into the character’s modesty and innocence, making the best acting decision: putting Selina above the actress, with the cost of making herself (the actress) look like a simple device for carrying the message of kindness and tolerance that the film wants to deliver. It’s a success, because that’s what the writing required: no hesitation from the actress and excellent line reading. It’s not a flashy performance, but that’s not why I’m not rating it higher. I’ll give it a , but I honestly thought of 4 stars. It’s not easy to rate, as it’s very hard to separate the love for the film and the character from the effort given by the actress. It’s a beautiful performance, but, as said before, Selina outshines Elizabeth Hartman and in the end that’s the way it should be.

My Top 5s for 2008

I always make these lists towards the end of the year, and fill them up all the way through awards season as I get to see more movies. These are my favorites for 2008. I thought I should just post them to keep them here.

On my rough list I usually have top 15 or 20, but I'll name just the 5s without further comments. In the main 10 categories. So here they are:

.

.

.

.

BEST PICTURE

.

1. Let the Right One In

.

2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

3. Doubt

4. WALL E

5. Happy-Go-Lucky

.

almost made it: The Dark Knight

.

.

.

.

BEST DIRECTOR

.

1. Tomas Alfredson, for Let the Right One In

.

2. David Fincher, for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

3. Christopher Nolan, for The Dark Knight

4. Andrew Stanton, for WALL E

5. Sam Mendes, for Revolutionary Road

.

almost made it: John Patrick Shanley, for Doubt

.

.

.

.

.

BEST ACTOR

.

1. Mickey Rourke, for The Wrestler

.

2. Sean Penn, for Milk

3. Colin Farrell, for In Bruges

4. Brendan Gleeson, for In Bruges

5. Philip Seymour Hoffman, for Synecdoche, New York

.

almost made it: Leonardo DiCaprio, for Revolutionary Road

.

.

.

.

.

BEST ACTRESS

.

1. Sally Hawkins, for Happy-Go-Lucky

.

2. Meryl Streep, for Doubt

3. Anne Hathaway, for Rachel Getting Married

4. Melissa Leo, for Frozen River

5. Kate Winslet, for Revolutionary Road

.

almost made it: Kate Winslet, for The Reader

.

.

.

.

.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

.

1. Heath Ledger, for The Dark Knight

.

2. Eddie Marsan, for Happy-Go-Lucky

3. Robert Downey Jr., for Tropic Thunder

4. Michael Shannon, for Revolutionary Road

5. Bill Irwin, for Rachel Getting Married

.

almost made it: Ph. Seymour Hoffman, for Doubt

.

.

.

.

.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

.

1. Penelope Cruz, for Vicky Cristina Barcelona

[a very very close #2]

.

2. Amy Adams, for Doubt

3. Lena Olin, for The Reader

4. Debra Winger, for Rachel Getting Married

5. Rosemarie DeWitt, for Rachel Getting Married

.

almost made it: Viola Davis, for Doubt

.
.
.
.
.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

.

1. WALL E

.

2. In Bruges

3. Happy-Go-Lucky

4. Vicky Cristina Barcelona

5. Rachel Getting Married

.

almost made it: Milk

.
.
.
.
.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

.

1. Let the Right One In

.

2. Doubt

3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

[the next are just category fillers]

4. Slumdog Millionaire

5. Revolutionary Road

.

almost made it: Frost/Nixon

.
.
.
.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

.

1. Revolutionary Road

[can't choose between these two, really]

.

2. Let the Right One In

3. The Dark Knight

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

5. Slumdog Millionaire

.

almost made it: Milk

.
.
.
.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

[not sure about this category, except for the winner]

.

1. Slumdog Millionaire

.

2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

3. Changeling

4. The Reader

5. Synecdoche, New York

.

almost made it: WALL E

.
.
.

If anyone's keeping scores: Benjamin Button, Revolutionary Road and Rachel Getting Married are leading with 5 nominations each, but the real winner is Let the Right One In with 3 wins.