My vote - Best
Actress 1961
There had been both worse and better Best Actress years for
me to review in the past, but the 3 films Breakfast
at Tiffany’s and lately I’ve had a lot of coincidences related to this
film. To see the post on how the 5 actresses got nominated, click here.
I discovered were at least
interesting and I had always been curious about them. I also had no idea who
the winner would be and, in fact, it proved to be a rather easy & obvious
choice. Also, it’s always nice to revisit
If #1 was an easy choice for me, the same could be said
about my #2. From then on, it’s all a bit mixed up. While I found qualities in
all 3 performances following, none was truly exciting. I am literally coming
back to this and changing the ranking minutes before posting. In the end, it’s
all about passion, I guess. I can’t believe who I’m choosing for #3, but the
performance grew on me. #4 makes small mistakes, but it’s also not very
creative. My #5 is a performance that people tend to love, but I find it really
overrated; no remorse there.
So here is how I ranked them:
1.
Sophia Loren, Two Women
The screentime: approximately
71 minutes and 41 seconds (74.4% of the film)
The film: It’s surprisingly good and easy to watch, except
towards the end when it loses both the intensity and the fun. Some thoughts on
it: LINK.
The role: Sophia plays Cesira, a loud-mouthed Italian woman, mother
of a teenage girl, trying to keep her daughter safe during WWII.
The performance: You know what, it IS the role she was born to
play. Sure, she’s a bit young for the part, but the energy she brings to the
screen, the tears and the humour are all fascinating to look at, captivating
and often entertaining. It’s the kind of performance only an European actress
could’ve created – there’s no fuss to it, just pure emotions on display in what
would be the opposite of anything theatrical. She’s extremely beautiful, but
the performance doesn’t rely on looks. It’s all about what her character feels
and her honesty. The highly dramatic scenes towards the end are carried
perfectly, balanced beautifully. An almost 5, since I have no excuse to go for
less.
The highlight: Her final scene with her daughter.
2. Audrey
Hepburn, Breakfast at Tiffany’s
The screentime: approximately
70 minutes and 38 seconds (64.6% of the film)
The film: I had seen it a couple of times before. It’s no
masterpiece, but it’s fun and it plays well even nowadays. Some thoughts on it:
LINK.
The role: Audrey plays Holly, a beautiful party girl and
part-time escort, who befriends a handsome neighbour while looking for the
right rich guy.
The performance: The character was created for a different kind
of girl, but at least we can all agree that Audrey brings a lot of class to it.
She tries to be funny and relaxed and look drunk, and it succeeds most of the
time, even though you can tell she’s out of her comfort zone. But the
performance has class, it has some relatable emotions and some smarts to it.
The dramatic talent she brings in the post-engagement scenes feels right for
the film and the character’s arc is nicely done. We knew the camera loves
Audrey; but such a performance doesn’t become iconic without some real acting
behind it. An almost 4.
The highlight: The taxi scene towards the end.
3. Geraldine
Page, Summer and Smoke
The screentime: approximately
67 minutes and 29 seconds (59.6% of the film)
The film: Listen, it’s just Tennessee Williams doing his thing.
It’s not his best material, so the film is not exciting; but it had me curious.
Some thoughts on it: LINK.
The role: Geraldine plays Alma, a frustrated spinster whose unrequited
love for a handsome doctor creates trouble in their lives.
The performance: To call this performance theatrical feels like
the understatement of the year. She had actually played the role on stage, so
all she had to do was get ready for her close-up. The performance is gradually
growing on me (because I usually tend to favour Geraldine) and I have literally
pushed it to #3 just now, but I have to be objective: she creates a dislikeable
character that I’m not 100% sure can be put on the writing. She’s delicious to
watch throughout, but in an almost involuntarily humorous way. Where there
should be nuances, there’s a didactical,
almost unnatural acting style. Strangely, there are countless highs and lows in
a performance that can be seen as mostly tiresome. I don’t know: I still am
rather fascinated and confused by it, even after seeing it twice. A strong 2.
The highlight: Trying to seduce John but realizing it’s too
late.
4. Piper
Laurie, The Hustler
The screentime: approximately
49 minutes and 46 seconds (37.1% of the film)
The film: A well written and nicely directed film, with a
strong acting ensemble and a captivating ending. Some thoughts on it: LINK.
The role: Piper plays Sarah, an alcoholic woman who falls in
love with an insecure pool player and helps him become a better man.
The performance: Truth is it’s a role that could’ve been played
in many different ways. My problem with it is that I never really connected
with the character and in the end I didn’t really care about what happened to
her. Just like in the case of Natalie, the performance lacks a certain sparkle
and I question how emotionally available she allows her character to be. Even
in her vulnerable moments, there’s a feeling of arrogance that rubs me the
wrong way. There’s too much class in this troubled woman and Piper’s acting
ends up looking a bit strange next to Newman’s more realistic approach.
The highlight: Getting drunk at the party and speaking the
truth.
5. Natalie
Wood, Splendor in the Grass
The screentime: approximately
56 minutes and 37 seconds (46.3% of the film)
The film: It’s dated as hell, but there’s some honesty in the
screenplay. Strangely enough, the problem comes from the casting. Some thoughts
on it: LINK.
The role: Natalie plays Deanie, a good girl who has a nervous breakdown after her handsome boyfriend
dumps her.
The performance: What’s the catch? I don’t get it. When she
gets a big scene, she hides her face and I can only assume it’s because the
acting skills are not there to carry it through the right way. Unlike
Geraldine, there’s nothing exciting in her rather theatrical choices, no
sparkle, no real energy. There’s little charisma and too much dignity; the
performance needed charm and, while I did sense the character’s struggle at
times, it’s as if she puts no real effort in making the character even remotely
interesting. It’s my opinion she cannot carry the film, not that Beatty’s
anywhere close.
The highlight: Reading the poem in the classroom.
How did the Academy vote: I’m quite sure it wasn’t an easy
win for Sophia since this was the first time (?) they rewarded a (leading)
Oscar to a foreign-language performance. And the film hadn’t received any other
nominations. But given the runner-ups, you can tell I’m thrilled with her win.
Daniel P. tried to convince me that Natalie was the runner-up, but after seeing
Splendor again, I feel like #2 was
Geraldine – sure, it’s a polarizing performance, but it’s flashier and it had the
critics’ support. Natalie was a close 3rd, for sure (not sure Best
Picture winner West Side Story worked
in her favour). Feel free to argue on my guessing game. :) The other two
nominees didn’t really stand a chance: Audrey was probably 4th,
because Breakfast was a hit. Piper
was definitely 5th, because she was an unknown and not the star of
her film.
And those are my thoughts on 1961.
What’s next: Another draw, this time from the 80s & 90s.
There will be 15 options to choose from [all except 1980, 1985, 1992 & 1994
already discussed + 1987 because for some reason, although I’d seen it in the
past, I don’t have a copy of Anna to
see it again and count the screentime].
To see other BEST ACTRESS years discussed so far, you can go
to the column on the right.
