Final Conclusions - Best Actress 1978

I’ve promised to write a bit about screentime first, because 1978 offered interesting extreme cases. As you might’ve noticed, I do my own counting and it’s fun for me and very interesting. I also keep a table with the screentime for the performances mentioned so far (12 Best Actress years done, which means 60 performances). In case you were wondering, Top 5 looks something like this:

And the bottom of the chart is now:

The 3rd column represents the actual time on screen (when we see the actress or any body part/clothing of hers on camera background included, it also includes voice if it’s not doubled, but doesn’t include photos of the character – trust me, that was an issue with Darling). The last column represents the % of actually being on screen in the film. Obviously, they’re not exact numbers, but I’m pretty responsible with it.

Now, as you can see Jill Clayburgh got in with over 100 minutes (I believe no one can ever take Julia down) and it was a surprise, Burstyn is also there, but the important record for these 12 years is Geraldine Page having the shortest amount of time (also because Interiors is like 85 minutes). She has under 20 minutes and I actually believe it might be an alltime record. Could any other Best Actress performance have less screentime?! But do notice that Simone Signoret, although she has more minutes, has less percentage of the film (because Ship of Fools is around 140-150 minutes).

So the conclusion is: how can you compare Jill Clayburgh’s performance (106 minutes) to Geraldine Page’s performance (19 minutes)?! I guess that’s why, except for the winner, this year’s ranking is so difficult.

I admit I knew Bergman was winning even before starting this year. There was no way anyone could top her brilliant performance, which easily enters the same category with Vivien’s Streetcar and Gone with the Wind, Elizabeth’s Virginia Woolf, Bette’s All About Eve and Baby Jane and a couple more. So #1 was very easy for me. But how can you compare Jane Fonda’s quiet falling in love with Jill’s emancipated woman with Geraldine’s theatrical breakdown? You really can’t!!! I know I couldn’t. I’ve actually changed my mind at least twice before posting this… Their acting is so different in style! So, let’s try!

Here is how I’ve appreciated them (just my opinion, no universal truth). If you want to go back and read more, just click on their names:

1. Ingrid Bergman, Autumn Sonata

What can you write about one of the top 5 performances this category’s ever seen? It’s Ingrid’s best written role and her best performance, in my opinion. She takes a complex character, difficult dialogue, intrusive camera work, and delivers a brilliant performance, peeling off every possible layer of the character and still, somehow, keeping so much mystery that you end up being fascinated by this Charlotte woman.

The highlight: Her vulnerability, her breakdown when emotionally cornered by her daughter.

2. Jane Fonda, Coming Home

Though I still believe she was not the perfect choice for the role, Jane brings her magic and delivers a heartwarming performance that stayed with me weeks after seeing it. The film doesn’t love her character, so she has to work harder than the other nominees. It feels like a one-note, too simple performance, but everytime you look into Jane’s eyes you can feel the struggle of the character and what the real Sally is all about.

The highlight: having to say goodbye on the beach to the man she really loves.

3. Jill Clayburgh, An Unmarried Woman

The film is basically a one-woman show and it does feel modern and 70s in a very fashionable way. I realize now that Jill does have the charisma required for the role and I did believe her performance. It’s definitely not an easy role, yet I still had some problems fully relating to the character. I didn’t care what happened to Erica, but I did respect the effort and the charm that Jill put into the role.

The highlight: pretending to be a great ballerina.

4. Geraldine Page, Interiors

There is something so majestic, so royal, so dignified, so diva-like about Geraldine Page’s performance. She is like a great queen on the verge of complete breakdown and we are lucky enough to take a look and see what happens. The film has both style and substance and to me the performance was more stylish, because I adored her on screen more that I agreed with her feelings – which I understood, but I was too mesmerized by the interiors and how well she fitted in the picture.

The highlight: her emotional ups and downs in the birthday party scene.

5. Ellen Burstyn, Same Time, Next Year

I’ve said it before: you can always count of Ellen Burstyn to take a more or less mediocre-character and make it charming and mostly believable. Ellen’s Doris is the heart of the film and probably best in show, but even so: there are ups and downs in the performance. I disliked the hippie image, but I adored the blonde Doris and most of all the older Doris. It’s that last chapter that makes you forget all the previous shakiness in the performance and really embrace the character.

The highlight: having to refuse the marriage proposal of the man she loves.

Was the winner a real surprise? No one can argue on Ingrid’s masterclass performance, but you could’ve guessed it had non-performance-related stuff against her: it was a foreign language film and she already had 3 Oscars, one of which just a few years before. So Jane won (to me she was fantastic in Julia the year before and I’m sure that helped). From here on, it’s a wild guess: Ingrid must have been 2nd because of brilliance, I guess Jill was 3rd because of coolness, Geraldine Page 4th (I know it was her 6th nomination, but I do believe the screentime wasn’t enough for a win here) and Ellen last.

Other Best Actress years discussed so far:

1937
1947

1957
1965
1977
1980
1992
2000
2007
2008

2009

What’s next: before the next draw (which will be from 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s), I will post my Emmy analysis of Best Actress in a Drama Series (you might remember I wrote about Comedy Actress 2 weeks ago).

Geraldine Page, in Interiors

approximately 19 minutes and 20 seconds*
22.7% of the film

The film

Three sisters find their lives spinning out of control in the wake of their parents' sudden, unexpected divorce.

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

I have a weakness for Interiors, because it’s that great combination of the depth of a good Woody Allen drama and a style that has yet to be matched by an American film. Woody takes some great Ingmar Bergman elements and creates a cool, arrogant, sophisticated drama.

Geraldine Page as Eve

What does screentime mean for a performance? I used to write more about it, because I do feel that it’s an important element influencing the performance as a whole. Even if you have the ability to tell everything about a character with a 5 seconds look, you still need minutes and minutes to really create a solid material eligible for a Best Actress title. Some get a lot of screentime and do nothing (good) with it. Others, like Geraldine Page here, get little time on screen but manage to definitely make an impression in just 19 minutes (for MORE on 1978’s screentime, check the Final Conclusions next week, I’ll have some space reserved for an analysis on this subject).

Much-respected actress Geraldine Page plays Eve, a cold, emotionally distant, rich woman with a huge passion and a talent for interior decorating. When her husband leaves her, Eve goes through a series of nervous breakdowns, becomes emotionally unstable and unsuccessfully tries to find a new meaning in life. The character is mostly a mystery, but still relatable. She is presented through the eyes of her daughters and, even though she is not present onscreen, she is the character people revolve around.

To have a character that is justifiably on everyone’s mind throughout the film, you must be able to create a really fascinating person. Eve IS that character and she is constructed to be as stylish as the wonderful interiors she creates. Looking at her, I thought of a lady, of high-class, coldness and arrogance, which perfectly fit those rooms she lives in and the beautiful things she likes. Even if she wasn’t the first choice to play Eve, Geraldine seems very fit for the character. She has that royal quality, she inspires respect, but you can also see her as a cold person, distant, maybe even a bit crazy. I like her matriarchal persona.

Moving away from the image of Eve, I look for the interiors of the character. I’m not sure how Eve was like before her breakdown, but I guess not that different. Geraldine has an interesting, risky take on the character: Eve talks like in a whisper, yet often changes her mood during a dialogue. There’s a delicacy to her way of being which seems exaggerated at times, but I can understand it: it just underlines and feeds the frailty, the vulnerability of Eve.

I think her best acting moments are when she’s constantly arguing with her daughter Joey and, most of all, her 1 minute nervous breakdown next to the window. She suddenly starts crying and I was quite empathetic because I’ve been to that dark place and the way Geraldine constructs the moment seems so fit for the character and yet a bit embarrassing (which is good), uncomfortable for that certain moment when everyone’s around.

I’ve mentioned risky earlier, because Eve ends up being very theatrical as a person. There are moments when I’m wondering if she’s more of a drama queen than a really sick person. Is she a victim, a sick person or is she just incredibly spoiled and arrogant? I don’t know the answer.

However, even if Eve is not a likeable person, I can understand her emotions. Which leaves me quite confused about the performance: it’s cold enough to fit the tone of the film and with one smile Geraldine can show a different side of the character. But I had moments when I was like: who is this woman making strange faces, maybe a bit crazy? Was Geraldine overacting or was she just incredibly INTO the character and properly playing the emotionally-disturbed card? I’m quite confused and find it impossible to judge. I’m going with , as I don’t find it brilliant and more than a 3 would make uncomfortable. I love Interiors, but I’m trying not to get carried away with everything.

P.S.: How haunting is her presence in her last scene? Ghostly, very inspired.




*** I didn’t count some of those seconds in the water scene, where I’m sure they used a stunt double.

Jill Clayburgh, in An Unmarried Woman

approximately 106 minutes and 9 seconds
82.2% of the film

The film

A mature woman from Manhattan's Upper East Side struggles to deal with her new identity and her sexuality after her husband leaves her for a younger woman.

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

I admire the film more than I like it. While I consider it to be a road-opener, it’s not really a pleasant sit-through for me. The second part didn’t catch my interest, but I will always admit it’s a stylish film.

Jill Clayburgh as Erica

I’ve realized a couple of days ago that Jill Clayburgh’s performance is this film has got to be the most iconic of the 5 nominees and one of the most recognizable (at least for American audiences) of the 1970s. I don’t know if it’s the whole independent woman thing or just her silly dance at the beginning of the film, but many consider this to be a great acting achievement and a step in changing the image of the modern woman. I agree, more or less.

Jill plays Erica, a woman in her late 30s, living a great life: she has wonderful friends, a smart teenage daughter, a fancy job at the gallery, a loving husband, a great sexlife and lots of money. But then the husband dumps her for a younger woman and Erica has to try to find a new balance in her life. It’s definitely a good role and the film is all about her character (notice the screentime). Mazursky enjoyed doing fresh, cool movies (Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice) and the role fits the description.

There is almost nothing wrong with Jill’s performance and she’s actually quite charming in the beginning, with the dance scene settling that aspect from the start. I’ve found just one big flaw: the look on her face after throwing up in the separation scene, I just didn’t buy it and found it unnecessarily theatrical. But other than that, she’s believable in the role and seems like a right match for the film.

BUT, what makes it a great performance? Because many look at it that way. I will say it upfront that I don’t find it great or wonderful, but I do think it’s good and effective with a couple of highlight. The best short moments are when she’s playing silly and joking around a bit, because Jill is good with the relaxing, fun part and she does have a great smile.

Getting to the big scenes, the psychiatrist ones might be the best. Mazursky loves this type of scenes and Erica gets to talk a lot about herself, smile and cry and Jill really does a nice job playing it cool and making it look easy and natural. Her anger moments are always believable and she does fit the classy requirements of the character. But what is it that stops it from being great for me? Probably the fact that I really didn’t care about the character, about what happens to her, especially in the second half. I didn’t have any emotional connection with her, even though I understood the character. I think that is the problem, and as usual it’s just my subjective take.

Jill gets a full character and it’s the breakthrough performance anyone would dream of. Her acting seems right for the film, she has some good scenes with great acting instinct, but I didn’t love the performance. Just like I feel about the film, I respect the performance more that really liking it. No question it’s a good one and I understand why many find it great. I didn’t fully connect. It’s an honest .

Ellen Burstyn, in Same Time, Next Year

approximately 93 minutes and 28 seconds
79.1% of the film

The film

A man and woman meet by chance at a romantic inn. Although both are married to others, they find themselves in the same bed the next morning and agree to meet on the same weekend each year.

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

I enjoyed the witty dialogue and the chemistry that the two actors have. It’s an easy film to watch, with some scenes much better (and believable) than others and I was not bothered by its obvious theatricality. Interesting trivia I’ve recently discovered: the film also had a much more dramatic alternative ending. I’m curious how it would’ve played.

Ellen Burstyn as Doris

A record has been set: Ellen Burstyn is now the only actress to get 3 Best Actress profiles on my blog (out of her 5 leading nominations). It was nothing planned, it just happened for me to choose/draw years in which she received Oscar’s attention. She was my winner for Requiem for a Dream (2000) and I was way too generous with her performance in Resurrection (1980). This time, she got nominated for a comedy role, infamously occupying the 5th slot, reserved by many for Liv Ullmann (Autumn Sonata).

Ellen plays Doris, a young 1950s housewife who starts an unusual affair with a married man, with the promise of them meeting every year, on the same weekend. They fall in love, but none of them is ready to leave their families and children. We get to see the changes in Doris for 26 years (every 5) and notice how she goes from being a naive wife, to a Marilyn Monroe type, to a hippie, to a mature business woman.

Ellen Burstyn won the Tony Award for her performance of Doris on Broadway, so she had already known the character very well. As the film started, I was kind of bothered by the obvious age difference between Ellen and the 20-something young woman she’s meant to play. Despite this factor which affects the believability of the character, Ellen gives a good performance and she tries to stay focused on the characteristics of each different Doris. However, it sometimes creates the impression of different characters and not so much different life stages of the same woman.

Some of the Dorises work better than others. The least effective one is the 40-year-old hippie, because she’s such a big shift from the other faces of the character that it throws the movie off-balance a bit. It’s also the Doris in which Burstyn looks the least comfortable in. The ups & downs of the performance (due to too many Dorises) are what’s keeping it from being great, but you generally need this kind of character contrast to create a fun comedic story. So the play/script isn’t always helping Ellen because it forces her into going too far from the essence of Doris.

Because: do I know who Doris really is at the end of this film? I would have to put all the puzzle pieces together, but I’m not sure I would be satisfied with the result… Ellen tries her best and does manage to also glue it all together with a heartbreaking final, mature Doris image.

Some might consider the blonde hair Doris to be the most effective segment, acting-wise. And Ellen is truly great there, as a mature woman expressing her frustration of not being able to fully have the man she’s fallen in love with. There’s good stuff there, but to me, the best portrayal of the character is the final one. Burstyn is superb in the last couple of minutes when she feels like she might be losing him forever and it kills her. That I am already married line is perfectly said and terribly heartbreaking.

Ellen is the heart of the film and the element that’s keeping together both the film as a whole and the character itself. Doris is a puzzle and Ellen tries her best in connecting the pieces: sometimes one Doris is too out of line (hippie), but sometimes everything is so emotionally effective. Just like in Resurrection, it’s a performance hard to judge. But because of the last 15 minutes, there’s no way I’d go for less than .

Ingrid Bergman, in Autumn Sonata

approximately 52 minutes and 51 seconds***
58.4% of the film

The film

After having neglected her children for many years, world famous pianist Charlotte visits her daughter Eva in her home.

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

Even with the long dialogue scenes and the camera work focused mostly on the faces, Autumn Sonata still is one of the most accessible Ingmar Bergman films. The film’s two strong elements are the dialogue (deep and effective) and the acting: a very good performance from Liv and a career best from Ingrid.

Ingrid Bergman as Charlotte

Doesn’t it make you feel good? To see a famous actress, from another movie era taking a role towards the end of her career that suddenly puts her back on the map, for a creating a fabulous performance? You really DON’T see that many good roles for women over 60 (even less nowadays), not to mention leading ones. After an infamous Oscar win 4 years earlier, Ingrid finally got the attention she deserved. It was Casablanca that made her famous and a superstar, but I think it was Autumn Sonata that actually reconfirmed the respect critics and audiences had for this screen legend.

Ingrid plays Charlotte, a famous internationally acclaimed pianist, who comes to visit her eldest daughter Eva (great Liv Ullmann) after many years. In an unexpected turn, she is suddenly confronted with Eva’s repressed feelings towards her mother and the women finally have a real conversation that opens up a lot of trauma from the past. The characters are written to perfection, so all Ingrid has to do is act, and boy does she go there.

Charlotte is a cold, distant woman, but so good at hiding and pretending. Actually, there are more than two layers to this character and it all feels so believable. While Eva seems shy and frail, Charlotte is more of a diva. We can sense her superiority even from the start of the film. Even though I immediately realized she is a cold selfish person (she abandoned her other crippled daughter), Ingrid brings some kind of likeability to Charlotte.

Her monologues are long and difficult, even from the first half of the film and Ingrid understands them and reads them so perfectly (challenging with this complex dialogue), making them her own. I understand where she is going with Charlotte; without saying so, we instantly notice she is not someone who accepts the presence of the weak, not because she is overly cruel, but because she’s so emotionally crippled and self-conscious that she instantly gets disgusted and afraid: just like her attitude towards her sick daughter.

It’s the second part that brings the best acting, just at topics go a bit deeper. Ingrid manages in a fantastic way to slowly peel off Charlotte’s vanity layers, as she is being confronted with the emotional harm she had caused her daughter. Under the mask of a nice person and under the mask of the cold brilliant pianist we discover the empty Charlotte, incapable of loving, scared of losing her talent and fame, guilty for the damage she had caused.

With the help of the fabulous camera work, Ingrid expresses all we need to know about Charlotte, she feels comfortable with the dialogue and you can tell those 40 years of acting experience: when to look, when to react and her ability to create the impression, even if for a short time, of a heartbroken sympathetic Charlotte.

It means a lot to also have a great screenplay. Even if this is an emotional journey for Charlotte, the character is so well built, that in the end I was not sure if she’s changed at all. Both Ingrid and Ingmar go for a very believable take. I myself agree: it’s more believable that she hasn’t evolved and that the whole emotional episode might’ve been exactly that: an episode that came and went, as Charlotte is too incapable of feeling to be able to change. Ingrid easily gives one of the top 5-10 performances this category has even seen. So easy to rate: .


P.S.: There is a scene with Eva playing the piano and Charlotte watching her and listening. She is the genius, her daughter is the clumsy. But Charlotte suddenly gets teary. Do you think she got emotional and proud of Eva or did Chopin remember her of her youth? What do you think? Do you remember the moment?





*** reportedly, the hands playing in the piano scene belonged to Ingmar Bergman’s wife, so in a way it’s a body double; I didn’t count it as screentime if it wasn’t Ingrid’s body part in an obvious way. :)

Jane Fonda, in Coming Home

approximately 69 minutes and 57 seconds***
55.8% of the film

The film

A woman whose husband is fighting in Vietnam falls in love with another man who suffered a paralyzing combat injury there.

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

It felt ok and important the first time, but the second time it was a pain in the ass to watch and count Jane’s screentime. I can’t say why, it just looked even more dated and just not the kind of film to make for a fun movie experience. But what I did notice again: Jon Voight is great in this, as it’s probably his best performances.

Jane Fonda as Sally Hyde

All the Hanoi Jane people need to keep their mouth shut! :) We all know Jane was innocent and it was all confusion and a set-up. But even so, I did ask myself: Jane Fonda doing a film about Vietnam and actually voters giving her the Oscar for it? It smells like controversy, but good for her for having the balls to grab the role. I like Jane Fonda and I often find myself visiting her blog. And because I love her acting, I find it a bit hard to criticize her second Oscar win.

Jane plays Sally Hyde, a good, shy, decent married woman whose husband, a Captain, goes to fight in Vietnam. Due to a game of circumstances, Sally volunteers at a local hospital for wounded soldiers and befriends Luke, an angry wheelchair bound person who ends up becoming her lover. The film is both a love triangle and an anti-war political movie; but, I realize now, from a certain perspective, it’s about the changes in a woman’s life and spirit!

There are at least two big elements working against Jane’s performance: and, in a strange way, none has to do with her precise acting. First, there’s the matter of casting. Jane Fonda has GREAT chemistry with Jon Voight and they make for a loving, touching, believable couple. But I did feel like the role was written for a younger actress, maybe in her late 20s. It’s because the ingenuity of Sally interacts strangely sometimes with Jane’s mature expression; it just doesn’t feel right and it affects the likeability of the performance.

The other element giving me a negative feel was the character itself, which has to be the least interesting one of the film. Jane is above the character and the writing, but even so: how much can you do with limited dialogue creativity and moments of just standing there. Strangely, it feels like Sally has nothing to do with the war; the conflict of her character is purely sentimental. Is this what makes it less appealing? Jane gets the boring scenes and has to work twice as hard to express something.

Believe it or not, there is good stuff in the performance: the change of the character is believable and Jane gracefully shows up the independent woman Sally becomes. You notice it not just in the hair style, but also in the movement and the self-image of the character. She nails the character arc! And who could deny her beautiful, emotional face? Those eyes do most of the work, especially in scenes where the writing really doesn’t live up.

The scene with the two of them together on the beach before they separate is emotional and beautifully played by both actors. However, her best moment has got to be the orgasm scene and I’m NOT being ironic; it has to be one of the most believable (and that’s important) sex scenes I’ve ever seen in a non-porn.

Jane got to play vulnerable many times before and I just adored her in Julia, but that was the mature woman feeling vulnerable in a tense situation. Here, her character is much less interesting and rather dull. The casting is shaky, the character is ignored by the screenplay despite being the lead, and even so: Jane still manages a good performance, touching at times. It most certainly didn’t deserve the win and it’s hardly her best acting hour! But Jane is good and I feel comfortable with .

***Jane got a body double for most of the sex scene, so considering it wasn’t her on camera, I’ve mostly counted the voice time and less the boobs showing :))