The conclusions - Best Actress 2008

I have to be fair: this line-up wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. On the contrary: the biggest pleasant surprise was that I found elements of excellency in each and every one of the performances. My favorite, Sally Hawkins, was not nominated :( but I won't bitch about it anymore. At least she won a Golden Globe.

.

Kate's win was quite predictable. Even if her performance didn't make my Top 3 out of 5, I love Kate so much (as an actress and she does seem like such a good person) and IT WAS her 6th nomination, so the win is satisfying in more than one way. Is it because I'm used to the best performance not winning?! Maybe not, so I'll put the blame for my resignation on Kate's super charm :D I believe Melissa was the runner-up for the win with her Indie Spirit award and actors' support.

.

It was not an easy ranking. And of course I AM subjective. And, yes, I know I am always very generous with my stars/rating. My biggest problems were with the #1 spot and #4. These are performances I'll go back to over the years; I can tell that. So here they are; you can click on the name to get to that certain performance.

.

1. Meryl Streep, Doubt

I might just be blinded by some of her decisions. Sorry, haters, but I loved that she was in control of the character and knew exactly where to take it. To me, it’s greatness at work. The dragon power she releases could be equalled only by her vulnerability and quiet despair at the end.

2. Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married

I loved the honesty that she puts into the character and the undeniable connection you can feel between her and Kym. A troubled soul & a very difficult character to play. The detail she puts into the performance is both subtle and impressive, if you have the eye to see it.

3. Melissa Leo, Frozen River

It’s deglam done properly. Embracing the spirit of the independent film, Melissa loses all vanity and gives us an honest portrayal of a woman struggling against all odds to offer a better life to her children. A well-balanced performance with one or two well-thought teary moments.

4. Kate Winslet, The Reader

What starts in mediocrity ends up in greatness. It’s the trickiest character one could have, but Kate doesn’t know her that well. The flashy dramatic moments or the smart-ass wicked ones are done properly, but her subtle-wannabe, grumpy take in the beginning is almost a failure.

***EDIT: As stated at the 100th profile celebration (HERE), Kate's performance has been upgraded to  . ;)

5. Angelina Jolie, Changeling

Angelina provides some of the best & the worst acting moments of the 5 nominees. The direction and the screenplay are working against her and her rushed acting decisions kill the potential of this Oscar-baity performance. But when she’s good… oh boy. And that makes it the shiftiest biggest disappointment of them all.

Yes, I would've voted for Meryl, and not just out of sentimental reasons :)
Other Best Actress years discussed so far:
1977
2000
2007

Kate Winslet, in The Reader

approximately 38 minutes and 10 seconds

33.2% of the film

.

.

The Film

Post-WWII Germany: Nearly a decade after his affair with an older woman came to a mysterious end, law student Michael Berg re-encounters his former lover as she defends herself in a war-crime trial.

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

The film doesn’t live up to the greatness and storytelling of the book. It’s never good to compare, I know, but it’s a sin to waste such good material. As you’ll read by clicking there, my biggest problem was the 1st part.

Kate Winslet as Hanna Schmitz

.

Just like Angelina’s performance, this one is also a mixed bag. Among moments of greatness, you can easily find poor choices made by Kate (she’s usually excellent all the way, so I blame the writing and maybe sometimes even the director for misguiding her). Hanna Schmitz is one of the most compelling Nazis you’ll ever see; this simple fact makes it a tricky role to play. And, as I’ve said: some good, some bad, with a final result somewhere in the middle of it all.

Hanna Schmitz is meant to be rigid, tough, unforgiving, BUT (what the screenwriter didn’t get) also smart-ass, a bit mean, playful sometimes, with a superiority complex in a dominatrix way :D And how is Kate for the first part of the film? Too stiff and with a pointless, uncalled for, attempt of a German accent; which she looses anyway halfway through the film.

First impression counts, and by that I mean first 5 minutes of a performance. If you’ve started on the wrong foot, it’s hard/harder for me to fall in love with you later into the film. Though some might say she is building the performance going from here to there, I wouldn’t consider that an excuse even if it would be true. The thing about Hanna Schmitz is that she doesn’t change (one might argue that justifying with the facts that she learns how to read; but you can see in her final scene with Michael that she’s the same Hanna in an old woman’s body). What does strike as a change in Kate’s performance is her going from a somewhat lack of imagination to trying to express something once the trial scenes start.

Kate’s take on Hanna-the-mysterious-woman from the first part is mostly dull, unimaginative and well… boring. One exception: when Michael is reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover to her and she acts like that’s a dirty shameful book – I loved how Kate handled the hypocrisy of Hanna.

The second part, with the trial, is much better and Kate gets the chance to stand out. And she does it: the simplicity of Hanna, her brutal honesty and later her surrender to whatever they decide for her – all these elements that Kate masterfully offers us create such a compelling character that we understand and… the truth is I felt sorry for her and she broke my heart. Everything is built so that for entire moments in the film you somewhat forget the atrocities and just feel for this woman. Her “suicidal” telling of the truth shows us the innocence (if I can call it that) of Hanna the woman, not the guard.

The third part is the most teasing and most uplifting (up to a point). I would say the final scene between old Hanna and Michael is probably the only well-written scene in the film. Kate is excellent here, balancing the flirting mood (yes, you can feel it; in so many ways, she’s still dominating Michael and Kate does great work showing that), the irritation when asked about the past and also the innocent joy when seeing a familiar face after all those years. The dead are still dead, Hanna says; it doesn’t matter what I think. I love it that you can see both the human and the Nazi guard.

Just as the story it's continuing it's course, Kate goes from mediocre or just ok to believable, expressive, dramatic and in control. Yes, in control – that’s her best achievement. And as Kate becomes more comfortable playing Hanna, we start to get it and feel for her. And, no, you can’t justify all with the story, it’s not Kate’s big strategy of approaching the role; it’s a breach between her and Hanna-the-lover. And that kills a part of the performance. I give her , but this IS a performance to reflect upon again and again in the years to come.

***EDIT: As stated at the 100th profile celebration (HERE), Kate's performance has been upgraded to  . ;)

Anne Hathaway,

in Rachel Getting Married

approximately 58 minutes and 15 seconds

54.1% of the film

.

.

The film

.

A young woman who has been in and out from rehab returns home for the weekend for her sister's wedding.

.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.
This is by far one of the most interesting films of 2008. If it’s not you’re favorite, at least admit it has its own place in the big picture. A beautifully directed, excellent acted independent feature.

.

.

Anne Hathaway as Kym

Really now, what a tough character to play. Kym is a volcano and a character filled with emotions, desires, regrets, craziness, love, bitchiness, you name it. She’s an ex drug addict, for most of the film she looks rather bad, she’s a mean girl hunting for attention. And she also has Rachel, the sister, who seems like a saint next to her. Kym is a complicated character not just for Anne to play, but also for the viewer. And I’ll get on that right now.

I said about this film that it has scenes that are deliberately uncomfortable: the dinner rehearsal scene is the most obvious. I don’t know if I should give credit to the writer or to the director; there are moments in the film where I felt that the director got control over the story and by using images not explainable in the screenplay was able to create mood and to influence the entire storyline. And Anne has this advantage of a great director.

Kym is not likeable, at least not at first. We all know her: she’s the no-good kid/person that annoys a more conservative dude like I am. Anne is good with her flaws: she knows when to fake it a bit and when to lie. Anne understands Kym, so the selfishness of the character comes almost naturally. Kym is no monster; but she’s built onscreen so that she embarrasses you as a viewer, she makes you uncomfortable and you feel ashamed for her (at least that’s how I felt).

Yet, it’s Anne Hathaway’s challenge to humanize Kym and to try to change our perspective just as we start to gather more information. Anne’s take on Kym’s demons, on her complicated emotional agenda, is done almost effortless and not all at once. She knows when to hold back and not disadvantage the screenplay by stealing a scene or changing the focus. In a very talkative role, Anne knows exactly how to balance the big words with the big facial expressions or tears.

The sharing of the secret from the middle of the film is a big shift for the character. From then on, slowly, I started changing my feelings towards her. Anne lets us take a look at the softer side of Kym. The burden that she’s carrying is so huge and I don’t really remember the last time I saw such a good portrayal of guilt. Kym knows she’ll never forgive herself for the past and so she’s aware of her emotional damage that won’t go away. However, it’s her new purpose to live with the guilt and try to pick up the pieces. Her line Who do I have to be now? in that confrontation scene with her father and sister is impeccably delivered and so heartbreaking that you get the exact idea of what she’s talking about.

Her helplessness doesn’t really change during the film; but what does disappear is the selfishness in her cry for help. It goes from more of a demand for attention to a real, visible identity crisis.

It’s in my instinct to write more about Kym than Anne. This is probably a proof of the great skills that Anne used in portraying this troubled girl. It was like Anne the actress gave up on her own vanity to create a different type of vanity that Kym has, especially in the first part. It’s a dark role and it’s a brave decision to risk on it. In the end, there were probably 2 deal-breakers for me regarding this performance (except that who do I have to be now mentioned before).

The first one: when they’re all dancing with those Brazilians in the tent, there’s like a 30 seconds shot that starts with Kym dancing and moving her arms and apparently having fun. Then, after a couple of seconds she slows down, and even her face expression changes a bit. And you realize how much she is trying to let loose, how much she it trying to look like she’s having fun and she’s fitting in with everybody. That self-conscious moment that Kym has tells us much more than words would. (No sense mentioning it’s all to Anne’s credit).

The second one: that sad, heartbreaking Dad she whispers through the window before she leaves. So natural and attention grabbing. Yes, Anne really knew how to read those lines and get through what is an imperfect screenplay, but which manages to do justice to her character. I did feel sorry for Kym in the end; even if I don’t really like her, emotions still stay with me after the film is over. Though confused about my rating, I decided to go with . Anne knew what she was doing and drastically contributed to a film that excels in real emotions.

Angelina Jolie, in Changelingapproximately 75 minutes and 43 seconds
55.2% of the film

The film

A mother's prayer for her kidnapped son to return home is answered, though it doesn't take long for her to suspect the boy who comes back is not hers.

.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE. I was disappointed when I first saw it and it didn’t really get that much better upon a second viewing. To me, it’s a missed opportunity.

Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins

There are two things working against Angelina in this performance. Surprisingly enough, none of them is her star persona. At least not for me, as I did get lost in the character and not went shouting: look, there’s Angie! The 1st element working against her: the direction. Now, I don’t think Eastwood cared too much about the performances or bothered to get the best of his actors (as he usually does). I don’t think he asked for enough takes; or rehearsals.

While watching the film, I felt I saw moments in the performance where I as a director would’ve said: let’s try again. I think this type of performance involving lots of crying and emotional effort requires more attention from the director and a bigger generosity towards the actor.

The second element, somewhat connected to the first one is that Angelina doesn’t always know what to do with the breaks in a performance. I’m not sure that she was always listening to what the other actor was saying (especially in her first scene with Malkovich). When she gets a bit confused or lost, she goes into the lip thing which includes a strange moving of her lips that doesn’t really make sense.

As I’ve started with the negatives, I’ll mention two more: the red (strongest red I’ve ever seen) lipstick right after her son is missing, which grabs the attention from the character’s story (cause I’m thinking like: what the hell? You’re so desperate, but you have time for makeup?!) :P There is also a problematic smile in Angelina’s last scene; I’ve heard an explanation, I’m not buying. Whoever told her it’s ok to give a big fashionable smile in that scene was dead wrong. Again: what the hell?!
Oh, and don’t get me wrong: the screenplay is quite bad and it doesn’t do her big favours, but it’s not as damaging as the elements previously mentioned.

But there is also good in the performance. Even though I didn’t like the fact that it’s all constructed as a tear-jerker, Angelina’s big crying moments are… well… some of them are excellent. When she nails it, it’s all the way and you can’t help but feel sorry for the poor woman. When I first saw the film, I felt like she was crying too much and there wasn’t a real arc to the character or a range that would show us it’s more than tears. However, upon a 2nd viewing, I noticed that I was getting a bit annoyed by the performance every time I saw Christine in a non-desperate mood (especially in the second half).

So that would probably mean that half of her crying scenes are the height of this performance. I don’t think it’s the wrong casting and I admit it’s not an easy character. The mistake of the performance, in my opinion, is that it wasn’t always done too carefully. It required more attention, more work and a greater interest for details.

It’s no secret that I enjoy tears in a performance and at least one big oscarish moment. This performance has lots of such moments, but they are not consistent in greatness. Christine seems to be defined just by her love for her son and ambition to find him. I think a good performance can overcome a bad screenplay. I also think that sometimes Angelina tried to do a better crying than to have a more natural take on what the character is expressing.

At the same time, I could probably find a scene or just a moment in this performance that might actually outshine all the other nominees (for example when she first calls the police). But it’s an uneven performance, so a missed opportunity. Angelina also does great work with her eyes, much better than those lips. For me, it’s the most debatable of the 5 nominated performances, so I won’t be surprised if I change my mind about it in a couple of year. Impossible to rate, I’m going for the middle: .

Melissa Leo, in Frozen River

approximately 50 minutes and 6 seconds

54.3% of the film

.

.

The film

.

A single mom living in a shitty town is in a desperate need for money, so she makes an illegal move by smuggling people across the border.

.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking here.
I didn’t like it the 1st time, I didn’t like it the 2nd time. Not bad, but not enjoyable either.

.

.

The performance

I must admit I dislike Melissa Leo the person, judging by the interviews I saw her giving. And this fact did influence my perspective on her performance. But I did realize that a difference should be made, so I’m willing to say that this is a good performance.

It’s a film filled with poverty and lives you would never wanna live. I don’t know if ‘white trash’ is the right expression, but that’s the type of character Ray Eddy is. But she’s also a good, positive character. Even if she does some bad things, we forgive her because we know she’s seeking the wellbeing of her children. She’s a good mother and, with her loser husband gone, some kind of an alpha female.

Melissa Leo’s look helps her become more believable as this character. I don’t mean beautiful or ugly, but the simplicity that she brings, the average mom (I feel like quoting Sarah Palin), the American struggling in difficult times. I approve the way she reads the lines, almost in a different way for everybody: she’s very firm with her teenage son, tries to be likeable in front of her employer, bitchy with her Mohawk accomplice and she’s very humble and nice with the border officer.
.

Ray’s most important goal is to raise money for that new house for her sons. That’s what gets her involved in illegal shit. Though tough with her son, their confrontation scene (the one with the almost burning of the house) provides a great acting moment for Melissa. She finally assumes the role of the bad parent, though meanwhile trying to justify to her son the decisions she had to make and reminding him yet again of the tough times his father put her through. It’s all teary and natural and Oscarish.

Melissa’s performance is one that would probably be classified as a real performance. And that’s because we deal with a real dramatic character that’s put through a lot of shit, there’s no glam to it (actually, it’s almost deglam) just hard real life situations and lots of close-ups to show the drama on the face (Melissa gets a plus for them).

What’s also nice about Melissa’s Ray Eddy is that she’s not the same during the entire film (and her mood changes are well supported by the story); about this, I liked a lot her devilish attitude of persuading the Mohawk girl to accept a final smuggling. It did show that Ray Eddy is willing to do anything for the safety of her kids. That scene also spells doom because we just know something will go wrong.

The drama of this simple woman is deeply felt here. We feel for her and although we want her to succeed, we do expect the worst to happen. In this badly shot, exhausting film, Melissa Leo manages to create a character that’s beyond the material. Her quiet moments of solitude are well played, she’s a real person and has the chops to also do the hard, shouting, Oscar baity scenes. A very good performance, that almost created a surprise on Oscar night. I give her .

Meryl Streep, in Doubt

approximately 48 minutes and 56 seconds

49.5% of the film

The film

Set in 1964, Doubt centers on a nun who confronts a priest after suspecting him of abusing a black student.

It’s a fabulous film that I really enjoyed; not in a sadistic way, but because the first 2 3rds of Doubt are very intense. Those two hours just flew bye. As always, Meryl is the carrying force of the film, giving here a very powerful Miranda Priestly type of performance. The other 3 actors (PS Hoffman, Amy & Viola Davis) do a great supporting job, the screenplay is sharp, perfectly balanced, the direction subtle and (if there would’ve been any justice) Oscar worthy. It is an intense cast driven film that would probably make my Top 5 of 2008, definitely a Top 10. A must see.

Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius Beauvier

It’s kind of normal for the “greatest living actress” to get the juiciest parts available out there. This is Meryl’s 15th Oscar nomination and she hasn’t won in 26 years. Before the nominations were announced this year, this was one of the easiest to predict; a lock.

It’s not an easy role to play. Sister Aloysius is cold, tough, rigid, always certain in her beliefs and having, what we imagine it to be, an unstoppable desire to bring the truth to light. That is a simple presentation of the character. The story is built so that the viewer would think that everything seems to fit: Sister Aloysius dislikes Father Flynn and warns the other nuns to keep an eye on the school, looking for unusual behavior; then, news comes to her ears (Amy Adams is deliciously brilliant as the young naïve nun) that something unholy could be happening between Father Flynn & his protégé, the only black kid in school. Doubt should arise, but Meryl’s character is certain that her instinct is not wrong. And her only purpose is now to bring Father Flynn down. It’s a bit of a cat and mouse game.

Meryl takes on the character with a great sense of hard drama, but also with a touch of humor. To me, Sister Aloysius is not just a character, but a human being, and Meryl is to be “blamed” because of a small look, a rolling of eyes, a smile, these are all simple gestures that the actress uses to portray her, not just through her words, but also through her gestures, her facial expression.

Sister Aloysius is not an old nun; she’s the most alert character and represents the dynamic force of the film. Her passion to do things her way enlightens her. She might seem to be a dislikeable character, but I actually ended up loving her, because she is so driven, so intense, her certainty convinces me, I even embraced her preference for a strict education and her despise for ballpoint pens. And it’s all to Meryl’s credit, because she seems to know the character so well, and she’s so convinced that Sister Aloysius is right that she uses of her tics and tactics to show us that.

This is also a performance which succeeds depending on writing and the way the character’s being filmed. Because there are a lot of close-ups, Meryl takes advantage of that: she knows when her eyes must be teary, when she must look angry, or understanding, when to give a look of superiority or when to lighten up, changing the rhythm of a scene.

The lack of makeup is also very relevant to the character and performance. There are no tricks, just the highly expressive face of the actress. Her lines are fabulous (obviously, cause it’s based on a TONY winning play). You will lose!, she threatens Father Flynn.

From the Brooklyn accent, to the powerful voice and to the wide range of emotions, Meryl’s performance is a true success, the key element of the film and a force of nature. It’s not too much, it’s not overacting. Sister Aloysius is cunning, witty, smart, has a great instinct and (up until the ending) she’s always convinced of her beliefs. She’s seen it before, she has experience, and she knows it all. And you know what’s funny: you believe her!

This is probably one of the best Meryl Streep performances of the last 20 years. I easily give her . Come Oscar night, it’s gonna be Meryl vs. Kate Winslet, with Kate as a favorite. I really really hope Meryl might give us the surprise of winning. Quality wise, she kills the competition.