Final Conclusions - Best Actress 2009

It took forever for these final conclusions, because of me not having The Last Station. In the meantime, Irene Dunne was crowned the 1937 champ. But here we are:

Quite an interesting year, with 2 obvious favorites for me and Meryl very close-by. It feels good to give a 5 star rating after quite some time. I must mention that I did edit Sandra’s performance profile and she went from 3 stars to 2, because that’s how I feel right now. I considered I was entitled to do the change considering I didn’t post the conclusions.

#1 is quite the obvious choice, #2 was easy to pick, so was #3. There was a bit of a competition for second-to-last, and I’ve now changed it twice before posting. :) All the performances gravitate in the drama area, because I’m not buying Julie & Julia as a comedy. Meryl gets her… 16th nom and maybe it’s better she didn’t win because it brings her this huge likeability factor, as we’re all on her team for a 3rd Oscar.

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. Carey Mulligan, An Education

A star is born! Yes, yes, yes! The performance or maybe just her pretty expressive face brought so much joy everytime I saw An Education. It’s not the looks; it’s the talent and this fresh innocent honest way of taking over a character. Can you doubt her casting?! When did I last see a performance that felt this natural, believable and sweet? This is how a winner should feel like!

The highlight: [how can one choose?] confronting the headmistress on the subject of education.

2. Gabourey Sidibe, Precious

In this case, I don’t believe a star is born! But I believed in this one magnificent performance that an inexperienced actress was privileged to deliver. The role is a one in a lifetime chance and she didn’t back down. Gaby acted from the heart and, while to me she’s not the star of the film, she definitely feels like the right person at the right time delivering the right performance. Which happens to be a great performance.

The highlight: the “Nobody loves me!” scene.

3. Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

Portraying Julia Child is a tricky thing: you are one step away from creating a caricature, a mess, instead of a real, relatable character. Having Meryl in the equation, it obviously equals success. I liked her performance, even though I understand the haters. What I did see was the brilliant actress taking on another challenge and succeeding yet again. She had fun and created such an emotional, warm environment.

The highlight: touching her red paper heart while listening to her husband describe their romance.

4. Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side

Sandra gets her Oscar for a performance with almost no Oscar moments. She would’ve deserved a big crying scene and much much better writing. But what she does do it to take a difficult character and create a believable, relatable person. I can understand this woman, I know her and that’s important. Sandra is 200% above the material.

The highlight: Big Mike never having a bed of his own.

5. Helen Mirren, The Last Station

She nails the quiet dramatic moments much more efficiently than the oh-too-often scenes of hysteria. But hard to blame her, as it’s mostly the screenplay’s fault. She fails in creating a full believable, relatable character, but still has bits of greatness, as she is the great dame after all.

The highlight: Staying by Tolstoy’s side till the very end.

We knew Sandra was gonna win from the moment The Blind Side was announced as a Best Picture nominee. Unfortunately this is, in my opinion – cause we don’t have the numbers, the 4th time in a row Meryl has to settle for the second place (after Adaptation., Devil Wears Prada, Doubt – though this one’s debatable considering Melissa Leo). Meryl deserves her 3rd Oscar, it’s an universally acknowledged statement. So, I guess Meryl was runner-up, Gaby was a close 3rd, Carey 4th and Helen with the least chance of winning.

Other Best Actress years discussed so far:

1937
1947

1957
1965
1977
1980
1992
2000
2007
2008

Up next: posting my favorites of 2009 next week and then finally getting to “lottery winner” 1978.

Helen Mirren, in The Last Station

approximately 36 minutes and 13 seconds
34% of the film

The film

A historical drama that illustrates Russian author Leo Tolstoy's struggle to balance fame and wealth with his commitment to a life devoid of material things.

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

I found few things attractive, I didn’t like it, mostly due to my lack of passion for some of the men in this film: McAvoy, Giamatti. Who I found wonderful was Christopher Plummer, who gives a strong performance and makes the best out of an unbalanced screenplay.

Helen Mirren as Countess Sofya Tolstaya

The race for an Oscar nomination is sometimes more interesting than the race for the prize itself. We 90% knew Bullock was winning and – true – we had this possible line-up of 5 actresses for a while, but surprises do happen. And Helen Mirren clearly made the Oscar cut based on a few votes difference and some category confusion for actresses like Melanie Laurent. This nomination is a result of Dame Helen’s great popularity, of shaky competition, of some overacting voters trap and the biopic factor. I am sure few Academy members had actually bothered with The Last Station, which makes the nom even a greater achievement.

Helen Mirren plays Sofya Tolstaya, long-time wife of legendary Russian writer and mentor Leo Tolstoy. Sofya is somewhat of a drama queen, a smart stubborn woman who’d do anything to get her way: and what she wants is to stop her husband from giving away the copyright of his books to the Russian people. She despises Chekhov, friend of Tolstoy, whom she considers a freak and a negative influence. Hers is a showy role and a second-leading one, to McAvoy’s Bulgakov.

To Mirren’s credit, she gets that limited screentime (just 36 minutes!) and acts it so that you really do consider the countess as a leading character and maybe the driving force of the film. Her presence on screen benefits the movie and it’s obvious she’s a scene stealer. She has great chemistry with Plummer, but unfortunately there isn’t enough of the two of them. More scenes could’ve brought some bonus points to her performance.

Mirren plays the countess with a very young, lively spirit. She never lacks charisma and, considering the diva status of the character, is the most colourful presence of the cast. The Countess gets involved in all kinds of silly, exaggerated situations (spying on the balcony, breaking dishes, throwing herself into the pond) meant to give a more funny, light feel to the film. This works both ways for Helen:

On one side, it’s nice to show a bit of range and it’s entertaining to see her acting to her full divaness. The film is already stiff and dull due to McAvoy and especially Giamatti, so her craziness is a breath of fresh air. However – yes, however – she sometimes gets too relaxed and confident in such scenes. It’s like she’s on the stage acting in a farce and makes the acting wider and less believable. The main fault of course falls on the unbalanced screenplay which shifts tones a bit too often.

Some might not have a problem with these lighter scenes and just generally tag them as overacting. Because Mirren does overact, but, in those funny scenes, it looked to me more like… get ready: like she was having too much fun and didn’t take the role a bit more seriously. Having fun with a character is something I almost always applaud, but this time I’m feeling the other way around.

I am missing a deeper approach to the character, as there were scenes in which Mirren, just like the screenplay, treated the character or the scene a bit superficial. It’s this lack of subtlety that stops me from caring for this character or to find it relatable and so on. I don’t care what’s gonna happen to Countess Sofya and I was almost never moved by the performance (minus that final scene, which I won’t be spoiling now).

Is it prejudice directed at this performance because I generally saw it as category filler and nobody I know really enjoyed it? It might be, I sometimes get a bit influenced. I might’ve been looking for reasons not to like it, but what I am sure of: it’s a performance that didn’t move me and I didn’t relate to it. I usually go for overacting, but this time I won’t. Am I finally seeing clear and stepping away from Helen Mirren’s real life charms or am I too harsh and just wanna be in line with all those who said this is ignorable stuff? I have no idea: .

P.S.: I’m taking the final photos for this post, I might’ve been a bit too tough on Helen; she does have good acting moments, it’s just one of her best roles.

Carey Mulligan, in An Education

appromixately 68 minutes and 34 seconds

75.3% of the film

The film

A coming-of-age story about a teenage girl in 1960s suburban London, and how her life changes with the arrival of a playboy nearly twice her age.

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

An Education is a beautiful character-driven film, sharp, well-written, with very good acting all around. Carey Mulligan is the star of it all, as she gives a fantastic breakthrough performance.

Carey Mulligan as Jenny

An Education is all about falling in love with Carey Mulligan. With a screenplay focused so much on her character, Carey gets all the help she needs to give us a believable, relatable, deep performance. And she manages it; here is where youth, talent and limited experience actually help: the fact that she is new in the acting business increases the believability of her character’s actions and emotions. Can anyone argue the casting and the natural feeling of her performance?

Carey plays Jenny, a 1960s smart 16 year old dedicated to her studies and with a big dream of going to Oxford. But her convictions are challenged when she meets David, a charming richer man who introduces her to love, fun and society. Jenny’s dilemma is solved at the end of the film, but what’s more important is her emotional journey and Carey does a splendid job at making it all seem convincing and adequate.

I always got the feeling that Carey totally understands Jenny. We can imagine that’s not so hard to do, but it rarely is so dead on that you totally forget about the actress that IS acting [another great example this year: Gaby Sidibe]. I keep underlining this great achievement from Carey because it’s very important to me, for the performance to feel believable and more so relatable. Carey made Jenny very accessible and, as a big bonus point, also sweet, adorable, loveable.

This is also to the screenplay’s credit. The film is meant to be light, but the fact that it’s funny means even more opportunities for Carey to spin the performance. Carey understands good subtle comedy, so her witty lines are always delivered perfectly and with the right timing. Her girlie way of being is adorable and her funny giggle in the rain scene is a very effective idea.

It’s hard to pick scenes where she acts best because she’s so consistent all throughout the film. However, I’m not sure you can sustain a great performance without dramatic scenes. Again, Carey knows how far to go and never overplays the suffering emotions of Jenny. The final talk with David is heartbreaking, and so is the moment of solitude crying when her father expresses his regrets about everything. And let’s not forget the energetic scene she shares with Emma Thompson, when Jenny confronts the headmistress about the purpose of education. It’s such a difficult, wordy scene to play and Carey does it justice, to say the least.

When the film came up, many said a star is born. It’s hard to predict what’s gonna happen with her career and I doubt she’ll ever top this fabulous breakthrough performance, but Carey seems to have the versatility and character understanding to become the finest actress of her generation. Her performance as Jenny is so natural, believable, relatable and a great full achievement that I’m sure people will be talking about it many years from now, more than any other Oscar nominees of her category. My rating is obvious: .

Gabourey Sidibe, in Precious

approximately 66 minutes and 47 seconds
65.1% of the film

The film

In Harlem, an overweight, illiterate teen who is pregnant with her second child is invited to enroll in an alternative school in hopes that her life can head in a new direction.

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

Precious is a very dramatic, well written, overdirected but I’m fine with that, fabulously acted movie. I guess it was the only 2009 movie to really have a meaningful emotional impact on me after watching.

Gabourey Sidibe as Clarice Precious Jones

Once in a while you get a performance that you just know it’s a one-hit-wonder. This is Gaby’s first acting job, so her first Oscar nomination and probably her last. The role of Precious required a good acting instinct and a good ear to listen to Lee Daniel’s well thought direction. And we can’t ignore the physicality of the role… Gaby has all these requirements, so I thought the casting was perfect. The result? A very special performance that is probably most difficult to read for me…

Gaby plays Precious, a 1980s overweight teenager dealing with a lot of problems: her illiteracy, the sexual abuse that left her pregnant for the 2nd time, and the mental and physical abuse caused by her mother. The film really is a journey for Precious and we can sense that from Gaby’s well thought performance. No doubt you can see the arc of the character and the change Precious goes through.

You couldn’t really tell it’s 100% acting if it weren’t for those fantasy scenes. They are the least interesting parts of the film, but I can see why Lee Daniels used them. Such a moment of fantasy happiness for Precious allows Gaby to glow and basically act like her real-life persona (you’ve seen the interviews, right?). By showing the fantasy, it creates a contrast with Precious’s daily way of being and underlines the acting that Gaby really puts into this role.

This take on fear and illiteracy looks very believable. It might be a bit frustrating to barely understand what Precious is saying in her first dialogues, but those scenes show a fear of failure and the defence mechanism Precious has created for herself. It’s also interesting how Gaby presents her, with a mixture of tough girl ready to bully and the person resigned to abuse from all around her, but always remembering Precious IS a teenager: so, keeping some stubbornness and moods of the age.

Her big shinning moment in the film doesn’t live up to Mo’Nique’s, but it’s fabulous. The Why me? scene, followed by the Nobody loves me… is like a relief moment, expressing what has partly been on our minds ever since the beginning of the film. The crying is heartbreaking and the scene just feels so REAL, like most of Gaby’s acting throughout. She puts lots of honesty in the performance, and by doing so creates a strong bond with the viewer.

It’s hard to find something negative in the performance to blame her for. Looking at it, I just see a very directed performance and a good actress doing the job. This isn’t necessarily bad… or at least it’s hard to make up my mind. What I can tell is that for me Precious is all about Mo’Nique and I couldn’t wait for her to get back on screen; even when I’m watching it again, my eyes are still on her, not on Gaby. To me, Mo’Nique steals every scene and I’m always influenced by that. So: a strong from me!

Sandra Bullock, in The Blind Side

approximately 54 minutes and 6 seconds
43.9% of the film

The film

The story of Michael Oher, a homeless and traumatized boy who became an All American football player and first round NFL draft pick with the help of a caring woman and her family.

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

An easy to watch TV-movie turned gold by overzealous Christian audience and die hard Sandy fans. But in the end: what the hell is it with the Best Picture nom?! Nothing special, nothing new.

Sandra Bullock as Leigh Anne Tuohy

In almost every Oscar race there’s a Melissa Leo or a Laura Linney for The Savages showing up at the last minute and managing to deservedly catch an Oscar nomination. This year, there wasn’t much of a serious crowd fighting for a nomination. So Sandra got her hands on the popularity slot; she is much appreciated by her peers and her movie (which came from nowhere) took by surprise the December box office. In the end, Oscar is also about the money.

In this true story, Sandra plays Leigh Anne, the ex Southern belle, devoted Christian, interior decorator, stubborn wife and mother who becomes the foster parent of an almost illiterate black teenager. Why? Because that’s how Leign Anne felt like it and whatever she wants, she’s gonna get it. And the whole character is mostly based on this characteristic: the well intentioned woman trying to bring good (by force) into a young man’s life.

I’ve seen interviews with Sandra talking about the part. Despite what you see on screen, she has said many times how uncomfortable the character felt for her and the effort in trying to really project (and understand) the actions and drive force Leigh Anne has. If what she says is true, then I have to give credit to Sandra: she made it look so easy, natural, she seemed comfortable in this character and it allowed her to crack a joke once in a while and give us the only memorable moments of this film.

The very bad parts of the screenplay seemed to avoid Sandra, or she just refused to go for the cliché lines or too cheesy situations. There are a lot of roll-your-eyes moments even in her scenes, but Sandra knows her craft so well that she spins it around, either with a sad look or terrific comedy timing, depending on what the scene can handle. The supporting actors cannot fight the mediocrity of the screenplay, but Sandra knows best and when words don’t help, charisma itself and conviction will do it.

Her presence on screen is always nice and her way of talking down to people creates some funny situations and pleasant scenes: roughly explaining Michael what football is all about, adequately manipulating her husband, proving to Michael’s coach that she knows best… All these are good scenes in which Sandra does her forever routine: put a smile on my face.

I believed the Southern accent and I actually imagined she felt very comfortable in the shoes of the character (the hair, the clothes, all looked natural on her); but it’s more than looking pretty! Sandra also delivers plenty of scenes in which we see the softer side of Leigh Ann, and not just the shield of the tough Southern woman. She is very protective, and doesn’t run away from the obvious: if you have the possibility to do good, why not just do it?!

This movie would be nothing without Sandra. SHE makes it believable, easy to watch and gives us the only moments of joy throughout the movie! And I always felt like she understands the character and I admire how easy she makes it look! But is this Best Actress material? Is the role consistent enough? Hasn’t Sandra been doing this work for quite some time now? I would not call this a bad performance! No way! But it doesn’t have the difficulty level to put in competition with Gaby or Carey or Meryl. I’ve enjoyed the role 200% more than the movie itself… ***I was just about to give Sandra a 2, but what the hell: I LIKED her performance. It’s a , because what she does is done very well. ***

Editor note: June 12th, before posting final conclusions: I am editing this post and changing the rating to a . It's the first time I'm doing such, and I believe a 2 is more representative of my feelings towards the performance.

Meryl Streep, in Julie & Julia

approximately 52 minutes and 45 seconds*
44.3% of the film

The film

Julia Child's story of her start in the cooking profession is intertwined with blogger Julie Powell's 2002 challenge to cook all the recipes in Child's first book.

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

They should’ve just gone with Meryl all the way. Or at least for more that 50% of the movie. Meryl rules her scenes, but then we have all those boring whinny Amy Adams parts, which take the movie to an undesired recent reality.

Meryl Streep as Julia Child

Meryl Streep rules the Best Actress category! Now she finally has the most nominations here: 13 + 3 other supporting noms. Katharine Hepburn is history, with just 12 :) I guess you can say it’s finally time for Meryl to win, as it hasn’t happened in 27 years… Is this the right performance to win for? Probably not, she’s had better. But even so: autopilot-good Meryl = a fascinating performance nonetheless!

Meryl plays Julia Child, the famous French-inspired American chef, TV personality in her later life, American icon, a strong-minded independent woman, with a very distinctive voice and a remarkable height. Julia’s storyline (the woman in 1950s France discovering her passion for cooking) represents half the movie and the inspiration for modern Julie’s adventure of cooking all of Julia’s recipes. So it’s not a biopic, but a fine perspective on the life of an impressive woman.

It’s a comedy role because Meryl takes it there. Meryl IS Julia Child and takes the character (and the scenes) wherever she feels like it. With visible experience beyond words, Meryl doesn’t miss a detail: with pure joy of acting and being, she creates a fun character, a loving figure, always faithful to the happy nature of this woman.

It’s not a screwball comedy or laugh-out-loud, it’s all about feeling good, relaxed and having a nice time. And Meryl takes care of that, by giving us optimistic and love for life without looking stupid and never forgetting the dignity and the dramatic side of the character; and knowing how to create a subtly iconic figure, a role model that transcends into Julie’s (Amy Adams) storyline of devouring admiration.

But feel-good and joy is never enough for Meryl! She serves us as much of a dramatic punch without changing the genre of the movie: a tearful eye here and there, a breakdown scene somewhat hidden from the camera, the love and gratefulness while looking at her husband. Plus telling us the story without the words: the child that she could not have, that was her always-present personal tragedy.

Meryl makes it look too easy and that’s her biggest flaw. We take her for granted, and don’t realize what a generous actress she is, always thinking of the character, the story and most of all her scene partners. This movie needed to be all/more about Julia Child; it would’ve given an even bigger boost to the performance. And it’s not the big dramatic tour-de-force Meryl has gotten us used to. But even so: a great achievement and easily best element of the film! I was gonna go for 3 stars when I started writing; but this is what Meryl does to me and I gradually convinced myself of the lack of flaws. It’s an almost from me.



*the screen-time never includes photos, but does include voice-overs. And I didn’t expect so much screen-time for her, considering just half the movie is hers. The explanation: the camera’s always on Meryl in her scenes + the movie gets close to 120 minutes, unusually long for the genre. She actually gets more time on screen than in Doubt. :)