An introduction to BEST ACTRESS 1989

As usual, there’s a video at the end of the post to show I didn’t cheat with the draw. :) 1989 was actually one of my top choices, because I haven’t seen most of the films and I feel the year isn’t talked about enough [though I know some bloggers who have ;) ]. That being said, at the time of the draw (2 days ago) I had only seen Driving Miss Daisy. I am familiar with scenes from Fabulous Baker Boys and Music Box, but not with the films as a whole. I haven’t seen Camille Claudel and I only saw Shirley Valentine last night (it was GREAT). I don’t expect this to be the year with the most fabulous performances, but they’re all quite different.

There are no favourites for now and I’m prepared to be surprised.

The 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen as nominees for 1989, in alphabetical order:

 

 

Isabelle Adjani as Camille Claudel, in Camille Claudel

 

Pauline Collins as Shirley Valentine, in Shirley Valentine

Jessica Lange as Ann Talbot, in Music Box

Michelle Pfeiffer as Susie Diamond, in The Fabulous Baker Boys

 

Jessica Tandy as Daisy Werthan, in Driving Miss Daisy

From the 5 nominees, only Adjani plays a real life person. Driving Miss Daisy is the only film of the 5 to be nominated for Best Picture and, as it happens, it also won. This is the part where I try to guess how they got nominated:

There were two clear front-runners before the nominations were announced. First one, I’d say, was Jessica Tandy. This must have been an easy nomination to get, judging from the success of the film: Miss Daisy received 9 nominations and ended up winning 4 Oscars. This was the first Oscar nomination for 80-year-old Tandy, who had done some films in the past, but was better known for her stage work, having won a couple of Tonys. She entered the race having won the Golden Globe for Actress in a Comedy/Musical and minor awards from the Boston Society of Film Critics & the Kansas City Film Critics Circle. She was also the unofficial runner-up for the New York Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics awards.

Another sure bet for a nomination was Michelle Pfeiffer. She entered the race having won the most awards from the critics: the Golden Globe for Actress in a Drama and the recognition from critics’ groups such as the National Board of Review, the New York Film Critics Circle, the National Society of Film Critics, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the Chicago Film Critics Association. Those are basically all the important wins she could’ve received. This was Michelle’s 2^nd Oscar nomination, having been nominated the previous year for her supporting role in Dangerous Liaisons.

If these two were locks, the next 3 actresses weren’t such safe bets. Looking at the competition, it seems like there could’ve been all kinds of combinations for the nomination list. I think it’s safe to say next in line was Jessica Lange. Prior to the Oscar nominations, for this role she had received only a nomination for Actress in a Drama at the Golden Globes. However, given that this is a serious role in a serious drama AND Jessica was a darling of the 80s, I don’t think I’m wrong in suggesting she had the 3^rd chance of getting the 1989 Oscar nomination. This was Jessica’s 5^th nomination (and 4^th in Leading), at that point having won just once, for her supporting performance in Tootsie (1982).

I’d say that Pauline Collins was next, because I imagine she had the British voters on her side. And she had just won the Tony award for playing Shirley on Broadway. So there was some buzz around this performance. Prior to the nomination, she had received just a nomination at the Golden Globes for Actress in a Comedy/Musical. This was Pauline’s first time at the Oscars.

And then we get to Isabelle Adjani, who I hear is quite amazing in Camille Claudel and she was a true movie star at that time, however there was nothing to suggest her film was a success in the US, AND it’s a foreign language film, AND she did not benefit from critics’ support (like it had previously happened for L’Histoire d’Adele H). But somehow she made it. Not that it influenced the Oscars, but prior to the nomination she had won back in Europe awards from the César and the Berlin Film Festival for this role. This was Isabelle’s 2^nd Oscar nomination, having been nomination 14 years before for Adele H.

I think there was a strong runner-up for a nomination and two other interesting contenders:

6. Andie MacDowell, Sex, Lies, and Videotape – Golden Globe nomination for Actress in a Drama, wins from: the Los Angeles Film Critics Association (tied with Pfeiffer) and the Independent Spirit awards.

Meg Ryan, When Harry Met Sally...

Sally Field, Steel Magnolias

Dark horses:

Ellen Barkin, Sea of Love

Kathleen Turner, The War of the Roses

Winona Ryder, Heathers

Kelly Lynch, Drugstore Cowboy

Maybe got a couple of votes:

Liv Ullmann - The Rose Garden

Annette Bening - Valmont

Annabella Sciorra - True Love

Nicole Kidman - Dead Calm

Susan Sarandon - A Dry White Season

Cybill Shepherd - Chances Are

:)

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 3^rd, 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 4^th, because Breakfast was a hit. Piper was definitely 5^th, 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.

An introduction to BEST ACTRESS 1961

There’s a video at the end of the post proving that the draw was correct. J 1961 it is... Not the year I wanted the most, nor the least. There’s also a strange coincidence happening, because just on Saturday I took out a framed photo I received a while ago (and kept it wrapped) and decided to hang it. Photo below:

LOL, right? J Destiny! This is a historical year because it marks the first time an actress (or any actor for that matter, I think) won an Oscar for acting in a foreign-language film. The race was wide open and Sophia managed a surprise win.

I have previously seen only 2 of the 5 films (Breakfast at Tiffany’s – of course! and Splendor in the Grass), but I am very interested in the other 3, for different reasons. I will watch all 5 films (again), count the screentime and choose my winner. I must confess I have no idea how this will go, I really don’t have any favourites; since I tend to prefer DRAMA, Loren might have a slight advantage, but I also favour Geraldine Page and I expect to enjoy The Hustler quite a lot, so we’ll see.

The 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen as nominees for 1961, in alphabetical order:

Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly, in Breakfast at Tiffany’s

Piper Laurie as Sarah Packard, in The Hustler

Sophia Loren as Cesira, in Two Women/La Ciociara

Geraldine Page as Alma Winemiller, in Summer and Smoke

Natalie Wood as Wilma Dean Loomis, in Splendor in the Grass

Interesting to note none of them is playing a real life person, which is rare. The Hustler is the only film of the 5 to also be nominated for Best Picture. Let’s try to guess how they got nominated:

I imagine it was an easy nomination for Geraldine Page, because, for this role, she had won the Golden Globe for Actress in a Drama, the critics’ award from the National Board of Review and came 2^nd with the New York Film Critics Circle. That’s strong support to get before reaching the nomination stage. This was the 2^nd Oscar nomination for Geraldine and the first in Leading, having been previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Hondo (1953).

I’m not sure how much of a hit Breakfast at Tiffany’s was back in the day (in the meantime: a cultural phenomenon), but I’m quite sure Audrey Hepburn didn’t have a hard time getting this nomination. She entered the race with a nomination from the Golden Globes for Actress in Comedy; the film itself received a handful of Oscar nominations and I’m sure it was a success with the East Coast voters, considering its location and having Truman Capote behind it. This was Audrey’s 4th Oscar nomination (all in the Leading category, gathered in less than a decade), having previously won the Oscar for her first nomination, Roman Holiday (1953).

From here on it’s a tough call. I’d risk and say Natalie Wood had the next chance of getting nominated, having already received a Golden Globe nomination for her performance. West Side Story being the Best Picture of 1961 worked both in favour and against this nomination, I think: it helped boost her popularity, but I’m sure there was also a bit of vote splitting happening, with WSS clearly more seen than Splendor. This was the 2^nd Oscar nomination for Natalie and her first in Leading, having been previously nominated as Supporting for Rebel Without a Cause (1955).

I would dare and say Sophia Loren was only 4^th (even though she ended up winning) because of one simple reason: the Academy doesn’t usually go for foreign language films. She had already made American films, and that worked in her favour, I’m sure. But Ciociara didn’t register with voters in any other categories, so they could’ve easily ignored the film altogether. What helped her, I’m sure, was a Best Actress win from the New York Film Critics Circle, and I also hear the performance is quite flashy. This was Sophia’s first Oscar nomination.

This leaves us with Piper Laurie. I hear she’s good in the film, but she was ignored by the Golden Globes, she had only done B-series films in the past and The Hustler, it seems, is all about Paul Newman. The overall success of the film was definitely crucial in her getting this nomination, which was her first.

...And she was lucky because there was serious competition. I’d like to point out who I think was the runner-up: Shirley MacLaine gives her best performance in an excellent drama called The Children’s Hour – for which she did get a Golden Globe nomination. She is SO good in it that this must’ve been a rather shocking omission. I think she was definitely 6^th (also considering the film did get some Oscar love, including for Fay Bainter).

Other strong possibilities:

Leslie Caron, Fanny

Audrey Hepburn, The Children's Hour [in case she didn’t make it for Breakfast]

Dark horses

Claudia McNeil - A Raisin in the Sun

Maria Schell - The Mark

Vivien Leigh - The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone

Probably got a couple of votes:

Bette Davis - Pocketful of Miracles

Rosalind Russell - A Majority of One

Miyoshi Umeki - Flower Drum Song

Susan Hayward - Back Street

Natalie Wood - West Side Story

Carroll Baker - Bridge to the Sun

Sophia Loren - El Cid

Doris Day - Lover Come Back

Debbie Reynolds - The Pleasure of His Company

Debbie Reynolds - The Second Time Around

Lana Turner - Bachelor in Paradise

Hayley Mills - The Parent Trap

Let’s see how this goes!

My vote - Best Actress 1941

I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about this Best Actress year. I started it having seen only 2 of the 5 films and I ended up pleasantly surprised by this final ranking. I’ve went through all of them again (some of them twice), counted the screentime and loved each performance just a bit more the second time around. To see the post on how the 5 actresses got nominated, click here.

I also started the year presentation by almost calling it for the winner: my #1 is a favourite performance of mine in one of my favourite films ever. That didn’t change, even though some will say I am being VERY subjective about it. J Of course I am, but that’s that. #2 was a surprising but easy choice. #3 and #4 could easily switch places even though they are very different performances. #5 unfortunately makes for one of the least deserving Best Actress winners I have ever seen (and many others seem to agree), but it’s mostly the film’s fault.

So here is how I ranked them:

1. Bette Davis, The Little Foxes

The screentime: approximately 53 minutes and 4 seconds (46.7% of the film)

The film: I loved it; it’s well written & very well acted. Some thoughts on it: LINK.

The role: Bette plays Regina Giddens, a very ambitious woman, whose desire to get even richer tears her family apart.

The performance: As soon as the dinner scene started, Bette, dressed in a now-iconic black gown, stole my heart. She is everything in this film, from her look that’s both bizarre and stunning to the way she talks (non-sexual sensuality, if that makes any sense) to the confident, yet oh-so-human character she portrays. She owns the screen and you simply can’t take your eyes off her: there’s cruelty, and no tears are being shed, and yet I feel like I know this woman and by no means is she a villain.

The highlight: The final argument with her daughter, having to go up the stairs. Haunting scene.

2. Greer Garson, Blossoms in the Dust

The screentime: approximately 67 minutes and 57 seconds (69.7% of the film)

The film: What I would call your average 1940s film, nothing extraordinary, very idealized. Some thoughts on it: LINK.

The role: Greer plays Edna Gladney, a woman who dedicates her life to finding good homes for abandoned children and fighting for their rights.

The performance: It’s mostly the kind woman role that Greer got to play her entire career. What makes this one special? The surprising nuances, often of spontaneous and isolated selfishness of the character, that made me say Oh…. It’s a very dynamic performance that will not allow you to ignore it and it got better the second time: there’s so much energy to it, both in the louder scenes and strong activism, but also when the camera is on Greer and, through her very expressive eyes, you can feel the struggle inside the character.

The highlight: Either the ending or the surprising Get that child out of here party scene.

3. Barbara Stanwyck, Ball of Fire

The screentime: approximately 45 minutes and 40 seconds (41.6% of the film)

The film: A silly, relaxing comedy, with good dialogue. Some thoughts on it: LINK.

The role: Barbara plays Sugarpuss O’Shea, a singer who goes under hiding from police by befriending a group of lexicographers.

The performance: The success of the performance depends almost exclusively on Barbara’s charm. While the screenplay is good, the performance could’ve been dull, yet it’s not. It has a lot of soul and, more importantly, is has charisma and a lot of confidence. She succeeds when humour is involved because Barbara has a strong comedic timing and delivers the dialogue the right way. The character arc is visible on her expressive face. While I don’t think the performance is extraordinary, it’s very well thought through. A strong 3.

The highlight: Seducing the professors on her first visit to the house.

4. Olivia de Havilland, Hold Back the Dawn

The screentime: approximately 45 minutes and 51 seconds (40.2% of the film)

The film: Another well-written film, a drama with interesting characters. Some thoughts on it: LINK.

The role: Olivia plays Emmy Brown, a naive schoolteacher who is seduced by a gigolo into marrying him, as a way for him to get his visa.

The performance: It’s not a performance for everyone to appreciate, because the role is not spectacular, but I strongly believe nobody could’ve played it better. There’s something about Olivia’s beautiful, innocent face that makes her perfect for such a role (and Melanie in GWTW for that matter) – the performance is all in the eyes and she has to sell the audience that this woman is naive, overly enthusiastic, willing to be loved, but never stupid. It’s a job well done, and a strong 3 (I can’t believe it only ranks 4^th!)

The highlight: Being interrogated, and then putting on the glasses.

5. Joan Fontaine, Suspicion

The screentime: approximately 75 minutes and 1 second (76.8% of the film)

The film: The worst Hitchcock film I’ve ever seen and an overall unsatisfying experience. Some thoughts on it: LINK.

The role: Joan plays Lina, a young woman who rushes into marriage without realizing the loser her husband is and maybe even a murderer.

The performance: Poor Joan. Her theatricals that worked mighty fine in Rebecca feel quite out of place here and bring to light the lack of experience of this young actress. Sure, her performance is way better than the film itself and there is something appealing to it. You can tell she’s really trying to carry the film, to keep it together, and the tears are on display in all the right moments, but she does tend to overdo it. With a screenplay that’s failing almost every scene, she is fatally tempted to act more and more.

The highlight: Listening on her husband who’s back from France talking to the Police.

How did the Academy vote for the winner: I almost have no idea. Let’s start the other way around: although she is amazing & incredible, Bette was probably 5^th because she already had 2 leading Oscars by the age of 33. I would foolishly say Olivia was 4^th because the film is mostly about Boyer’s character and she doesn’t get flashy scenes. I guess Greer could’ve been 3^rd, because the performance is good – what was working against her: she wasn’t that much of a big name at that time. Which means Barbara was 2^nd – not so much because of the performance, which is fine, but comedic, but because she had an amazing year with (allegedly) great performances also in The Lady Eve and Meet John Doe. I have no idea why Joan Fontaine won, maybe because of all the faces she makes, because she had lost for Rebecca, maybe because of the disappointing New York Film Critics Circle win. But given that each of them probably had her fans, I woudn’t be surprised is even Olivia was the runner-up.

And that’s about it.

What’s next: Another DRAW (!!!). :D Since I’m still in old movies mood, the draw will be from the 1950s and the 1960s. The 16 years entering the draw will be 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967, 1968 and 1969. [1950, 1957, 1965 & 1966 already discussed].

After announcing the new Best Actress year, I will post my very early predictions for Oscars 2015.

To see other BEST ACTRESS years discussed so far, they’re on the column on the right.