Sunday, March 13, 2011

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1964

1964



So the much anticipated ranking is:

I can say that I got what I expected, a standard 60s musical performance from Debbie Reynolds. Although this work is really mixed and uneven, there are some scenes to admire or at least like about it. It's nothing mindblowing or ground-breaking but it did not bother me that much, so I don't feel bad about it.
This is a great performance by the magnificent Sophia Loren, which may not be her career best but it's still very good work. Although there are amazing scenes in this work, the really common comedy scenes drag Sophia's performance down. She's still wonderful but she could have been once again mindblowingly brilliant.

This performance is also extremely hard to judge. It's full of fantastic scenes and it's overall effect is just brilliant and just like with Bancroft, I am not really sure what I am going to think about her. However, I just cannot overlook that Kim Stanley was able to put on a chilling and unforgettable performance as Myra Savage.

This is an incredibly hard performance to judge. Anne chose all the difficult and risky ways with her character but she succeeded and she was able to put on a shocking, perplexing and terrying character study of a woman who has serious problems in her life.
It's a great achievement and it's no wonder that it became an iconic performance among children. Because if you really want to see the wonders of this role, you must loose yourself and (and just like Banks) become a child again for two hours. I may be alone with this but I think that this is fantastic work.

So I can proudly announce
that my winner is...
Julie Andrews
in
Mary Poppins
Julie is preparing to accept this award... :)
Final thoughts: A superb year but the performances were all so difficult to rate. My reaction to Julie Andrews was just as shocking to me as it was to you. Loren was great as expected, Bancroft was the most difficult to rate ever but now there are small problems that occured. I knew that Reynolds would suck and I loved Stanley when I first saw her, she was in a Bryan Forbes movie, so there was no surprise about her. However, after all Julie Andrews was a clear cut winner despite some tough competition from Kim Stanley. I think many of you think I'm crazy but I was truly captivated by Julie's performance and its mysteriousness.

Omissions: 
  • Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady (she was way better than Debbie Reynolds)
About the next year: I couldn't decide between two (consecutive) years. Both are said to be quite weak and yet I'm so interested in both of them. Plus they are from the decade I've been ignoring for a while. However, I've chosen the second year as I've seen only one of the nominees and I love when I have new performances to discover. The clues (quite easy ones):
  • (L) Nuns (L)
  • (L) Soaps (L)
  • Viva Italia!
What do you think?

Off-topic: I saw 127 Hours yesterday. It was BRILLIANT and would have deserved Best Picture (tied with Black Swan), Actor, Editing and Song. You lose a lot if you don't watch it in a movie theater (fantastic cinematogrpahy BTW and a directing that should have WON and it wasn't even nominated).

6 comments:

Sage Slowdive said...

The next year 1957?

dinasztie said...

Maybe. ;) I'm not telling yet. :D

Louis Morgan said...

I have not seen the others, so maybe Andrews is the best. Also I really have not watched Mary Poppins in a while, so perhaps I should watch again.

joe burns said...

I'm surprised Andrews beat the other two, but I'm glad. She barely gets any love.

dinasztie said...

Joe: That's unfortunately true.

Fritz said...

Somehow I am not surprised! :-)
Great work!

But I don't think that Julie Andrews doesn't get any love, I think her victory is very popular. I might have some complaints about the role itself but I agree that she is lovely.