The Next Year

1962

So the nominees were:

• Anne Bancroft in The Miracle Worker
• Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
• Katharine Hepburn in Long Day's Journey Into Night
• Geraldine Page in Sweet Bird of Youth
• Lee Remick in Days of Wine and Roses

A legendary year that looks WOW! Which one of these brilliant actresses will get my vote?

What do you think? What's your ranking? What's your prediction for my ranking?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1992

1992

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Michelle Pfeiffer in Love Field

I'm a bit clueless about how I felt about this performance. I mean, I really liked it and it was surely very entertaining as I was watching it but it was not something that really blew my socks off. Michelle is very good as Lurene, making her a very likeable person despite the fact that we shouldn't really like her. I appreciate the effort, it just didn't blow me away. But there's something about her that makes me really like her.

4. Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil

Just like her whole performance, as Susan Sarandon is really memorable and moving as Michaela Odone, a woman who refuses to give up on her son's life. Although she's nothing truly mindblowing, she works extremely well with the characters and shows her emotions exceptionally. Really great work.

3. Catherine Deneuve in Indochine

Sorry haters, I'm not one of you as I was totally taken by Catherine Deneuve's wonderful performance in Indochine. Catherine put on an incredibly subtle but extremely haunting performance that is unforgettable for me. She got everything right and despite the screentime issues she really amazed me.

2. Emma Thompson in Howards End

Although Margaret Schlegel is a sort of unspectacular character, the performance of Emma Thompson in Howards End is nothing short of spectacular. Despite the little bit slow beginning, I found this work of hers fantastic and I was totally taken by her. It's a true testament to her greatness that the performance is still growing on me and I think so much about it.

1. Mary McDonnell in Passion Fish

This is a wonderful performance that I loved from the beginning to the end. Although it's not a mindblowing piece of work, it's still exceptional and should be much more often talked about. Mary McDonnell created a very memorable and much more layered character than one would expect. She excellently shows this character's pain plus she's a real treat to watch.

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Mary McDonnell

in

Passion Fish

This one was very close.

Final thoughts: This year was way better than I expected. Surprising outcome, even for me. I thought Emma would be a shoo-in (and I thought only Catherine could upset). Although none of these performances was an amazing achievement, they were all impressive. Ranking the Deneuve-McDonnell-Sarandon-Thompson qurtett was incredibly difficult. Then it came down to Catherine vs. Mary and it was even harder. I really did not know how to decide but I hope I made the right decision. In the end, I went with Mary's adorably bitchy and heartbreaking performance as the daytime actress. Somehow she stayed in my mind the longest. Michelle was really good though I found her a bit lacking, many are criticising Catherine in Indochine but I loved her. The other ladies were all wonderful.

Omissions:

• Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act 
• Michelle Pfeiffer in Batman Returns
• Tilda Swinton in Orlando
• Alfre Woodard in Passion Fish  *My Pick*

About the next year: It's no secret that it will be 1962. :)

What do you think?

Catherine Deneuve in Indochine

Catherine Deneuve received her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Eliane, an unmarried French woman, who raises a Vietnamese princess in the movie Indochine. Although Catherine Deneuve was probably the biggest international star of the line-up, she might have received the least votes. This must have been a rather unexpected nomination as she hadn't been nominated for a Golden Globe and she didn't win critics' awards. So this must have been a pleasant surprise for everyone, except for maybe Sharon Stone who (in my opinion) was the runner-up for her (sort of) iconic performance in Basic Instinct.

Although Indochine won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, it's not very popular nowadays. Most people say it's overlong and really boring but for me it was a truly wonderful experience. It's so beautifully made, exceptionally directed and cinematographed. The settings, the costumes, everything was so beautiful about it. The technical part was flawless and it was a really grand movie experience. I guess that's the reason why it (deservedly) won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. The acting was pretty decent all around. Everyone turned in very even and proper work.

Including French screen goddess Catherine Deneuve who received her only Oscar nomination (to date) for playing this role. For me the fact that this is her only nomination is quite stunning as she's the lady who gave terrific performances in legendary movies like Belle de Jour. All in all, she's a wonderful actress and an astonishing beauty therefore I was really hoping that I would be amazed by this performance of hers. I've always been into French performances. There seems to be always a kind of distance between the audience and the actor and there's still such an unusual connection between them. Catherine Deneuve's acting is always very minimal and incredibly subtle so I didn't really expect a loud performance. Many think that she's a limited actress but I'm not one of them. I feel that her style can work incredibly sometimes and I love how distant she always is. The beginning of the movie is just brilliant: we see her in black clothes with a Vietnamese orphan whom she takes as her own daughter. The look on Catherine's face is just incredible. I was captivated at the beginning of the movie and that was so great.

Deneuve's beauty helps her a great deal and not because she's a real treat to look at. Or maybe because of it. She has a very haunting presence and she always seems to be like a ghost on the screen. I felt that she portrayed the spirit of Eliane who shows up, chills us and then she's gone. There's something incredibly disturbing about her sometimes and I don't get it why she makes me tense sometimes. Many say that she overdid the frigidness of her character but again I don't agree with them. I never felt that she was colder than she was supposed to be. Her character has an affair with a young soldier and Catherine is excellent in their scenes. Her icy persona is really something that I'm crazy about. I think whenever she needed to, she added as much passion to her character as she could.

Her chemistry with Eliane's daughter is also excellent. I saw them as mother and daughter but also as rivals fighting for their love. However, Catherine always made me wonder about the behaviour of her character. She made Eliane so deliciously mysterious. It was really impressive. Just like her narration. I loved listening to her voice as there was so much emotion in it and those were some of the most memorable moments in her work.

Unfortunately, for about an hour, she's barely on the screen. The movie works without her quite well (that might be a problem for her, I might add) but somehow when she returned, her presence was so strong that she made me forget about the screentime issues. Some of the best moments came like her Oscar clip when she confronts her old "friend" about a horrible death". That emotional outburst was sort of unexpected and yet it worked. But above, I was completely taken away by the scenes where we saw Eliane looking for her lost daughter. When she finds her, it was such an earth-shattering moment for me. I felt tons of emotions in myself and it was just amazing. The hope in her eyes and the willingness to fight was just wonderful. In some time, they lose contanct and they never see each other but it's a wonderful moment when she says why she doesn't want to meet. We see her in sunglasses and she looks so mysterious and wonderful. She very much reminded me of Greta Garbo. Both of them are wonderful, beautiful European superstars who have such powerful presence. I almost expected Catherine to say "I want to be left alone". Wonderful moment.

Sorry haters, I'm not one of you as I was totally taken by Catherine Deneuve's wonderful performance in Indochine. Catherine put on an incredibly subtle but extremely haunting performance that is unforgettable for me. She got everything right and despite the screentime issues she really amazed me.

What do you think?

Mary McDonnell in Passion Fish

Mary McDonnell received her second Oscar nomination for playing May-Alice Culhane, a paralysed and quite bitchy soap opera actress in Passion Fish. I guess McDonnell was not a major player for the Academy Award in 1992. Although many people must have liked her, she wasn't famous enough to get ahead of Michelle or Susan. I guess she had to settle for a comfortable fourth placed and she had to say eventually that it's an honor just to be nominated.

Passion Fish was the most pleasant surprise of the films I've seen for this year. I didn't expect anything but a lame, boring TV movie and yet I saw a beautiful, humorous and lovely film that I would gladly rewatch any time. Everything is so relaxing about it: it's excellently written (might have deserved the Oscar) and directed plus it has a wondeful soundtrack. Overall, it's a wondeful experience, especially if we take a look at the performances. Alfre Woodard is nothing short of amazing in her role. In my opinion, she should have won the Supporting Actress Oscar (she wasn't even nominated). But Nancy Mette's cameo is also brilliant.

Mary McDonnell (in my opinion) is a really good actress. I wouldn't say that I'm a fan of hers but I've never been disappointed by her performances. I loved her as Donnie Darko's worried mom, she was reat in Battlestar Galactica (at least in the 5 minutes I saw) and I also loved her in Dances with Wolves (I know, I know). So I didn't expect a towering achievement from her in Passion Fish, only a very entertaining piece of work that relaxes me. And hold on to your seats: she lived up to all of my expectations. In fact, she went beyond them. But more on that later.

McDonnell plays May-Alice, a bitchy soap opera actress who's forced to live in a wheelchair, depending on nurses and she's a bit fed up with the whole situation. In fact, none of the nurses is able ti put up with her, except for Alfre Woodard's character. First we see how they are getting to know each other and such things. Their relationship doesn't go the way one would expect and yet everything is believable about them. Both actresses are at the top of their game, so they work wonderfully together. I felt no competition between them and they really seemed to be very supportive of each other. They were never trying to play each other off and that's really great, in my opinion. I think this works mostly with women. I think male actors tend to be much more competitive in movies than female actors and this movie was another proof of that thought of mine. Alfre Woodard is amazing (as I said) but she never overshadows Mary McDonnell and steps over at her big scenes.

Mary McDonnell's performance as May-Alice (just like Passion Fish) is a very interesting mix of comedy and drama. I would say it's very bittersweet. When I read the story and the reviews about her, I thought that she was going to be much more bitchy and mean and yet I really liked her character. There was something adorably human about her. I don't necessarily think that she's that much of a bitch. Her behaviour was understandable in that situation, I guess. However, the bitchy scenes are nailed by McDonnell. She's so incredibly entertaining there and the touch of irony that she gives to the character makes it all perfect. I loved the scene where she's visited by two women who made her life hell at school and then they sucked up to her. McDonnell excells there: the way she says "it was me" or "It's a joke, precious." is hilarious.

A somewhat similar scene comes where she meets her castmates from the soap opera. Their conversation is really heart-breaking actually (that "anal probe line" that comes from Nancy Mette is indeed great) and Mary had very much to do with it. The development of May-Alice was best shown there by McDonnell. Somehow, I felt that May-Alice became a different person by her accident. Overall, this character had much more layers than one would initially think. McDonnell was very tricky that way but I did not really mind. It was just excellent.

And I didn't even mention the tender scenes with her and David Strathairn. I loved how Mary suggested that May-Alice begins to fall in love. And the scene with the passion fish is indeed great. Somehow, May-Alice seems to be much calmer and kinder in time.

Overall, this is a wonderful performance that I loved from the beginning to the end. Although it's not a mindblowing piece of work, it's still exceptional and should be much more often talked about. Mary McDonnell created a very memorable and much more layered character than one would expect. She excellently shows this character's pain plus she's a real treat to watch.

Final prediction time! :)

Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil

Susan Sarandon received her third Oscar nomination for playing Michaela Odone, a woman who's desperately fighting for the life of her son in the movie Lorenzo's Oil. If I really think about it, Susan Sarandon might have even been second to Emma Thompson in the voting. First of all, she was a previous nominee and many think she should have won the previous year for Thelma and Louise. Moreover, her role in Lorenzo's Oil is very sympathetic and I feel that the Academy must have been moved by this very simple story.

Lorenzo's Oil is a really good movie, in my opinion. It's way better than some say and I never felt it too long or boring. It's very well directed and written (though some say the opposite). Lorenzo's Oil really has a purpuse and I loved that it didn't just work for the tears. In fact, I felt it was really interesting from a point of view. Nick Nolte's performance is constantly bashed but I don't think that he was that terrible. Sure, the accent was overdone but apart from that, he wasn't that bad. I must underline Margo Martindale's performance which, in my opinion, should have been recognised some way. It's great that the world is realising how great she is.

Susan Sarandon is a very intelligent, interesting actress who was probably the greatest diva of the ninties. Sure, some might argue with that but I think that she's more than special. That being said, I had somewhat high expectations from this performance of hers in Lorenzo's Oil and she actually lived up to them much more than I would've thought. It's no wonder that she was asked to play Michaela after Michelle Pfeiffer dropped out (wonder if she had won the Oscar with this part). Sarandon has all the necessary qualities to play Michaela. Intelligence, subtlty and a very expressive face.

Michaela seems to be a cliché role and yet in Susan's interpretation she doesn't seem to be one. In fact, Susan added so many layers to her and totally inhabited her. The best thing about this work was that (just like the movie) Susan didn't do this for the tears. You can feel the commitment in her to play such a part. I felt that not only did she understand all the problems of this character but she also added a deeper meaning to her feelings. There's some kind of a universal nature in this part. Susan doesn't play only Michaela, she plays all the mothers in the world, shows their reactions and we also get to see her struggle.

Another thing that I love about her is that she never falls into the traps of such a role. She never becomes the mother in the corner whose teary eyes are visible and says uplifting monologues about her child. In fact, Susan makes her really hard to like. She shows all the meltdowns and dark moments of this woman who's haunted by her own demons. She becomes hysterical with the nurses and doctors and yet there's an incredible amount of love and tenderness in her when we see her talking to her child. This really sounds like a cliché but it isn't really. As I said, Susan always gives believable reactions.

I think she also works well with Nick Nolte. Although I don't think that Nolte is that terrible, he's still much weaker than Sarandon. However, Susan was able to find a perfect balance and that way it all worked. They (or at least Susan) really seemed to be very supportive of each other, never trying to outplay the other. I never noticed any selfishness in Sarandon's work.

There are some really emotional moments and Sarandon nailed them all. Her famous "Fly to Baby Jesus" moment is a really hearbreaking scene (despite its surprising shortness). However, I liked the ending more when she realises that there's still some hope for her son. She never becomes soappy at all, which is a pretty great achievement.

Just like her whole performance, as Susan Sarandon is really memorable and moving as Michaela Odone, a woman who refuses to give up on her son's life. Although she's nothing truly mindblowing, she works extremely well with the characters and shows her emotions exceptionally. Really great work.

What do you think?

Michelle Pfeiffer in Love Field

Michelle Pfeiffer received her third Oscar nomination for playing Lurene Hallett, a bored housewife who idolizes Jackie Kennedy in Love Field. Michelle, Michelle. After becoming the victim of one of the biggest Oscar injustices in history with her brilliant performance in The Fabulous Baker Boys, one would expect the Academy to make up for their stupid mistake. I think she might have been second in the end but a third place is more likely. Although this performance is far from her brilliant turn in The Fabulous Baker Boys, I wouldn't be pissed about a make-up award for her.

Love Field is a very small but entertaining movie which is a little bit clichéd and predictable despite the brilliant idea. I think with Lurene's character, this could have been an even more interesting story (the Jackie Kennedy storyline becomes secondary in the end, unfortunately). This way, it's just a very decent flick which is watchable once or twice but you wouldn't want to see it often. Although Denzel Washington was intended to play the lead, Dennis Haysbert was a fine choice, in my opinion. He gives a performance that's really similar to his work in Far from Heaven.

I so love Michelle Pfeiffer. Although I don't consider myself a real fan of hers, I do admire her a lot. She's so damn talented and beautiful and that combination makes her the perfect movie star. I really wish that she got a role really worthy of her talent and greatness (one that could win her the Oscar). Because of that, I would have had big expectations from her performance in Love Field but after the mixed reviews, I decided to just watch her.

This is a pretty divisive work. Some go crazy for it, some not so much and some don't like it at all. First, I'd say that I liked her in this movie but I wasn't really blown away. If you have a knockout performance (like Michelle had with The Fabulous Baker Boys) that could be the worst curse on you. While I was watching Love Field, I always thought "Oh, she's pretty good but she was SO much better in Baker Boys." I so wanted to focus exclusively on this performance but somehow I never totally managed to do so.

First, I cannot really decide if her role was really difficult. Sure, the Texan accent is difficult to pull off (I guess, I never tried it to tell the truth :P) and some are criticsing her for her accent. For me, it was absolutely no problem. In fact, I felt that Michelle meant to exaggerate it in order to make Lurene more annoying. I liked that Michelle was able to make me relate to the character despite the fact that she was quite annoying sometimes. Lurene doesn't have a goal in her life, except for making it to JFK's funeral so that she could comfort Jackie. On the road she meets a black man and her daughter. Eventually, she fails, she's searched for, arrested and so on.

Michelle's chemistry with Dennis Haysbert is quite good (don't expect like the one with Jeff Bridges, Baker Boys again, shut up). I really believed the tension between them and they seemed like an odd but somehow realistic couple. I was surprised by the love scene between them but it worked for me, really.

I liked how Michelle showed that something became really important for Lurene. She handles the big emotional scenes very well and I really felt for her character. She didn't even overdo the quite sentimental ending. In fact, she made it quite touching. Despite the illogical things in the screenplay (I mean his couch potato husband turns out to be an aggressive bastard), Michelle was able to keep the story very realistic.

In the end, I'm a bit clueless about how I felt about this performance. I mean, I really liked it and it was surely very entertaining as I was watching it but it was not something that really blew my socks off. Michelle is very good as Lurene, making her a very likeable person despite the fact that we shouldn't really like her. I appreciate the effort, it just didn't blow me away. But there's something about her that makes me really like her.

The rating was not easy at all. This 4 has a lot to do with my generousity and the fact that I gave a 4 to Judi in Iris and Michelle was better.

What do you think?

Emma Thompson in Howards End

Emma Thompson received her first Academy Award for playing Margaret Schlegel, the heroine of E.M. Forster's in the Best Picture nominated adaptation of the novel Howards End. Right now, it seems to be that Emma Thompson's win was pretty locked, which is surprising for many reasons. Of course, the Academy has always had a thing for the British but it's still surprising that they gave her the win for a low-key performance over superstars like Michelle Pfeiffer. Emma Thompson's win is one of the most original picks by the Academy as they really seemed to be voting for the performance that they considered the best.

What a movie! I didn't use to be one of the major fans of Howards End but that might just change now. When I saw the DVD, I was hesitant to buy it but boy now I'm so glad that I did. This is such a beautiful, wonderful, fantastic, spectacular, gripping, excting, romantic and unforgettable film. Although I'm not much of a fan of the Ivory-Merchant duo, I was totally taken by this one. I'd say all the nominations were worthy the wins for Adapted Screenplay and Art Direction were richly deserved and I would have given it the win for Picture, Cinematography and Score. Vanessa Redgrave was very good in this role but hers was probably the only nomination that I wouldn't give out immediately.

Emma Thompson is an excellent actress, in my humble opinion, with a brilliant sense of humor. Her subtle and/or witty acting style always impresses me. She has a wonderful presence on the screen and she always becomes so magnetic despite the fact that her roles are mostly silent and she plays them in a very subtle way. I can see why some don't like her that much. She doesn't have huge breakdowns with tons of tears, she's not tearing her hear and such things. Her type of acting is very delicate, subtle and it contains so much underlying beauty.

In Howards End, Emma Thompson play Margaret Schlegel, a very intelligent woman who's destined to become a spinster but her life turns upside down when her good friend dies and her late husband offers Margaret to marry her. At the beginning of the film, we see the intelligence and the kindness of Margaret shining through the screen and Emma shows it just like she had to. Although in the beginning she's a bit weaker compared to the rest of her performance, she still does a great job at portraying the traits of Margaret. Her scenes with Vanessa Redgrave are excellent and it's wonderful to see two such great actresses together on the screen. I especially loved the Christmas shopping which turned out to be one of the best scenes in the movie.

Another interesting thing that I noticed is that Thompson portrayed Margaret as a woman who plays the role of the mother with her siblings. She's pampering them, conforting them and always tries to do the best for them. The self-sacrificing side of hers is excellently shown by Emma and it resulted in many really moving scenes.

Some are quite critical of Anthony Hopkins' performance as Henry Wilcox, Margaret's husband but I didn't notice the mistakes in his acting while he played with Emma. They really seemed to be enjoying working together and the result of their cooperation speak for themselves. I loved the quiet tension in the scenes where they were arguing with each other. Their big confrontation towards the end is excellently handled by both of them (I loved the way Emma Thompson's neck was twitching when Hopkins shouted at her).

However, Emma does wonders with the roles when also when she's alone and there's nobody else. She has no huge breakdowns but there's one scene where she cries in front of a mirror. A very short, underplayed sequence that had such huge effect on me that I really cannot forget it. It's probably one of the best subtly acted scenes in history. Emma avoids the trap of making this a very huge, loud scene as it really wouldn't fit the character.

Although Margaret Schlegel is a sort of unspectacular character, the performance of Emma Thompson in Howards End is nothing short of spectacular. Despite the little bit slow beginning, I found this work of hers fantastic and I was totally taken by her. It's a true testament to her greatness that the performance is still growing on me and I think so much about it. Excellent job, which gets an extremely strong

It was almost a 5 but I just compared her to some of the ladies and 4,5 seemed to be the most fair grade.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1992

So the nominees were:

• Catherine Deneuve in Indochine
• Mary McDonnell in Passion Fish
• Michelle Pfeiffer in Love Field
• Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil
• Emma Thompson in Howards End

This one is said to be a weak year but to me all fields are interesting, so let's see how these great ladies will do.

What do you think? What's your ranking? What's your prediction for my ranking?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1961

1961

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Geraldine Page in Summer and Smoke

I don't think that this performance of Geraldine Page is all that special. I mean, she's plays the part properly and she has lots of great moments but altogether, she's far from brilliant. Apart from the beginning, she played Alma just like she had to and she put on very decent work that could be expected from an actress of her calibre. However, she's not as amazing as some say.

4. Piper Laurie in The Hustler

This is not a performance for the ages but Piper Laurie is very good as Sarah in The Hustler. Although sometimes she's too overshadowed by Paul Newman, her work never loses its strength and occasionally, we see truly brilliant, unforgettable scenes. Her achievement is very evenly great and therefore she deserves some praise.

3. Natalie Wood in Splendor in the Grass

Natalie Wood took on a very difficult role and despite some early mistake, she put on a wonderful performance as Deanie Loomis. She portrayed all the fears and the tension so realistically and exceptionally that she became a truly luminous presence on the screen. She develops the character excellently, avoiding all the traps and obviousness that could have ruined her work.

2. Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's

It really must be my sentimental side that came to surface while I was watching this movie but I couldn't care less. I understand why some could criticise it but for me, Audrey Hepburn's work as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's is deservedly one of the most iconic performances of all time. Not only has Audrey Hepburn created an unforgettable character, but also some marvellous acting.

1. Sophia Loren in Two Women

I know I should sum up his performance somehow but I feel that my whole review was the shortened version of how I feel about her. Nothing can come close to this wonderful emotionality, the radiant, brilliant personality of Sophia Loren (none of the Hollywood stars of her time can come close to her). This watch of the movie and my review was the ultimate test of my love for this performance and it passed. With distinction. :)

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Sophia Loren

in

Two Women

Easy win.

Congratulations to Fritz and Louis on the correct predictions! :) You got a prize but since you got it right only after 4 reviews you can both pick only from these 10 possibilities: 1943, 1953, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1976, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1999.

Final thoughts: BRILLIANT year! I so loved this year. All of them interesting, strong performances. Two very good ones, one really great and two legendary ones. I'm happy that I had to opportunity to do this wonderful year. I feel bad about not picking Audrey (so far, she's my best one not to win, I refuse to say loser) as that performance was worthy of an Oscar. However, no tie was possible. This award belonged to Sophia alone and the Academy somehow (what a miracle) realised that. So I've agreed with the Academy 3 years in a row. :)

Omissions: Jeanne Moreau in La Notte

About the next year: It's no secret that it will be 1992. :)

What do you think?

Sophia Loren in Two Women

Sophia Loren received her first Academy Award nomination and only competitive Oscar to date for playing Cesira, a young Italian widow, who's trying to survive the horrors of WWII along with her daughter in Two Women. Sophia Loren basically won every award for this performance of hers, except for the Golden Globe for which she wasn't even nominated (that's about the Hollywood Foreign Press Association). The 60s were such beautiful times when the Golden Globe winner for Best Actress in a Drama never won (I miss those days when there were surprise winners). I guess if this role had been in English it would have been a shoo-in for the win but thankfully, it won. If we think about it it could not have been any other way. I mean can anyone imagine Sophia Loren without an Oscar? Well, at least I can't.

Two Women is a fantastic movie, in my opinion. I guess this kind of Italian realism is not for everyone but I so love the purity it. There are small leftovers in Two Women from the neorealism (after all it was directed by the brilliant Vittorio de Sica) and it's such a wonderful, touching tale about real women. It's also really interesting to see Jean-Paul Belmondo at such an early age (he almost cannot be recognised).

However, Two Women as a title is a little bit misleading. To tell the truth, it's such a stupid translation (very much like the Hungarian title that says A Woman and her Daughter) as the original title means "the woman from Ciociara". And that says something very significant. It says that this story is mainly about one woman and that is Cesira, played by the wonderful, unforgettable, beautiful and talented Sophia Loren. There's a reason why this performance is considered legendary. It gives the essence of Sophia Loren's whole character and it sums up her career so brilliantly. Katharine Hepburn once said that always the right actors win Oscars, for the wrong roles. That's simply not the case with Sophia Loren. She's really the one who got the award for the performance of her lifetime. Before this, in Hollywood, Sophia Loren was considered the sexy, sensual Latin woman who's singing to Cary Grant's children. If you're looking for this Sophia Loren, you'll surely be surprised but not disappointed. I guess that's another reason that contributed to her win: this was such a stunning, shocking achievement that you would never expect from a sex symbol.

It's amazing to see how many faces of Cesira Sophia shows. She's playing with the emotions so confidently and yet she never gets self-satisfied. Obviously, she knows what she's doing but I never felt that she was as self-aware as her fellow nominee, Geraldine Page. While the technical part of the performance, the timing and such are all brilliant, it's the stunning emotions that are really memorable in this work. They range from pride to desperation, through fear, passion, anger, fury, happiness, grief, sorrow, worry and above all, love. Above all, this performance is a beautiful tribute to women's (especially mother's) love. How strong it can be and that it can survive anything and such. It sounds very cheesy but it's all there in Sophia's performance and it seems so natural. In my review of Penélope Cruz in Volver, I was raving about Cruz's ability to recreate the greatness and earthy strength of the women of the European cinema in the twentieth century. However, in Two Women, it's all present in its true, original form, without any irony. Sophia Loren walks on the street, you see her and you're just blown away by her presence. You instantly say "What a woman!".

This performance is much more than that, though. Loren's chemistry with Eleonora Brown (the girl who plays her daughter, Rosetta) is just excellent. You see them as mother and daughter and I alway believe that Cesira would really sacrifice her life for her. Sophia made this relationship so real and so close to the audience that it's really astonishing. The constant worry that we see on Sophia's face in each and every second is so heart-breaking. I knew that horrible things would happen to them and yet I was hoping just like she was hoping. The scene where she tries to collect as much food as possible is just unforgettable. And her small interactions with Jean-Paul Belmondo are utterly fantastic. There's so much tension between them and they make some of the best scenes in this film.

However, the parts that are really unforgettable (and in the worst way possible) are in the last 20 minutes of the movie. Cesira and her daughter are gang raped by soldiers in a church and it's an almost unbearable scene. Those screams, the fear in the eyes. Sophia is so brutally realistic there that I really had trouble trying to go on. After that, Cesira gets deeper and deeper into devastation. Her big monologue (which would be her Oscar clip if she was nominated now) where she attacks some soldiers is almost as terrifying as the rape scene. Sophia mercilessly shows all the effects of this horrible thing. That hysterical cry and the way she puts her hand on her face. Brilliant, heart-breaking, unforgettable. And so are the last seconds of film where we see a broken, devastated and yet somehow hoping Cesira. I identified with Cesira's emotions so much that I totally forgot everything. It was just her, not me. It's chilling to see her tears rolling. So perfect, so natural and so tragic. And the best thing is that Sophia always remains beautiful. It's not a deglam role. Her radiant beauty (which comes from her personality, above all) shines through the screen and matched with her wonderful acting, they make up a cathartic experience. Unbelievable.

I know I should sum up his performance somehow but I feel that this whole review was the shortened version of how I feel about her. Nothing can come close to this wonderful emotionality, the radiant, brilliant personality of Sophia Loren (none of the Hollywood stars of her time can come close to her). This watch of the movie and my review was the ultimate test of my love for this performance and it passed. With distinction. :)

Again, the rating is so useless but the system should work.

What do you think?

Natalie Wood in Splendor in the Grass

Natalie Wood received her second Oscar nomination for playing Deanie Loomis, a furstrated teenage girl in Elia Kazan's movie, Splendor in the Grass. Many people were supporting Natalie's win back then and yet I don't think that I would have bet on her back then. Hedda Hopper was raging in her vicious style and writing in her paper that Natalie Wood was robbed of the Oscar. Besides her performance, there were many things going for her, she starred as Maria in West Side Story, a movie that received 10 Oscars plus she was a real star back then. However, she didn't win the precursor awards.

Splendor in the Grass is a very good movie and yet I had some problems with it. Although it was very exceptionally directed and the screenplay was quite good (though not worthy of an Oscar win over La dolce vita and especially Ballad of a Soldier), somehow the whole thing didn't tie me down at all and I quite often found myself struggling to pay attention, mostly during Warren Beatty's scenes, which were quite boring, in my opinion and lacked the real emotional tension. Some things were too shallowly mentioned and not talked about enough.

However, that doesn't apply to Natalie Wood's scenes. Although Natalie Wood's reputation could be better, she's really great as Deanie in Splendor in the Grass. It's the kind of role that she had already played in Rebel Without a Cause but Deanie is quite different from Judy. In some of Natalie Wood's performances, I felt something quite artificial and it was obvious that she was a child actor. The latter could be observed in Splendor in the Grass, too. There was a scene where Deanie is breaking down to Warren Beatty's character, Bud. It was just like watching Elizabeth Taylor, even Natalie's voice was just like Taylor's. Both of them grew up in front of the camera and we can see the old Hollywood in them (and its acting style). However, that's not a serious problem for me.

Many consider this one to be Natalie Wood's greatest performance. Although I haven't seen enough from her to decide, I'm saying that this is indeed the best work that I've seen from her. She excells at showing Deanie's pain and fears without overdoing these emotions. I guess the fact that she had one of the best directors an actor could have (Elia Kazan) helped her a lot and many times I really saw her transforming into Deanie.

In the beginning, she seems to be little bit off and I felt that it was a bit shaky but her performance improved a lot in a very short time. Her presence became quite magnetic and I really just couldn't take my eyes off the screen. In each and every moment, there was such emotional tension in her and that was probably the best way to portray such a character. Right now, I cannot even think about any other actress who portrayed a teenage girl so well. I really can't. There's nothing sugary about Natalie, nothing was exagerrated and each of her choices were good. Again, the guidance of the director was very important but after all it was Natalie who put on this performance.

Deanie is madly in love with a boy named Bud but she's terrified of any sexual contact but in a much different way than Geraldine Page in Summer and Smoke. Natalie showed this fear with much realism and I really felt sorry for Deanie. After all, she gets to a mental institution and the scenes which show how she got to that point are played brilliantly. Deanie sinks deeper and deeper into desperation and Wood showed her transformation excellently. This development is really extraordinary because Wood doesn't look for the easy way, instead she was really fearless and wanted to create something very realistic. And she succeeded. Deanie became a very real character with whom you could easily identify.

Natalie Wood took on a very difficult role and despite some early mistake, she put on a wonderful performance as Deanie Loomis. She portrayed all the fears and the tension so realistically and exceptionally that she became a truly luminous presence on the screen. She develops the character excellently, avoiding all the traps and obviousness that could have ruined her work.

What do you think?

Geraldine Page in Summer and Smoke

Geraldine Page received her second Oscar nomination for playing Alma Winemiller, the shy, sexually frustrated daughter of a minister in Summer and Smoke. Although Page won the Golden Globe for Best Actress (drama), I don't think that she had much of a chance of winning the Oscar that year. Too many stars were competing in that category and they all starred in very succesful movies that are now considered classic. Still, I feel that Page was ahead of Piper Laurie.

Summer and Smoke is a very entertaining movie. I mean Tennessee Williams was such an excellent writer and he created some of the best stories ever. This is not one of his best, though but that doesn't say much as even his weakest is among the best and this is not his weakest effort. Summer and Smoke (apart from the great story) is very well directed, acted, in short it's a really quality piece. Laurence Harvey is not an actor who's admired by many (my beloved Jane Fonda was not one of his fans, either as it seemed) but I think he was able to be really great and this performance of his is the best I've seen from him (besides Room at the Top). I really believe that he should have been nominated. Una Merkel did receive a nomination but she was quite unworthy of it, I think.

Geraldine Page seems to be dividing people much more than I used to think. Some are crazy about her skills and her immense talent (F. Murray Abraham is one of her biggest fans) and some are criticising her for being too over-the-top and self-aware. Personally, I admire her very much. Yes, she can be a little bit theatrical but I so love stage actresses in movies because of the energy that they give to the motion picture roles. Interesting enough, what I saw in Summer and Smoke justified both the love and the hate for Ms. Page.

She plays the neurotic preacher's daughter, a shy spinster who's terrified even by a touch of a man. However, she falls badly for Laurence Harvey's character and we get to see how their "relationship" goes. I really liked their chemistry on the screen and I was surprised how believable their "romance" was. I mean, I've seen actresses portraying spinster who are desperately in love with a man but this relationship was so different from them. Alma is neither too shy nor possessive. There's a bit of this and a bit of that.

As I said, this performance can be a justification for the both the admirers and the haters of Geraldine Page. In the beginning, Page is obnoxious and unbearable. She played Alma in such way too theatrically. I just felt so confused about her and I had trouble warming up to her work. It felt like watching a menstruating Deborah Kerr. In short, I didn't like her at all. That lasted for about 15 minutes and after that there seemed to be a wonderful change in either me or the performance.

In this movie, we can see many of Geraldine Page's famous nervous ticks and she excellently uses them when she needs to. I really loved her mentally unstable character in Interiors and her breakdowns there were so delicious and enjoyable so I hoped I would see something like that here. And I did, in fact. Whenever Page looked at Laurence Harvey, I felt that Alma's character is actually more controlling and manipulative than one would think and deep she tries to corner him emotionally with her breakdowns. Although John is also fooling around with Alma, Alma is not that different from him.

After all, Page got the shy personality of Alma right and she played that aspect of the character very well, despite the fact that the huge emotional scenes were the real highlights. Her big breakdown towards the end when she realizes the truth about her love is just excellently played by her. I really felt the character's pain and that scene was really intense.

Still, I don't think that this performance of Geraldine Page is all that special. I mean, she's great and she has a lots of great moments but altogether, she's not that brilliant. Apart from the beginning, she played Alma just like she had to and she put on very decent work that could be expected from an actress of her calibre. However, she's not as amazing as some say.

What do you think? (I forgot to grade Piper last time but she'll also get a 4.)

Piper Laurie in The Hustler

Piper Laurie received her first Oscar nomination for playing Sarah Packard, a depressed girlfriend of a hustler in the Best Picture nominee, The Hustler. I'm quite sure that Laurie was the fourth runner-up. First, her role was not big enough to get enough votes plus the Academy didn't seem quite willing to give many awards to The Hustler. Moreover, the other nominees were much bigger names than Piper Laurie. I guess Laurie got closest to winning with Carrie and it was her time. I guess in her case the nomination was the reward.

The Hustler is such a terrific movie. Actually, I even think now that it should have won Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay. It's so dark and realistic (that's probably why it lost the Best Picture to the sugar coating of West Side Story). I loved the cinematography (deserved Oscar win) as it made the atmosphere even more depressing. Paul Newman is nothing short of amazing in the lead. I mean, I still can't believe how he could lose. This seemed to be such an Oscar moment (just like it was with Michelle Pfeiffer in The Fabulous Baker Boys) and he never gave a better performance. The supporting actors are pretty great, too though now I've become a bit uncertain who would get my vote in that category.

Piper Laurie is an excellent character actress who's the best at playing very meaty supporting roles. People mostly remember her as the fanatically religious mother of Carrie in the shocking Brian de Palma horror. Many say that she was robbed of the Oscar that year though I'm not 100% sure. What I'm sure is that her role in The Hustler is also a supporting one. She plays the typical depressed girlfriend, appears more than 35 minutes into the movie plus she has quite minimal screentime. The reason why she could be considered leading is probably that the character is crucial to the stoy (though that could be argued).

This is just one of the two main things this working against Laurie here. The other one is that it's pretty damn hard to give a truly knockout performance as a co-lead or a supporting player when the real lead gives the performance of a lifetime. I guess the same goes for the two nominated supporting actors here but their roles were so heavy and the characters had enough strength. And it's true: Laurie suffers a little bit from Newman's towering achievement but I felt that Newman (that's the real brilliance in his performance) let the others shine, too. He throws up all the balls to the others to catch them and Laurie barely misses them. In fact, when she's given spotlight she uses it as much as she can.

I could say that Sarah Packard is probably a distant relative of the character that Rachel Roberts played in This Sporting Life. They are both hardened, extremely depressed characters who suffer from their men and they are often humiliated by them. The characters couldn't be more alike but the actresses' approaches to them could not be any different. After watching Roberts I wanted to cut my own neck because it was so depressing but with Laurie it was kind of different. I really don't know myself how I felt. I was actually quite captivated by her sometimes.

Another criticsm could be the little bit stiff and theatrical line readings. However, I got used to that gradually and I felt that it was the part of the character. I felt that Sarah loved making a scene and be theatrical. Laurie had these big monologues and I think she handled them just as she had to. She put enough emotion into them and they all became quite strange but in a very good way.

Her last scenes are really the best, however. She really rocks in those scenes and shows some incredible acting. They didn't make the whole performance seem incredible but they indeed had a very positive effect on me and probably influenced me a lot. Her desperate last monologue to Paul Newman was handled excellently by her and I really felt what she wanted to say with those lines.

This is not a performance for the ages but Piper Laurie is very good as Sarah in The Hustler. Although sometimes she's too overshadowed by Paul Newman, her work never loses its strength and occasionally, we see truly brilliant, unforgettable scenes. Her achievement is very evenly great and therefore she deserves some praise.

What do you think?

Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's

Audrey Hepburn received her fourth Oscar nomination for playing the iconic role of Holly Golightly, a carefree, bohemian young woman in Blake Edwards' classic, Breakfast at Tiffany's. I think Audrey had a fair chance of winning her second Oscar in 1961. In fact, had I been around there, I would have placed my bet on her (or Natalie Wood) as the others didn't seem to be very likely winners. Page (although she got the Golden Globe) wasn't in a big enough movie, Natalie Wood was a bit too young to win, Sophia had the foreign language factor against her and Laurie was overshadowed by her co-stars. I guess Audrey was second or third (if they really loved Natalie).

Breakfast at Tiffany's is a classic. I think if you asked some people to say the title of one of Audrey's films, 80% would answer Breakfast at Tiffany's. And for a reason. This is a truly extraordinary movie that aged well. And it's surely loved by people. When I bought the DVD exactly a week ago in Germany at least 5 people in my group screamed when they saw my copy.I asked myself the question: Do I love it that much, too? The answer is a very firm YES. Indeed Blake Edwards created a totally originally, beautifully bittersweet fairy tale that charms people and warms up their hearts and souls.

However, there's one real reason why people love this movie that much. Surprise! It's Audrey Hepburn who created one of the ten most iconic performances of all time, in my opinion. If I'm very honest to myself, many of the performances that I love know won't be remembered at all in like 100 years. But that doesn't apply to dearest Audrey in Breakfast at Tiffany's. This istimeless, ageless work that will captivate the soul of people for ever. Some people say that Audrey was God's special gift to the Earth, a real angel. Although that seems to be a bit sentimental and cheey thought, there are times where I really believe it. For example, when I see the first minutes of Breakfast at Tiffany's. We see a beautiful, angelic person in front of the window of Tiffany's having breakfast and looking at all the diamonds and jewelry. Again, this scene really depends on your mood. If you let yourself become a little bit sentimental, you'll be amazed by Audrey instantly. The same goes for the scene where she's singing Moon River, which is probably one of the most adorable moments in history.

Holly Golightly is a much better developed character than people actually give Audrey credit for. In fact, this is a brilliant achievement by her. I loved how Audrey added all the layers to this girl. On the outside, she seems to be a very carefree, even careless bohemian girl who doesn't have much to worry about and she doesn't even want to. She feels good in her body, in her life. However, Audrey showed the vulnerable, insecure side of Holly and she gave her so much more depth than one would expect. I can compare the character to Liza Minnelli's Sally Bowles in Cabaret. Both are hopeful, carefree girls who are really unable to take responsibility even though they know what's right. They are terrified. While Sally has an abortion, Holly just throws her cat out of the cab. They act because of fear and devastation and not because they are bad in any way. Sally's hoping to have a film career, Holly still wants to bo to Brazil.

The way that Holly's relationship with her brother is shown is extraordinary. There's a tiny bit lame scene where she's screaming her brother's name in her sleep. Still, Audrey saves the scene because she didn't overdo it (it was a bit on the edge, though). For Holly, Fred is a reminder of her old life and she doesn't even try to give him up despite the fact that she's more than willing to forget her old life. It's a heart-breaking moment when she's faced with that. We see her old husband and for some minutes Holly becomes Lula Mae, the 14-year-old trying to get rid of her poverty. She finally says goodbye to her old life at the bus station and it's probably the most beautiful scene of Audrey that I've ever seen. I thought nothing of hers could top the beauty of The Nun's Story but, in fact, this one is quite close to that.

One of the biggest criticsm that Audrey usually receives that she only plays herself and relies exclusively on her charm to win the audience's sympathy. Breakfast at Tiffany's, in a weird way, disproves it (or at least in this performance). We all think that we identify Holly Golightly with Audrey Hepburn. However, if we take a closer look at it, we see how wrong that thought really is. In fact, it's really the other way around. We actually think that Audrey Hepburn IS Holly Golightly. It's no wonder since we can see the picture of her in this movie in the 75% of the shops all around the world. However, it was Audrey who got into the body of Holly and transformed herself.

I must also mention how great the comedy scenes are. I love how she poses to the press when she's arrested or how lovely she is when she's really drunk (and she doesn't overdo it). But I can also talk about her wonderful chemistry with George Peppard (The A-Team, how lovely childhood memories) whose performance is a little bit lacking. They are excellent together, though. I especially loved the scene where Holly went into Paul's apartment for the first time (and slept there). Audrey really excelled there, showing the vulnerability of Holly fascinatingly once again. You know, I really wanted Holly and Paul to be happy and everything and that's why their last scene in the rain is so adorable and yes, it's a bit soappy but it was really forgivable in this case, in my opinion.

It really must be my sentimental side that came to surface while I was watching this movie but I couldn't care less. I understand why some could criticise it but for me, Audrey Hepburn's work as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's is deservedly one of the most iconic performances of all time. Not only has Audrey Hepburn created an unforgettable character, but also some marvellous acting. She's both funny and shows all the layers and feelings of this character. Beautiful.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1961

So the nominees were:

• Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's
• Piper Laurie in The Hustler
• Sophia Loren in Two Women
• Geraldine Page in Summer and Smoke
• Natalie Wood in Splendor in the Grass

Sophia Loren made history in 1961 by becoming the first actress to win for an entirely foreign language-speaking performance. Will she be my winner, too or will I pick one of the other incredible ladies?

What do you think? What's your ranking? What's your prediction for my ranking?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2003

2003

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Samantha Morton in In America

This is a wasted opportunity.2003 offered some really weak Best Actress nominees and Morton was one of them. There were some points where I was minimally impressed but for most of the time I felt really nothing. Too bad, as this could have been something very interesting and moving and yet it became a little dreary and lifeless.

4. Naomi Watts in 21 Grams

I'm very confused. How should I feel? What should I be thinking? For me, Naomi Watts' performance in 21 Grams is a failure. It's not epic fail, it's more of a missed opportunity even though it's extremely hard to say anything about this performance and the movie. All so shady and confusing and again, not in a good way.

3. Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider

Keisha Castle-Hughes, stands out in the awful field of 2003. Although this is not one of the greatest performances, she still turned in a beautiful work, full of substance. The great parts make up for the weaknesses and overall it's a really great job by an extremely young talent.

2. Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give

I ask myself: is this that much from Diane Keaton? Well, probably not. Still, she's extremely funny and entertaining as Erica Barry, she has a wonderful chemistry with Jack Nicholson and she enlightens the screen with her wonderful, radiant personality that I love so much. I might be biased but who cares? I liked her.

1. Charlize Theron in Monster

SURPIRSE! :) This performance is universally praised and for a reason. Charlize Theron gives an unfogettable, astonishing, breathtaking, mindblowing, heart-breaking, angry, bitter, desperate, devastated, devastating, in short brilliant performance as Aileen Wuornos. This might look like another deglam role but it's more than that in my opinion. Charlize really rocks as Aileen, showing the dark sides of human life. Brilliant.

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Charlize Theron

in

Monster

As easily as it gets.

Congratulations to Malcolm! Excellent predictions! Prize: you can pick the year I'm going to do after the next one (available for me: 1933, 1943, 1953, 1956, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1971 1976, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008)

Final thoughts: An awful year. There you go, I said it. I guess that's pretty much what I expected. Charlize was the easiest winner so far. There was so much gap between the first and the second that it almost hurts. Diane and Keisha are pretty solid. However, the other two ladies were not that satisfying (ot put it delicately). Actually, this was the first year when two nominees were fighting for the #4 spot. :) I gave the edge to Naomi because she grew on me a bit.

Omissions: 

• Uma Thurman in Kill Bill Vol. 1. 
• Jamie Lee Curtis in Freaky Friday

About the next year: Oh, I can't wait to do the next year. It offers not one, but two (or even three?) iconic performances. I really want to make my thoughts clear on that year. It's a historic year. This clue says why:

• VIVA ITALIA! :)

What do you think?