The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1954

About the field: Wow, this was quite probably the most interesting line-up so far. It's far from being the best, but it was so colorful and I had much pleasure in it. Too bad that nowadays it's more about Garland vs. Kelly and they forget the other great nominees. My ranking was not as easy as I thought when I finished reviewing the ladies. There was one good, two very good, one very-very good and a timeless, amazing performance. My pick was very easy and I understand why people hate that loss. But the ranking:

5. Grace Kelly in The Country Girl

On the one hand, she's painfully miscast and in the beginning she has no weight. On the other hand, in the end her presence and effect is quite strong and is worthy of my praise. Not easy to judge it, but I myself missed her mysterious persona from her other movies, in other words, the essence of Grace Kelly.

4. Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina

This may not be Audrey Hepburn's best work, but I was utterly charmed and perfectly entertained by it despite its lack of great character development. But I laughed, I was moved, I cared about Sabrina and most of all, I had some kind of an emotional connection to her

3. Jane Wyman in Magnificent Obsession

Jane Wyman gives a satisfying, emotional and very moving performance, which however lacks depth. It might be also due to the weak points of the screenplay, but she wasn't able to be towering and truly impressive. Although everything is where is should be, the achievement is a bit too thin. Very strong work, though.

2. Dorothy Dandridge in Carmen Jones

I must admit that I was totally charmed and mesmerized by the magnetic presence and extraordinary beauty of Ms. Dandridge, who gave a very exciting, wild, sexy and attractive performance as a very complicated woman. A great achievement by a great talent.

1. Judy Garland in A Star is Born

If you travel 1000 years in time and see which performances people still remember, Judy Garland's in A Star Is Born will be one of them. Judy Garland's acting achievement is really one of a kind, a true and eternal classic, one that cannot be forgotten or overlooked by anyone who loves movies. This might be a performance for the ages.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Judy Garland in A Star is Born

Don't be that surprised! :)

About the next year: Picking was so hard. I wanted to do two other years, but I did not get the movies after all and I was incredibly mad. So I was forced to find a year, which is interesting to me. So finally I found a fine year to do. The clues:

• Friendship forever
• #1 annoying fanclub for an actress and a nom
• (L) Tortured artists (L)

There was one right prediction from Joe, which was a bit late, but I just mention it.

So what do you think? Any observations, thoughts, request for the next years?

Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina

Audrey Hepburn received her second Best Actress nomination for playing Sabrina Fairchild a young girl falling for a businesman in Billy Wilder's romantic comedy, Sabrina. I think that Audrey Hepburn received the least votes from the five ladies as she won the previous year, starred in a very lightweight comedy. The genre was good to her as she won for Roman Holiday, but the competition was quite weak that year. But 1954 was all about Grace Kelly and Judy Garland.

Sabrina is quite probably the most entertaining movie of the five. It has some sentimental and soappy moments, but everything is so full of the wit and quick humor of Billy Wilder, that I quite easily overlooked these flaws and I really enjoyed this delightful experience. That directing nomination was not very worthy (come on, George Cukor got nothing for A Star Is Born). The acting is quite good too, but not very towering. Humphrey Bogart gives a very strong and memorable performance despite being a bit miscast, his early scenes are simply excellent. William Holden is quite good too, but sometimes he was too over-the-top.

Oh, Audrey, dear, beautiul, amazing Audrey. She had such shining beauty and real acting talent (unfortunately directors preffered her beauty to her acting talent). If there's one real superstar, a true icon in motion picture history, then it's quite definitely Ms. Hepburn. She really had style, grace and she solved even the silliest scenes with such dignity and dedication. Nowadays she's criticized for mostly relying on her charm, but I do not blame her for that since her roles demanded that from her (just look at The Nun's Story how many emotions she can create).

The role of Sabrina is quite definitely neither the best nor the most memorable one in Audrey's career. The movie itself is one that you watch at Christmas on TV, when you have nothing else to do, let's face it. Audrey doesn't have big breakdowns or huge acting moments in it. It's really just an easy work solved quite properly and decently. The character seems to be very easy for Audrey, but you can never feel that she thought that it was nothing to her and did not have to care about it. You see the considerable amount of work Audrey put into this performance.

In the very first scenes, Audrey is just like a wild little angel having fun in the garden. She's often referred to as a kind of ugly duckling, but that's not really the case. Simply, Sabrina is just too young to be taken seriously. Her suicide attempt scene is just excellent and very adorable. She wants to inhale the exhaust fume of the car, but starts coughing and then she opens a window. It's so utterly loveable and charming, which is a greater achievement considering the fact that this is actually a suicide scene.

And actually, the best moments of Audrey's whole performance come at the beginning of the movie: like when she forgets to turn on the owen as she cannot concentrate because of her unhappy love life. Audrey is again just charming in those scenes.

However, the biggest flaw of her whole achievement in Sabrina comes after she returns from Paris. Sabrina's change is so sudden and fast that you really just cannot believe it. It's mostly the screenplay's fault, but Sabrina becomes a bit bitchy for a while (she tries to seduce William Holden quite hard and successfully from his bride) which disappears again quite suddenly. I felt that Audrey could have done much better with the development of Sabrina: she made her adorable and succeeded in grabbing the viewer's attention, but she never made Sabrina's changes credible.

Another thing goes against her, which is the screentime. The movie mostly focuses on Humphrey Bogart after a while and Audrey is in the background for some time. Fortunately that goes away, but then she wasn't really able to have an effect on me or make a lasting impression.

Somewhere around the end, she has a very quiet crying scene, when she cooks at Humphrey Bogart's office. I don't know why, but I was just so moved by her. Although that scene wasn't very pushy and came very subtly, it really had an effect on me and I just felt some warmth in my heart. It was just excellent. And if I'm talking about warmth, then I must mention how great it was to hear her singing La Vie en Rose. Gosh, it was just a piece of Heaven.

So, to sum up, this may not be Audrey Hepburn's best work, but I was utterly charmed and perfectly entertained by it despite its lack of great character development. But I laughed, I was moved, I cared about Sabrina and most of all, I had some kind of an emotional connection to her. First I thought this would be a 3.5, but I said, come on and gave her more for sentimental reasons. This is such a delightful achievement.

So, the final conclusion is due tomorrow! Stay tuned, though it won't offer much surprise, I imagine.

Judy Garland in A Star Is Born

Judy Garland received her first Oscar nomination for playing Esther Blodgett a.k.a. Vicki Lester a young girl who becomes a great star and an Academy Award winner in George Cukor's classic, the remake of the 1937 movie, A Star is Born. Nowadays, it's a consensus that Judy should have won the Oscar for this performance and ironically everyone thought that at the time as she was a real front-runner to pick up her award. She had everything: a great comeback role, huge singing and dramatic moments, a 3-hour-long movie. The rest is history.

A Star Is Born is a real classic, a true definition of a must-see. It's a very dramatic look at stardom, love, marriage, cruelty, alcoholism and Hollywood. Everything is very glamourous on the outside, but everything is rotten and pretentious inside. George Cukor was an excellent director, who made quite flamboyant movies, but they are classics and loved by everyone. He had such a talent in directing his actors: James Mason gives an excellent performance as Norman Maine, a desperate alcoholic has-been, who has only one important thing in his life, his wife. Had it not been for Marlon Brando's terrific performance in On the Waterfront, Mason would probably get my vote.

And yet A Star Is Born is not a classic because of George Cukor's directing or James Mason's acting or the great technical part. The reason is two words: Judy Garland. A towering performance rarely comes in any performer's life, sometimes never. But that moment came to Judy Garland in 1954, when she was doing the part of Esther/Vicki, a role of a lifetime. Now, I'm not a fan of Judy Garland. I have never been and I will probably never be, but I can recognize a great achievement. And this is such a work.

The role of Vicki is itself a real miracle: it has such huge opportunities to shine, that it's quite a miracle if anyone, who has at least mediocre talent, ruins it. But Garland went further with it: she created a living, breathing and natural character, who has so many emotions in herself and can only express them with music and singing. Judy really put her whole heart into it and we can see the result, which speaks for itself.

Even when we first see Esther, it's quite obvious that both her and Judy are amazing talents. It's quite complicated to play a talented person as it can easily be confused with the player. Actually, Judy Garland's life was more of a mix of Norman's and Esther's, so it's not the case. Esther is a unique character and her only connection with Judy is that only she could play Esther the way this character deserves it.

There's a brilliant monologue where Esther tries to express how much singing means to her: Garland lives these lines so thrillingly, that for a moment there's nothing else there, just her. Although this performance is full of unforgettable moments, this is the one that sticks with me the most because of its honesty and pure beauty.

Esther's initial doubts about Norman are perfectly handled by Garland. She never goes over-the-top or annoying, she perfectly found the balance. And the same goes for the scenes of grief in the end, when so many emotions come to the surface and the whole thing is just like a volcano. She does not only leave you speechless, but also moves, saddens and entertains you.

Also it's quite interesting how much humor Garland injected to this character. These moments are not too pushy or forced, they are always very natural and simply adorable. Like when she gets a real make-up and ends up being another dull blonde girl, her face is just hilarious.

And she sings too! Garland had an excellent voice, which had such a wide range and was soo powerful. Her musical numbers are simply flawless. Her show-stopping performance of Born In A Trunk is simply one of the best acted musical scenes in history. And this is quite a positive thing as I really dislike musicals.

Her legendary Oscar ceremony scene is also just heartbreaking. Judy displays so many emotions: fear, excitement, nervousness, embarassment, sadness, biterness and love that it almost burns the screen. The most unforgettable moment is when Norman accidentally slaps her and then she tries to help him. It's so incredible.

I have already mentioned the scenes of grief, but let me say something about her very last lines. When she says "This is Mrs. Norman Maine" in a very teary way, it's such an incredibly cathartic moment and it's really no shame if your eyes get a bit teary. Your heart goes out for her and Garland is simply unbelievable there.

If you travel 1000 years in time and see which performances people still remember, Judy Garland's in A Star Is Born will be one of them. Judy Garland's acting achievement is really one of a kind, a true and eternal classic, one that cannot be forgotten or overlooked by anyone who loves movies. This IS a performance for the ages.

So what do you think? It's time to give your last predictions! :-)

Dorothy Dandridge in Carmen Jones

Dorothy Dandridge made history when she became the first black woman to receive a Best Actress nomination for playing Carmen Jones in Otto Preminger's opera movie, Carmen Jones. Despite this nomination she did not have many other big roles. If I really think about it, then she may have been third in the voting process, but fourth or fifth is (unfortunately) more likely. It was mainly a so-called "two-horse race".

Carmen Jones is a... movie. I really don't know what to say about it. It's very interesting and entertaining, but probably it's mostly strange. Many people consider it a classic, but I think that might be due to the fact that it was very groundbreaking as there were only black people in the cast. Nevertheless, it's very enjoyable, though there are some moments which are hard to follow since the film slows down sometimes. The actors give quite tolerable performances, though Harry Belafonte is a bit annoying sometimes.

But it's the movie of Dorothy Dandgridge, everything is about her, we see her, we root for her, we hate and love her at the same time. First of all, I must say how unusually beautiful Ms. Dandridge was. She had a kind of wild charisma and she was so sexy and attractive. Yes, the key word for this performance is probably attractive. This role is neither baity nor demanding, but there's some kind of a force which makes you pay attention to Dandridge's acting.

Dorothy did not do her own singing, but that takes nothing away from her achievement. What she actually does in this movie is quite great and memorable. Plus during the singing scenes the face is so expressive that you can turn down the volume and you know what Carmen sings by only watching her.

I was instantly mesmerized by her presence in her very first scene, but that's also due to the great directing. Everyone in the movie looks at Carmen, so you have to do that too. There's a woman, who's lively, beautiful, sexy and you just cannot take your eyes off her. Dandridge has a very unusually magnetic screen presence, which makes her performance very sharp, natural and a bit rough, if you know what I mean.

Dorothy has her best scenes in the beginning where the guy named Joe has to take her to prison, while Carmen wants to both escape and seduce the guy. And along with Joe, we are certainly seduced too. She so perfectly portrayed the wild and restless nature of this woman, that it left me speechless. Again: it attracted my attention.

Another interesting aspect of the performance is that Dandridge never really tries to make the audience sympathize with her nor makes Carmen a tragic heroine. Instead she shows all the flaws of this very complex character and carefully (and invisibly) developes her. Though I must say that she should have concentrated a bit more on the development as every change in Carmen is a bit sudden.

Although I have been mostly raving about her, Dandridge's performance is not flawless: it's not as thin as Jane Wyman's yesterday, but it's much less emotionally effective. Although I was very much entertained by Dorothy, she did not really move me (she did not even try as I said). As I previously said, it's very interesting that she did not make Carmen a tragic heroine, but a little emotional connection with the audience would not have harmed her acting. And this is not a minor thing as in some way, a performer should connect to the audience emotionally.

However, I must admit that I was totally charmed and mesmerized by the magnetic presence and extraordinary beauty of Ms. Dandridge, who gave a very exciting, wild, sexy and attractive performance as a very complicated woman. It's legendary status may be questionable, but it's a great achievement by a great talent, who knew how to impress the audience. It's a very strong and deserving four.

So what do you think? Any predictions, observations, off-topic questions? Judy is next and her review comes tomorrow.

Jane Wyman in Magnificent Obsession

Jane Wyman received her fourth and final Best Actress nomination for playing Helen Philips, a woman who becomes blind in Douglas Sirk's movie, Magnificent Obsession. I think Wyman did not have much chance to win the Oscar over Grace Kelly and Judy Garland as she was a previous Oscar winner. I believe firmly though, that she was the third with the votes since the movie was a success (and along came another Jane Wyman-Rock Hudson movie, hat has become a classic).

Magnificent Obsession is a very weird, but extremely entertaining soap opera. The story is so unlikely and illogical that you just cannot take it seriously and by this, you have great fun while watching it. It's not a classic, but a fair movie anyhow with great actors. I realized with this movie and Pillow Talk how talented Rock Hudson was actually. He had a very strong charisma and a great screen presence. Too bad that nowadays he's more remembered because of his private life than his performances. Agnes Moorehead is again very reliable and gives a fair supporting performance.

Jane Wyman is an extremely interesting actress. On the one hand, she's not as legendary as some of her peers and she's not often talked about. On the other hand, every time I watch her, I feel satisfied by her performances. (I must admit though that this every time means two movies). She totally relied on her emotions, but was able to deal with the technical part of her performances too.

She was great at playing disabled women dealing with their condition. In Johnny Belinda she was deaf, here she's blind. Although the characters cannot be more different, they share a common thing: strength, courage and intelligence. I think Wyman was the best one at this and there has never been a performance ever since who's able to get across the feelings of such a condition. That's one thing.

Magnificent Obsession's Helen goes through a lot of tough events in this movie. Right at the beginning of the film, she loses her beloved husband. This is probably the least effective part of her performance as these scenes mostly focus on Rock Hudson's character rather than hers. She's there, uses all the opportunities, but she's nothing very special. Yet.

Her performance becomes truly interesting when Helen loses her eyesight in a very tragic and extremely over-the-top accident. It's so interesting to follow her emotions: she doesn't blame everyone, she doesn't break down, but there's some silent pain right there and some hope for the unlikely recovery. She's truly magical here.

The scenes of finding true love are also excellently handled by Wyman. She never becomes over-the-top or unnecessarily sentimental, she brilliantly found the balance in these sequences. I was impressed by her very much, but I cannot overlook a problem: the emotions she shows are astonishingly shallow and pale. It is astonoshing since the heartbreaking depths were the best things about her performance in Johnny Belinda. She was too simple and there was nothing complex about her acting.

There's one scene though, which is simply unforgettable. After she realizes the very unpleasant reality in Switzerland she goes on a date with Rock Hudson: here I felt that all the necessary emotions were there and I was certainly extremely moved by her occasionally. When she says "I always closed my eyes when I was dancing" or something like that, her performance really reaches the top and has a great effect on the viewer.

After that she disappears for a while and she's there only in the end, but she's very-very good and effective there, too. I felt that the emotions again were very real, but also not very complex and a touch of honesty would not have harmed her acting. However, as I said, it's quite moving and entertaining.

To sum up, Jane Wyman gives a satisfying, emotional and very moving performance, which however lacks depth. It might be also due to the weak points of the screenplay, but she wasn't able to be towering and truly impressive. Although everything is where is should be, the achievement is a bit too thin. Very strong work, though.

So what do you think? Predictions, opinions? Who should be next Audrey or Dorothy? I'm planning to do Garland on Thursday. So whoever you chose, will be reviewed tomorrow and the other one on Friday or maybe Saturday, if I don't have time.

Grace Kelly in The Country Girl

Grace Kelly received her second (and last) Oscar nomination and only award for playing Georgie Elgin, a woman married to an alcoholic has-been in the movie The Country Girl. Kelly's win caused enough controversy. Some loathe it, some think it's deserving. Actually she won by seven votes or so, which (according to the rumors) belonged to Judy Garland's old MGM bosses. So it was a great surprise that Kelly won over Garland, who seemed to be a shoo-in. I guess that the fact that she had the brilliant Rear Window (in which she was much better and more interesting) and Dial M for Murder might have helped her win.

The Country Girl is not a bad movie, but not a great one either. It's a decently made old movie, which has some drama in it, and yet it wasn't able to really impress me. The same goes for Bing Crosby's performance (well, only to a degree). He's unbelievable in some of the scenes but sometimes his performance slows down. Nevertheless, I can say that this is definitely Crosby's best performance in any movie and he richly deserved the nomination. William Holden is also good, but he got the least baity role.

Grace Kelly. A very familiar feeling came to me again after 2002 and some of 1978: dissatisfaction. It's really the worst thing that can happen as it means that the acting was actually good, but something kept me from totally embracing it. I had the same emotions I had with Nicole Kidman: there's one extremely moving scene, which stands out too much and makes the other parts look even weaker. But that scene is satisfying in a way.

First of all, I have to say (as many people before me) that Kelly was totally miscast as she was a) too young b) too inexperienced c) too beautiful (OMG, one could write thousands of pages about her beauty). People say that Susan Hayward started the so-called "acting for Oscar with baity, loud roles" tradition and that Grace Kelly is the origin of the deglam wins. I SO wanted to disagree and love her, but she really wasn't enough.

I was always trying to love her and embrace the character of Georgie, but the main problem is that Kelly didn't embrace the character herself enough to grab my attention. The weakest thing about her was her delivery of the lines: sometimes I felt as if she was at school saying a poem at a literature lesson. She did not connect the emotions to the dialogue and it caused a very mixed bag. I knew (and felt) that the emotions were inside her and she let some out with her face and eyes, but I did not get enough. And yet somehow she was able to make me sorry for her character and sometimes she even moved me.

However, she was able to build her character and show some development in it: Georgie is a bitter, incredibly sad and worried person who tries to control everything to prevent disaster and to protect his husband to whom she's very attached. I could always see how much Georgie was struggling, but not Kelly: she made it look quite easy actually.

As I said, in the beginning I had no emotional connection to the character of Georgie, but as the movie went on I got more and more close to her. There's a climatic confrontation scene between her and William Holden at the police station which is brilliant, and from there it seemed to me as if Kelly's performance got some life and by this, it became so much more interesting. This is especially visible in her last scenes, where she does not have much to say (and thank God she can rely on the emotions of her body) and her silence has so much weight.

Rating in this case is not very easy and I think that this may change. On the one hand, she's painfully miscast and in the beginning she has no weight. On the other hand, in the end her presence and effect is quite strong and is worthy of my praise. Not easy to judge it, but I myself missed her mysterious persona from her other movies, in other words, the essence of Grace Kelly. One part is around a 3, the other is around a 4, so it's somewhere around 3.5. Not easy, not easy. A weirdly effective and very uneven performance.

Just like in the case of Ginger Rogers and Nicole Kidman. A 4 wouldn't be fair I think.

The Next Year

Now it's time to move on and continue the fun with a very controversial and talked about year, which is talked about mostly because of two nominees. But let's see which one of them I prefer or I go with someone else.

1954

So the nominees were:

• Dorothy Dandridge in Carmen Jones
• Judy Garland in A Star is Born
• Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina
• Grace Kelly in The Country Girl
• Jane Wyman in Magnificent Obsession

So what do you think? Who's your pick? What's your ranking? Any predictions for my ranking? I am not sure either as I have previously seen only one of them.

I've already written Grace Kelly's profile, so she will be the first, but YOU decide who the next should be.