The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1957

1957

So the much anticipated ranking:

5. Lana Turner in Peyton Place

Lana's performance mostly consits of sleepwalking and sitting in the background. I believe that had Turner been given some more to do, she would have been able to pull of a great performance as Constance. The screenplay always underlines how frigid this character is and it doesn't really let Turner do wonders with it. The overall effect is disappointing.

4. Deborah Kerr in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

there isn't a thing about Deborah Kerr's performance that you could be passionate about. You can't love her, can't hate her and the whole thing becomes very standard and uninteresting. I know that many love this work but I just wasn't able to warm up to it. Deborah Kerr is quite good as Sister Angela but she doesn't go beyond good.

3. Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve

Despite my dislike for the acting of Joanne Woodward, this is quite a good job by her. Although it's not groundbreaking by any means and the emotional part of it is a bit lacking, the technical department is just excellent. Woodward made very wise decisions with these characters (despite being relatively new to the craft) and she put on a very good performance.

2. Elizabeth Taylor in Raintree County

This performance is a bit mixed. On the one hand, Liz's accent and mannerisms are incredibly annoying and she fails with the technical part. On the other hand, there are also some great moments that I just cannot ignore. As I said, Taylor is not really amazing, but there's something in her that stays with me. It's still quite good work and something keeps resonating with me.

1. Anna Magnani in Wild is the Wind

You may consider me overenthusiastic and too lenient with performances but I was just blown away by Anna, from the beginning to the very end. Anna Magnani creates this beautiful, wonderful character and single-handedly makes the movie. It might be a bit much for many. For me, it worked and I consider this an astonishing performance.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Anna Magnani

in

Wild is the Wind

Why do I have to compete?

Omissions:

• Giulietta Masina in The Nights of Cabiria

Final thoughts: A really weak year. Yes, I was a bit overenthusiastic but Anna was a shining light in this extremely weak year. So she was the clear winner. Joanne was quite good though a bit dry. Elizabeth Taylor, whom we tragically lost on the day I reviewed her performance, gave a mixed but haunting performance in Raintree County. Deborah was simply good, Lana was not bad. Again, a truly weak year. Still, I'm happy that I did it as I was so interested in Anna's performance, which was really astonishing though the movie dragged her down a bit.

About the next year: You cannot imagine the misery, torture and suffering that I went through to do the next year and get all the films. It's a really interesting one though I've only seen 2 performances but they are both given by two of my all-time favorite actresses (and the others are great performers, too, all three of them previous winners). Clue:

• I can't give you a real clue as I keep forgetting and losing everything ever since that new insurance I have. ;)

What do you think?

Deborah Kerr in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

Deborah Kerr received her fourth unsuccesful Best Actress nomination for playing Sister Angela in John Huston's movie, Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison. I'm quite certain that Deborah Kerr was the second in 1957 and Joanne Woodward only barely edged her out. But why really? I think that the Academy also noticed that Deborah was overdue for an Oscar though there was always someone who was more overdue (Susan Hayward, Elizabeth Taylor), more popular (Elizabeth Taylor, Ingrid Bergman, Audrey Hepburn) or gave a big performance (Olivia de Havilland, Joanne Woodward) or all of them combined (Hayward again). Poor Deborah, she was nominated always at the wrong time.

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison is a pretty lukewarm movie. There's not much going on, the whole thing is pretty boring and I am 100% sure that I will forget it in at least three days. It's very much like African Queen though it's much less funny and entertaining. I guess John Huston's producers wanted to make more money and they knew the perfect recipee for a succesful movie at the time. Robert Mitchum was a really great actor, a truly unique presence who gave excellent performance but this one is definitely not his best work.

Deborah Kerr is an actress very much like Annette Bening. There's so much to respect about her and yet I just don't feel that she's that special. Apart from out joint birthday, there is no connection between me and Deborah Kerr. However, I have never been disappointed by her as I always get from her what I expect. A very proper, ubtle performance. I expected it this time too and I got it.

Not that it is groundbreaking in any way. Although Deborah must have had a great chance of winning the Oscar that year, this is not the role that people remember her for. This one is actually quite forgotten and rarely talked about nowadays besides Oscar bloggers. Had I been an Academy member in 1957, I would have considered nominating Deborah for An Affair to Remember. It's not that it's better, it's just much more of an Oscar movie than Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison.

In Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison, Deborah plays Sister Angela, a nun who's marooned on a South Pacific island along with an American marine played by Robert Mitchum. I think the most curcial thing about movie is the great chemistry between the leads. Whenever there are just two characters that you see, they really have to work together fabulously as collaboration is just inevitable in these cases. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen here. I always felt that there wasn't much of a sexual tension between these two characters and it should have been there. They give good performances on their own, but their work together is nothing special. Therefore, both actors failed on this very important level.

However, as I said, Kerr is very good on her own. She has quite a radiant presence on the screen but unlike Elizabeth Taylor (RIP) in Raintree County, this presence doesn't make up for the flawed rest. Kerr didn't have a star charisma and no matter what people say, that can also elevate a certain, not-so-strong performance.

Everybody keeps talking about Sister Angela's dark side but that's really something that I hardly noticed in Kerr's performance. She always remains this benevolent nun who's very quiet and dignified. Just like the movie, Kerr also remains very lukewarm and she doesn't really shine. That's a pity, actually. I would have loved this performance much more, had she given more fire and soul to this character. As I said, the whole thing is very charming but nothing mindblowing, really. There isn't a moment when I was just blown away (even Lana Turner had some) and Kerr constantly plays Sister Angela very one-note. Kerr's very proper and I dare say dull acting is very visible in this work and that's not a positive thing.

As you see, in this review, I said nothing about Deborah Kerr's performance because there isn't a thing that you could be passionate about. You can't love her, can't hate her and the whole thing becomes very standard and uninteresting. I know that many love this work but I just wasn't able to warm up to it. Deborah Kerr is quite good as Sister Angela but she doesn't go beyond good. Unfortunately.

What do you think? (no oficial predictions now but you can share your thoughts)

Elizabeth Taylor Raintree County

Elizabeth Taylor received her first Best Actress nomination for playing Susanna Drake, a Southern belle marrying a yankee in Raintree County. Taylor was a huge star in the fifties and the sixties, so I really think that she received a couple of votes and was fourth or even third in the race. This was a typical first nomination for a star. She did not have a great role like Woodward and that's what gave Joanne the edge over the others. Liz won the Laurel award, though (just like she did every time when she was nominated for an Oscar, except for BUtterfield 8).

Raintree County is a really boring and meaningless Gone with the Wind wannabe. First of all, it's overlong. I mean, I get that it wanted to be an epic but somehow I wasn't that fascinated. Not even the technical part. I liked it more than some others, though. This movie is only famous for the tragic accident that happened to Montgomery Clift, which probably ruined his remaining short life. Sometimes, you can notice that his face sometimes is really stiff and he talks quite weirdly. Anyway, that's not the only reason why this one isn't his best performance.

I admit, I don't really like Elizabeth Taylor. Sure, she's beautiful but apart from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, I cannot say any other performance of hers that really impressed me. Taylor's first three Oscar nominated performances are pvery much alike, if you look closely. There's a troubled, beautiful woman, who cries and screams sometimes and there's one huge, teary-eyed, hysterical monologue to secure the nomination. That's why Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was such a surprise to everyone. It's so shocking and brutal compared to these sugary roles. Taylor proved there that she had real talent but filmmakers couldn't really find her real brilliance, I think. That's why her earlier performances might seem to be overacted and hammy.

Speaking of which, in Raintree Country, Liz gives a bit overacted and exaggerated performance as Susanna Drake. First of all, Susanna is not a particulary interesting character. She's such a cliché and it's up to the actress to inject some star power into it. Actually, Liz succeeded that way. Although this is not an amazing performance by any means, you just cannot take your eyes off Taylor. It can be her beauty but I think that there's something magnetic about her presence.

It's the technical part that is messy about her performance. Usually, I don't really care about the technical part and I prefer emotional acting but this time I just couldn't overlook her obvious flawed decisions. Liz uses all the clichés of this kind of character, the Southern belle (heavy, rather ridiculous accent, overacted mannerisms). Because of these weaknesses, you just simply cannot take this performance seriously. Even when she could be very good with emotions, her accent and mannerisms drag the scene down.

Susanna tricks Montgomery Clift's character into marrying her and when the truth about this is revealed, there's nothing happening. They are like "OK" and that's it. I would have wanted to see much more conflict between them because of this. The chemistry between Clift and Taylor is not that strong, either. It's visible that they like working together but there's no tension between them that could have set the screen on fire. They both become the movie. The filmmakers wanted to show so much and therefore, nothing is properly worked out in it.

Still, as I said, Taylor has her scenes in this movie. For instance, the one where they are looking at the remains of Susanna's old home. Taylor is actually quite strong there. For a while, her accent wasn't that annoying and there was some depth in this movie. And (as I said earlier in this review) there's the huge breakdown scene with the tears. Although it's not a really great one, it's worth mentioning because it was handled very well by Taylor. And she is also quite good when Susanna is at an asylum but that's nothing very special either. However, Liz is quite simply great in the end. Everything bad about this performance disappeared for a while and that was so great.

Still, this performance is a bit mixed. On the one hand, Liz's accent andmannerisms are incredibly annoying and she fails with the technical. On the other hand, there are also some great moments that I just cannot ignore. As I said, Taylor is not really amazing, but there's something in her that stays with me. It's still quite good work and something keeps resonating with me.

I decided for a 3.5 after all.

What do you think? Time for your last predictions! :)

Anna Magnani in Wild is the Wind

Anna Magnani received her second and final Best Actress nomination for playing Gioia, an Italian woman marrying her dead sister's husband in George Cukor's movie, Wild is the Wind. I don't know what to think about Anna's chances of winning her second Oscar. I don't think she had much of a chance of winning as she had just won plus she was a foreign actress. Moreover, her movie was not big and showy enough. I think she must have been fourth or fifth after all. Joanne, Liz and Deborah were battling it out, in my opinion.

Wild is the Wind is not as bad as some may say. Actually, it's quite good and enjoyable thanks to the great performances. It's pretty mediocre, that's true but not as bad as some might say. It doesn't have the typical flaws of a 50s movie though it doesn't mean it's totally flawless. Mr. Sugar*, George Cukor was a great director but this one is one of his lesser efforts. Same for Anthony Quinn: he was an exceptional performer but this one is not his best performance. However, Anthony Franciosa is sometimes laughably bad.

Well, Anna Magnani. You know, it's honor itself just write about her. That woman! That actress! OK, I might be a bit influenced as she's my dad's favorite actress and I've seen many of her Italian movies beforehand which made me also fall in love with her work. She's (very much like Sophia Loren and most of the great European actors) a natural talent who doesn't have to learn acting, it's in her bones, in her soul and it's just a way of expressing herself. She doesn't have to time her tears, practice accents and do method acting. She knows it from her instincts. There's so much fire and music in Anna that I always feel that while she's acting, there's a volcano erupting with the music of Jaws. Anna Magnani was brilliant, quite simply and her talents shines through time and her work lives on.

It's kind of a cliché to say that Hollywood did not get the best out of Anna. I think it's a dumb, stupid thing to say, since anyone who's seen either of her Oscar nominated works is simply astonished by her extraordinary talent. She's very unusually beautiful (she IS beautiful, I think) and she has a very great sense of humor and she adds a lot of that even to her most serious characters. Gioia is a mysterious woman. We don't know anything about her yet Magnani tells thousands of stories with her eyes and face and we just keep wondering about Gioia.

At the beginning of the movie, Gioia feels like a fish out of water because of her bad English and the aggressively kind welcome to America. The dinner scene is a chaos, however, Anna is able to come out of it. Her performance almost failed in the beginning but Anna was wonderfully in control of Gioia. It's an amazing scene when we see her with her stepdaughter/niece under a tree. She's just brilliant there and from that time on, her performance doesn't stop and it really becomes roller coaster that doesn't stop until the very end. It's so intense and extremely gripping. Even when my interest for the movie died down, I still couldn't take my eyes off the screen and that's only because of Anna.

Anna's chemistry with Anthony Quinn is simply marvelous. Although Quinn is not that great, Anna really gets the best out of the both of them. Quinn actually said that despite her dislike for Anna, he loved working with her. I can easily believe that. Anna's talent is so inspiring and stimulating and I guess her co-stars must have felt the very same way. They don't have the usual "loud Italian rows" but they have some great arguments like the one in the kitchen (which is probably one of the most amazing scenes of Anna). There are so many emotions coming out of Magnani that really blow the viewer away.

Her scenes with Franciosa are also excellent. Although he's giving a really bad performance, Magnani holds all the scenes together and she really carries them on her shoulders. Even the most tender moments are quite great and all thanks to Anna. Their last scene together becomes so heartbreaking with Anna's loud screaming. That being said, Anna's acting is indeed loud and very emotional but I think that's the way it should be with this character. Whenever Anna is looking at the sky and putting her hands on her face, we feel that it's natural and it's not la Susan Hayward-like yelling. Anna always remains natural and that's why it works. She has this mentality in her blood. It's interesting that Anthony Quinn uses the same mannerisms as Anna and yet it doesn't work for him. It's like when Penélope Cruz tries to walk like Sophia Loren. No, there are things that work for Anna Magnani or Sophia Loren, but it's for them, exclusively.

Also, Magnani interacts so beautifully with animals in this movie. The scenes with the horses are just so brilliant and heartbreaking. The wild horses might be the symbols of Gioia's desire for freedom and true love. Gioia is stuck in a marriage where she should replace her dead sister (she also has to deal with her memory) but still, in a way, they love each other with Quinn's character. Or do they? I don't really know but it makes the whole case even more interesting.

So, you may consider me overenthusiastic and too lenient with performances but I was just blown away by Anna, from the beginning to the very end. My overall opinion must also be influenced by her brilliant singing scene but I don't care as this is truly haunting and fantastic work. Anna Magnani creates this beautiful, wonderful character and single-handedly makes the movie. It might be a bit much for many. For me, it worked and I consider this an astonishing performance.

What do you think?

I think my opinion about her was pretty predictable but she's really so great.

Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve

Joanne Woodward received her first Best Actress Oscar and only Oscar to date for playingly, Even White/Black and Jane in The Three Faces of Eve. I think Joanne Woodward did not have an easy win though it's perfectly understandable. I feel that only Deborah Kerr was a real threat for her as she was overdue (was she?) and won the New York Film Critics award. Still, it's a very perplexing race with an obvious winner.

The Three Faces of Eve is a very short and weird movie and I really did not like it that much. There's no real drama, everything just happens and it failed to have any effect on me. It just went by rather fast and it wasn't particularly boring. Actually, it's very far from being a true story (no matter what the narrator says at the beginning) because the real Eve, Chrisitine Costner Seizmore had like 26 personalities. So that's about the credibility of this whole movie. Lee J. Cobb who's one of my favorite supporting actors gives an incredibly standard and one-note performance which I really didn't like.

Joanne Woodward is an actress who has almost always failed to really impress me. I really dislike her acting style and sometimes she can just annoy me to hell. She lacks a real emotional depth in most of her movies. I like her voice very much, though but I am not really in awe of her. However, when I first saw her in The Three Faces of Eve, I was blown away by her. Therefore, I really did not know what to expect from her this time. I wanted to forget that she's Joanne Woodward but I also wanted to forget my first reactions to this performance. As a result, I was now right between amazed and bored.

These roles seem to be quite baity on paper (apparently, after Orson Welles read the script he said that anyone who played Eve would win the Oscar). This is really a part to kill for but once you actually think about it, it's really not very showy. It certainly has its big scenes but not huge ones. There's that breakdown towards the end but not as big as they usually like at the Oscars. Things should be bigger, showier and more emotional.

I feel that Woodward deals with the technical part quite great. She delivers everything extremely well, she knows when to do what, her timing is just excellent. And that's really all that this movie requires. As it doesn't go deep, Joanne doesn't have to go really deep either inside this character. I feel that she could have but I never really saw any real efforts to do so.

Joanne's performance as Eve White is supposed to be very heartbreaking but instead, Joanne let some opportunities slip away. It's true that Eve White is not a really fascinating character but she still could have made her a bit closer to the viewer. It's like attending a soccer game that turns out to be boring and you just remain a spectator and watch the goals scored but you're not really happy about it. That's really the case with Joanne here.

Joanne's the best in her scenes as Eve Black. Naturally, it was supposed to be the best part of this role and it certainly is. I felt it was the only character that was played as it should be. She's seductive, attractive and very delicious. She did what she has to. However, that wasn't really a great accomplishment either. There wasn't very much missing from it, it just wasn't totally mindblowing. She's still quite great as Eve Black, doing the right things at the right time.

The third personality, Jane becomes rather insignificant even though she's really the most interesting personality for me. She's really a plain Jane (no pun intended) but it would have been fun to see more of her. As a result, she doesn't really get a real depth.

However, as I said, her the technical part is just fantastic. That above mentioned breakdown scene is handled pretty well by Joanne and it was just terrificly played. That scene under the house is also quite memorable. In these moments, I really felt the depth that really should have been there in the whole performance.

So, despite my dislike for the acting of Joanne Woodward, this is quite a good job by her. Although it's not groundbreaking by any means and the emotional part of it is a bit lacking, the technical department is just excellent. Woodward made very wise decisions with these characters (despite being relatively new to the craft) and she put on a very good performance.

What do you think? Wow, this year hasn't been very strong so far.

Lana Turner in Peyton Place

Lana Turner received her first and only Best Actress nomination for playing Constance MacKenzie, a cold single mother in the Best Picture nominee, Peyton Place. Lana Turner admitted in her autobiography that she thought that she did not deserve this nomination but was very happy about it. I don't think that there was really anyone who threatened Joanne Woodward's win that year. However, I'm sure that Lana's stardom helped her get some votes. Still, I think she was either fourth or fifth.

Peyton Place is a modestly entertaining but extremely long movie. Although it was very enjoyable sometimes, I felt like I was watching a whole season of a soap opera and it was unbearable after a while. It's much less sentimental than I would have imagines but it's still a bit much. Had it been a bit shorter, it would have been much better. Less is more sometimes. It received five acting nominations. Well, I feel that the supporting players might have deserved to be nominated (though I have some doubt about Arthur Kennedy and Diane Varsi). However, Russ Tamblyn and (especially) Hope Lange give good performances. I might even give my vote to Lange in that weak year.

I don't really know what to think about Lana Turner in general. She's made some iconic movies (The Bad and the Beautiful and The Postman Always Rings Twice) and she is a legendary beauty with a messy private life, which quite often outshone her work as an actress. Therefore, no one is really convinced that she was a really great talent. And this is not an Oscar nomination that's a proves her gift as this is much more of acknowledging a great star.

First of all, I must say that Peyton Place is really an ensemble picture and if there's a lead, than it's Diane Varsi and not Lana Turner. There are a lot of storylines that are not properly worked out and Varsi is loose connection. Lana Turner represents one of these storylines and she doesn't even have the most emotional or significant one. She has the most shallow material to work and as a result, she cannot do wonders with this part. Out of the two and a half hours of this movie, she's on the screen for about 40 minutes. Constance is really a supporting character and it's only Lana's star power that makes this one more than a boring stock role.

The fact is that Lana Turner gives quite a one-note performance but strangely it works and it serves her very shallow movie quite well. Somehow, I was impressed by her. Minimally, but I was impressed. The role of Constance asks for another actress. For instance I could much more easily imagine Jane Wyman or Olivia de Havilland (the original choices for the part) as Constance. Constance is the origin of the strong female leads in soaps of the 1980s. There's a (bit has-been but still) great star who plays the powerful matriarch or female character. Lana Turner was the best at playing mysterious, beautiful femme fatale in film noirs and this frigid single mother doesn't seem to be her cup of tea. As I said, her performance work as she was able to make Constance her own character.

There's this storyline about Constance's love affair (if that's a proper word for that) with the school's new principal, Michael Rossi (played by whats-his-name). Unfortunately, there's absolutely no chemistry between the two and that's a bit shocking considering that we're talking about Lana Turner. Who could you NOT have chemistry with her? The very mediocre story wanted to say so much (it's a chaos) and it did not give time for the most important storylines. This love between the two becomes so useless after a while and it's not even ended properly. There's that Christmas scene and so what? I would have liked to see more (though I might withdraw that, I did not want to see more of this movie).

However, Lana's scenes with Diane Varsi are excellent and are probably the highlights of the performances of both actresses. They have two big confrontation scenes and they are handled excellently by Lana. Especially the first one, where Constance says that she wants much more for her daughter than this stupid town. There is some real emotional depth in that scene unlike the rest of the movie and it is really extremely memorable. The second one is also very well-played (as I said) though it's not even close to the first one.

The rest of Lana's performance mostly consits of sleepwalking and sitting in the background. That's too bad. I firmly believe that had Turner been given some more to do, she would have been able to pull of a great performance as Constance MacKenzie. The screenplay always underlines how frigid this character is and it doesn't really let Turner do wonders with it. There are memorable scenes but the overall effect is a bit disappointing.

There's something to love about her.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1957

So the nominees were:

• Deborah Kerr in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
• Anna Magnani in Wild is the Wind
• Elizabeth Taylor in Raintree County
• Lana Turner in Peyton Place
• Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve

It is said to be a weak year but I've only seen Joanne previously, so it's going to be an interesting one to explore. I can't wait to see all the movies.

What do you think? What are your predictions for my ranking? Who's your pick? What's your ranking?