The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2007

2007

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Ellen Page in Juno
 I don't really know what to make out of Ellen Page's extremely weak performance. Although the character is incredibly annoying and as fake as possible, I really think that it's more due to Diablo Cody's  incompetent screenplay and Jason Reitman's forced direction. Ellen Page's only fault is that she's just not talented enough to make this character realistic and human. So after all, for me this work is nothing more than a failed effort.

4. Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Cate Blanchett's second Elizabeth is a real disappointment, but I'm much more forgiving about it than others. Cate is always such a force on screen that it makes up for the flaws of the character a little bit. Although there's no depth or real development in Elizabeth, Cate is able to prevent the movie from being a total disaster and she kept me from turning off the tv set. A flawed performance for sure, but not a real failure.

3. Laura Linney in The Savages
Laura Linney gives an extremely relatable, wonderful performance as a person who doesn't seem to be likeable at all at first sight and yet we get close to her and sympathise with her character. She never goes for cheap tricks to portray the neurotic personality of Wendy. She excellently mixes comedy with drama, creating the ideal dramedy performance while seeming effortless all the time (something that one of her fellow nominees didn't really succeed in). 

2. Julie Christie in Away from Her
 As Fiona Anderson, Julie Christie gives an amazing, heartbreaking performance that stays with you long after you finished watching the film. She portrays Fiona's pain and suffering with an incredible amount of grace and dignity and that's what makes this movie even more effective and heartwrenching. Although Julie's acting might be too subtle and seem too effortless for some, for me this is a true masterclass in acting, which is easily among the greatest achievements of this fantastic actress.

1. Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
In what's one of my easiest decisions ever, Marion easily walks away with this year. She is nothing short of amazing in every possible way an actress can be. Her performance has the effect of an earthquake: it makes you go through Édith's journey along with her and get to understand why this woman was such a brilliant artist. It's very unusual, extraordinary and unbelievable work from a truly great actress who gives probably the most  brilliant portrayal of a real life person.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Marion Cotillard

in 

La vie en rose

Easy win.

Final thoughts: What an unexcting year! Everything went the way I expected and things went pretty predictably. Marion simply killed her competition, Julie was shining, Laura was fine and then there were the two other ladies, far behind. With hindsight, I can't see how Marion could have lost this, she's so damn good here. Congrats to Andre Lepaun, Louis and Nues20 on your predictions! :) You can pick a year, that I'm gonna do some time, hopefully. :)

Omissions: 

• Anamaria Marinca in 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

About the next year: I really needed to go back to my favorite decade and my most special actress for some refreshment. :) I think this is enough clue. :) 

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Julie Christie in Away from Her

Julie Christie received her fourth Oscar nomination for playing Fiona Anderson, a woman suffering from Alzheimer's disease in Sarah Polley's movie, Away from Her. Julie basically swept the critics' awards and then all the other important awards: a Critics' Choice Award, a Golden Globe and eventually, the SAG. In the end, she only lost Bafta, which didn't seem to be a big deal for her as her win seemed all locked up but there was just something odd about Bafta not going for a legendary British actress (as expected). After all, Marion Cotillard pulled off the biggest surprise win in the Best Actress race for a very long time. I suppose Julie was eventually second, though I can even imagine that Ellen Page or Laura Linney got ahead of her if their fans were passionate enough. 

Away from Her is a beautifully told story and Sarah Polley's direction is very competent and proper and yet I felt that sometimes she was trying way too hard and that eventually led to some very clumsy and out-of-place moments. However, there's lots of truth and beauty in this piece, which may not become a classic, but is a film that deeply moves you. That Screenplay nomination was almost well-deserved, I'm not quite certain about it. Still, it was lovely to see the Academy recognise such a small film even if the recognition was restricted to its Academy-friendly elements. 

Julie Christie was one of these two elements and it's no wonder, really: she had already given many acclaimed and memorable performances, she had even won an Oscar previously for her work in Darling. The comeback win seemed to have been written in the stars. Julie had her ups and downs in her relationship with Hollywood, but her generation (which had always been very loving and supportive of her). I find it very hard to believe that Al Pacino, Warren Beatty or Jane didn't tick the box next to her name. It's hard to ignore Julie's enourmous talent or stunning beauty. Even when she gets a so-so part in a shitty movie like Afterglow, she can create something memorable, which is stunning at least in some parts.

Interesting enough, Julie's Fiona is actually not the main character of Away from Her (that has to be Gordon Pinsent's Grant) and she could even seem to be a mere plot device, one cannot argue that Julie's performance has the biggest impact on the viewer. Sarah Polley's direction clearly relies (sometimes way too much) on the fact that the viewers should also fall in love with Julie's character and that's why we get lots of close-ups. Sarah Polley occasionally seems so desperate to create a kind of spiritual atmosphere in this movie and she always pushes Julie out in front whenever she's afraid of her movie's not being beautiful enough. Julie Christie's beauty is limitless and that's probably why it's such a safe source of effect whenever the directors feels trouble. However, I felt that Christie porbably realised this and sometimes toned it down and added some humor and irony to the character.

Julie also did wonderfully at showing the stages of Alzheimer's and its effects on this particular human being. Even at the beginning, she suggests the fact that there's trouble so effortlessly and naturally. Actually, the scene where Fiona puts the frying pan into a frige could have been an overdone moment and yet Julie was able to play it with ease and avoided making that scene overdramatic. She doesn't portray this disease as if she was in a Greek tragedy and there are no loud moments like in Iris (a movie to which many like to compare Away from Her, even though they have their respective approaches to Alzheimer's are totally different) and Julie maximises her grace and dignity in this part. The silent breakdowns and tears are the most effective here and they make the movie incredibly painful to watch.

The way Julie portrays how Fiona gradually realises that something's wrong with her is just amazing and incredibly heartbreaking. Her big monologue when Fiona forgets the word wine is just brilliant. There isn't a false note in that scene she neither underplays nor overacts the pain and confusion of that scene. After all, a simple movement turns out to be a very intimate and puzzling confusion. She fills it with so much emotion and pain that it becomes almost unbearable to watch her.

However, the most painful scenes come in the middle of the film where Fiona and Grant have to say goodbye to each other for a month. These moments are incredibly haunting and indescribably beautiful and tender, thanks to the wonderful chemistry between Gordon Pinsent and Julie. There are pictures and moments that just stay in your moments: the couple's dance next to the Christmas tree, their discussion in the car, Pinsent's monologue on Julie's look where her beauty is just about perfectly described. Her face is so expressive that you can feel every emotion of Fiona with absolutely no dialogue. It's all in Julie's stunningly blue eyes. Julie wonderfully plays with her own body and does so with incredible subtlty.

For me the greatest scene is the one where Fiona asks Grant to make love to her one last time and than go away quickly. When Julie was lying in the bed, I couldn't help but think about her performance as Lara in Doctor Zhivago where Julie also played true love to perfection and in a way, Fiona and Grant are just as doomed as Lara and Yuri were. I don't think that Julie has ever been more beautiful than she was in this scene.

After this scene, Julie doesn't get much screentime and she becomes like a ghost in this film and her character indeed is away from her husband. It was stunning to me how brilliantly Julie built up this wall between the characters and actually, her lack of presence makes the effect of her performance even stronger (just like Sissy Spacek's in In the Bedroom which has a very similar Oscar story). As she said in her earlier monologue, Fiona is beginning to disappear and Julie portrays it with the same subtlety. You see her empty looks and that vital, beautiful, sexy woman turns out to be a broken old woman. That's why her last scene becomes such a cathartic one: for a moment that wall between Fiona and Grant seems to disappear and Fiona's old self comes to surface one last time. This moment becomes beautiful and effective because both actors avoid cheap sentimentality and that results in a truly effective ending

As Fiona Anderson, Julie Christie gives an amazing, heartbreaking performance that stays with you long after you finished watching the film. She portrays Fiona's pain and suffering with an incredible amount of grace and dignity and that's what makes this movie even more effective and heartwrenching. Although Julie's acting might be too subtle and seem too effortless for some, for me this is a true masterclass in acting, which is easily among the greatest achievements of this fantastic actress.

What do you think? 

The Next Year

2007

So the nominees were:

• Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
• Julie Christie in Away from Her
• Marion Cotillard in La vie en rose
• Laura Linney in The Savages
• Ellen Page in Juno

A great-looking year, which I was lucky to follow at the time. Marion was a surprise winner over Julie Christie, let's see if I she'll be a winner here as well or I pick another fantastic lady. :) 

What do you think? Who's your pick? What's your prediction for my ranking? :)

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1971

1971

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Vanessa Redgrave in Mary, Queen of Scots

Although I cannot deny that Vanessa's radiant presence impressed me, I cannot say the same thing about her performance as Mary Stuart. For some reason, I felt that she was lost in this character despite the fact that she completely understood this character. I had no connection to the character whatsoever but there's still something about Vanessa that holds me back from being really negative about her here.

4. Janet Suzman in Nicholas and Alexandra

Janet added some irresistable pride and even a bit of arrogancy to this character that never ceased to impress me and eventually, I don't have negative thoughts about her, I'm just disappointed and a bit angry about the wasted potential. It's almost haunting work and really great, it just could have been even better.

3. Glenda Jackson in Sunday Bloody Sunday

Glenda Jackson is just excellent as Alex Greville in Sunday Bloody Sunday. She shows lots of aspects of this character and she nails all the emotions of this character. Although I was never totally amazed by her, I was impressed by her work, especially in the scenes where she showed the demons of Alex.

2. Julie Christie in McCabe and Mrs. Miller

Despite the obvious limitations of the screenplay, Julie Christie was able to put on a wonderful, unforgettable and otherworldy performance as Constance Miller, the opium-addicted madam. Although it's a very unusual character for Julie, she played her exceptionally, making this one of her most memorable efforts on the screen.

1. Jane Fonda in Klute

I hope there was no question about it. First, I wanted to write a review only with the sentence "Best performance ever. Period." BUT then I thought that it wouldn't say enough about this stirring work of Jane and wouldn't be able to communicate what I felt as a viewer. I was moved, I cried, I even laughed at the small hints of humour that make her work even more amazing. Honestly, I just want to keep praising her and say as many superlatives about her as I can.

 

So I can proudly announce

my 40th winner is...

Jane Fonda

in

Klute

The best of the best.

Final thoughts: A good year. There wasn't much suspense as Jane killed her competition (plus she became my third double winner after Barbara Stanwyck and Liz Taylor). However, Julie and Glenda were also great and in another year, Julie would have got much closer to winning. Janet Suzman was the pleasant surprise for me and Vanessa was an unexpected disappointment for me. Really, there isn't much to say about this year as Jane is so easily the best. I admit that the others didn't have a chance though I was trying to be as impartial as possible.

Omissions: Ruth Gordon in Harold and Maude; Mari Törőcsik in Love, Lili Darvas in Love; Glenda Jackson in Mary, Queen of Scots

About the next year: I know I owe some of you years to do but given my circumstances, I'm just not able to search for films so I'm going to do a readily available year. I'll decide next week.

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Julie Christie in McCabe & Mrs. Miller

Julie Christie received her second Best Actress nomination for playing Constance Miller, a opium-addicted madam who becomes the business partner of gambler with whom she runs a whorehouse. I used to think this was a very obvious nomination and she was closest to Jane that year but now I understood how shocking it was, especially considering the fact that she had the very succesful The Go-Between. But that's also the case with Glenda. I think she was more likely to be nominated for Mary Queen of scots (despite what we now think). This is all to prove how unusually original the Academy's list was for that year (Which is by the way what we would need now! Ignore the precursors Academy!).

McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a pretty great movie, which starts a little bit too slow but it gradually becomes more and more interesting as we get to know the story and the characters more. I'm quite a big fan of Robert Altman so I wasn't really surprised to be impressed by this celebrated work of his. However, I must say that the cinematography is the best part of the movie. Not because Vilmos Zsigmond is Hungarian (by the way, he had a legendary teacher), without any bias I can say that the cinematography is the most responsible for creating such a dazzling dream-like atmosphere. Warren Beatty (an actor I am not particularly crazy about) gives a very proper performance but I don't think that McCabe & Mrs. Miller is that much of an actors' movie.

And there's the indescribably beautiful Julie Christie. Although I wouldn't say that I'm a fan of hers, I have tremendous respect for her talent and I'm always haunted by her astonishing beauty. If you look at her face, it feels like if the world was created only to let her be born. She radiates more than a nuclear plant. She's just a thrilling presence in short and that's probably she became an iconic personality and the embodiment of the spirit (and the morals) of the sixties' Swinging London and that's probably why she seems to be such an unusual choice to play the role of Mrs. Miller. It's far from everything she had done before and yet if we take a closer look at the performance, we see how many similarities it has with the previous works of hers.

After finishing the movie, I was just stunned by how short and underwritten part Julie got in this piece. Mrs. Miller is only present like a ghost, she appears relatively late into the film (very unusual with a title role) and every time we see her, it doesn't last more than five minutes. Could she have really succeeded with such obvious drawbacks and put on an amazing performance? I'm sure many would nod in a very enthusiastic way, but I'm not one of them, unfortunately. First and foremost, I am not saying that she was weak and insignificant as Mrs. Miller (actually, she's one of the most strong and consistent parts of the movie). Far from it. When I first got to see her on the screen, I was completely taken away by her unsual, dreamlike presence and I expected to be blown away by the end of the movie. I think I have to find out why it did not happen.

The most plausible explanation must be the lack of huge screentime. Although the performance benefits a lot from the sudden, short appearances of Julie and it adds a very mysterious and a bit frutstrating quality to the character, I would say that Julie clearly would have deserved to work on the background story of this character. That being said, she's still wonderful within the limits of the character and that's something that she can be proud of.

Now I might sound to be a tiny bit negative about this performance, which is not true as I was quite impressed by Julie's Mrs. Miller. The distant sort of personality which is sort of a trademark of Julie's characters shines so brilliantly. Whenever we see her getting high on opium, it's like we did the very same thing, we're just flying along with the character. You just have to look at her eyes (SPOILER! It's so great that we see just that in the end) and you're in another world. Many would call this a weird feeling but somehow I felt it was more uplifting. Strange, for sure but I wouldn't say weird.

Another aspect of this performance that I clearly deserves to be applauded is the chemistry between Julie and Warren Beatty. They fit each other so well and they succeed in showing a very complex and interesting relationship between these two characters. But Julie is equally impressive at showing Mrs. Miller's relationship with her girls. She seems like a mother and a sister at the same to these girls who seem to be a vulnerable and yet unbeatable when Mrs. Miller is by their side. The scene where she gives advice to Shelley Duvall's character is just spot-on, priceless and anything you can and cannot imagine. Everything works incredibly and the character finally gets the depth it really deserves.

So, despite the obvious limitations of the screenplay, Julie Christie was able to put on a wonderful, unforgettable and otherworldy performance as Constance Miller, the opium-addicted madam. Although it's a very unusual character for Julie, she played her exceptionally, making this one of her most memorable efforts on the screen.

So, I'm back from outer space. Seriously, it was a really long break with this blog and I really did not enjoy that. I just want to thank you all for your patience! I hoped you like(d) my comeback! :)

The Next Year

1971

So the nominees were:

• Julie Christie in McCabe & Mrs. Miller
• Jane Fonda in Klute
• Glenda Jackson in Sunday Bloody Sunday
• Vanessa Redgrave in Mary, Queen of Scots
• Janet Suzman in Nicholas and Alexandra

Since Joe is also doing this year, I hope you don't mind if I do it, too and it won't get boring for you. I was just sooooooooooo desperate to do this year (that was exactly 40 years ago) my 40th and I desperately wanted to make Jane's Klute my 200th reviewed performance (that's one of the most special Oscar nominees for me EVER and not because I'm a die-hard Fonda-fan, it was way before that). So for the 40th time...

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

Note: The much-missed overall ranking will come after I finish this year, don't worry. I just have some trouble placing the ladies. Hopefully, my torture will end. :)

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1997

1997

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Julie Christie in Afterglow

I'm not one of the fans of Julie Christie in Afterglow. She has some nice moments and she nails to emotional scenes to a certain extent but it's not enough to win me over. I really missed the wildness or the subtlety of her other great performances. But the fact that she wasn't great is mostly due to the horrid movie. Still, she's not great.

4. Kate Winslet in Titanic

This is great work by Kate Winslet. I don't want to take away anything from it as it's great work but she pales a little bit in comparision with the epic movie that she's in. Kate perfectly portrayed all the negative emotions and fears of the character and therefore she was really haunting in the beginning.

3. Helen Hunt in As Good as it Gets

Helen Hunt almost crossed the line of fantastic with her performance as Carol Connelly in As Good as it Gets. Hunt added wonderful, loveable realism to this character and she made the audience really care about her. Those, who keep saying that she's one of the worst winners, really need to shut up. Helen Hunt is just excellent as this loveable character.

2. Judi Dench in Mrs Brown

This is a wonderful performance by one of the greatest actresses ever on this planet. Although it may not be the best achievement of the brilliant Dame Judi Dench, she perfectly inhabited this very complex character and nailed the emotional scenes. This is excellent work that is a real joy to watch. It's not fantastic or mindblowing, it's "just" absolutely wonderful.

1. Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove

As Kate Croy, Helena Bonham Carter managed to create fascinating, multi-layered and mysterious character that is surely very interesting. I was totally blown away by Helena who gave astonishing work and I am not surprised at all at the amount of love that Helena gets for this great achievement. Haunting, disturbing, beautiful.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Helena Bonham Carter

in

The Wings of the Dove

Just loved Helena

Final thoughts: Why do I have mixed feelings? This was an enjoyable year with very good performances and mostly not-so-great movies. Afterglow was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E but Christie made it a bit less intolerable, Mrs Brown was quite boring with Judi Dench who gave a wonderful but definitely not her greatest performance (interesting enough, that was the movie because of which I wanted to do this year), As Good as it Gets was very entertaining and Hunt really elevated the material (I'd say she was the best thing about it). Helena was just thrilling and her movie was very interesting. I'd say Titanic was the best movie in the bunch, a real epic and Kate was really good in it though not brilliant. I would say that this year was worth reviewing because of the fantastic, gutwrenching performance of Helena Bonham Carter and the great Dame Judi. I could live without the rest, though.

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 1959
6. 1964
7. 1939
8. 1977
9. 2010
10. 1997
11. 2009
12. 1980
13. 1941
14. 1963
15. 1966
16. 1973
17. 1990
18. 1978
19. 1954
20. 1948
21. 2002
22. 1957
23. 1940
24. 1998

About the next year: I AM SO DAMN SORRY! I've just realised that The Whisperers was removed from Youtube! I'm so f-ing nervous right now. I'm feeling very sorry but I'm going to do another great year instead. I'm so sorry again. Really, really sorry. Basically, the poll was useless and I didn't get the other movies of the years in the poll. So I had to think quick. And I have my year, which is (I promise) a great one. It's an incredibly similar one to 1997 and not only in the types of roles (single mom, royal) but also some people. :)

What do you think?

Julie Christie in Afterglow

Julie Christie received her third Best Actress nomination for playing Phyllis Mann, a former B movie actress in Afterglow. 26 years after her nomination for McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Julie was back in the race. She even won Best Actress from the New York Film Critics, which seems to really be in love with her. Still, I feel she was the only one in the race who didn't have a prayer of winning that year. She was the only previous winner plus her nomination was a miracle itself, I think.

Afterglow is horrible, horrible and oh yeah, horrible. It's the worst Oscar nominated movie I've seen since Gloria (for a while I thought it would top even that). I think the filmmakers that they were making something very artsy and fashinable but instead it's one huge flop. I haven't seen such a failure for a while. The soundtrack of the movie is so damn annoying and it doesn't fit the movie. I always felt that this movie was a failed attempt to create an Altman-movie (who was BTW the producer). Moreover, the actors give laughable performances. Nick Nolte is as awful as ever, Lara Flynn Boyle is astonishingly horrible, not to mention Johnny Lee Miller. So, no, this movie didn't work with me at all.

In such an awful cast and movie, you would expect a brilliant actress like Julie Christie to elevate the material a little bit. To tell the brutal truth, she doesn't and yet she's the shining light in this mess, which I won't call a movie. Julie Christie is an astonishingly beautiful and superbly talented actress who has such radiation that it's almost toxic. I would say that she's one of the most beautiful actresses ever (if not the one). Her beauty is so superior and she's so great in every possible way.

The screenplay of Afterglow is simply awful and Phyllis is one of the weirdest characters I have ever seen. She's a broken down, unhappy, former B actress who doesn't get much joy out of life, expect for some of her old movies she watches on her telly. Her life (like Afterglow) is a mess, she has to live with a disgusting man and she has to listen to his snore every night. In short, Phyllis is very unhappy and she's longing for some happiness.

The one thing that really bothered me was that I never really understood this character. I don't get her motives, her emotions and Julie Christie couldn't really give much more to the role than the screenplay. She is very interesting for sure and yet I never got very engaged by Christie's performance even though everything was there for me to like her. Although she had that radiation that I'm mad about and she nailed some of the scenes, there wasn't a moment when I was able to honestly say "OMG! She's terrific!".

I would expect such a character to always reminisce about her days of glory and yet it's not there in Christie's performance. It's no problem at all, don't misunderstand me. Actually, I was very happy that Christie didn't make Phyllis a very standard has-been. There was a kind of depth in Phyllis that I love and yet it wasn't enough somehow. One word perfectly sums up this word: lacking.

Julie Christie's chemistry with the male actors doesn't even exist at all but I must say that it wasn't really Christie's fault. It had much more to do with the horridness of the two guys than Christie's acting as she did everything possible to make this movie work and yet everything and everybody else in the movie dragged her down so much. Had she been given more to do with the character, she could have been way better. But there's a scene where Christie is actually laughable: at the very end, she cries hysterically and it was a really ridiculous moment. I don't even want to think about it because it cracks me up so easily.

So, to sum up, I'm not one of the fans of Julie Christie in Afterglow. She has some nice moments and she nails to emotional scenes to a certain extent but it's not enough to win me over. I really missed the wildness or the subtlety of her other great performances. But the fact that she wasn't great is mostly due to the horrid movie. Still, she's not great.

I was quite generous.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1997

So the nominees were:

• Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove
• Julie Christie in Afterglow
• Judi Dench in Mrs Brown
• Helen Hunt in As Good as It Gets
• Kate Winslet in Titanic

I almost did not do this year but it looked unusually great for the 90s and I haven't covered a year from the 90s for a while, so I decided to take a look at this exciting year.

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions for the contest?