The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1940

About the field: Although I thought that it was going to be very strong, it was actually quite weak, with only one truly outstanding performance (no surprise who I guess) and it was very easy to do this ranking. For me everything was so obvious about whom I liked and how much. Except for my #1 and #2 my feelings are leaning towards neutral. However this year was still better than 1998 (though then there were two unforgettable performances). We saw in 1940 a scared woman, a socialite, a killer wife and two confused girl. The overall quality of the movies was also very low, yet I enjoyed doing this year as it's so often talked about (IMO yes). So my ranking for this year is:

5. Martha Scott in Our Town

Yet, her lack of presence effects my opinion about her unfortunately. Her whole performance fails to become substantial or really impressive. It's true that she shines sometimes, but it was way not enough to have a lasting impression on someone. This performance is not much. I'm a bit sorry as this could have been so much more.

4. Bette Davis in The Letter
Overall it's not bad, however it's very inconsistent and uneven in its strenght. Here however, Davis also had to work with a mediocore material. Too bad as this is probably the only performance of Bette I was disappointed by.

3. Ginger Rogers in Kitty Foyle
I can say that she gave a very strong and memorable performance. She is truly great but I simply cannot overcome the fact that she's so uneven. A performance that could have been so great, but was damaged by the quality of the movie.

2. Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story
this is a very nice and entertaining performance, which may not be that deep, however it succeeds in pleasing the audience and most of all, in being funny and amusing. It's probably not the best performance of Kate Hepburn, but not her worst either. Great fun and nice entertainment.

1. Joan Fontaine in Rebecca
Such an obivous (and delightful) pick. She holds it together with her charm, beauty and immense talent and also, I don't really think that anyone could have played this character this well with such credibility. Fontaine definitely deserves the huge amount of love she gets for this performance. Viva Joan!

So my winner for this year is (by a landslide)...
Joan Fontaine in Rebecca
Hey Judith! Don't be pissed that Joan won and you didn't!

Bad news everyone: I'll be away until August so no blog entries until then. However I've already picked my next year and I have good news: all movies are online so we'll be able to discuss and (re-)watch them together. Naturally, I give you clues, which one it will be. These clues will be very easy, but let's see:

• People hearing without listening... Or the contrary?
• She's on fire... (sorry)
• Speaking. Oh sorry...
• NO-Way

And time to announce another winner of the prediction contest: Joe Burns, congratulations!

So what do you think? Guesses, opinions anyone?

P.S.: I would like to make my conscience clear, so that's why I made a bit of change here. I don't want to really explain it and I may regret this one too, but I was not satisfied with the original. First I thought that my doubt would disappear, but it did not unfortunately. I know that this is not fair, but I don't make excuses. So that's just how I feel.

Ginger Rogers in Kitty Foyle: The Natural History of a Woman

Superstar Ginger Rogers received her only Best Actress nomination and win for playing Kitty Foyle, a confused white-collar woman mixed up in a relationship with a rich man in the Best Picture nominated movie, Kitty Foyle: The Natural History of a Woman. It's sooooo easy to see why Rogers won the Oscar for this role: she had a very baity role (playing against the type) in a melodrama, she was a huge star and yet Oscarless. This is probably the best combination to win an Oscar. I'm not sure though if she was the front-runner, I think it might have been between Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, but tell me if I'm wrong.

Kitty Foyle is a bit cheap soap opera, which has its good moments, but overall it's weak, predictable and soappy. OK, I do not have much affection for 1940s melodramas, but even the wildest fans of the genre can admit that there have been much better movies than this one. There's nothing worth mentioning about it: mediocore screenplay, directing and actors. It's so much like To Each His Own, the mediocore movie, where the leading actress can shine her way to the Oscar podium. So it's not really a movie which is worth watching and sometimes it caused me suffering.

However, Ginger Rogers (miraculously) was able to give a very decent and strong performance as Kitty, the strong and fighting working girl, though I must say that her performance was a bit uneven. It started a bit weak (also the screenplay's fault) but after all I warmed up to it and in the end she truly impressed me. This win of Rogers is one of the least popular ones: if we talk about this year (or you watch polls), people almost never pick her for the win, all supporting Davis, Hepburn or Fontaine.

As I said, the beginning is rather weak and it does not have much weight. I felt it was too standard and usual, which I really dislike as even being bad has some originality. However, I must mention the 80% of it is the screenplay's fault since it does not give anything special to Rogers. You have to be VERY talented to be special with a bad book and unfortunately Rogers was a bit limited performer.

Somehow I felt that the poor quality of the movie had a bad effect on Rogers' overall performance. You cannot build a palace of only water, if you know what I mean. And yet, somehow Rogers found the perfect balance and was able to elevate the material to become something tolerable. Somewhere towards the scenes where she finds true love I felt that Rogers found herself too in this role and she was able to deliver a brilliant performance.

She handles the cheesy and sentimental story with so much seriousness as if it was Shakespeare and this was a perfect decision. She made Kitty a breathing, loving and most of all living human being. She became really natural and the star suddenly disappeared and I saw an actress. Her charm and talent shined through the movie and made me want to see more of her. And there's a great factor because of which she was able to imporve her performance: the screentime. She's onscreen for 90% of the movie, actually there are no scenes not involving her and fortunately she was able to live with all the opportunites of this. The character development was extraordinary as I could witness that Kitty became a mature woman, who went through a lot of bad things andyet she never gave up.

The hospital scene (I know I'm a great sucker for these ones) is simply amazing and is the higlight of her whole performance. Her despair and sadness is almost heartbreaking to watch and she avoided over-the-topness excellently, she was never too much and she achieved so much effect with subtlety. It really had some emotional weight and I was most greatful for that when I was watching this poor movie.

I have a big problem with the rating: she was a 2.5 at the beginning, a 3.5-4 in the middle and a very strong 4.5 at the end of the movie. Overall I can say that she gave a very strong and memorable performance and I was convinced about a rating at the beginning but now I've become uncertain. She is truly great but I simply cannot overcome the fact that she's so uneven. A performance that could have been so great, but was damaged by the quality of the movie. Too bad. I guess I'm using mathematics.







So comments anyone? The Final Conclusion is soon to come! To watch Kitty Foyle, click here.

Martha Scott in Our Town

Martha Scott received her only Best Actress nomination of her carreer for playing Emily Webb, a bright, naive small town girl in the Best Picture nominated movie, Our Town. And by this she became one of those very few people who got nominations for their raved performances and then achieved nothing that lived up to the success of the first movie (if we count playing Ben-Hur's mother and appearing in Murder, She Wrote and Dallas as a success than it's not true for her). She reprised her Broadway role on screen just like Katharine Hepburn did in The Philadelphia story, so this role involved many traps.

Our Town is a good little movie based on the play of Thornton Wilder, whom I really respect and admire (if you haven't read The Bridge of San Luis Rey I recommend checking out). Because of him, I had high expectations, but then I did not hear many good things about this film, so I decided to watch it without thinking anything. The great actors in this movie give very decent, yet forgettable performances. William Holden goes quite over-the-top with his character, which is full of mannerisms and it's nothing interesting. I would have also expected more of Thomas Mitchell and Fay Bainter but they did not give me that much either. However, after watching the movie, I really wanted to read the play.

Martha Scott got a bit standard role as Emily, the naive girl living next door. She's a bit typical early 20th century girl, always being kind, helpful and naturally hard-working. She's a very bright young girl, who however feels very good in that small, insignificant town she lives in. The best thing about this performance is that (contrary to the movie), it never becomes theatrical and could use the opportunities of film. Also she was 28 at the time, much older than Emily, yet you can never feel that she's too old or miscast. However, I was quite dissatisfied with her performance and for a reason.

First of all, her very minimal screentime which makes her borderline supporting. At the beginning of the movie, she's barely on screen and when she's there, we are waiting for something, waiting, waiting and waiting. She's very much like her co-star William Holden in Stalag 17. First, the lack of screentime makes you excited and want to see her, but after a while you become bored and think that she will never really appear and right then she becomes the main character. I felt that she could do more, because she had the potential and the talent, she just simply did not have time to shine. In very few cases can a performer leave a lasting impression on you with such minimal time (Pat Neal and Simone Signoret come to my mind right now).

People mostly praise her last scenes (which I will mention later), I was however mostly impressed by the sequence where she goes on a date with William Holden. Right there she could truly shine and show how much innocence and love she can express with her face and eyes. In my opinion, William Holden did not get that scene right, however Scott was able to hold it together with her charm and loveliness. For me this was the highlight of her whole performance and the movie itself.

Our Town is a bit weird movie and yet there were some ideas I loved very much. In the wedding scene we could hear the thoughts of the people preparing. Scott's acting there was again excellent. In my opinion we could read everything from her very expressive face, you understand all of her emotions without even listening to what she says inside and this is quite an achievement.

And her big scenes towards the end are also very well-made, however I was not as impressed by her last monologue as I expected. I felt that it must have been very effective that time (it's typical 1940s acting there), but for me it was a bit cheesy and did not move me that much. She wanted to do so much and managed to do little. This is her biggest flaw, which is truly hers and not the screenplay's or the direction's (she was not the one in charge of her screentime).

Yet, her lack of presence effects my opinion about her unfortunately. Her whole performance fails to become substantial or really impressive. It's true that she shines sometimes, but it was way not enough to have a lasting impression on someone. I can't really say anything else, because this performance is not much. I'm a bit sorry as this could have been so much more. Nice, but not enough.


She's the definition of 3 Meryls.




So what do you think? It's time to give your final predictions! Risk and win! :)

Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story

Katharine Hepburn received her third Best Actress nomination for playing Tracy Samantha Lord, a rich society girl, who's preparing for her wedding with a boring loser, who cannot possibly replace her ex-husband, the charismatic C. K. Dexter Haven in the the George Cukor movie, the Philadelphia Story. Hepburn reached her superstar status with this movie, before this her movies always failed, but with The Philadelphia Story she finally pleased the audiences too. For her achievement she was honored with an Oscar nomination and in my opinion she was also very close to winning for she had already won the award of the New York Film Critics.

The Philadelphia Story is a classic comedy, which is in my opinion very entertaining and fun to watch. However, it's far from being as hysterical as The Awful Truth or My Man Godfrey or His Girl Friday (released in the same year). It's very solid entertainment with a solid directing, writing and acting performances. Cary Grant was said to be the star of the movie, despite the fact that he's barely on screen and he's rather supporting. James Stewart won Best Actor for his performance, which is very amusing (and I liked it much more this time), yet I don't feel that he deserved an Oscar for this.

The true star of the movie is however (as always when she's in something) Katharine Hepburn. I've already written about my feelings towards her in my review about her performance in Suddenly, Last Summer. The Philadelphia Story is quite different from that movie as this is the early Katharine Hepburn, however both share Hepburn's confidence, talent and shining self. The two roles cannot be more different, yet they have a lot in common.

Hepburn's Tracy Lord is one of those characters which you identify with the performer. This can be very dangerous in some of the cases, yet Hepburn was able to avoid all the traps of this character. We can feel that she gives herself and has fun with the role, yet it can be seen how much she worked on this character to make it perfect. She succeeded in a way, my only complaint could be the same I told about Doris Day. The comedy part is excellent and unforgettable, however the character often gets standard and there's no as much depth in it as I would have expected it.

Of course if you watch her for the first time, you're mostly amazed by the comedy of it, which is dead on. Her cheeky and bitchy one-liners are simply magnificently delivered by Katharine Hepburn and she managed to avoid overacting and exaggerating (which is a great problem of the performance of James Stewart). Hepburn is on the edge of it, yet she never gets over-the-top and unbelievable. She's very sober throughout the whole movie and she's not much (even in the drunk scenes).

Her chemistry with both Cary Grant and James Stewart is both brilliant. We cannot be sure until the very end if she goes with Stewart or Grant. Hepburn handles the romantic parts extremely well and yet never lets the movie become serious. Her extraordinary beauty shines through the thin material and lifts the whole movie. Without Katharine Hepburn, this movie would never have been a classic. She's the main reason why it's so entertaining and joyful.

And yet I have the problem of the entertaining surface but not much substance. Although I was having great fun, I did not get a lot out of her performance until a certain point. Probably my favorite scene involving her is the one where she says "I don't want to be worshiped. I want to be loved." All the motives of Tracy became clear to me with that scene. She's lonely, unloved and wants someone on whom she can rely with whom she can be happy forever. Naturally it's Cary Grant, but it's such an enjoyable to see her change from a sour and cheeky woman to a happy lady in love. She the ugly little duck becoming a beautiful swan.

Her comic delivery in the scene where she's told what to do, is simply hilarious. And although I'm not a huge fan of the so-called "screen-bitchery", she's so enjoyably bitchy in the first scenes with James Stewart and Ruth Hussey. Her comedy timing is probably the best in those scenes. I must also mention that although she had already played this part on Broadway, she never became theatrical in The Philadelphia Story, she perfectly portrayed this character on the screen too.

So to sum up, this is a very nice and entertaining performance, which may not be that deep, however it succeeds in pleasing the audience and most of all, in being funny and amusing. It's probably not the best performance of Kate Hepburn, but not her worst either. Great fun and nice entertainment.







Comments anyone?

Joan Fontaine in Rebecca

Joan Fontaine received her first (out of three) Best Actress nomination for playing a naive young girl marrying a rich widower in the Best Picture-winning Rebecca, the masterpiece of the legendary Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Fontaine became a huge star with this performance and exactly a year later, she won an Oscar, which is considered to be a make-up prize for losing for Rebecca. Neverthless both the movie and Fontaine's performance became classic and if it wasn't for Ginger Rogers' huge popoularity, she probably would have won.

As I said Rebecca is simply a masterpiece. It's full of suspense, mystery and excitement, plus you can never take your eyes off the screen. Hitchcock was a film master that's for sure and he showed his talent at filmmaking with this movie too, even though it's not as amazing as Vertigo or Rear Window. The actors all give strong and memorable performances and three of them got their nominations. Laurence Olivier is a bit mannered in the beginning if I may say so, but in the end, he's simply amazing. Judith Anderson is the most loved of the public, even though I feel she's a bit over-the-top, but great anyhow.

And about Joan Fontaine's performance: all I can say is WOW! I read somewhere that although Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier are great in this movie, they are both overshadowed by the creepy Judith Anderson. I would like to rephrase that sentence: although Laurence Olivier and Judith Anderson are great in this movie, they are both overshadowed by the magnificent Joan Fontaine. And it's all so true: every movement, every action of Fontaine is pitch-perfect and her presence is simply magnetic.

The amazing and shocking thing about this performance is that it's not showy or baity at all. Actually, it's such a subtle and (I even dare to say) thin role, that it's almost a miracle that Fontaine got so much out of it. In my opinion in 90% of the cases, actresses playing naive young girls are destined to be weak and not impressive at all. It's so great that Fontaine belongs to that 10% (thank God for that). It's such a lovely contradiction that she is enourmously strong by being weak and inconfident. From a standard character she created a living, breathing woman, for whom you root and want to succeed.

At the beginning we can only see a shy young girl watching Laurence Olivier. We can immediately feel her attraction towards him and the chemistry between is remarkable and rarely seen in other movies. Two other performances came to my mind about Joan Fontaine in Rebecca: Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight (this is more obvious) and Audrey Hepburn in The Nun's Story. Although she doesn't seem to be a mix between them (Fontaine's movie was made way before those ones), the common thing among them is their huge impact with subtle, minimal acting. They all haunted me for a long time and the effect of them is almost indescribable.

And yet this is not the best thing about her performance as it is the amazingly and carefully worked out development of her character. First, she's just a shy young girl, serving a horrible, nosy woman and falling for Maxim de Winter. Then at Manderley, she's an even more inconfident living in a world that is unknown and strange to her. We see her as a scared little animal parted from its mother. She is unforgettable in the scene where she says that Mrs. de Winter is dead and she doesn't realize that the man on the phone wanted to talk to her. That small sentence was probably the highlight of her whole performance (for me at least, I suspect that I might be the only one) and it is the reason why I love the Best Actress reviews. And as we approach the ending, this girl becomes so confident, that she's not even afraid to fight Mrs. Danvers (the way she says "I'm Mrs. de Winter now" is chilling). It's also worth mentioning, that her romantic moments with Laurence Olivier never become corny or soappy, they remain credible and of course full of tension.

Joan Fontaine's acting in this movie is so progressive, in my opinion way ahead of her time. Back in the 1940s it was all about drama queens and zany comedies, but Fontaine created something new, which effected the later film acting. I just cannot imagine other actresses in this kind of roles being that good, if it wasn't for the inspiration of Fontaine. I know that this is debatable and naturally it's just my opinion.

Her huge screentime is also an important factor of her whole performance. With that much time, she had the opportunity to go this deep into her character, though I must say that towards the end it's more about Laurence Olivier. We can agree that Fontaine's performance is the main reason why this movie is so great. She holds it together with her charm, beauty and immense talent and also, I don't really think that anyone could have played this character this well with such credibility. Fontaine definitely deserves the huge amount of love she gets for this performance. Personally, I even liked her in Suspicion. But that's a different story. Viva Joan!






Comments, opinions, predictions anyone? To watch Rebecca click here.

Bette Davis in The Letter

Motion Picture legend Bette Davis received her fifth/fourth (her first nomination was a write-in one) Best Actress nomination for playing Leslie Corbie, woman killing her lover in the William Wyler melodrama, The Letter. My first clue of this year (Who's the First Lady of movies?) referred to the constant argument if Bette is the one or Katharine Hepburn. I don't have to (or want to) decide the question here, however if we held a debate on who's the biggest drama queen, it would last for about 2 seconds as it's obviously Bette Davis. She starred as strong and yet vulnerable women in countless movies always giving performances that still amaze a lot of people (including myself).

The Letter is a very typical 1940s melodrama, which can be either a treat or a torture. This movie is a treat in the beginning, a torture in the middle and a semi-treat towards the end. William Wyler's directing style seems very dated today, even though he also made many classics (Mrs Miniver, The Best Years of Our Lives). The acting in this movie is the typical early overacting by the most of the cast and they add no real depth to the real character. James Stephenson got a Best Supporting Actor nom which might have been worthy, even though he's not THAT great in this movie.

All the actors got standard melodrama roles, including the great Bette. Unfortunately she does not get to be quite different from what she usually is. Her character lacks every originality, it seems as if the writers wanted to make it sure that the movie should be a success and that's why they gave something to Bette which she'd already done and was sure to be loved by the audience and the Academy. It just simply doesn't use the versatility of Bette Davis properly.

The performances of Bette Davis never disappointed me until now. Although I have to admit that she's far from being mediocore or bad in this movie, she simply did not give anything to me to rave about. This performance of hers has a massive fanbase, but I don't get it. Bette had many way better and more memorable performances than this one, say All about Eve, Jezebel or Now, Voyager. But it might be just me naturally.

Her first scene is the mostly praised above all, but the strength of that sequence is mostly due to the directing and the music, Bette actually doesn't do anything special, other than opening her eyes widely and being terrified. I mean, she shows all the emotions well, but in my humble opinion it was no big feat for Bette Davis. Also, there's also a constant weirdness about this character: she's so moody, gets teary so quickly, that it's so unreal and far from reality. I guess this is also due to the genre of the movie, however a bit of subtlety would not have hurt.

The short scenes at the prison are nothing special, she's just there and that's it. It's so unusual to see Bette not be as strong as she's in general. The big scene where the letter is shown to her was however solved by her very well. There I felt that it was Bette Davis and in fact showed how great she can be.

And yet her performance is not totally damaged by the weak material. Towards the ending, she becomes close to great and those are probably the strongest scenes of her whole achievement in this movie. I especially admired her in the scene where she (in fact) bends down in front of her lover's wife to get the letter. The fear and nervousness she shows, is simply amazing and probably saved her performance and the movie itself. All the emotions were displayed very well in those scenes and I was surely impressed.

I must also mention the very last scenes where she's confronted by her husband. She was also very strong and impressive there, if not brilliant. I think those scenes had the potential of being great, yet it did not live with all the opportunities, except for Davis who is very close to being amazing, you just simply cannot take your eyes off her. This is great to experience, but it also indicates how uneven her performance really is. It's never weak, I would not say that, but she was not constantly strong enough to grab my attention unfortunately.

I have to write down the same thing about Bette that I did with Elizabeth Taylor in Suddenly, Last Summer. Overall it's not bad, however it's very inconsistent and uneven in its strenght. Here however, Davis also had to work with a mediocore material (which was not true in Taylor's case). Too bad as this is probably the only performance of Bette I was disappointed by. The funny thing is though that right now I don't feel very disappointed, only neutral. She just (to quote the snobbish guy from the queue at the movie theatre in Annie Hall) did not hit me on a gut level, though Bette's craziest fans might want to hit me on a gut level right now.







To see The Letter click here.

So comments anyone? :)

The Next Year

Moving along with our next year, which is 1940 one of the most talked about races ever. The nominees cover a wide range, but now I stop talking. This time I will send links to the movies, which I hope will be useful to you (I cannot give you one to The Philadelphia Story but it's available on DVD I'm sure). Again, let's enjoy the movies and naturally, the performances of these iconic stars.



So the nominees were:

• Bette Davis in The Letter
• Joan Fontaine in Rebecca
• Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story
• Ginger Rogers in Kitty Foyle: The Natural History of a Woman
  
• Martha Scott in Our Town
  

So what are your predictions? It's time to share your fearless, gutsy predictions with me and the world.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1959

About the field: I can again say that I saw brilliant performances by brilliant actresses. This was the second time that my pick was 100% obvious for me as I think that she was way ahead of the competition, giving one of the best performances ever. However I saw four fantastic performances and a so-so one. I enjoyed their acting immensely and this was probably one of the most versatile years. A woman having an ugly nervous breakdown, a possessive mother, a single woman, a nun and an unhappy actress. And I must also mention that they starred in excellent movies, two of them even must-see ones. And this was also the first time that I previously saw all the movies (well, I saw The Nun's Story when I was 7 and I only remember being horrified that Audrey's hair was cut). So here's my ranking (which was the easiest to make so far besides 1998):

5. Elizabeth Taylor in Suddenly, Last Summer
This performance needed over-the-topness and Elizabeth Taylor, but I felt that it was way too much for me and sometimes she got quite annoying. I said some bad things but still it's not that bad, just a missed opportunity far from being a disaster or a tragedy. Nice work but not enough from Elizabeth Taylor.

4. Doris Day in Pillow Talk
Doris Day never lets her performance be serious, but she takes the comedy part of it more than seriously. She's always in charge of the character technically as her acting mostly technical and you can see how carefully worked on and excellently crafted her peformance realy is. One of the greatest comedy performances ever.

3. Simone Signoret in Room at the Top
Simone Signoret is one of the greatest actresses ever and in Room at the Top she was able to put on an amazing performance, which I liked much more for the first time, but it was still fantastic to watch as she gave a really strong and memorable performance. Magnificent work by an extraordinary talent.

2. Katharine Hepburn in Suddenly, Last Summer
I lined up a great deal of arguments why this is not one of Kate Hepburn's worst performances but is one of her best works ever. in which she deals with all the possible difficulties of a performance with such ease and brilliance that she nearly makes it too easy, which might be true for her, but not an ordinary performer. Gutwrenching work.

1. Audrey Hepburn in The Nun's Story
A revelation: Audrey Hepburn gently amazes you, her dignity and grace on screen leaves you speechless and makes you think about her for a long time. Haunting, effective work and an amazing accomplishment by a true legend at her finest and one of the greatest performances that I have ever seen in my life. A real onscreen miracle.

So I can proudly announce that my winner for 1959 is...
Audrey Hepburn in The Nun's Story
Truly unforgettable work by an amazing actress.

I will do another year, which I will finish until next Monday. It's going to be a bit fast, but I won't be able to write until August. But we have a year and naturally I give you clues to find out:

• Who's the First Lady of movies?
• You Rang, M'Lady?
• My, your, his, her...
• It's all about women...

I will reveal the secret tomorrow, but until then I'm waiting for your thoughts, opinions and guesses of course.

Doris Day in Pillow Talk

Actress/singer Doris Day received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Jan Marrow, an interior decorator falling for Rock Hudson in the comedy Pillow Talk. This nomination is very much debated on forums as Doris Day was nominated for her comedy performance, while Marilyn Monroe was snubbed for her work in Some Like It Hot. I think that it is not worth arguing about this as I think they were both nomination-worthy. I think Day was not favored to win, however I believe she received many votes for she was a huge star giving a great comedy performance.

Pillow Talk is a GENIOUS romantic comedy about... sex. I think it's very brave for it's time as it nearly openly discusses this subject which was considered immoral to talk about in movies. No wonder that the brilliant, hilarious and HYSTERICAL screenplay won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar (in fact, this is one of the most deserved wins in this category). The acting is top-class in Pillow Talk including the always amazing Rock Hudson giving a great comedy performance and the supporting cast: Tony Randall and Thelma Ritter are so insanely funny, I think both deserved to win a supporting Oscar (even though I did not use to appreciate Ritter in this).And yes, there's the always charming Doris Day who's simply excellent and almost pitch-perfect as a woman having "bedroom problems".

Comedy performances are extremely hard to judge. You have to turn off your snobism, but also your enthusiasm. They are easy to be loved, but easy to be disliked too. Actually, when comedy acting is great, it seems better than acting in a serious, heavy drama, let's just face it. So I remain very sober while reviewing Day, who left a huge impact on me with her acting.

I don't really know her work (besides this one), however I find her to be immensly talented and a magnificently shining personality (that's why she must have been very difficult to work with, I have a feeling). And this charm (and her sense of humor) always helps her a lot during the movie. She's a professional entertainer knowing exactly when and how to do things to make the audience laugh. She's always in charge of the character technically as her acting mostly technical and you can see how carefully worked on and excellently crafted her peformance realy is.

Her line-readings are quite simply hysterical and she's probably the only one of her generation who could deliver the silliest sentences this very funny way (e.g. "don't mind my mind"). When I saw her being that brilliant in this, Irene Dunne, Rosalind Russell and Jean Arthur came to my mind. Day (just like the previously mentioned ladies) kicks ass in these battle of sexes comedies. She's the cheeky, confident and yet charming girl living next door, who turns from the sour spinster to be a passionate woman.

Jan is a single woman and she says she likes it. We immediately know that naturally she doesn't, but Day never shows us the loneliness or isolation of her. She never lets her performance be serious, but she takes the comedy part of it more than seriously. Comedy is very hard to do as you need very much discipline and a skill of timing. Day's timing is more than wonderful: her lines blow up like fireworks and you just can't help bursting out in laughing.

Although she does not have the best jokes she gets the most out of her material. Her crying scene is the best part of her performance and it's really laugh-out-loud funny. Nobody (except for Jean Arthur) can cause as much laughter with crying as Doris Day. That sequence is nearly divine and should be taught at acting classes (I hope it is).

This performance is unfortunately not without it's flaw. Although it's great that she never lets drama get into the movie, she sometimes overdid the mannerisms of this spinster character. It does not help either that sometimes she's outdone by her brilliant co-stars. Although these are not serious problems, they ruin the whole picture a bit unfortunately.

Nevertheless, this was probably, not probably, definitely the most enjoyable nominated performance of the five, however it had some minor flaws which did not damage her overall achievement, only cooled my enthusiasm. It's no big deal however to declare that right now I've just scene one of the greatest comedy performances ever. Excellent job.
What do you think?

Simone Signoret in Room at the Top

International star Simone Signoret received her first Best Actress nomination and a surprise win for playing Alice Aisgill, a lonely and bitter married actress, who begins an affair with a younger man in the movie Room at the Top. It's really a miracle that Signoret was able to win the Oscar for this performance. Not because she was bad, but Room at the top is a rather small British movie and also two of Hollywood's greatest stars were expected to win the coveted award. Eventually they both went home empty-handed, while Signoret won the award and got another nomination six years later.

Room at the Top is a good English free cinema movie, which I liked very much for the first time, but now I felt extremely bored sometimes, though there were things about this movie that I liked much more this time around. Also, the ending was not very satisfying. One of those things is the performance of Laurence Harvey, who in my opinion was superb, despite the things people say about his talent. In this movie, he rocks and probably even deserved the Oscar (though I'm not sure whether he gets my vote over Jack Lemmon's legendary performance, time will tell). Also there were things I was truly amazed last time, but now caused me minor disappointment.

If you don't understand the clues, I'll tell you. It was as much of a shock for me as it will be for you, but it was Simone Signoret. Last time I wrote a review about this movie I could not stop hailing Singoret's performance, but this time my love has cooled a bit. She's no longer in my Top 10, I'm afraid. I do NOT want to suggest though that she was bad or mediocore, I just felt that she was a bit underwhelming this time.

The part of Alice is not very baity, it has many opportunities to show Signoret's brilliance, but it's not the type of role that gets love from the Oscars. I can only compare her to Rachel Roberts in This Sporting Life: they become victims in the end and they are the characters you feel sorry for eventually. I must also say that just like in the case of Roberts, I cannot really imagine anyone play Alice with the passion and deep understanding which Signoret used in this movie. Sometimes I even identified Signoret with Alice.

Signoret was an actress with a unique and (I even dare to say) odd talent, whose presence is nearly magnetic and you cannot take your eyes off her. Her inner beauty and radiant personality shine through the movie so much, that you are instantly amazed by her and do not really care about the others onscreen. She does not steal the scenes, not at all, in fact she makes the scenes and everyone else pales in comparision with her. When she's there, it's her an nobody else. I also must mention that her weird accent in this movie adds so much mistery to this character about whom we don't know much, yet we feel everything she went through in her life, all the disappointments and all the hurtful moments.

Alice is an unhappy, lonely woman, who longs for a bit of happiness, which she finds on the side of a man much younger than her. Because of the way her husband treated her she became bitter and deeply devasted. Alice does not expect much from life, yet Signoret shows us how desperately she wants to find some joy in her life. The first time she meets Joe (the character Harvey play) we do not feel that anything's going to happen between them and their relationship begins from being friends eventually ending up being a fatal affair.

And once she finds happiness, Alice does everything possible to keep it. She never lets Joe treat her like her husband did, but we can easily see how vulnerable and unstable she is in fact. Because of Joe's greed, Alice has to lose everything, which meant happiness and comfort to Alice later. She has to be unhappy again and she's too weak and broken-down to put up with this state.

The scene where she says goodbye to Joe is almost heartbreaking: she (along with the audience) knows that it is the end of their relationship despite the fact that Joe always say "this is just the beginning". Alice breaks down and desperately wants to get her happiness back. What used to mean her whole life is gone in a second and she cannot accept it. Signoret brilliantly portrays this emotions on-screen and sometimes this much pain is unbearable to watch.

So to sum up, I think Simone Signoret is one of the greatest actresses ever and in Room at the Top she was able to put on an amazing performance, which I liked much more for the first time, but it was still fantastic to watch. A very unusually heartbreaking performance and now understand all the love and criticism it gets. But I can't really deny how fantastic she really is, so ironically, her original rating almost remained here. Magnificent work by an extraordinary talent.
So what do you think? This is the last opportunity to share your predictions with me, which I accept (you can still predict next time, but it would be to easy to find out then).