Anne Bancroft in The Miracle Worker

Anne Bancroft received her first Best Actress nomination and only Oscar for playing Anne Sullivan, the famous teacher of Helen Keller. It's strange that people thought that Bette Davis would win the Oscar for playing Baby Jane. I'm not comparing them, I just think that I would have expected Bancroft to win. First of all, her movie received multiple nominations in very important categories plus Anne Bancroft was a young and upcoming actress who's earned fame on Broadway. So I'm not that surprised by this win. It's pretty much like Marion Cotillard's win. It wasn't expected but with hindsight, it's an obvious choice.

The Miracle Worker is an astonishing, beautiful movie about Helen Keller. There are many versions of this story but I firmly believe that nothing can be better than this one. It's quite stunning that it was not nominated for Best Picture. However, all the nominations were deserved for this movie. Arthur Penn's direction is fantastic and had David Lean not been nominated, he would be my pick for the win. Patty Duke is also fantastic and now I feel that placing her in supporting wasn't that much of a category fraud.

It really wasn't because the main character of this movie is really Anne Sullivan (she's the miracle worker). I think no other actress than Anne Bancroft could have played this character so brilliantly. Anne Bancroft was a terrific, wonderful actress who's just fantastic in each and every role of hers. That voice, that presence is so astonishing and she's like a real magnet. You just have to look at her so that you don't miss any of her brilliant moments. Although her iconic role is Mrs. Robinson from The Graduate, this one is not any weaker. The characters and Anne's approach to them cannot be any more different.

Anne Sullivan is a very tough and dedicated teacher who's haunted by her horrifying past. There's a kind of mystery in her. Those sunglasses make her somehow distant and Anne played her as if she was an otherwordly person. Anne is not the kind, gentle person that you would expect in such a story. She is very tough and incredibly strict and yet she has a kind of strange connection to Helen.

Unlike Patty Duke's mostly technical performance (which is also brilliant), Anne mostly relies on the emotions and shows the demons of Annie so brilliantly. The scene where she's talking about her past with her brother and the awful things they went through is incredibly effective and chilling. She goes through so many emotions and it's just wonderful to see them change in Anne's performance. She shows all the contradictions of this character so wonderfully.

I also loved how Bancroft showed the vulnerability inside Annie's determination. I love those moments when we get to see Annie's fears and weaknesses. There are so many wonderful layers in this character and Anne Bancroft is able to reveal all of them. Although some may argue that it was easy for her to play Annie as she had previously played her on Broadway (winning a Tony for it), I think film is a totally different thing and it's incredibly difficult to adapt a stage performance to the screen. Anne is, however, never theatrical and she avoided all the possible traps and dangers of this role. There isn't a stagy feeling in it (which you can sometimes spot in Katharine Hepburn's performance as Mary Tyrone) and it all seemed so natural for me.

I was also impressed by how well she worked with Patty Duke. Their performances are totally different and yet they result in sheer perfection. It was just wonderful any time that they were together on the screen. Neither of them tried to overshadow the other one (the never did) and they really were very supportive of each other. I felt that there was a special connection between them very much like Annie's and Helen's. Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke gave us one of the best on-screen duos ever.

However, what amazed me the most was the clarity and beauty of this performance. Despite her flaws, Annie seemed like a real saint to me. This beauty drew and touched me so much that everything else failed to eist for me apart from Anne. It was just wonderful. After a while, her work becomes like a very clean creek which flows gently on a summer afternoon. There was something very relaxing about Anne and it was almost a spiritual experience for me. And that rarely happens in a film. My feelings about her are just indescribable. I guess not many people said this before but this is almost an angelic performance for me.

So after all, I was totally amazed by Anne Bancroft's star-making turn as Annie Sullivan, the determined and tough teacher. Anne Bancroft created a multi-layered fascinating character that is a real joy to watch. Her beauty shines through the screen and it's effect is just astonishing. I was taken by this work and I can only praise her for this. It's kind of cheesy to say it's a miracle but for me, it is.

What do you think?

Katharine Hepburn in Long Day's Journey Into Night

Katharine Hepburn received her ninth Best Actress nomination for playing Mary Tyrone, a depressed, unstable addict in the movie version of Eugene O'Neill's drama, Long Day's Journey Into Night. Although nowadays it's one of Katharine Hepburn's most famous performances (she herself considered this one her best) and it won Best Actress at Cannes, I don't think she had much of a chance of winning her second Oscar. I feel her performance combined with her fame and iconic image got her many votes but I think she only got ahead of Lee Remick (or not even her). It's a very tricky case with her.

Long Day's Journey Into Night is not a bad movie. Although it's overlong and even boring sometimes, the greatness of the real play shines through the material. It's an old-fashioned ensemble piece and there was Sidney Lumet as a director. The whole thing seems very stagy and I imagine it would have been fascinating on the stage. Ralph Richardson gives a great stage performance but he's too mannered for a film and he really overacts sometimes. Jason Robards and Dean Stockwell are great but nothing really amazing (maybe Robards).

Katharine Hepburn plays Mary, the mother of a dysfunctional, unhappy family. She's also mentally unstable and addicted to morphine. She's full of disturbing thoughts and shattered dreams and she's unbelievably depressed. I really cannot think of many other actress in this role besides Katharine Hepburn. Mary is an incredibly hard role to play and any misstep would have ruined it. An incredible talent isn't enough for her. This part needs an extremely confident performer who's no fears of going to places she's never been to before. I guess Katharine Hepburn was the best choice for that in Hollywood. Ironically, I'm not much of a fan of Katharine Hepburn. I mean I do admire her but I don't love her as much as others. Still, I find her stone-cold sober fascinating. This lady had a real personality (just read Jane Fonda's book, she's a fascinating character there) and she's so original.

Mary is a very unlikely Katharine Hepburn character. She's different from everything she had done and would do later. I've got used to watching her being manipulative or an unhappy spinster or a very self-confident, emancipated woman. However, Mary is something else. What I loved the most is that Kate made Mary a real ghost-like presence. As a result, she's always very frightening and disturbing to watch. There's a kind of repetitiveness in her performance that makes it very intense. I was mostly shocked by the way she portrayed Mary's denial of her son's sickness. There's a scene where he reveals where he reveals the truth and Mary slaps him on the face, screams and hugs him obsessedly. It's a very strong moment and it is really unforgettable.

Hepburn is the true standout in the cast of Long Day's Journey Into Night. She steals each and every moment from her co-stars without truly intending to. She feels like a great ensemble player but we know how much she contributed to the movie when she's not on the screen (for about an hour). Without her, the whole thing is quite slow and even boring but with her, the whole movie turns into something brilliant. That previously mentioned haunting presence is just brilliant. And she never overplays these aspects of Mary (there are scenes at the edge, though). In the end, she's very much like Ophelia from Hamlet, she becomes a shadow of her old self. It's very painful to see her suffer but it's also wonderful to see Hepburn act so great.

The movie ends with a great monologue of Mary which is excellently delivered by Katharine Hepburn. However, Sidney Lumet screwed the whole effect with close-ups. The effect would have been even stronger. That's not Hepburn's fault really, I just wanted to say. The way she speaks about the Virgin Mary and her old desire of becoming a nun is fantastic. There's something so brutal about it.

In the end, I must say that I was thouroughly impressed by the performance of Katharine Hepburn. Although there's something in me that prevented me from totally embrace it, I still find her truly amazing in her part. As Mary Tyrone, she's just chilling and really disturbing but she never overplays Mary's broken personality. Fantastic work.

What do you think?

Lee Remick in Days of Wine and Roses

Lee Remick received her only Oscar nomination for playing Kirsten, the alcoholic wife of another alcholic in Days of Wine and Roses. Poor Lee, she didn't have much of a chance of winning the Oscar. Honestly, there wasn't a prayer, was there? She might have received some votes and I'm sure many people loved her but in such a field with legends like Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis, it was impossible for Lee to win. So she's pretty much the "fifth" nominee but not a filler in the true sense of the word.

Days of Wine and Roses is a really tough movie to watch. It begins as something very ordinary but eventually it turns out to be an incredibly heartbreaking and brutally realistic story. It's almost unbelievable that it was made by Blake Edwards who's mostly known for his comedies like Victor/Victoria and The Pink Panther. That being said, it is a surprising piece of work. Another major draw is that it's just as brutal for the second time. However, there's one reason why this movie is that great: Jack Lemmon gives the performance of his lifetime. Boy, oh boy! He's just... Unbelievable. This was the movie that made him my favorite actor and there's a reason for that. He gets my Best Actor vote (over Peter O'Toole). I can't watch the scene without tears when he says "My name is Joe Clay and I'm an alcoholic."

Once again, poor Lee Remick. This whole thing is not fair for her. She has so many drawbacks and setbacks that are impossible to overcome. No wonder that her performance is rarely discussed. First of all, she was nominated along with motion picture legends like Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis plus two respected stage actresses. Second, she plays the minor co-lead alongside an actor who gives the performance of his lifetime. Third, she doesn't get that much screentime (though she gets the flashy, showy scenes needed by her). Can she overcome all these setbacks? Not really. Is she great? Yes.

Remick plays Kirsten, a woman who doesn't like alcohol in the beginning. However, she has a chocolate addiction. She is a potential alcholic and she quickly becomes one thanks to a brandy that tastes like chocolate and her boyfriend and later husband, Joe. Kirsten is (by all means) a victim. Horrible things happen to her and she cannot fight them. It's a really interesting parallel between the character and the performance. They both becomes victims of a man and major drawbacks. However, Lee, the actress, gets out of it succesfully unlike poor Kirsten.

You really see a development (?) in this performance. Although you cannot observe her changes as much as Jack Lemmon's character, you'll still pretty much see how much damage booze can cause in a life. It's always much more shocking to see a drunken woman since she loses all the tenderness inside her. We can see that here. First, Kirsten is a charming, beautiful and radiant girl and you are just not surprised that Joe fell in love with her. As the story goes on, she breaks down more and more and dives deeper and deeper into desperation. And I felt more and more sorry for her. I always love when actors don't make their characters miserable. However, here it was the very best choice made by Remick. Kirsten is nothing but a pathetic drunk, there isn't much else to say about her at one point. She's broken down, she loses everything she had.

Remick's chemistry (?) with Jack Lemmon is excellent and their scenes are really shocking and tell very much. Their fights seem so real and neither of them tries to outdo the other one. They really seem to be supportive of each other. Whenever they are drunk, they act like the same body and it was wonderful. Their last scene is just excellent. Remick delivers her monologue excellently and it was a really emotional and intense moment. Kirsten just cannot give up booze and this reality (as brutal as it is) just seems to be right for the movie. Her story doesn't go for a cheap happy ending and therefore it's just more realistic.

Although Lee Remick is overshadowed in many ways, she's just excellent as Kirsten, a pathetic woman, a real victim. Her story is very heartbreaking and you don't get any fun out of it but Remick's realism in this part is really impressive. A great performance that should be much more frequently talked about.

What do you think? (Sorry for my recent laziness with these posts but I had a lot to do)

Bette Davis in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Bette Davis received her last Oscar nomination for playing the iconic role of 'Baby' Jane Hudson, a forgotten child star in What Eve Happened to Baby Jane? There are some fun stories going on about this nomination of Bette Davis. Apparently, she wanted to win desperately and she was actually the front-runner so she had no false. When she lost eventually, she felt a cold hand on her shoulder and heard the sentence "Sorry. I have an Oscar to accept". That hand belonged to Bette Davis' arch enemy and her co-star Joan Crawford. I guess this is just a lovely anecdote but I don't rule out that this actually happened. Poor Bette, I guess she was a close second. The fact that she had a campy exploitation movie must have ruined her chances.

As I said, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is a very campy movie but it's sort of fun. It's a little bit too exaggerated version of Sunset Boulevard but it is a classic on its own right. It's full of suspense, great scenes, memorable lines and such. I think Victor Buono was quite good in his role and probably deserved his nomination. However, writing about these facts seems so unnecessary as this movie is really about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. I bet it must have been (it still is) a real treat to watch these divas fighting. This was a big fight which was won by Bette but Joan could even make a defeat look like a win.

Sometimes I have a really hard time writing about Bette Davis. Sure, she's become one of my favorite actresses (thanks to these reviews) and I got to know much more of her legendary work and yet I don't have the words to describe her talent. No, she's not beautiful and glamorous like Joan Crawford but she had such real, enourmous acting abilities plus a real interesting personality. I don't know but these old-school superstars seem so much more interesting than our new celebrities (that's another reason why Liz Taylor's death was such a big loss). And we won't ever know their secret.

If I held a poll about what's Bette's greatest performance, I imagine it would be a very close one between Baby Jane and Margo Channing. Although I prefer Margo, I don't think I like Baby Jane much less. Both works are true testaments of Bette's huge talent and they are iconic from the first minute to the last. Each and every moment is so strong and memorable. I mean how can you forget Bette singing a stupid song as if she was 5 years old or the way she says "You didn't eat your dindin". Yes, this must seem crazy if you haven't seen the movie. However, if you watch it you'll see how sick and disturbing it really looks on the screen.

Baby Jane Hudson is nothing more than a mentally unstable drunk. And Bette shows this so brutally and depressingly. What always amazes me is that she's both a tragic and a comic character. I laughed out loud many times at her bitchiness (or I guess it goes way beyond Bette's regular bitchiness) and cruelty. However, there's such devastating reality. This performance is mostly criticised because Bette is overacting it. But I always thought? WASN'T THAT THE POINT? Baby Jane was a person of theatrical screams, laughter and basically a five-year-old trapped in a middle-aged body.

However, I felt a kind of sadistic joy when I saw her being mean to Joan's character, Blanche. That horrible laugh when she gets Blanche's reaction to her special gourmet dindin is just wonderful. It's no wonder that it became an iconic moment of film history. Once you see that, you just won't forget it, for sure. But she also nails the scenes where she has to imitate Joan's voice. She's so hysterical there. The "evil side of Jane is shown excellently by Bette and she really brings the suspense to the screen.

And yes, it was devastating to watch Baby Jane struggle and suffer. There's a heart-breaking scene where Jane is standing in front of the mirror and she realizes how old and ugly she's become. It was really painful. Just like her "performances" with Victor Buono's character. Because of these moments (and the ending) I always felt that in the end Jane turned out to be the victim instead of Blanche. I'm not saying why exactly but thos who have seen the movie know it very well. Jane is mentally ill and she's holding onto her childhood and her stardom that never really existed. Bette showed a heart-breaking portrayal of child stars and how horrible their life can become (and it happened way before such things were mentioned). Just look over the names of these child stars: Tatum O'Neal, Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland. Their early stardom ended in addiction and/or way too early death. Bette fearlessly showed these things in a rather exaggerated but extremely shocking way.

This is an iconic performance and rightfully so. It's both delicious and shocking, funny and disgusting. Bette's brilliance is at (another) peak here and she's really unforgettable. No matter what she does on the screen, it's going to be something that you'll never ever forget. She nails each and every nuance of Baby Jane and the result is a fantastic, dazzling and intense work by a brilliant actress.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1962

So the nominees were:

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

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

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

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1992

1992

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Michelle Pfeiffer in Love Field

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

4. Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil

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

3. Catherine Deneuve in Indochine

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

2. Emma Thompson in Howards End

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

1. Mary McDonnell in Passion Fish

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

So I can proudly announce

the winner is...

Mary McDonnell

in

Passion Fish

This one was very close.

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

Omissions:

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

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

What do you think?

Catherine Deneuve in Indochine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Mary McDonnell in Passion Fish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final prediction time! :)

Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Michelle Pfeiffer in Love Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?