Ingrid Bergman in Joan of Arc

Legendary, beloved and immortal actress Ingrid Bergman received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing Joan of Arc, a young French girl destined to save France in the 1948 movie, Joan of Arc. Now, I'm pretty damn sure that Ingrid had the least chance to win out of the nominees as she was a previous winner (actually she won the award the soonest out of the group), she did not receive prestigeous awards for her performance and her movie was a financial flop plus the reviews were not very kind either.

Unfairly, in my humble opinion. Joan of Arc is a fair religious American movie, not worse than say The Song of Bernadette. The technical part of it is excellent (for its age at least) and the actors give quite good performances in it. José Ferrer got a nomination which might just have been deserved, however I did not find him to be good enough to win. Actually there are many more familiar faces in Joan of Arc, but again I have to say that the movie is all about the performance of the title character. Everything is done to help Ingrid Bergman show her talent and good qualities. Unsuccessfully, as we can notice by the opinions about this performance. People acknowledge it to a degree, but now it's totally forgotten and in the blogosphere she's not very popular either (to put it mildly).

Undeservedly, I may say and defintely not because Ingrid Bergman is one of my all-time favorite actresses. I can admit when she's not giving her usual self in movies like The Bell's of St Mary's, but now it's not the case. This performance of hers is treated like Joan of Arc back then: some people want to burn it, some love it, but unfortunately it's burned without a good reason. It's very important to mention that this movie is based on a Broadway play for which Ingrid won the Tony award. The main argument against her in this movie can be that she's too over-the-top and theatrical, which is partly true, however it's mainly because of the screenplay. It seemed to me as if the screenwriter (it was the playwright) was quite lazy to work and rather left everything as it was (which was a huge Broadway hit). Ingrid suffers from the exaggerated lines, but how can she deliver them if not like she did in the theatre? She was even able to hold herself back.

First of all, Ingrid Bergman had a magnetic presence which was able to elevate even the shallowest material. Whenever she's on-screen, you cannot take your eyes off her. Her beauty, grace (and most of all) talent shines through the film and fills you with positive feelings that some are not able to handle nowadays and that's why I think that she's a bit underrated. Personally, it did not really bother me that she was 33 despite the fact that Joan was only 19 at the time.

And we got to the difficult character of Joan of Arc: she's a naive, idealistic, deeply religious and most of all very SIMPLE and ORDINARY young girl. Begman excellently caught that Joan became enthusiastic and almost fanatic after leaving her old, simple life behind.Ingrid handled Joan with enormous respect and understanding, she could think like an illiterate peasant girl. She can understand much more with her heart and her soul. She was raised to serve the king and above all, God and she does everything possible the achieve her goal, or if you like it that way, destiny.

Joan is very uneducated, but far from being stupid or silly. She undestands other simple people and Bergman perfectly portrayed her almost angelic nature, which can easily be annoying for nowadays' people. And now we got back to the huge criticsm: overacting and being theatrical. In my humble opinion, the decision Ingrid made, was a wise one. She may be more popular had she been subtler, but she chose this and I'm grateful for that even though it was certainly a bit much sometimes.

After Helen Mirren in The Last Station, there's another unpopular and not talked about performance that I was impressed by. Her last huge scene left a huge impact on me and I simply loved her when she was expressing her doubts and saying her prayers. You can hate Ingrid in this, you can hate me for this, but it doesn't change anything. Rating is not easy however. I could give a five, but that would be a bit much and I could give less, but I would feel it's not enough. It's a great and forgotten performance of a true legend, .

So what do you think my ranking will look like? Are you saying "What a Surprise!" theEllen Burstyn was or are you happy for Ingrid? Tell me, don't be shy. To watch a bit edited version of the movie click here.

Olivia de Havilland in The Snake Pit

Legendary Olivia de Havilland received her fourth Academy Award nomination (third in the Best Actress category) for playing Virginia Cunningham, a woman having an ugly nervous breakdown in the Best Picture nominated film of Anatole Litvak, The Snake Pit. I'm quite sure that Olivia had an excellent chance of winning that Oscar. It must have been a big competition between her and Jane Wyman (and probably the overdue Dunne and Stanwyck stole some votes), but I guess the "she's already won" factor came in to the picture.

The Snake Pit is a very much loved movie as I noticed, however I was not as impressed by it as everyone else. Sure, it was way ahead of its time, yet I did not feel that it was very harrowing. I guess they have to follow the demands of the censors and the audiences. Too bad. All the actors are giving very good performances, it was especially nice to see Betsy Blair in her very small role (she has two words altogether). We can make the conclusion that The Snake Pit is The Olivia de Havilland show.

This performance is probably one of her most popular and beloved works, despite the fact that nobody can deny that she was the best in The Heiress. The part of Virginia is the prototype of deglam roles (just like Catherine Sloper in The Heiress). The beautiful superstar becomes unattractive, even ugly, no lipstic or makeup etc. It's no wonder that people went (and still go) crazy for Olivia's acting in this one.

I always felt that by attitude towards an actor or an actress always influences my opinion about her actual work. I know that it's unfair, but after all we are human who are biased. I like de Havilland and always enjoy her in everything she does and The Snake Pit was no exception. Her acting is charismatic, loveable and makes you care about her character and feel sympathy for her. Olivia's best decision througout her career was that she was never afraid to disappear as a star. When I watch a say Kate Hepburn performance, I always feel that it's Kate Hepburn as her personality shines through the material, however in Olivia's case, I always feel that I'm watching the character and not her.

That being said, I can talk about her actual acting in this movie. My only (and unfortunately) big complaint about her is that she does not have as much weight and strength as she should. You can always grab the attention of the audience when you're playing a crazy person and yet I never felt that Olivia really hit me hard. Of course, the tenderness and weakness comes from her character, but I could never really be amazed by her as she wasn't able to always grab my attention.

And yet I feel that the tenderness also helps her acting. Although she did not give me chills as I expected, I was impressed by her charm and dignity on-screen. She might have been weaker than she should have been, but she still shined (to a degree). Although in general she was very good and I liked her a lot, a cannot really mention one outstanding scene. Her big scene with her childhood is effective, but not amazing. Again: it lacks some strength. I remember Liz Taylor's big monologue in Suddenly, Last Summer. I think overall she was worse than Olivia, but that scene was way more powerful. Her strongest moments are when she gets to the snake pit where she's able to give more than in the other scenes and yet it's not very satisfying either. Again, her first scenes are very well-acted, but not THAT brilliant. I must say though that she's terrifying when she's forced into the bathtub.

I really don't know what else to say about her. She's courageous, charming and yet far from amazing or very memorable. I think that this performance might grow on me, but now I'm disappointed. Had I not heard that much about her, I would have been satisfied, but this way I'm feeling a bit awkward. Nevertheless, this is a very good performance, which is easy to like but I don't know how you would appreciate it. My grade is the one I feel the most comfortable with, so I guess it will do. Nice work from de Havilland, but definitely not her best.

Ingrid Bergman's next. What do you think? Do you love Olivia more than me or you totally hate her? I'm also interested in your predicitions. To see The Snake Pit click here

The next year...

Hi everyone, I'm back from my vacation so now it's time to go on with our next year, which is (as you all guessed well) 1948. I don't know either how my ranking will look like as I only saw the winner, but I can give links to ALL of the movies. On forums this year is mostly talked about because of the performances of de Havilland and Wyman, however I can pick anyone, so let's just start it. I think I'll see at least two excellent performances and naturally I'm waiting for your preditions.



So the nominees were:

• Ingrid Bergman in Joan of Arc
• Olivia de Havilland in The Snake Pit
• Irene Dunne in I Remember Mama
  
• Barbara Stanwyck in Sorry, Wrong Number
  
• Jane Wyman in Johnny Belinda
  

So what do you think my ranking will look like?

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.