Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction

Great Glenn Close received her fourth Oscar nomination for playing Alex Forrest, a lonely, psychotic woman who's after a man with whom she had a brief affair in the movie Fatal Attraction. Considering the hit status of Fatal Attraction and the fact that Great Glenn had already received three Oscar nominations must have made her a serious contender for the Academy Award. However, unlike Cher she wasn't the sentimental favorite and unlike Sally Kirkland she didn't campaign as hell to win the award so she once again lost (and she's still Oscarless, what a shame on the Academy, it's disgusting). It's ironic that out of the five performances nominated it's only hers that became truly iconic and most frequently talked about. You know, time always tells which performances are really good.

Fatal Attraction is an excellent movie. It's not an art flick, it very much knows what the audience wants and serves it, but it's still just chilling and fantastic. Adrian Lyne is very talented at creating tension (in every way) and he's just great here. I think all the Oscar nominations were richly deserved for this movie and I guess Michael Douglas would have been deservedly nominated, too had it not been for his Oscar winning turn in Wall Street. Anne Archer, however, absolutely deserved to win the Academy Award for her excellent work as Dan's wife. In my opinion, Ellen Hamilton Latzen was also worthy of the nomination (I know, I know...)

But oh boy, this movie is about Great Glenn. And I love this woman, I truly do. I literally watch everything she's in (movie, television show and if I can see bits and pieces of her work theatre). She has an acting style unlike anyone that I know. There's something about her that draws me constantly, a kind of a special aura or radiation that keeps telling me all the time: "She's great. She's great. She's great. She's great. She's great.". And yes, she's Great Glenn and no I can't call her anything else. I might even say she's my favorite actress besides Jane Fonda. And according to most people, her finest hour was her work as Alex Forrest in Fatal Attraction.

Fatal Attraction basically created a whole new genre with the crazy ex-girlfriend who's ruining happy families. And most of that is due to the marvelous and devastating performance of Great Glenn who's simply marvelous at communicating Alex's feelings and demons. The movie and the screenplay are quite standard and not very original (to say the least) and it was up to the actors (and especially Great Glenn) to elevate it to something really special. They all succeeded, especially Great Glenn who created one of the most iconic characters of all time.

If you have noticed, I just keep saying that Glenn is great and iconic but I don't give reasons why. The explanation is quite simple: no words can perfectly describe Great Glenn's gigantic power and force as Alex. From the first moment, her performance is just perfect. We get to see her for the first time at a party, being an ordinary 80s sexy woman. She presents Alex as a confident, smart and sexy woman with a sense of humor but also as someone who's very realistic about life. She's an incredibly seductive presence (I can only compare her to Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct) and you can easily see why Michael Douglas' character falls head over heels for her.

For me, the most wonderful aspect of this performance is the way Great Glenn develops Alex: she goes step by step, very carefully without being too obvious or forced in her acting. You can notice some small hints here and there so that you can say in the end "of course, that was the obvious thing for her to do." At first, she seems to be more and more proud, but she turns out to be a devastated, depressed person. SPOILER The scene where we see her attempting suicide is just perfectly played by Great Glenn. The amount of sadness and devastation that she displays in that scene alone is worthy of an Oscar, in my opinion. Thanks to her timing, it becomes just as shocking as it's dramatic. SPOILER OFF!

It's well-known how much Great Glenn prepared for this role and that she actually consulted with two psychiatrists about the part and played her according to the diagnosis. And she just chillingly shows the symptoms, actually, she does much better than the movie would have asked for. However, it's Great Glenn's careful approach to this woman that really paid off. Great Glenn realized that Alex is not just a woman who wants to take revenge on her lover, but a mentally ill person who's just desperate to have somebody in her life.

The movie, however, is constantly trying to drag Great Glenn down. With the famous rabbit and roller-coaster scenes, it's just trying to say that Alex is just a crazy witch but miraculously Glenn was able to play the character the way she deserved to be played. Alex seems like Ophelia who sinks deeper and deeper into mental illness. Her face is just devastating where Alex is turning the lamp on and off. I couldn't help feeling sorry for that woman and hate Dan for what she did to her. In a way, Alex's behavior is justified and Great Glenn emphasises that every story has two sides and unlike what we should believe, Alex is not a just a crazy bitch. She turned her very sexist movie into a really complex and fascinatig character study that doesn't cease to amaze the viewer. I guess that was the main ambition of Great Glenn and she more than succeeded. She makes the viewer compassionate about Alex's fate.

Alex's feeling are best shown by Great Glenn in the scene where we can hear her narration and watch her teary face in the car. Glenn (I always want to type Alex, that must mean something) is just chillingly brilliant there. I was naturally frightened by her but the whole thing was also deeply heartbreaking. She makes Alex so terribly human despite constant effort of the movie to make her the devil itself.

I guess that's why Glenn was disappointed that the original ending (where Alex commited suicide) was replaced by a showier, scarier ending, which would say that the movie won and Alex is a monster. However, Glenn was able to benefit even from this. She just kept up doing what she originally did and that's it. She did it as if it was what Alex would have done. She didn't overdo the craziness of Alex. and was a really haunting presence. However, I don't see the comparisions with Madame Butterfly this way which would have been so beautiful with the original ending.

In the end, I can say that Great Glenn is just astonising in her iconic performance as Alex Forrest. She makes Alex a terribly human character whose actions seem to come from her desperation and not her evil nature. She brilliantly develops her character from a sexy, confident woman to a devastated wreck. She's chilling, heartbreaking and just unforgettable. A truly incredible performance by an amazingly gifted and dedicated actress.

Don't tell me you were suprised! :) 

Sally Kirkland in Anna

Sally Kirkland received her only Oscar nomination for playing Anna, a forgotten Czechoslovakian actress having great difficulties in New York. Sally must have been really close to winning that Oscar. Before the 1987 Oscar race, she was an actress playing bit parts and being Shelley Winters' Goddaughter. Sally Kirkland started campaigning alone with the help of Winters to get her performance and movie recognised. However, things are not easy when you're practically unknown in a tiny film with no stars and when you're nominated with legendary actresses giving iconic performances. Sally pulled of a win from the Globes   but she didn't manage to get the coveted Academy Award. I guess the Academy was too eager to give the award to Cher plus I think the second was Glenn with Sally being the fourth at best (I just don't see them voting for her, sorry). 

Anna is an awful movie, simple as that. It's incredibly slow, boring, meaningless, unoriginal though it has some great moments. There was nothing in it that really caught my attention (OK, one thing) and the whole thing was just dragging along. Now compare this to the movie of the other nominees and you'll instantly see why Sally lost the Oscar. I mean there's Moonstruck, a wonderful movie full of heart, Fatal Attraction, the huge blockbuster or the wonderfully witty Broadcast News (haven't seen Ironweed yet but I'm sure it's better than Anna). I guess Academy voters were just as bored by it as I was and didn't want to watch it, not even for Sally. Honestly, this movie was one of the worst ones that gave a Best Actress nominee. 

So Sally Kirkland. Honestly, I can't say a word about her. The performances of hers that I've seen from her were very bit parts in The Sting and The Way We Were so I really cannot judge her talent. She's almost completely forgotten by now and we could only see her arriving four hours early to the Oscars. She's become a symbol of agressive self-paid campaiging and is made fun of regularly because of that (at least they talk about her). I wonder why people didn't mention her when talking about Melissa Leo's idiotic self-promotion. The two ladies clearly have a lot of things in common. 

Sally plays Anna, a forgotten, aging Czechoslovakian actress who takes care of a young girl, Krystyna from her country. Anna thinks Krystyna has the potential to become a big star and she indeed succeeds while Anna has to make do with being an understudy. Anna is typically a character that you feel really sorry for. She's really down on her luck, worn out and tired. In a way, she's like Margo Channing, with the exception that Margo was an acclaimed, celebrated actress and Anna has difficulties making it in America. She was a huge star in her home and it's actually quite painful to see her reminiscing about her days of glory. Sally is great at making the viewer sympathize with Anna. However, we also see that she leads a very miserable life and she's a rather pathetic person. Personally, I just wanted to go to her and do something about her career and shout at people: don't you see how much talent she has? Her audition scene is really heartbreaking. We can see that she's way above the things that she has to do.

Anna is typically a character who has a very tragic background story with the revolution, the dead baby and the alienated husband. Kirkland got very juicy monologues from Agnieszka Holland, the wonderful director who penned Anna's screenplay (surprising) and Sally used every opportunity to shine in this part. She puts an incredible amount of emotion into them and it's impossible not to be impressed by her determination to get her part right. It could come off as pushing for attention and in a way it's right but we must not forget how wonderful she is as Anna.

She works quite well with her co-stars and her scenes with Paulina Porizkova are just great. They are like a mother and a daughter, an older actress and a younger actress. In a way they are like Margo and Eve but there's a big difference. Anna and Krystyna are never bitchy with each other and they are much more genuine and supportive. That aspect of the movie is very poorly worked out unfortunately but the actresses were able to save it from being totally weak and forced.

My favorite part of the whole film is Anna's breakdown on the stage. It's a very loud, over-the-top moment that's solved by Sally wonderfully. She never completely overdoes it, only as much as the character required.  All in all, I felt that Sally wonderfully identified with Anna's pain and sorrow.

I probably would have been much more amazed by Sally if she had been in a better movie. Unfortunately, Anna is such a bad movie that it's constantly trying to drag down Sally. In a great movie, she would have been brilliant, this way she's just really great, which is kind of annoying, considering how much more Sally could have given us.

But all in all, I was completely impressed by Sally Kirkland's performance as Anna. She communicated Anna's despair brilliantly and she has an extremely powerful presence on the screen. Although her movie drags her down, she's still really great as the aging actress. Still, there's something in me that's preventing me from being completely taken by her. However, it was a personal triumph for me to get the very hard-to-find movie that I had been looking for over two years. So I'm really content. :)

What do you think?

Cher in Moonstruck

Cher got her second Oscar nomination and won the Academy Award for playing Loretta Castorini, a widowed Italian-American book keeper in Moonstruck. I can imagine that Cher's triumph was very much like Sandra Bullock's win two years ago: a beloved superstar got her due for an unshowy, lightweight role. Lilian Gish was actually quoted after failing to receive a nomination "At least I don't have to lose to Cher.". However, I see a big difference between Cher and Sandra. Cher actually gave a great performance, which was really lovely and that's probably (besides her superstar status) what gave her the edge over Sally Kirkland who campaigned as hell with the assistence of her Godmother, Shelley Winters.

I love romantic movies with traditionally huge families and boring, aging women turning out to be beautiful. That's the reason I go crazy for films like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Moonstruck. Although they don't have much artistic value, they are masterfully entertaining without being overly sentimental, soappy or vulgar. They are nothing but good fun with great writing, directing and actors. John Patrick Shanley richly deserved the Academy Award he took home for Best Original Screenplay. I'd say the same about the nominations of Gardenia and Dukakis though I'm not 100% sure if I completely agree with the win of Dukakis (I guess I need to see the others, too).

What can you say about Cher? I mean, she's such a great performer and a legend in every possible way: she sings, she acts, what doesn't she do? Exactly. I can talk about her only in superlatives and it would be boring to talk about how great she is. I guess it was obvious that she would win the Oscar after losing to Linda Hunt back in 1983. She had a blockbuster on her side, she was loved by everyone, it was no wonder she received a huge standing ovation. Although fellow nominee Glenn Close's role as Alex in Fatal Attraction is the most iconic one of the group, Cher also managed to deliver a famous line "Snap out of it." while slapping Nicolas Cage (something that many of us wants to do nowadays). 

Loretta Castorini is aging, she has an awful boyfriend who asks her to marry him and she's a totally unshowy character at first sight. It takes a very talented performer with a strong and interesting personality to make such a character really intriguing and that's why I feel that Cher was such a great choice to play her (it's hard to imagine the original choice, Sally Field as Loretta though it would have been really interesting). She brought the right amount of charisma to the movie and the result was something completely irresistable. I felt as if I was watching a flower blooming not an actress playing a part. 

Nowadays it's kind of natural that famous singers star in feature films but I can hardly imagine Beyoncé or Christina Aguilera showing such talent and versatility as an actress that Cher did. She developed Loretta's character with such confidence and ease. It's just really amazing to see Cher seem so great and professional in this part while also preserving her "rough diamond" aura. She's very subtle throughout the movie and she avoids overdoing certain aspects of Loretta. She's a very "Italian-American" character, if you know what I mean but Cher plays her with very subtle mannerisms and she emphasises the lovely attributes instead of the stereotypes in her.

Cher gorgeously shows more and more layers of Loretta and becomes a totally irresistable presence. Loretta is a quiet and a bit reserved person but certainly not shy and she's not afraid of speaking her mind. Cher's nothing short of incredible in the very famous slapping scene: Cher immortalized the line "Snap out of it!". I loved that Loretta shows that she's a very down-to-earth person who doesn't believe in curses and yet she does everything bad in this movie just to avoid bad luck. Again, this could have been overdone by Cher and yet she found the perfect balance.

The "ugly duckling becomes a beautiful swan" storyline is one of the oldest and most boring ones every and yet Cher and her wonderful movie makes it all work fabulously. In her bit ironic and very humorous interpretation even the most cheesy things work. She did the best by not taking her character too seriously. I guess that's why she was such a great choice to play Loretta: she had much to learn as an actress and she turned out to be fantastic eventually. Moonstruck is a development story not only for Loretta but also for the amazing Cher (who went on to give one of my favorite performances ever in Tea with Mussolini; Why wasn't she nominated for that one?). She wasn't afraid of taking risks (nobody could ever accuse her of that) with Loretta. By underplaying her, she risked being lifeless and boring but her instincts were right: this was the best possible way to play Loretta.

Cher succeeds in every possible way with the character of Loretta Castorini. Although this is not a towering performance for the ages, it's fantastic and incredibly entertaining anyhow and it displays Cher's talent brilliantly. Despite being relatively new to the craft, she was courageous enough to take a risk by being incredibly subtle. Each and every movement and delivery of hers is perfect and we get to see wonderful acting that carries Moonstruck fabulously.

What do you think? 

The Next Year

1987

So the nominees were:

• Cher in Moonstruck
• Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction
• Holly Hunter in Broadcast News
• Sally Kirkland in Anna
• Meryl Streep in Ironweed

A truly WOW year, that I've wanted to do ever since I started these reviews. I'm eager to watch and rewatch these performances and movies that cover a wide range. Careerist women, aging women, tired women and one of them doesn't like being ignored. Oh, I'm über excited!

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

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1955

1955

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Jennifer Jones in Love is a Many-Splendored Thing

I would be lying if I said I wasn't really moved by this performance. To some, this work of Jennifer Jones would be flat and uninteresting, but I really enjoyed every minute of it. Although it's not a grand achievement by today's standards, it's an incredibly moving and loveable piece of work. Jennifer excels at showing Suyin's humility and pure emotions. Again, this is nothing fantastic but something really lovely.

4. Katharine Hepburn in Summertime 

In a role that's the least baity of her category, Katharine Hepburn excels. It takes some time to fully realize her greatness as Jane Hudson, but the outcomes are simply astonishing. Kate injected an incredible amount of charm into the character that made extremely loveable. And eventually, it's Kate's charisma and fascinating personality that makes her completely irresistable here. 

3. Eleanor Parker in Interrupted Melody

Eleanor Parker's vibrant, wonderful performance as Marjorie Lawrence is a real treat to watch. She approached this character in a very odd way (for her time) and the result is something endlessly charming and impressive. She does way more than I expected her to do and gets the most out of this showy, interesting part. A really pleasant surprise coming from a hard-to-find movie.

2. Anna Magnani in The Rose Tattoo

Anna Magnani is all around brilliant as Serafina Delle Rose. The intensity of her work is just amazing and you can't take your eyes off her. Her scene in the church alone deserved an Oscar, not to mention her whole work. She's highly emotional, over-the-top and theatrical and yet it all feels brilliant because of her extraordinary talent. Unforgettable performance.

1. Susan Hayward in I'll Cry Tomorrow

An unbelievably great performance, which I (sort of unexpectedly) loved from the very first minute. Susan is simply marvelous at showing Lillian's pain and struggle with alcohol and makes her film extremely disturbing and hard to watch. However, she also makes an unforgettable impression that hits you really hard in your guts. In her signature role and personal favorite work, Susan Hayward is fantastic. And she sings, too!

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Susan Hayward

in 

I'll Cry Tomorrow

Cheers, Susan... :)

Final thoughts: A great year with two amazing performances. Deciding between the two was incredibly difficult. I was surprised by how great the others were. Yes, Jennifer is the weakest link but she was also really lovely. I've never really warmed up to Kate so after a few days my appreciation for her work cooled down a bit. Eleanor was, however, so wonderful but I need to be less generous with the grades. So the ranking was not that difficult in the last 3 places. 

About the next year: All I can say is FINALLY! A year with at least two iconic quotes, one iconic character (or even more) and at least four brilliant actresses. I've been hunting (literally, well, almost) for one film for a long time and now I have it! I almost gave it up, my mind constantly said "Snap out of it!" but then the year said to me "I'm not gonna be ignored, Dan." 

What do you think?

Anna Magnani in The Rose Tattoo

Anna Magnani received her first Best Actress nomination and won her only Oscar for playing Serafina Della Rose, a devastated widow in the Best Picture nominee, The Rose Tattoo. Looking at the list of awards Anna won for this performance, I wonder why she was so convinced that she would lose the Oscar. I guess she must have thought Susan Hayward was the Hollywood darling who had to win. When she was told she won, she threatened to kill the reporter who informed her that she would kill him if it's not true. It was as true as possible and she even went to receive another nomination (and also should have won another Oscar). 

The Rose Tattoo is an excellent piece of work by Daniel Mann, the same man who directed I'll Cry Tomorrow. It's funny that he played the midwife in the birth of the two finest female performances of 1955. Just like I'll Cry Tomorrow, The Rose Tattoo is endlessly intriguing picture with many interesting aspects. I especially loved the first part of the movie with the focus on Magnani's character but I liked the second half much more than I did last time. Sure, Burt Lancaster overacts as hell in his part as the idiotic guy falling for Serafina but he actually had to play an idiot. He wasn't as awful as I remembered. Marisa Pavan also improved on a repeated viewing. 

However, the most important reason why the whole movie works is the wonderful, superbly talented Anna Magnani. I cannot judge Anna objectively because of the very fond memories of her. I've seen lots of her films when I was a child (she's my father's favorite actress) and I learned not to see her but feel her. Who cannot be charmed by her short scene as herself in Fellini's Roma. The way she says "Ciao! Buona notte!" is just incredibly and has such force with those two short sentences that just blows up the screen. She's 300% talent that shines through the screen even in the smallest part. So I ask again: can I judge Anna objectively? No, and honestly, in her case, you don't even have to. 

Serafina is such a fabulous part which fits Anna Magnani like a glove, it's as if Tennesse Williams had written it for her. Wait, he did write Serafina to the wonderful Anna. :) It's funny that Anna is such a significant presence and her own personality always shines through the movie and yet she disappears in the character of Serafina. To such an extent that it's hard to imagine any other actress (including the wonderful Maureen Stapleton who played Serafina on Broadway) taking on this part. Anna made Serafina her own and she's just incredible at showing her emotions. 

Whenever you see Anna Magnani in any movie, you experience something like an earthquake. Anna is neither like Meryl Streep in precision or Deborah Kerr in her subtlety and dignity. I felt she did what she felt was right and it always work. She was born to become an actress and her instincts came from a magical place, a place that's perfect. I can only repeat myself: what a force on the screen! She's incredible at showing the true love and afterwards the real desperation of Serafina. Just watch the scene when she gots the news of the death of her husband. The way she slowly touches her neck is just just gutwrenching. With this one movement shows so much and its truly a wonderful moment.

After her husband's death, Serafina goes into despair and she falls apart. Anna is wonderfully worn out in these scenes. She communicates Serafina's lack of interest in living without her husband. I guess it's a great thing that we never actually see her husband in full because that we he becomes more of a myth and a god just like Serafina always talks about him. That man brought all the happiness to her and Anna is so fantastic at showing Serafina's more tender side when she's about to reveal the news of her pregnancy to her sleeping husband who honestly doesn't listen to her. Like Serafina describes it to the priest in a wonderful monologue, she gave her "baron" husband glory despite being only a peasant girl. I think there's a not-so-strange parallel between Anna and Serafina. Anna herself had a very stormy relationship with Roberto Rossellini which ended after he impregnated Ingrid Bergman. Anna thought of Rossellini as an idol and started to write hundreds of letters to "the northern woman". Anna brilliantly used her own inner demons and pain to create this character and the result was something unbelievably intense. Intensity describes Anna's whole acting style that's rarely been better represented than in The Rose Tattoo (I think only Rome Open City and Mamma Roma, her two best performances did that).

The highlight of her work here is undoubtedly the scene in the church where she talks about her marriage and  begs the priest to reveal to her what her husband confessed (I especially loved the former). The range of emotions she displays there is just unbelievable. It goes from pure love through bitterness to complete despair. She covers her head and she looks like a ghost who came back to haunt you - and I suppose that scene will haunt anyone who sees it for a long time. Its impact is indescribably strong, which only Anna can do, I think. And I figured that with any other actress, that scene would have been awfully over-the-top and theatrical.

Most people think that from there, her whole performance goes downhill. Although I admit that it doesn't reach the impact of that one scene, I felt it was just as intense as the beginning. It's also incredible - but in a different way. The tone of her work becomes lighter and much more entertaining. I guess it represents how Burt Lancaster's character has changed Serafina and made her feel great again. However, after a while, she returns to the original Serafina who's loud and incredibly devastated. The scene where she sees the rose tattoo once again is just marvelous: it evokes the best parts of the whole film and it really is a fantastic moment. Just like the one where sher confronts her late husband's lover at the blackjack table (=slaps her, I guess she must have thought of Ingrid).

The scenes with Marisa Pavan are, in my opinion, a bit useless for the main storyline but that doesn't prevent Anna from giving her best there, too. She uses them to emphasise Serafina's changes even more, plus they are incredibly entertaining, especially the one where she talks about her daughter's and her boyfriend's "innocence".

Anna Magnani is all around brilliant as Serafina Delle Rose. She gives the essence of her own very unique acting style and she plays Serafina to perfection. The intensity of her work is just amazing and you can't take your eyes off her. Her scene in the church alone deserved an Oscar, not to mention her whole work. She's highly emotional, over-the-top and theatrical and yet it all feels brilliant because of her extraordinary talent. Magnificent, unforgettable performance.

What do you think?

Note: The Final Conclusion comes on Monday or maybe Tuesday. 

Susan Hayward in I'll Cry Tomorrow

Susan Hayward received her fourth Best Actress nomination for playing troubled alcoholic singer Lillian Roth in  the movie based on Roth's autobiography, I'll Cry Tomorrow. As you may or may not know, Anna Magnani was so convinced that she would lose the Oscar that not only did she refuse to attend the event, but she also refused to believe that she won. I guess Anna must have thought she didn't have a chance in hell of beating Susan Hayward's huge, over-the-top performance. If that battle between the two actresses took part nowadays, Susan would easily win the Oscar, with many people praising her work in this part. However, Anna was the clear front-runner based on the awards but I feel that Susan came really close to her. 

I'll Cry Tomorrow is a very interesting movie, very much unlike the other films of that era. It's really dark and doesn't have a moment of real relief for the audience. Even when things seem to turn out to be right, the whole atmosphere becomes quite sinister. First, the fact that the movie was edited so unusually that you don't see the ending of the scene bothered me a little bit but I got used to after a while and I felt it was essential for the movie. Jo Van Fleet (I suppose) won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar also for this performance, too not only her shallow, one-dimensional job in East of Eden. 

Although Susan Hayward is an performer who could be made fun of and criticised in a really hilarious way, I feel she's a really terrific actress. Sure, she liked to go (sometimes too much) over the top but I guess that's her trademark and also the best thing about her. Many are comparing her to Melissa Leo, which is just as justified as its inaccurate. Sure they have a very deep and strong voice and both of them like to chew the scenery, however, in Susan's case, I can rarely say that she's hammy (unlike Melissa who never seems to find the perfect balance between over-the-top and overacting). That being said, Susan is a stormy and huge presence on the screen and yet she doesn't destroy the movie. For sure, she took on very baity, typical Oscar roles and it's no wonder that she often played alcoholic and/or suffering women. She could display fear and anger like no one else and I'll Cry Tomorrow is arguably her finest hour. 

Everything is given in Lillian that equals Oscar nowadays (and did even back in the 50s). Personally, I don't have a problem with Oscar baiting if the performance is really convincing and it's a great acting achievement besides being pure bait. Lillian is a wonderfully complex character whose layers are very difficult to reveal. She requires an actress who has very strong presence and can show emotions in a bit exaggerated but accurate and believable way. Really I can only think of the 30s Barbara Stanwyck who could have played Lillian besides Susan (and I would have probably loved her even more than Susan). However, under the circumstances, Susan was the obvious choice and this part became her signature role that she herself considered to be her finest work on the screen. And for a reason. 

Susan took a wonderfully modern approach to Lillian and also alcoholic women. During the studio era, audiences mostly saw cheerful, male drunks and alcholics and in that case it was the source of amusement and light entertainment (though some like Thomas Mitchell in Stagecoach were able to add depth to such characters). And then came The Lost Weekend, where Ray Milland redefined what it meant to be an alcoholic. Along came a young actess called Susan Hayward who rocked in Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman and it must have been a real shock to people in Hollywood. The movie was, naturally, a flop though it managed to gain enthusiastics nods and even an Oscar nomination to Susan Hayward (Loretta Young, the eventual winner, actually admitted voting for Susan). I guess it's I'll Cry Tomorrow that gives the essence of Susan Hayward's now legendary "drunk" performances, which are, by all means, revolutionary in the way women are represented in Hollywood films. 

In I Want to Live!, we see Susan Hayward as Barbara Graham, who's walking to the gas chamber. In I'll Cry Tomorrow we can observe Lillian Roth walking to an AA meetin for the first time. Two very different situations in life but two similarly breathtaking and chilling scenes acted to perfection by Susan Hayward. However, it takes Lillian Roth a long journey thtough booze, tons of husband and suffering to get to that point. And right there I asked myself like Diana Barrie after losing the Academy Award "Was I hit by a bus?"

I'm mostly impressed by the actual existence of great character development, however, in this case I was mostly mesmerised by the "how". Susan sort of roughly showed the changes  in the character while being completely accurate and firm, too. She does it in a very tricky way and I almost didn't even notice it until I saw a broken-down addict instead of a cheerful, talented young woman. She shows the inner battles and traumas of Lillian in a very disturbing (because of how believable she makes it) and she completely disappeared in the pain of the character. It was just painful to see her being inconsolable after the death of her fiancé, David and how this tragic event started to ruin almost her whole life. The first scene where Lilian has booze is just unforgettable: Susan showed her like a child before taking the medicine that will later ease her pain. First, she's a bit hesitant and in a second, she begins her downfall. 

Another fantastic aspect of this performance is how gradually we can see Lillian destroying herself. First it's just a bit of partying and enjoying herself and eventually, she lies unconsciously in front of a grocery shop. It's an indescribably painful journey that Susan takes you along with her and it's just as intense as a ride on a rollercoaster. Her eventual healing is as cathartic and uplifting as it gets and her final song at the end of it is simply a thrill. The wonderful (and sort of unexpected) thing is that we actually never see her say the lines "My name is Lillian and I'm an alcoholic." We just feel that Lillian has healed and she's going to do what she's supposed to. 

And I haven't even mentioned Susan's wonderful chemistry with Jo Van Fleet and how awesome and wonderfully intense their scenes are. Although that aspect of the film is not emphasised enough, the two actresses were able to make their scenes extremely effective.

All around, this is an unbelievably great performance, which I (sort of unexpectedly) loved from the very first minute. Susan is simply marvelous at showing Lillian's pain and struggle with alcohol and makes her film extremely disturbing and hard to watch. However, she also makes an unforgettable impression that hits you really hard in your guts. In her signature role and personal favorite work, Susan Hayward is fantastic. And she sings, too! :) 

What do you think?

Katharine Hepburn in Summertime

Katharine Hepburn received her sixth Oscar nomination for playing Jane Hudson, a(nother) spinster, who spends her vacation in Venice and falls for a man in David Lean's movie, Summertime. 1955 was a very interesting field and given the fact that Anna won all the critics' awards, it's very hard to think about how much the Academy loved the other ladies. I guess Jennifer, Eleanor and Katharine were the ones who had the least chance, however, Katharine Hepburn was Katharine Hepburn and that might have given her the edge over the two other ladies or that might have been the reason why they didn't vote for her. Well, we'll never know for sure though it would be interesting to find out once.

Summertime is not the grand epic you would expect from the director of Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai, it's much more like the earlier works of David Lean though it's much less heart-breaking than A Brief Encounter, for instance. Summertime is very entertaining and that's the most I can really say about it. Although it's Lean's own favorite work, I can hardly see why. As I said, there's nothing really special about this film. It's very clear from the beginning that the biggest virtue of this film is the lead performance by Katharine Hepburn. 

As it has been said many-many-many times before, Katharine Hepburn had her very famous "spinster period" when she kept on playing spinsters who find true love when they have already given up on the whole thing. They start out hardened, bitter and shy but in the end, they turn out to be stronger and more self-confident. As I might have said this, I'm not a fan of Katharine Hepburn. I can see that she was a fantastic actress (boy, she really was) and a fascinating personality and yet I still don't get the overwhelming amount of love she gets. I do think she's a bit overrated. And that applies mostly to her famous spinster period, which I just cannot seem to warm up to. 

Or couldn't as (to my surprise) I really liked her performance as Jane Hudson. She makes her character very easy to sympathize with. Jane is a person whose only dream was to go to Venice, she saved up money for it and decided to enjoy her stay. However, things get complicated when she meets a man she eventually ends up falling in love with. The thing I dislike the most about Hepburn's spinster performances that the hardened women turn out to be beautiful violets in just a second and they also become really annoying once they experience love. However, Jane is a bit of an exception and that's probably why it's Katharine's most acclaimed spinster performance. The changes in Jane go gradually and Katharine carefully portrays the development of this character. As a result, she surprisingly avoided being as annoying as she was in other roles like this. 

Kate uses an incredible amount of charm to create Jane and that's probably the reason why it's so easy to sympathize with her. We know that it's not going to work out for her and yet we just keep on rooting for her happiness. She will go back to America, being a spinster secretary but in Venice, she's a beautiful woman who's in love, not only with the man she met, but also herself. In many ways, she's just like Pauline Collins' Shirley Valentine, an unhappy, dissatisified woman who goes on holiday to have fun but ends up finding herself. However, unlike Shirley's development, Jane's changes are not that showy and the character is overall much less exciting. I don't know if it's the fault of the writing, Kate, or the character's nature. I tend to say all. 

Still this doesn't change anything at all. Kate seemingly took this part very seriously (she even got a horrible eye infection because of this movie) and it pays off for sure. In each and every moment of the movie, she's simply adorable. There are lots of unforgettable scenes, like the one she goes to buy a goblet from Renato, the man who eventually becomes her lover. Hepburn portrayed the embarassment of Jane so wonderfully, I kind of felt that she would accidentally break that goblet. But I could mention the infamous moment when Jane falls into the canal. 

However, the most heartwrenching moments were yet to come. Jane gets a flower from Renato and it accidentally falls into the canal, too and Renato is not able to catch it. It's such a wonderful, rich symbol of Jane. She's the flower falling to the canal after the short term of happiness and satisfaction. Kate wonderfully shows the quite breakdown in Jane there: the thing that represented a moment of happiness for her was gone. It's ultimately a very sentimental moment and yet it becomes so heartbreaking because of Kate's excellent acting. 

To my utter astonishment, the ending turned out to be incredibly uplifting and much less soappy then I expected. It evoked the bitterness and sadness of Lean's earlier work, Brief Encounter. Kate was truly heartbreaking there, showing the disappointment of Jane and yet she also emphasised the fact that she became a much stronger and self-confident woman during her journey. 

In a role that's the least Oscar-baiting of her category, Katharine Hepburn excels. It takes some time to fully realize her greatness as Jane Hudson, but the outcomes are simply astonishing. Kate injected an incredible amount of charm into the character that made extremely loveable. And eventually, it's Kate's charisma and fascinating personality that makes her completely irresistable here. Her Jane is full of beauty and heart and that makes Kate's work so lovely. 

What do you think?

Jennifer Jones in Love is a Many-Splendored Thing

Jennifer Jones received her fifth (and last) Oscar nomination for playing Dr. Han Suyin, a widowed Eurasian doctor falling for an American correspondent in the Best Picture nominee Love is a Many-Splendored Thing. Although nowadays most people would say Jennifer Jones was the last because she was a previous Oscar winner, I feel that the Academy really fell for her movie (it received eight nominations and won three of them, after all) and as a result, she was a serious contender for the Best Actress award. I think it was a very heated battle for the Best Actress award and despite the fact Anna Magnani won all the awards possible for her performance, the others were not far behind her. 

Love is a Many-Splendored Thing won the Golden Globe for "Best Film Promoting International Understanding" and that perfectly sums it up. Although in 1955 it must have been a groundbreaking movie, nowadays the most "meaningful" aspect of it seems to be the most dated. Actually, there are many things about it that might have been very brave and even scandalous at the time, nowadays you just keep smiling at the fact that lighting a cigarette   is the symbol of having sex. Despite this, I was surprised to see how much I enjoyed watching this film as there was something really interesting and human about it. At times it was really poignant and wonderful so my intial reluctant attitude towards this movie changed quite rapidly.

Jennifer Jones seems to be a very divisive actress nowadays who has devoted fans as well as people who find her acting incredibly weak. Personally, I'm very fond of her and her very clear and subtle style that's able to impress me at the most unlikely moments. Her performances are always so beautifully understated and that's very most of the hatred towards her might come from. Compared to her fellow nominee Susan Hayward's loud, in-your-face acting style, Jennifer is always so calm and silent. Probably that's what made her work as St. Bernadette a real miracle and Jennifer an overnight success. And as a side note, I love her last motion picture performance as Lisolette in The Towering Inferno (SPOILER!!! Darn, I still cannot believe those sadistic writers so cruelly killed her off!  SPOILER OFF!).

I guess Jennifer Jones was born to play characters like Dr. Han in Love is a Many-Splendored Thing. However, there's one thing: despite her dark hair and hazel(ish) eyes, Jennifer doesn't really look Asian, or even Eurasian, though that seemingly didn't bother the producers enough not to hire her (or God forbid, hire an Asian actress!). Against this really obvious setback, it's a real miracle if Jennifer is able to be even believable, let alone memorable. Despite my resentment towards the decision of the casting directors, I found myself (once again) almost completely fall for Jennifer. Great actresses will be great actresses and is Jennifer great!

Nobody was able to display humility and kindness the way Jennifer did. To some she could seem extremely weak as Suyin but I was impressed by her presence all the time. I think she completely identified with the personality of Suyin. Although there is no showy development in her character (at least not very much), Jennifer at least shows different facets of this woman. She displays her emotions in a very charming and loveable way, which constantly fascinated me.

I probably love this performance more than I appreciate it. In a technical sense, it's not a masterpiece.  Moreover, the political "message" of the movie comes from her mouth and the way she was talking about refugees felt really bored. However, Jennifer does what she's best at: showing the emotions of a character very quietly with lots of dignity. Sometimes, the quiet sufferings of Suyin evoked very fond memories of Jennifer's unforgettable and heart-breaking work as St. Bernadette. The wonderful purity and naturality, that made her Bernadette such a wonderful creation, is a bit transformed in this movie. She's much more Hollywood, she doesn't go that deep into the character. I also must mention, though, that this character is not even half as wonderfully written as her Bernadette. She simply doesn't get that much opportunity to shine with her part.

Love is a Many-Splendored Thing is a typical product of the 1950s and Jennifer just lived up to the expectations of her era. I suppose people wanted to be moved by a simple love story and I can just imagine typical 50s housewives crying at this movie on a Saturday night at the movie theater. Jennifer flawlessly did what she was expected to do at the time, but nothing more and actually, it shows.

Still, I would be lying if I didn't say I was really moved by this performance. To some, this work of Jennifer Jones would be flat and uninteresting, but I really enjoyed every minute of it. Although it's not a grand achievement by today's standards, it's an incredibly moving and loveable piece of work. Jennifer excels at showing Suyin's humility and pure emotions. Again, this is nothing fantastic but something really lovely.


What do you think?

The next review comes tomorrow or even today (I'd like to finish this year this week). 

Eleanor Parker in Interrupted Melody

Eleanor Parker received her third Oscar nomination for playing Marjorie Lawrence, an opera singer paralyzed by polio in Interrupted Melody. You know, speculating about the 1955 Best Actress field is a really hard task. It must have been between Anna Magnani and Susan Hayward but I have no idea where to place the other ones. Eleanor Parker seems to be a fourth, though I feel she might have even been third and fifth as well. We'll never, I guess, but I tend to say she was fourth because of the part and the character but she couldn't get ahead of Katharine Hepburn, in my opinion.

Interrupted Melody is a very enjoyable movie that is quite easy to watch. Although it's a typical 50s Hollywood with Paris at MGM and lots of driving in front of a screen, there's something orginial about, maybe it's the way it tackles some serious issues. Moreover, it was much less sentimental than expected and the characters were believable and credible. I might even say that the Oscar for the Best Writing, Story and Screenplay was a deserved one. Although Glenn Ford got the top billing here, nowadays he would be campaigned as a supporting actor (he's more of a co-lead, though). His work is decent despite the fact that his character was not that interesting.

Eleanor Parker, however, gets the opportunity to shine as Marjorie Lawrence. This would be a typical Oscar role even by nowadays' standards: truth to be told, the Academy has always loved biopics. 'But who's Eleanor Parker?' ask most of the people. Film buffs quickly say 'You know, the Baroness from The Sound of Music'. Oscar fans, however, say 'She's a three-time Oscar nominated, wonderful actress having her prime at the early fifties.' Thank goodness I was able to watch her some of her excellent performances. In fact, she's a really versatile performer. For her, it's no big deal to play the innocent prisoner girl, then a paralyzed opera singer and then a bitchy Austrian baroness. I felt that Eleanor was fully up to her task in Interrupted Melody.

When I first read the synopsis of this movie, two words instantly came to my mind: Greer Garson. I wasn't surprised at all to find out that she was actually the original choice to play Marjorie. I was sure she would have been wonderful but somehow I've become a bit hesitant to say that. First of all, Greer was 51 at the time and it would have been a bit ridiculous to see her as a young girl (that was a bit embarassing even in her fourties). Second, I doubt that anyone could have played the way Marjorie had to be played - like Eleanor Parker did.

Despite my initial resistance to this character, Eleanor quickly won me over, even in her first scenes, which would seem a bit hilarious to some. However, I felt that she completely identified with the character's struggles, hopes and optimism. Although some changes in the character didn't go as smoothly as I usually like it, I loved that she made a very modern approach to this character. She avoids sentimentality (which might have been a setback for her at the time as that's what she must have been expected to be sentimental) and everything just seems to be excellently balanced about this character. She doesn't make her a usual 50s perfect person, she shows that Marjorie can be a Bitch with a capital be, though she (in my opinion) avoids being campy. Eleanor makes Marjorie a very complex and fascinating character and she wonderfully developed her.

Eleanor Parker's chemistry with Glenn Ford works miraculously: the atmosphere between them is unusually vibrant and sexy and somehow neither of them was afraid of emphasising the sexuality and sexual attraction of the characters. We get a few "hints" about their sex life and both Parker and Ford deliver them naturally without being too forced.

Eleanor does way more than she wass required to do: she excels at the most unexpected places. She shows both the divaish attitude of Marjorie and her struggles as a paralyzed, broken woman. Eleanor didn't make the scenes depressing or too soappy. Again, she found the perfect balance between the emotions and it all works so wonderfully. I admit that the scenes where she's singing to the soldiers are really cheesy but they don't go beyond a certain point.

All in all, Eleanor Parker's vibrant, wonderful performance as Marjorie Lawrence is a real treat to watch. She approached this character in a very odd way (for her time) and the result is something endlessly charming and impressive. She does way more than I expected her to do and gets the most out of this showy, interesting part. A really pleasant surprise coming from a hard-to-find movie.

What do you think?