Melanie Griffith in Working Girl

Melanie Griffith got her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Tess McGill, a secretary who's determined to make it in the business world in a very unorthodox way in Mike Nichols' Best Picture nominated movie, Working Girl. Griffith was considered a front-runner for the prize, though I don't believe that she ever was a serious threat for the win, especially considering her lightweight role and movie. I guess Sigourney might have gotten ahead of her (along with Jodie and Great Glenn), but I really don't know. Her family's Hollywood connections might have helped a bit.

I'm astonished to say this, but I actually loved Working Girl for the second time. I was especially stunned, considering the fact that I didn't use to be a big fan of it. However, now I see what it is: a lovely, extremely entertaining product of pop culture. I'm not sure if it really deserved Best Picture and Director, but I'm just glad it received those nods. Also, I'm extremely disappointed that Siggy lost the Oscar: it was such a great opportunity to reward her. And I'm saying this despite one fact: that my actual vote in Supporting Actress would go to Working Girl, but to a different actress (though I go back and forth between her and Siggy and I love Michelle as well). Yep, I'm on the really uncrowded and unpopular Joan Cusack bandwagon right now: my goodness, that woman just rocks in her tiny part and overshadows the rest of her cast in a blink. I'd love to go on and on how much I loved her but I constantly remind myself that this review should be about Melanie, not Joan. :-) If you're interested, I'll tell you why as soon as I get back. 

Whatever happened to Melanie Griffith? I was just going to say it's time to go to television, Melanie, I can see that she already has a pilot coming up. Let's just hope that it brings her back to conversation since I'm really interested how she's working as a middle-aged actress. I guess an Emmy and another Golden Globe could give some boost to her career. Although I cannot say many other movies of hers beside Working Girl, I'm really rooting for her career. 

Melanie's nomination for Working Girl is one of the most unpopular and hated nominations ever given out. Many fail to see how she was nominated over the likes of Jamie Lee Curtis, Susan Sarandon or Michelle Pfeiffer (for Married to the Mob). True, but is this the reason why people dislike her so actively here? Partly, in my opinion. Personally, I can clearly see why I used to hate her here: when I watched her movie on tv years and years ago, I got used to her dubbed voice, where the actress sounded like a purr of a cat. And I loved that voice, of course. Compared to that, Melanie sounded like a tortured, not a pampered cat. However, this time I knew what to expect and I wasn't annoyed by her at all. In fact, nowadays I prefer this voice to this character, it just fits her more. Tess should be clumsy and unlucky, why should she have an awesome voice?

That being said, I don't think the Hungarian dubbing came to picture to many others who hate Melanie here. I suppose this is a mystery I'm never going to solve. Let me just say: I absolutely love Melanie's Tess McGill. From the first moment to the last, I liked this woman, cared about her, rooted for her. You know, I just wanted what Tess wanted: I wanted her to be succesful. And I refuse to feel guilt about this opinion of mine. In fact, I kind of feel like I'm a member of a very cool and elite club who really get this performance.

I suppose my whole attitude towards Melanie is identical with my feelings for her movie. I don't think it's a masterpiece of any kind, it just relaxes me and makes me feel good, even for that short period of time I'm watching her. I think you just have to know exactly what to expect from her and you can't be disappointed. Don't expect a very emotional, layered portrayal of a woman who's struggling in the business world. There's no real suffering going on there and Melanie doesn't try to dig really deep into her character. While there are some similarities between the two ladies, her transformation is quite far from what we can see from Julie Walters in Educating Rita. Working Girl's and Melanie's main goal was entertaining and no matter what people can talk into this film, it's nothing more than great fun. Neither is Melanie's performance.

Still, I liked the development in Tess' character. As I said, it's not a significant transformation, but I was still very much impressed by the fact that Melanie showed that Tess starts to resemble the likes of Siggy Weaver's character, while also remaining a simple girl from Staten Island as she can never really change. Although Joan Cusack steals the scene where this is stated, Melanie's pretty good on her own right.

She might be weak at delivering some of the lines or doesn't make them as strong as they could have been, but being clumsy might have just fit this character quite well. In fact, being a bit weak made this character even more realistic and brought her even closer to the audience. This way, even the occasional mistakes turn into something fun.

And no, you can't really ignore the fact how much the audience gets close to this woman, simply because she's so cute. That topless hoovering scene is so lovely despite lasting for like 3 seconds. These kinds of ordinary moments make this performance so special to me. It gives joy to an ordinary person because they can think 'Wow, it's like watching myself.' Some might look down on that, but sometimes you just have to loose yourself while watching a movie and leave your prejudices behind, very much like in the case of Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins. Although I wouldn't really put Melanie on the same level, every once in a while, I had the same feeling (minus the bitterness).

I don't care if it's fashionable or not, I love Melanie Griffith in Working Girl. I sympathized with her and felt for her character throughout the movie, no matter if she was hoovering topless or changing her look or interacting with her men. I laughed with her, got sad with her and I just always wanted her to get to the top. I loved Melanie's clear, almost naive emotions, her optimism, her glowing, funny, joyous personality. A thrill for the dreamers and the naives who think they can get that office at the top. If you're willing to leave your cynicism behind, you'll love her. Pure feel-good fun.

What do you think? :) Surprised, huh? :-) 

Jodie Foster in The Accused

Jodie Foster received her second Oscar nomination and first Oscar for playing Sarah Tobias, a rape victim in  the typical 80s movie, The Accused. After the nominations were announced, the Best Actress race seemed to be a tough one, which was among three actresses: Great Glenn, Melanie and Jodie. We have already speculated about why Jodie won and there are many possible explanations, I suppose it was mostly down to the fact that she was a previously Oscar nominated former child star who turned out to be a great actress as an adult as well, plus, that she was playing a very showy, baity part. However, I('d like to) think that her win was seriously threatened by Great Glenn.

The Accused as a movie is so... eighties. My goodness, the music, the story, Kelly McGillis, it's just simply too eighties to be ignored. I guess it would have made an Emmy-winning tv movie in 1993, but as a feature film it's quite shallow, poorly directed and one-dimensional. I suppose it was effective at the time, but nowadays it just seems too dated and corny. It really doesn't tell much about the real horror of rape, it really doesn't emphasise the fact that Jodie's character is a victim (in the right way). All in all, the movie refuses to give up the #1 purpuse of entertaining the audience and that's why we get all those cheesy monologues from McGillis etc.  

However, you can always hope that Jodie Foster, being one of the greatest, most intelligent actresses, gives some life even to a rather shallow plot. As a child actress, Jodie impressed people with her fierce, intelligent, radiant personality and she succesfully saved that to her later roles. Although I'm kind of sad that she seems to be cast in the same part over and over again nowadays, we just cannot deny her versatility and greatness. Obviously, when she was cast as Sarah Tobias, Kelly McGillis was the greater star and yet in the end, Jodie proved that she's the more enduring presence on the screen. 

Sarah Tobias seems to be a typical white trash woman who would have been played by Melissa Leo if she had been more famous back then. Such a part requires something that I really-really dislike: scenery chewing. Thankfully, one of the most subtle actresses, Jodie Foster was there to do that in the least obvious way, but a fact is a fact and scenery chewing remains scenery chewing. Jodie, a favorite of mine, was there to do one of my least favorite things in acting and therefore not having a great chance of winning me over. 

She succeeded partly, though. Although her character doesn't have much of a development, Jodie seems to realise that and instead she tries to show us what's going on in Sarah's head and as a result, she created a (sort of) intimate portrait of a woman who's going through a very traumatic event. Kelly McGillis gets the huge courtroom speeches, but it's Jodie who gets the tears and the more emotional storyline. The audience sympathises with Jodie despite the fact that her character is so trashy. 

Moreover, Jodie's always magnetic presence constantly draws the attention of the viewer and despite the lack of big screentime, she's able to leave a strong impression. I must say, though, she didn't have to do much since the movie constantly provided her with the opportunities to shine, she just had to live with all of them. And for an actress of her caliber, it wasn't the most difficult task. This might be very unpopular thing to say, but I would even dare to say that this was an easy role for Jodie. 

The first time you see this movie, you don't really notice this since you are captivated by the emotions as she's indeed effective. However, at a second viewing, you can be more objective because you know what to expect and the shock on you is not going to be that strong. Interestingly, no big flaws come to surface once you see her again. It's just that you're not that drawn by her and you can see that this character is not much of a deal (which doesn't mean you're not sympathising with her, it's just that you cannot get so passionate about the story).

Also, it's quite fun to see Jodie's interactions with Kelly McGillis. Their chemistry is excellent and I loved how the two of them showed the alliance of two worlds, two lifestyles. Although Jodie acts circles around McGillis, it somehow doesn't ruin balance between the two characters. I especially loved the scene between them where Jodie reads McGillis' horoscope. There's a kind of a tenderness and intimacy to that scene, which makes it particularly impressive. I always felt that the relationship between them is the strongest and most believable part of the movie. I loved how the actresses gradually broke down the barriers between the characters and got closer to each other.

However, the highlight of Jodie Foster's performance is her character's testimony at the courtroom. It was one of the rare deep moments of the film and I remained captivated by Jodie's energy and the emotions she portrayed. For me, her words were much more harrowing than the actual scene of the rape, because it (even if for a short period of time) really showed the disturbing consequences of rape on a person's soul. I was most blown away by one sentence that she says after being almost tortured by a lawyer and she simply replies: 'Yes, that's fair.' It's quite probably my favorite Jodie Foster moment ever as it sums up why she's so great as an actress: she has wonderful emotional intelligence.

All in all, Jodie Foster gives a very good and intense performance as Sarah Tobias. Although she's much less effective the second time around, her strength is occasionally captivating and she leaves a lasting impression in the end. Jodie minimises the scenery chewing and her acting is never too much in your face. And her courtroom scene is one of the best acted scenes of Jodie's career. Memorable, strong work. 

What do you think? The next review comes on Thursday at the same time. I decided to give you more time to comment and I don't want to fall behind them, either while I'm away. 

Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons

Great Glenn received her fifth unsuccessful Oscar nomination for playing Marquise de Merteuil, a bored and vicious aristocrat in the adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos's novel, Dangerous Liaisons. After you fail to win the Oscar for a smash hit, which becomes a classic in a second and you get your fifth nomination, you can expect some goodwill from the Academy and yet Great Glenn, the greatest of them all, has been really unlucky at the Academy Awards. I'm 100% sure that if the precursor awards had been on her side, she would have won, hands down (it's always those damn precursor awards that prevent her from winning the Oscar, I tell you). I suppose she was second even this way and was actually really threatening Jodie Foster's win. Since then, Jodie has won Oscars, Great Glenn zero. Discuss. :)

Dangerous Liaisons is simply one of the best movies ever made, simple as that. I don't like to often use this word, but this movie is just perfect. Not only did it deserve to win for all its nominations, it also should have earned John Malkovich an Oscar for the best male performance of 1988 (by far). Also, the fact that the Oscar field that year was so damn weak makes Dangerous Liaison's case even more puzzling. And Michelle... my goodness, is that woman amazing and very underrated here! Honestly both hers and Malkovich's performances left me breathless on their own right and they cannot even contend for being my favorite performance in this film (OK, we all knew awho it would be). 

I don't even start to talk about how and why I love Great Glenn. I don't give a fuck if it's a popular thing to do, I absolutely adore her, and yes, I think SHE is the greatest living actress who can do no wrong and who's probably one of the most underrated performers. There isn't a performance of hers that doesn't blow my socks off. No matter if it's Alex Forrest or Patty Hewes, Great Glenn's constant, dazzling greatness and magnetic personality shines through the scene. Each and every movement of hers suggest intelligence, confidence and natural greatness. I suppose why I love her to such an extent is down to the fact that her typical stage energy adds something unusual and infinitely amazing to her performances.

And Marquise de Merteuil is the crowning achievement of Great Glenn's whole brilliant career. Although I expected to adore her here and find her amazing (I had already seen the movie, like, six times), I wasn't prepared to be this blown away. It actually took me some time to finally really get this performance and what this whole character is all about. Now all the negative comments I've read about her have become clear. The Marquise is manipulative. True. Playing manipulative is easy. Maybe. Was this part easy? Hell no. Hell no. In the Marquise, Great Glenn created a fascinating, amazing and endlessly intriguing character, with much more under the surface than one would initially expect and Great Glenn reveals all the layers of the Marquise in the most fascinating and mysterious way one can imagine.

It's also amazing to me how Great Glenn added a touch of delicate humor to her performance. Bitchiness is always very delicious if done properly, and boy does Great Glenn nail it: her acidic dialogues are delivered as sharply by her as a razor blade. Great Glenn doesn't miss one single opportunity to kick ass and entertain the viewer. She's vivid, enjoyable, fascinating and utterly irresistable. Her work's just like great chocolate: smooth, delicious and in the end, it's nothing but sheer guilty pleasure. So far I would say that this part was very easy, especially for an actress of Great Glenn's stature.

However, what constantly fascinates me about this performance is Great Glenn's wonderful ability to portray the decline of not only the Marquise, but also a whole society and an era. At one point,  Great Glenn delivers a  very sinister and disturbing line: the century is coming to its end very soon. She fills this simple, almost meaningless sentence with so many meanings, making it probably the very essence of her movie. It seems like the Marquise and the Vicomte are trying to enjoy their brief time left in this world. Their life (on the outside) is limited by the rules of society and the daily routines, just like it's shown at the beginning of the movie. It's just like watching actors prepare for their performances. These bored aristocrats do nothing but constantly putting on shows for each other. 

Also, Great Glenn brilliantly uses her face to portray the viciousness of the Marquise. One blink can add multiple layers to a simple sentence and you just keep marvelling at how strong of an effect she can have on you with one look (no pun intended; or yes... maybe). She tells everything with her strange, assymetric eyes, her mouth and her powdered face. This makes the screen almost explode and also makes her a magnetic, luminous presence. No matter how vicious and evil she is, you just keep pulling for the Marquise. 

However, the only vulnerable side of the Marquise is her desire for Valmont. She says "It's the only time I've been controlled by my desire". It's no surprise that the chemistry between Great Glenn and Malkovich is just brilliant. They are both trying to control one another and it seems as if the two of them are in fact competing with each other. They are allies, friends, lovers, adversaries, even enemies. They can only be hurt by each other and yet both actors show how much these people depend on each other. Great Glenn shows it wonderfully that the Marquise is actually jealous and even a bit broken about the special love the Vicomte feels for Madame de Tourvel. You can see her sorrow when she leans against the wall, breathing. It's one of those rare moments when Great Glenn reveals the insecurities of the Marquise. 

Another proof is the long monologue where the Marquise reveals how she "invented" herself. Not only is it the highlight and the best scene of the Great Glenn in this particular movie, but it's also up there with one of her best acted moments of her whole career. Each and every word of hers made me feel like I was hit by a sightseeing bus. Great Glenn's acting seems so subtle, cold or even calculating and yet for me, it only proves how passionate she is in her acting. Although her tools are subtle and she's quite technical, there's something astonishingly real and very emotional about this part, very much like  in the case of Jane Fonda in Klute. Both of them show women deformed by society's expectation and both actresses put on seemingly calculated and atrificial performances in order to show how these women are constantly putting on performances.

Also, I found it really astonishing how we were able to look inside the head of the Marquise while Great Glenn was able to maintain the mysterious aura of the character. We understand the hows of this woman, but Great Glenn only gives us hints about why she acts this way (again, very much like Jane in Klute). And both of them are able to communicate the moral of story through their character, without being obvious or predictable. Both ladies are just showing how their respective societies' downfall affects these two women,  who live under very different circumstances.

The huge breakdown of the Marquise towards the end after the death of we-all-know-who seems extremely odd and out of place in the movie and yet considering the things mentioned above, it seems perfectly reasonable. The calculated surface disappears and all that remains is an overwhelming amount of emotions. I always thought the fact that Great Glenn's trying to rip off her own clothes was a symbol of trying to leave the rules of society behind her.

And yes I might have to withdraw my earlier statement. The conclusion of Great Glenn's performance is just pure perfection and it's just as brilliant as her big monologue (Great Glenn has always thought that this ending was one of the most difficult scenes for her). But boy, was she able to pull it off! She doesn't say a single word and yet she was able to affect you only by playing with her face. We can see a total meltdown, a  truly disturbing danse macabre: eventually, the society that created the Marquise destroys her as well and this downfall becomes incredibly terrifying thanks to Great Glenn. The directing was 100% behind her, but in the end, it was all up to Great Glenn if the movie turns out to be a masterpiece or just a great effort, because she could have screwed its effect up by one false movement in those final moments. However, she was able to balance the emotions incredibly and eventually created not only a fabulous character, but also made the whole movie what it is: a real masterpiece.

So in the end, amazing or fantastic or career-best don't even begin to describe how brilliant Great Glenn is as Marquise de Merteuil. Each and every movement of hers is so great that I still keep marvelling at it. Naturally, the Academy refused to acknowledge this earth-shattering performance with an Oscar win and yet that tells something about the Academy itself instead of Great Glenn who's simply electrifying. A true masterclass in acting, which makes me think if I should call Great Glenn Brilliant Glenn or Greatest Glenn from now on. Again, the rating is just wasted.

  

What do you think? I already painted a red spot on my shirt. 

The Next Year

1988

So the nominees were:

• Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons
• Jodie Foster in The Accused
• Melanie Griffith in Working Girl
• Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark
• Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist

Continuing a Streepathon celebrating Meryl's third, a year with three previous winners of mine and two ladies I haven't yet reviewed. Great Glenn seems to be the odds-on favorite to win here but let's see if I'll jump on the Meryl bandwagon like many of my fellow bloggers or pick someone else. :)

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

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1984

1984

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Sissy Spacek in The River

Sissy Spacek is just wasted in The River. Her character has no depth, very few juicy scenes and Sissy deserves so much more than this. It's not really her fault, it has more to do with the fact that the movie doesn't seem to care about her character and forces her into the background. While she shines in a few scenes, it's just not enough to make up for everything else (which is nothing). 

4. Sally Field in Places in the Heart

I can conclude that while Sally Field does nothing spectacular or really significant with her character, she still gives a proper and likeable performance as Edna in Places in the Heart. The screenplay and the movie is seriously working against her and she wasn't given enough opportunities to fight against it and maybe she didn't even have the strength as an actress in the first place. Still, her performance works just like Places in the Heart does: it relaxes you, entertains you. 

3. Jessica Lange in Country

It may not be her strongest work, but Jessica's able to play with my heartstrings even with a limited screenplay and cheesy lines, thanks to her emotional intelligence and enormous talent. She's able to make a scene unforgettable with only one look or a few tears. She's able to make a lasting impression without huge breakdowns and screaming and her dedication for the film is indeed admirable.

2. Judy Davis in A Passage to India

Judy Davis gives a wonderful, unforgettable performance as Adela Quested. She staunchly keeps herself to her very own way and she never surrenders to the temptations of going the shorter, easier way just like the rest of the movie does. Although the movie doesn't give her much time or even credit (which is the reason why she doesn't leave you breathless like she does in Husbands and Wives), she's the one who leaves the strongest impression.

1. Vanessa Redgrave in The Bostonians

I can say that Vanessa is nothing short of fantastic  in The Bostonians. The screentime may not be on her side, she does a mighty fine job with her role, making her character a really inrtiguing and complex woman. Thanks to her beauty, radiant presence and fascinating personality, (just as Katharine Hepburn said) Vanessa is just a thrill to look at and listen to. An interesting, wonderful portrayal full of layers and mysteries.

 So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Vanessa Redgrave

in 
The Bostonians

A very close one. :)

Final thoughts: Wow, it took ages to finish this year. I've already explained why, not going to do it once again. Anyway, this year was quite weak, but not as much as I expected. The winner was almost a coin toss,  though unfortunately it wasn't because of the embarassment of the riches. In the end, my winner was obvious #4 and #5 were easy. I don't want to waste much time on explaining why this year was that weak. I was just glad to see three movies that are quite hard to find and actually, this year was exciting as I had only seen Sally previously. :)

Omissions (I have one pick but I want to pick them all, they are so brilliant):

• Mia Farrow in Broadway Danny Rose
• Helena Ruzicková in Sun, Straw, Strawberry (undecided if she's supporting or leading)
• Maggie Smith in A Private Function
• Dorottya Udvaros - You bloody life! *MY PICK* 

The next year: 

• I"ll be going on with my two postponed years. :) One of them you remember, one of them you may not.

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Sissy Spacek in The River

Sissy Spacek received her fourth Oscar nomination for playing Mae Garvey, another woman who's determined to survive hardships on a farm. Although The River received four nominations, I don't think that Sissy was ever a real contender for the Best Actress Oscar. She may have gotten ahead of Vanessa, but that's just because the movie got more nominations. I suppose Sally Field's second win was inevitable after Peggy Aschcroft turned out to be supporting, wasn't it. We'll never know, especially with such a weak field. 

I'm (sort of) grateful that I watched The River so long after Country as I would seriously mix up the two of them in my mind. They are so incredibly alike in many ways, I even think that guy at the auction was played by the same person in both movies. However, The River doesn't have that devastating, depressing edge, which made Country so memorable. I can conclude that The River is a more watered and lighter version of Country. I guess that had a lot to do with Mark Rydell who tends to go this way. On Golden Pond worked because it was very sentimental material in the first place but The River shouldn't have been approached this way. Still, I have to acknowledge Vilmos Zsigmond's great (as always) cinematography, which makes the movie memorable visually, at the very least. 

Sissy Spacek is no stranger to this blog and having already reviewed five of her six nominated performances, I can say I wasn't worried about what this performance would turn out to be. Even in her weaker efforts (Missing or Crimes of the Heart), there's her glowing, radiant personality that makes her a thrill to look at, not to mention her incredible performance in Coal Miner's Daughter, Carrie or In the Bedroom. All in all, Sissy is a wonderful actress who can turn the weakest, most underwritten parts into something extraordinary or at least intriguing. 

That way, The River was an incredible challenge for her. Mae Garvey's character is (not even) paper thin. I was actually really stunned, why an actress, at the peak of her wonderful career, took on such a nothing character. Mae seems to be a mere accessory for Mel Gibson's character. The thing that really bothered me was how many opportunities in Mae's character were ignored by the writer and the director. She could have been a constantly fascinating personality, very much like Jessica Lange's Jewell, who is a simple woman but a complex character in the film (or Sally Field for that matter who didn't get much to work with either and yet had some kind of an impact). With these basics, not even a brilliant actress like Sissy could have worked miracles with Mae. 

As I said, Sissy's radiant presence makes up for lots of things. Well, certainly not for not having a complete character who was lost somewhere in the beginning. I couldn't quite make it out what she was doing there. I guess her character was intended to be support. In fact, a less well-known would have been campaigned in supporting (but a less well-known actress never would have had any recognition for this, let's be honest). Since she's reduced to be an accessory to men in this film, Sissy's performance works the best when she's around Mel Gibson and Scott Glenn, especially the latter. Whenever they share a scene, its atmosphere changes and the whole movie begins to work, thanks to their wonderful chemistry. 

The highlight of Sissy's performance is also connected to Glenn, after his character takes Mae home after her injury (following a clumsily directed scene, which wasn't nearly as exciting and intense as it could have been), when she refuses to think about cheating her husband. Sissy elevated another potentially clumsy scene with the way she portrayed the emotions of this woman. It was the only time the movie had some real depth and was indeed real. 

With Mel Gibson, Sissy is much less outstanding and their chemistry is not nearly as strong as the one with Glenn. Still, they share some tender, nice scenes but it's just all too familiar and clichéd with the moody, sometimes agressive husband and the calm, loving wife. However, The River even fails to use clichés for its own good and makes it all so boring. I would have even forgiven fake drama in exchange for some real story. 

I wish to be lenient and forgiving with Sissy about this performance but I'm just unable too feel anything about this movie and her performance. I just wasn't intrigued for a momen, except for that surprisingly tender, life-saving scene with Scott Glenn. It's really a real challange to even think something about this movie and character. 

To sum up, Sissy Spacek is just wasted in The River. Her character has no depth, very few juicy scenes and Sissy deserves so much more than this. It's not really her fault, it has more to do with the fact that the movie doesn't seem to care about her character and forces her into the background. While she shines in a few scenes, it's just not enough to make up for everything else (which is nothing). I'm very sad that I had to finish my journey with Sissy on a bit sour note. 

What do you think? 

Yes, I'm back, finished with my exams, ready to focus on more important things. I wish it happened with some wonderful performance. I'll be posting regularly until July then I'm going on a trip and won't have Internet access but I'll write some posts in advance and time them. You just won't get repliest to your comments. I hope you missed me. :)))

Vanessa Redgrave in The Bostonians

Vanessa Redgrave received her fifth Oscar nomination for playing Olive Chancellor, a 19th-century suffragette in the Ivory-Merchant film, The Bostonians. I honestly don't know how much chance of winning Vanessa had. I suppose she was fifth in the end for several reasons. First, she was already an Oscar winnner who delivered a shocking speech when she won (they were probably afraid of giving her the Oscar once again). Second, her movie wasn't really successful in terms of nominations. I suppose in the end, she had to make do with some British and Jane Fonda's votes. I suppose at that time, she wasn't really concerned about her Oscar chances (since she had just lost her father, Michael Redgrave). 

First of all, let me just say that I dislike Ivory-Merchant movies quite and The Bostonians is a typical Ivory-Merchant movie. It's very fancy on the outside, but inside I don't see that much real content. However, I must say that I was impressed to a certain extent, especialy by the acting part. It was delightful to see some childhood (Christopher Reeve) and new favorites (Nancy Marchand, Linda Hunt) give wonderful, believable and impressive performances in their respective roles. I have to underline Nancy Marchand's work here, which may not be discussed at all, but is masterful, in my opinion. I think I would have rewarded her efforts with an Oscar nomination (I'm not kidding). But I don't want to rave about Marchand's wonderful work when I can rave about Vanessa Redgrave as well. :)

And now it's confession time: I've seen The Bostonians twice now and I was ready not only to condemn not only this particular performance of Redgrave but also (dedicated fans stop reading) Vanessa Redgrave as an actress (in a way, not completely) since now that NONE of her nominated leading performances impressed me as much as I expected based on the ravings of Redgrave's adoring fans. However, a second time (many should give a second chance to certain performances, now it was more of a co-incidence, though) made it all too clear why so many people idolize Vanessa (including the best of the best, Jane who always has to be right). Now I get not only this particular performance of Vanessa but also her as an actress and how she works as an actress and works miracles.

From a sexist point of view, it would be so easy to condemn Olive Chancellor's character as a man-hating, crazy lesbian who just wants to bang her little girl after executing all the men in the world. Crazily enough, this view can even be justified by some of Vanessa's choices in her performance: she doesn't show Olive as a perfect, gentle human being, instead she draws a much more complex and intriguing portrait of a woman who has very strong principles. Moreover, she was not even afraid of making her character an unlikeable, overdramatic, theatrical woman at certain points.

I would say that Olive is quite a bit like Barbara in Notes on a Scandal. She's in love with another woman but more in a platonic, poetic way. I'd say that sexuality is only a minimal part of her affection, it's more that she wants to have a noble, beautiful relationship with tenderness and intelligent conversations. However, neither Olive nor Barbara is afraid of blackmailing their true love. I was crazily impressed by the way Vanessa was portraying Olive's fake, theatrical  breakdowns whenever her darling Verena was meeting a man and therefore "cheating" on her. I always felt that Vanessa suggested that Olive was totally aware of her actions and the possible consequences on Verena.

Vanessa is simply a thrill to look at in the scenes between her character and Verena. The range of emotions that she's able to portray there is just fantastic: we can see her in love, being desperate, happy, devastated, deceited and lonely. Her face at the first meeing is just unforgettable: her teary eyes, her lips make you wonder how Vanessa can be so masterful and natural at the same time (I guess that's what we call talent). The same could be said about her previously mentioned breakdowns: it all becomes so haunting even despite the fact that Olive acts way too possessively with Verena. We can never find out if she wants to save Verena because of her own selfishness or the fact that she can really see the potential in that girl. It's unbelievable for me how wonderfully mysterious and haunting Olive's character becomes in the interpretation of Vanessa. For most of the time, it seems as if Olive was a spirit because that's what Vanessa does best: becoming one soul and body with her character (with the soul being the more significant one). This could have turned into crazy overacting (as some people consider this performance) but Vanessa wonderfully toned herself down whenever it was needed. Again, it's just amazing that she can be so natural and calculated at the same time (or not even calculated).

Olive's interactions with Christopher Reeve's character could have become scenes with bitchy one-liners and petty fights and instead they all turn out to be very realistic and unspectacular, just like how they would happen in real life. They become great opponents for each other and it's like looking at two worlds and belief systems battling on the screen. Every time Vanessa literally turns her back to Reeve, she seems so noble and superior (at least to me).

I also loved how Vanessa made all of Olives lines sound so solemn as if she was constantly putting on acts and delivering rousing speeches. Olive keeps saying that Verena is the one with the grace and the elegance and she's awkward and dull. One of the greatest achievements I can imagine from Vanessa is looking awkard and dull. It's interesting hwo Vanessa showed the "dull" side of Olive: we get to discover that she's a fascinating personality in private but in public she's rather artificial. Just look at her final speech: we can see that Olive is full of passion and fire and she 100% stands for what she believes in.

Overall, I can say that Vanessa is nothing short of fantastic  in The Bostonians. The screentime may not be on her side, she does a mighty fine job with her role, making her character a really inrtiguing and complex woman. Thanks to her beauty, radiant presence and fascinating personality, (just as Katharine Hepburn said) Vanessa is just a thrill to look at and listen to. An interesting, wonderful portrayal full of layers and mysteries.     For some, this could be the perfect example of overacting but for me, this performance was a real thrill.

What do you think? 

Jessica Lange in Country

Jessica Lange received her third Oscar nomination for playing Jewell Ivy, a woman who's determined to keep her farm in the controversial movie Country. Jessica was one of the three farm girls in the 1984 Best Actress line-up and since this was a (kind of) open field after Peggy Aschcroft dropped down to supporting, it's very difficult to speculate about the way the voting went. I suppose the contemporary subject and the passion project factor helped a lot to Jessica who was third and didn't get the Oscar because she most certainly lost the Republican vote, especially after President Reagan's comments on the film. Had the movie been less controversial, I think she would have had a better chance to win the Oscar (especially that some might have felt awkward that she won supporting two years before instead of leading).

Being able to finally see Country was such a triumph for me that I really didn't care about its quality (very much like the case of Anna). It seemed such an impossible thing a couple of months ago but I suppose the fact that I never gave up on it must have helped a lot. And actually, I was sort of impressed by it. Although the lines are often incredibly cheesy, the movie itself is thought-provoking and even moving. It has incredibly strong scenes, especially the one with the thunder and some of Jessica's moments, which are, quite simply, unforgettable. Sam Shepard gives a strong performance and his character is much more multi-dimensional than we would expect. 

Jessica, Jessica, Jessica... Really, I'm not going to deny my love for Jessica Lange who has gradually become on of my favorite actresses of all time (thanks to her amazing weekly performances on American Horror Story, for which she will win the Emmy in September). I used to think that Jessica got a limited range of roles and could never really show her talent. However, nowadays I can see that she shows incredible range even within her parts. Her performances are mostly subtle and she rarely goes over the top (I suppose that's one of the reasons why her work in Blue Sky is so outrageously underrated). 

Country is obviously a passion project for Jessica and she's seemingly dedicated to the film, in which she 100% believes. Just like Great Glenn in Albert Nobbs or Nicole in Rabbit Hole, Jessica takes the difficult way and she doesn't use this project to provide herself with showy Oscar scenes and meaty dialogues. Her acting is so unselfish and generous here and her aim was obviously to make the picture more believable and thought-provoking. This type is generosity is what I admire most about these "passion project performances" and it arguably why the Academy loves to reward these efforts with nominations (too bad that louder, showier performances steal the hype from them). 

To imagine Jewell, you just have to think about what Julie Nichols from Tootsie would have turned out to be if she had stayed at the farm with her father. Jewell is a simple woman who may not have had lots of education but she's wise, intelligent and really sensible. Actually, if it wasn't for her, that whole farm would stop working. Her personality has a certain amount of earthiness in it and it was great to see that Jessica Lange knows the different between earthy and hammy (that's something that Sally Field cannot always say). Jewell is a reserved, simple woman as I said but to me it was amazing how Jessica fulfilled her with lots of layers despite the fact that the she seems to be a really one-dimensional character at first sight. 

Although Jessica could be criticised for not making Jewell more vivid, colorful and layered and I'd say that criticism has some merit, I'd rather "blame" it on the fact that Jessica was never desperate to steal the spotlight from the movie. Yes, she often steps back and leaves opportunities for the others, but I just cannot deny the fact how fantastic she is in this movie. Plain and simple, Jessica is wonderful as Jewell. Excuse the stupid pun, but this performance of hers is indeed a jewel. Jessica shines in this part, showing so much dignity and determintation that she sometimes reminded me of her fellow nominee's performance in Norma Rae (except for the showiness). Strength is rare portrayed as subtly as Jessica does in Country. 

I also loved how much intensive emotion Jessica was able to concentrate in some of the scenes, which makes them unforgettable and so heartbreaking. The most intense moment is probably when Jewell tries to convince one of her friends not to commit suicide. She delivers those simple arguments so effectively and her timing is so excellent that it's, in my opinion, one of the best moments that Jessica has ever had on the screen.  She was able to create so much tension and suspense that the outcome would have been difficult to take anyway. In a way, it's a scene where she drew all her principles and her desire to survive when everybody else around her gave it up. 

I doubt that I'll ever see such a subtly tragic heroine as Jewell. I know it's unfair to compare the fellow nominees inside a review so let me just say that Jessica gave the sort of performance that I expected from Sally Field in Places in the Heart. Although the two characters are astonishingly alike and the actresses even had the same approach to them, Jessica stands out so much more as she was able to turn this simple woman into a grand, heroic lady. It's funny how sentimental I can get about her when she's everything but sentimental. I just felt that in the interpretation of Jessica Lange, Jewell Ivy became a true American hero (sometimes I even heard the national anthem of the USA while she was talking) and all of this in the most positive way. 

However, Jessica is also able to nail all the tenderly emotional scenes as well. Jewell's interactions with her husband are terrificly played by both Jessica and Sam Shepard. Their chemistry (as always) is just brilliant (my goodness, why did they have to split?) and they form a perfect couple with Jewell being the calmer, more sensible and less of a drama queen in the relationship. In the beginning, when they lie on the bed, about to make love is such a wonderful and intimate moment despite the fact that they make it more playful. But their last scene together is the one that's really heartwrenching, especially with the lack of dialogues. 

Jessica portrays  Jewell as a mother just as amazingly as she does with every other aspects. Her speech to her children about their father's anger is just brilliant. Again, she has quite cheesy lines to work with and yet she's able to make us forget that, thanks to her wonderful talent and confidence on the screen. 

All in all, I can do nothing but praise Jessica Lange's performance in Country. It may not be her strongest work, but she's able to play with my heartstrings even with a limited screenplay and cheesy lines, thanks to her emotional intelligence and enormous talent. She's able to make a scene unforgettable with only one look or a few tears. She's able to make a lasting impression without huge breakdowns and screaming and her dedication for the film is indeed admirable. 

What do you think?

Judy Davis in A Passage to India

Judy Davis received her first Oscar nomination for playing Ms. Adela Quested, the heroine of the movie based on E.M. Forster's novel, A Passage to India. It's very hard to find out how much chance Judy had on Oscar night. Although her second loss was a very unexpected (and ugly; don't even TRY to get me started on it, I'm furious just thinking about it) one because she almost swept the critics' awards, the first time she wasn't much of a front-runner. I presume the fact that Peggy Aschcroft conteded in supporting enabled Judy to get the Best Actress nomination. Based on the overall success of the movie among Academy members and the fact that Judy was the only Oscarless actress of the bunch must have helped her become second. 

It's kind of stunning to me how many people seem to hate A Passage to India. Although it's not on the same level as Amadeus or The Killing Fields, it's a very proper movie by an aging David Lean. It's not as much of an epic as Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai but I see the fingerprints of Lean. It absolutely deserved both Oscars it won. Peggy Aschcroft gives a wonderful supporting performance as Mrs. Moore (a much better one than I remembered). She's so full of kindness, good spirits and decency. I was most definitely impressed by her, just like Maurice Jarre's score (which is once again not as famous and popular as his previous co-operations with Lean). That being said, this film earned its Best Picture nomination way more than Places in the Heart. I saw that Lean had something to say with this movie besides entertaining the audience. 

David Lean was, I presume, a very strong personality very much like Judy Davis with whom he so famously clashed with during the shooting of A Passage to India. Judy is said to be a difficult actress to work with (oh the gossip about her part in River Phoenix's death is so annyoing), however, I feel that she's a consummate artist who doesn't stand in line for an Oscar win, who doesn't give a shit about becoming a star or doing self-campaigning. I see her as a woman of strong morals and an actress of immense, beautiful talent. Besides Kathy Bates, I feel that she's the most unique and unusual actress working today. In each and every part of hers she shows us an amazing, inexplicable quality that makes her performances wonderfully chaotic and brilliant. 

After her famous role in My Brilliant Career, it really was A Passage to India that much deservedly shot Judy to world fame. The part of Miss Quested fits Judy like a glove and she used every opportunity to shine but not according to Hollywood's expectations but on her own terms. Adela is a neurotic, troubled woman that Judy specialises in playing. On the surface, Adela is one of the most shallowly written and boring characters of all time. However, beneath there are depth that Judy shows us and reveals some hidden layers in this seemingly one-dimensional woman. While it's true that the movie and the story limit her greatness to an extent and don't give her enough time to completely build up this character, Judy does her very best with Adela. However, Judy wants to take her time with this character and yet the movie sometimes cuts short her efforts. A flower needs some time to blossom and that's very much true to Judy Davis.

What makes this movie so vibrating and unusual is most definitely Judy's presence. She's surrounded by old-fashioned English actors and a seemingly conservative director (in terms of filmmaking) and there's Judy with her radiant, modern, progressive and innovative presence, which refuses to be just "another brick in the wall". In a 19th century Hungarian drama, The Tragedy of Man, there's a scene where in the distant future, Michelangelo is a carpenter whose punished for making special carvings for chairs and not keeping himself to the forms according to which he's expceted to create. Judy Davis does the same: while people around him just do their jobs as they are expected to, Judy wants to create something special and as a result, she becomes far and away the most special part of her movie. 

I suppose this is why she had a feud with David Lean who visibly doesn't give a shit about her if you see the movie carefully. Of course, it's easier for Judy to give a performance that leaves you shitless if she works with someone like Woody Allen who's so obviously in love with her, however, giving a great performance with less help might even be a greater feat (though not that directly). 

What I admire about this performance is how mysterious Judy makes Ms. Quested. The only thing we get to know about her background is that she was brought up to tell thee truth. We don't even know her intentions or thoughts, we just get some insight into her head and then she closes it. Those occasional moments are when we see real brilliance and these somewhat moody changes are what make her work here so special. 

I admittedly have a soft spot for movie breakdowns, especially from actresses and next to Great Glenn, Judy is my favorite actress to watch break down in front of a camera. Her scene in the cave is so haunting and disturbing just because of that. The same goes for her amazing questioning at the court. The whole scene is uncomfortable and hard to watch despite the fact that nothing extraordinary happens. Judy so wonderfully portrays neurotic women that you get as nervous as the character does. And she does so without many juicy lines and great monologues. I don't even dare to imagine what would have happened had she had a more carefully written, baitier part. Fireworks, for sure. And I suppose the lack of "huge" scenes and a great Oscar clip was what cost Judy this Oscar. 

But seriously, who cares about Oscar clip when you see Judy display such a wide range on the screen. She shows so many facets of this woman: the curious Adela, the disturbed Adela, the unhappy Adela and so on. It's fantastic to experience all of these stages of the character. Unlike Sally Field in Places in the Heart, Judy was able to develop her character without much help from the screenplay (It indeed takes a very special actress to be able to do so and who's special if not Judy Davis). Judy gives the sort of  performance I expected from Glenda Jackson in Sunday Bloody Sunday: quiet but really bursting with brutal, hidden emotions. 

I can conclude that Judy Davis gives a wonderful, unforgettable performance as Adela Quested. She transforms her movie into something really special and exctining with her radiant presence and amazing talent. She staunchly keeps herself to her very own way and she never surrenders to the temptations of going the shorter, easier way just like the rest of the movie does. Although the movie doesn't give her much time or even credit (which is the reason why she doesn't leave you breathless like she does in Husbands and Wives), she's the one who leaves the strongest impression on the viewers haunting them for a long time after the credits roll. 

What do you think?

Sally Field in Places in the Heart

Sally Field received her second Oscar nomination and Academy Award for playing Edna Spalding, a widowed mother who's trying to keep her farm during the Depression in the Oscar-winning movie of Robert Benton, Places in the Heart. Sally's win seems to be one of the most inexplicable Oscar wins of all time considering the fact that she wasn't due and she didn't knock this performance out of the part enough to come out victoriously for a second time. However, the fact that three of her fellow nominees were previous winners and that Judy Davis didn't get Best Actress awards because of her own co-star must have been the reason why Sally took home and was able to deliver her infamous "You like me" speech. I wonder what would have happened if Peggy Aschcroft had been campaigned in leading (I guess Geraldine Page would have won in 1984, Whoopi in 1985 and Lorraine Bracco in 1990; oh damn it).

Places in the Heart is excellent entertainment but nothing more, really. I seem to be underestimating a Best Picture nominee, which in my opinion is not the case, I just think that it has no right to be among masterpieces like Amadeus and winning Original Screenplay over Broadway Danny Rose. Still, Places in the Heart is a delightful, pleasant experience after which you have no trouble going back to your daily stuff, you just feel a little bit better. Lindsay Crouse and John Malkovich received Oscar nominations for their respective supporting performances though I think it was a deserved honor only in Malkovich's case (and just because it was a shitty field; and yes, he still stood next to me a couple of weeks ago. lol). 

Although the fact that Sally Field is a two-time-Oscar-winner pisses of a lot of people and I find it weird as well, it's still really unfair to compare her to Hilary Swank. In my humble opinion, Sally Field is a really-really talented actress (seriously, anyone who can say really-really as fast as her deserves an Oscar for that alone): she tends to go over the top and yet that leads to excellence and memorability (see Norma Rae). Television lead roles and supporting roles in feature film fit her better not because she's "inferior" by any means, it's just that she's the best when she can concentrate her energy for a shorter period of time (honestly, who can forget her as Abby's mom on ER or her being the single worthy thing of attention in Forrest Gump). 

The character of Edna Spalding would be an lead excellent for a tv series. Places in the Heart seems to be a "best moments" version of a season of a tv show with its many characters and storylines. Edna would be indeed an excellent lead there: she would be the center of all the storylines and I presume she would be able to carry a whole show on her shoulders, especially if a talented actress got to plax her (maybe even Sally Field). There would be great episodes (just like there are great scenes here) with the titles "The Death of Mr Spalding", "The New Worker" or "The Tornado". However, this episodic sturcture of the film prevents it from being really deep. 

And unfortunately, that applies to Sally Field's character as well. She suffers a lot from the many storylines: despite being the most interesting person in the whole film, she doesn't get to develop and not even Sally is able to do much with her. When we first see her, she's a hard-working, dedicated mother and wife and she remains so in the end. Maybe in this case, the character shouldn't change so much but I never saw that she really was going through anything at all. There isn't enough time for her to show her grief and it seems as if nothing happened. It wasn't drama I missed, it was reality. I feel that instead of the useless Amy Madigan/Ed Harris storyline, the director should have focused more on Edna's story.

I suppose this is the reason why many people consider Sally's performance a total disaster and a terribly unworthy winner. However, I feel that with Sally's natural charm and radiant presence, this one turns out to be a pleasant and lovely experience. Although it's true that Edna doesn't really go from point A to point be, Sally almost completely makes up for it with her warmth and kindness.

The aspect that Sally nails the most in this part is Edna's steadfast determination and willingness to fight for her family's survival. She's not a loud revolutionary like Norma Rae, she's more quiet, more careful and she tries not to get to emotional. I suppose with such a character, Sally Field could have done so much more but Edna didn't provide her with meaty monologues. Whether you like it or not, Sally has to chew the scenery to make a performance work. Without that, she becomes a bit insignificant.

Still, Sally's able to be effective in many of the scenes and she makes it impossible not to sympathise with her character. With the struggles of Edna being so emphasised, it was very difficult to screw up this aspect and thankfully, Sally was able not to do so.

Sally's best scene comes towards the end when John Malkovich's character asks her to describe how she looks like. It's probably the single greatest thing that Sally achieves in this movie. She manages to give some real depth to her character and we get to discover that she's a real woman besides her admirable heroism and motherly instinct.Watching Edna softening during a scene is just a wonderful experience and her chemistry with John Malkovich there (and Danny Glover in the rest of the movie) is just wonderful.

In the end, I can conclude that while Sally Field does nothing spectacular or really significant with her character, she still gives a proper and likeable performance as Edna in Places in the Heart. The screenplay and the movie is seriously working against her and she wasn't given enough opportunities to fight against it and maybe she didn't even have the strength as an actress in the first place. Still, her performance works just like Places in the Heart does: it relaxes you, entertains you. It's like drinking a cup of tea: it feels good but hardly makes you come.

What do you think? As you can see, I'm back. I'm not yet back on full speed (it comes after 21 June) but I'll be able to post at weekends. One or two posts/week seems realistic. I'll say when it changes. :) Hope my return was satisfactory for all of you guys and I hope you missed my craziness. :)