Judi Dench in Mrs Brown

Judi Dench received her first Best Actress nomination (and much more) for playing Queen Victoria, the legendary queen in Mrs Brown. I suspect it must have been a tight race between Helen Hunt and Judi Dench. Judi Dench won Best Actress - Drama at the Golden Globes Hunt won for Comedy and got SAG. Dench had the advantage of being a respected British stage actress who was yet to be recognised and Hunt was "just" a sitcom star. Still, Hunt won the Oscar, causing controversy (which was helped by Hunt's acceptance speech, too) that even lead to an Oscar win for Dench the following year.

Mrs Brown is interesting but a bit too slow for me. It's slow-paced and therefore it can get quite boring sometimes. The reason for that is that the movie concentrates so much on Billy Connolly's character. I would have preferred if it had focused more on Queen Victoria and Judi Dench whom I love immensely. I must say, though, that Connolly is quite good in this movie but his talent is so behind Dench's. Still, Mrs Brown is a very enjoyable and it's worth watching once or twice.

I admire, love and worship Dame Judi Dench. She's greatness. She has one of the best voices ever, her face can express thousands of feelings and the subtle emotions that she gives to her characters are all so impressive. And anyone who can give a performance like her in Notes on a Scandal at least once, they deserve to be praised. She wasn't very well-know outside Britain before Mrs Brown so we could even call her performance as Queen Victoria a breakthrough in a way. And I'm eternally grateful that this movie introduced her to the whole world. Her talent is one of a kind.

Queen Victoria is a really interesting role and it certainly pays off with the Academy. First of all, they just love Brits. What they love more than Brits, is a monarch. And what they love above all, is a British monarch. And same goes with me. I also love them. It's always wonderful some real dignity in a movie. Queen Victoria is certainly one of the greatest monarchs ever, plus she was a very interesting personality. Her character needed a very exprienced and careful performance who possessed real talent and much subtlty. Judi Dench, I believe, was the perfect choice for the part.

To put it simply, Judi Dench is just great as Queen Victoria. Dame Judi perfectly showed the insecurities and fears of this woman who always tries to look very organised and strong. However, we get to know Victoria's weaknesses through Judi's sympathetic and wonderfully subtle acting style. I felt that she understood Victoria's problems perfectly well and she tried to approach her with very much respect and dignity. This woman was famous for caring very much about formalities, the outside. And as I see, she was also a bit of a drama queen, too. In the movies, she has dramatic outbursts. Sometimes it's just tears and whining, sometimes she even loses her temper. Victoria was a very moody person who liked to take control of everything. Judi nailed this side of her just perfectly. All the dramatic scenes were handled well by her and she was neither too over-the-top nor too subtle. She found the perfect balance between the faces of this complicated woman.

Dame Judi's chemistry with Billy Connolly is just excellent. Every time they are together on the screen, it's a very intense scene, full of tension and sparkling. Although it's true that Dench is a way more talented performer than everyone else in this movie, she knew perfectly worked together with everyone. I loved the scene where John Brown announces his resignal to Victoria and she refuses it instantly. That tender confession there to Brown is just wonderfully played by Dame Judi. Also, I must mention the dinner scene where the Queen gets a little drunk. It's so full of humor and it was perfectly acted by Dench.

However, there's one thing that seriously works against Dench in this movie. And that's the lack of screentime and really greatly written scenes. Of course, she's wonderful as always but I would have loved to see something more gutwrenching and dramatic. The bit lightweight story drags Dame Judi's performance down a little bit.

Still, this is a wonderful performance by one of the greatest actresses ever on this planet. Although it may not be the best achievement of the brilliant Dame Judi Dench, she perfectly inhabited this very complex character and nailed the emotional scenes. This is excellent work that is a real joy to watch. It's not fantastic or mindblowing, it's "just" absolutely wonderful.

What do you think, dear readers? You've been so active in commenting lately, so thanks. :)

Julie Christie in Afterglow

Julie Christie received her third Best Actress nomination for playing Phyllis Mann, a former B movie actress in Afterglow. 26 years after her nomination for McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Julie was back in the race. She even won Best Actress from the New York Film Critics, which seems to really be in love with her. Still, I feel she was the only one in the race who didn't have a prayer of winning that year. She was the only previous winner plus her nomination was a miracle itself, I think.

Afterglow is horrible, horrible and oh yeah, horrible. It's the worst Oscar nominated movie I've seen since Gloria (for a while I thought it would top even that). I think the filmmakers that they were making something very artsy and fashinable but instead it's one huge flop. I haven't seen such a failure for a while. The soundtrack of the movie is so damn annoying and it doesn't fit the movie. I always felt that this movie was a failed attempt to create an Altman-movie (who was BTW the producer). Moreover, the actors give laughable performances. Nick Nolte is as awful as ever, Lara Flynn Boyle is astonishingly horrible, not to mention Johnny Lee Miller. So, no, this movie didn't work with me at all.

In such an awful cast and movie, you would expect a brilliant actress like Julie Christie to elevate the material a little bit. To tell the brutal truth, she doesn't and yet she's the shining light in this mess, which I won't call a movie. Julie Christie is an astonishingly beautiful and superbly talented actress who has such radiation that it's almost toxic. I would say that she's one of the most beautiful actresses ever (if not the one). Her beauty is so superior and she's so great in every possible way.

The screenplay of Afterglow is simply awful and Phyllis is one of the weirdest characters I have ever seen. She's a broken down, unhappy, former B actress who doesn't get much joy out of life, expect for some of her old movies she watches on her telly. Her life (like Afterglow) is a mess, she has to live with a disgusting man and she has to listen to his snore every night. In short, Phyllis is very unhappy and she's longing for some happiness.

The one thing that really bothered me was that I never really understood this character. I don't get her motives, her emotions and Julie Christie couldn't really give much more to the role than the screenplay. She is very interesting for sure and yet I never got very engaged by Christie's performance even though everything was there for me to like her. Although she had that radiation that I'm mad about and she nailed some of the scenes, there wasn't a moment when I was able to honestly say "OMG! She's terrific!".

I would expect such a character to always reminisce about her days of glory and yet it's not there in Christie's performance. It's no problem at all, don't misunderstand me. Actually, I was very happy that Christie didn't make Phyllis a very standard has-been. There was a kind of depth in Phyllis that I love and yet it wasn't enough somehow. One word perfectly sums up this word: lacking.

Julie Christie's chemistry with the male actors doesn't even exist at all but I must say that it wasn't really Christie's fault. It had much more to do with the horridness of the two guys than Christie's acting as she did everything possible to make this movie work and yet everything and everybody else in the movie dragged her down so much. Had she been given more to do with the character, she could have been way better. But there's a scene where Christie is actually laughable: at the very end, she cries hysterically and it was a really ridiculous moment. I don't even want to think about it because it cracks me up so easily.

So, to sum up, I'm not one of the fans of Julie Christie in Afterglow. She has some nice moments and she nails to emotional scenes to a certain extent but it's not enough to win me over. I really missed the wildness or the subtlety of her other great performances. But the fact that she wasn't great is mostly due to the horrid movie. Still, she's not great.

I was quite generous.

What do you think?

Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove

Helena Bonham Carter received her first Best Actress nomination for playing Kate Croy, an impoversihed woman in the movie, The Wings of the Dove. Although nowadays Judi Dench and Helen Hunt are said to have been favored to win the Oscar, Helena received the most of the critics' awards. She was pretty much a dark horse to win and I think she had her share of fans in the Academy, too. Still, she was the fourth in the voting. She got more votes than Julie Christie, I think but she couldn't really overcome the strength of the other three nominees.

The Wings of the Dove is such a great, stylish movie that has mindblowingly beautiful cinematography and fabulous costumes. Titanic was wonderful but I would have given the technical awards to this movie. OK, I admit being extremely fond of period pieces and this one is not an exception, either. The actors give very proper performances, the directing is quite good and the screenplay is excellently written. All in all, the movie is a real joy to watch and I would gladly see it once again.

I also admit being very fond of Helena Bonham Carter. Some may be tired of her usual "Tim Burton's leading lady" self but I simply love her in every possible way. She's so fun and unusual and I always love the touch subtle humor she adds to her characters. That's why I really liked her The King's Speech and I wouldn't have minded had she won this year. All things considered, I expected something very dark and unusual in this performance.

However, this is not the Helena Bonham Carter, I've known and loved so far. This performance is truly unusual and unorthodox and yet it's very different from her usually unusual movies. this is early Helena Bonham Carter we know from A Room with a View and Howard's End mixed with her newest works. And what an astonishing, breathtaking, gutwrenching combination it is. To put it shortly, this performance is Helena is amazing. Amazing and pitch-perfect in every possible way.

Kate Croy is such a terrific, complex character that's incredibly hard to play for the actress who has to inhabit her. On the one hand, she's very loving and has a certain kindness in herself. On the other hand, she can be extremely manipulative and jealous. Just think about the dancing scene at the Venice carnival when her boyfriend dances with the dying American girl. Helena has a visible disappointment on her face but also she has a kind of "I hope you die soon, bitch." face. Kate's emotions are very hard to interpret and they can be so easily misunderstood by both the performer and the audience.

The thing I admire most about this thrilling, confusing performance is the effective subtlety and the distance that she adds to this character. The fact that Helena made Kate such a mysterious person, made her ten times more interesting. Whenever she's on the screen, there's a kind of electric, sizzling feeling in it. Although she's quite often off-screen, her effect is so so strong that I was haunted by her even when she wasn't there. I wasn't waiting for her to come because I wanted more of her but because she was so great that I couldn't have enough of it.

Furthermore, it's not only about her overall effect but also the fabulous scenes that totally blew me away. One is the previously mentioned one in Venice and the one after that when she revealed the truth to her lover. She seems to be so manipulative and yet I couldn't help feeling really sorry for her character. Helena reveals the darker side of this character so thrillingly and fascinatingly and I was simlpy mesmerized by her.

Also, I must mention the monologue that was her Oscar clip. Boy, they couldn't have chosen a better one if they had tried even harder. Helena delivered the line "I love you more" so heartbreakingly that I was feeling sorry about her. And her very last scene with her lover is simply stunning. She starts crying while she's having sex and her desperation was so close and believable there. It was probably the most miserable moment of this character. I never felt that Kate was a real ice queen, she was just really desperate and I think her last scene confirms my point.

So, to sum up, this is a fantastic, subtle performance by a very unusual actress who's at the top of her game here. As Kate Croy, Helena Bonham Carter managed to create fascinating, multi-layered and mysterious character that is surely very interesting. I was totally blown away by Helena who gave astonishing work and I am not surprised at all at the amount of love that Helena gets for this great achievement. Haunting, disturbing, beautiful.

I so want to be stingy with my 5s but I cannot resist. She's so brilliant.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1997

So the nominees were:

• Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove
• Julie Christie in Afterglow
• Judi Dench in Mrs Brown
• Helen Hunt in As Good as It Gets
• Kate Winslet in Titanic

I almost did not do this year but it looked unusually great for the 90s and I haven't covered a year from the 90s for a while, so I decided to take a look at this exciting year.

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions for the contest?

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1944

1944

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Bette Davis in Mr. Skeffington

Many might disagree with me but I think that Bette Davis was excellent in Mr. Skeffington. Her over-the-top acting, her insane and brave choices all worked well with me. Even after I finished watching the movie, I was under the effect of Bette's great performance. Although it's not her best work, it's camp done very well.

4. Greer Garson in Mrs. Parkington

I can say that I was so pleasantly surprised and impressed by this performance of the wonderful Greer Garson. Although she did not blow me away totally, I was utterly mesmerized by her unique presence and talent. Garson illuminates the screen with her radiant self and charisma and she creates a wonderful performance as Susie Parkington.

3. Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight

Ingrid Bergman gives an extremely memorable performance as Paula a terrified woman on the edge of a total nervous breakdown. Although this is not the type of Bergman's performance that I love obsessedly, I would feel ashamed if I didn't praise her for this work of hers as much as I can. Ingrid's portrayal of this woman is brilliant and really haunting.

2. Claudette Colbert in Since You Went Away

Although Claudette didn't have the screentime and the screenplay on her side, she still managed to deliver a very emotional and loveable performance as Mrs. Anne Hilton. Claudette's acting is not too sentimental and she's quite heartwrenching occasionally. Had she been given more, she would have been even more fantastic (and won the Oscar).

1. Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity

But I had to chose Stanwyck's diabolique performance as Phyllis Dietrichson. Stanwyck's performance as the manipulative, irresistable Phyllis Dietrichson is just pitch-perfect. From what I've seen this is absolutely the best work of this silver screen goddess who always blows me away with her wonderful presence and radiant talent. Breathtaking achievement

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Barbara Stanwyck

in

Double Indemnity

Barbara hid a gun in case I picked someone else

Final thoughts: I so needed this year, especially after the awful 1957. All these five women gave fantastic performances and they all would have made worthy winner (except for maybe Bette). I said in my review about Ingrid Bergman that my #1 pick will be a difficult choice. It wasn't to tell the truth. After a while, it was very clear that I would give it to Barbara that scene behind the door is the most significant reason. I mean how could a scene be more brilliant. Ingrid is a great second. I loved Colbert more than it seemed from my review, I think. Garson, poor Garson is fourth once again even though I so loved her. Bette was the obvious fifth, she was the weakest one of this line up (as if I can ever use the word weak in a sentence with this year). Still, the best year so far, I really loved it. And it was great that I was able to cover it first. I usually don't care about it but now I wanted to be the first quite badly. :)

About the next year: I got requests, but I'm doing the next year because I'm really interested in it. It seems to be a great year and all the movies are available, right now. So I give clues:

• Comedy, THE box-office hit, period pieces

What do you think?

Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight

Ingrid Bergman received her second Oscar nomination for playin Paula Alquist Anton in George Cukor's Best Picture nominated movie, Gaslight. It was pretty sure, in my opinion, that Ingrid Bergman would win her first Oscar in 1944. She had just lost the previous year to her good friend Jennifer Jones, she didn't get nominated for Casablanca plus she had a very Oscary role. I think her win was inevitable though not an easy one as Barbara Stanwyck must have given her some tough competition.

I used to be a great fan of Gaslight. Now, I'm not even though I really liked it this time, too. It's a very entertaining psychological thriller, which has a lot of suspense though it's not even close to Hitchcock despite the fact that mistake this movie for Notorious (in which Bergman gives her best performance besides Autumn Sonata). I think George Cukor could have received an Oscar nomination as his direction was quite great. Charles Boyer deserved the nomination though I wouldn't give him a win. I really love Angela Lansbury and the thought that she did not get the Oscar for The Manchurian Candidate makes me sick (she was the victim of a category fraud of Patty Duke). Still, she doesn't do much in Gaslight.

Ingrid Bergman is an actress who is so underappreciated nowadays and many say that she's too obvious as an actress. In addition to the fact that I hate the term "obvious actress", I think it's really untrue. Ingrid Bergman was a fantastic performer who relied completely on her emotions (like Anna Magnani but in a different way). She may not calculate her teardrops per second like Meryl Streep does but Ingrid always has such an effect on me. Even in her most hated performances (For Whom the Bell Tolls and Joan of Arc) there's something that I really admire.

The same thing is the case with Ingrid's performance as Paula Alquist Anton in Gaslight. However, this is not a typical Ingrid Bergman performance that I love. Or to pu it more accurately: this is not what I love Ingrid Bergman for. I actually prefer her works made in the seventies and the sixties to her movies in the fourties. That has nothing to do with Gaslight as it's really a fantastic achievement of hers.

The role of Paula seems to be tailor made for Ingrid Bergman as she's typically a quietly suffering woman that Bergman could play so well (although her casting nowadays seems obvious, she wasn't the first choice to play Paula). Paula starts out as a very naive young girl who falls for a man she barely knows. She seems to be haunted by the memory of her dead aunt and every time she's mentioned (or even London), Palua begins to sob or she has a terrified expression on her face. Bergman so amazingly showed the effects of this traumatic even on Paula. Every expression on her face is just perfect. She could have ruined Paula very easily but somehow, she was able to keep the right balance.

However, the most curcial thing about this movie was the great co-operation between the lead actors. Bergman's chemistry with Charles Boyer is just excellent. They work so well together, their scenes, their interactions are so brilliant. They really had to support each other as neither of the roles was really active and they mostly had to react to each other. It's mostly Boyer who takes the initiative but Bergman is also flawless in their scenes. Ingrid is just wonderful at reacting to the mental torture that she suffers. There's a mindblowing scene where they go to The Tower of London and they are looking at the crown jewels. Charles Boyer's diabolique presence is the polar opposite of Ingrid's angelic innocence and therefore they are so great together.

However, Ingrid is the greatest when Boyer says that they will go the the theatre and Ingrid starts dancing and then Boyer interrupts her. That instant change on Ingrid's face from fierce exhiliration to shock and horror is the work of a genious: it comes so much from Ingrid's great instincts and it's terrifying in its unexpectedness. Paula is gradually losing her mind and we feel that Ingrid goes deeper and deeper into Paula's head. Also, Ingrid is quite brilliant in the scenes with Angela Lansbury. Paula is terrified of her own maid and the fear Ingrid shows towards this girl is so chilling. Plus, Ingrid also has great chemistry with Joseph Cotten though their scenes are not the best ones of the movie and they feel a bit too "Hollywood" to me.

So, I must say that my choice is not going to be an easy one. Ingrid Bergman gives a fabulous, extremely memorable performance as Paula a terrified woman on the edge of a total nervous breakdown. Although this is not the type of Bergman's performance that I love obsessedly, I would feel ashamed if I didn't praise her for this work of hers as much as I can. Ingrid's portrayal of this woman is brilliant and really haunting.

No official predictions now! Making The Final Conclusion will be the toughest one ever and I still feel bad for the ones I won't make my winner. Oh, it's gonna be tough but a lot of fun, I'm sure. :) So, the results come tomorrow.

What do you think?

Bette Davis in Mr. Skeffington

Bette Davis received her seventh/eighth Best Actress nomination for playing Fanny Trellis in the movie Mr. Skeffington. 1944 is a very interesting year where I'm totally uncertain how the voting might have been. That fourth spot is the one that makes me really think. It was definitely between Greer Garson and Bette Davis. I guess, in the end, that they probably went with Bette as Greer was a very recent Oscar winner (though Bette had two) and Bette's movie was bigger and flashier than Greer's.

That doesn't mean that Mr. Skeffington was better than Mrs. Parking. Not at all. Mr. Skeffington could have been an amazing movie had the filmmakers realised that less is more sometimes. What I mean is that the movie wants to talk about the first half of the 20th century and it somehow becomes very shallow. It doesn't get a real depth and the story becomes boring after a while. Still, the performances are quite good: Claude Rains was excellent in the first half and he would get my Best Supporting Actor vote if it wasn't for Barry Fitzgerald. I really felt sorry for his character. He got all that hate from Fanny's brother. But why did he exactly hate Job? Job was actually very decent with that criminal. I guess the fact that he was called 'Job' had a lot to do with that.

Bette Davis was pretty much the (melo)drama queen. She's considered a real icon and (by many) the first lady of the American cinema. And yes, she was such a huge talent. Nobody could play those teary-eyed or vicious and bitchy characters more naturally than she did. These are the two characters she often played but quite usually, these types were mixed. That's when she got her Oscar nominations and that's what the case is with Mr. Skeffington. Fanny Trellis doesn't fall into both categories. Fanny is a very vain and quite conceited character who also has a hidden (extremely deep inside), sensitive self who quite rarely appears.

This performance of Bette is considered (by many) to be the weakest one of her Oscar nominated roles. I really disagree even though I might just understand the complaints against it. It's true that it's not even close to The Little Foxes and it's a billion miles away from All About Eve (but honestly, it rarely gets better than her in All About Eve). I would say that Fanny Trellis was not the most difficult and showy role of Bette.

First of all, I really felt that Bette Davis added very much depth to this character. Fanny is, above all, extremely vain. She always cares about the outside, how she looks, how her house looks, how her family life looks. Although Fanny enjoys all the money (or fortune) she gets from Job, I don't think that she's as greedy as Regina Giddens from The Little Foxes. Unlike Regina, Fanny doesn't covet constantly, she just feels that she's entitled to a fortune because she's Fanny Trellis, an idol, a noble lady and just Fanny. Bette showed Fanny's worries about her looks, her youth and her beauty and added small hints about what's going to happen in the end. In the end, it's so tragic and Bette's performance makes it even more heart-wrenching.

I think most people miss the great lines from Bette in this movie. It's true that she doesn't get to deliver many sarcastic one-liners but this character is still quite much fun. Although Fanny's not exactly bitchy, she's extremely proud and Bette always underlines this with her performance. It's interesting that Bette chose such a high-pitched voice for Fanny. Just like with Natalie Portman in Black Swan, the annoying voice served the character perfectly and it did not bother me at all.

I would say that Bette's best scene in this movie is the one where she confronts her brother after the wedding (and the weird honeymoon) with Job. There's so much emotion and tension there and I loved how Bette handled that scene. She was quite over-the-top but strangely, it all worked for me. Just like when Fanny learns some sad news. Bette got across Fanny's sorrow extremely well.

I would also have to mention the way Bette (and Fanny :D) plays with the men that are after Fanny. Bette is quite playful in those scenes and I loved that she added very much humor. It was really great to see her feel so easily in front of the camera.

So, to sum up, many might disagree with me but I think that Bette Davis was fantastic in Mr. Skeffington. Her over-the-top acting, her insane and brave choices all worked well with me. Even after I finished watchin the movie, I was under the effect of Bette's great performance. Although it's not her best work, it's worth watching.

As I said, I love doing this year so it's very painful to say that you have to give your final predictions now. :(

Ingrid's profile comes in a couple of hours but you have to wait until tomorrow for The Final Conclusion since I really have a lot to think about. The stronger year, the more difficult ranking.

Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity

Barbara Stanwyck received her third unsuccessful nomination for playing Phyllis Diethrichson, a manipulative femme fatale in Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity. Poor, poor Barbara. I'm really sorry that despite being a great star and an icon, she never won a comptetitive Oscar. She got closest to winning the award with this role of hers. I think she would have won it, hadn't Ingrid lost the previous year to Jennifer Jones (if Ingrid had been nominated for Casablanca as she should have been). Barbara had to make do with an Honorary Oscar and a couple of Emmys instead. Still, she's one of the greatest that has ever been.

Double Indemnity is just a terrific movie like almost everything that Billy Wilder did. That guy was such a genious. He always used to say that the most important thing of a good movie is a great screenplay. And he was so right. Although I prefer Wilder's comedies, his 40s works are also really terrific. Fred MacMurray gives an excellent performance in the lead and I really think that he should have been nominated for Best Actor. Edward G. Robinson is also terrific in his supporting role and he's a real scene stealer in this one (too).

Barbara Stanwyck is really becoming one of my absolute favorite actresses. She had such a unique presence, a brilliant voice and a shining talent. Although she's nowadays mostly remembered by the general public for playing matriarchs in 80s soaps, her movies are also quite legendary. And probably the two most famous roles she ever played were in The Lady Eve and Double Indemnity. These were the landmarks in her rich career and one just cannot say anything bad about these ones. It always feels awkward to criticise iconic performances as you feel really bad about why you dislike something that some go crazy for.

However, such a thing doesn't come to my mind when I think about Barbara Stanwyck as Phyllis Dietrichson as not only is her performance, in my humble opinion, fantastic but it's also one of the best works of this excellent lady. If you ask me, Barbara Stanwyck is a bit unlikely femme fatale. She's not as distant (or as mindblowingly beautiful) as Lauren Bacall or Gene Tierney. Barbara is much more easy-going and yet she has the very mysterious and very seductive nature that the above mentioned ladies have/had. Phyllis is a very manipulative but irresistable woman who can control and manipulate men extremely easily and even the audience. When we first see her as Phyllis she wears only a towel and she's presumably naked under it. This makes her so desirable in the very first scene of hers that it really manipulates the audience. Phyllis is an immoral, greedy woman who's as she puts "rotten to the heart". She basically wants to kill her husband to get insurance money and she manipulates a man who eventually makes a plan and commits the murder.

This is one of those performances when the performer benefits from the excellently written character who has great lines and scenes. That's what won Supporting Actor Oscars to three men who played villains in the very recent years. However, Barbara is so different as her performance doesn't rely only on delivering the great lines well (or simply the character) but she also adds real depth to this woman. Or to put it more accurately, she adds no depth to this character but intead she shows us that this woman has no depth, only emptiness and greed. Stanwyck plays so many tricks with the audience, which really could have been too forced and they could have made the performance too perplexing but she knew exactly when to stop. This is clearly visible in the very(intentionally) melodramatic scenes where Phyllis is complaining about her distant, aggressive husband. Her stories are really unlikely and they probably lack any real basis but we can't help believing them.

Stanwyck has some really intense and unforgettable scenes where she really shows all her talent. I think the most brilliant scene of her performance (and the movie) is where she's hiding behind the door when Fred MacMurray is talking to the suspicious Edward G. Robinson. Stanwyck brilliantly matched scared with cool-headed. She's both firm and desperate. It's a terrificly acted (and directed moment), full of suspense and it really blew me away. Her very last scene with her teary-eyed confession (probably also a lie) is also just unbelievably great. SPOILER! First, she cold-bloodedly shoots her lover and then she drops the gun and falls in love (!) with her. She is seemingly terrfied and she somehow knows that she's going to die but she hysterically hugs the man she loves. SPOILER OFF! It's an unlikely, yet terrific moment that really blows you away.

From her entry through her scenes at the shop with her sunglasses on until the unlikely, teary ending, Barbara Stanwyck's performance as the manipulative, irresistable Phyllis Dietrichson is just pitch-perfect. I'm not saying anything for sure but from what I've seen this is absolutely the best work of this silver screen goddess who always blows me away with her wonderful presence and radiant talent. Breathtaking achievement that naturally gets

What do you think?

Claudette Colbert in Since You Went Away

Claudette Colbert received her third and last Best Actress nomination for playing Mrs. Anne Hilton in Since You Went Away. I'm quite sure that Colbert was the third likeliest to win the Oscar as she played in a very actual Selznick movie that got a Best Picture nom, too. I think she had more chance than Davis and Garson because she won the Oscar 10 years before (sooner) than them, plus Mrs. Parkington and Mr. Skeffington were not nominated for Best Picture.

Since You Went Away is a movie that was seemingly inteded to win many Oscars. David O. Selznick was well-known for making long, epic, baity movies and yet Since You Went Away is much more modest than, say, Gone with the Wind. Still, it's very long and it's full of dramatic elements plus there's the Mrs. Miniver factor in it. It's less of a propaganda movie, though and yet it's weaker than that one. Max Steiner won the Oscar for this one and it's a bit awkward that he lost for Gone with the Wind and won for this one. Jennifer Jones is fine in this role though she seems to be just reprising the role of St. Bernadette here. Still, it was a deserved nomination in a weak field. Monty Wooley is quite fine and he might have deserved to be nominated, too.

Claudette Colbert is an actress whom I really don't know. I had only seen It Happened One Night before Since You Went Away and she really impressed me in that one, so I was really looking forward to seeing her again. Vicious gossip columnist Hedda Hopper always spoke about her very fondly (quite a rare thing) and I think I understand why. Claudette's French elegance is combined with so much dignity and that's such a lucky combination. She seems to have had so much dedication to deliver great performances. She's not only beautiful but also has a very uncanny presence. When I see a performer with great presence, I always feel something in my bones. When I see Claudette, it's like eating some really delicious chocolate, which you don't eat up at once but save it so that it lasts longer.

The role of Mrs. Anne Hilton screamed Mrs. Miniver to me so much when I read the synopsis of the story. A strong mother who tries to hold her family together druing WWII. Still, it's so much different. Mrs. Miniver seems to be like a saint who's inaccesible and angelic. She's the perfect person, who keeps her composure even in the toughest situation. Anne Hilton is, however, much more fragile and human. This is not about comparing the performance. It's strictly about the characters. We see Mrs. Hilton's flaws (she even admits them) and even a bit of her laziness. She is used to living this very American and comfortable lifestyle and she doesn't really want to give up and yet she has to make some sacrifices.

The first scenes are the highlights of Colbert's whole performance. They are quite heartbreaking and extremely haunting. It's a really sad scene where she looks at the photo of her husband who went to the war. The whole thing becomes very human and also quite sad. When the movie started, I thought that she would totally blow me away in the end. Unfortunately, she didn't.

That's not her fault really and yet it affects her whole performance. The thing is that this movie is not Claudette's. The most impotant character is by far, Jennifer Jones'. Although Jones was nominated in the supporting category, she has about twice as much screentime as Colbert and sometimes her story-lines overshadow Claudette's. Unfortunately, I might add as I think that Claudette was much better and she had the more interesting character. I think it had much to do with the fact that Selznick really wanted to make Jones a big star (he did succeed, to a degree) and therefore she was given the huge scenes, not Colbert. Too bad, because as I said, Colbert is much more impressive.

Although Claudette doesn't have enough screentime and opportunities, she still manages to become quite great. Her chemistry with Joseph Cotten is just excellent, plus she's very believable as the ordinary mother and wife without becoming annoying. Although Anne is a likeable character, Claudette doesn't make her a saint and therefore she becomes much more realistic.

Fortunately, in the end, Claudette is in the spotlight again. The end of her performance really matches the beginning's greatness and I was quite relieved that she wouldn't leave me unimpressed. The scene when she's looking at her Christmas present is simply breathtaking. Claudette found the good balance there so well and she did not go over-the-top. It's a very emotional moment and I really loved it.

So, to sum up, this is great work by Claudette Colbert. Although she didn't have the screentime and the screenplay on her sider, she still managed to deliver a very emotional and loveable performance as Mrs. Anne Hilton. Claudette's acting is not too sentimental and she's quite heartwrenching occasionally. Had she been given more, she would have been fantastic (and won the Oscar). But this way, she's "just" extremely great.

First I wanted to give her a very strong 4 but I compared her to the ladies who got 4s but she was way better, better even than some of the 4.5 ladies, so... :D

And I must add: I LOVE DOING THIS YEAR! So far, it has been full of present surprises. And there's Bette, Ingrid and Barbara still left. LOVE IT! LOVE IT! LOVE IT! :)

Greer Garson in Mrs. Parkington

Greer Garson received her fifth Best Actress nomination for playing the title role of the movie Mrs. Parkington. Thinking about the competition in 1944 is not very easy. Ingrid's win was pretty settled as she lost the previous year, had a huge role. I imagine that Greer was quite probably fourth or fifth because although she was the major Oscar favorite, she had much more successful movies for which she lost. So, she didn't have much of a chance of winning.

Mrs. Parkington is almost NEVER talked about and the things that I've read weren't that positive. Therefore, I was prepared for a very boring movie. I felt that something like Blossoms in the Dust would be just fine. And boy, I was so surprised when I was watching it. The story is so gripping and absorbing, the movie is minimally sentimental and predictable. The whole thing is really enjoyable and entertaining. It's a hard-to-find movie but it's worth waiting for it, I think. I think the actors give quite good performances. Although Agnes Moorehead's accent is a bit too much (she was no Meryl Streep at accents, to put it kindly), she's actually quite good and she just might have deserved the nomination.

Greer Garson was such an interesting actress. In many ways, she's like Deborah Kerr. Quiet, dignified and subtle. However, Greer is somehow very natural and she's not artificial like Kerr. Greer Garson was the best at playing strong women in a very 40s sense and yet her acting style doesn't seem dated at all. I'm sure some disagree with me but I always admire Greer's talent even though none of her performances blew me away yet. Still, I always love that she radiates the screen with her presence. The Academy also fell in love with her. She was very much like Meryl Streep in the 80s. They nominated her for everything as she was an actress at the peak of her career and she just couldn't do wrong.

In Mrs. Parkington, Greer Garson plays Susie 'Sparrow' Parkington, a woman who becomes a rich wife and a matriarch of a famous family. And she's simply wonderful as Susie. When I read the title, I thought this would be Mrs. Miniver part 11 but it really isn't. Although Mrs. Parkington and Mrs. Miniver have got a lot in common, they are quite different characters and Greer approached them very differently. There's much more lightness and humor in Susie and Greer seems to be enjoying this part much more. I always saw that she was doing it with real joy and she just loved it. This kind of affection/dedication always pays off and it really impressed me.

As I said, Greer had this very subtle and dignified acting style, which cannot really copied. She has this luminous presence that becomes so absorbing after a while and it really makes even the most shallow roles very interesting. Whenever Greer got to play a well-written character who actually had some depth, Greer could do miracles with it. Even when she has an extremely sentimental movie like Blossoms in the Dust, she's able to create something utterly wonderful with it. I think it's the word wonderful that fits Greer the best. I often associate gold with this expression and Greer Garson was pure gold, a true treasure of cinema.

For some of the performance, Greer has very heavy make-up as she has to play an 84-year-old. She's not ridiculous at all, though. On the contrary, she handles these scenes with the elderly Susie the best. There's so much wisdom and love in her eyes and you can just spot the experience and kindness inside Susie. Greer made all these great qualities look very natural and they don't seem to be forced at all. Again, it's so wonderful.

Susie goes through a major transformation throughout the movie and Greer's just excellent at showing all these changes in her. I was so happy that it did not have the "Am rich but inside I'm jus' a country girl" mentality because thatcan give me creeps sometimes. Everything is very realistic in this performance and there wasn't a single moment when I thought that it was overly sentimental. Greer also perfectly found the balance between the drama and the comedy in this character. Plus, Greer's legendary chemistry with Walter Pidgeon is really great in this movie. One just keeps wondering why they weren't married in real life. :)

So, after all, I can say that I was so pleasantly surprised and impressed by this performance of the wonderful Greer Garson. Although she did not blow me away totally, I was utterly mesmerized by her unique presence and talent. Garson illuminates the screen with her radiant self and charisma and she creates a wonderful performance as Susie Parkington. Excellent work, which should be much more frequently talked about.

Wow, Greer was just great! If you want to have a great time, watch Mrs. Parkington here.

What do you think?