The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2002

About the field: Well. If I think about it, this year wasn't as bad as I originally thought. It could have been much stronger, but I think my #1 and #2 were really the highlights and they killed the rest of the competition. They gave performances for the ages and both deserved to win. My #3 has in fact grown on me in these last few days and therefore I give her a half extra Meryl. I was thinking about what would have happened had Tilda Swintion played Virginia Woolf. But that's a different story. I can definitely say that this year turned out to be much different from than I imagined, but I like it this way and it was way more interesting than 1998. OK, so now it's time we got to the ranking.

5. Salma Hayek in Frida
This performance that did not disappoint me as I did not expect much, but I may even say that it is worth watching because of the very strong early scenes. But don't really expect a very towering achievement.

4. Renée Zellweger in Chicago
I am not saying that Zellweger gives a bad performance in Chicago, because occasionally she is actually good. But again, damn it I was so dissatisfied. I was soooo hoping that I would like her, but I did not eventually.

3. Nicole Kidman in The Hours
She has quite grown on me as she is extremely haunting in some of the scenes. I understand both the criticsm and love towards her. This is a beautiful and haunting performance by a great actress that keeps growing on me.

2. Diane Lane in Unfaithful
A dynamite performance to say the least. She really gets your guts and doesn't even let you go for a long time (even after watching the film). Lane gave one of the most intimate, credible and unforgettable performances ever. Now I'm really satisfied.

1. Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven
I must say that Julianne Moore gives one of the greatest, most moving and beautiful performances that I have ever seen. She's totally heart- and gutwrenching, moving and will haunt you for a long time.I don't really like the world revelation as I think sometimes it's used without a reason, but here Moore's achievement in this movie is worthy of that term.

So I can proudly announce
that my winner is...
Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven
Beauty.
 

Omissions:

• Isabelle Huppert in The Piano Teacher *My Pick*
• Nia Vardalos in My Big Fat Greek Wedding

So it's time to give clues about my next year, to which I'm really looking forward to. It's often referred to as one of the strongest years ever. Gosh I'm sooo excited, I give you my very easy clues.

• If you don't like deers, instead of going away, think about...
• Mommie Dearest
• Sex and the City: The Origin

So what do you think? Any opinions, observations or off-topic subjects you want to talk about? Don't be shy. BTW has anyone seen The Kids are All Right? I'm so damn curious! Do you think that Moore or Bening can win for it? I'm mostly rooting for Julianne as I'm not a big Bening fan (though she seems to be the more praised one).

Salma Hayek in Frida

Salma Hayek received her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Frida Kahlo, the famous Mexican artist in Julie Taymor's extraordinary independant movie, Frida. I'm quite sure that Hayek had the least chance to win that Oscar as she was really battling out that nomination with Meryl Streep in The Hours. After all, she lost to Nicole Kidman's performance in The Hours.

Frida is an incredibly weird movie: some might loathe its over-the-topness, some might orgasm over how artistic and special it is. Well, I belong to neither of those groups. I enjoyed it very much (it was actually much better than I expected), though I did not get any message out of it. Nevertheless, it was quite interesting as I got to know lots of things about Frida Kahlo's interesting life (for example I never knew that she slept with Trockij). I must say though, I really dislike when communism is showed in a positive light as you just have to check out how many victims it had in this part of Europe (that's why I really despised Reds).

Salma Hayek's performance however certainly suffers from the movie (wheter you consider it great or awful) as it is actually not about Frida, but her spirit and art which is expressed in a very unusual way. I always felt that Julie Taymor's directing is the lead of this movie and the others (including Hayek) only support it and that's not that lucky considering the fact that this is a biopic.

Moreover, Hayek (just like Kidman in The Hours) suffers from a very underwritten version of a character which is full of enourmous opportunities. Instead of this, for the most of the movie, Hayek is in the background, not doing that much. I am sure that had this movie fully focused on the life of Frida, Hayek (because she's a good actress) would have been able to give a much more complex performance.

All the scenes in which she could amaze us, go by so quickly and there's absolutely no emphasis on them, therefore Hayek is never really able to shine. I must tell though, that in the beginning, she's extremely great compared to the rest of her performance. When she says goodbye to her boyfriend, Hayek is really outstanding giving real emotional depth to Frida and by this she gets much closer to the audience. Unfortunately there's nothing else which is worth of that much praise.

Also, the lack of passion in this performance was totally shocking as in my dictionary raging is not equal with passionate. As I said, Hayek totally gets into the background in the middle as there the movie is more about her husband Diego and his work in the USA. Hayek does nothing memorable there.

I hoped that when she gets back to Mexico, Hayek gets more to do, but apart from a very short lesbian sex scene, there's nothing extraordinary about it. It's just like the rest of the performance: dissatisfying, lacking emotional depth. In the scene where Alfred Molina asks her to remarry, she's quite good but it's not even close to the strength of the beginning (which certainly improved her overall achievement).

The question comes to my mind: is this really Salma Hayek's fault? To be perfectly frank, it is mostly director's, but Hayek could have done a bit more. At least she could have made Frida a bit more complex (because she's a quite simplified), but if you don't have much opportunity, how could you?

So to sum up, I saw a performance that did not disappoint me as I did not expect much, but I may even say that it is worth watching because of the very strong early scenes. But don't really expect a very towering achievement.
So what do you think? Any predictions now? Any suggestions for the next reviewed lady? I'll write about the first one you suggest so be quick, because there could be thousands of others before you. :P

The Next Year

So we have come to our much anticipated 2002. I've been putting it off for like eternity, but now it's finally time to terminate your suspense. This is a very often talked about year, mostly due to the enourmous fanbase of Julianne Moore's performance in Far from Heaven. But we'll see who will get my vote. Will it be the nose, the moustache or the pearls? Or will I prefer dancing or adultery? This doesn't seem to be a very exciting year, but we'll see.


So the nominees were:

• Salma Hayek in Frida
• Nicole Kidman in The Hours*
• Diane Lane in Unfaithful
• Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven
• Renée Zellweger in Chicago

So what are your predictions for my ranking?

P.S. : From now on I will not be really able to do write as frequently as I did, but I will do my best. Thanks for your understanding.
Also, we can also talk a bit about the Emmys in your comments. Were you just as pissed as I was that Julianna Margulies lost? Or any other thoughts?