Luise Rainer in The Good Earth

Luise Rainer received her second nomination and second consecutice Best Actress award for playing O-Lan, a slave becoming the wife of a poor Chinese peasant in The Good Earth. By this, Rainer become not only the first double winner in history, but she also caused very much controversy. I guess much of that comes from the fact that she won over huge stars like Greta Garbo, Irene Dunne and Barbara Standwyck who didn't go to win Oscars. They only had movies for the ages. Still, this win remains quite strange, very much like Hilary Swank's second win (though I really don't want to compare them).

The Good Earth is a very good but a bit too long (and maybe even boring) movie about the struggles and sufferings of a Chinese peasant family. I'd say that this movie really must have touched the members of the Academy and the viewers at the time. It shows a really devastating and (for its age) realistic portrait of poverty. Many people despise it for being politically incorrect as it features European actors as Chinese people. Yes, that's not the best but I think it was only because studios wanted to attract people with the names of the stars. In my opinion, this movie talks about Asian people with deep, real respect. So, overall, I can really recommend you this movie. It's really worth watching it at least once.

Luise Rainer is an actress that most people know as the one who won two Oscars first. Indeed, it's quite surprising that someone who didn't have a big Hollywood career was the first one in that. She didn't have many film roles after The Good Earth and that's probably because she rebelled against all the rules of Hollywood. Back than, Hollywood didn't tolerate rebels (even less than today) and that damaged Ms. Rainer's career in the motion picture industry. Still, I think that she's a truly great actress and it's no wonder that some of her scenes are shown at acting classes.

As I was watching Rainer's performance The Good Earth for the second time, I was looking for parallels with other works that I've reviewed on this blog in order to help me totally understand this work. To tell the truth, the very recent past came to my help and namely, Jennifer Lawrence. Yes, it's a very strange comparision but I think it's quite true. O-Lan and Ree Dolly are distant relatives in their strength in heart, their determination to fight for their family. Ree is more cheeky, however, and O-Lan is extremely humble. O-Lan is someone who (like Ree) experienced the darkest sides of life, humiliation and despair.

Luise Rainer didn't have to learn many lines for this movie but I think this was a really difficult part. O-Lan doesn't speak much and yet she communicates everything with her eyes and face. Rainer's excellent at playing with her face. Sometimes we don't even have to wait for what O-Lan might say, we can read from Rainer's face. Every thought, every emotion is right there and Luise, fortunately, never overplays the reactions of O-Lan. It can seem exaggerated, of course, but I think that fit O-Lan's personality. O-Lan had very strong emotions and Luise's firmness helped me understand that much easier.

I think what people don't realise is how strong O-Lan really is. Just picture the scene where her husband cannot kill the ox and then she does it. Because she has to. Yes, in a way, O-Lan is quite clichéd but somehow that never bothered me because of the purity of the character and Rainer's performance. O-Lan is a really unselfish and extremely loveable person and she wins over the audience's sympathy instantly, so Rainer's work is not thankless here.

However, the overall effect of the performance could have been stronger. It's mostly the fault of the screenplay as it didn't give enough time to Rainer to fully develop O-Lan's personality. She just doesn't have enough time and there could have been so brilliant moments and O-Lan had so many other great possibilities that Luise couldn't live with as the screenplay didn't let her.

This is a great performance and I can really understand thos who love it but I also understand the arguments against it. Still, Luise Rainer gives a very loveable and truly great performance as O-Lan which may not be for the ages but it is certainly very memorable and its emotional nature is truly impressive. Well done work with some incredible moments by a great actress.

What do you think? Irene is going to be next.

Janet Gaynor in A Star is Born

Janet Gaynor, the first Best Actress winner received her second and last Oscar nomination for playing Esther Blodgett aka Vicki Lester, a young woman who comes to Hollywood with the hopes of stardom in the original version of A Star is Born. I'm pretty sure that Janet Gaynor wasn't that far behind her competition. She was probably last but her movie actually received seven nominations and it was a real success. The fact that Janet Gaynor wasn't the biggest star and she had already won took some votes away from her, I'm sure.

Out of the many remakes and versions, this one is the least known and talked about. I guess the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason is the one that's considered a true classic despite the fact that it wasn't a financial success at the time. This original version was, however, a real success and it even received a Best Picture nomination. I think Fredric March gives a really great performance as Norman Maine. I'm not saying that he's totally worthy of the Best Actor Oscar but I preferred him to the two other nominees of his adversaries that I've seen (Muni and Tracy). The movie itself is a little bit slow and even boring and yet I really liked it because it was way less sentimental and much darker than the 1954 version. All in all, it was just great and the Oscar win for its story was richly deserved.

It seems really impossible not to compare Janet Gaynor's performance to Judy Garland's now legendary work in the 1954 version. Judy Garland left her mark on that role and if anyone says A Star is Born, you immediately think about her. Therefore, it might be dangerous to see her before Gaynor. But if I'm perfectly honest to myself, I was never really thinking about Garland while I was watching Gaynor (how funny, the initials of both of their names are J.G.). I can announce it here to the world that this performance of Janet Gaynor is a totally independant and memorable one.

Janet Gaynor's role might seem to be very meaty but in fact, she's not really given truly great material. I mean, the whole story of the movie (and the movie itself) is just excellent and yet she never really got really huge scenes like Fredric March. It was obvious all the time that I had to see March because he was so great and after a while, the story was really about him and Gaynor got stuck in the background. Unfortunately, I might add as I firmly believe that had she been given more to do, Gaynor could have given a truly brilliant, unforgettable performance. This way, she's only really good but I guess that can be enough sometimes. This time, it was, at least for me.

This Esther Blodgett is not very showy, she doesn't have extremely long musical numbers so Janet Gaynor had to work with what she had (which wasn't exactly that much). Gaynor was primarily a silent screen actress and she wasn't as renowned for her talkies as she was for her silent pictures. However, her previous experience helped her a great deal here. She could really play with her face and she showed so many emotions with little smiles and slow tears. There's nothing exaggerated about her and yet there's also some purity. At the beginning she gives the usual "country girl with a dream" that gives me creeps every time but here it wasn't that bothering. Boring yes, but never annoying.

There are something incredibly funny elements in Gaynor's performance that's quite often ignored. And those are the great impressions of the great stars in her day. She gives a brilliant Mae West, for instance. Actually, I might even say that the humorous parts are the best ones.

There's one exception, of course, and that's the scene at the Academy Awards. I actually felt that Gaynor showed Esther's humiliation really well and it was indeed a very heart-breaking moment without huge tears and such. I guess that was the moment where I realised how much better this performance could have been had Gaynor been given a little bit more to do.

So, I can say that Janet Gaynor is very good as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester but I can't say that she really is great. She's very charming, she's very loveable but the limits of her role prevented her from being truly outstanding in this part. As I said, she's really enjoyable but I couldn't help wanting a little bit more. It's lacking work but a good one, at least.

This might change to a 4 later but now I'm most comfortable with this rating.

Luise is next.

Greta Garbo in Camille

There cases when an Oscar win is locked. It usually happens when you're at the peak of your career, the critics are on your side and you're even considered overdue. Well, that was the case with Greta Garbo's third Oscar nomination. And shockingly, the winner was Luise Rainer who received her second consecutive Academy Award. I don't know how that could happen. I guess the Academy members loved The Good Earth more than Camille (it certainly received more nominations). I don't think that Garbo was very disappointed, though. She publicly dismissed the glamour of Hollywood and she was not the easiest person, I guess.

Camille is a movie that I really wasn't able to totally warm up to. On the one hand, it has some really great aspects about it, like the great supporting players or the techincal part. On the other hand, it's really slow and sometimes quite boring and I'm not really keen on these romantic stories. Mr. George Cukor's sugar coating on this movie didn't help that much, either. I always feel that he went a little bit too over the top with his movies. They are a bit too much for me. After a while, Camille becomes too sentimental and a little bit ridiculous. Just like Robert Taylor's performance.

However, it's really up to Greta Garbo to elevate the material and make this a better movie. She both succeeded and failed, in a way. Greta Garbo is someone that I do not admire that much as an actress but I do love her as a movie star. She wass always so aware of herself but always in a very good way. She was born to be a movie star. She always showed her beauty to the camera and yet she added very much of her persona to her roles. Garbo herself was a very mysterious person just like most of her characters and that helps her performances so much. And her star never shone brighter than here, in Camille. It's pretty much a legendary performance that's immensely loved by most of the people and it's always kind of strange to notice that you're not that blown away by her. Because I wasn't.

OK, I might withdraw that statement as Garbo had some really terrific moments but I'd prefer to talk about the negative things about performance since I feel that she had an overall positive effect on me, so I really want to make this review a positive one. But my first problem about her was that she made Marguerite a little bit too jovial and those smiles were a little bit annoying after a while. Furthermore, I felt that she could have made Marguerite a little bit darker and colder. I think something like the initial Ninotchka would have helped a lot.

However, I must admit that I was totally taken away by Garbo's luminous presence. She may not have been the best actress ever but she was a real, 100% star. When she's on the screen, you cannot take your eyes off her because of her unique beauty and shining personality. Some could be complaining that she relies on her charm too much but I don't think that with a performer of her greatness it's that much of a problem. I think she was just using what she had. And she did it beautifully.

Moreover, it was great to see Marguerite change from a carefree/careless woman to a responsible lady. I loved the way that Garbo gradually developed Marguerite. That's something that I noticed with her before, namely in Ninotchka. Just like the Russian agent, Marguerite also goes through a complete transformation and she's just blossoming. When she falls for this young man, Marguerite illuminates the screen. There's so much harmony and Garbo's just wonderful at showing happiness. I actually felt good for Marguerite. It's interesting that my favorite scene of the movie wasn't the last one but her walk with Robert Taylor in the middle. Somehow, right there I was so taken away by the great Garbo. It was just amazing.

It might be surprising that I actually loved the moments of Marguerite's sacrifice and ultimate death. Naturally, the were wonderful and really moving. I must underline the accuracy and brilliant timing of her last scene (though if you look at her eyes, her death is a bit funny) and it was certainly quite an effective sequence. Still, I loved Marguerite's happiness the most.

So I have to say that Garbo really succeeded in creating a very complex and likeable character and a great performance despite the fact that she obviously has her flaws. Still, Garbo's luminous presence and wonderful personality might make up for the weaker sequences. Overall, it's a great performance that I really liked, I am still feeling a bit strange about her. This is a true superstar performance with all its advantages and drawbacks.

A 4 might be surprising but I'm trying to be less lenient.

What do you think? Janet Gaynor is next.

The Next Year

1937

So the nominees were:

• Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth
• Greta Garbo in Camille
• Janet Gaynor in A Star is Born
• Luise Rainer in The Good Earth
• Barbara Stanwyck in Stella Dallas

A fantastic looking year. All five of them are interesting in their ways and I can't wait to take a closer look at them. Unfortunately, this will be the last reviewed performance of the brilliant Barbara Stanwyck, so I'll write her review last. I'm curious about how I will react to Rainer, Dunne and especially Garbo for the second time and if I'll like Gaynor more than Garland. We'll see.

Could Barbara gain another win from me or will it be someone else? What's your ranking? What's going to be my ranking? The predicting contest is naturally on.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1996

1996

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient

I have a bit mixed feelings about Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient. I loved the beginning and the way she showed Katharine's behaviour but from the middle, this performance becomes a bit insignificant. Yes, it's 100% the movie's fault and yet the performance suffers from it unfortunately. Too bad as Kristin had the potential of becoming fantastic here. Still, her talent and beauty really shines through.

4. Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room

Diane Keaton is quite proper in a mediocre movie and she really stands out. But here comes the question: is this really a great achievement? It's really good and I don't have any bad feelings about her and she actually has grown on me in time. Watching Keaton act is always a delight and this one is no exception.

3. Frances McDormand in Fargo

It's really an OMG that she's only third with this achievement but the performances of the Top 3 are all so fantastic and I have to rank them somehow. Frances McDormand is a real moral compass in Fargo and she gives a beautiful, wonderful performance that is a shining light in the darkness of Fargo. An absolutely astonishing work by a wonderful character actress. I wish I could give out a three way tie.

2. Brenda Blethyn in Secrets and Lies

It causes me physical pain not to pick Brenda but between her and Emily, my pick is obvious, no matter how much I love Brenda's amazing, brilliant, wonderful performance as Cynthia Rose Purley. Yes, that telephone scene itself should have landed the Oscar in her hands and yes, the improvisative skills of Brenda are brilliant but I just can't make her my pick over Emily. I'm really sad.

1. Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves

A spiritual revelation. Emily Watson gives one of the best performances of all time as Bess McNeill. She's so painful, so true and so brilliant as Bess, showing her feelings so incredibly. The purity, the clarity, all the wonders in this role all justify the amount of love that Emily receives from everyone who watches the movie. This is really something for the ages and I'm grateful I could experience such brilliance.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Emily Watson

in

Breaking the Waves

Easy win.

Final thoughts: Oh my GOOOOD (in a very Janice way)! Three such brilliant performances that they would have made very worthy winners in any year. The thing is that both Frances and Brenda are extremely worthy of an Oscar and it's splendid that Frances won but still... it was Emily's Oscar without any contest. It's such a haunting, harrowing and wonderful performance for the ages. Brilliant, no other good word for her. And truth to be told, I really wanted to resist her. However, this is a strangely bipolar year as Diane and Kristin (two actresses I love more than the others generally) didn't give their best performances despite being very good, occasionally. Making Kristin #5 must be quite surprising but I felt it was Diane who grew on me the most. And at last I finished this year. It took a long-long time, I know but I was very-very busy in the past month. I can't wait to get to more years in the summer.

About the next year: Finally, a year from a very ignored decade of mine (I can't do anything about it as the movies are so hard to find) . But I'm SOOOOO looking forward to it. There will be romance, comedy, drama, peasants, mothers, courtesans, soon-to-be ex-wives and a real star will be born, I think. OK, it's incredibly easy to find out but I'm very-very excited about it. :)

Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient

Kristin Scott Thomas received her first (and to date only) Best Actress nomination for playing Katharine Clifton, a woman commiting adultery with a Hungarian count in the Best Picture winner of 1996, The English Patient. No matter how popular The English Patient was, Kristin Scott Thomas didn't have much chance of winning the Oscar that year. There were more popular and bigger performances that equal an Oscar win. Still, I think Scott Thomas was ahead of Diane Keaton and managed to become fourth. I guess if she had been nominated supporting, she wouldn't have had more chance. Had she been nominated there, Lauren Bacall would be an Oscar winner and Juliette Binoche wouldn't have won, I think because they would have split votes.

The English Patient is a movie I should really like, I suppose but I'm not that crazy about it. The fact that it beat Fargo and Secrets and Lies for Best Picture makes me really baffled. Sure, The English Patient is beautifully made and all the technical wins were worthy, I just didn't feel that it was the Best Picture of that great year. To tell the truth, sometimes I even find this movie pathetic. And truth to be told, it's incredibly boring sometimes. Juliette Binoche was a big upset winner beating the way overdue Lauren Bacall. While I haven't seen Bacall, I think Binoche was really worthy of the Oscar. Ralph Fieness is quite good but a win would have been too much.

Kristin Scott Thomas is a very good actress, in my opinion. Her subtle, dignified presence and elegant beauty shine through her roles and therefore all of them are special in a way. I'm thinking about Keeping Mum where she played the unhappy, sarcastic wife of a reverend and the daughter of the adorable murderer played by Maggie Smith. There's a kind of sarcastic edge in that performance and that's what I love the most about her. She's sarcastic and yet she never loses her dignity.

The English Patient is not a very typical performance of hers, so it's quite unusual that she was recognised for something unlike her. However, this is also a very typical Kristin Scott Thomas performance, especially at the very beginning, when we get to know Katharine Clifton as a very cold, sarcastic and unlikeable person. I know that this sounds very awkward and stupid but I really felt this way. Her performance consists of two very separate parts: one before the affair and one after the affair. I, actually, preferred the first one, probably because that showed all the qualities of Kristin Scott Thomas that I really admire.

To those who haven't seen The English Patient I give a later role of Ms. Scott Thomas as an example, namely Sylvia McCordle in Gosford Park. Both ladies are quite unlikeable, bored and snobbish. Kristin Scott Thomas shows all of these qualities so entertainingly and delciously that I just cannot resist her. However, unlike Sylvia, Katharine is actually quite passionate inside and I loved the way Kristin showed this. That's why I'm really happy that Anthony Minghella insisted that she should play Katharine instead of a superstar.

There are small and quite significant parts that underline the most important characteristics of Katharine. For instance, I loved when she was sitting in the desert alone, smoking and then count Almásy came to her.

The weaker part comes when the affair between Katharine and the count begins. The whole performance of Kristin becomes quite uneven and the movie is to blame for it. To tell the truth, 65% of The English Patient is useless for the story and the director wanted way-way to much. As a result, only Juliette Binoche's storyline worked out completely. There were to many things and it was impossible to concentrate on Katharine anymore. I wasn't impressed because I lost my interest gradually. The love affair should have been the main storyline and instead of telling everything about it, the movie says useless things about that guy whose thumbs were cut. What was the purpuse of that character? In the end, her didn't do anything. These stupid things got the spotlight instead of Kristin Scott Thomas who could have been just as brilliant as she was at the beginning. Her movie actually stood in her way of becoming amazing. There were some great scenes (like the ones in the cave) but I was never totally blown away.

So, I have really mixed feelings about Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient. I loved the beginning and the way she showed Katharine's behaviour but from the middle, this performance becomes painfully insignificant. Yes, it's 100% the movie's fault and yet the performance suffers from it unfortunately. Too bad as Kristin had the potential of becoming fantastic here.

What do you think?

Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves

What do you know about this performance, son?

Only what I need to know, Father. A sinner human being received an Academy Award nomination for playing Bess McNeill, a young girl who had more faith than humanly possible. I think the sinner beings in the Academy fell for Emily Watson. Maybe she just missed winning by a hair. Only You know the answer.

And this Lars Von Trier?

In all, fairness, Father, I didn't like his style. I don't think that his film should have been this long and I really didn't get what he really wanted to say. And can I be really honest? Sometimes I was fascinated and sometimes I was just totally, incredibly bored.

How dare you contradict the consensus?

I really cannot say. It might be probably the fact that I wasn't in the right mood. Or I just didn't like it that much. Plain and simple. However, I think the performances were utterly amazing and I just couldn't take my eyes off them.

You're going on the wrong path, son.

I know, I'm aware of my limits. I'm aware of the fact that I just cannot focus. I know that You want me to mention Emily Watson and I will. I want to. I'm desperate. I must always tell the truth and the truth is that Emily Watson is an actress I don't always warm up to. I do respect the talent You have given her but I don't think that it's always used well. Or is it?

Of course, not. You're so silly. You have to see that nothing of men can be truly fair and just. Of course, she and the directors make mistakes.

Yes, but Lars Von Trier didn't make any mistakes in 1996 with casting Emily Watson as Bess McNeill. It's one of the best decisions ever made in movie business. The fact that Helena Bonham Carter turned down the role can't have been an accident. Emily Watson was destined to play Bess and be introduced to the world by this role. It's just something that had to happen. This was her first role and the purity and the lack of ego in her performance is just brilliant. She's pretty much transcendant and becomes Bess McNeill. There's no reality that she can catch so that this part is easier for her. There were no easy ways of playing Bess. I felt that Watson opened doors that I myself didn't know that they existed.

Why are you pretending to know so much about her when you don't understand the half of it?

Because I can talk and express myself about the things that I DID understand. The innocence of Bess, for instance. The child's curiosity in her eyes when she's making love for the first time. The first times are very significant in this part. There's a first time that she's watching a movie (probably). The smile on her face is just something that I'll remember for the rest of my life. The feelings I saw on her face were just unbelievable.

But the scenes where she's talking to Me...

are even more fantastic. The way she closes her eyes, the way her voice changes, everything is just mindblowing and extremely heartwrenching. The true faith and trust that Bess felt was apparent to movie and I was hoping along with her. But it's a moment of terror, shock and horror when she's abandoned in her sorrow. I wanted to rip my own throat out there. I felt totally shocked and I felt like not being able to move again. So brutal and illogical and yet everything makes perfect sense right now as I'm thinking about her.

What do you think about Bess' sacrifice?

The way Watson showed Bess' true belief that if she does everything for Jan, he's going to be alright is just fantastic. I don't know where that came from but the changes that she's going through are just... In fact, I'm totally speechless. Bess suffers from those sexual experiences and yet she does everything that she has to so that Jan gets better and she can save his life. I'm getting to understand more and more about Bess' motives but I can never really understand them in their whole. It's just impossible. Watson added so many layers to Bess that a person is not able to see all of them. Parts of it, yes, but never the whole thing. I guess that was the right way to do it.

You are silly and you got carried away.

I may have but the sufferings that Bess has to go through are just heartwrenching and unbearable for the viewer. The scene where they are throwing the stones at her and beat her is hauting. As Marge Gunderson said in Fargo "I just don't understand." And I didn't understand how much the evil can be present and how painfully small Bess was there. Helpless and miserable and Watson was just perfect. And the ending... Very distubing and extremely painful and I really never want to see it again. Still, I'll probably watch it again and againg to have the same feelings once again.

Why didn't you like her this much the first time you saw her?

I guess I wasn't really ready for her. I could say that I wasn't in the right mood or something but in fact, I wasn't ready or mature enough for this. That might be the case. Because not recognising Watson's merits here is just impossible. And why shouldn't I? She's just unbelievable and unforgettable and gives a performance that goes beyond what we call acting. So far, on my journey on this blog, I met only two others like hers. Emily Watson wrote her name inside the book of film history with an ink that is harder and more lasting than the paper itself.

And if she is so above everything, why are you still rating her?

Because I'm human and I have my mistakes. I am trying to find my talent but I think I found the talent of Emily Watson and rating is my way of honoring talent. It's very much pathetic but I don't really care. I need it.

Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room

Diane Keaton received her third Best Actress nomination for playing Bessie, a sick woman who is attempting to end a long feud with her sister in order to get her bone marrow in the movie Marvin's Room. I really think that Diane was fifth as she was the only previous winner, she didn't star in a huge and/or groundbreaking movie like the other nominees. And to tell the truth, this is not the kind of role or more accurately performance that wins the Oscar (or is it?).

Marvin's Room is a very average movie, in my opinion. It's a movie that's typically shown on a certain Hungarian Tv channel on Friday, at noon. It's soappy, quite humorless (or more appropriately said, it has really unfunny humor) and the screenplay is so mediocre. And so are the performances, the direction and everything possibble. However, Rachel Portman's quite (a bit) soappy score fits the movie extremely well and that's the only really positive technical aspect of Marvin's Room.

Diane Keaton is an actress I really love. She has a brilliant, really radiant screen presence that shines through even the weakest material. Yes, I really worship and admire her and yet I can be very-very critical of her and I'm extremely furious that she takes these awful parts nowadays. She's really degrading herself and I'm really-really hoping that the right screenplay will come to her very soon and she brings back something that was lost after Something's Gotta Give.

As I said, she has a very charming and wonderful presence that makes all of her performances sort of special. Even in a very boring movie like Reds, she's able to be fantastic and memorable. For instance, she's one of the main reasons why the remakes of Father of the Bride are simply wonderful. Marvin's Room is (once again) a lame, mediocre movie with excellent actors (yes, this was sort of true about most of the movies of the 90s) and I was really hoping to see Diane elevate the material. Interesting enough, she did but not as much as I really hoped for.

Marvin's Room is the movie for which Meryl Streep was NOT nominated and therefore the comparisions between the two ladies are inevitable. Unfortunately, if I may say so. To tell the truth, Meryl gives a horribly calculated and overacted performance and I really didn't buy her acting. It's one of the worst examples of 90s Meryl acting that I'm not particularly fond of. Sure, she has the moments but those are thanks to her great co-operation of Diane Keaton.

Diane Keaton (as I said) has very average material to work with and in a way her acting is also a bit average but for me she was the shining light in this mess of a movie. The story uses some cheap tricks to get the audience's sympathy but somehow Diane successfully turned away from these easy ways and chose some more complex ways to give this performance. On the one hand, it was quite good and she was better than her movie. On the other hand, I felt that her acting was a musical piece that's a bit out of tune.

Diane Keaton has the "cancer-storyline" so she's the one in this movie to feel sorry for. Indeed, it's quite heart-breaking to see her in some of the scenes. For instance, the one where she's crying that she doesn't dare to sleep because she's afraid of not getting up or the one in Disneyland where she faints. Those moments are quite moving and I think it's only Diane who brings some real humanity to this movie. Those are also obvious in Bessie's scenes with her nephew, their crazy driving at the beach (wow, cancer and crazy driving, I've seen it somewhere else, tell me where (; ) .

All in all, Diane Keaton is quite proper in a mediocre movie and she really stands out. But here comes the question: is this really a great achievement? It's really good and I don't have any bad feelings about her and yet I feel a bit too indifferent about her. Yeah, there are many touching scenes but I was never as amazed by her as some of the commenters of the movie's Youtube version. Still, it's Diane and she gives the best performance of the movie.

I wanted to go for 4 but I'm trying to be less lenient. I might change this to a 4 but not now.

What do you think?

Brenda Blethyn in Secrets & Lies

Brenda Blethyn received her first Oscar nomination for playing Cynthia Rose Purley, a lonely woman, full of disappointment and sorrow but who has some hope in her life thanks to her daughter whom she gave up years ago for adoption in Mike Leigh's movie, Secrets & Lies. I don't think that Brenda Blethyn was that far behind Frances McDormand. It's not that easy to find out who might have been the runners-up for the Oscar since I can imagine a very massive fanbase for Emily Watson but it was Brenda who was the critics' darling along with McDormand. I guess her Golden Globe helped her a lot and she was third at the very least but second is more likely.

Secrets & Lies is a terrific movie and I would probably even say that it's just perfect as it is. It's a really tough and very harrowing experience mostly because it's so incredibly realistic. It's so heartwrenching to see real people suffering and dealing with serious problems in life. The best thing about it is that the director had a really great sense of humor. This movie is not just depressing, it's a much more complex experience. I would say Timothy Spall was cheated out of that Oscar nomination (and probably even a win) for his astonishing performance as Maurice. Marianne Jean-Baptiste is excellent and deserved her nomination.

Brenda Blethyn is a great actress who we don't see as often as we should, really. She's really terrific but since a very successful period in Hollywood (and two Oscar noms), we haven't seen that much from her (that doesn't mean, though, that she doesn't give astonishing performances, just watch London River). Secrets & Lies was the movie that brought international recognition to this lesser known but incredibly talented actress. I guess her award at Cannes was the main breakthrough and then the Oscar nom was the icing on the cake (or was it the real breakthrough, I don't know). All in all, I think she could have easily won had she been a little bit more known.

Blethyn plays Cynthia Rose, a very lonely and bitter woman, full of regrets, pain and secrets. When Frances McDormand delivered her Oscar speech she said all of the nominees had the choice to portray rich, complex female characters. That is certainly the case with Brenda Blethyn whose instant and loud success with this performance is easily understandable as soon as you see it as she's brilliant as Cynthia Rose.

I guess it must be a bit off-putting for some that Blethyn is very over-the-top and almost exaggerated this character. Those incredibly loud, hysterical breakdowns might seem a bit to much but in fact, I feel that Blethyn found the perfect balanced and she was never too much for me. I guess, one has to have a taste for these kinds of performance and I am (I know) a bit snobbish about these things and Blethyn's work as Cynthia totally suits me.

In the beginning, we see a woman who's crying over her days of glory which may not have even existed. It's such a heart-breaking moment when she's holding her breasts as if she was younger andhad "great tits". Another example is when she's talking about her legs. She's wearing ugly slippers and she places her feet as if she was Sharon Stone. And yet she looks awful and doesn't care that much about herself. That's the beginning of Cynthia's journey and it gets just better and better. And Cynthia's loneliness is so close. I loved the scene where she hysterically grabs her brother and says that he's the only one she has.

The most interesting aspect of this character is that Cynthia doesn't always develop gradually. There are traumatic changes that really make her different. The first one is when her long lost daughter calls her on the phone and wants to meet her. It's really no wonder at all that it was her Oscar clip. It's an incredible and very emotional moment and again, heartbreaking. The way she's trembling, the way her mouth is twitching, the way she runs... all just unbelievable. There was so much emotional intensity there that as I was watching her, I felt my heart beating like hell.

However, Cynthia's relationship with Hortense, her daughter develops gradually and it's just wonderful to see the two ladies together. It's simply astonishing that they don't look like each other at all and they are not like each other at all and yet they are the perfect mother and daughter. It's wondeful.

The highlight of the whole movie is a long birthday party scene where all the secrets and lies are revealed and ALL of the actors excell, especially Blethyn and Timothy Spall. When Cynthia reveals the truth about Hortense to her family, it's a really shocking and heavy moment. It's really hard for the audience to deal with that scene emotionally and it took me a long time to find the real brilliance in it. Cynthia becomes as small and vulnerable as an old bird, and all thanks to the terrific Brenda Blethyn. When she sits the down and goes on eating her cake while being hysterical is just gutwrenching and is the work of a true genious.

Brenda is also fantastic in the scene of the reconciliation with her sister-in-law. Both are crying but they are holding each other and it's just a really terrific, magnificent moment. It's not a sentimental scene (oh no, God forbid) but it's quite tearjerking. It was amazing to see so many emotions almost blowing up the screen. Mark my words: amazing.

Yes, sometimes I get too carried away but I don't feel bad about it in this case because this is probably one of the finest performances I have ever seen in my life. It might be a little bit too much for many, I can accept that but not for me. This is a brutally realistic, terrifying, stunning achievement. The great director may have been very helpful to Brenda Blethyn but eventually, it's her incredible talent that makes this performance a very intense and wonderful experience, one that you don't easily forget. It stays in your guts.

What do you think? Who should be next (don't say Emily :D)?

Frances McDormand in Fargo

Frances McDormand received her second Oscar nomination and only Oscar to date for playing Marge Gunderson, a pregnant police officer investigating in a very odd case in the Best Picture nominee, Fargo. I don't know how much chance she had of winning. I guess she was pretty much the front-runner even though she lost the Globe to Madonna. Still, the other nominees were either too unknown (Blethyn, Scott Thomas and Watson) or not showy enough (Keaton). 1996 was a very unorthodox and interesting line-up without really huge stars.

Fargo is a pretty great movie though I have some minor problems with it. For instance, I think that the solution for the problem is a little bit too sudden and unbelievable. I mean, such a coincidence? But I guess it works because Fargo is quite unusual in itself. The directon of Joel Coen is just wonderful though I'm not sure if he deserved the Oscar over Mike Leigh. We'll see later. The screenplay of the movie is quite great and so is William H. Macy but for me it was Steve Buscemi who really stood out from the cast and he should have received a nomination.

Frances McDormand is an excellent character actress who always gives very great performances in supporting roles. She doesn't play the lead very often and she's not the real lead in Fargo, either. I'm not sure if the category placement for her was right. On the one hand, Margie isn't really the center of the movie and she's just a very entertaining character who makes things very colorful and warm in this cold movie. On the other hand, I couldn't think of anyone else as the leading character of this movie. She actually appears about thirty minutes into the movie and she doesn't really have very much screentime. Interesting enough, people rarely question this leading nomination. I don't think that she had much more time than, say, Patricia Neal in Hud.

That being said, McDormand is just wonderful in this role. I loved the very subtle way that she approached this character. Margie doesn't have loud, over-the-top breakdowns or even huge dramatic scenes. But I wouldn't say that this is a very silent role. The little mannerisms of Margie are just brilliant. Every minute I saw her on screen, I somehow felt so much better. She has this very radiant and warm presence that is really the only pleasant thing about Fargo. One could say that Margie was useless here, but I wouldn't say so. She balances all the terrifying aspects of this story so well and Frances McDormand used every opportunity to do that. To put it more correctly, in the alienated, evil world of Fargo, Margie represents humanity and love. It's lovely that while everybody else is killing others, she is going to give life to someone. Brilliant. I guess, she's more of a symbol and McDormand does it just brilliantly. She perfectly communicated Margie's innocence and incapability of understanding why people are killing for money.

There's so much dramatic weight and true meaning in her scene in the car where she asks the criminal why he did it. We can see all the faces of this character and it's just brilliant. And quite sad, to tell the truth. The lines are rather corny but thanks to McDormand's great delivery they really fit her, so I didn't have a problem with it. And the same goes for her very last scene with her husband. The warmth that McDormand adds to this scene is really touching. Yes, this is what I call a decent life. And McDormand communicated this to the audience terrificly.

The fact that McDormand is also quite hilarious in this part (her deliveries are brilliant) almost totally overshadows the real merits of this performance. Indeed, McDormand's sharp brilliance in the scene where she meets the girls from the bar is impressive. Her face... hilarious. And the same goes for the sequences where she's eating burgers. Again, she's so adorable.

But I don't want to make the mistake of not saying how really, truly wonderful Frances McDormand is in Fargo. She took this very ordinary character (who's actually much more complicated than one would think) added touches of her brilliance and the result was this wonderful, subtle and quite thought-provoking performance. She holds all the moral meanings of Fargo and the way she reveals it is simply perfect. This opinion may not be popular once again, but I just love her.

What do you think? Who should be next? (Emily Watson will be reviewed last to keep the suspense alive)