Jessica Lange in Country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Judy Davis in A Passage to India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Sally Field in Places in the Heart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Year

1984

So the nominees were:

• Judy Davis in A Passage to India
• Sally Field in Places in the Heart 
• Jessica Lange in Country
• Vanessa Redgrave in The Bostonians
• Sissy Spacek in The River

Sorry for postponing 1988 (I hate doing it and I do things like this in emergency cases, which this is; it's going to be the next year and I'm saving the entry with the comments so you won't have to make new predictions) but a chance came to do 1984 and I instantly knew it's a now or never moment for me. :) Plus I'm positive that you're getting a Great Glenn and Meryl Streep overload on this blog. :)

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

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1995

1995

 

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Emma Thompson in Sense and Sensibility

I was quite impressed by Emma Thompson's work and I feel she richly deserved the Oscar - for writing. Her contributions to the movie as a screenwriter are much significant than what she gave here as an actress. However, it would be clearly unfair from me not to emphasise how much I liked her acting as well and how connected I felt to her character. She didn't get the showiest part, that's for sure, but her talent shines even with such circumstances. 

4. Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County

I don't see the brilliance that many others do but I see the effort and can completely understand why many people are in love with this work. Although she definitely makes Francesca an extremely realistic woman that you can easily relate to, it's just something that wasn't too hard for the marvelous Meryl Streep. Nevertheless, I cannot deny the fact that she really elevates her movie that would just dragging along without her.  

3. Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking

I can conclude that Susan Sarandon gives a fantastic performance as Helen Prejean. She hits all the right notes, she displays dignity, grace and faith like nobody else. Her subtle, emotional work stays with you long after movie and is actually the most important reason to see the film. Although this part may not have been too difficult to play for an actress of Susan's calibre, it's still outstanding, brave and gutwrenching work given by a wonderful actress.

2. Sharon Stone in Casino

Sharon Stone gives a brutal, chaotic and disturbing performance as Ginger in Casino. She gets rid of all her vanity, glamour and sexiness in the process of creating a living piece of junk. Although the downfall of this woman is very hard to watch, Sharon makes it a wonderful experience, thanks to her wonderful talent, her intelligence and confidence. Excellent work.

1. Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas

What an easy call! Elisabeth Shue kills the rest of her competition with her brilliant performance that I consider one of the greatest ones ever given. If you surrender to her, it's going to be a wonderful experience for you. She makes Sera such an interesting, heartbreaking character without seeming forced for a second. It all seems to come from her so naturally: she clearly identified with this character.

 So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Elisabeth Shue 

in 

Leaving Las Vegas
 

Don't worry Elisabeth! You got the important one! :) 

Final thoughts: Wow, a very strong year. I've had better but it was still a treat. Elisabeth was an easy winner, the rest of the ranking, however, took some time to decide. How weird: I drew the order of the reviews, which eventually turned out to be my ranking. So strange. :) In the end, I'm quite confident about this ranking. I'm kind of disappointed that Meryl didn't win three in a row (OK, I admit that I wanted it to happen...badly) and you, of course, didn't expect it not to happen plus I think Sharon's #2 ranking is also a shocker to you. I guess I prefer prostitutes to nuns and hopeless lovers. :) It was really Elisabeth's time to shine and I hope she will one day get on the podium as an Oscar winner. Anyway, I'm glad Susan Sarandon has an Oscar. 

Omissions:

• Kathy Bates in Dolores Claibourne
• Julianne Moore in Safe

The next year: 

• Intriguing, eating babies, befriending animals... :-) 

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Bad news: I'm going to really slow down. I've had some free time now, but it's only gonna be worse until 18th June. After that, however... I'm going to catch up. :) I have to focus on my studies now. :) I'm not giving this up, don't worry, I don't have writer's block, I'm full of creative energy, I just don't have time.

"IT'S JUST TILL JUNE!"

Emma Thompson in Sense and Sensibility

Emma Thompson received another (her third) Oscar nomination for playing another woman destined to become a spinster, this time in the adaptation of Jane Austen's novel, Sense and Sensibility. Emma's chances of winning are the hardest to speculate about. She was a sure thing in Best Adapted Screenplay but in Best Actress, I suppose nobody had a chance of winning. People decided to vote for Emma in Adapted Screenplay, therefore I don't think they picked her in Actress. However, the fact that Emma's movie was the only Best Picture contender might have given her the edge over Meryl.

Although Sense and Sensibility is not the best movie ever made (not even the best from that year), it's so beautifully made in every possible way. First of all, it had a wonderful, flawless adaptation for which Emma Thompson much deservedly won the Oscar: it's so full of subtle emotions and humor, the dialogues, the scenes are so brilliantly written that it's extremely hard to believe that it was Emma's first time as a screenwriter for a feature film. Moreover, Ang Lee's direction is just as excellent and it was robbed of the nomination (his movies are so underrated by the Academy in terms of wins). And I haven't even mentioned the wonderful technical part and the excellent performances (including Wonder Woman Winslet who deserved an Oscar for this work of hers).

I don't know if I have told you this but I so love everything about Emma Thompson: her subtle acting style, her wonderful, terrific, killer sense of humor (her Golden Globe speech for this movie is the best I've ever heard, no contest). Although her performances may not cover a truly wide range, I always enjoy them and I feel sympathy for the characters she plays wheter they be depressed writers, depressed and/or hopeless spinsters or the angel of America. 

Elinor Dashwood is the spinster of the Dashwood family. She's composed, responsible, kind and extremely repressed. She's typically the one who suffers because of the others but has to keep a straight face for the sake of them. It's important to notice this time that Emma also served as a screewriter in this film since it truly influenced the way this woman was portrayed. Most actors writing their parts always write the most most spectacular and showy roles for themselves (if they play the lead), however, Emma (very much like Great Glenn in Albert Nobbs) cared about remaining faithful to the concept of the character instead of writing herself a true showcase as an actress. For this, I'll forever admire her but in the end, this loyalty is the thing that prevents her from giving a truly knockout performance. 

Not that I'm implying that Emma is not great in this movie - she is indeed great in every possible way. She's doing her usual stuff and uses the same tricks all over again and yet her work remains just as fresh and impressive as her previous efforts. Moreover, despite being quite an unshowy part, Elinor Dashwood is far and away the most interesting character for me from the movie. In the stories with three sisters, it's always the oldest sister, the "spinster" whose fate truly captivates me: we can mention Diane Keaton's Lenny from Crimes of the Heart or Chekhov's heroine Olga from Three Sisters (Hannah and her Sisters is the odd one out, I guess, never you mind LOL). Although that extremely tragic edge of those characters is not emphasised by Emma as much as I would like it, she still wonderfully shows this aspect of Elinor. 

I was impressed by the way Emma portrayed Elinor's dignity and how she showed her in the scenes with the girl, Lucy who's secretly engaged to Elinor's true love. I really wish that Elinor had just bitch-slapped the girl (though this is not a soap from the 1980s, it's a soap romantic story from the Victorian era) but Emma wonderfully suggests that it's not Elinor's style. 

Hugh Grants's Edward is quite probably the lamest, clumsiest and most boring guy that's ever been fallen in love with in any story but Emma makes us understand why Elinor fell for her so much. Their chemistry (or is it more proper to say lack of chemistry in the case of these two characters?) is just excellent. I'm not suggesting that their tempestuous love affair sets the screen on fire but they look just fine together. 

With such a character, you would expect to see her break out of her shell and even though that doesn't happen here in a traditional sense, I can see the development in Elinor. She gradually learns how to care more about herself and be little bit more selfish, while she also remains loyal to her old life. Her most memorable scene (for me) came when she was taking care of her ill sister and was crying by the bed. That scene was as moving as it gets and I give nothing but praise for it.

But there are points when her emotions come to the surface and even then, Emma is able to remain as subtle as she was previously. Although we get an insight to Elinor's pain, suffering and bitterness, I wish Emma had done a little bit more. I approve of subtlety but Emma could have moved one step forward to being even more emotional and yet remaining just as subtle. That one step, which cleary would have made her truly amazing here, was clearly missing from this performance eventually and I couldn't help feeling bitter in the end. 

Still, I was quite impressed by Emma Thompson's work and I feel she richly deserved the Oscar - for writing. Her contributions to the movie as a screenwriter are much significant than what she gave here as an actress. However, it would be clearly unfair from me not to emphasise how much I liked her acting as well and how connected I felt to her character. She didn't get the showiest part, that's for sure, but her talent shines even with such circumstances. She's moving and effective without a doubt and for this she gets

 

What do you think? Stay tuned for The Final Conclusion (which won't be that much of a nailbiter, I'm sure). 

Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County

Three-time Academy Award winner Meryl Streep received her tenth Oscar nomination for playing Francesca Johnson, a housewife falling for a photographer in Clint Eastwood's romantic movie, The Bridges of Madison County. According to some resources, this tenth Oscar nod marks the time when the talk about Meryl's third Oscar started, which continued up to three weeks ago when she finally won her well-deserved award. In 1995, however, I don't think she had much of a chance of winning. I suppose she might have got ahead of Emma Thompson but the fact that her mention was the only one for her movie and that she hadn't won any other awards makes me doubtful about it. That being said, Meryl has won so there's nothing to worry about! :) (I'll keep saying that forever so be prepared.)

There's that song which say 'the book of love is long and boring'. Well, so is The Bridges of Madison County. You know had I had a few shots of tequila and some valium, I probably would have appreciated the slow pace of this movie but alas, I was completely sober. The endless dancing and kissing sequences are really good tests of patients though I believe most people are moved by them. I guess I'm just too cynical. That being said, Clint Eastwood's a great director but he has a terrible sense of picking the right screenplay. Furthermore, his performance here is one of the dreariest things you can ever see on the screen. He's completely robotic, adds no depth to the character and I could go on. 

Meryl, oh marvelous Meryl. I'm not saying that I've only praised her, I've said some cheeky things about her but that doesn't change the fact: she's brilliant as she is. I think Colin Firth said it best at the Oscars when he told about how much Meryl raises the bar in each of her performances so it's always a little bit more difficult for the rest. It was one of those rare moments when a speech of praise was 100% honest and true. For these reasons, I was really looking forward to watching The Bridges of Madison County, one of Meryl most praised achievements.

In The Bridges of Madison County, Meryl plays Francesca, a seemingly unhappy wife with an accent who finds passion and love in her life once a mysterious man appears. It sounds quite a lot like Out of Africa if you ask me and to tell the truth, the two performances of Meryl are not that different, either. That's why it's incredibly interesting to me why the former is so often criticised but this one is quite rarely. The circumstances and the reasons for this women are quite different and yet they share a common goal: finding happiness on the side of a man who represents completely different values than she does.  

There's something strongly working against Meryl's performance as Francesca and that's namely her movie. It's so incredibly boring at times that you just wish something happened on the screen and try not to drop off instead of focusing on Meryl. And that also says something about Meryl's work here: with a really amazing performance you can make even a mediocre movie enjoyable (see The Iron Lady). Not being amazing doesn't necesarrily mean, though, that I'm not fond of Meryl's Francesca. I just feel she suffers from the same things that Michelle does in My Week with Marilyn: I see an actress in front of me that I'm completely in love with but an almost unwatchably boring film makes it harder for me to spot that brilliance that makes me tune in to their work. 

Other than that, everything that's moving and effective about The Bridges of Madison County comes from Meryl's performance. In a story with disturbingly one-dimensional characters, her Francesca seems to be the only one who's worth being paid any attention. Meryl makes it extremely easy to sympathise with Francesca and yet her dignity and grace prevents us from feeling pity for her. She really adds lots of depth to this character, making her wonderfully layered and exciting. Meryl created a vulnerable human being: whenever we see Francesca realising how unhappy she was and how unhappy she has to remain without the love from Robert. The screenplay was trying to save some time from the end, instead of leaving out the endless dancing and the useless parts with Francesca's children. We don't get to see her suffering because of the lack of Robert. However, Meryl, on her own, communicates some of her character's pain to us. Many of that comes from the usual unhappy middle-aged housewife character itself but Meryl avoided all the clichés with such characters: there aren't many theatrical breakdowns, she sheds some tears silently, which expresses the pain much more properly. She manages to save that bitter feeling to the parts with the old Francesca, which makes those scenes particulary effective. 

Meryl's chemistry with Clint Eastwood was crucial to the movie and while Clint Eastwood's work adds nothing to the success of the story, the only level his performance works is his relationship with Meryl's character. Then you can imagine how strong Meryl is at showing Francesca's love for Robert. They make up a typical tragic romantic couple but that's something that didn't bother me. Their love scenes and occasional arguments were felt quite realistic to me and I was quite convinced that these two people mean the world to each other. 

In the end, is it one of Meryl Streep's greatest performances as some may suggest? Definitely not if you ask me, otherwise she's wonderful and extremely moving in her part as Francesca. I don't see the brilliance that many others do but I see the effort and can completely understand why many people are in love with this work. Although she definitely makes Francesca an extremely realistic woman that you can easily relate to, it's just something that wasn't too hard for the marvelous Meryl Streep. Nevertheless, I cannot deny the fact that she really elevates her movie that would just dragging along without her. 

 

You're surprised, I'm sure. :) What do you think? (I wouldn't really like to read the words undeserved, The Iron Lady, Viola Davis, Glenn Close, 2011, third if you don't mind. Thanks. Lol) 

Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking

I guess we're all quite familiar with the so-called "ovedue" wins. They usually happen when a performer or a filmmaker had already received several nomination without winning a single award. Therefore sentiment really works in that particular person's favor and it's no wonder why some feel quite bitter when the win takes places.  It happened most notably to Martin Scorsese, Shirley MacLaine and Kate Winslet. They are people whose worthiness of an Oscar is undeniable and yet many disagree with their wins. Susan Sarandon's overdue win for Dead Man Walking, however, seems to be a win that is also popular because of the popularity of her performance. People do love her. Susan Sarandon was, I think, a lock for the Academy Award though I don't think she won by a landslide. All the other ladies were pretty much threatening her.  

About Dead Man Walking, let me just emphasise how thought-provoking that movie is. Although it has its flaws, I admired its passion and the fact that it's really up to the viewer to decide what they think about capital punishment. Naturally, Robbins makes his opinion clear (along with Sister Helen) but I don't think that he's as obvious as some might accuse him. That being said, the performances really elevate the film. Sean Penn is truly great in his limited screentime, using all the opportunities, he's only shaky a few times otherwise I think he was worthy of an Oscar win. I must also undeline the unfairly ignored supporting cast, especially the works of Raymond J. Barry and Celia Weston as parents losing their children (though R. Lee Ermey who plays Weston's husband is also great). It's also nice to see Margo Martindale, her performances supporting Sarandon are always so great (though Lorenzo's Oil remains my favorite).

And here we get to Susan Sarandon, fantastic, intelligent actress who constantly gifts us with wonderful subtle performances. She had her prime in the 90s so it was only fitting that she won back then. What I love the most about her is that the way she's able to keep control over her character and inject much of her personality into them while still keeping on acting. Her dedication and passion as an actress and an activist shine through  every material brilliantly. I just keep being amazed by the wide variety of characters she plays: once a rebelling waitress trying to break out of her circumstances, then a dedicated mother who's desperate to save her child's life and eventually, the anti-death penalty activist nun, Sister Helen Prejean. 

Susan obviously approached this real-life character with gallons of respect and grace, her admiration really comes off: she portrays Sister Helen as really noble, wonderful woman who has her own doubts about herself and yet she has her faith as a firm base. Susan wonderfully displayed the sister's integrity. She's far from the concept of nuns in movies: she's neither the strict, conservative Mother Superior from Sister Act (who secretly has a heart of gold) or the singing nun shown in sixties' sugary musicals. In fact, Sister Helen seems nothing like a nun, it's really her strong faith and grace that shows how dedicated she is to the people and God. She has the pure faith of Jennifer Jones St. Bernadette, but Sister Helen is much less naive and more realistic. Susan excellently displayed the fear and doubt on her journey with a man sentenced to death. 

Susan doesn't have the loud, over-the-top moments that some of her fellow nominees had though this is a typical subtle baity role: she has those whispered Oscar clip lines and everything but it still feels really decent and honest. Susan is not begging for laurels in her performance. She mostly uses her face and eyes to express the emotions required from the movie. She has a damn difficult job considering the lots of close-ups. As a result, we get incredibly close to Sister Helen and it's easier for us to identify with her problems.

It was very important for Susan to properly show the inexperience of Sister Helen. That's what makes her meetings with Sean Penn's character, Matthew so intense and haunting. The two of them worked so wonderfully together, not trying to outact each other (though I saw the efforts on Sean Penn's part to be the best, it didn't work, I liked Susan more). Susan with her subtlety and grace is an excellent contrast to Sean Penn's more raging and angry work. Matthew is full of anger and hate and then there's Sister Helen with her calm behaviour, her tolerance and acceptance of Matt. Susan gets something really straight: Sister Helen is not trying to prove that Matthew is innocent and is not attempting to help him get away from taking responsibility for his actions. In fact, she's aware what a terrible thing he has done and tries to make him reveal the truth to her but more importantly, to himself and God. 

Susan had the really difficult task of serving as a moral compass for the viewer: it's up to her to make this film as objective and unbiased as it can be. She succeeds of course, mostly thanks to her previously praised intelligence and dedication. She doesn't overemote or moralise too much. She shows nothing more than Sister Helen's reaction. In a way, Matthew becomes an accessory to the development of Sister Helen (very much like in the case of Elisabeth Shue and Leaving Las Vegas).

Susan is especially strong and effective when we see her listening to the stories of the parents whose children were brutally murdered. We can mostly see her reacting, she's only playing with her face and is wondefully expressive. She shows the conflicts going on inside Sister Helen. She indeed gets terrified by what Matthew has done and yet never even considers giving up on him. Susan excellently displays this integrity and bravery of Sister Helen and also kind of a stubbornness.

The execution of Matthew is terrifying not exclusively because of Sean Penn's acting, but because of Susan's quiet reactions. Her Oscar clip when she says she'll be there with him when it happens, is just excellent, it's everything a scene should be: quietly emotional and effective, hitting you right in your guts. Susan's face is just so haunting when we see her behind the glass reassuring Matthew of her love. Unforgettable moment with honesty rarely displayed on the big screen.

In the end, I can conclude that Susan Sarandon gives a fantastic performance as Helen Prejean. She hits all the right notes, she displays dignity, grace and faith like nobody else. Her subtle, emotional work stays with you long after movie and is actually the most important reason to see the film. Although this part may not have been too difficult to play for an actress of Susan's calibre, it's still outstanding, brave and gutwrenching work given by a wonderful actress. 

 

What do you think?

I know (to quote Melissa McCarthy from Bridesmaids) it's coming out of me like lava but I have some free time now and I want to enjoy it. :) Meryl comes tomorrow. :) Maybe even Emma. :) 

Sharon Stone in Casino

Sharon Stone received her only Best Actress nomination to date for playing Ginger, a prosititute who becomes the wife of the mobster Sam 'Ace' Rothstein. Although Stone won the Golden Globe for her performance, I don't think she was such a serious contender as she didn't receive a nomination from her fellow SAG members. I suppose if Sarandon had already been an Oscar winner, Sharon could have built up enough momentum to win the Oscar - she was a great star turning in a great performance in a Scorsese movie and so on. I suppose in the end she was second after Sarandon. 

Casino, just like Leaving Las Vegas, is a masterpiece and much better than any of the five nominated Pictures. Although it's not as amazing as Goodfellas (what can be), it's so mindblowingly great. Everything is so perfect about it that I actually find it extremely hard to believe that its only nomination came for Stone. The cinematography, art direction, costumes, editing and most of all, the directing - brilliant. De Niro is fantastic as Ace and I'm kind of stunned that she was snubbed during award season. The movie itself has such a depressing, paranoid atmosphere, you just feel that in this world, you just cannot trust anyone and this uncertainty that makes this film so effective. 

If we asked people on the street what they think about when Sharon Stone's name comes up, very few would say Casino. She's best remembered for her iconic role Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct, where she so infamously proved that (unlike Hot Lips) she's a natural blonde. Then again we are reminded that she's in fact an Academy Award nominee and surprisingly, it wasn't for Basic Instinct, but Casino, a gangster film by Scorsese. 

Performances as wives of famous man or gangsters is something very much welcome at the Academy Award thought extremely rarely in the leading category. I'm sure that if the part of Ginger had been played by a lesser-known actress, she would have been campaigned in the supporting category or if Sharon played it now in 2012 with Harvey Weinstein as a producer, she could start writing her speech for her Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role. That being said, Ginger is a very important character in the story of Casino but I wouldn't swear that the movie wouldn't be the same thing without her - she fulfils all the criteria of s supporting player: she doesn't steal the spotlight from the lead, she doesn't have much screentime, but has a lasting effect on the movie in her scenes. However, in Stone's case that effect is so strong that I couldn't claim that she's not a co-lead at least. She uses lots of her charisma, sexiness and star power in a part that Madonna was intended to play. 

In the beginning, we get to see a beautiful, hot, intelligent and very confident prostitute, working in Las Vegas. Unlike Sera from Leaving Las Vegas, Ginger succesfully avoids devastating circumstances with the help of her wit and her looks. No wonder Ace is instantly mesmerised by her, she's attractive in every possible way a person can be and she's indeed a woman to go crazy for. Stone gradually reveals the dark side of Ginger and boy, is it impressive! She's just amazing in the scene at the wedding party: on the surface, she's a happy bride but two minutes later she's a broken-down woman crying on the telephone to her former pimp. It's interesting that Stone made very different decisions with this character: here, she holds herself back, she's mostly subtle and as Ginger starts going downhill she goes more and more over the top. 

The only thing that's working against her is her masterful movie. Starring in masterpieces is a very tough thing for the actor, as it clearly overshadows the merits of the performances. It doesn't help, either that she's barely on the screen for a very long time. With a supporting character that would have been fine, but you would expect a lead to be fully in charge of the film. Nevertheless, that's the most negative thing I can say about Sharon and I must also add that none of it is her fault as once she's back, she's dynamite. 

Ginger is not a Carmela Soprano type of character who tries to turn a blind eye on her husband's activities but inside guilt is just killing her. Far from it: Ginger actively participates in all the action, she doesn't even try to hide her greed. She knows what she's entitled to and she's willing to get it by all means. Stone brilliantly emphasises how immoral and greedy this woman is, to her it's no big deal to smoke coke in front of her daughter or ordering her lover to kill her husband instantly. 

Ginger's not a typical (movie) addict, either. Stone doesn't want us to feel any sympathy for her, she shows her as the pathetic, broken-down junkie that she really is. I kept being amazed at how well Sharon was able to keep control of her character that was diving deeper and deeper into chaos. On imdb message boards, I've read many complaints about how Stone overplayed Ginger and her whole overacting ruined the movie - in my opinion, that's the biggest praise that she oould get. Stone simply kills the movie with her destructive energy and makes it a truly unpleasant experience. 

This is the reason Sharon's scenes with James Woods are just amazing: she's lost almost everything and these moments brilliantly show how much Ginger is tied to her past. 'Once a hooker, always a hooker' yells Ace after a really ugly fight with Ginger. Sharon's varied greatness shows one simple thing: Ginger is incapable of changing. She has calmer, more quiet periods but there comes another breakdown, another night of cocaine and booze. Stone shows us a very painful and disturbing downfall of a woman. 

Eventually, in the highlight of Stone's performance, Ginger attacks Ace and has a huge breakdown in front of their house: Sharon displays all the emotions of Ginger in a way that we get a brief summary of the character in those few minutes. Although it's true that she's one step away from totally ruinig the character, she was so in control of her that she remains as fantastic as she was perviously.

Another 1995 lady, another terrific performance. Sharon Stone gives a brutal, chaotic and disturbing performance as Ginger in Casino. She gets rid of all her vanity, glamour and sexiness in the process of creating a living piece of junk. Although the downfall of this woman is very hard to watch, Sharon makes it a wonderful experience, thanks to her wonderful talent, her intelligence and confidence. Excellent work. 

 

What do you think? 

Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas

Elisabeth Shue received her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Sera, a prostitute falling for a suicidal, alcoholic screenwriter in Leaving Las Vegas. Elisabeth's nomination is considered to have been a real nailbiter though I feel the SAG, Golden Globe and Bafta nods plus the wins from the critics' should have indicated a firm fanbase for Elisabeth. I suppose people might have been worried as she still might have been that girl from Back to the Future and Cocktail. Fortunately, she received her well-deserved acclaim for her work in Leaving Las Vegas and I suppose she was the dark horse for the Oscar (she might have even become second after Sarandon). I just hope that she gets such a great chance in the foreseeable future. 

Leaving Las Vegas is, by all means, a masterpiece. Not only is it better than any of the movies nominated for Best Picture (shitty field, I must say), it's also one of the best movies of the ninties. There we go, I said it. If you go for wonderfully depressing, dark independent films, Leaving Las Vegas is your ideal choice. It deserved all of its nominations and should have got Best Director and at the very least Adapted Screenplay. Nicolas Cage is very effective and heart-breaking in the lead though I must say he doesn't have much screentime at all. I can't really decide if he deserved the Oscar (I'll decide after I rewatch Penn). 

And then there's Maude Elisabeth Shue as Sera, one of the most atypical interpretations of a hooker in the history of film. Prostitutes have always done well with the Academy, we can mention Liz Taylor in her infamous BUtterfield 8 or Jane Fonda's towering achievement in Klute. I suppose I can describe Sera as a darker, even more devastating and heart-breaking version of Bree Daniels: on the ouside. She basically narrates the movie and her experiences very much like Bree does, revealing her feelings and intimate details about her relationship with Ben. Just like Bree, Sera is under a mask, always putting on performances with clients. As she says, she gives whatever they need and want to see. Inside, however, they couldn't be more different. While Bree is always hoping for a better day, Sera doesn't even try to break out of her terrible life even though she desperately clings to the only thing that makes her feel worthy of love and attention - and that's Ben. 

I often find myself wondering what makes a performance truly great, something that really hits you right in your guts. For instance: what's so great about Diane Keaton in Annie Hall technically or even emotionally? My answer is not really and yet she's #3 in my overall ranking. Her special aura and radiant persona is the thing that elevates her performance. Although Shue's plays with emotions incredibly, it's again that special radiation that makes her work so special as Sera. With one teardrop she can communicate the sadness and devastation of days, weeks, even decades. Shue really is the heart of Leaving Las Vegas, she makes it so wonderfully wrenching, depressing and cathartic. In fact, I feel that Nicolas Cage's character is nothing more than an accessory to create Sera's character. Not only that, also if we go by the numbers, she has considerably more scenes and screentime than Cage. On top of that, as I said, she has the biggest impact and she's the reason why you feel that pressing feeling in your throats. 

What I admired the most about Shue here is her ability to get across the humiliation and the love of Sera and the fact that she made her such a layered and beautiful character. She so carefully developed this human being that you can actually feel her heartbeats and feel her breath on your skin. It's chilling to see how close the camera she is to her. The relationship is so intimate between her and the audience but then again the question comes up: could it even be another one of Sera's performances? Are we also just clients of hers? Elisabeth is seemingly playing with the instincts of the viewer. She's extremely hot and sexy, it really just feels like a sexual encounter between you and her. This might sound a little perverted but I could actually smell her skin, her hair and feel her body. Elisabeth's literally almost in your face and this realism really fits this character. 

Furthermore, as Ben puts it many-many times, Sera is an angel to her, a form of salvation that might probably be the only thing that keeps him alive. William H. Macy's character in Magnolia says something like 'I have so much love to give'. I suppose that character and Sera could have a long chat about giving love. In this central relationship, Sera is seemingly the only one to give, give, give and always put up with Ben's unacceptable behaviour. Shue wonderfully showed how complicated this side of Sera is: she even suggests that it's actually Ben who's saving her (just remember her Oscar clip when she's begging him to seek the help of a doctor). This quiet breakdown is one of the most heart-breaking and devastating scenes ever in a movie. Elisabeth added a touch of the essence that Julianne Moore's (<3) character had in Far from Heaven: she turns a blind on the flaws of a man she loves and does everything to maintain that idyllic state. This is probably the biggest merit of Elisabeth: sometimes she does the most unexpected things that lead to the best outcomes. In the scene at the kitchen I felt like watching a 50s perfect housewife instead of a humiliated prostitute. 

Although Elisabeth (naturally) nails all the monologues, it's really her face that really tells Sera's feelings. She's incredibly subtle and avoids being over-the-top. She hits you hard with one simple truth: as hard as she's trying, in the eyes of others, Sera is nothing but a dirty f-ing whore. That's something that you can feel whenever she's on the screen, being humliliated by someone. Again, it's her face that makes these terrifying scenes unbearable: the pain that she displays is almost too much to carry for the audience (thankfully, she's completely in control of her character this way as well).  

Chemistry feels kind of an odd word to describe what's going on between Elisabeth and Nicolas Cage but I have no other word :-). However, their chemistry is just wonderful. Elisabeth is loving and caring, which is a great contrast to Cage's destructive, raging presence. It's over-the-top and subtle paired together and it's just a perfect synthesis. They are in love in the most peculiar and unexpected way - they are in love with each other because they need each other's love and both actors are showing this so effortlessly and naturally that I was actually doubting I was watching actors playing parts  (their last scene is just so amazing).

It takes some time and attention from the viewer to see all the things that Elisabeth put into this character and so all her layers and facets. However, if you surrender to her, it's going to be a wonderful experience for you. She makes Sera such an interesting, heartbreaking character without seeming forced for a second. It all seems to come from her so naturally: she clearly identified with this character. This wonderful, rich character study is indeed a very special gift to us and Elisabeth's talent, extraordinary range and passion makes this one of the greatest performances ever given. 

 

What do you think?