Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook

Jennifer Lawrence received her second Best Actress nomination for playing Tiffany, a mysterious and wounded young woman in David O. Russell's Best Picture nominated film, Silver Linings Playbook. Jennifer basically won every important award for her performance in this film, which places her in the status of the front-runner at the Academy Awards (I suppose that SAG and the four acting nominations for the film sealed this). However, I don't think that this win will be an easy one: Emmanuelle Riva is very close to her and Jessica Chastain could also be a threat if they decide to make up for the snub of Kathryn Bigelow. The reason why I think Jennifer is winning is simply because there's so much competition among her fellow nominees and that will give the edge to the front-runner (just like in Melissa Leo's case).

As I've already explained it in a previous post, I find Silver Linings Playbook to be an amazing movie that deals with a very tough subject in a most unusual and yet totally convincing and realistic way. The movie is not ashamed of having a silver lining and not deciding to write a tragic end to the story (in my humble opinion, this underlined the message of the movie so wonderfully). Come Oscar night, I'd very much love to see an upset in basically every category in which it's nominate, even though it's not necessarily my pick in most of them. 

We get to see a twentysomething nominee in the Best Actress category every year, who's enjoying her first nomination (with a slim chance of winning) and the possibility of a great career. And here's Jennifer Lawrence, 22, receiving her second nomination in two years (being the youngest actress to receive two nominations in that category) having received critics' awards, a Globe and a SAG. Many people would have probably bet on Carey Mulligan to gain a second nomination and an Oscar earlier and yet here we are with Jennifer who didn't have the "star is born" hype the last time (since Natalie Portman sucked out the air of anyone's possible campaign with hers).

However, Jennifer's last nomination came for the independent film Winter's Bone, where the cast and crew was able to ignore Hollywood's rules with the raw, unapologetic style of filmmaking. I suppose this attitude was the one that appealed to most Academy voters last time and that's what helped Lawrence's meteoric rise to stardom. She's so uncompromising in her acting and so free of tactics that one could even ignore the term "acting decisions" in her case. Instead of choosing to overanalyse her character, she relies completely on her own instincts and lets her soul drive her performances instead of her head, which may not lead to what we call "great actressing" but what is essential to creating a character that the audience can relate to and connect with certain aspects of their lives. Nowadays reviewers are almost pervertly obsessed with the little details and external aspects of performances that we often tend to forget what it's all about. Primarily, it's not about constantly showing an actor's tools and/or skills, it's more about embodying a believable character that contributes to the story.

I couldn't understand these at all the last time I encountered her as an Oscar nominee, but years taught me to see behind the surface and now I'm just amazed by her talent. And as weird as it sounds from my mouth, I believe we might have found our next Jane Fonda, an actress who creates on her own terms and acts with her soul and flawless instinct. She may not display all those "perfect skills", but her characters are painfully deep and vulnerable, which lead to enourmous effects (on me, at least).

Although Jennifer is much younger than Tiffany should be according to Matthew Quick's novel, her youth adds another layer of vulnerability to Tiffany's character. Nothing that she says about her husband sounds completely believable from her mouth, which confuses you more and makes you uncertain about everything you would think about her and this ultimately leads to a mysterious aura around her that makes it so easy to identify with Tiffany's pain. The fact Jennifer makes the emotions of the character almost touchable makes her acting affect even more deeply.

Moreover, the chemistry with Bradley Cooper makes them one of the two greatest duos that graced the screen last year (guess who were the others). Although there have been complaints about the fact that the whole purpose of Jennifer's character was to support Bradley Cooper's unstable Pat, I'd say that's one of the many-many misinterpretations about this movie or at least it's not a very accurate one in my opinion: Tiffany's character, as unstable as she is herself, brings redemption to Pat's life, just as much as she's saved by Pat. Bradley Cooper's clumsy and obsessive character is the polar opposite of Jennifer's Tiffany and yet they are just as implusive and vulnerable.

And since this chemistry is at the centre of Silver Linings Playbook, it's no surprise that their scenes are the one sticking with you the most. Their argument at the diner and in front of the movie theater is both electric and devastating, perfectly demonstrating how these two human beings are exposed to their traumas and their sudden realization of this is nothing short of heartbreaking.

But really, in the end, it all comes down to my favorite scene all year, the dance contest that is one of the most unusual and memorable scenes I've ever seen in my life: there's a brilliant balance between outrageously funny comedy and a deeply upsetting drama. It has a "last shot at happiness" feeling to it that makes you (or at least me) feel a kind of euphoria, which is perfectly shown on the face of Jacki Weaver in that scene. The bittersweet reality that Lawrence and Cooper both bring to this scene is quite simply astonishing. It's too bad that we're influenced by our own cynicism and our expectations of great "actressing" or "acting" and we forget to enjoy. If anything, Silver Linigs Playbook was a memento for me to examine all my conceptions and opinions about acting and filmmaking in general

Overall, contrary to all the Oscar reviewers and just like everyone else in this world I've totally fallen under the charms of Jennifer Lawrence who gives an unbelievably amazing, beautiful performance and creates a three-dimensional character with such extraordinary passion and depth that it sets the screen on fire and makes you fall in love with her characters despite (or maybe even because of) her flaws. A wondeful portrayal which according to me deserves a

What do you think?

The Next Year

2012

So the nominees are:

• Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty
• Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook
• Emmanuelle Riva in Amour
• Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Naomi Watts in The Impossible

Since I have very little time left, I have to interrupt 1999 (which will be finished immediately after 2012, don't worry) so that I can finish 2012 before the ceremony (I'm planning to write a more thorough should win/will win than usual). I can say one thing in advance: what a year! And I tell you, according to my own estimations, it will be a real Sophie's Choice between not two, but three (!) performances (very much like 1996). And I love it that none of these performances are usual Best Actress stuff. 

What do you think? Who's your pick? Who do you think will win the Oscar? And more importantly :P, what's your prediction for my ranking? :) 

Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry

Hilary Swank received a semi-surprise Academy Award for playing Brandon Teena, a brutally murdered transgendered teen in Kimberly Peirce's first movie, Boys Don't Cry. Although it was Swank who won the Golden Globe  for Best Actress in a Drama, Annette Bening was expected to take home the Oscar for her performance in the smash hit American Beauty. I cannot find a sensible reason for this upset besides the simple fact that this was one of the rare occasions that the Academy voted for what they found the best performance of the year. 

I must also add that Boys Don't Cry didn't do that well in terms of Oscar nominations. The only other nomination was for Chloe Sevigny who, in my opinion, might have deserved to win (more than the actual winner, that's for sure), but I somehow believe that Lana was the central character besides Brandon and she was leading as well. Also, I believe the movie was cheated out of nominations for both Best Picture and Original Screenplay (I know it was a very rich year, but this movie was way better than American Beauty or The Cider House Rules). I also admire Kimberly Peirce's unshowy, but sharp and confident direction that really builds up all the tension until the horrifying ending with the help of a very strong and talented cast. 

That cast includes Hilary Swank who, as you know, is not, ahhem, one of my favorite actresses as I find her performances overly affected and her performances are rarely honest, in my opinion. She's so desperate to gain your attention and your sympathy and she's actually quite skilful at that: she all does it under the disguise of 'subtlety'. And yet in Boys Don't Cry, she couldn't be any more different: she portrays Brandon's fears and desperation with brutal honesty and as a result, we get an incredibly mysterious and haunting performance that reveals its secrets in the course of the film, but it takes an effort from the viewer as well. 

Many people compare Hilary Swank's case to Sally Field who also (unexpectedly) took home two Oscars for Best Actress after some time on television. I suppose people at the time must have been surprised that actresses with such backgrounds can be so thrilling in a serious feautre film. However, I feel that all the comparisions end at this point: the actresses couldn't be any more different from one another, in their approach to characters and the audience (and Sally will receive that third nomination very soon so that two out of two thing won't apply, either). 

The character of Brandon Teena was Swank's ultimate chance to prove herself to Hollywood and moviegoers after being fired from Beverly Hills, 90210. Although it could have been a showy fuck you to the team of Aaron Spelling with the label 'I can do better than you', instead Swank played Brandon with fierce honestly and courage as if she had nothing to lose. Her bravery and dedication to this character was exactly what this movie needed. 

Since Brandon was a mystery, the ego of a huge star would have ruined the performance entirely. If anyone wanted to display her skills in this part, she would have failed miserably because Brandon's personality was all about concealing herself. For me, this performance was mainly effective because of all those repressed emotions of Brandon were so wonderfully communicated by Swank and that creates really disturbing tension that helped the movie have this very dark tone. Also, this is why I believe some people might be turned off by this performance. It doesn't grab you in a traditional sense, there aren't many actressy scenes, it just leaves you confused and incredibly disturbed.

However, I'd never say that Hilary's performance made this movie overly depressing. On the contrary, the passion and sometimes playfulness that she displays on the screen provide us with rare moments of comfort and harmony. Naturally, the most tender moments of the film are the ones between Brandon and Lana, where the two actresses work together exceptionally. Their relationship is not the earth-shattering romance one would expect in a movie, it's just these two people together, naturally, without much fuss. Their moments emphasise the romance instead of sex, even though that's a part of it as well (which is handled delicately by both actresses).

Hilary also handles the technical part of this performance wonderfully, nailing the accent, the faked deep voice. The physical transformation is almost frightening (no wonder people thought that Brandon was Hilary's brother) and you see that it's coming naturally. The Brandon/Teena personalities could be confusing to the viewer and yet it becomes the most clear thing for the viewer as Hilary totally identified with how Brandon saw himself.

Still, the most shocking and disturbing parts of Swank's performance come in the end, when Brandon's secret is revealed to her environment, leading to torture, suffering and ultimately, the violent death of Brandon. The cool guy image that he built for himself is gone and he becomes a broken down, raped and abandoned woman (something he was terrified of). Teena being raped is one of the most terrifying scenes I've ever. Even in this very tough scenes, Hilary was able to keep as subtle as she was from the very beginning. One of the earlier scenes feautre a humiliated Teena looking into the eyes of Brandon, which is a revelatory moment just as much for the audiene as it is for him.

And when you'd start to think that it couldn't get better, Hilary takes it a step further when Teena is examined after the rape. All the shame and humiliation that she displays without much dialogue is just unbelievably wrenching and it's also a powerful and shocking reminder of human cruelty (it's funny that in about 45 seconds she reveals more about rape than The Accused in two hours).

All this leads to an unforgettable final scene of Hilary, which is also such an effortless and beautifully played revision of that whole character: all the longing for a better life on his face before he's shot to death makes the ending hurt deeply. Hilary plays with your emotions and manipulates them, but she does so as a result flawless acting and her shocking honesty, not tactics in acting, which was probably the hardest part of this role.

In short, Hilary Swank gives a devastating and harrowing performance as Brandon Teena that stays with you long after you watched the film. Swank's work here is unaffected, honest and she's not as deseperate to please the audience as she's later in her career. Her fierceness is exactly what was needed with a character whose layerss had to be revealed slowly and carefully. And thanks to Hilary's harrowing characterisation, Boys Don't Cry becomes the masterpiece that it indeed is.

What do you think?

Annette Bening in American Beauty

Annette Bening is not a really lucky lady in terms of Oscar wins. She came incredibly close to winning the Golden Boy not less than three times (well, it might be four if we count The Grifters as well) and she was upstaged by the same person twice. And she's Hilary Swank. There was enough sentiment both times to reward Bening, she was the more acclaimed and respected actress, a true diva. However, like Great Glenn, Annette has never been good at having the critics on her side, which eventually led to her being Oscarless. Of all her nominations, the loss for American Beauty was the biggest and yet personally, it might probably my least favorite of all her nominations.

The roots of all my problems with Bening's performance are in the movie itself. Although at the age of 14, it seemed to be the best movie ever, nowadays I find American Beauty to be pushy, overcooked and even manipulative. First of all, it's so obsessed by the aesthetics and just tries so hard the communicate all the beauties of life. That being said, I'm still stunned by the genious Conrad L. Hall's great cinematography (that 100% deserved the Oscar though it had some serious competition from Sleepy Hollow) and the wonderful art direction (which deserved a nomination at the very least). I can even praise Thomas Newman's catchy, heartbreaking score and yet I feel that Sam Mendes wasn't able to use all these wonderful things properly to have a great effect. But don't get me started on Alan Ball's screenplay, because I'll get really mad. 

There's something similar about Annette Bening's performance here: Bening is a natural source of greatness and brilliance (even though it took me some time to see it). In American Beauty, she stuck with a part that many people imagine would be an actress' dream: for me, however, it's nothing but an overwritten, gross, one-dimensional caricature of the suburban lady who doesn't even get as much screentime as I remembered. In fact, I thought that most of the time, Carolyn Burnham was present in the role of a court jester with over-the-toplines that would make even Diana Christensen blush in comparision. She cries, she screams, she laughs, she's SOOO mean she's VERY pretentious, she' REAAAALLY phony and all she needed was REALLY being nailed by a real estate king and taking shooting lessons. While Kevin Spacey is provided with an arc for her character, Annette is left with some crazily exaggerated, over-the-top scenes. 

This could have been one of the worst performances ever that people still would have loved if it wasn't for Annette Bening. As I said (and I want to emphasise over and over again), Bening is a natural resource of acting greatness and she's excellent even under the most awful circumstances. What I appreciate the most about this performance is how dynamic and vivid Bening actually is in the role. She actually was able to make the screenplay work in her favor in many ways: she didn't decide to tone down the character a little bit and instead, she chose to go all the way with Carolyn. It was a very risky move on her part though I'd say if she hadn't done crazy overacting here, this would have turned out even shakier than it is. 

As I've previously mentioned, Carolyn is written as a gross caricature, which would be fine considering the subject of the film (the pretentious and empty life of the American suburbs), but Alan Ball forgot about something: writing Carolyn as an actual human being. She's such an unbelievably consistent bitch that you'd hardly find one person like that in real life. There's absolutely no color and texture in her and yes, she's only there as a court jester. That being said, Annette (with her over-the-top acting) makes you remember Carolyn and in a way, added some humanity to this humanoid character and also made her, one of the better aspects of this movie.

If there's nothing else about Annette in this movie, she's memorable at the very least. She pulls off the entertainment part of this performance beautifully: she's nothing short of amazing in her deliveries of those crazy lines and she says them like nobody's business. Her "I will sell this house today" scene is, quite simply, brilliant. Her breakdown in the end is just brilliant: she really is like a baby whose candy was taken from her. The hysterics of Carolyn are played so brilliantly by Bening that sometimes you even ignore those major gaps in the character. In my humble opinion, if there's anything you can rely on in case you hate American Beauty, it's probably Annette. Weirdly enough, she gives the least pretentious and most honest performance of the cast despite playing the "obvious" #1 phony of the story. Just like Carolyn is a shameless phony, Annette is just shamelessly over-the-top here, not sweating (like the rest of the cast) to make this movie "mean something" to the audience.

I'd like to ask Annette privately what she herself really thinks about this character and the movie. I'm quite certain that she considers it one of the high points of her day career. I wonder, though, if it is about the richness of the character or the acclaim and the awards she received for it. It's neither her most demanding nor the most rewarding (both are easily be Being Julia in my view, that was tailor made for her and she was brilliant). She gained lots of fans with this role and I also bow before her talent and her ability to save the movie. However, that's because she so wonderfully saved the movie with her crazy acting and she was the only character that eventually carries some emotional weight. With all the exaggerations and the hysterics, Bening showed a more human side of Carolyn that the story so carefully concealed.

While this might be my least favorite of her nominationsI really admire this performance of La Bening, partly because of the previously mentioned movie-saving and partly because we got to witness what a brilliant comedienne she really is. Her scenes are unforgettable and not only because of the hysterics, but also her amazing skills. She's doing some crazy overacting and goes way over the top, but I feel her acting seems even better compared to the rest of the movie.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1999

So the nominees were:

• Annette Bening in American Beauty
• Janet McTeer in Tumbleweeds
• Julianne Moore in The End of The Affair
• Meryl Streep in Music of the Heart
• Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry

Since I'm busy and have absolutely no motivation to go on with 1938 (well, um, to start it), I'm doing a year I'm really interested in. :) This is the first Bening-Swank fight though it's not as controversial despite the fact that Swank won in an upset. And let's face it, this year looks pretty stunning to me. :)

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

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1979

1979

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Marsha Mason in Chapter Two

I cannot conclude that Marsha turns in some really special work in Chapter Two, her performance adds some life to the movie and prevent it from becoming a cure for chronic insomnia. Her luminous, interesting presence and impeccable delivery make you go on with the movie. Still, since she's not able to pull of the harder, more emotional scenes.

4. Jill Clayburgh in Starting Over

 Jill Clayburgh gives a really charming, likeable performance in Starting Over, that really is much better than the film it's in. She  creates a very human character that seems very easy to relate to. Although her chemistry with Burt Reynolds is not perfect, the most important thing is that Jill is able to tell you why Phil fell in love with Marilyn. Very enjoyable lightweight work. 

3. Bette Midler in The Rose

Bette Midler's performance is a real emotional roller coaster that's outstanding in every possible way and does so seeming natural all the time. She's everything that people like to see on screen, she indeed sings, dances and dies. I could mention her loud breakdowns, her amazing singing or her tender moments with Frederick Forrest, it wouldn't describe properly how fantastic she is.

 

2. Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome

Jane Fonda is nothing short of amazing in The China Syndrome. What could seem to be one of her least passionate performances is in fact one of the most mysterious and layered ones she's ever given. As usual, she commands every scene as well as develops her character beautifully, adding new layers and dimensions to her in every minute. Jane so wonderously portrays Kimberly's awakening and development as a person that you just marvel at every little detail in this performance.

 

1. Sally Field in Norma Rae

Sally Field is perfect as Norma Rae. She developed this character with great care and expertise and you just constanly feel how much compassion she has for this woman. Every single scene, every single monologue of hers is exceptionally done by her, making it especially difficult not to fall in love with her and the character. A deeply affecting, wonderful, unforgettable performance, the true highlight of a great actress' career. 

 

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Sally Field

in 

Norma Rae

You got what you wanted Sally. :)

Final thoughts: What a year! Three truly knockout performances that will be really high in my ranking. No matter how strict I tried to be, the work of these three women was just unbelievable. Sally won this for me rather easily though I'm really sad that I can't say goodbye to Jane with another win. In the end, I narrowed it down to the two of them, Bette fell behind a bit (I love her and would be my pick in many other years). Jill and especially Marsha were far behind these amazing ladies, but I found many things to be respected and loved in there respective performances. Overall, a wonderfully interesting year, which is right up there with the best (1989 is still my favorite, though, for whatever reason, 1979 is very close). 

If you think that Jane won't get a special tribute after this, something's seriously wrong with you. :) She'll get it from me.

Omissions: 

• Vera Pap in Angi, Vera *My pick* (in a tie with Sally)

About the next year: I'll get to do a year from a decade I rarely cover, let's leave it there. Let's say that this is the very first Oscar year that Jane Fonda took part in (even if it was a small one) :)). I can't part with her, sorry. 


What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Sally Field in Norma Rae

I imagine how Jane Fonda, Jill Clayburgh and Marsha Mason all must have been like "DAMN!" when Sally Field took home the Oscar over them for a role that they all passed on. Sally Field basically swept all the awards for her performance as the textile worker Norma Rae, who's fighting for a union in Martin Ritt's Best Picture nominated film, Norma Rae. I don't really think that her win came as a surprise for anyone, save for Bette Midler maybe, who still seems to be somewhat pissed by this particular loss of hers. Although Sally may not have won by a landslide, I think she pretty much had it in the Oscar in the bag.

One of the reasons for having an advantage over others was that Sally Field was starring in an important, controversial movie that received a Best Picture nomination. And I have to agree with The Academy here: Norma Rae is a profound, upsetting and uplifting piece of work, which is a beautiful story of a woman's development as well as a political movie. It deserved all the nominations and was worthy of the Oscar for Best Original Song for the moving theme of "It Goes Like It Goes". I was also wondering whether or not the other actors deserved nominations for their respective performances. On the one hand, I'm not sure since 1979 was a strong year in Best Supporting Actor.

On the other hand, Norma Rae is The Sally Field Show and therefore she overshadows every other actor in the movie, no matter how beautifully they support her (this is not criticism in any way, it's more of an observation about the movie itself). If there's an actress to whom a one-woman-show is suitable, it's Sally Field who always dominates the screen with her non-apologetical, almost shameless emotionality. She approaches her characters emotionally rather than intellectuall, which made her the perfect choice for complicated women, like M'Lynn from Steel Magnolias, Maggie Wyczenski on ER (Abby's bipolar mother) or her latest role, Mary Todd Lincoln. And that's also why I think her work in Places in the Heart didn't work on every level. Her persona is just not fit for being toned down, she's way too vivid and colorful to play ordinary, repressed women.

Of all the possible choices for Norma's part, I don't have difficulties imagining Jane Fonda or Marsha Mason as Norma since I believe that both of them would have done an excellent job portraying the soul of a revolutionary (for Jane, it wouldn't have been a real challange) and yet I'm glad that even Jane turned down the part (mind you, this rarely happens to me). Sally Field made Norma Rae her own in such a way that she herself also disappeared completely into her. There are no boundaries anymore between the character and the actress. She applies The Method in the most in the most unusual and exciting way, fabulously adjusting herself to the character and vice versa.

I've seen people being turned off by Sally's very first scene where her character is yelling to the doctor about how her mother became deaf and although it indeed feels like being kicked in the butt right away, I felt that was necessary for the introduction to the character. Norma is not a person who likes beating around the bush, she's the kind of person who's wearing her heart on her sleeve and doesn't hold back anything. However, I felt that, unlike Bette Midler, Sally tried not to completely get carried away by the part because overacting could easily work with The Rose, but it could have ruined Norma's character completely. I was delighted by the fact that Field figured out that Norma was a raw and emotional person, not a wreck. Sally exceptionally balanced subtlety with over-the-top screaming and all of that served the character.

Also, what totally amazes me about this performance is that Norma Rae is not far as baity as it sounds, it's just a damn difficult part to pull off and yet Sally succeeded brilliantly. First of all, Sally's Southern accent is just impeccable and so believable that I actually looked up where she was born after I finished the film (she's a California girl, actually). It really is an authentic portrayal of a Southern working-class woman without any pity or feeling of superiority from the actor's part. Sally portrays Norma with the maximum amount of compassion and understanding.

And this is probably the greatest achievement of Sally, which was most definitely the reason why she won the Oscar: this passion about her character is almost contagious. Not only do we sympathise with her as her audience, but we also get to see her values, we get into her head and she revolutionises our way of thinking about the issue of the movie. I suppose Martin Ritt was aware of the fact that the movie's success and effect was all due to Sally and I guess choosing the actress who gave the world The Flying Nun was risky (even though she'd given an acclaimed performance in Sybil). However, Sally, in my opinion, did more than communicating "the message", she made us all decide what we think about the importance of an issue. And this kind of a move can be so refreshing among Hollywood movies when everything is all prepared for us and we don't even have to think. Sally touches both your heart and your brain as Norma.

Also, the way she develops this character is nothing short of extraordinary: she portrays Norma's awakening so brilliantly. She points out that Norma may not be the most educated or intelligent, but her courage and passion sets the screen on fire (to say the least). As I said, her passion is contagious. Norma is actually in many ways like Kimberly Wells from The China Syndrome: she gradually becomes aware of the world surrounding her and it's in every way an uplifting journey for the viewer as well. Sally didn't choose to be as subtle as Jane, I don't think one can hold that against her since subtlety simply doesn't fit the character.

Sally is seriously so fantastic in this movie and her acting works on so many levels that I can't even choose her greatest scene. If you're looking for a subtle one, her conversation with her children is the one that stands out the most: the quiet tenderness that seems strange from that character at first becomes so effective and heartbreaking in just two seconds and Sally conveys so many emotions in the that quietness. However, if you're looking for a big scene that went down in film history, the big riot in the factory has to be the standout. She's loud, unapologetic and totally brilliant and makes you associate the word "union" with her forever.

Quite simply, Sally Field is perfect as Norma Rae. She developed this character with great care and expertise and you just constanly feel how much compassion she has for this woman. Every single scene, every single monologue of hers is exceptionally done by her, making it especially difficult not to fall in love with her and the character. A deeply affecting, wonderful, unforgettable performance, the true highlight of a great actress' career.

What do you think? :) 

Marsha Mason in Chapter Two

Marsha Mason received her third nomination in the Best Actress category for playing Jennie MacLaine, a fictionalized version of herself in the movie Chapter Two. Marsha hadn't received any awards for this performance, only a Golden Globe nomination in Best Actress - Musical/Comedy where she really didn't have much of a chance of winning, either considering she was nominated alongside the powerhouse performance of Bette Midler. I suppose Chapter Two combined with Promises in the Dark ensured Marsha's position in that year's Best Actress line-up. I'm not sure, though, if she was able to get ahead of Jill Clayburgh (probably not) so unlike the other years, Marsha didn't have any chance of winning (not even her biggest fans love this performance of hers as much as, say Only When I Laugh). 

Chapter Two, quite frankly, is a terrible movie that I have no intention of rewatching in the foreseeable future, only if someone's life depends on it. Although it's not Gloria or The Morning After level of horribleness, it's pretty much like Afterglow: pointless, boring, it's just dragging with the viewer literally praying for it to end quickly. I really admire Neil Simon as a writer, but I suppose his material always works much better on stage (except for the outrageously funny comedies, like The Odd Couple or Barefoot in the Park). His exagerrated, unrealistic style works wonderfully on stage, but leads to forced and boring movies that are uplifted by the performances. I must say, though, that nobody uplifts Chapter Two: not James Caan and not even my dear Valerie Harper. 

Well, nobody, except for Marsha Mason. Just like in Cinderella Liberty, Marsha doesn't give a totally amazing, mindblowing performance, but she illuminates the screen anyhow whenever she's present in a scene. Although I wouldn't say that I'm a huge fan of hers, I admire her luminous aura that's best displayed in The Goodbye Girl. It's true that that her marriage to Neil Simon gave some boost to her career, her performances have their respective merits as well. While Simon wrote some nice parts for Marsha, she was the heart and soul of these pictures.

That being said, in Chapter Two, Marsha had the easiest/hardest part: she basically had to play herself. Some people regard the performances of Gloria Swanson and Mickey Rourke in Sunset Blvd. and The Wrestler, respectively, as inferior ones since they basically recreate their own experiences. In those cases, you can easily dismiss these arguments since some similar events in the respective lives of these two performers only made the part more suitable for them. However, Marsha actually replays her life on the screen (in a fictionalised, more dramatised way, probably).

First of all, Chapter Two tries to become a touching potrait of two complicated people, searching for new meanings in life. In the beginning, Marsha's scenes rank with her best performances: her delivery is amazing, she gets all the lines, she's lovely, funny, dynamic and you just cannot wait to see more of her. Actually, I believe the scenes with James Caan kill her balanced, excellent work. First of all, Caan gives such a bored/boring performance that puts James Franco's Oscar hosting into shame. That being said, the chemistry could have worked between the two actors like it did in Cinderella Liberty, but, alas, it doesn't.

Also, while the movie was considered a Comedy at the Golden Globes, I felt it fell (flat) between Drama and Comedy. It pushed hard to be seen as serious, but Neil Simon just couldn't resist writing one or two ironic one-liners. As a result, for most of the time, the actors are standing there, completely clueless about what to do, hoping that the respect for Simon carries them to success. Unfortunately, I felt that abour Marsha as well. Sometimes she gave the character from The Goodbye Girl, sometimes she played her role from Only When I Laugh (in advance). I could almost see her crossing her fingers, saying "please let it go right". And it's actually right occasionally.

Still, the previously mentioned luminous presence of Marsha makes up for a number of things. Whenever the movie is unbearably boring and slow, Marsha makes you go on with the film. She develops her character quite well, actually, and it's interesting to see her how this movie obviously resonates with her own life. Although she's obviously playing herself, she fearlessly reveals intimate details about herself.

The movie gets a total chaos after the honeymoon and although Marsha seems to give up trying, she stands tall as much as the movie lets her. Although the last scenes seem to be painful recreations of The Goodbye Girl, I didn't mind, since Marha did what she does best: being charming and portraying happiness. Few people can deliver a happy ending like she does, that's for sure.

So I cannot conclude that Marsha turns in some really special work in Chapter Two, her performance adds some life to the movie and prevent it from becoming a cure for chronic insomnia. Her luminous, interesting presence and impeccable delivery make you go on with the movie. Still, since she's not able to pull of the harder, more emotional scenes, I'd say that this was more of a respectable, but a bit failed effort from a strong performer.

What do you think? And thanks to Alex again for providing me with access to the film!

Bette Midler in The Rose

Bette Midler, also known as The Divine Miss M received her first Best Actress nomination for playing Mary Rose Foster, "The Rose", a tortured singer modeled after the late Janis Joplin in the movie The Rose. Although The Rose was obviously made as an Oscar vehicle for Bette Midler, Sally Field's Norma Rae stood in the way of Bette's Oscar dreams. Nevetheless, Bette was able to gain tons of fans of this work of hers and her supporters must have been backing her while voting though I suppose that wasn't enough to get ahead of Sally. Still, I believe Bette was a close second.

The Rose is a movie that doesn't offer anything revolutionary in its genre though I believe it's much better than Lady Sings The Blues (a movie made with very similar goals for the famous lead actress). At least the filmmakers in this case had the decency not to claim it was an autobiography so that they can adjust it to Bette Midler's talent and persona. Mark Rydell's never been a favorite of mine (the only film of his I enjoy is On Golden Pond, but that's mostly because the autobiographical connections with the Fondas) and this film is definitely not his masterpiece. Although sometimes it's painfully dragging along, it's intense enough occasionally to capture the viewer's imagination (I must add, though, that it can be because of The Rose's character and Bette's performance). Frederick Forrest gives a really proper performance that adds lots of balance to do movie and balances the over-the-top acting of Bette excellently. A well-deserved Oscar nomination.

And we have Bette Midler in her first big starring role as The Rose. At that point, Bette was no stranger to show business, having won Gramys and gaining acclaim for her work on stage. Since she was already a big star, it was time for her to break into the film industry as well and I believe there wasn't a better role for her to achieve that goal. It obviously has Oscar written all over it and it's very similar to the case of Diana Ross in 1972. Take the tragic life of a singer, adjust it a little bit to the lead actress and you can sit back and enjoy the superlatives. However, there's an undeniable difference between the two ladies: unlike Ross, Bette's talents are not restricted only to music, she's also a damn brilliant actress. Bette Midler essentially embodies everything that show business is all about: outrageous comedy, over-the-top drama, towering presence, singing, dancing, love, laughter and death.

Unfortunately, I'm not acquainted with Bette's singing career, but from what I heard, her songs are not the most earth-shattering rock records. While Mary Rose Foster's style couldn't be more different from what Bette's used to, The Divine Miss M's singing rock like nobody's business. I suppose this is the point when I can criticise myself why Bette's singing mattered here and why Marion's lip-syncing didn't in La vie en rose. Since people probably expected basically Bette's performance from Marion, it must have been quite a disappointment. However, Bette had an advantage over Marion: in Mary Rose Foster, she created a brand new character whose life was loosely based on that of Janis Joplin. It would have been just as difficult to imitate Janis' real voice (even for a brilliant singer like Bette), but Midler did something even more important: she evokes Janis Joplin's dazzling, fantastic aura that makes it so easy to understand why the whole world went crazy for her. Bette's turn is a Star Turn with a capital S and a capital T. :)

Not only does Midler perfectly recreate Janis' star power on the screen, she also points out spectacularly why people are so obsessed with this singer or any other star that they run on stage to touch her, too feel her close to them. Midler so effortlessly concludes that it's not only Janis Joplin that she recreated in The Rose. It's also The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or even stars like Michael Jackson, Madonna or Lady Gaga. Bette draws a perfect portrait of ultimate stardom: she portrays all the love towards stars, but also how this immense fame isolates them from the rest of society. In the end, The Rose is just as isolated and as much of an outcast as a homeless person.

And if you thought that this all was enough for a spectacular performance, you don't know the half of it. :) Bette brilliantly shows addiction and how damaging alcohol and drugs are to The Rose. She doesn't hold back at all and mercilessly reveals the torture of this woman, making this movie a real emotional roller coaster. The Rose is a real wreck in every possible way and her breakdowns are real treats for anyone who loves over-the-top acting. Although it's true that there isn't one subtle moment in Bette's performance, I think this chaos has an even greater effect on the viewer. I must quickly add, though, that Bette is perfectly aware of how far she can go and even though she's almost crossing the line, she manages to remain believable and harrowing instead of total crazy overacting.

The more tender and playful moments of this film come when Frederick Forrest enters the screen as Houston, the boyfriend of The Rose. His presence brings balance to the movie and Bette's performance and these two are playing off each other wonderfully and they show how these two people are changing each other's lives.

That being said, the most painful and harrowing moments of the movie comes when The Rose returns to her hometown. The Rose's desire of proving her own greatness to her folks at home is brilliantly portrayed by Bette and that's what makes her scene at the store just as painful as her phone call from the football field where she's nothing short of spectacular: she's able to show vulnerability and suffering so painfully that one just keeps marvelling at the intensity of Bette's performance. At the bottom, she holds everything back. This breakdown is different from everything that we saw from The Rose: it's not loud, not over-the-top, it's something deeper and more disturbing. Witnessing the last hours of a person's life is always hard for the viewer but Bette makes it almost unbearable. I tell you all, it's probably the greatest scene I've witnessed since the start of these reviews (it's up there with Jane's tape scene from Klute).

This intensity is what makes the very last scene of Bette even more cathartic and uplifting: what you can hear is just a divine voice that changed many lives. The death of The Rose is inevitable and Bette's singing makes it so dramatic and earth-shattering that only compares to an opera. And this is Midler's greatest achievement: showing all the emotions of a human being with her over-the-top but ultimately mindblowing acting.

All in all, Bette Midler's performance is a real emotional roller coaster that's outstanding in every possible way and does so seeming natural all the time. She's everything that people like to see on screen, she indeed sings, dances and dies. I could mention her loud breakdowns, her amazing singing or her tender moments with Frederick Forrest, it wouldn't describe properly how fantastic she is. It's indeed a piece of work that make Bette perfectly deserving of the title of "The Divine Miss M" and also a big

What do you think? :) 

Jill Clayburgh in Starting Over

Jill Clayburgh received her second Oscar nomination for playing Marilyn Holmberg, a neurotic schoolteacher having an on-again-off-again relationship with Burt Reynolds' character in Starting Over. Jill had previously received a Golden Globe nomination and yet I'm very surprised that she managed to pull off this nomination, considering the fact that Jill was in contention for a Drama as well. I suppose this film was more successful and had more hype than La luna. Interesting enough, three of the Comedy Actress nominees went on to receive Oscar nomination (that's something that quite rarely happens). I'm not sure if Jill or Marsha was the fifth finally, but I guess Jill had more leftover love from last year (though you can say the same about Marsha's 1977 nod). 

Although Starting Over tries to be a very intelligent romantic comedy, much in the style of Annie Hall, it becomes a weak imitation of that classic way too often. It's much more Hollywood (change Woody to Burt Reynolds) and it's humor is much less sarcastic. In fact, I didn't find this movie funny at all despite the fact that I knew which parts were supposed to make me laugh. That being said, Burt Reynolds gives a proper performance, though hardly one that screams an Oscar nomination to me. Same goes for Candice Bergen, who's really sexy and is singing that catchy song excellently, but fails to give any depth to her character. I'm not surprised by her nomination, though (she's a sexy Hollywood insider, so there we go). 

The only thing about Starting Over that's not screaming Hollywood seems to be Jill Clayburgh, fresh off her An Unmarried Woman fame. She obviously doesn't fit the criteria of the sexy Hollywood lead in this movie: first of all, co-lead at best and she's also not sexy in a very traditional way. I suppose Clayburgh's career was very much about challenging Old Hollywood's idea of how a woman really "should be" and in fact, she tried to portray the reality. And I suppose that's what made her so popular in the seventies, when American cinema took a radical turn from what it was and didn't become what it was later in the eighties. Jill Clayburgh is one of the typical 70s figures.

This way, Marilyn Holmberg also seems to be out of place in Starting Over, especially comparing her to Candice Bergen's character: Marilyn is neurotic, insecure and she's basically the definition of the ugly(ish) duckling that doesn't turn out to be a beautiful swan. Although she may be an ugly duckling, it's just impossible not to fall in love with her, when she starts yelling at Burt Reynolds in her first scene. It's easy to see why she made such a strong impression on him. 

What I really enjoy about this performance is that it's coming from an era when quirky didn't mean the annoying Zooey Deschanel, but something utterly loveable and natural. What I mostly loved about Jill here is that the charm and wit of Marilyn was coming out of her so naturally and effortlessly. This kind of performance can seem incerdibly artificial if the actress doesn't possess a natural charm. Many people compare Marilyn to Diane Keaton's Annie Hall and even accuse Jill of imitating Diane, which has some merit, though I feel it's more the screenplay that tries to outdo Annie Hall, making Marilyn even weirder, even more neurotic and putting her in even more awkward situations. Although Jill occasionally surrenders to that cause, most of the time she manages to add her very own touch to this character. 

Also, if I had to find a better comparision to this character, it would be Diane Chambers in Cheers. Shelley Long's flawless, perfect performance showed three years later (on television, Hollywood was too busy making popular blockbusters at the time) what Marilyn should have been, how she should have been written and acted. I think Long would have done miracles with Marilyn, turning her into one of the most iconic characters of the seventies, with a very simple thing: subtlty. If Jill's was also a perfect performance, I probably wouldn't be able to imagine anyone else in this part, but in every scene, I was wondering how brilliant Shelley Long would have been (and how amazing Ted Danson would have been in Burt Reynold's role!!!). You could blame it on the fact that Cheers has been on my mind lately (true), but I cannot ignore the obvious comparisions in the character.

What made me think about that is also the most brilliant chemistry ever between Danson and Long, which Reynolds and Clayburgh do no have. I should obviously think that despite all of the differences, Phil and Marilyn were destined to be together and I always had my doubts if they really were. However, I felt that it's more of Burt Reynolds' fault than Jill's. Since he failed at showing the dilemma of the character believably, Jill's excellent job seems to be wasted and the movie is about how they are supposed to be together, no matter what.

That being said, Jill Clayburgh excels the most in the scenes when Marilyn has meltdowns over Phil's behavior. Jill points out brilliantly how Marilyn becomes the most honest when she's raging and yelling. Although it's not that obvious that Marilyn is putting on a performance with her calm self, she seems way more honest this way. :)

Jill was able to make up for most of the mistakes of the screenplay: although it never intends to make Marilyn more than an interesting turn in the story, Jill created something more complex that really is, by far, the biggest achievement in the movie. Jill could have done even more with this character if she had been given better material, but she' charming even under the limitations of the story.

It boils down to one thing in the end: Jill Clayburgh gives a really charming, likeable performance in Starting Over, that really is much better than the film it's in. She  creates a very human character that seems very easy to relate to. Although her chemistry with Burt Reynolds is not perfect, the most important thing is that Jill is able to tell you why Phil fell in love with Marilyn. Very enjoyable lightweight work.

What do you think? :)

Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome

First let me say what an honor and a privilege it was to review this brilliant lady's fantastic nominated performances and that I'm sad that it's the last time that I can say that... 

Jane Fonda received her fifth Oscar nomination and a Bafta Award for playing Kimberly Wells, a shallow reporter who finds out a cover-up about safety issues at a nuclear plant in the controversial movie, The China Syndrome. The 1979 Best Actress race was between Sally Field and Bette Midler, but Sally Field was probably the overwhelming favorite considering her sweep of the precursor awards. I suppose Jane must have been the dark horse to win the award. She had just won her second Oscar so there must have been some leftover love for her and the movie received three other nominations. I suppose she was third, eventually.

Although The China Syndrome is not a favorite of many, for me it's one of the most intriguing and thought-provoking movies ever made in Hollywood. It never ceased to amaze me with the director's skill to create tension or his ability to discuss some really complicated topics so effortlessly. I'd say the movie deserved additional nominations for Best Picture and Best Director and should have won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Jack Lemmon gives an outstanding, unforgettable performance, which would have deserved a Best Actor win, too, but I also agree with Dustin Hoffman's win. Michael Douglas seems to be the weakest link of the three lead actors as he was never able to make his character more layered and he ended up being a bit one-dimensional.

Still, whenever I watch a Jane Fonda movie, it's a Fondafest for me anyway and after a while I just ignore every other aspect of the picture. You know, I often get a Great Glenn or Maggie or whatever mania, it all seems nothing compared to what I feel when I see Jane on the screen. Every time this lady opens her mouth, I'm hooked, staring at the screen as if it was my first time watching a film. I'm quite simply in awe of her versatility, the uncertainty around her and her enourmous star power. I've never seen another actress who can excel in both the technical and emotional part of a performance while also having a real movie star aura around her. And the commitment tp her political activism just makes her work even more compelling as you can clearly see that every performance of hers is a testament to what she believes is right. And yet she avoids being preachy and she lets the performance speak for itself (I guess this is the part that many people disagree with).

That being said, Jane's work as Kimberly Wells in The China Syndrome is widely considered to be one of her least passionate and most toned down, technical performance, which lacks the thing that many of us love about Jane the most: that usual feeling of tension that's present in each of her performances up to The China Syndrome. She visibly gained confidence over the seventies and The China Syndrome is the first movie when it becomes really obvious: she's an actress at the peak of her career, simple as that.

To tell the truth, I was really concerned about how objective I can be about this performance and how honest I will be in this review when I know that this is my last review about Jane and it feels like an obligation to rave about her. Since I didn't use to be a huge fan of this particular performance, I thought I probably should have chosen Klute to be my last reviewed Fonda vehicle and then I could have said goodbye to her with a #1 place in my ranking. Then I started watching The China Syndrome and all my doubts disappeared. I'm not saying that Jane makes no mistakes as Jane would be the first to admit she's not perfect. And I would be the second to say that. Jane is not a "perfect actress" in the Meryl Streep or Katharine Hepburn sense of the word, even her best performances are flawed in a way and that's what makes them so human and believable and that's the reason why I repeatedly keep falling for her. The flaws and imperfections are probably the most exciting things in Jane's performances. I think for her that's just the way of identifying with her characters and this results in the lack of distance between the viewer and Jane. While "perfect actresses" talk down from the screen, Jane whispers everything to your ear, sitting right next to you. And this is what I found out while watching The China Syndrome: it lacks the visibly deep emotionality and passion of other Jane Fonda performances (something for which I thought I loved her the most) and yet I'm just as drawn to Kimberly as I was to Bree Daniels or Gloria Beaty. I get it now. I get Jane Fonda in general. Her greatest skill is revealing human imperfection and she does it like nobody else. It's easy to say that she's your favorite actress after Klute (who wouldn't at the moment). It's not about the first impression, the second one counts just as much.

So I started to wonder why Kimberly is so different from all the other characters Jane's ever played. Easy: Kimberly is a person full of confidence and determination: she knows she has a good job, that people love her and she's not ashamed of being a puppet of men. Nothing really turns her on except for the prospect of moving up the career ladder. And yet Jane shows us that Kimberly has not yet turned into Diana Christensen and that she still has some sense of justice. Jane doesn't necessarily portray Kimberly only as a coward conformist (sure that's a part of her conception of the character), but also as a person who wants to do more with her life and therefore she makes some sacrifices in the present.

What I also admired about Jane is how well she avoided being overwhelmed by the story. She constantly had to refelect on the main storyline of the Ventana Nuclear Power Plant, while also developing her character. Jane didn't get much screentime, but she uses the little she has very wisely and she knew she had to sacrifice being showy to show the awakening of Kimberly, which was way more important (it may have cost her the Oscar, but communicated the message of the movie far better). To me, this is the performance that Jane Fonda can be the most proud of as a political activist (too bad that she rarely talks about this one). She's gets to be a revolutionary simply by showing how an ordinary person can realize things going on in her environment. Kimberly is like watching yourself in the mirror: she's, like all of us, a compromising, flawed human being, but as Jane wonderfully points out, it's more than enough to make a difference.

Since I'm flawed myself, I wanted just a little breakdown from Jane, or at least one showy moment and when it comes in the end, it's like a volcano erupting. You can just see the tears of a person overwhelmed by the circumstances. Kimberly says to tv audiences, while crying that she can't give an objective opinion about Jack Goddell as she became too involved with the situation. It's something I felt: I became so overwhelmed by Jane's performance here that I'm incapable of being objective. And yet, I feel that if I was sentimental about Jane here, it would be like spitting her in the eye. The brutal honesty of this part just doesn't let me be something else other than honest.

In conclusion, Jane Fonda is nothing short of amazing in The China Syndrome. What could seem to be one of her least passionate performances is in fact one of the most mysterious and layered ones she's ever given. As usual, she commands every scene as well as develops her character beautifully, adding new layers and dimensions to her in every minute. Jane so wonderously portrays Kimberly's awakening and development as a person that you just marvel at every little detail in this performance. Kimberly is right up there with Jane's finest performances and for this she gets a big fat last

 

What do you think? :) 

I don't know when the other reviews come, I'll be busy next week, but next Monday, I might be able to review Marsha.

The Next Year

1979

So the nominees were:

• Jill Clayburgh in Starting Over
• Sally Field in Norma Rae
• Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome
• Marsha Mason in Chapter Two
• Bette Midler in The Rose

A fantastic-looking year. Will I go with the two favorites (Field and Midler) who have tons of fans, will I go with the less popular ladies (Clayburgh and Mason) or will I use the last opportunity to reward my favorite actress?

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

VERY SPECIAL THANKS TO ALEX WHO HELPED ME WITH CHAPTER TWO!!! 

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2007

2007

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Ellen Page in Juno
 I don't really know what to make out of Ellen Page's extremely weak performance. Although the character is incredibly annoying and as fake as possible, I really think that it's more due to Diablo Cody's  incompetent screenplay and Jason Reitman's forced direction. Ellen Page's only fault is that she's just not talented enough to make this character realistic and human. So after all, for me this work is nothing more than a failed effort.

4. Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Cate Blanchett's second Elizabeth is a real disappointment, but I'm much more forgiving about it than others. Cate is always such a force on screen that it makes up for the flaws of the character a little bit. Although there's no depth or real development in Elizabeth, Cate is able to prevent the movie from being a total disaster and she kept me from turning off the tv set. A flawed performance for sure, but not a real failure.
 

3. Laura Linney in The Savages
Laura Linney gives an extremely relatable, wonderful performance as a person who doesn't seem to be likeable at all at first sight and yet we get close to her and sympathise with her character. She never goes for cheap tricks to portray the neurotic personality of Wendy. She excellently mixes comedy with drama, creating the ideal dramedy performance while seeming effortless all the time (something that one of her fellow nominees didn't really succeed in). 
 

2. Julie Christie in Away from Her
 As Fiona Anderson, Julie Christie gives an amazing, heartbreaking performance that stays with you long after you finished watching the film. She portrays Fiona's pain and suffering with an incredible amount of grace and dignity and that's what makes this movie even more effective and heartwrenching. Although Julie's acting might be too subtle and seem too effortless for some, for me this is a true masterclass in acting, which is easily among the greatest achievements of this fantastic actress.

1. Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
In what's one of my easiest decisions ever, Marion easily walks away with this year. She is nothing short of amazing in every possible way an actress can be. Her performance has the effect of an earthquake: it makes you go through Édith's journey along with her and get to understand why this woman was such a brilliant artist. It's very unusual, extraordinary and unbelievable work from a truly great actress who gives probably the most  brilliant portrayal of a real life person.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Marion Cotillard

in 

La vie en rose

Easy win.

Final thoughts: What an unexcting year! Everything went the way I expected and things went pretty predictably. Marion simply killed her competition, Julie was shining, Laura was fine and then there were the two other ladies, far behind. With hindsight, I can't see how Marion could have lost this, she's so damn good here. Congrats to Andre Lepaun, Louis and Nues20 on your predictions! :) You can pick a year, that I'm gonna do some time, hopefully. :)

Omissions: 

• Anamaria Marinca in 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days

About the next year: I really needed to go back to my favorite decade and my most special actress for some refreshment. :) I think this is enough clue. :) 


What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Cate Blanchett received her fifth Oscar nomination for reprising her role as Queen Elizabeth I in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. At the time, people were stunned and pissed that Cate stole the spot of Angelina Jolie whose performance was hailed by critics and audiences all over the world. However, Cate managed to pull off the double nomination. Obviously, she had absolutely no chance of winning Best Actress and I don't think she wanted to win that badly (just remember her genuinely thrilled face when Marion won). Nevertheless, she remained to be one of the least liked nominees this category has ever known (though I feel that the bad memory's gradually gonna fade in people's memory). 

While Elizabeth: The Golden Age is an entertaining movie, I felt it was a completely useless effort. First of all, to me, the first Elizabeth is a real classic and it's the main reason I fell for the genre. It had everything: great drama, flawless acting, battle, intrigue, blood and sex plus above all, a fantastic, plus the brilliant-brilliant performance of Cate Blanchett (yes, I'm seriously considering making her my 1998 winner after all). The Golden Age was bound to fail in comparision with the first part and unfortunately it wasn't a pleasant surprise. It was surprisingly unbalanced and shallowly written and the battle wasn't as epic as I remembered. I just don't like it when historical movies turn out to be soap operas, simple as that.

However, I DO love Cate Blanchett and she always makes up for the mistakes of her movies. There's just a special aura of greatness around her, which makes you shake in your boots. What I mostly admire about her is her incredible range: it doesn't matter if she has to play a fallen teacher in Notes on a Scandal, Kate Hepburn in The Aviator or Queen Elizabeth for that matter. Being trained in the theatre is surely a great push for any actress and in that way she's just like Great Glenn: she brings her confidence and energy from the stage to her movie, which lead to wonderfully vital and balanced performances.

And yet, not even Cate is able to resurrect the legend in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. She's a brilliant actress but not a miracle worker. Actually, I feel it's easier to stand out in a bad movie with a showy character (just see the 65% of Meryl Streep's movies) than being in a so-so movie with an incomplete, one-dimensional character. Queen Elizabeth is a character that's so often portrayed that it's very difficult to add layers to her character and it takes a less-known story of her life to find out  something new and interesting about her. The story with Mary Stuart is a very interesting one and so is the one with the Spanish armada, but I felt the movie wanted a bit too much with showing both of them. As a result, we don't get a real insight into Elizabeth's life, we just get to se small, rushed chapters.

My main problem was that Cate seemed to give in way too early and turned out to be Joan Collins earlier than she could have. A bitchy soap diva might be amusing to see, but hardly Oscar-worthy. What makes Cate better than that is simply that previously mentioned energy of hers. Although some might argue that it would have better for her to go all the way with being campy, I think it was better to keep some sense of nobility and dignity around Queen Elizabeth. I think it's one of the biggest misconception of people that Elizabeth was a drama queen and that's what made the first Elizabeth so special: Elizabeth was portrayed as a powerful woman, full of passion and doubts about herself. I understand that power and being a queen changed Elizabeth as a person, I just refuse to believe that it could transform such a strong character in such a dramatic way. I don't think she became a whiny schoolgirl after all those years.

That being said, this Elizabeth doesn't develop more than characters from Melrose Place, you can just see patterns in her: she's bitchy, than she shouts and she calms down eventually. With such shallow writing, I don't think Cate could have done wonders with the part. She's given neither the time nor the opportunities the make up for all the flaws in the writing (she could have pulled it off if the movie had been just twenty minutes longer). Whenever something interesting is about to happen, there's a useless scene of an assasination or torturing, which is in Cate's way. As a result, none of the relationships seems realistic or complex enough.

And we got to another sore subject: the (lack of) chemistry between Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen. There were two good-looking, exceptionally talented actors and yet there's no fire and music around them: the five minutes that they spend together just doesn't convince me that this relationship caused such a crisis in Elizabeth's life. We supposed to believe something that is seemingly missing from the movie and all this just weakens Cate's efforts.

The same applies for the execution of Mary Stuart: instead of suggesting real moral dilemma, the movie decides to show a whiny Elizabeth who easily gives in to her advisors. This storyline is probably one of the most wasted ones ever in the history of film. And in spite of all these things, Cate was still able to draw my attention. And why is that? Because she's an f-ing brilliant actress and it's always a joy to see a performer at the top of her career, even if the role doesn't live up to her wonderful talent. Despite all the obstacles, Cate simply cannot lose her charm and powerful presence and that's what she has and Ellen Page doesn't: Cate is capable of showing her greatness even with the shittiest material (even if it's for a short period of time). And a great actress always remains one.

To sum up, Cate Blanchett's second Elizabeth is a real disappointment, but I'm much more forgiving about it than others. Cate is always such a force on screen that it makes up for the flaws of the character a little bit. Although there's no depth or real development in Elizabeth, Cate is able to prevent the movie from being a total disaster and she kept me from turning off the tv set. A flawed performance for sure, but not a real failure.

What do you think? (The very predictable conclusion comes today as well so that I can finally move on from this bland, uninteresting year to something REALLY excting.)