My current Top 5

My current Top 5
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts

3/31/2016

Best Actress Ranking - Update


Here is a new update. The newly added performance is highlighted in bold. 

1. Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind (1939)
2. Jessica Lange in Frances (1982)
3. Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (1950)
4. Olivia de Havilland in The Heiress (1949)
5. Anne Bancroft in The Graduate (1967)
6. Janet Gaynor in Seventh Heaven (1927-1928)   
7. Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
8. Edith Evans in The Whisperers (1967)
9. Norma Shearer in Marie Antoinette (1938)
10. Greta Garbo in Ninotchka (1939)

11. Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
12. Bette Davis in The Little Foxes (1941)
13. Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music (1965)
14. Glenda Jackson in Women in Love (1970)
15. Barbara Stanwyck in Ball of Fire (1941)
16. Julie Christie in Away from Her (2007)
17. Shelley Winters in A Place in the Sun (1951)
18. Ingrid Bergman in The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945)
19. Greer Garson in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
20. Doris Day in Pillow Talk (1959)

21. Meryl Streep in One True Thing (1998)
22. Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity (1953)
23. Katharine Hepburn in Guess who’s coming to dinner (1967)
24. Teresa Wright in The Pride of the Yankees (1942) 
25. Jennifer Jones in Love Letters (1945)
26. Ellen Burstyn in Same Time, Next Year (1978)
27. Susan Hayward in My Foolish Heart (1949)
28. Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room (1996)
29. Loretta Young in Come to the Stable (1949)  
30. Mary Pickford in Coquette (1928-29)

31. Shirley MacLaine in The Turning Point (1977)
32. Irene Dunne in Cimarron (1930-1931)
33. Diana Wynyard in Cavalcade (1932-1933)



2/25/2011

YOUR Best Actress of 1982

Here are the results of the poll:

1. Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice (54 votes)

2. Debra Winger - An Officer and a Gentleman (20 votes)

3. Jessica Lange - Frances (12 votes)

4. Julie Andrews - Victor/Victoria (7 votes)

5. Sissy Spacek - Missing (1 vote)

Thanks to everyone for voting!

2/08/2011

Best Actress 1982 - The resolution

After having watched and reviewed all five nominated performances, it's time to pick the winner!


5. Debra Winger in An Officer and a Gentleman

Most of all, this nominations is a testament to Debra Winger’s warm and astonishingly natural screen presence and intuitive acting style that always makes her work look so completely natural and spontaneous. Debra Winger maybe could have never won the fight against the weakness of her material, but she beautifully realized that it was worth a shot.



                     
Sissy Spacek does a lot with a character that could have been very little but at the same time she is not able to overcome its limitations. She takes the part of the guide through the story with an admirable combination of strength and weakness and her chemistry with Jack Lemmon is very captivating but she very often feels trapped in the role of Beth and her own interpretation which both don’t allow her to fully explore her own acting talents.



3. Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria

Julie Andrews gives a performance that combines everything she is famous for but at the same time she constantly finds new shades about herself and more than once rejects and parodies her own image and her magical screen presence helps her to achieve a memorable and captivating performance.



2. Jessica Lange in Frances

Jessica Lange gives one of the greatest tour-de-forces of the last century. She is an overpowering presence in a whole spectrum of human emotions that she empties the viewer’s heart and mind. She never turns Frances into a crazy woman, or, what would even be wore, stupid – instead, she understandably tells about her own indecisiveness that too often overpowers her life. It’s a performance that somehow doesn’t really draw attention to itself but still turns out to be a true miracle in physical and emotional perfection.




My heart wants to give the win to Jessica Lange, my mind says Meryl Streep. Despite the legendary reputation of Meryl Streep's performance, this decision is much closer than would be expected. But it simply can't be denied: Few actress have ever shown such emotional nakedness on the screen. It’s a performance that seems to escape rational analysing by becoming almost distilled until nothing but pure emotions remain.



2/07/2011

Best Actress 1982: Jessica Lange in "Frances" and Meryl Streep in "Sophie's Choice"

Whenever I am finished watching a nominated performance for this blog, I write down my most important thoughts and also start to write a little bit of the review in my head. And after watching Frances and Sophie’s Choice, I realized that in my imaginary reviews I constantly compared these two performances because they are so alike and yet so different in so many aspects. And so I decided that it would be the most logical solution to simply write one review about these two shattering, hunting and emotionally exhausting pieces of work.

Before they faced each other at the Academy Awards 1982, Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange had a rather different background. Meryl Streep seemed to begin to collect awards and critical praise the moment she left acting school. She debuted opposite Jane Fonda in the award-winning Julia, she won an Emmy for her performance in the TV-Series Holocaust, she won an Oscar for Kramer vs. Kramer and many more awards for her other performances in The Deer Hunter and The French Lieutenant’s Woman. It was clear right from the start that Meryl Streep would be a force to reckon with but nothing seemed to have prepared critics and audiences for her turn as Holocaust survivor Sophie Zawistowska who suffers from the memories of the unimaginable tragedies that she had to endure during the times of the Nazi terror.
Jessica Lange didn’t have quite such a good start. It might have seemed like royal treatment when famous producer Dino de Laurentiis cast her as the blond woman in the remake of King Kong, but not even her Golden Globe for best new female star could change the devastating reviews – Jessica Lange’s debut turned into a disaster that kept her off the screen for another 3 years. Things didn’t seem to improve when she was cast as Angelique in All that Jazz but finally critics began to notice her unpredictable, wild and emotional acting style opposite Jack Nicholson in the remake of The Postman always rings twice. Editor Graeme Clifford later remembered Jessica Lange and cast her in the part of the rebellious and beautiful actress Frances Farmer whose unconventional behaviour and rebellious spirit led to her committal into a mental institution in the movie Frances. And suddenly, Jessica Lange became one of the most celebrated actresses in Hollywood.

If there is a dictionary entry for 'bad timing', a picture of Jessica Lange should be next to it. In countless other years, her work in Frances would have been the perfect candidate for an awards sweep but in 1982, Meryl Streep’s display of accents, tears and subtle suffering turned into a legend immediately and took home every award under the sun. The only consolation Jessica Lange had was the fact that the New York critics gave her the supporting award for her role in the comedy Tootsie – and other critics, the Golden Globes and ultimately the Oscars followed. It seemed that everyone agreed that Jessica Lange’s work in Frances was too outstanding to let her go empty-handed this season – even if it meant awarding her for another movie (if Jessica Lange was actually worthy of her supporting awards isn’t the topic here).

So, two actresses with two utmost difficult roles and two utmost outstanding results. But what makes the comparison between Jessica Lange and Meryl Streep so interesting at this point in their respective careers? For one, it’s rather fascinating that both actresses achieved the peak of their career in 1982 – even though they were both still relatively new to the business and would continue to deliver impressive performances. But in 1982, everything that is so fascinating about Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange came together like it never had before and would never again.

Meryl Streep is an actress that may constantly show the wheels turning in her head as she always seems to work from the outside where her performances turn into little miracles of technical brilliance. She knows how to speak her lines, how to move her hands, even how to drop a tear, all at the right moment in the right way. This could be terribly distracting in a performance but Meryl Streep never forgets to develops a true inner life for her characters – she works from the outside to create the inside and it allows her to constantly change her screen appearance and impression on the audience. It allows her to become an Australian murder suspect, an English actress, an Italian housewife – or a Polish Auschwitz survivor. A lot of actresses might work this way but Meryl Streep is one of the few who has the talent to turn her instincts and thoughts into reality. She seems to disappear in her work and in her characters while always being in full control over them. It’s a technique that could lose its authenticity and honesty with a little false step but Meryl Streep knows how to avoid every possible damage in her own work and constantly crafts characters that feel as genuine as they are captivating.
Jessica Lange’s performances seem to come from the different end of the acting spectrum. Everything she does, her constant nervousness, her body that moves all the time, her head tilted to one side when she speaks, her threatening eyes that indicate the emotional explosions that will follow – it all seems to come from the inside and fights its way outside. Her works feels very intuitive and ‘in-the-moment’, as if her characters take over her existence for the time of shooting and never let her go again until the final ‘Cut!’. She appears to live for the screen as if there is nothing else for her and she always seems to use her own personality and presence as the basis for her characters. Jessica Lange’s acting often doesn’t allow her to disappear in her characters the way Meryl Streep does – Jessica Lange almost always remains Jessica Lange but at the same time, she, too, possesses the rare gift to constantly create something different, something new or something unexpected.
And it’s their performances in Frances and Sophie’s Choice that shows that both these women could do anything in 1982 – both went further than almost any other actress before or after them to find the emotional and physical devastations that hunted the lives of Frances Farmer and Sophie Zawistowska.

If both Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange reached the peak of their talents then because they both found the exact right parts for them. Both actresses were faced with some of the most challenging tasks but at the same time theses tasks completely fit their personality and abilities. Jessica Lange had to dig deep into the feelings, the emotions and the mind of a woman who often escaped from the logic of her surroundings and she did it with her distinctive abilities of soft and tender moments mixed with sudden outbursts of despair and anger. Meryl Streep had to create a woman out of a modern horror story, a face to the countless tragedies of the Holocaust while never turning into any kind of symbol. She had to find a way to present the unthinkable and unimaginable and reach to a level of emotional devastation that hardly any other actresses might ever have. But unlike Frances Farmer, Sophie Zawistowska is a subtle victim of circumstances, a woman who mourns silently and in her own mind and heart which connects perfectly to Meryl Streep’s ability for subtle suffering. But in this case, she couldn’t just drop a tear or learn a accent, this part asked her to open her soul to the camera and create a moving and disturbing honesty in this personal yet epic tragedy.

Both Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange play women who become victims for different reasons and play parts that go far beyond the usual level of difficulty. Frances Farmer’s character and personality doesn’t fit into the time she lives and works in while Sophie Zawistowska lives in a time that basically denies her the right to live at all. Because of the tragic turns their lives take it’s very easy to sympathize with both the characters and the actresses portraying them but neither Jessica Lange nor Meryl Streep actively tried to gain any sympathy or pity. Jessica Lange’s portrayal is made of an disturbing quality and she never tries to let Frances Farmer appear as an unfortunate soul but constantly tries to explore her darker sides. Her performance is certainly among the most exhausting ever captured on the screen – for the actress and the viewer. Constantly moving her body, always playing with her hands, showing a nervous spirit inside Frances Farmer that is always ready to snap at any moment. She’s a true volcano, exploding with emotions and outbursts from any moment to the other. On the other hand, few performances have reached a status that is as untouchable as that of Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice – and the most shocking thing: this status is highly deserved. Sophie is not the most complex character that Meryl Streep has ever played nor the most complex character that has ever won an Oscar and probably not even the most complex one in this line-up – but Meryl Streep understood how extremely careful she must be to construct this woman without purely wallowing in her own misery. She clearly isn’t out to evoke the audience’s pity for this woman since she seems to know that the plot and the tragedy speak for themselves. Instead, she worked very hard to add the depth and dimension to the character that the script denied her, she is more interested in the inner life of Sophie, in the consequences the time in Auschwitz had on her life and on her character. This way she brings complexity to a woman who seems mostly designed to create a story around the central, deciding and most remembered moment of the story – Sophie’s choice.

Another astonishing aspect of these two performances is that both never seem to find a moment of ‘rest’. Apart from her climatic scene, Meryl Streep doesn’t really have any showy scenes in the traditional sense but she creates a stringent flow of tension and emotional torture. Even though Sophie appears mostly calm, often even happy, there is a constant state of unspoken horror that lingers above her and fills every frame of Sophie’s Choice. She shows a tormented soul that hopes to find salvation but for whom every day is another struggle to overcome her past. Both Sophie and Meryl Streep are caught in this never-ending cycle of desolation and can’t find an escape. Jessica Lange, too, doesn’t find any silent moments which would allow her to get a break from the tight grip of Frances Farmer – instead, she constantly remains on the edge of her own emotions and demonstrates a continuous nervousness and restlessness, anger and impatience. Frances Farmer and Sophie Zawistowska hold these two actresses and the viewers in their claws from start to finish.

It’s wonderful that Meryl Streep never allowed herself to rest on the sympathy that a character like hers would achieve. Instead, she disturbingly shows how Sophie’s life is destroyed forever by the events in Auschwitz and even before that. Few actress have ever shown such emotional nakedness on the screen. It’s a performance that seems to escape rational analysing by becoming almost distilled until nothing but pure emotions remain. The way she shows Sophie constantly touching or stroking her arms, as if she wants to escape her own skin, the way she lets her eyes becomes windows to her spirit and simply the way she is able to single-handedly craft the dark and gloomy tone of the story is flawless from every angle. The introduction of her character, a fight between her and her lover Nathan, is already a captivating moments but its her first real scene, her conversation with her new neighbour Stingo that truly shows the complete transformation of Meryl Streep. Her accent, her search for words, her nervous laugh, her unique and yet so familiar body language and her beautiful face that always seems to lie beneath its own shadow turn Sophie into a real human being that is much more than an sequence of long monologues and flashbacks. Sophie is a woman who is shaped by her past but Meryl Streep always plays her part with a sense for the present, too – but no future. A woman like Meryl Streep’s Sophie could not have found salvation in this life. There is no way to rationalize what happened to her, no way to comfort her or for her to excuse it. It’s the burden of her own past that has turned Sophie into a woman who is looking for comfort and rejection, hoping to find love and hate, a woman who wants to rest but who also doesn’t allow herself to be happy. That’s why the relationship to Nathan is maybe the only one that could make sense for her, a man who slowly loses his mind and bounces back from loving and caring to threatening and dangerous. Sophie is a woman waiting for death even though she has constructed a life for herself in which she pushed away all the bad memories and incidents of her life – but hiding the truths from others doesn’t allow her to hide the truth from herself. Her almost matter-of-fact delivery of the line ‘They cut his throat’ when she talks about a former love who worked for the Polish resistance demonstrates how far Sophie has tried to distance herself from her own past. And surprisingly she follows the scene of the choice not with teary eyes but instead with an almost anger as if she is daring Stingo to still love her. She told the story to make him see that she is not a good mother. Sophie’s self-loathing has never been more clear than here.
Meryl Streep never really surprises with her portrayal of Sophie – she doesn’t take her in any direction that doesn’t closely follow the script but what she does is surprise with her own talent that allowed her to create this character. The level of difficulty and the accuracy of Meryl Streep’s performance both rank among the most challenging that has ever been portrayed. And it’s thanks to Meryl Streep’s deep understanding that her performance never feels like a demonstration of talent but becomes a truly devastating piece of work that will haunt the viewer forever. Her inability to stand up from a chair and her little breakdown, her hopeless delivery of the line ‘I think I’m going to die’, her constant attempt to escape her past while allowing her memories to torture her is – it’s a performance that is much more than the choice scene and Meryl Streep’s transcendent portrayal will leave the viewer almost feeling empty inside as if every possible feeling had been felt, every tear had been cried.

It is easy to see why Jessica Lange’s own tour-de-force couldn’t compete with Meryl Streep’s performance – Meryl Streep seemed like a revelation while Jessica Lange appeared rather like an arrival. But actually it is much more – it’s a performance for the ages that, just like Sophie, should be remembered as one of the great tour-de-forces of the 20th century. Both women make it impossible not to be amazed by their ability to create all these images, these emotions and live with them day after day. A lot of actress have an inner fire – if that is the case, then Jessica Lange hides a magna chamber inside her body that can always erupt at any moment. She very often likes to go larger-than-life in her work, explodes with emotions that not only seem to drown herself but everyone around her, too. In her Oscar-winning role in Blue Sky she went further with her acting than anywhere else in her work since Frances but her tendency to go overboard does not mean that she is an expert at it. In Blue Sky she is too aware for her own good, it’s a calculating performance in which she always tries to hold her tight grip on the character. The results in an unfortunately strangely over-the-top and uncomfortable performance which never comes even close to reach the devastating effect of her work in Frances. It seemed that the fact that she was still relatively new to the business prevented her from thinking too much – it is a very intelligent piece of work, no question, but she thankfully used her intuitive and spontaneous acting-style and let it dominate her performance. From her years as a teenage girl to her interview on television, Jessica Lange gives one of the most devastating, exhausting, hunting, daring and memorable tour-de-forces ever captured on the screen. In her hands, Frances Farmer is a restless soul, a woman who never seems to be able to find any peace – in and around herself. Jessica Lange seems to drop her own character completely to slip into the skin of this woman and creates scenes that not only shake the viewer up but might even put them into a state of depression. A little girl and a grown-up woman are fighting each other in Frances’s head – and they also have to fight against their environment. Jessica Lange reaches deeper and deeper back into the mind and soul of her character until she reaches a place where it seems that nobody can help her anymore. She is such an overpowering presence in a whole spectrum of human emotions that she empties the viewer’s heart and mind. She never turns Frances into a crazy woman, or, what would even be worse, stupid – instead, she understandably tells about her own indecisiveness that too often overpowers her life. She’s a woman who seems to know exactly what she wants to do but at the same time she mostly ends up doing things she doesn’t care for. She’s emotionally devastating and keeps pushing the boundaries of what is bearable for her and the viewer. Like an animal surrounded by hunters, she constantly fights for her own life and freedom but faces a system and a mother that don’t allow her either of those. In her scenes opposite the director of the hospital, she is able to constantly be off-putting and appealing, teasing him, threatening him, begging him. Her delivery of the line ‘Who do you think you are? God?’ is one for the ages – anger and panic have never been expressed more shockingly. She shows the hopeless situation when everything you say or do is wrong, when you are not able to turn anywhere and the anger and frustration inside yourself overcomes your judgement. The sequence that always cuts back and forth between Frances talking to a committee that will decide about her future in the asylum and her mockery of the same situation with all the other locked-up woman is a thrilling moment and Jessica Lange again never holds anything back. But even though she is constantly asked to push herself and Frances further and further into depression and loud desperation, Jessica Lange doesn’t rest on the scenes. She is also overwhelmingly perfect in her more quiet scenes even though she never looses the tension of the story. The look on her face when she gets out of a car to walk to her domineering mother, a combination of love and hate, regret, despair and most of all, tiredness is simply one of the great moments in her career – or any career. So many scenes could have felt overdone, over-the-top or unbelievable – not only by other actresses even by Jessica Lange herself if she hadn’t found the perfect balance of completely letting go of herself and keeping an intellectual approach in this movie and this character. Her greatest achievement may be the fact that she didn’t really invite the viewer to share her suffering. Meryl Streep’s Sophie created a connection to the viewers from the first moment but Jessica Lange somehow keeps a distance to the viewer and, despite all the grand emotions, makes hers just as much an intellectual as an emotional journey. She lets the viewer keep a distance to the story until this distance isn’t possible anymore and collapses under the devastation of Frances Farmer’s life. When she is carried into the asylum again, raped by soldiers or simply enjoying a dance at a little bar, she has taken the viewer on such an exhausting journey that at one moment one can’t help but drop the distance and feel as exhausted as Frances Farmer herself. It’s a performance that somehow doesn’t really draw attention to itself but still turns out to be a true miracle in physical and emotional perfection.
Just like Meryl Streep’s Sophie lives with a character that seems to love her as much as he hates her, Jessica Lange’s Frances also her own ghost – Jessica Lange and Kim Stanley create one of the most fascinating, bizarre and disturbing on-screen chemistry between a mother and a daughter that can be found in a motion picture. Both determined to get their way, both different in their approaches.

What’s also interesting about Meryl Streep’s and Jessica Lange’s towering performances is that they both come from movies that don’t deserve them. Neither Frances nor Sophie’s Choice is recommendable for anything else than the leading ladies.

At the end, how can one compare the scenes of Jessica Lange fighting with a cop at the side of the road, screaming naked in her bathroom or telling a police officer her ‘profession’ with scenes of Meryl Streep talking about her father and her husband, trying to find a book in the library or dealing with Nathan’s mood swings? Both women have such an unique beauty that so completely seems to fit the 40s – Jessica Lange’s movie star personality and Meryl Streep’s simple yet remarkable features. How can one compare Jessica Lange’s demonstration of a constantly drifting mind with Meryl Streep’s display of a tortured existence? A double-feature of Frances and Sophie’s Choice would require a lot of drinks and cigarettes to get over it…

It’s certainly wonderful to have two performances like this that raise the quality of the whole Best Actress line-up that year but at the same time it’s one of the most unfortunate incidents in Oscar history that these two performances had to face each other in competition. Overall, it’s the strongest two-punch this category has ever seen and both actresses naturally receive

2/01/2011

Best Actress 1982: Debra Winger in "An Officer and a Gentleman"

Debra Winger’s nomination for Best Actress for her performance as Richard Gere’s girlfriend in An Officer and a Gentleman is probably one of the prime examples on how the Oscar race has changed over the years. How likely would it be today that a stereotypical role as the supportive woman with a considerable lack of screen time would actually receive a Best Actress nomination? This shows that the influence of the media, the Internet and the almost countless pre-Oscar awards have noticeably changed the Oscar race – and the campaigns, of course, which today put almost everybody in the supporting category who isn’t onscreen for at least 95% of the running time. Today, Debra Winger’s nomination is one of those that seems to be either dismissed as lazy voting by Academy members or as an inspired choice which rewarded an actress for developing a memorable and touching character out of paper-thin writing.

I am somewhat torn between these two statements. Yes, Debra Winger’s combination of unique screen presence and natural acting style works wonders with every character she plays – she possesses the rare gift of always appearing completely ‘in the moment’, she has the ability to get lost in her characters and craft real living, breathing and feeling human beings while adding her own style and features, too. Few actresses have been able to mix the realities of life with a both light and dramatic acting style which never feels calculated or forced upon the audience like her. She constantly lives according to the script while taking her characters always much further. So yes, Debra Winger deserves credit for what she did in An Officer and a Gentleman – namely turning the character of Paula, who is only thrown into the proceedings for the obligatory love story, and filling her with her own personality and that way added dreams and hopes, pleasant and unpleasant truths and didn’t do anything less than doing more with this part than most other actresses might have dreamed of. In my review for Katharine Hepburn in Guess who’s coming to dinner I called her performance easy to like but hard to admire. Debra Winger makes it easy to both like and admire her for all her hard efforts which look so effortless. But – yes, here comes the b-word – how far does all this really go? Yes, it’s commendable how she added so much spark and life to such a clichéd part but at the same time, even the most talented actress depends on the part she is given. Taking a role to a higher level than the script can happen in many ways. An actress can take a good part and make it great, she can take an invisible part and make it noticeable, she can take a bad part and make it good. What Debra Winger faces here is not only ‘invisible’, it’s basically ‘nothing’ – yes, the script makes sure that Paula gets her own back-story, an agenda of her own, a moral superiority and sharpness that separates her from the other characters but – oh, the b-word again – all this doesn’t change the fact that she always is and always will be a stock character which makes it easy for an actress to give a competent performance but always puts its claws into the performer and that way prevents her from escaping the limitations that arise. This means that a lot of actresses might have played Paula with satisfying results. Ah, Fritz, you little devil, didn’t you just write that Debra Winger did more with the part than most other actresses might have dreamed of? And, on top of that, isn’t it totally unimportant if another actress could have played a certain part? Yes and yes. First the second question: Yes, it doesn’t matter if actresses like Sigourney Weaver or Geena Davis, who also auditioned, could have given the same performance. This is not the way to judge an actress’s work. So, this aspect doesn’t influence me in my opinion about this performance but it is only meant to underline the low quality of the part. Now, the first question: Yes, I did write that Debra Winger did so much more with the part than other actresses might have done – and this means she turned her from invisible to visible. How many other actresses would have received their first Best Actress nomination for a role like this? How many other actresses would even have received any awards attention at all? Hardly any. So, Debra Winger’s achievement is that she took this underwritten, flat part and played it to a level of greatness that made it possible to connect it with an Oscar nomination. So, there is a grand achievement in the work of Debra Winger. But – I always come back to that little word – I can’t help but feel that, even though Debra Winger did a lot right in her part, an Oscar nomination is still a slight exaggeration of appreciation. Pleasant reviews with hopes for the future, maybe a Golden Globe nod, this all seems right – but Oscar and Paula Pokrifki just don’t seem right together. It’s a nomination I don’t want to complain about but I don’t want to praise it either. And that also sums up my feelings for her actual performance. All of Debra Winger’s qualities helped her to pull off an unforgettable performance one year later in Terms of Endearment. But in An Officer and a Gentleman, she suffers from the same problems that Sissy Spacek faced in Missing – the limitations of the character.

So, after a lot of complaining, explaining and complaining again – what exactly is there about Debra Winger’s performance that makes it so admirable and negligible at the same time? As mentioned again and again before, Debra Winger’s husky voice, her sharp intelligence and her ability to always show something going on behind her face, the feeling of undiscovered depth and emotions helps her immensely to overcome a lot of the obstacles in the role. She seems to realize how fake and careless her whole character is constructed but somehow her beguiling honesty and warmth make it believable. Paula seems to be just another girl who is hoping to find a guy to have a good time with after she is done working in a grim factory. But very soon it turns out that Paula may be looking for a guy, but she is looking for more – security, closeness and most of all, love. She doesn’t want to fake pregnancy to force a man to marry her and she also doesn’t want to end up like her mother, who was actually pregnant from a marine officer who consequently left her. The movie makers seemed to haven been very proud to not turn Paula into a man-hunting, immoral character like the other females but they somehow missed that they turned her into an almost empty vessel. So it’s Debra Winger’s greatest accomplishment to craft a character that, despite what the screenplay says, doesn’t only exist to find the right guy. In Debra Winger’s work, it’s always imaginable to see Paula as a woman of untold stories and secrets – they may not be told but Debra makes the viewer feel that they are there. There is something lonely about her, a lost soul who wouldn’t behave the way she does under different circumstances. Paula may seem more respectable and honest than other women at the factory but at the same time Debra Winger seems to know that a woman like Paula may not be lying to Richard Gere but in some ways she is lying to herself.

Debra Winger finds honesty and sympathy in a character that could lack both and she also invests a lot more emotions into this role than expected. Her breakdown in the hotel room, when her desperation becomes more visible than ever, and the simplicity she lets shine in every moment of her onscreen appearance are very impressive and beautiful to watch.When Lynette tells Paula that she is not different from all the other girls, Paula simply answers that she is – and it’s not hard to believe her.

Debra Winger suffers mostly from the fact that everything in the movie is working against her. She and Richard Gere unfortunately lack the necessary chemistry to make their love-story truly interesting. As it is, her character and her story are always overshadowed by the main storyline of the movie, she too often disappears behind Richard Gere and Louis Gossett, Jr. Her own touches, insights and interpretations of Paula work well but they don’t increase her influence or importance in the movie structure. It’s a very simple performance that captures a complex essence. Debra Winger doesn’t make it look like she is fishing for opportunities, trying to appear grander than she or Paula really are, instead she naturally seems to inhabit everything the script offers her and filling the empty spaces with her own sparkle. Paula Pokrifki could have been a Norma-Rae-like character if the movie had only focused on her – and Debra Winger would have been up to every task laid before her. In this thankless part, Debra Winger succeeded constantly but these successes are so easy to overrate – yes, they are successes but they are still on a very low level.

Debra Winger’s performance is very hard to judge because she puts a new aspect to the eternal question about what is an Oscar-worthy performance. Debra Winger doesn’t get a part that is challenging in any way but what she does is take a throwaway role and fill it with clarity and life. Just like a lot of actresses might have played this part, a lot of actresses also can play challenging roles and impress because of the obligatory showy scenes. Debra Winger impresses because of the lack of them. It’s a more than competent performance but it feels a bit like Audrey Hepburn – because of her unique screen presence and her ability to lift underwritten material it is very easy to give her more praise than needed. And also Debra Winger’s intelligent work makes it easy to praise her performance more than necessary. Yes, she did a lot – but coming from nothing, this ‘lot’ is still ‘little’.

It is an admirable effort that already hints at the greatness Debra Winger would achieve one year later. Most of all, this nominations is a testament to Debra Winger’s warm and astonishingly natural screen presence and intuitive acting style that always makes her work look so completely natural and spontaneous. Debra Winger maybe could have never won the fight against the weakness of her material, but she beautifully realized that it was worth a shot. And for her strong dedication she gets






1/31/2011

Best Actress 1982: Sissy Spacek in "Missing"

Two years after her Oscar success with her starring role in Coal Miner’s Daughter, Sissy Spacek continued to impress the Academy with her role in the controversial 1982 movie Missing – the story about a woman and her father-in-law who look for her disappeared husband during times of uproar in an unnamed South American country during the 1970s. It’s a very intense, thrilling and provoking motion picture which reflects on political events but also uses its two protagonists to portray different believes and opinions about the world we live in and the necessity to join forces for a greater good.

In a role that could have been the stereotypical suffering and hysterical wife, both the script and Sissy Spacek took a welcoming choice by turning Beth Horman into a woman who is very competent in her own way, who knows how to handle different situations and circumstances but doesn’t deny her fear – for herself and, of course, her husband Charlie. Sissy Spacek, who is like a chameleon when it comes to slipping into her characters, crafts Beth as a very ordinary, average woman who believes in her own ideals even though it is never fully clear how strong these ideals really are and if they are the results of her own thinking and development or rather a shallow part of her own way of life. When Beth’s husband suddenly disappears and she has to face a bodiless machinery of bureaucracy, state terror and murder, she begins to understand that she can’t face the situation alone and needs the help of her father-in-law – a man who seems to symbolize everything that Beth dislikes about her old life in America.

The unlikely pairing of Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek is the biggest success in Missing – but for Sissy Spacek herself it also becomes her biggest challenge as Jack Lemmon provides an excellent and moving portrayal of a father desperate to find his son while seeing his own believes slowly destroyed. Sissy Spacek’s Beth is in a similar, yet very different situation. Her opinions about the higher levels of politics have always been negative and seem to be verified now, but at the same time it’s visible that there is also a loss of hope inside her character – up until now, everything seemed to have been a game for her, even though a dangerous one. When she walks through the city at night in the beginning, violating the curfew, witnessing acts of terror, she seems hardly scared at all. Sissy Spacek chose a very interesting approach by not using these scenes to show a wide display of fear and shock but rather laid the foundation for a very calm and practical character who can face actual problems very easy but who always looses all her strengths and abilities whenever she faces the rejection and cover-up of state ministries and bureaucrats. The word that could be best used to describe Beth is inconvenient. But this is not because she wants to be this way, rather she seems unable to control herself whenever she gets upset or angry – she very often talks too much, too loud and too inappropriately. There is a certain rudeness in her, coming from the fact that she openly rejects any kind of authority. But her inability to avoid the authorities, to push them aside in her search also sets a trap for her own character – she is unwilling to work with the people whom she blames for the disappearance of her husband but at the same time she can’t find him without their cooperation. Sissy Spacek shows with small gestures and moments how Beth is constantly fighting against her own character during the various talks with high officials – how she is holding on to her temper only to snap at some point. Beth is clearly a smart woman but very often her personality prevents her from achieving the results she would like – but also because she refuses to bend this personality and her own believes for any reason.

It’s confusing that despite her large presence in Missing and the importance of her character, Sissy Spacek remains a rather invisible performer. She certainly possesses the necessary screen presence to hold up to Jack Lemmon but it seems that very often her character is never seen as her own person but instead is mostly used to describe the character of Charlie and the events that lead up to his disappearance. Sissy Spacek’s Beth seems like a Greek chorus who constantly describes what has happened, what is happening and what might happen but rarely does she ever truly become an active part in the proceedings. She becomes the connection between her father-in-law Ed and this unknown country and she also starts as the connection between the viewer and the events but very soon Jack Lemmon takes over this role and Sissy Spacek becomes a follower who should be the leader and very often feels secondary in the proceedings. The most admirable aspect of Sissy Spacek’s work is the fact that she took a stock character, namely the suffering wife, and gave it her own unique interpretation but the script only allows her to go so far before she is pulled back by the structure of the story and overshadowed by Jack Lemmon’s overwhelming dominance.

Right from the beginning, Missing shows that it doesn’t only tell the story of an historical event but it also wants to show the clash of two believes – Beth who symbolizes a more open yet also insecure character and Ed who stands for more conventional values and self-assurance. And it’s this clash which becomes the motor of the story and provides the movie’s most interesting moments. It’s clear that Ed doesn’t approve Beth’s anti-establishment opinions – and he also doesn’t approve Beth herself. Both Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek show a team merged together by circumstances instead of free choice. While Jack Lemmon is given the movie’s most compelling and captivating character arc, Sissy Spacek finds her own way to add more layers to Beth than the screenplay suggests. She slowly shows how Beth gets used to this man who, even though he doesn’t agree with her views or her opinions, is still the only man she can trust and is on her side. Beth doesn’t try to change Ed or convince him of her own views – the situation is too serious for this kind of plot, but she influences him without even knowing that she does it. At the same time, Sissy Spacek demonstrates how Ed influences Beth by widening her interpretation of various moments that always seem to repeat themselves – frustration and anger, hope and fear. Over time, Ed and Beth behave more civil with each other, develop a relationship of mutual respect and understanding. They seems always bond together by circumstances – first by necessity, then by tragedy. It’s a subtle and realistic performance of a character that benefits a great deal from Sissy Spacek’s earthy and honest presence. She is an actress who can always fill her characters with an inner fire and inner strength, even when they appear rather calm and quiet on the outside. There is some unexpected quality in her characterization and if the script had given her more opportunities, than Beth might easily have become a very memorable character but it’s obvious that the movie makers saw the development of Ed Holman as the most important plot line.

Just like in Coal Miner’s Daughter two years earlier, Sissy Spacek again found a very simple way to create a complex woman. She not only has a very average quality in her looks, but also in the straight forwardness and directness of her acting. When Beth swears angrily or reacts in a combination of anger and spite, Sissy Spacek avoids every degradation of this woman – Beth may sometimes seem helpless, sometimes naïve, sometimes too out-of-place but never stupid or dishonest. It’s very easy to understand her frustration when her father-in-law rejects any kind of help she could offer – she feels that she knows this country and the people, that she understands and has insight while her father-in-law sees the world in a rather simple way that never interferes with his personal beliefs. When Jack Lemmon’s Ed slowly begins to learn about the realities in this country, Sissy Spacek doesn’t show any traces or arrogance or superiority in Beth for having always known what Ed is now beginning to see but she remains a supportive and understanding woman.

Sissy Spacek’s performance is one of the rare cases when the female lead doesn’t function as the emotional foundation of the story – Jack Lemmon’s worrying father is constantly overshadowing her worrying wife but the reason isn’t the quality of the performances but the structure of the story. Since Beth is more familiar with the realities of life right from the beginning, she doesn’t find herself in any too emotional situations but takes a rather accepting attitude even when she is still hoping. Because of the inner strength in Beth, Sissy Spacek’s performance works in great harmony with the increasing tension of the story – when she begins to show more signs of weakness, the seriousness of the situations begin to become more tangible than ever before. Her quiet and fearful plead in the big stadium, the hope that her husband might be among the people is a strong scene (even though moments later again overshadowed by Jack Lemmon’s performance). The most unforgettable moment in her performance comes when she sees the body of a close friend and slowly sinks to her knees, hopeless, helpless, unable to keep standing. It’s not a difficult or impressive moment since it’s a simple body movement but up to that scene Sissy Spacek has created Beth as a constant fighter and so this act of almost capitulation before the terror comes as a moment of shock and sadness for the viewer and probably Beth herself, too.

Sissy Spacek does a lot with a character that could have been very little but at the same time she is not able to overcome its limitations. She takes the part of the guide through the story with an admirable combination of strength and weakness and her chemistry with Jack Lemmon is very captivating but she very often feels trapped in the role of Beth and her own interpretation which both don’t allow her to fully explore her own acting talents. In the end, she gets







1/27/2011

Best Actress 1982: Julie Andrews in "Victor/Victoria"

In some ways, Julie Andrews wasn’t only one of the biggest stars of the 60s – she was a phenomenon. My Fair Lady, the show that made her a star, was the biggest hit on Broadway and the soundtrack among the most successful ever. Over 100 million people had watched her in a TV production of Cinderella. Her performance in Disney’s classic Mary Poppins earned her an Oscar. And The Sound of Music not only brought her very close to a second one, but also turned her into a legend at the age of 30. So it’s rather surprising that she did hardly anything memorable after that. She continued to work but movies like The Graduate or Bonnie and Clyde already showed that the time of the sugarcoated musical-sweethearts was over – the upcoming decade wanted women like Jane Fonda, Faye Dunaway, Jill Clayburgh, Glenda Jackson or Ellen Burstyn. So, maybe it’s actually not that surprising that her image as the loveable, singing and magical nanny or the loveable, singing and Austrian nanny didn’t really help her in the 70s – not even showing her breasts did. But in 1982, Julie Andrews finally found a part that brought her back into the spotlight – because it allowed her to demonstrate all the qualities that made her such a delight in the 60s but she could also combine it with a sense of self-parody and sarcasm that fitted better to the new surroundings of a different time.

Victor/Victoria is an engaging, funny and playful farce that tells the story of a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman. It juggles themes like gender roles, sexuality, jealousy, desperation, happiness but never in a way that turns it into a commentary on contemporary society but always in a very matter-of-fact way – Victor/Victoria is neither a great comedy, nor a great drama nor a great musical but the finished result it still extremely enjoyable. Just like all the characters in the story present a very devil-may-care-attitude and a disinterest in everything but besides themselves, Victor/Victoria also never tries to pretend to be more than it really is. And this beautifully reflected on Julie Andrews’s performance – she’s much more loose and free-spirited than in her other Oscar-winning roles. Her biggest achievement in Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music was to take her parts much more serious than expected and that way helped to establish the credibility of their characters. In Victor/Victoria, she drops this sternness and seems to enjoy herself much more in a part that doesn’t ask her to be a role model or a beacon of morality – instead, she visibly has fun in this risky role and finds exactly the right balance between taking herself and her role too serious and not serious enough. Her very relaxed portrayal of a woman who is trying to earn a living and then finds herself in a complicated love affair fits perfectly into the style of the movie and also the other players of the cast – Victor/Victoria doesn’t focus itself on its leading lady but is always an ensemble movie that lives from its strong cast – a fact that Julie Andrews gladly realized and she never tries to outshine her cast-members but instead constantly puts the importance of the relationships in the foreground. Especially her chemistry with Robert Preston as her gay friend/agent/supposed lover is the highlight of the whole production.

Julie Andrews enters the story with her most distinctive feature – her singing voice. Her unique soprano can be heard already before her face appears for the first time. Is it believable that a woman with Victoria’s talents cannot find a job as a singer? Hardly, but hey, times are hard in the 30s and so Victoria’s life remains gloomy and hopeless. A wonderful little moment in Julie Andrews’s performance is the scene when Victoria sings a very high note at her audition and then needs to hold on to the wall, as if she has to recover first. But just a few moments later it becomes clear why Victoria lacks the strength to even sing – she’s out of a job and out of money. Weak and hungry, she tells her landlord that she would sleep with him for a meatball – and it becomes clearer than ever that Victoria Grant is definitely no Mary or Maria. Just like Julie Andrews allows herself to be more silly and dirty-minded, she also finds a more desperate and serious note in her performance. Essentially, she gives a performance that combines everything she is famous for but at the same time she constantly finds new shades about herself and more than once rejects and parodies her own image.

Considering that most people think of Victor/Victoria as a musical and the fact it was actually turned into a Broadway show in the 90s, it is a little surprising that there are not really a lot of musical numbers in it. But whenever Julie Andrews is allowed to deliver a catchy tune, she reminds the viewer why she was such a popular musical actress at the beginning of her career. Her singing may actually be better than it ever was – she doesn’t have to overuse her soprano as she used to but is a lot more natural and joyful in her stage scenes. Especially her performance of ‘Le Jazz hot’ is a true show-stopper! And that final note? Let’s just say that Victoria certainly knows her do-re-mi!

Julie Andrews combines the more serious moments in which she shows Victoria’s true desperation with a very light style of over-the-top-comedy. Her scenes in the restaurant with Robert Preston are incredibly overdone but Julie Andrews is so charming and hilarious in these moments that it all works incredibly well. Victoria, a little bit like Maria, is a character who is both independent and dependent from the support of others. She is a rather nice, but at the same time outspoken and practical woman, surrounded by manipulating and mean characters and needs a guidance through her own life. In this case, it is her gay friend who also poses as her lover once Victoria has turned herself into Victor. Ah, yes, there is also the role-playing. To be honest, Julie Andrews is mostly shockingly unbelievable as a man. When she finishes ‘Le Jazz hot’ and takes off her wig, she is basically a woman with short hair. It’s hard to believe that everyone in the audience immediately thinks that she is actually a man. But there’s no use to blame Julie Andrews for this and she also gets some benefit for her believable acting in the more quiet scenes as a man – she finds an intriguing way to become almost ‘sexless’, an androgyny figure with a distinct way of delivering her lines and moving her body. But she unfortunately lacks a lot of the energy and entertainment in those scenes.

Is Julie Andrews sexy? It’s almost obscene to ask this question and when she exposes her breasts in S.O.B. it’s as uncomfortable as to watch your mother do that. Her wholesome image has turned Julie Andrews into a sweet sister, mother or grandmother – but certainly not a sex goddess. And, yes, she also isn’t either sexy nor erotic in Victor/Victoria so it becomes rather questionable when James Garner watches her on the stage with a sort of amazed, fascinated and turned-on look. But Julie Andrews gets some bonus – she may not be erotic but she’s incredibly exotic. She knows how to wear her over-the-top costumes and how to sell her numbers, she’s isn’t trying to be sexy but concentrates on the mysteriousness of this ‘man’ pretending to be a woman. It takes some effort to accept Julie Andrew’s success as a female impersonator – but once one has, it’s not hard to believe that Victoria/Victor becomes such an overnight sensation in Paris. Julie Andrews simply has all the qualities it needs.

On the movie star – character actress-scale, Julie Andrews always placed more on the movie star-side. Most of her performances depend on her own charisma and her strong voice and she rarely ever portrayed a truly challenging role. Victor/Victoria is no difference in this aspect. Victoria Grant needs Julie Andrews’s personality to become such a delight. But Julie Andrews is an actress who is in absolute control of her own image and abilities and knows how to use them to her biggest advantage. She may remove herself from her wholesome image but she never does anything that would be out of her comfort-zone. She is both grown-up and very childish in her part but she’s not perfect and often suffers from the fact that her role is very showy but at the same time lacks any depth or challenge. Her acting is both very controlled but also appears very spontaneous thanks to her comedic timing and lack of self-awareness. She crafts a character that serves the story more than the other way around but Julie Andrews’s magical screen presence helps her to achieve a memorable and captivating performance. For this, she gets

1/08/2011

Best Actress 1982


The next year will be 1982 and the nominees were

Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria

Jessica Lange in Frances

Sissy Spacek in Missing

Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice

Debra Winger in An Officer and a Gentleman