The poll results are:
1. Carroll Baker - Baby Doll (16 votes)
2. Deborah Kerr - The King and I (13 votes)
3. Ingrid Bergman - Anastasia (8 votes)
4. Katharine Hepburn - The Rainmaker & Nancy Kelly - The Bad Seed (2 votes)
Showing posts with label Best Actress 1956. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Best Actress 1956. Show all posts
1/19/2010
1/05/2010
Best Actress 1956 - The resolution!
After having watched and reviewed all five nominated performances, it's time to pick the winner!
5. Katharine Hepburn in The Rainmaker
Katharine Hepburn is obviously miscast in this movie about a spinster who experiences a night of romance and passion with a con man. She shows her character’s longings and dreams in a mostly artificial way that never grab’s the viewer’s attention until she finally becomes more believable in the second half as an unexpected object of affection. A mixed performance of an uninteresting character.
Even though she plays the central character in this story of murder and madness, Nancy Kelly remains mostly invisible next to the Supporting performers. Her performance was born on the stage and shows a lot of theatrical over-acting that should have been reduced for the camera but Nancy Kelly also finds enough shining moments as a mother caught in the most extreme situations and helps to make the plot and her character’s actions believable.
Ingrid Bergman’s interpretation of this mysterious woman who might be the real Anastasia or just a swindler mostly focused on her suffering and misery and never gives any complexity to the character or the movie. This way, she doesn’t become as fascinating as the plot suggests and needs but Ingrid Bergman is still able to impress with an intense and haunting performance that shows her undeniable talents very effectively.
The thumb-sucking, naïve and lusty Baby Doll is a character that’s almost impossible to play realistically but Carroll Baker carefully avoids all clichés and makes an unforgettable impression. She rejects all opportunities to overact and adds a lot of depth to the role while burning up the screen in her scenes opposite Eli Wallach. A fascinating and intense performance that constantly surprises with new dimensions.
In a movie that tries to overshadow the actors with various songs and stunning sets, Deborah Kerr realizes all the possibilities of this thin part and gives a lot of shades and edges to her character. Deborah Kerr is dramatic when she needs to be but never overdoes it. She understands the light nature of the movie and fits her acting perfectly to its needs while bringing a lot of humor and dignity to the part that other actresses might have missed.
Best Actress 1956: Katharine Hepburn in "The Rainmaker"
During the 50s, Katharine Hepburn went through her famous ‘spinster-period’ and received various Oscar-nominations for playing middle-aged women who experience love for the first time after having rejected it for their entire life.
In The Rainmaker, Kate played Lizzie Curry, a hopeless spinster who experiences a night of romance and awakening with a con man played by Burt Lancaster.
We first meet Lizzie at the train station where she is picked up by her father and her two brothers. We learn that Lizzie was visiting some distant relatives and her family hoped that she would finally find a man there. But when Lizzie is leaving the train we already see her worried face – she knows why her family sent her away and she is not able to bring them the news they hoped for. Instead, she tells later, she mostly stayed in her room and was not able to connect with any of the men.
Lizzie is a woman who knows that she is a plain spinster, simple as that. She knows that she will probably never get a man and in her first scenes, Katharine Hepburn shows that Lizzie seems to be more concerned about how her brothers and her father will take this instead of herself. She seems to have accepted her fate and only lives for her family. When they ask her about her stay at her relatives, we see that she doesn’t want to hurt her family by telling them that she didn’t find a man.
But Katharine Hepburn later opens Lizzie up and demonstrates that, underneath all this, she, too, is unhappy about her life. We learn that her acceptance is only a façade and that Lizzie, like everyone else, is longing for love and happiness.
Katharine Hepburn shows us the strong-minded, smart and independent side of Lizzie with her typical commanding screen presence while she plays the sad and unhappy parts with her equally typical collection of tears and shaking hands. In fact, this whole performance is a collection of Katharine Hepburn’s tics and mannerisms and they don’t really connect with the character of Lizzie.
Katharine Hepburn has played a lot of spinsters in her career, but something did not fit together here. Apart from being too old, Kate is also too well-mannered. While this works well in her portrayals of sophisticated, well-behaved and intelligent ladies, it doesn’t really work here – this character would have needed an actress who can play more down-to-earth, who is more natural, more alive, more believable as a woman from the middle of nowhere in the American province.
Kate is also captured in a rather silly movie with a rather silly plot. The Rainmaker is also a movie to have a very exclusive distinction: it contains a performance by Katharine Hepburn that was overshadowed by the other cast members. While Kate normally dominates the screen without even trying, Earl Holliman as her brother Jim and Burt Lancaster (who was born to play characters who can sell hot air to the devil) as Bill easily steal the show and give the movie much-needed humor and energy.
Kate’s performance depends a lot on the one by Burt Lancaster. The moment he enters her life, Lizzie becomes a much more interesting character and Kate’s performance becomes much more alive and also amusing. She and Burt instantly develop a fantastic chemistry between them and her skepticism, realism and stubbornness work very well with his over-the-top and exaggerated con man. When Kate showed us Lizzie’s more vulnerable side, we already learned that she isn’t as strong and independent as she likes to pretend. In fact, she says that she wants to find a man to find herself – she wants to identify herself through a man. And when Burt Lancaster enters her house, we know that this is just the kind of man who can help Lizzie to discover her most inner feelings and longings. Kate has some great reaction shots when Burt tries to convince her of his honesty and we see how she becomes more and more fascinated by this man
Besides showing us the blossoming of Lizzie, Kate also has some very amusing scenes when she pretends to be a young, flirting girl. Unfortunately, the character of Lizzie is simply not very interesting and doesn’t allow Kate to ever become really funny or really dramatic.
Sometimes, Katharine even acts a little over-the-top, fake and artificial in her scenes of despair which is something she didn’t do very often. Surprisingly, she is not really able to grab the viewer’s attention in this part.
Kate gets much better in the second half of the picture and her scenes with Burt Lancaster in the barn are very moving and very real. She believably shows that her meeting with Bill is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for her. He is able to give her confidence for one night and as a result has influenced her forever. In all her scenes at the next morning, Kate is suddenly very natural and real and shows us all her shining talents. But one also has to notice that these scenes work so well because she plays them in her usual defined and elegant manner which doesn’t work for the character but makes an impression nonetheless.
Katharine Hepburn’s undeniable talents and her miscast in this part result in a very mixed performance: on the one hand she can be great and believable but on the other hand she is also artificial and implausible. She is miscast but she can make it work.
In the end, it’s one of her most unremarkable performances but Kate is good enough to get
In The Rainmaker, Kate played Lizzie Curry, a hopeless spinster who experiences a night of romance and awakening with a con man played by Burt Lancaster.
We first meet Lizzie at the train station where she is picked up by her father and her two brothers. We learn that Lizzie was visiting some distant relatives and her family hoped that she would finally find a man there. But when Lizzie is leaving the train we already see her worried face – she knows why her family sent her away and she is not able to bring them the news they hoped for. Instead, she tells later, she mostly stayed in her room and was not able to connect with any of the men.
Lizzie is a woman who knows that she is a plain spinster, simple as that. She knows that she will probably never get a man and in her first scenes, Katharine Hepburn shows that Lizzie seems to be more concerned about how her brothers and her father will take this instead of herself. She seems to have accepted her fate and only lives for her family. When they ask her about her stay at her relatives, we see that she doesn’t want to hurt her family by telling them that she didn’t find a man.
But Katharine Hepburn later opens Lizzie up and demonstrates that, underneath all this, she, too, is unhappy about her life. We learn that her acceptance is only a façade and that Lizzie, like everyone else, is longing for love and happiness.
Katharine Hepburn shows us the strong-minded, smart and independent side of Lizzie with her typical commanding screen presence while she plays the sad and unhappy parts with her equally typical collection of tears and shaking hands. In fact, this whole performance is a collection of Katharine Hepburn’s tics and mannerisms and they don’t really connect with the character of Lizzie.
Unfortunately, what becomes most obvious as one watches The Rainmaker is the fact that Katharine Hepburn is brutally miscast. First of all, the age difference between her and the character she is playing is too grand. It just seems weird to send a woman of her age away to find a husband – that’s something that would have made more sense 20 years ago. But to Kate’s defense one also has to notice that she never makes this obvious in her performance: she works very well with the other cast-members and is very believable as the big sister.
Katharine Hepburn has played a lot of spinsters in her career, but something did not fit together here. Apart from being too old, Kate is also too well-mannered. While this works well in her portrayals of sophisticated, well-behaved and intelligent ladies, it doesn’t really work here – this character would have needed an actress who can play more down-to-earth, who is more natural, more alive, more believable as a woman from the middle of nowhere in the American province. Kate is also captured in a rather silly movie with a rather silly plot. The Rainmaker is also a movie to have a very exclusive distinction: it contains a performance by Katharine Hepburn that was overshadowed by the other cast members. While Kate normally dominates the screen without even trying, Earl Holliman as her brother Jim and Burt Lancaster (who was born to play characters who can sell hot air to the devil) as Bill easily steal the show and give the movie much-needed humor and energy.
Kate’s performance depends a lot on the one by Burt Lancaster. The moment he enters her life, Lizzie becomes a much more interesting character and Kate’s performance becomes much more alive and also amusing. She and Burt instantly develop a fantastic chemistry between them and her skepticism, realism and stubbornness work very well with his over-the-top and exaggerated con man. When Kate showed us Lizzie’s more vulnerable side, we already learned that she isn’t as strong and independent as she likes to pretend. In fact, she says that she wants to find a man to find herself – she wants to identify herself through a man. And when Burt Lancaster enters her house, we know that this is just the kind of man who can help Lizzie to discover her most inner feelings and longings. Kate has some great reaction shots when Burt tries to convince her of his honesty and we see how she becomes more and more fascinated by this man
Besides showing us the blossoming of Lizzie, Kate also has some very amusing scenes when she pretends to be a young, flirting girl. Unfortunately, the character of Lizzie is simply not very interesting and doesn’t allow Kate to ever become really funny or really dramatic.
Sometimes, Katharine even acts a little over-the-top, fake and artificial in her scenes of despair which is something she didn’t do very often. Surprisingly, she is not really able to grab the viewer’s attention in this part.
Kate gets much better in the second half of the picture and her scenes with Burt Lancaster in the barn are very moving and very real. She believably shows that her meeting with Bill is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for her. He is able to give her confidence for one night and as a result has influenced her forever. In all her scenes at the next morning, Kate is suddenly very natural and real and shows us all her shining talents. But one also has to notice that these scenes work so well because she plays them in her usual defined and elegant manner which doesn’t work for the character but makes an impression nonetheless.
Katharine Hepburn’s undeniable talents and her miscast in this part result in a very mixed performance: on the one hand she can be great and believable but on the other hand she is also artificial and implausible. She is miscast but she can make it work.
In the end, it’s one of her most unremarkable performances but Kate is good enough to get
1/03/2010
Best Actress 1956: Deborah Kerr in "The King and I"
In the classic musical The King and I, Deborah Kerr stars as Anna Leonowens, an English widow who moves with her son to Siam to become the teacher for the many children of King Mongkut, played by Yul Brynner.
The King and I is not really a movie about acting. It’s a joyful musical that lives from its memorable tunes and impressive Art Direction and Costume Design. But Deborah Kerr gives much more edges, shades and nuances to her character than the structure of the movie needs.
She shows a woman who wants to be braver than she really is. In her early scenes we see her insecurity about this new country and her new position, but she does her best to not let her doubts be visibly and instead tries to appear as a self-confident and strong woman. Anna has her own ideals and beliefs and refuses to give in. She is an educated woman with Western ideals and morals and sees herself confronted with royal arrogance and ignorance. Deborah Kerr is able to play her part with a lot of charm and confidence and becomes a symbol for British elegance, style and grace. She shows that Anna is a woman who dedicated her life to bring enlightenment to the children of the King – and the King himself.
Especially her chemistry with Yul Brynner is the key to the success of the movie. Her very grown-up portrayal contrasts nicely with his childlike character. Deborah Kerr demonstrates that Anna isn’t willing to accept all the orders of the King and instead tries to bring logical and rational arguments but since he is the King, she has to accept more than once. Deborah Kerr’s ability to show a lot of humor behind her English façade during her confrontation scenes with Yul Brynner makes their scenes together so special. She shows that Anna is actually just as stubborn as the King himself – they both like to be right but Anna has to accept that he is the King and, when in doubt, always right. But Anna is a smart and witty woman who knows how to slowly influence him. She is always trying to maintain her dignity and refuses to become a servant to the king. She is not afraid to argue and say her opinion but Deborah Kerr fills all these moments with charm, dedication, confidence, wit and wisdom. She becomes mentor and advisor for the King and helps him to impress Western representatives. She never does that because she has to but simply out of respect and understanding – she may not always agree with the King but she admires his efforts to modernize his country. It’s certainly charming to see how they start to like each other without ever making it appear romantic.
In the role of Anna, Deborah Kerr becomes not only a teacher but also a mentor for the King and a mother for his children and Tuptim, the unhappy slave. A lot of actresses might have wasted the scene when Anna sees the children for the first time and decides to stay in the palace but Deborah made it very moving because she showed her character’s inner struggle. We see how moved she is by the children and that way she shows us that Anna is a woman who lives to teach.Anna helps Tuptim and her lover to meet secretly – she defies the traditions and orders of the King because she believes that her own morals are superior but this “clash of the cultures” is always done in a very family-friendly way that avoids a serious discussion.
As I said, her performance is much more complex than the thin plot demands. In the scenes about her husband or her scenes with Edward, she brings a lot of depth and three-dimensionality to Anna. She is very impressive in the scenes when she speaks up to the King and complains about his behavior and reminds him of his promise to give her a house outside of the palace. Deborah Kerr is one of those great subtle actresses who can make storms and thunder without raising their voice. She’s also very impressive in the scene when she is pleading for Tuptim and accuses the King of being barbarian – but even though she is appaled by the fact that Tuptim will be beaten for her crime, Anna refuses to leave and wants to watch the King do it. Deborah is very strong in this scene without changing the character and accuses the King only with her eyes. This scene perfectly sumps up all of Anna’s qualities: she is fighting for her beliefs, strong, moral, passionate but she also breaks down after that and shows that a lot of her strength is a façade that hides a very conflicted person inside.
Deborah Kerr is dramatic when she needs to be but never overdoes it. She understands the light nature of the part and the movie and fits her acting to it.
She is hardly seen during “Something wonderful” but with a few shots she shows her character’s struggle and conflicts and makes the change from wanting to leave to deciding to stay believable.
Deborah Kerr is our guide in this movie – we feel about the King just as she does so she is our way to relate to his character. We don’t connect with him personally but we instead, we get in touch with him through her. Yul Brynner’s performances can only succeed thanks to the character of Anna and it’s not easy for an actress to carry this task but Deborah Kerr does it beautifully.
The fact that Deborah Kerr doesn’t sing her own songs doesn’t bother me. I don’t mind dubbing as long as the acting doesn’t make it obvious and Deborah Kerr surely enlightens the screen whenever she appears on the screen.
Overall, she took this paper-thin part and brought a lot or humor, drama and dignity to the part that a lot of other actresses might have missed.
For this, she gets
1/02/2010
Best Actress 1956: Ingrid Bergman in "Anastasia"
After having been an outcast in Hollywood for her affair with Roberto Rossellini, Ingrid Bergman made a triumphant come back with her role in Anastasia as a woman who calls herself Anna Koreff and who might or might not be the surviving daughter of the Russian czar.
In this part, Ingrid Bergman did a lot of acting – one the one hand, because it is a very challenging role with a lot of emotional scenes but also because her character is one who constantly keeps everyone guessing and who might or might not be acting all the time.
When we first meet her, she is ready to end her life. But fate prevents it and her path crosses with that of General Sergei Pavlovich Bounine and a little later she finds herself pass off as Anastasia as a plan of Bounine to get the princess’s heritage. And while it all seems to be a perfect scheme, we have to wonder if this woman might actually really be Anastasia herself.
Ingrid shows her character as a desperate woman who doesn’t want to be used or told what to do but who has no other choice. She is trapped, she has nowhere to go, a woman with no past, no present and apparently no future.
Unfortunately, Ingrid Bergman’s interpretation leaves little room for speculation. With her performances, she immediately tries to get the audience’s sympathy by showing her character as a woman of endless suffering. The script seems to want to let the question “Is she really Anastasia?” open, but Ingrid Bergman seems to have made up her mind right at the beginning and says “Yes, she is”. This, too, gets the audience on her side as we want to see the character getting her old life back, but Ingrid Bergman took a too easy route – she didn’t give the character as much depth and complexity as she could have but instead focused too much on a positive appearance before the viewer. She never lets us doubt her and makes Anna's misery her only characteristic.
It’s also rather unfortunate that Ingrid Bergman as the central character is not able to really grab the audience. She plays her part with charm and conviction but she never becomes as fascinating as the plot suggests and needs. She also has a rather lacking chemistry with Yul Brynner which makes the ending of the movie rather unsatisfying.
In some dramatic moments, she takes it a little too far – her change from mad laughing to hopeless crying is as fake as it gets and in some other scenes her acting becomes too forced, but especially in her moments of quiet doubt and fearful worries, she shows that beneath all of Bounine’s plans is a woman who is only looking for her past. Her hopeful, sometimes happy moments of remembering contrast very movingly with that desperate woman from the beginning of the movie. When she describes a train accident or speaks of old times, her voice gets a longing and especially very inexplicable sound that adds a lot to the mysterious tone of the movie.
Ingrid Bergman shows a lot of confidence in this performance – in her character and her own ability as an actress. While her performance comes across as rather calculated in some scenes, it’s thrilling to watch such a talented actress expressing this confidence in herself. This confidence also helps in making Anna more memorable because Ingrid Bergman shows that by meeting Bounine, Anna has become a different person who allows herself to hope again and shows new spirits inside her. She is a woman who was disappointed very often but still hasn’t given up and grabs every chance for happiness.
This leads up to the best scene of the movie, when the mysterious Anna meets the old Empress. Even though Helen Hayes dominates the scene, Ingrid Bergman is still able to find just the right mix for her character: desperate to be loved but unwilling to settle for pity. She his not interested in money but wants to find what she has been looking for for years: a home.
While Ingrid Bergman oversimplified the character in certain aspects, she still took this dramatic part and gave an impressive performance that gets
In this part, Ingrid Bergman did a lot of acting – one the one hand, because it is a very challenging role with a lot of emotional scenes but also because her character is one who constantly keeps everyone guessing and who might or might not be acting all the time.
When we first meet her, she is ready to end her life. But fate prevents it and her path crosses with that of General Sergei Pavlovich Bounine and a little later she finds herself pass off as Anastasia as a plan of Bounine to get the princess’s heritage. And while it all seems to be a perfect scheme, we have to wonder if this woman might actually really be Anastasia herself.
Ingrid shows her character as a desperate woman who doesn’t want to be used or told what to do but who has no other choice. She is trapped, she has nowhere to go, a woman with no past, no present and apparently no future.
Unfortunately, Ingrid Bergman’s interpretation leaves little room for speculation. With her performances, she immediately tries to get the audience’s sympathy by showing her character as a woman of endless suffering. The script seems to want to let the question “Is she really Anastasia?” open, but Ingrid Bergman seems to have made up her mind right at the beginning and says “Yes, she is”. This, too, gets the audience on her side as we want to see the character getting her old life back, but Ingrid Bergman took a too easy route – she didn’t give the character as much depth and complexity as she could have but instead focused too much on a positive appearance before the viewer. She never lets us doubt her and makes Anna's misery her only characteristic.
It’s also rather unfortunate that Ingrid Bergman as the central character is not able to really grab the audience. She plays her part with charm and conviction but she never becomes as fascinating as the plot suggests and needs. She also has a rather lacking chemistry with Yul Brynner which makes the ending of the movie rather unsatisfying.Ingrid Bergman gives a typical star-performance in a movie that only exists to let her shine. And even though she didn’t fulfill all the possibilities of this demanding part, she nonetheless brought Anna to life in an often intense and very dramatic way that shows her undeniable talents very effectively.
In some dramatic moments, she takes it a little too far – her change from mad laughing to hopeless crying is as fake as it gets and in some other scenes her acting becomes too forced, but especially in her moments of quiet doubt and fearful worries, she shows that beneath all of Bounine’s plans is a woman who is only looking for her past. Her hopeful, sometimes happy moments of remembering contrast very movingly with that desperate woman from the beginning of the movie. When she describes a train accident or speaks of old times, her voice gets a longing and especially very inexplicable sound that adds a lot to the mysterious tone of the movie.
Ingrid Bergman shows a lot of confidence in this performance – in her character and her own ability as an actress. While her performance comes across as rather calculated in some scenes, it’s thrilling to watch such a talented actress expressing this confidence in herself. This confidence also helps in making Anna more memorable because Ingrid Bergman shows that by meeting Bounine, Anna has become a different person who allows herself to hope again and shows new spirits inside her. She is a woman who was disappointed very often but still hasn’t given up and grabs every chance for happiness.
This leads up to the best scene of the movie, when the mysterious Anna meets the old Empress. Even though Helen Hayes dominates the scene, Ingrid Bergman is still able to find just the right mix for her character: desperate to be loved but unwilling to settle for pity. She his not interested in money but wants to find what she has been looking for for years: a home.
While Ingrid Bergman oversimplified the character in certain aspects, she still took this dramatic part and gave an impressive performance that gets
1/01/2010
Best Actress 1956: Nancy Kelly in "The Bad Seed"
Like Patty McCormack and Eileen Heckart, Nancy Kelly reprised her (Tony-award winning) stage-role in The Bad Seed in this film version and received an Oscar nomination for it.
In the past, I have given praise to actresses who reprised a stage role and adjusted their performances to the need of this different medium. The Bad Seed shows you that something like that was not given.
A lot of times the movie feels like a taped stage play with performances that are made for the last row in the second balcony but not the movie cameras. Especially the scenes with Eileen Heckart are obviously born on the stage.
Anyway, Nancy Kelly plays the part of Christine Penmark, the mother of little Rhoda who turns out to be…quite a girl…
Nancy Kelly establishes Christine as a loving mother and devoted wife but the way she says a shocked “Rhoda” whenever her daughter doesn’t behave the way she wants already shows that she has certain suspicions about her daughter. Later, we see that she asks a teacher of Rhoda’s school about Rhoda’s behavior. Nancy Kelly demonstrates a loving, but also worried mother who only wants the best for her child.
Christine is mostly an observing character. Things just happen to her, she barely takes initiative or becomes active, she mostly reacts. It's a character who wants a normal, quiet life.
Compared to the other characters in this movie, she could be called the straight character. She doesn’t get a juicy part like Patty or Eileen. Even though Christine is the central character who is onscreen almost every moment and who is our guide through the story, the character barely stays in ones mind and is forgotten much sooner than the supporting players. The Bad Seed never feels like Nancy Kelly’s movie.
While one can understand all these feelings, Miss Kelly unfortunately delivers them in a mixture of honest expression and fake overacting. Her performance never becomes real – like the story itself, it is constructed and over-the-top and never becomes as memorable and demanding as the work of the Supporting players.
In the past, I have given praise to actresses who reprised a stage role and adjusted their performances to the need of this different medium. The Bad Seed shows you that something like that was not given.
A lot of times the movie feels like a taped stage play with performances that are made for the last row in the second balcony but not the movie cameras. Especially the scenes with Eileen Heckart are obviously born on the stage.
Anyway, Nancy Kelly plays the part of Christine Penmark, the mother of little Rhoda who turns out to be…quite a girl…
Nancy Kelly establishes Christine as a loving mother and devoted wife but the way she says a shocked “Rhoda” whenever her daughter doesn’t behave the way she wants already shows that she has certain suspicions about her daughter. Later, we see that she asks a teacher of Rhoda’s school about Rhoda’s behavior. Nancy Kelly demonstrates a loving, but also worried mother who only wants the best for her child.
Christine is mostly an observing character. Things just happen to her, she barely takes initiative or becomes active, she mostly reacts. It's a character who wants a normal, quiet life.
Compared to the other characters in this movie, she could be called the straight character. She doesn’t get a juicy part like Patty or Eileen. Even though Christine is the central character who is onscreen almost every moment and who is our guide through the story, the character barely stays in ones mind and is forgotten much sooner than the supporting players. The Bad Seed never feels like Nancy Kelly’s movie. Still, Miss Kelly gets some touching moments as a mother whose complete world falls apart. Her guilt in her scenes opposite Eileen Heckart is very touching.
Unfortunately, Miss Kelly depends a lot on theatrical stage-acting. Especially in the scenes with her father, when she finds out the truth about her ancestors are both bad and good. Good because of some very dramatic impressive moments, bad because of some other, overacted and overdone moments that show that Miss Kelly relies too heavily on her stage experience instead of acting for the camera.
During the course of the movie Miss Kelly’s acting becomes sort of winy and she starts to act like a zombie, but it all makes sense because Christine Penmark is caught in the most extreme situation imaginable and there is no rational reaction to it. Nancy Kelly shows all the horror and stress that suddenly entered her life on her face that always shows a mixture of unbelieving shock and fearful tension.
Christine is a mostly confused character. All the terrible news about her and her daughter that she learns mostly evoke wonderment in her. What can she do? Nancy Kelly’s shows us that confused, fearful face for almost the whole movie. We see how she slowly starts to get into a state of hysterics. Her quiet suspicion slowly turns into fear, into affirmation, into disbelief and into a complete breakdown.
While one can understand all these feelings, Miss Kelly unfortunately delivers them in a mixture of honest expression and fake overacting. Her performance never becomes real – like the story itself, it is constructed and over-the-top and never becomes as memorable and demanding as the work of the Supporting players.
An uneven performance with enough good moments to get
12/29/2009
Best Actress 1956: Carroll Baker in "Baby Doll"
It’s hard to describe this performance. Baby Doll is some weird, but still fascinating movie. And that’s maybe also the best way to describe Carroll Baker’s performance: weird, but fascinating.
Baby Doll is also a movie that really shouldn’t work but somehow does. Again, exactly like the performance of Carroll Baker.
Her thumb-sucking, stupid, chaste but also lusty sex bomb is not a very deep or rich character, but Carroll Baker’s performance is so focused and memorable that you will never forget her.
It’s a performance that can also certainly be called “brave” considering the time the movie was made. I doubt that a character like Baby Doll had ever been seen before.
It's an interesting story about revenge and lust. When Archie Meighan burns down the cotton gin of his business rival Silva Vacarro, Vacarro comes to Meighan’s home to find some evidence and spends a day with Meighan’s wife, the 19-year old Baby Doll.
The scenes between Carroll Baker and Eli Wallach are the core of the movie. They are filled with so much sexual tension that the screen almost begins to burn. Carroll Baker’s is very good in expressing Baby Doll’s naiveté and her playfulness, but also her lusty side and her desire to experience. So far, Baby Doll never had any experience. She has been married to Archie for almost two years but they made an agreement that they wouldn’t consummate the marriage until her 20th birthday.
Baby Doll is mostly rotten and spoiled. She likes to tease but gets angry the moment Archie comes to close to her, she shouts and screams and she is also not the brightest kid in school. She seems like pure white trash, but in some scenes, Carroll Baker is able to show a little more depth to this character. She always keeps us guessing about the character’s intentions and her actions and is able to keep the viewer’s attention from start to finish. We see how she is fascinated and scared of Wallach at the same moment, but even in his meanest moments, she still seems drawn to him. It’s a childish behavior, a need for love and guidance that contrasts sharply and effectively with Carroll Baker’s sexy performance. Sometimes Baby Doll seems to be a young girl in a woman’s body and sometimes a grown woman in a child’s body. Carroll Baker is able to look like a little girl or a grown-up woman depending on the moment and the need of the script and it’s this constant change that makes her so fascinating. We are never aware how much this 19 year old girl really knows about her effect on men. Is she really just dumb or is she calculating? She seems like a young Blanche DuBois, depending on the kindness of strangers.
What’s most amazing about this performance is the fact that Carroll Baker is absolutely natural in this part. She never seems to be acting at all which is a big feat in a movie that normally would scream for overacting and melodramatic posing. Instead, all the giggles, the nervousness, the shyness, the flirting, the desire come across as very real.
It’s very nice to see Carroll Baker being able to lift the character of Baby Doll to a certain level of three-dimensionality because the writing surely doesn’t. Especially in the final scenes with Mildred Dunnock, she is able to add some welcome seriousness to her character that makes her seem much older than at the beginning of the movie, when we see her sleeping in a cradle, sucking her thumb.
It’s easy to see why this movie was such a scandal in the 50s. Today, probably no one would even bother to complain. But that doesn’t change the fact that Carroll Baker and Eli Wallach really turn on the heat, especially in their scene on the stairs. Their scenes together are surely something you don’t see very often.
Overall, it’s a very effective performance that gets
Baby Doll is also a movie that really shouldn’t work but somehow does. Again, exactly like the performance of Carroll Baker.
Her thumb-sucking, stupid, chaste but also lusty sex bomb is not a very deep or rich character, but Carroll Baker’s performance is so focused and memorable that you will never forget her.
It’s a performance that can also certainly be called “brave” considering the time the movie was made. I doubt that a character like Baby Doll had ever been seen before.
It's an interesting story about revenge and lust. When Archie Meighan burns down the cotton gin of his business rival Silva Vacarro, Vacarro comes to Meighan’s home to find some evidence and spends a day with Meighan’s wife, the 19-year old Baby Doll.
The scenes between Carroll Baker and Eli Wallach are the core of the movie. They are filled with so much sexual tension that the screen almost begins to burn. Carroll Baker’s is very good in expressing Baby Doll’s naiveté and her playfulness, but also her lusty side and her desire to experience. So far, Baby Doll never had any experience. She has been married to Archie for almost two years but they made an agreement that they wouldn’t consummate the marriage until her 20th birthday.
Baby Doll is mostly rotten and spoiled. She likes to tease but gets angry the moment Archie comes to close to her, she shouts and screams and she is also not the brightest kid in school. She seems like pure white trash, but in some scenes, Carroll Baker is able to show a little more depth to this character. She always keeps us guessing about the character’s intentions and her actions and is able to keep the viewer’s attention from start to finish. We see how she is fascinated and scared of Wallach at the same moment, but even in his meanest moments, she still seems drawn to him. It’s a childish behavior, a need for love and guidance that contrasts sharply and effectively with Carroll Baker’s sexy performance. Sometimes Baby Doll seems to be a young girl in a woman’s body and sometimes a grown woman in a child’s body. Carroll Baker is able to look like a little girl or a grown-up woman depending on the moment and the need of the script and it’s this constant change that makes her so fascinating. We are never aware how much this 19 year old girl really knows about her effect on men. Is she really just dumb or is she calculating? She seems like a young Blanche DuBois, depending on the kindness of strangers. What’s most amazing about this performance is the fact that Carroll Baker is absolutely natural in this part. She never seems to be acting at all which is a big feat in a movie that normally would scream for overacting and melodramatic posing. Instead, all the giggles, the nervousness, the shyness, the flirting, the desire come across as very real.
It’s very nice to see Carroll Baker being able to lift the character of Baby Doll to a certain level of three-dimensionality because the writing surely doesn’t. Especially in the final scenes with Mildred Dunnock, she is able to add some welcome seriousness to her character that makes her seem much older than at the beginning of the movie, when we see her sleeping in a cradle, sucking her thumb.
It’s easy to see why this movie was such a scandal in the 50s. Today, probably no one would even bother to complain. But that doesn’t change the fact that Carroll Baker and Eli Wallach really turn on the heat, especially in their scene on the stairs. Their scenes together are surely something you don’t see very often.
Overall, it’s a very effective performance that gets
Best Actress 1956
The next year will be 1956 and the nominees were
Carroll Baker in Baby Doll
Ingrid Bergman in Anastasia
Katharine Hepburn in The Rainmaker
Nancy Kelly in The Bad Seed
Deborah Kerr in The King and I
Deborah Kerr in The King and I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
