My current Top 5

My current Top 5
Showing posts with label Bette Davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bette Davis. Show all posts

4/18/2019

Best Actress Ranking - Update

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

If five performances from the same year are included, the winning performance is higlighted in red.

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. Jill Clayburgh in An Unmarried Woman (1978)
8. Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
9. Geraldine Page in The Trip to Bountiful (1985)
10. Susan Sarandon in Thelma & Louise (1991)

11. Katharine Hepburn in Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
12. Edith Evans in The Whisperers (1967)
13. Norma Shearer in Marie Antoinette (1938)
14. Greta Garbo in Ninotchka (1939)
15. Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
16. Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth (1998)
17. Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
18. Simone Signoret in Room at the Top (1959)
19. Bette Davis in The Little Foxes (1941)
20. Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music (1965)

21. Rosalind Russell in Auntie Mame (1958)
22. Glenda Jackson in Women in Love (1970)
23. Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve (1957)
24. Elizabeth Taylor in Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
25. Barbara Stanwyck in Ball of Fire (1941)
26. Emily Watson in Hilary and Jackie (1998)
27. Julie Christie in Away from Her (2007)
28. Shelley Winters in A Place in the Sun (1951)
29. Audrey Hepburn in Wait until Dark (1967)
30. Meryl Streep in The Devil wears Prada (2006)

31. Ingrid Bergman in The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945)
32. Anne Baxter in All about Eve (1950)
33. Judi Dench in Mrs. Brown (1997)
34. Helen Hayes in The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1932)
35. Jane Fonda in Coming Home (1978)
36. Greer Garson in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
37. Doris Day in Pillow Talk (1959)
38. Meryl Streep in One True Thing (1998)
39. Joan Crawford in Sudden Fear (1952)
40. Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity (1953)

41. Katharine Hepburn in Guess who’s coming to dinner (1967)
42. Marsha Mason in Chapter Two (1979)
43. Jane Wyman in The Yearling (1946)
44. Martha Scott in Our Town (1940)
45. Teresa Wright in The Pride of the Yankees (1942) 
46. Jennifer Jones in Love Letters (1945)
47. Ellen Burstyn in Same Time, Next Year (1978)
48. Susan Hayward in My Foolish Heart (1949)
49. Eleanor Parker in Detective Story (1951)
50. Vanessa Redgrave in Mary, Queen of Scots (1971)

51. Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room (1996)
52. Loretta Young in Come to the Stable (1949)  
53. Mary Pickford in Coquette (1928-29)
54. Sissy Spacek in The River (1984)
55. Shirley MacLaine in The Turning Point (1977)
56. Irene Dunne in Cimarron (1930-1931)
57. Ruth Chatterton in Madame X (1928-29)
58. Diana Wynyard in Cavalcade (1932-1933)
59. Bette Davis in The Star (1952)

Bette Davis as Margaret Elliot in The Star


This decision was obviously a very difficult decision because placing a performance last in a ranking (even if the ranking is far from finished so who knows where the performance will be in the end) is never pleasant. And it becomes even more difficult considering that I am not talking about some unknown performer who might have been lucky with an undeserved nomination but rather one of the greatest actresses of the 20th century – how can she be last? And on top of that, with this placement I seem to contradict some of my own reasons from the past. In the case of Mary Pickford, I decided to not rank her last despite an often disastrous performance simply because she had an entertaining factor and always remained watchable, even during her bad moments while the performances below her felt completely uninspired to me. And if I want to be completely fair, then yes, I have to admit that Bette Davis in The Star is also entertaining – after all, this movie is about a washed-up former movie star who dreams of a comeback and takes her Oscar statuette for a drunken car ride around town. How could I not love this? But the thing is – Coquette, a dreadful movie, totally depended on Mary Pickford’s performance and whatever good moments came out of it, happened only of her. In the case of The Star, a movie not much less dreadful than Coquette, all the entertaining factors come from the screenplay. Again, it’s not a good screenplay but if you love old Hollywood and backstage dramas without thinking too much, then yes, it delivers – but Bette Davis is not necessarily the reason for this.

In the end, everything about my ranking is obviously extremely subjective but my final decision on her position was simply based on this: of all the performances that I have ranked so far, Bette Davis’s work in The Star is the only one that I would describe as “lazy”. In the case of Diana Wynard or Ruth Chatterton, even if their actual acting left a lot do be desired, I at least got the feeling that they thought about their characters and tried to go a bit deeper or at least had some idea about what kind of person they want to represent. In the case of Bette Davis, you get the feeling that she simply showed up, did her “Bette Davis-thing” and went home again. I never like to accuse actors of “playing themselves” or similar criticism, but in this case, it just feels strangely true. If the role in The Star had been played by another actress and you would wonder “How would Bette Davis have played that part?”, you get your answer right here – because every mannerism, every line, every single moment in The Star is delivered exactly in the way you imagine Bette Davis would deliver them. There is nothing surprising, no depth, nothing of the maturity from All about Eve or the playfulness of her earlier work. Bette Davis simply took this part and seemed to think "You want Bette Davis? I give you more Bette Davis than you can handle!" and that way ended with a performance that feels uninspired and unoriginal at every moment. And this is why everything about this work just feels “lazy”.

All about Eve feels like a good reference in this review. I am pretty sure that there were comparisons when The Star came out and it does feel inevitably to compare Margo Channing and Margret Elliot – both played by Bette Davis only two years apart, both Oscar-nominated performances that show an actress with many problems. But while All about Eve is obviously a masterpiece that offered Bette Davis a very multidimensional character, The Star is essentially just a B-movie that might seem to offer a great part because Margaret Elliot is basically in every scene of the picture and gets many “big moments”, but it’s actually a very thin part, in no way helped by Bette Davis’s uninspired performance.

The Star begins with an auction where the belongings of Margaret Elliot are sold. One of the buyers is her agent who apparently has no problem to benefit from Margaret’s misery. The scene that follows shows that Margaret doesn’t get any more parts and is too old for the one part she would like. This scene also sets up a pattern for the other scenes that follow – Margaret asks to borrow some money, is denied and then angrily tells how much money she has given over the past. This happens with her agent, the new wife of her ex-husband and her sister and brother-in-law. And in all cases, Bette Davis makes one thing very clear: Margaret is mad. Bette Davis basically starts shouting the moment the movie begins, widening her eyes in anger, spitting out the words at every opportunity. And she will stay on this one note for pretty much the entire picture – as I said earlier, if you would create a Bette Davis performance in your mind simply based on the mannerism you know, the performance in The Star would be the outcome.

The sad truth is that none of these big emotional moments have any impact on the viewer or make Margaret in any way interesting as a character. All the fascination from her Margo Channing is completely gone. Her outbursts are far too over-the-top (throwing her sister and brother-in-law out of her apartment while screaming at the top of her lungs or being thrown into jail while screaming “YOU DON’T SEEM TO KNOW WHO I AM”), her crying scenes too theatrical (staying in front of her old house, sobbing “going…going...gone”) while scenes such as joy or love feel completely unbelievable altogether. But the sad truth goes even beyond that as Bette Davis never feels remotely believable as a former movie star – as shocking as it seems but there is nothing “star-like” about her. This might be intentional as Margaret’s best days are over but I would expect a certain amount of star quality nonetheless.

Another difference between The Star and All about Eve is how the movie treats its central character – All about Eve understood the worries and problems of Margo and presented them in a way that made her character understandable even in her most childish moments. The Star, while putting much more focus on Margaret as its central character than All about Eve did with Margo, often rather treats Margaret as an intruder, a woman who deserves what happened to her and guides her to a completely unsatisfying ending. The movie constantly tells us that Margaret should accept her fate and focus on what is truly important – being a woman and a mother.

Of course, the missteps of the movie are not Bette Davis’s fault but honestly – was there another actress in Hollywood’s golden era less suited to play a part that ends with her running into her lover’s arm, realizing that love is the only thing that matters? Or less suited to play a woman who recognises the importance of her maternal instincts? Hardly – and this harms everything the movie intends to be. This is also due to the fact that Bette Davis and Sterling Hayden are certainly among the most unbelievable lovers in movie history (of course, Sterling Hayden makes a piece of wood look alive in comparison so Bette Davis did not have much to act with here...). They have such a lack of chemistry that I actually missed that they were supposed to be in love and was completely confused by the ending. It’s not only that Sterling Hayden’s literally appears out of nowhere suddenly in the movie but there is nothing between these two actors – the script actually doesn’t give them a lot to work on as Sterling Hayden’s Jim seems more like a big brother but both Bette Davis and he constantly almost seem to ignore each other in their performances (on top of that, even though Bette Davis was only eight years older, they often look like aunt and nephew). Additionally, whenever I think back to The Star, I completely forget Natalie Wood’s presence and the fact that Margaret is supposed to have a daughter because Bette Davis again completely fails to portray this part of Margaret’s life in any believable way.

What amazes me about The Star is why Bette Davis decided to make this movie in the first place (the movie, after all, seems sometimes more designed to promote real-life starlet Barbara Lawrence than its leading lady). Sure, after All about Eve she might have thought that a similar story (even if it really isn’t) might help her to win that desired third Oscar and movies about women learning that a man is more important than a career were surely very common and the role itself offered many flashy scenes that allowed her to go big – but The Star somehow constantly seems to contradict what Bette Davis apparently stood for, the drive for success, the willingness to suffer setbacks and come back again, the importance of her professional life. Most of all, there seems to be one theory that, even though maybe not true, might be the best explanation for all of this: apparently, The Star was based on Joan Crawford and Bette Davis also based her performance on her famous competitor (from certain fashion choices right down to her use of the expression “Bless you”). Looking at this, maybe it all makes sense? Margaret Elliot might have been a great actress (as she states herself “You don’t win an Academy Award for nothing”) but is most of the time only interested in fame and vanity instead of artistry (after all, even her perfume is “the most expensive perfume in the world” – however, it is not too exclusive to be sold on the counter of your friendly drugstore next door in what looks like a 5 litre bottle – and when she thinks she is back on top, the first thing she does is buy new cloths and look at new houses). Is this performance maybe some big inside-joke by Bette Davis? It would make sense from a certain point of view because the movie as well as Bette Davis’s performance enjoy to put all the blame on Margaret – she is told various times that she should move on with her life (meaning stop being an actress and becoming a wife and mother) and her vanity constantly gets in the way of her own success, making her responsible for her own downfall (losing her job at a shopping centre because she is recognized as Margaret Elliot and of course famously ruining her own screen test for an important supporting role because she insists to play the part like a young girl in the hope to be cast as the lead – it’s a scene that is almost surreal because the question is if Bette Davis herself is bad or if she is only acting bad but even if it doesn’t answer this question, it does show that Margaret herself has lost all sense of what she can or can’t do). So, maybe The Star was a message by Bette Davis to Joan Crawford, telling her that she was over-the-hill, that she had lost her talent, that her ego was bigger than her acting abilities and that she would be better off by just leaving acting all together and find the right man (the movie goes so far to have a screenwriter basically lay this all out for Margaret at the end when he tells her about a new script about an actress who has been “denied her birth right. The glory and the privilege of just being a woman”). Of course, this is all speculation but it does provide an answer to some questions that arise during a screening of The Star

The funny thing is, however, that this meta level can just as easily be attributed to Bette Davis as well. Bette Davis apparently told journalists back then that the whole movie was shot on first takes – similar to the disastrous screen test of Margaret Elliot where she is so bad and so uncooperative that the director decides that one try is enough to which Margaret happily replies “You mean I got it in one take?” This idea of an actress being so sure about what she is doing despite being horribly over-the-top and a director who doesn’t care about it or doesn’t want to argue with this diva might very well apply to the making of The Star as well because so many scenes would have benefitted from another try, from a calmer angle, from a more developed point-of-view but every scene goes for cheap effects, for big and loud, for over-emoting at every chance that it’s easy to believe that these were all first takes. And when Margaret later watches her screen tests and begins to scream “It’s horrible!”, it again reaches a strange meta level as this is was the audience has been yelling at Bette for over an hour already.

As I said at the beginning, I won’t deny that it’s all highly entertaining – who doesn’t love to see Bette Davis yelling “It is a disgrace! Margaret Elliot waiting on a couple of old bags like you!” or grabbing an Oscar, saying “Let’s you and me get drunk!” I also know that most reviews on the Internet think rather highly of this performance, many even comparing if favourably to Margo Channing. From my point of view, it all works on a humours level if you see it as one big “F**k You” from Bette Davis to Joan Crawford (even though Joan’s career was certainly not worse than Bette’s at this point and Joan herself had a better performance in the same year) but from an artistic point-of-view as an Oscar-nominated performance, it’s just a big No.

12/14/2011

YOUR Best Actress of 1938!

Here are the results of the poll:

1. Bette Davis - Jezebel (24 votes)

2. Norma Shearer - Marie Antoinette (17 votes)

3. Margaret Sullavan - Three Comrades (3 votes)

4. Wendy Hiller - Pygmalion (1 vote)

5. Fay Bainter - White Banners (0 votes)

Thanks to everyone for voting!

11/15/2011

Best Actress 1938 - The resolution

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



Wendy Hiller achieved to be both completely logical but also strangely inadequate as Eliza Doolittle. The role seems to both over- and underwhelm her and as a consequence she stayed on one note for most of the time. Still, she saves her performance in parts with her own personality that is certainly right for the role and her own instincts which make her mostly do the right things, even though unfortunately often the wrong way. 



                     
Fay Bainter sprinkles with charm and warmth and it is not hard to believe that her smile, her support and her understanding can brighten up the live of anybody she ever meets. It’s neither a complex performance nor a complex role but Fay Bainter does find the right tone, the right face and the right approach to this character, creating some beautiful moments, making her actions and intentions believable and not overdoing the sentiment of the story – she’s strong, believable and loving.


Margaret Sullavan’s performance is a beautiful example of an actress taking what could basically be considered a throwaway-role and filling it with life, meaning and much more. Her unique screen presence that helps her to appear so completely mature and decisive while also emphasizing the emotional desperation of Pat Hollmann is combined very effectively with her instincts for the role and so resulted in a maybe still limited but much deeper and more captivating performance than expected.



2. Bette Davis in Jezebel

Bette Davis's take on this character is spellbinding, entertaining and unforgettable. Her mysterious screen personality may have prevented her from creating a complete Southern Belle but it turned other moments, even simple ones like walking into a bank, into movie magic. And because of her ability to show various different aspects in Julie’s character while also displaying an honest core, she was also able to make the final moments of Jezebel believable without turning them into hollow pathos.




Norma Shearer’s acting style is not everyone’s cup of tea. But in this case, she has risen to a whole new level of dramatic intensity. When an image of a young Marie Antoinette, rejoicing about her future as Queen of France, is laid over the scene of Marie Antoinette facing the guillotine, it becomes clear on what an exhausting, captivating and heartbreaking journey she has taken the audience and how epic her achievement truly is.




11/10/2011

YOUR Best Actress or 1944

Here are the results of the poll:

1. Barbara Stanwack- Double Indemnity (33 votes)

2. Ingrid Bergman - Gaslight (14 votes)

3. Claudette Colbert - Since you went Away & Bette Davis - Mr. Skeffington (2 votes)

4. Greer Garson - Mrs. Parkington (1 vote)

Thanks to everyone for voting!

10/30/2011

Best Actress 1938: Bette Davis in "Jezebel"

After Dangerous won her an Oscar she mostly considered a ‘consolation price’ for not having been nominated for her star-marking performance in Of Human Bondage the year before, Bette Davis suffered the same fate Luise Rainer would suffer two years later – finding that an Oscar win was considered a good way by producers to take an acclaimed actress and give her weak material in the hope that critics would not notice the weakness because of the involvement of an Oscar-winning actress. Luise Rainer surrendered to this treatment and left Hollywood for good only a short time after she had become the first two-time winning actress in Oscar history (of course, her personal problems and dislike for the Hollywood way of life did not exactly encourage her to stay either…). Bette Davis also left Hollywood – but only to fight against the studio system that was forcing her to play parts she did not want and were not worth her talents as an actress. Even though she did not win the legal battle that followed her departure to Great Britain, she received better material nonetheless and would start a basically unparalleled streak of financial and critical successes which brought her a record five consecutive Best Actress nominations. At the beginning of this stood Jezebel, the movie that would win Bette Davis her second and final Oscar (it certainly must be wonderful to win two Oscars so early in your career but it can’t be much fun to receive unsuccessful nomination after unsuccessful nomination after that) for her portrayal of the head-strong, popular but also manipulative Southern Belle Julie Marsden.

Jezebel seems to be a movie that is always standing in the shadow of a much bigger, more spectacular and more famous saga of the old South that amazed the world one year later – Gone with the Wind. And yes, the comparisons are easy to make – a headstrong Southern belle who ruins the lives of many because of her selfish character, the love of her life who is married to another woman and the whole structure of the movie which puts the actions and doings of this woman into its center. Even David O. Selznick wrote to Jack Warner how unpleased he was about Jezebel since he saw it as a movie that featured a lot of scenes and characters similar to his upcoming Gone with the Wind. Well, he surely didn’t need to worry – until this day, Gone with the Wind is the classic of classics, a timeless masterpiece and while Jezebel surely has its fans and admirers, it doesn’t even come close to its ‘bigger brother’. And Vivien Leigh has also basically defined the character of the Southern Belle so strongly that hardly any other approach at this character has a chance to shine simply because the comparisons will always be made. But Bette Davis did, after all, attack this kind of role one year before Vivien Leigh did and even though Julie Marsden is no Scarlett O’Hara, Bette Davis was given very strong material and brought the character of Julie to life with a very impressive combination of fierce strength and tender loveliness. So maybe a comparison with Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara would not do Bette Davis’s performance any favors – but performances should only be judged on their own merit and considering that Bette Davis was entering the most celebrated period of her work, it’s no surprise that her performance is strong, memorable and captivating.

Bette Davis was an actress who could easily go overboard. She knew that she was different in her willingness to attack all her parts with uncompromising honesty and dedication – and she was very eager to make sure that everybody else knew so, too. That’s why very often her performances tend to go over-the-top because Bette Davis may have known what she could do but she did not really know how to use her gifts – she did not seem to have the instincts that told her when to hold back or when to decide that ‘less is more’. Instead, she always wanted to display that her characters are larger than life and that she had no problems to show her characters as unpleasant, appalling or plain shocking. This talent and this willingness of Bette Davis was both her greatest advantage and her greatest flaw – because in the hands of a director who was not able to handle Bette Davis and guide her in a way in which she used her instincts and talents without exaggerating them, her performances could easily enter the dangerous territory of incredibility, fulsomeness and overall rather resemble an out-of-control wild animal than a talented actress. Because of this, it was certainly a wonderful coincidence that Jezebel marked the beginning of Bette Davis’s collaboration with director William Wyler. Like few others, William Wyler knew how to handle Bette Davis and how to use all her talents and gifts for the advantage of the movie and the character she was playing. It might have often taken up to 50 take to get a scene right but Bette Davis apparently did not mind because she knew that he was guiding her the right way and therefore also respected his decisions. A less skilled director might easily have let Bette Davis ‘do her thing’ and considering the emotional structure of Julie Marsden, this might have led to an over-the-top and uncomfortable portrayal but the combination of Wyler and Davis turned out to be a wonderful success that they would repeat later with The Letter and The Little Foxes.

Jezebel is certainly a star-vehicle – Fay Bainter won a well-deserved Oscar for her supporting role as Julie’s worrying aunt but the whole movie is completely focused on its leading lady, highlighting her performance and her eyes at every possible moment and using the supporting cast as one huge vessel that only exists to feed her lines and let her character go through various different scenes of emotional intensity. But Bette Davis was indeed an actress who could carry such tasks – because in 1938 she already completed trusted her own talents and the strength of her own work. She knew what she could do and William Wyler helped her to do what would work. So many scenes are displayed with an intriguing subtlety by Bette Davis that works much better than any grand emotions would ever have – her reaction to Pres’s introduction of his wife which she only registers with a slightly surprised ‘Your wife?’ while everything is happening behind her eyes or her way of manipulating Pres to take her to the ball in her red dress by questioning his ability to defend her honor are moments that turn Julie into a very engaging character who is able to fascinate the audience despite her questionable actions. Bette Davis constructs Julie as a woman who is too confident of herself and constantly likes to tease those around her, especially Pres. She uses every chance to question his love or find new ways to test his devotion as if she is trying to make sure that she is always ahead of him, unwilling to become a ‘little wife’. Julie is a woman who is unable to control herself – she often reacts out of spite, out of anger or out of frustration. In this way, Jezebel often treats the central character in a rather disappointing way – everything about Jezebel seems to indicate that Julie is to blame for all that is happening and that she deserves every bit of misery in her life. But Bette Davis succeeds in showing Julie’s inner depth and how she is unable to stop herself, overestimating her own power and influence and that way keeps the character’s dignity and fascination alive. Bette Davis clearly has her fun with this role – maybe because Julie, too, likes to do what she feels is right and likes to test the limits of her own abilities. When she arrives late for her own party and then enters the room in her riding dress, it's a perfect symbiosis of character and actress loving what they do at this moment.

Bette Davis knows how to guide Julie through her many personal ups and downs. The look on her face when she enters the ball room and slowly changes from spiteful pride to real fear is done beautifully and her close-ups also turn this whole sequence into the movie’s most memorable moment. Her dance with Pres is basically the end of her life as it used to be – she gambled and she lost. She lost the respect of the town, her own power, her self-confidence and the love of her fiancée. The movie again may take too much pleasure in humiliating Julie at this moment but Bette Davis knows how to play the scene without letting Julie become a defeated victim of her own doings. And in the following scene she shows how Julie is again unwilling to bend her own character to prevent the inevitable break-up with Pres. Bette Davis especially knows how to combine the fake pride of Julie with her hurt feelings and desperation and that way makes the later scenes when she kneels in front of Pres and asks him to forgive her in an attempt to win him back both chilling and believable – Bette Davis has so far shown a lot of strength in Julie but also weakness and the recognition of her own flaws. But the vulnerability of Julie is never visible for a long time as the arrival of Pres with his new wife again turn her into the old, manipulating and short-tempered woman that has already ruined her own life once before. Bette Davis biggest accomplishment in the second half of Jezebel is that she never makes it unbelievable that Julie does indeed love Pres – the scene in the garden could easy have seemed like an attempt by a spoiled child to get a precious toy only because another child is playing with it. But Bette Davis always shows that, behind her strong pride and anger, Julie does act out of love and the hopelessness of her own situation. Moments like her singing with the slaves or her attempt to prevent a duel between two men only emphasize the impression that Julie is constantly acting both out of honesty and resentfulness.

The ‘Southern Belle’ is certainly a great character for every actress. It allows her to be lovely and dangerous, honest and pretending, charming and repellent, fascinating and disappointing. And to make all this work, the actress needs to display a huge amount of personal strength and personality because she needs to make it understandable why this woman always gets away with her doings, why she always becomes the center of attention and why she can basically manipulate everyone the way she wants without hardly any consequences. Bette Davis certainly had this overpowering screen presence and she used it very wisely for the part of Julie – but sometimes she did not fully grasp the complexities and demands of the role. This means that she knew how to project the both manipulating and lovely woman and the structure of Jezebel turns Julie into an ‘outsider’ rather often as most people mostly see through her intentions but Bette Davis sometimes did not fully give reason to the still very important popularity of Julie Marsden. Even in her most relaxed and charming moments, Bette Davis’s Julie appears to be mostly acting, even looking down on those around her – while this is certainly true to her character, a bit more convincing joviality at this moment would have been needed. It seems that another comparison with Vivien Leigh is necessary – she perfectly understood how to create Scarlett O’Hara as a woman who is clearly playing with everyone around her but possessed all the necessary character traits to get away with it. Bette Davis’s own powerful screen presence sometimes seemed to get in the way of the delicacy of Julie Marsden.

But in the case of Bette Davis in Jezebel, these are complaints on a high level. Her overall take on this character is spellbinding, entertaining and unforgettable. Bette Davis’s mysterious screen personality may have prevented her from creating a complete Southern Belle but it turned other moments, even simple ones like walking into a bank, into movie magic. And because of her ability to show various different aspects in Julie’s character while also displaying an honest core, she was also able to make the final moments of Jezebel believable without turning them into hollow pathos. Her overall performance does not quite make the cut to a 4,5 but she gets as close to it as possible. So, her beautiful and enchanting performance receives a very strong

10/27/2011

Best Actress 1938


The next year will be 1938 and the nominees were

Fay Bainter in White Banners

Bette Davis in Jezebel

Wendy Hiller in Pygmalion

Norma Shearer in Marie Antoinette

Margaret Sullavan in Three Comrades

10/26/2011

Best Actress 1944: The resolution

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


5. Bette Davis in Mr. Skeffington

In her attempt to turn Fanny into a charming and lovely socialite while also showing her many flaws, Bette Davis crafted a most unfortunate creation, rid of any appeal or logic and that way unable to carry such a long and character-driven story. She clearly saw the tasks she was given with this role but her way of bringing this character to live is often a failure and sometimes even unbearable.



                     
Claudette Colbert gives an effective, charming, sometimes moving, sometimes humorous performance that isn’t necessarily a great achievement in acting but still a delightful and memorable pierce of work, especially considering how underwritten and underused the character of Anne Hilton actually is.




Greer Garson may not truly create something otherworldly in her performance but the sheer energy and naturalness she shows in this part is enough to praise her for having done so much with so little. There is warmth, wisdom and strength in her portrayal and she also combines the woman of the present-day scenes perfectly with the woman of the flashback scenes.



2. Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight

Ingrid Bergman found a wonderful way to use an acting style that is both modern and ‘old Hollywood’ to give a performance that remains constantly impressive because of both the technical outside and the emotional, three-dimensional inside. She turns Gaslight into a dark and suspenseful ride, fulfilling the tasks of the story while adding her own personality and screen presence to craft a powerful and lasting presence.

                


Barbara Stanwyck added the needed mysteriousness and eroticism to the role but she was not afraid to show a more vulgar and common side in her character which helped her to achieve a much more realistic and three-dimensional performance. She lies to the audience about Phyllis while telling them the truth at the same time. A very engaging, dangerous and spellbinding performance.



10/24/2011

Best Actress 1944: Bette Davis in "Mr. Skeffington"

In 1943, Bette Davis’s husband collapsed while he walked down a street and died a few days later. It was revealed that his death was caused by a skull fracture and Hollywood’s biggest star had to testify before an inquest about her knowledge of an incident that might have caused his injury. Various sources report that Bette Davis did not know of any incident while others mention that she stated that her husband fell down a stair some time ago. A definite answer was never found and an incidental death was declared. Bette Davis apparently wanted some time off after this personal tragedy but was convinced by Jack Warner to start on her next film, Mr. Skeffington. Filming was unsurprisingly not easy for her – or for anyone else. The famous temperament of Bette Davis was apparently on full mood during this production and her outbursts, demands and complaints caused a lot of tension on the set. Such emotional tension might often lead to the creation of a brilliant performance but critics were not fully convinced this time – the Academy might have given her another nod for her work but Mr. Skeffington marked the end of her era as Hollywood’s most celebrated and powerful actress. She did not receive another nomination during this decade and slowly lost more and more of her fame and appeal until All about Eve brought her back into the spotlight.

All about Eve is actually a good place to start this review. You might wonder why since this movie was shot 6 years after Mr. Skeffington. But All about Eve is such a legendary and well-known movie which almost everybody has seen in their lifetime while Mr. Skeffington is a rather forgotten piece of work. And so, for all those who have not seen Mr. Skeffington and want to know more about Bette Davis’s performance in it, let me paint you a picture with the help of Margo Channing. There is a very famous scene in All about Eve in which Margo Channing finds out that Eve Harrington had been made her understudy without her knowledge. Margo storms into the theatre – but pretends not to know anything about Eve nor about the fact that she arrived much too late. But Margo Channing, even though a great actress, cannot fool anyone – her chirpy voice, her exaggerated smile, her big eyes all make clear that this woman is only pretending at this moment when she says things like ‘What’s all over?’ or ‘Eve? My understudy? I had no idea.’ Well, imagine Bette Davis using this acting style for 145 minutes – and you have her performance in Mr. Skeffington.

Pauline Kael famously wrote about Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man that he was ‘humping one note on a piano for two hours and eleven minutes.’ This review also perfectly sums up Bette Davis’s performance in Mr. Skeffington – with one big difference. In her case, she is humping the same wrong note on the piano. In my review of Maggie Smith in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie I wrote that, in order to create a very eccentric, unusual and unconventional character an actress constantly has to walk a thin line between authentic and implausible, between larger-than-life and exaggerated, between domineering and oppressive. And while Maggie Smith did all this wonderfully right, Bette Davis did all this shockingly wrong. It’s easy to see what she was trying to archive – her Fanny is an empty-headed socialite, a woman who has no thought in her head apart from worrying about her looks and her beauty but Bette Davis so completely overdid her interpretation that she is not even able to see the line separating character and caricature anymore. Of course, an ignorant and gold-digging socialite could certainly be played in many different ways but Bette Davis for some reason decided to show Fanny as a collection of wide eyes and a high-pitched voice that delivers every line with an exaggerated naivety and that way made herself completely unable to create this character as the woman that is described, presented and supposed to carry this story. ‘She always look so…extreme’ – words from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie but also very fitting for Bette Davis in Mr. Skeffington. But in the case of Maggie Smith they were used to describe a woman who does not fit into her conservative environment and were spoken by another movie character. In the case of Bette Davis they are spoken by me and they are not used to describe a character not fitting in but an actress not fitting in. I know that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder but it’s simply shocking how Bette Davis could look so appalling only two years after she had done Now, Voyager and showed the world for always what a unique beauty she truly was. In Mr. Skeffington, her whole look is so unexplainably off-putting, a combination of Bette Davis’s own way of presenting her character and a make-up team that must have either been blind or on a personal vendetta against Bette Davis. In Now, Voyager, I could have accepted other characters calling her the prettiest girl in town, in Mr. Skeffington these words are only the top of a mountain full of problems. Considering that Bette Davis looks like Baby Jane in some early parts of the movie it simply cannot be taken seriously when other women want to look like her and wonder how she keeps so beautiful. As I said, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and I don’t blame Bette Davis for her looks in this movie since she looked so incredibly beautiful two years earlier but I blame her for exaggerating her acting so much that even her looks suffered from it since her facial work in Mr. Skeffington is very often almost grotesque – again, it’s commendable that she did not present Fanny as the typical Southern-belle-character and was not afraid to show her emptiness and shallowness without even trying to make her appealing in any way but by showing the true nature of Fanny to the audience she forgot to show a more pleasing, charming and winning side in the context of Mr. Skeffington. A high-pitched voice and big eyes may project all the internal flaws of Fanny but they don’t help to turn her into the most sought-after girl in town.

Bette Davis obviously wanted to show the superficiality of Fanny and to her defense, the character as written does exist of nothing else than superficiality. When her brother tells her that he is going to Europe, her answer is only a wondering ‘But isn’t there a war going on there?’. It is an incredibly challenging task for an actress to play such an empty-minded character in a way that is captivating the audience and it becomes even more challenging when the character is such a collection of fussy mannerisms and theatrical eccentricities – Bette Davis clearly saw the tasks she was given with this role but her way of bringing this character to live is often a failure and sometimes even unbearable. I always come back to Maggie Smith’s Jean Brodie because she’s such a perfect example of how to do right what Bette Davis did wrong – Maggie Smith knew where to stop, she know how to project that exaggerated acting style for an entire movie without ever losing the reality of her character. Bette Davis on the other hand lost the battle almost right from the start – her way of flirting with all the men at a party or later acting all coquettish with Mr. Skeffington to save the honor of her brother rather resembles a 40-year old Julie Marsden acting like a 12-year old on drugs. In her attempt to turn Fanny into a charming and lovely socialite while also showing her many flaws Bette Davis crafted a most unfortunate creation, one rid of any appeal or logic and that way unable to carry such a long and character-driven story. The movie makes you wonder if Bette Davis had become a parody of herself by 1944 – the big eyes, the eccentric behavior or her high-pitched voice all seem to indicate that she is running on auto-pilot, trusting on the effect of her performance and keeping the same tone in her voice, the same look in her eyes and the same delivery of her lines for the entire movie without any shades or nuances.

Bette Davis’s flat interpretation of this woman almost always comes at the expense of any true drama or character development. This superficial performance may seem very appropriate for such a superficial character – but Bette Davis’s unappealing performance does not consist of any noteworthy emotional honesty or depth which, even a character like this, needs to project in order to become believable. Bette Davis’s performance remains artificial even when it is supposed to be real. The biggest compliment she can receive is that she is at least consistent in her work because this makes it clear that Bette Davis certainly had a very clear idea of who Fanny was and how she wanted to present her – but as mentioned in the beginning, the challenge of the part lies in the ability to make Fanny both real and artificial and Bette Davis did not find this balance in her performance. She can be applauded for her decision to not go the easy route with Fanny but she cannot be applauded for the way she tried to realize this difficult route.

The part of Fanny is certainly an interesting one and offers an actress a lot of challenges – she goes from a beautiful socialite to an ugly, disease-ridden lonely woman who recognizes the truly important things in life while going along. And a role like this usually fits Bette Davis like a glove and there are some instances when she actually does find a human being underneath her own performance – but all these moments happen so rarely and are simply overshadowed by the dominant grotesque nature of her work which makes Geraldine Page appear tic-less. The frustrating truth of Bette Davis’s performance is the fact that her instincts are so often right – she shows the ugly sides of a supposedly beautiful woman until she shows the beautiful sides of a supposedly ugly woman. Her performance also becomes much more mannered as the movie goes along and again it makes sense that Fanny tries to maintain her youth with a coquettish behavior but all of Bette Davis’s instincts are never turned into a performance that bring them to life. It can be said that everything Bette Davis did was part of her character but, as mentioned before, she crossed the thin line between ‘success’ and ‘failure’ far too often.

I thought for a long time about the possible rating for this performance. Performances that receive a three are called ‘unsatisfying’ while performances with a 2,5 are called ‘disappointing’. And while I admire Bette Davis for doing something different with this role, all the aspects mentioned in this review are certainly a reason to call this performance a big disappointment. So, the grade for Bette Davis’s work is

10/01/2011

Best Actress 1944


The next year will be 1944 and the nominees were

Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight

Claudette Colbert in Since you went Away

Bette Davis in Mr. Skeffington

Greer Garson in Mrs. Parkington

Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity

6/07/2010

YOUR Best Actress of 1942

The results of the poll are:

1. Greer Garson - Mrs. Miniver (26 votes)

2. Bette Davis - Now, Voyager (22 votes)

3. Katharine Hepburn - Woman of the Year (9 votes)

4. Rosalind Russell - My Sister Eileen & Teresa Wright - The Pride of the Yankees (4 votes)


Thanks to everyone for voting!

5/15/2010

Best Actress 1942 - The resolution!

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



It’s an overall mixed performance that never truly reaches a level of excellence and Rosalind Russell’s ability to find humor in almost every angle of the script is often as misplaced as it is delightful but she deserves some kind of praise for appearing strangely indispensable despite all the problems in her work.



                     
Teresa Wright’s approach to the part is charming and lovely but it is neither truly impressive nor challenging. Still, she created some of the movie’s most memorable moments and always adds a welcome change of pace whenever she appears.



3. Katharine Hepburn in Woman of the Year

The work with Spencer Tracy clearly had a strangely appealing affect on Katharine Hepburn, letting her open up her usual screen personality without losing all her qualities that made her such a natural choice for the character of Tess Harding. It's a delightful, charming and sometimes multi-layered performance even if those layers often were not able to connect to each other.



2. Greer Garson in Mrs. Miniver

Greer Garson's performance is filled with the right amount of charm and seriousness, showing how Kay Miniver adjusts herself to the tasks she was given without losing the core of her identity, making the part not only tailor-made for her but also allowing her to embrace this portrayal of womanhood without scarifying the integrity of the character for the sake of sentimentality.




Bette Davis has rarely ever been so charismatic and hardly ever before or again allowed herself to be so completely in touch with the sentimentality of the story without actually becoming a part of it. It’s a mature and thought-through piece of work in a movie that could have existed with a purely emotional approach, too, but gained a vast portion of credibility thanks to Bette Davis’s central work that explored all the possibilities of the role while still working in harmony with the broader goals of the story.



Best Actress 1942: Bette Davis in "Now, Voyager"

During her career, Bette Davis was hardly ever afraid to take a risk. She played women who were selfish, mean-spirited, murderous or even crazy and she built her legacy by always making it clear how willing she was to portray all the aspects of her characters without any attempt to soften their personalities for the sake of winning the sympathy of either the audience or the other characters in the story. But even if she might be mostly remembered for these kinds of unforgiving, mysterious or even cruel women, she also found success with more vulnerable or self-doubting parts that benefited from her strong and distinct screen personality just as much since they always created an intriguing variation of her usual confidence and conviction which made those characters much stronger and determined than initially expected. And so those vulnerable and sometimes repressed characters were nonetheless the strongest figures in their movies because their weaknesses and restraints were displayed by an inner strength and Bette Davis’s ability to use her own intensity on the screen to portray a vast variety of emotions and emotional states. In this aspect, Bette Davis resembled the other leading ladies of her era who all tended to be the centre of their pictures and toward whom all things and storylines gravitated almost naturally irrespective of the kind of character they were playing. The main difference between these actresses could be found in the extent of this gravitation and if they were constant individual players, stars in the first row, or if they allowed a dual leadership at the top of their movies. A Susan-Hayward-picture was almost always a one-woman-show, Rosalind Russell was rarely not her movie’s sole central aspect and Joan Crawford also mainly preferred to be a leading lady without a leading man – and even if they shared the screen with a romantic love-interest, those actors were hardly ever on the same level of fame and acclaim and so only further underlined the status of the central female star. And on the other side were actresses like Barbara Stanwyck, who also was a true leading lady but found true leading men with the likes of Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda or Fred McMurray, Deborah Kerr who always had a strong male counterpart and worked opposite Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Yul Brynner or David Niven, and Katharine Hepburn who often played the female half of an equal duo which was completed with actors like Spencer Tracy, Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart or Peter O’Toole. Looking at the career of Bette Davis, it seems that she was rather a prominent member of the first group even if she was never afraid to surround herself with a strong supporting cast, demonstrated by the vast number of performers who either won a supporting Oscar for their work opposite her (like Fay Bainter or George Sanders) or were nominated for an acting Oscar (like Celeste Holm, Patricia Coolidge or Claude Rains). But even if Bette Davis enjoyed to work opposite strong but not totally equal screen partners who complemented her work, she constantly starred in movies that were always defined by a theme that focused more strongly on her characters as individuals instead of the half of a pair or part of a group. And consequently she was also one of the few leading ladies of her time for whom romantic plotlines were mostly only of secondary importance – relationships always played a part in her movies but never in the same prominent way as between Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy or maybe Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon and Bette Davis’s screen legacy also never truly connects to the word ‘romance’ in any way. The movies of Bette Davis were always shaped by the fate and development of her central characters while every additional subplot was mostly of secondary importance even if it influenced her main storyline – Dangerous put emphasis on the attraction between Bette Davis and Franchot Tone but was still mostly about an actress trying to re-organise her professional and private life, Dark Victory about a woman facing her own mortality, Jezebel about a Southern Belle coming to recognize the pain she was inflicting on others and herself and All about Eve about a woman accepting a new phase in her life and career. And even if all those movies placed a love story in their centre, the focus was still always on Bette Davis’s character, what this love meant for her and how it influenced her personality. But is this also true for Now, Voyager? At first it seems that this is the one movie that escaped this pattern as it is mostly considered a true romantic drama in every sense of the word, the one time when Bette Davis suddenly discovered love as the most prominent aspect of her work and, supported by Max Steiner’s emotional score, two cigarettes and a love destined to remain unrealizable, allowed herself to be a lovelorn heroine in a movie that used her unique screen appeal as the unexpected foundation of its distinct atmosphere and style. But a closer look shows that even though this movie is so often referred to as a classic romance, the central character underwent a much more extensive journey than that of finding and accepting love – over the years, the love affair between Bette Davis's Charlotte Vale and Jerry Durrance has become the most remembered and referenced part of Now, Voyager but the legend has slightly distorted reality because just like in all of her other movies, romance is only one part in the personal development of Charlotte Vale and only one relationship among many that shaped her life. And so the surprising truth is that the structure of Now, Voyager is much closer to that of most other Bette Davis pictures with the main difference that Bette Davis does not enter it from ‘above’ – she is not a strong and self-reliant person but has to work her way up from ‘below’, starting as a woman robbed of any self-worth and slowly discovering the chances and possibilities that life can offer. So, Now, Voyager, demanded a different approach by Bette Davis to her role and like co-nominee Katharine Hepburn, she found a chance to be strikingly different within her own manner. But if Woman of the Year often did not know what to do with Katharine Hepburn’s willingness to find new aspects of herself in her work, Now, Voyager gave Bette Davis all the room she needed to experiment with her own screen personality and develop her part with clear precision and focus which often allowed her to go beyond the melodrama on the page and craft a disturbing but also uplifting look at the consequences of mental abuse and the personal triumph of a new beginning.

By 1943, Bette Davis had become an essential part of the Academy Awards – her nomination for Now, Voyager was her fifth consecutive approval by Oscar voters and her sixth recognition overall, tying her with Norma Shearer as the most-nominated performer ever. This road to success was rather easy for Bette Davis even if she had to struggle for a few years to get noticed and was experiencing a short period of unsatisfying movie projects after her first Oscar. But after her second award for Jezebel, she became an undeniable force on the screen, constantly proving herself in different roles and always ready to accept parts that other actresses might have been afraid to touch. Now, Voyager was certainly different since this kind of ‘woman picture’ was already a popular genre and it’s easy to imagine various other actresses of that time in the role of Charlotte Vale – from Irene Dunne to Olivia de Havilland to Joan Fontaine to Barbara Stanwyck and many more. According to different sources, Bette Davis was either eager to play the part or rather disinterested and only decided to take it because it was the kind of movie that audiences wanted to see during World War II – and both versions make sense and seem plausible. It’s easy to imagine Bette Davis sniff at the melodrama on the page and the innocence and helplessness of the central character. If Barbara Stanwyck was afraid to turn into a cold-blooded murderer in Double Indemnity after having played so many likeable heroines, Bette Davis might have felt exactly the opposite, wondering if the story of an ugly duckling who finds love and new self-worth was really the right way to go after The Letter and The Little Foxes. But it can be just as easily imagined that Bette Davis felt the same way about Now, Voyager as she did about Dangerous – that the script had various problems but that there was still a strong and multifaceted character hiding underneath which, with a lot of work and dedication, could be turned into a challenging but also rewarding piece of work. But she certainly recognized that Now, Voyager offered more than a tragic love affair and instead explored the various aspects of the life of Charlotte Vale and is constantly focused on how her personality changes and progresses – and love is only one part of that story, putting Now, Voyager much closer to her usual screen performances than initially expected even if Bette Davis’s approach pays the right amount of homage to the style and tone of the movie by deliberately withholding her usual strength on the screen and letting Charlotte possess a much more distinctive, delicate but also fulfilling energy that would slowly come to the surface of the character without appearing either too slow or too sudden. With her work, Bette Davis laid the foundation of Charlotte’s development by displaying the different relationships in her life with different intensity and focus – the relationship with her larger family, the relationship with a young girl who is experiencing the same pain and same kind of rejection from her mother, the relationship with her psychiatrist who understands her maybe better than anyone else and, of course, the relationship to her mother whose influence will never be gone completely. Bette Davis crafted a strong technical side in her performance to not only portray all these different aspects of her character but also connect them together but she mixed it with a deeply felt emotional honesty to turn a rather clichéd part into an intriguing character study and added a welcome amount of depth to a movie that, even if it gave most of its attention to the inner conflicts of its central character, was almost only interested in observations of the surface. As a movie, Now, Voyager cannot catch up with Bette Davis’s performance but finds itself more on par with her co-star Paul Henreid – both are overly serious in their attempts to fulfil all the expectations of the audience but neither is truly able to go beyond certain self-made limitations. Paul Henreid never seems to be sure how seriously he actually takes his role, sometimes feeling too forced and at other times too indifferent, playfully going along but lacking the needed charm and conviction to become not only a sudden object of affection but a man who is presented as a kind of ultimate ‘answer’ for the loneliness of Charlotte Vale. And Now, Voyager, too, seems undecided about how serious it wants to be and how far it is willing to be a character study, almost constantly pulling back, preferring to emphasize its conventional surroundings instead of its unconventional core. But even if Now, Voyager remained a mostly unsurprising story it was still able to win strength and longevity from its intriguing and unusual characters who maybe did not allow the actors to go beyond all the limitations of the script but still enabled them to add their own intentions and reflections. Especially Bette Davis knew how to use the style of the story to her own advantage and she transformed the clichés of the old spinster who finds a second chance to live into an engaging fight for acceptance with all its ups and downs.

Most classic actresses created a distinct and well-known image of themselves that often stands as a symbol for their entire career. Deborah Kerr making love on the beach, Elizabeth Taylor lying in bed wearing a white, simple dress, Vivien Leigh wearing a green dress made out of curtains. Such a single picture doesn’t seem to exist for Bette Davis – she has created lasting images as Margo Channing and Baby Jane but also as a merciless woman sitting quietly by as her plans unfold or starring at the body of a dead man outside her house. But two of the most well-known images in Bette Davis’s career can be found in Now, Voyager and they are also a symbol for the different opposites of her performance. Bette Davis starts her performance as a frightened, high-strung and shy spinster, terrorized into silent obedience by her domineering and mentally abusive mother and close to a nervous break-down, hidden behind thick glasses and a frumpy appearance. The other well-known image comes later in the movie when Charlotte escapes her mother’s ascendancy for the first time and suddenly Bette Davis’s unusual beauty is allowed to shine, even if half of her face is hidden under a large sunhat – like co-nominee Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis reached the peak of her style in 1942. But the biggest success in Bette Davis’s performance does not come from the differences between those two external extremes but rather from the internal transformation of her character which happened much slower and much more careful – Bette Davis understood that even if Charlotte changed her appearance and her looks, she was still tortured by the same demons and neither her life nor her concerns changed overnight. It’s an underplayed and evenly transformation that takes its time without turning the character of Charlotte around completely. But even if Bette Davis could avoid many clichés in this part, she could not always overcome them. The script of Now, Voyager does its best to explain carefully why Charlotte who, as shown in one flashback scene, used to be a lively and charming young girl, turned into this highly insecure, withdrawn and almost unrecognisable woman but the effect always remains rather exaggerated and too obvious in its desire to create a stark contrast between the Charlotte of the earlier and the later parts of the movies. Bette Davis manages to be very effective in those early moments but her performance is always more interesting for what it means in the greater context instead of the presentation of the character. Still, she memorably showed a woman who, as everyone except her mother realizes, is close to a mental breakdown and unable to communicate her aches in any way. In these almost wordless scenes, Bette Davis completely trusts her expressive eyes to show all the nervousness, the helplessness and the cry for sympathy while her face tries to oppress every emotion, every bit of live that might catch the attention of those around her. Bette Davis makes it very easy to sympathise with Charlotte in those moments, especially because Gladys Cooper is allowed right from the start to terrorize her environment with withering looks and mental cruelty. But the script again lets her intentions down because the whole destructive energy of this mother-daughter-relationship mostly stays on a superficial level at which motives are never explored and reasons are never given. So both actresses solved those earlier scenes with focus on this superficiality and even if that meant that important psychological aspects could not become the centre of their work, their performances still benefited from their personalities and from their complete focus on their roles in this relationship. This resulted in a foundation of their co-dependence that unfortunately lacked a closer and more analysed look but still worked in the context of the movie. Simultaneously, Bette Davis’s performance might not be as developed as it could have been since she could only follow the script and therefore sometimes felt slightly exaggerated in her attempts to create a woman as withdrawn, insecure and almost mentally unstable as possible but her strong instincts for the core of her part made it possible for her to not only create a haunting entrance but set the tone for the entire story to follow, making the personal metamorphosis of Charlotte a very memorable experience not only for the audience but also the other movie characters and Charlotte herself.

Throughout Now, Voyager, Bette Davis carefully constructed different states of Charlotte but indicated an invisible string between them. In the early flashback scenes, she lets herself be charmingly youthful even if the dominance of her mother is already starting to take its toll. And even if Bette Davis is never allowed to explain why Charlotte let herself drive into such a state of complete obedience and obsequiousness, she is still able to make the transition seem logical despite the obvious constructions of the screenplay. And when Charlotte leaves her home to make her first independent steps, Bette Davis shows a woman who is much more mature than in any previous scenes but still shaped by her lifelong experiences, clearly trying to do all the things she thinks she should do and saying the things she thinks she should say but uncertain of her own abilities and her own strength. Bette Davis is playful without being light – her Charlotte never appears to focus on a single thought or action but instead constantly re-lives every moment of her past while trying to discover her own courage. And from these moments on, Now, Voyager let Bette Davis breath much more freely and allowed her to immerse into the character with a clearer approach and it gave her the opportunities to set her own tempo and agenda as she unfolded Charlotte’s intentions and thoughts for the first time – she could craft her scene more independently from the script and was given more freedom in Charlotte’s development and personality. Her scenes on the boat, the first exchanges between her and Paul Henreid and the following evolution of a conventional romance under unconventional circumstances show a woman who does her best to overcome her own uncertainties, who might mistake a kind of first love as the ultimate love but who finds personal fulfilment in a relationship that cannot evolve too far and therefore allows her to keep a sense of ‘rejection’, a feeling that she is used to and maybe pleases her more in this situation than she might actually realize. Bette Davis never lets the romantic aspect of the relationship between Charlotte and Jerry dominate the picture – instead she puts the focus on crafting Charlotte as a woman who gains the strength to recognize what she can expect from life, what she can ask for and what truly makes her happy. The final sentence of the movie sums up much more than the love between Charlotte and Jerry but rather her whole development as she did not become a dreamer but rather a realist, finally able to face life as it is instead of imagining how it could be – something that wasn’t possible for her before. Bette Davis made the wise decision to constantly underplay her role, even in her moments close to a nervous breakdown, because this way she could beautifully capture the spirit of a woman who found new meaning and purpose in life but who nonetheless cannot leave her past behind completely. A sudden emerging into a beautiful swan with unexpected self-confidence could have worked in the context of the story but Bette Davis’s approach stayed more in context to the character. When she informs Jerry that she used to be ill and is not quite well yet or eagerly puts on a beautiful dress only to be unsure later if she is really able to stand the attention of other people again demonstrates that she perfectly understood that a change of character cannot come overnight. But at the same time Bette Davis avoided any emphasis of Charlotte as an unfortunate victim which would have been a too noticeable contrast to her later scenes. Instead, her Charlotte is mostly careful and thoughtful, reflecting her situation and possibilities. Bette Davis could have played her affection for Jerry as a revenge on her mother who once before rejected a man that she met on a ship and for whom the idea of an affair between her daughter and a married man must be an absolute horror but she gave an honest touch to this romance and shows that her affection is true and again beautifully in harmony with her character – an ideal, fairytale like romance without any obstacles could only seem too perfect for a woman like Charlotte and so her rejection of such an opportunity later in the movie makes her own view of her own character much more intriguing. And this moment, too, could have been seen as a way for Charlotte to take revenge on her mother – but Bette Davis kept the intentions of Charlotte always clear and showed that she has reached a point in her life where she is ‘not afraid’ to make her own decisions, regardless of what her mother might think or want. In her relationship to Jerry, Bette Davis lets Charlotte be romantic, strong, insecure, curious but mostly trustworthy – a characteristic that is important for both of them and more than anything shapes their love and respect for each other, made plausible by Bette Davis’s intellectual approach to a highly emotional aspect of her role.

But even if the romance of Now, Voyager is the main reason for its ongoing popularity, it’s the relationships between the female characters that are responsible for the movie’s most memorable and strongest moments. As mentioned before, the relationship between Charlotte and her mother is never as deeply explored as it might have been and the first scenes between them are a rather clichéd display of ‘good vs. evil’ but Bette Davis and Gladys Cooper understand their craft and know how to engage the audience without overdoing their scenes together. But both actresses mostly shine after Charlotte returns from her trip and made her first experiences of love and, more importantly, life. Bette Davis carefully lets Charlotte test her new-found possibilities – she lets her be almost forcefully nonchalant at first, trying to cover any insecurities and fears, but just as quickly finds her returning to a more doubtful state of mind again even if Charlotte has developed a sense of unwillingness to go back to her old life completely. Her most impressive work in Now, Voyager is clearly Bette Davis’s ability to tangle all the different thoughts and feelings of Charlotte towards her mother – she tries to hold her own by putting on a masque of light amusement, she more than once finds herself unable to hide her disappointment whenever she faces another rejection and later she shows that Charlotte still feels an certain amount of love for her mother once she has found a way to communicate with her on a more equal level, a level on which Charlotte begins to see her mother’s behavior as mere eccentricities and which is again displayed by Bette Davis with more maturity and honesty than before. It’s only after another incident that she lets Charlotte erupt for the first time but it’s a moment that is too short for any grand gestures and Bette Davis again made the wise decision to stay calm and reserved even during this emotional outburst. Most of all she managed to display that Charlotte possesses more strength than her mother in the long run – Mrs. Vale may gain her power from her dominance and control over her daughter but Charlotte gets her strength from new self-respect and respect for others. Bette Davis’s acting opposite Gladys Cooper almost stands for her entire performance that begins on a rather superficial level but soon develops into a strong and mature piece of work. And later the second important female relationship in Charlotte’s life begins when she stops being a daughter and suddenly becomes a mother to a young girl who also suffers from a lack of love and subsequent self-loathing. Again, the script pushes itself too much in the foreground in this development as the obvious parallels and ‘second chances’ are too dominant to be ignored but Bette Davis probably knew that the audience which has followed her so far would also eagerly follow her further – just like her first scenes, those moments opposite June suffer too often from the constructed execution and do not give Bette Davis the same kind of freedom anymore that she had enjoyed opposite Gladys Cooper and Paul Henreid, but Bette Davis again avoided too much sentimentality and displayed how much the realization that another human being truly needed her and whose life was turned for the better thanks to her gives Charlotte much more fortitude and dignity than any new wardrobe or hairstyle ever could, again emphasizing the internal development of Charlotte Vale as the main aspect of Now, Voyager.

In the end, it’s a performance that combines a remarkable understanding of the character’s personal journey with an undeniable talent for adding unexpected amounts of depth and truth to the story – and even if Bette Davis was not always able to overcome the clichés put before her, she still made all those moments touchingly intriguing. Bette Davis has rarely ever been so charismatic and hardly ever before or again allowed herself to be so completely in touch with the sentimentality of the story without actually becoming a part of it. It’s a mature and thought-through piece of work in a movie that could have existed with a purely emotional approach, too, but gained a vast portion of credibility thanks to Bette Davis’s central work that explored all the possibilities of the role while still working in harmony with the broader goals of the story. Now, Voyager might still be a rather melodramatic and superficial recount of a familiar story but Bette Davis single-handedly lifted it to a level where melodrama might almost be taken for art. The illusion might be neither perfect nor truly convincing but thanks to Bette Davis it is still entirely believable.