Here are the results of the poll:
1. Joan Crawford - Mildred Pierce (28 votes)
2. Gene Tierney - Leave her to Heaven (13 votes)
3. Ingrid Bergman- The Bells of St. Mary's (4 votes)
4. Jennifer Jones- Love Letters (3 vote)
5. Greer Garson - The Valley of Decision (0 votes)
Thanks to everyone for voting!
Showing posts with label Ingrid Bergman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ingrid Bergman. Show all posts
9/10/2012
7/18/2012
Best Actress 1945 - The resolution
After having watched and reviewed all five nominated performances, it's time to pick the winner!
Jennifer Jones is mostly hold back by the script but her shortcomings as an actress, that can be very obvious whenever a role is not truly in her comfort zone, are often visible, too. Still, whenever she is allowed to shine and a scene allows her to display her own mysteriousness with the needed subtlety, Jennifer Jones truly creates some unforgettable and beautiful moments.
It seems that Greer Garson's talent was simply both too big and too small for movies like this – because on the one hand the role does not offer her anything to truly work with apart from feeling torn apart between different people and groups but at the same time she seems lost with the low quality of her material, unable to rise above it and only able to retreat to her own comfort zone which unfortunately too often contradicted the intentions of the script.
There are many moments in Ingrid Bergman's performance that never reach above average but she created something otherworldly during her final scenes and if she had been allowed to be on this high level all the time, then her performance would definitely have been much stronger and memorable. As it is, the strength of the final scenes does not help her to overcome the limitations of the script but she still leaves a lasting, heartwarming impression.
2. Joan Crawford in Mildred Pierce
Joan Crawford’s work in Mildred Pierce is one of the strangest ones in this category – she so obviously lacks many important qualities that the part needed but she also feels so right in the role, so irreplaceable and so satisfying that it’s hard to deny her the respect she obviously demands. And she clearly fulfills the task of carrying the picture and turning it into a captivating and intense experience, making not only the flaws of her own work but even those of the script seem forgettable.
Gene Tierney gave a chilling and noteworthy performance that perfectly fulfilled all the tasks of the script even if it sometimes remained too limited. Still, her ability to show Ellen’s slow descent into the darkness of her own mind, her inability to stop her actions to be completely alone with the man she loves and her way of beautifully underplaying all the madness and demons that haunt her results in various unforgettable scenes.
6/19/2012
Best Actress 1945: Ingrid Bergman in "The Bells of St. Mary's"
Ingrid Bergman was on a roll. Casablanca, For Whom the Bell tolls, Gaslight, The Bells of St. Mary’s, Spellbound – everything she touched turned into gold and everything she did could not be praised high enough. But she not only had the talent to amaze the critics – instead, she also possessed a warm, kind and glowing personality that never made her farouche but turned her into the kind of star who was not only respected but also genuinely liked and admired (which is probably the reason why the reactions to her affair with Italian director Roberto Rossellini provoked such intense reactions). During her three consecutive Best Actress nominations she was always an important factor in the race – 1943 saw her as the rape victim in the prestigious literary adaptation For Whom the Bell tolls and as Ilsa Lund in Casablanca and if Jennifer Jones had not suddenly come out of nowhere with her work in The Song of Bernadette, Ingrid Bergman would have been an easy winner. The next year she took home the gold for her performance as the tortured wife in Gaslight – a win that combined the respect for her work and the admiration for her personality and Jennifer Jones was certainly right when she told Ingrid Bergman that ‘your artistry has won our vote and your graciousness has won our hearts’. But Ingrid Bergman did not stop after her win – she had reached the top and was destined to stay there. 1945 saw her in Hitchcock’s Spellbound and the popular Saratoga Trunk – but it was the sequel to 1944’s Best Picture Winner Going my Way which made her a serious threat to become the third winner of consecutive Oscars after Luise Rainer and Spencer Tracy. Her work as a Mother Superior in The Bells of St. Mary’s not only won her awards from the Hollywood Foreign Press and the New York Film Critics but also the kind of reviews an actress might get only once in her lifetime. According to Inside Oscar, one critic even described her work as the single greatest performance ever given by an actress in motion picture history. Such praise certainly evokes the highest expectations – by 1945, viewers had already seen Maria Falconetti in La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc or the work of Lilian Gish, Vivien Leigh had appeared in Gone with the Wind and Luise Rainer in The Good Earth and even Ingrid Bergman herself had already achieved an artistic peak with her work in Gaslight the year before. So – was the high praise for her performance justified or was it rather influenced by Ingrid Bergman’s strong dominance and the uncompromising veneration of the critics and the public at the time? Well, let’s see…
As mentioned before, The Bells of St. Mary’s is the sequel to 1944’s Going my Way which told the story of a charming young priest who brought music and new life to St. Dominic’s church in New York City. At the end of World War II, this heartwarming and simple tale was exactly what audiences wanted and Going my Way not only became a huge hit but also took home seven Oscars, including acting awards for Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald as the old, stubborn and more conventional priest. Only Bing Crosby reprised his part in The Bells of St. Mary’s which features a rather similar plot and theme like Going my Way. The absence of Barry Fitzgerald already indicates that another character was needed to contradict Father O’Malley and ultimately benefit from his innocent and positive look at life. Enter Ingrid Bergman as Sister Mary Benedict, a young Mother Superior who dreams of convincing a business man to donate his new office building to her school and also has to deal with the personal problems of her pupils and occasionally clashes with Father O’Malley over the right ways to teach and grade the children.
The part of Sister Mary Benedict seems destined from the start to follow the expected formula – a Mother Superior in a motion picture almost by definition has to be stern, strict, humorless, cold and decisive. Add the fact that Bing Crosby is the happy-go-lucky priest who serves as the audience’s guide through the movie and it must be even more expected that Ingrid Bergman has to play the domineering and rigid woman whose views on life are changed for the better thanks to Father O’Malley. Well – sometimes movies still can surprise us. Because Ingrid Bergman’s Sister Mary Benedict is the complete opposite of all this and much closer to Bing Crosby’s Father O’Malley than originally expected – she is warm, loving, kind, full or humor and good spirit. Ingrid Bergman’s face is allowed to beam brighter than ever and her rich, gentle voice only adds to the immediate likability of her character. And under the nun’s habit, Ingrid Bergman only has her face, her eyes and her voice to rely on – and she uses all the advantages that her features offer her to fulfill the tasks of the screenplay and create a loveable and sensitive woman who adds to the sentimental tone and feel-good-atmosphere of The Bells of St. Mary’s.
And yet…the single greatest female performance in motion picture history? Of course, the opinion on a performance should not be influenced by what a critic wrote almost 70 years ago but even if expectations are not very high before watching Ingrid Bergman’s performance, there must be a certain sense of disappointment. Because during the first 80 percent of her performance there is hardly anything about the character of Sister Mary Benedict that presents any kind of challenge or opportunity for Ingrid Bergman. Like Bing Crosby, she rests on her charm to give a performance that, as mentioned before, perfectly suits the film and creates a very heartwarming atmosphere but there is nowhere for her to go beyond that. By focusing on the loving and kind side of Sister Mary Benedict, Ingrid Bergman avoided any complexity or depth this woman might have possessed but, of course, the screenplay does not truly offer her any chance to do anything else. Ingrid Bergman’s cheerful smile lightens up the screen every time but it is never fully satisfying to watch her create a maybe delightful but still too thin and undemanding character. But even though, she still does the most she can with what she is given – the scene in which she teaches a boy how to box so that he can defend himself against the bullies on the school yard is an absolute joy to watch and it would be a complete lie to say that Ingrid Bergman does not reach a level of charm and glee in her performance that can easily compete with that of Audrey Hepburn a couple of years later. And even better, Ingrid Bergman does not forget to create a woman behind this cheerful personality – her Mother Superior is obviously very concerned for her school and her pupils, she radiates authority and love and she is also a woman who is used to fighting for her cause, never giving up hope that God will be on her side when she needs him most. And Ingrid Bergman also works extremely well opposite Bing Crosby. Even though both actors add to the sentimental tone of the story, they still do it differently – Sister Mary Benedict does not always share Father O’Malley’s views but she shows understanding and contradicts him always with respect and admiration. A scene in which they discuss a young girl who failed her test shows this best – while Father O’Malley wants to let her pass to the next grade anyway, Sister Mary Benedict wants to keep up the purpose of the grades. In this scene, it’s very easy to side with Sister Mary Benedict – Father O’Malley might be the beatific saint but Sister Mary Benedict’s views still make much more sense, especially because Ingrid Bergman always shows how much she would like to be able to let the girl pass but still has to follow the rules of the school. But even beyond that, the chemistry between both actors just works completely right – there is no love between them (obviously) but the friendship and respect is always apparent. When Ingrid Bergman sings a song in front of the other nuns and suddenly notices that Father O’Malley is watching her, too, her transition from singing to laughter is too enchanting to ever forget it.
Yes, Ingrid Bergman is a pure delight in her role, emphasizing the loving side of Sister Mary Benedict to create the mood of The Bells of St. Mary’s and fulfilling her role opposite Bing Crosby’s Father O’Malley. But still…her charm and grace lighten up the whole movie but they never result in a truly outstanding performance. Sister Mary Benedict is too limited, too one-dimensional and too reduced to a couple of little scenes without any character development to let Ingrid Bergman reach any true level of artistic excellence. Her performance, as charming as it may be, always stays on the surface of the story and this way perfectly resembles that of Bing Crosby as Father O’Malley – he, too, is charming and delightful but never challenges himself in any way and therefore remains a rather perplexing Oscar winner and nominee for his two turns as the buoyant priest. So – what was it about Ingrid Bergman’s performance that turned her into such a heavy favorite for a second Oscar in 1945? Well, the answer for this question can be found easily – in the remaining 20 percent of her performance. Suddenly, when all hope seems gone for Ingrid Bergman to not only shine personally but also artistically, the script begins to take Sister Mary Benedict through her own quiet and small tour-de-force and Ingrid Bergman takes her performance to a completely satisfying and unforgettable level. After Sister Mary Benedict has been diagnosed with tuberculosis, Father O’Malley arranges her transfer to another position without telling her the true reasons. Sister Mary Benedict assumes that she is punished for her disagreements with Father O’Malley over the grades of the little girl – she immediately accepts the decisions of her superiors but is obviously heartbroken to be forced to leave her children and her whole life behind. In the scenes that follow Ingrid Bergman becomes both completely heartbreaking and heartwarming, showing disappointment and acceptance, sorrow and joy in only a few couple of scenes and creates some of the most moving images of her career. When she receives the news about her transfer, she is able to show how Sister Mary Benedict’s heart breaks in only a few seconds and in this moment it also becomes clear how important the groundwork was that Ingrid Bergman had done in all her scenes before – Sister Mary Benedict has become such a close and familiar presence during the run of the movie that her fate touches the viewers’ hearts much stronger than it might have done otherwise. This wonderful display of subtle emotions is later topped by Ingrid Bergman when she comforts one of her pupils who decided to become a nun to run away from her all her problems. With a caring voice, Ingrid Bergman tells her that one cannot become a nun to avoid life – instead, one has to experience everything and lived a full life before such a decision can be made. It’s a beautiful and touching moment that Ingrid Bergman immediately tops again afterwards with another heartbreaking scene in which Sister Mary Benedict asks God to remove all bitterness from her heart and accept the decision of her superiors to leave the school that is so dear to her. It’s a scene that so many actresses could have used to manipulate the audience but Ingrid Bergman remains simple, straight and honest in these moments and so plays the scene as something much more fulfilling than pure sentiment. And when Father O’Malley finally decides that it would be better for Sister Mary Benedict to know the truth instead of living in constant regret, it suddenly seems to make sense that critics raved about her work so much – the bright, teary-eyed smile when Sister Mary Benedict learns that she is not transferred for any professional reasons but because of her illness is one of the highlights of Ingrid Bergman’s outstanding career and it’s not hard to believe Father O’Malley when he describes Sister Mary Benedict as perfect.
So…is is the single greatest female performance in motion picture history? Certainly not. For this title, there are too many moments that never reach above average and even with Ingrid Bergman’s charming personality never fully satisfy. But there is no denying that she created something otherworldly during those final scenes and if she had been allowed to be on this high level all the time, then her performance would definitely have been much stronger and memorable. As it is, the strength of the final scenes does not help her to overcome the limitations of the rest of her performance but it is enough to go receive
As mentioned before, The Bells of St. Mary’s is the sequel to 1944’s Going my Way which told the story of a charming young priest who brought music and new life to St. Dominic’s church in New York City. At the end of World War II, this heartwarming and simple tale was exactly what audiences wanted and Going my Way not only became a huge hit but also took home seven Oscars, including acting awards for Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald as the old, stubborn and more conventional priest. Only Bing Crosby reprised his part in The Bells of St. Mary’s which features a rather similar plot and theme like Going my Way. The absence of Barry Fitzgerald already indicates that another character was needed to contradict Father O’Malley and ultimately benefit from his innocent and positive look at life. Enter Ingrid Bergman as Sister Mary Benedict, a young Mother Superior who dreams of convincing a business man to donate his new office building to her school and also has to deal with the personal problems of her pupils and occasionally clashes with Father O’Malley over the right ways to teach and grade the children.
The part of Sister Mary Benedict seems destined from the start to follow the expected formula – a Mother Superior in a motion picture almost by definition has to be stern, strict, humorless, cold and decisive. Add the fact that Bing Crosby is the happy-go-lucky priest who serves as the audience’s guide through the movie and it must be even more expected that Ingrid Bergman has to play the domineering and rigid woman whose views on life are changed for the better thanks to Father O’Malley. Well – sometimes movies still can surprise us. Because Ingrid Bergman’s Sister Mary Benedict is the complete opposite of all this and much closer to Bing Crosby’s Father O’Malley than originally expected – she is warm, loving, kind, full or humor and good spirit. Ingrid Bergman’s face is allowed to beam brighter than ever and her rich, gentle voice only adds to the immediate likability of her character. And under the nun’s habit, Ingrid Bergman only has her face, her eyes and her voice to rely on – and she uses all the advantages that her features offer her to fulfill the tasks of the screenplay and create a loveable and sensitive woman who adds to the sentimental tone and feel-good-atmosphere of The Bells of St. Mary’s. And yet…the single greatest female performance in motion picture history? Of course, the opinion on a performance should not be influenced by what a critic wrote almost 70 years ago but even if expectations are not very high before watching Ingrid Bergman’s performance, there must be a certain sense of disappointment. Because during the first 80 percent of her performance there is hardly anything about the character of Sister Mary Benedict that presents any kind of challenge or opportunity for Ingrid Bergman. Like Bing Crosby, she rests on her charm to give a performance that, as mentioned before, perfectly suits the film and creates a very heartwarming atmosphere but there is nowhere for her to go beyond that. By focusing on the loving and kind side of Sister Mary Benedict, Ingrid Bergman avoided any complexity or depth this woman might have possessed but, of course, the screenplay does not truly offer her any chance to do anything else. Ingrid Bergman’s cheerful smile lightens up the screen every time but it is never fully satisfying to watch her create a maybe delightful but still too thin and undemanding character. But even though, she still does the most she can with what she is given – the scene in which she teaches a boy how to box so that he can defend himself against the bullies on the school yard is an absolute joy to watch and it would be a complete lie to say that Ingrid Bergman does not reach a level of charm and glee in her performance that can easily compete with that of Audrey Hepburn a couple of years later. And even better, Ingrid Bergman does not forget to create a woman behind this cheerful personality – her Mother Superior is obviously very concerned for her school and her pupils, she radiates authority and love and she is also a woman who is used to fighting for her cause, never giving up hope that God will be on her side when she needs him most. And Ingrid Bergman also works extremely well opposite Bing Crosby. Even though both actors add to the sentimental tone of the story, they still do it differently – Sister Mary Benedict does not always share Father O’Malley’s views but she shows understanding and contradicts him always with respect and admiration. A scene in which they discuss a young girl who failed her test shows this best – while Father O’Malley wants to let her pass to the next grade anyway, Sister Mary Benedict wants to keep up the purpose of the grades. In this scene, it’s very easy to side with Sister Mary Benedict – Father O’Malley might be the beatific saint but Sister Mary Benedict’s views still make much more sense, especially because Ingrid Bergman always shows how much she would like to be able to let the girl pass but still has to follow the rules of the school. But even beyond that, the chemistry between both actors just works completely right – there is no love between them (obviously) but the friendship and respect is always apparent. When Ingrid Bergman sings a song in front of the other nuns and suddenly notices that Father O’Malley is watching her, too, her transition from singing to laughter is too enchanting to ever forget it.
Yes, Ingrid Bergman is a pure delight in her role, emphasizing the loving side of Sister Mary Benedict to create the mood of The Bells of St. Mary’s and fulfilling her role opposite Bing Crosby’s Father O’Malley. But still…her charm and grace lighten up the whole movie but they never result in a truly outstanding performance. Sister Mary Benedict is too limited, too one-dimensional and too reduced to a couple of little scenes without any character development to let Ingrid Bergman reach any true level of artistic excellence. Her performance, as charming as it may be, always stays on the surface of the story and this way perfectly resembles that of Bing Crosby as Father O’Malley – he, too, is charming and delightful but never challenges himself in any way and therefore remains a rather perplexing Oscar winner and nominee for his two turns as the buoyant priest. So – what was it about Ingrid Bergman’s performance that turned her into such a heavy favorite for a second Oscar in 1945? Well, the answer for this question can be found easily – in the remaining 20 percent of her performance. Suddenly, when all hope seems gone for Ingrid Bergman to not only shine personally but also artistically, the script begins to take Sister Mary Benedict through her own quiet and small tour-de-force and Ingrid Bergman takes her performance to a completely satisfying and unforgettable level. After Sister Mary Benedict has been diagnosed with tuberculosis, Father O’Malley arranges her transfer to another position without telling her the true reasons. Sister Mary Benedict assumes that she is punished for her disagreements with Father O’Malley over the grades of the little girl – she immediately accepts the decisions of her superiors but is obviously heartbroken to be forced to leave her children and her whole life behind. In the scenes that follow Ingrid Bergman becomes both completely heartbreaking and heartwarming, showing disappointment and acceptance, sorrow and joy in only a few couple of scenes and creates some of the most moving images of her career. When she receives the news about her transfer, she is able to show how Sister Mary Benedict’s heart breaks in only a few seconds and in this moment it also becomes clear how important the groundwork was that Ingrid Bergman had done in all her scenes before – Sister Mary Benedict has become such a close and familiar presence during the run of the movie that her fate touches the viewers’ hearts much stronger than it might have done otherwise. This wonderful display of subtle emotions is later topped by Ingrid Bergman when she comforts one of her pupils who decided to become a nun to run away from her all her problems. With a caring voice, Ingrid Bergman tells her that one cannot become a nun to avoid life – instead, one has to experience everything and lived a full life before such a decision can be made. It’s a beautiful and touching moment that Ingrid Bergman immediately tops again afterwards with another heartbreaking scene in which Sister Mary Benedict asks God to remove all bitterness from her heart and accept the decision of her superiors to leave the school that is so dear to her. It’s a scene that so many actresses could have used to manipulate the audience but Ingrid Bergman remains simple, straight and honest in these moments and so plays the scene as something much more fulfilling than pure sentiment. And when Father O’Malley finally decides that it would be better for Sister Mary Benedict to know the truth instead of living in constant regret, it suddenly seems to make sense that critics raved about her work so much – the bright, teary-eyed smile when Sister Mary Benedict learns that she is not transferred for any professional reasons but because of her illness is one of the highlights of Ingrid Bergman’s outstanding career and it’s not hard to believe Father O’Malley when he describes Sister Mary Benedict as perfect.
So…is is the single greatest female performance in motion picture history? Certainly not. For this title, there are too many moments that never reach above average and even with Ingrid Bergman’s charming personality never fully satisfy. But there is no denying that she created something otherworldly during those final scenes and if she had been allowed to be on this high level all the time, then her performance would definitely have been much stronger and memorable. As it is, the strength of the final scenes does not help her to overcome the limitations of the rest of her performance but it is enough to go receive
5/08/2012
Best Actress 1945
The next year will be 1945 and the nominees were
Ingrid Bergman in The Bells of St. Mary's
Joan Crawford in Mildred Pierce
Greer Garson in Valley of Decision
Jennifer Jones in Love Letters
Gene Tierney in Leave her to Heaven
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!
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!
10/26/2011
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.
10/13/2011
Best Actress 1944: Ingrid Bergman in "Gaslight"
Even though Ingrid Bergman did not win an Oscar for her work during 1945, this year was always considered the peak of her Hollywood career. Her work in The Bells of St. Mary’s, Spellbound and Saratoga Trunk only further cemented her reputation as Hollywood’s biggest and most celebrated star. But in some ways, 1944 was the essential Ingrid-Bergman-year. After her roles as Lisa in the Best-Picture-winner Casablanca and as Maria in the movie version of Ernest Hemmingway’s For Whom the Bell tolls failed to win her the golden statuette in 1943, she probably would have won for any kind of role in 1944 as Academy members must have been dying to honour her for her talent, her charming personality and her status as one of Hollywood’s most shining stars. But in 1944, Ingrid Bergman did not just offer any kind of role to the Oscar voters but probably one of the showiest in movie history as a woman who is haunted by the dark memories of her aunt’s murder and then slowly starting to lose her mind after she moved into her aunt’s old home. Very seldom must an Oscar win have been such a done deal as in this case – the combination of Ingrid Bergman’s popularity and the nature of her role made her an easy Oscar winner and it’s hard to imagine that past champions Claudette Colbert, Bette Davis and Greer Garson or the Oscar-less Barbara Stanwyck had a true chance for the win.
Gaslight is a movie that wants to be a lot – a psychological thriller, a crime story, a love story, a character study, a domestic drama, sometimes even a comedy. Such a mix of many different genres could usually leave actors rather helpless about what they are actually supposed to do with their character, especially if the movie itself doesn’t know how to handle its different genres. But thankfully Gaslight is a masterful and perfectly realized piece of work, a movie that develops like a slow nightmare, becoming more and more surreal and threatening as the story movies along. A lot of this is owed to George Cukor’s direction and the dark and gloomy atmosphere with which Number 9, Thornton Square, has been created but most of all, Gaslight is a character-driven story in which the tone and the mood of the story almost completely depend on the performances by the two central actors. And among these two central actors, it is Ingrid Bergman who really lifts Gaslight to such a high level of excellence, developing a co-dependence in which she constantly benefits from the strong material she is given while creating a feeling of desperation, helplessness and lost innocence that haunts and improves the entire movie from start to finish. In her performance, she does not only serve the tension of Gaslight but also develops something beneath the suspense, a believable character, a true and honest creation that fits into the aura of the movie but beyond that also exists as an independent foundation for a less suspenseful and more authentic and human focus. In other words, her character is not only a flat device in service of the movie’s aims but became a full circle, complete from all angles. Ingrid Bergman created Paula Alquist as a woman who is much more than a scared, fearful and obedient creature – thanks to her strong screen presence, her performance became very dominant despite the nature of the role and that way she turned the fight of Paul Alquist, her fight against her own mind, into a much more intriguing, shocking and memorable odyssey than other actresses might have. The 1940 version of Gaslight showed that the role of Paula may be extremely showy but this does not mean that a performance automatically turns into something special – Diana Wynyard’s mousy, hectic, lost and often weak performance feels too calculated, too pale and too uninterested, even for a character who is basically all these things. Ingrid Bergman on the other hand filled her performance with a vast amount of energy, even in Paula’s weakest moments, and always kept a tight grip on her and her intentions – it may be a calculated performance in some parts but Ingrid Bergman’s acting style always feels so spontaneous, so ‘in-the-moment’ and so unaffected that she is never in danger of appearing like the puppet master who is pulling Paula’s strings, leaving this role to Charles Boyer as her husband.
The role of Paula demands of Ingrid Bergman to give a performance that is both very emotional but also very technical. And she manages not only to succeed in both parts but also combine them. Her wide eyes, her fearful whisper, the panic slowly creeping into her eyes when she begins to hear footsteps above her head are all done masterfully but these technical aspects never turn her performance into a masque because she always makes Paula’s emotions perfectly clear – not only her fear, but also her doubt, her search for explanation and ultimately her growing suspicion. With small steps, Ingrid Bergman shows how Paula slowly changes from fearing the past to fearing an unknown present and finally to fearing a very well-known person. When Joseph Cotton’s character tells her that she knows very well who is making the noise above her, Ingrid Bergman doesn’t let Paula react with fierce disbelief but rather a helpless denial, a last try to hide the truth she already knows because just as much as she fears her own decline she also fears the consequences of the truth since it would smash her life into pieces and shows that everything she used to believe was only a lie. In this way, Ingrid Bergman does not forget that Gaslight is not only the story of a woman who believes that she is going insane but also the story of a false marriage, of misused trust and betrayal. In all these aspects, Ingrid Bergman has a wonderful screen partner in Charles Boyer with whom she also shares just the right chemistry – what starts as love soon becomes a child-like dependence, mistrust, suspicion, fear and even hate. Of course, Charles Boyer’s performance never makes it a secret what is going on in Number 9, Thornton Place, which was a very wise decision not only by him but also by the screenplay since it gives the story a psychologically much more interesting angle - Gaslight never asks ‘Who?’ but instead focuses on Paula’s personal battle for survival and the loss of love she is experiencing.
Right from the start, Ingrid Bergman’s performance creates the suspension of Gaslight – even though her acting style never feels calculated, she still has a lot of control over her character. And she uses this to demonstrate how Paula is constantly suffering from the memories of her aunt’s murder and how these memories slowly begin to torture her. During the first half of the movie, Ingrid Bergman beautifully demonstrates how Paul is trying to find a different life even though she is unable to forget the past, still sensing that her past is not finished with her. Later, Ingrid Bergman shows a certain change in Paula, she seems to become more relaxed as happiness and love begin to fill her life. And then, step by step, she again changes her – first, she develops a certain nervousness, a shyness that prevents her from leaving the house she both fears and loves as it offers her security but is haunting her at the same time. Paula is caught in a vicious circle in which she is constantly being told that she is losing her mind until she believes it, too. It could be very easy to dismiss Paula as a character simply because she comes from a time when a woman could be such an easy and almost willing victim for a man simply because she believes his words more than her own thoughts – but Ingrid Bergman’s performance makes it almost impossible not to be absorbed by Paula’s fate.
Ingrid Bergman also made the admirable choice not to let Paula appear like a deer caught in a trap to win the audience’s sympathy. She lets Paula’s fears and terrors always be very private since they happen so secluded in the privateness of her own home. She also never lets Paula appear weak by nature – she actually shows that there is a lot of strength in her but she is being mentally attacked exactly at her one single weakness, her fear of her house and the memories she has of it. Because of this, her final confrontation scene is easily the highpoint in her whole performance simply because it sums up everything about Paula so perfectly. The combination of Ingrid Bergman’s technical strength with her emotional clarity creates a fascinating finale to this exhausting journey.
In this performance, Ingrid Bergman did a lot more than rely of the effects of her technical brilliance. She gave a reason to Paula’s actions and fears, makes it understandable why she fears her maid and even begins to doubt herself. Nothing that Paula apparently does makes any sense and so it’s only logical to see her struggling with her illogical actions. Ingrid Bergman underlines this with a lot of acting choices that might be expected but are still thrilling to watch – her break-down at the piano party, her inability to read a book as she keeps hearing the voice of her husband in her head, her quiet walk, her half-closed eyes, her own voice that turns more and more into a whisper as she herself turns into a mere shadow of herself – it’s all done with marvellous determination that is equally shocking, entertaining, fascinating and worrying. She runs a vast scale of emotions, often in just a few seconds – she can change between begging her husband like a child not leave her only to explode with fear just a few moments later, she can laugh and dance like a little girl only to be terrorized by the thought of having taken down a picture from the wall the next moment. Ingrid Bergman took a very passive part and turned it into the motor of the story – nothing that Paula does seems to be by her own will but she is still the most deciding character in the movie thanks to Ingrid Bergman’s ability to give a fervid characterization of such an introvert woman.
Overall, 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. For this she receives
Gaslight is a movie that wants to be a lot – a psychological thriller, a crime story, a love story, a character study, a domestic drama, sometimes even a comedy. Such a mix of many different genres could usually leave actors rather helpless about what they are actually supposed to do with their character, especially if the movie itself doesn’t know how to handle its different genres. But thankfully Gaslight is a masterful and perfectly realized piece of work, a movie that develops like a slow nightmare, becoming more and more surreal and threatening as the story movies along. A lot of this is owed to George Cukor’s direction and the dark and gloomy atmosphere with which Number 9, Thornton Square, has been created but most of all, Gaslight is a character-driven story in which the tone and the mood of the story almost completely depend on the performances by the two central actors. And among these two central actors, it is Ingrid Bergman who really lifts Gaslight to such a high level of excellence, developing a co-dependence in which she constantly benefits from the strong material she is given while creating a feeling of desperation, helplessness and lost innocence that haunts and improves the entire movie from start to finish. In her performance, she does not only serve the tension of Gaslight but also develops something beneath the suspense, a believable character, a true and honest creation that fits into the aura of the movie but beyond that also exists as an independent foundation for a less suspenseful and more authentic and human focus. In other words, her character is not only a flat device in service of the movie’s aims but became a full circle, complete from all angles. Ingrid Bergman created Paula Alquist as a woman who is much more than a scared, fearful and obedient creature – thanks to her strong screen presence, her performance became very dominant despite the nature of the role and that way she turned the fight of Paul Alquist, her fight against her own mind, into a much more intriguing, shocking and memorable odyssey than other actresses might have. The 1940 version of Gaslight showed that the role of Paula may be extremely showy but this does not mean that a performance automatically turns into something special – Diana Wynyard’s mousy, hectic, lost and often weak performance feels too calculated, too pale and too uninterested, even for a character who is basically all these things. Ingrid Bergman on the other hand filled her performance with a vast amount of energy, even in Paula’s weakest moments, and always kept a tight grip on her and her intentions – it may be a calculated performance in some parts but Ingrid Bergman’s acting style always feels so spontaneous, so ‘in-the-moment’ and so unaffected that she is never in danger of appearing like the puppet master who is pulling Paula’s strings, leaving this role to Charles Boyer as her husband.
The role of Paula demands of Ingrid Bergman to give a performance that is both very emotional but also very technical. And she manages not only to succeed in both parts but also combine them. Her wide eyes, her fearful whisper, the panic slowly creeping into her eyes when she begins to hear footsteps above her head are all done masterfully but these technical aspects never turn her performance into a masque because she always makes Paula’s emotions perfectly clear – not only her fear, but also her doubt, her search for explanation and ultimately her growing suspicion. With small steps, Ingrid Bergman shows how Paula slowly changes from fearing the past to fearing an unknown present and finally to fearing a very well-known person. When Joseph Cotton’s character tells her that she knows very well who is making the noise above her, Ingrid Bergman doesn’t let Paula react with fierce disbelief but rather a helpless denial, a last try to hide the truth she already knows because just as much as she fears her own decline she also fears the consequences of the truth since it would smash her life into pieces and shows that everything she used to believe was only a lie. In this way, Ingrid Bergman does not forget that Gaslight is not only the story of a woman who believes that she is going insane but also the story of a false marriage, of misused trust and betrayal. In all these aspects, Ingrid Bergman has a wonderful screen partner in Charles Boyer with whom she also shares just the right chemistry – what starts as love soon becomes a child-like dependence, mistrust, suspicion, fear and even hate. Of course, Charles Boyer’s performance never makes it a secret what is going on in Number 9, Thornton Place, which was a very wise decision not only by him but also by the screenplay since it gives the story a psychologically much more interesting angle - Gaslight never asks ‘Who?’ but instead focuses on Paula’s personal battle for survival and the loss of love she is experiencing. Right from the start, Ingrid Bergman’s performance creates the suspension of Gaslight – even though her acting style never feels calculated, she still has a lot of control over her character. And she uses this to demonstrate how Paula is constantly suffering from the memories of her aunt’s murder and how these memories slowly begin to torture her. During the first half of the movie, Ingrid Bergman beautifully demonstrates how Paul is trying to find a different life even though she is unable to forget the past, still sensing that her past is not finished with her. Later, Ingrid Bergman shows a certain change in Paula, she seems to become more relaxed as happiness and love begin to fill her life. And then, step by step, she again changes her – first, she develops a certain nervousness, a shyness that prevents her from leaving the house she both fears and loves as it offers her security but is haunting her at the same time. Paula is caught in a vicious circle in which she is constantly being told that she is losing her mind until she believes it, too. It could be very easy to dismiss Paula as a character simply because she comes from a time when a woman could be such an easy and almost willing victim for a man simply because she believes his words more than her own thoughts – but Ingrid Bergman’s performance makes it almost impossible not to be absorbed by Paula’s fate.
Ingrid Bergman also made the admirable choice not to let Paula appear like a deer caught in a trap to win the audience’s sympathy. She lets Paula’s fears and terrors always be very private since they happen so secluded in the privateness of her own home. She also never lets Paula appear weak by nature – she actually shows that there is a lot of strength in her but she is being mentally attacked exactly at her one single weakness, her fear of her house and the memories she has of it. Because of this, her final confrontation scene is easily the highpoint in her whole performance simply because it sums up everything about Paula so perfectly. The combination of Ingrid Bergman’s technical strength with her emotional clarity creates a fascinating finale to this exhausting journey.
In this performance, Ingrid Bergman did a lot more than rely of the effects of her technical brilliance. She gave a reason to Paula’s actions and fears, makes it understandable why she fears her maid and even begins to doubt herself. Nothing that Paula apparently does makes any sense and so it’s only logical to see her struggling with her illogical actions. Ingrid Bergman underlines this with a lot of acting choices that might be expected but are still thrilling to watch – her break-down at the piano party, her inability to read a book as she keeps hearing the voice of her husband in her head, her quiet walk, her half-closed eyes, her own voice that turns more and more into a whisper as she herself turns into a mere shadow of herself – it’s all done with marvellous determination that is equally shocking, entertaining, fascinating and worrying. She runs a vast scale of emotions, often in just a few seconds – she can change between begging her husband like a child not leave her only to explode with fear just a few moments later, she can laugh and dance like a little girl only to be terrorized by the thought of having taken down a picture from the wall the next moment. Ingrid Bergman took a very passive part and turned it into the motor of the story – nothing that Paula does seems to be by her own will but she is still the most deciding character in the movie thanks to Ingrid Bergman’s ability to give a fervid characterization of such an introvert woman.
Overall, 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. For this she receives
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
6/22/2011
Number 74: Ingrid Bergman as Greta Ohlsson in "Murder on the Orient-Express" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)
As Katharine Hepburn once said, all the right actors win Oscar, but for the wrong roles. For most people, Ingrid Bergman is the best example for this since none of her three Oscar wins seem universally loved. Her most controversial win was for Supporting Actress.
Ingrid Bergman plays Greta Ohlsson, a simple-minded (or as she says it: “born backwards”) nurse who is one of the suspects in a murder case on the Orient Express.
![]()
I have to confess that I am torn when it comes to this performance – on the one hand I like what Ingrid Bergman did here and I think she is by far the most memorable cast member but on the other hand I also realize how little she actually gets to do and how she is trying to hide this behind certain gimmicks in her performance. I do like that she brought some complexity to her part during her five-minute scene and that she shows how much Greta is actually hiding inside but at the same time – acting choices like looking desperate when Poitot asks her about her time in America or scared when he asks her why she is making this trip don’t really need much time to be thought-out and would also probably be made by an acting student in her first semester.
I confess – her performance works. When she suddenly begins to cry because of her non-religious parents or moves her head away, hunted by her memories when Poirot accuses her touch me deeply. But at the same time I just can’t help and think ‘Really? That’s it?`
I think that Ingrid Bergman succeeded where Gloria Grahame failed – she turned her nothing role into a kind of scene-stealer but the level of success is still so incredibly low that it’s very easy to praise her even though she didn’t really do anything. The awful truth is that the part of Greta Ohlsson is a big ‘nothing’ that was only turned memorable by Ingrid Bergman’s tics and mannerisms – or, as would probably be a better word, gimmicks. So, in the end, I have to ask myself: did she fool me with these gimmicks? Did her awkward smile, her stutter or her accent really fool me so much that I saw things in a performance that weren’t there? Well, I hope not – I may like this performance but as you can see from the position in this ranking that still does not mean that I appreciate it very highly.
It’s a very interesting approach by Miss Bergman and I applaud her for not failing completely but again – how could she fail when her role didn’t ask anything from her?
Ingrid Bergman plays Greta Ohlsson, a simple-minded (or as she says it: “born backwards”) nurse who is one of the suspects in a murder case on the Orient Express.
I confess – her performance works. When she suddenly begins to cry because of her non-religious parents or moves her head away, hunted by her memories when Poirot accuses her touch me deeply. But at the same time I just can’t help and think ‘Really? That’s it?`
I think that Ingrid Bergman succeeded where Gloria Grahame failed – she turned her nothing role into a kind of scene-stealer but the level of success is still so incredibly low that it’s very easy to praise her even though she didn’t really do anything. The awful truth is that the part of Greta Ohlsson is a big ‘nothing’ that was only turned memorable by Ingrid Bergman’s tics and mannerisms – or, as would probably be a better word, gimmicks. So, in the end, I have to ask myself: did she fool me with these gimmicks? Did her awkward smile, her stutter or her accent really fool me so much that I saw things in a performance that weren’t there? Well, I hope not – I may like this performance but as you can see from the position in this ranking that still does not mean that I appreciate it very highly.
It’s a very interesting approach by Miss Bergman and I applaud her for not failing completely but again – how could she fail when her role didn’t ask anything from her?
4/06/2010
YOUR Best Actress of 1978
Here are the results of the poll:
1. Ingrid Bergman - Höstsonaten (23 votes)
2. Jill Clayburgh - An Unmarried Woman (10 votes)
3. Geraldine Page - Interiors (4 votes)
4. Jane Fonda - Coming Home (3 votes)
5. Ellen Burstyn - Same Time, Next Year (1 vote)
Thanks to everyone for voting!
1. Ingrid Bergman - Höstsonaten (23 votes)
2. Jill Clayburgh - An Unmarried Woman (10 votes)
3. Geraldine Page - Interiors (4 votes)
4. Jane Fonda - Coming Home (3 votes)
5. Ellen Burstyn - Same Time, Next Year (1 vote)
Thanks to everyone for voting!
3/26/2010
Best Actress 1978 - the resolution!
After having watched and reviewed all five nominated performances, it's time to pick the winner!
5. Jane Fonda in Coming Home
Jane’s performance never fights against the weakness of the script that reduces Sally to a boring love interest but rather even emphasizes it by also investing Sally with nothing else but a simple-mindedness that does nothing to make her the least bit interesting.
Ellen Burstyn’s performance is charming and lovely, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, but her acting stays mostly on the surface and she is never able to create a full-flesh human being out of her paper-thin character.
Even though her screen time is limited, Geraldine Page still dominates the whole movie with a convincing, shocking, frightening and sad portrayal of a woman who loses control and is not able to deal with the failure of her own marriage.
2. Jill Clayburgh in An Unmarried Woman
Jill Clayburgh is smart, funny, sexy, strong, weak and, most of all, very natural and always confident while she creates a very relaxed and self-assured character with a wonderful mix of strength and humor.
Ingrid Bergman gives a devastating performance as a woman who lives a live of pretending, who can associate with everyone but her own daughters and who finally has to look into her own past and her own soul to see who she really is.
3/24/2010
Best Actress 1978: Ingrid Bergman in "Höstsonaten"
Ingrid Bergman received her final Oscar nomination for what was also her final movie performance in the Swedish movie Höstsonaten. Ingrid played Charlotte Angergast, a famous pianist who visits her estranged daughter and her husband.
This was the first time that Ingrid Bergman worked with the famous Swedish director Ingmar Bergman who more than once has led actresses to give compelling and outstanding performances and Ingrid Bergman is no difference. What probably also helped Ingrid in her work was the fact that she acted in her native language which resulted in a very relaxed, but also outstanding performance.
When Charlotte first arrives at her daughter's house, she and Eva (played by the always amazing Liv Ullman) seem very happy about their meeting. Both are very polite and behave in the expected way but it seems that there is something beneath their friendliness – some unspoken truth that really defines their relationship.
Charlotte very soon starts to talk about Leonardo – a man who was very close to her and who recently died of cancer. The looks on Ingrid Bergman’s face when she tells how she was always with Leonardo in the hospital until he died is an overwhelming moment – the mix of grief, fear and relieve over her friend’s release is unforgettable.
While the movie goes on, the viewer learns more and more about Charlotte and her connection to her daughter. This visit is apparently the first time that they have seen each other in years – even when Eva’s little son died, Charlotte did not come. It becomes clear very soon that her career was always the most important thing for her. Charlotte toured the world while Eva was always of secondary importance – now and also years ago, when Eva was a little girl.
The tension between Eva and Charlotte can be felt at every moment of the movie. Charlotte is a rather cold and distant woman who tries to keep an emotional distance from Eva. Whenever they talk and chat, it always seems superficial and Charlotte seems to try her best to prevent any real closeness between her and her daughter. Whenever Eva opens up, talks about her dead son or other personal feelings, Charlotte obviously becomes uneasy.
Finally, late a night, Eva lets her feelings overcome her and begins to talk about her hate, about the past and everything that was always a burden on her soul. Ingrid Bergman’s teary-eyed face in this night is probably the greatest close-up of her career. She doesn’t look glamorous, she doesn’t look like a star, but she looks real – a woman who finally has to answer for everything she has done.
Even though Ingrid Bergman doesn’t give the best performance of the movie (that honor goes to Liv Ullman who is just riveting as Eva), her magnetic movie star personality combined with her undeniable talent as an actress make her a dominating force.
Ingrid Bergman is wonderfully able to constantly show Charlotte’s emotional distance and her own justification for everything she did but she is able to mix it with a certain regret and fear. Her facial expressions when she watches her daughter play the piano is one of the greatest moments of Ingrid’s career. She shows that Charlotte is a woman who lives a live of pretending, who can associate with everyone but her own daughters and who finally has to look into her own past and her own soul to see who she really is.
This is surely one of Ingrid Bergman’s greatest performances. Her distant, emotionally unavailable mother is a timeless creation for which she gets
This was the first time that Ingrid Bergman worked with the famous Swedish director Ingmar Bergman who more than once has led actresses to give compelling and outstanding performances and Ingrid Bergman is no difference. What probably also helped Ingrid in her work was the fact that she acted in her native language which resulted in a very relaxed, but also outstanding performance.
When Charlotte first arrives at her daughter's house, she and Eva (played by the always amazing Liv Ullman) seem very happy about their meeting. Both are very polite and behave in the expected way but it seems that there is something beneath their friendliness – some unspoken truth that really defines their relationship.
Charlotte very soon starts to talk about Leonardo – a man who was very close to her and who recently died of cancer. The looks on Ingrid Bergman’s face when she tells how she was always with Leonardo in the hospital until he died is an overwhelming moment – the mix of grief, fear and relieve over her friend’s release is unforgettable.
While the movie goes on, the viewer learns more and more about Charlotte and her connection to her daughter. This visit is apparently the first time that they have seen each other in years – even when Eva’s little son died, Charlotte did not come. It becomes clear very soon that her career was always the most important thing for her. Charlotte toured the world while Eva was always of secondary importance – now and also years ago, when Eva was a little girl.
The tension between Eva and Charlotte can be felt at every moment of the movie. Charlotte is a rather cold and distant woman who tries to keep an emotional distance from Eva. Whenever they talk and chat, it always seems superficial and Charlotte seems to try her best to prevent any real closeness between her and her daughter. Whenever Eva opens up, talks about her dead son or other personal feelings, Charlotte obviously becomes uneasy.
The viewer also learns that Eva is not Charlotte’s only daughter – there is also Helena who is paralyzed and seemingly also suffers from a mental disease that prevents her from speaking or communicating in any way. It is obvious that Charlotte is not happy to see Helena – she would like to avoid meeting her but as a mother, she has no other choice. Ingrid Bergman wonderfully shows the conflict in Charlotte as she sits at Helena’s bedside. She again acts nicely and friendly as if nothing had happened, but from time to time we see how uncomfortable she is around her own daughter, maybe she is even ashamed. Eva herself later says that her mother gave a great performance in Helena’s bedroom.
Ingrid Bergman in no way tries to hide the fact that Charlotte is a woman who never cared about her daughters and who also doesn’t care about them now. But she is not a cold-hearted woman – instead, she never thought that she would harm her children in any way. In her own eyes, she did the best she could and as much as she could even if she always kept her daughters at a distance. For Charlotte, her live as a pianist was always more important than her life as a mother even if she maybe never admitted that to herself. But her distant nature has damaged her daughters more then she ever expected. The thin line between love and hate is constantly visible between Charlotte and Eva.
Finally, late a night, Eva lets her feelings overcome her and begins to talk about her hate, about the past and everything that was always a burden on her soul. Ingrid Bergman’s teary-eyed face in this night is probably the greatest close-up of her career. She doesn’t look glamorous, she doesn’t look like a star, but she looks real – a woman who finally has to answer for everything she has done.
Even though Ingrid Bergman doesn’t give the best performance of the movie (that honor goes to Liv Ullman who is just riveting as Eva), her magnetic movie star personality combined with her undeniable talent as an actress make her a dominating force.
Ingrid Bergman is wonderfully able to constantly show Charlotte’s emotional distance and her own justification for everything she did but she is able to mix it with a certain regret and fear. Her facial expressions when she watches her daughter play the piano is one of the greatest moments of Ingrid’s career. She shows that Charlotte is a woman who lives a live of pretending, who can associate with everyone but her own daughters and who finally has to look into her own past and her own soul to see who she really is.
This is surely one of Ingrid Bergman’s greatest performances. Her distant, emotionally unavailable mother is a timeless creation for which she gets
3/19/2010
Best Actress 1978
The next year will be 1978 and the nominees were
Ingrid Bergman in Höstsonaten
Ellen Burstyn in Same Time, Next Year
Jill Clayburgh in An Unmarried Woman
Jane Fonda in Coming Home
Geraldine Page in Interiors
1/19/2010
YOUR Best Actress of 1956
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)
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)
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.
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
12/29/2009
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)
