Best Actress Ranking - Update

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

Winning performances are 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. Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
8. Geraldine Page in The Trip to Bountiful (1985)
9. Edith Evans in The Whisperers (1967)
10. Norma Shearer in Marie Antoinette (1938)

11. Greta Garbo in Ninotchka (1939)
12. Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
13. Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth (1998)
14. Bette Davis in The Little Foxes (1941)
15. Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music (1965)
16. Rosalind Russell in Auntie Mame (1958)
17. Glenda Jackson in Women in Love (1970)
18. Elizabeth Taylor in Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
19. Barbara Stanwyck in Ball of Fire (1941)
20. Julie Christie in Away from Her (2007)

21. Shelley Winters in A Place in the Sun (1951)
22. Audrey Hepburn in Wait until Dark (1967)
23. Ingrid Bergman in The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945)
24. Judi Dench in Mrs. Brown (1997)
25. Jane Fonda in Coming Home (1978)
26. Greer Garson in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
27. Doris Day in Pillow Talk (1959)
28. Meryl Streep in One True Thing (1998)
29. Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity (1953)
30. Katharine Hepburn in Guess who’s coming to dinner (1967)

31. Marsha Mason in Chapter Two (1979)
32. Teresa Wright in The Pride of the Yankees (1942) 
33. Jennifer Jones in Love Letters (1945)
34. Ellen Burstyn in Same Time, Next Year (1978)
35. Susan Hayward in My Foolish Heart (1949)
36. Vanessa Redgrave in Mary, Queen of Scots (1971)
37. Diane Keaton in Marvin's Room (1996)
38. Loretta Young in Come to the Stable (1949)  
39. Mary Pickford in Coquette (1928-29)
40. Sissy Spacek in The River (1984)

41. Shirley MacLaine in The Turning Point (1977)
42. Irene Dunne in Cimarron (1930-1931)
43. Diana Wynyard in Cavalcade (1932-1933)

Vanessa Redgrave as Mary, Queen of Scots in Mary, Queen of Scots

Compared to my original review of Vanessa Redgrave more than six years ago (good God…), my opinion did not change too drastically but Vanessa slipped down a couple of spots nonetheless. I think the reason is mostly that the flaws in her work have become more apparent to me while her highlights do not excite me anymore the way they used to in the past.

It has to be said: while my opinion on Vanessa Redgrave altered only slightly, my opinion on Mary, Queen of Scots itself did change more drastically: while I previously considered it mostly a mess with some fun parts and strong moments, I can now only see the mess. Mary, Queen of Scots is almost an insult to the glorious costume dramas that came before and after it – fake sets, fake costumes and a largely unappealing supporting cast do their best to destroy any good-will right away and the script does its best to ruin anything else. The movie is pretty much a disaster from start to finish (and Ian Holm gives probably one of the worst death scenes of all time – I guess he needs to squeal like Florence Foster Jenkins because he is bisexual?) and only one person manages to leave it untouched: Glenda Jackson, reprising her work as Elizabeth I, is simply unable to be anything less than fascinating to watch and she gives grace, dignity and excitement to her performance when everything around her falls apart.

Vanessa Redgrave unfortunately achieves not the same effect. She starts her performance on a very over-the-top note, fearing for the life or her husband, shouting “I love him” with a high-pitched voice or dramatically screaming “Francois” into the night. All the usual qualities of Vanessa Redgrave, this mysterious aura, her visible intelligence and graceful personality, are lost in this performance. The problem mostly seems to be that Vanessa Redgrave is simply too intelligent to play Mary in her early years – she apparently wants to craft her as some sort of air-headed dreamer who knows no worries and has to learn of real life and politics but this is never achieved. Rather, we get to see an unconventional actress trying her best to give a save, conventional performance without any surprises or depth, appearing both bored and overwhelmed in the process. When Mary greets her new Lords in Scotland and dramatically spreads out her arms and declares “My Lords of the Congregation”, Vanessa Redgrave displays a wide smile on her face that makes me wonder if this is Mary, trying to be charming or if this is Vanessa, realizing how ridiculous the whole thing actually is. Additionally, Vanessa Redgrave has a constantly weird way of rushing her dialogue – she often speaks multiple sentences without a single pause between them, ranging from moments of anger to moments of joy - this might work at some moments of her performance, but becomes rather distracting in others very quickly. 

The screenplay of Mary, Queen of Scots certainly does not do Vanessa Redgrave any favors. Instead, it actually causes the biggest problem of this performance: the script rushes through the stages of Mary’s life, it asks her to be flirty and brave one second, stupid and dependent on others the next, loving her husband, then hating her husband, suddenly showing feelings towards another Lord, refusing to abdicate before naively meeting Elizabeth and finally suddenly wised-up and self-scarifying. The major fault of the movie is that if offers no sense of time – we follow Mary from about 18 to 45 but Mary, Queen of Scots never makes this clear and neither Glenda Jackson nor Vanessa Redgrave seem to visibly age at any point. And because Mary gets thrown into so many different situations without any logical connections, Vanessa Redgrave’s performance never finds a true character in her acting. Instead, she plays Mary different from scene to scene without any flow and at the end of the movie I never have the feeling that I had seen Mary, Queen of Scots but rather Vanessa Redgrave acting different little scenes. Glenda Jackson, on the other hand, managed to actually create a character and her Elizabeth appears like a complete creation. This also results in the probably most curious fact of the movie: the title might be Mary, Queen of Scots but for long stretches of screen time, Vanessa Redgrave almost feels disposable and only rarely does it truly appear to be her movie and the story of Mary Stuart. The character of Elizabeth might be of secondary importance but she easily dominates large parts of the story.

All this was now a lot of negativity and I do believe it is justified. But I will also say that there are positive aspects as well that need to be highlighted. Vanessa Redgrave might not find a character in her performance and focus on the single scenes but she does work well in many of them. Obviously, not all of them – it actually takes quite some time for Vanessa Redgrave to warm up. Most of her early scenes in France and the beginning in Scotland show her pale and uninteresting, trying hard but unsuccessfully to give emotional intelligence to her work. Despite her natural and charming screen presence, Mary’s lightness and coquettish behavior fail completely but she does become more impressive in her later dramatic scenes. Almost bursting with hate at the arrogance of her brother, scheming her way out of a trap by her husband or later drugging him and then comitting adultery right next to his sleeping body, Vanessa Redgrave becomes a much more dominant presence as the movie goes on even if she still might change too often from scene to scene. She most of all comes to live when the misery of her character increases. She is touching when she begs her love not to go out and fight, tense when she tells her brother she will die as Queen and almost heartbreaking when she lets Mary, despite her calm exterior, look with fear at the scaffold where she is about to die in a few moments.

Most of all, however, the highlight of Mary, Queen of Scots are the two moments that apparently never happened – the meetings between Elizabeth and Mary. What is most amazing about these scenes is that they are completely not what you expect. Considering the movie’s reputation as ‘royal camp’ or ‘royal bitch fight’, everyone would most likely assume that their scenes together are the highlight of this. But this is wrong – in the hands of Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson, these scenes are surprisingly subtle and moving, full of character development instead of superficial insults and surprisingly quiet in tone despite the occasional emotional outburst. These scenes proof that neither Vanessa Redgrave nor Glenda Jackson are actually actively trying to come across as camp – if the movie can be accused of that, it is actually the men who are responsible for it. Both Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson are the calm centers of an over-the-top storm around them – and even if Vanessa Redgrave did not achieve to create a real character, she still has to be applauded for resisting (mostly) the chances to be as exaggerated as her surroundings (at least as the movie went on). Even more remarkable about these scenes between Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave is the fact that, despite having been constantly overshadowed while not sharing a scene with her, Vanessa Redgrave actually leaves the stronger impression when acting opposite her co-star. That is not to say that Vanessa Redgrave is the better actress or the bigger personality (I would say they are equal in both departments) – rather, she really benefits from the screenplay at these moments. In their first scene, Vanessa Redgrave, even if she again binds various sentences together without gasping for air once and rushes through her lines faster than needed, creates a spellbinding impression as she openly displays her hate for Elizabeth but the best moments of her performance come in their second meeting when Mary rejects all of Elizbeth’s attempts and offers and explains how she is willing to die now and that it is Elizabeth who has to kill her. Vanessa Redgrave delivers her lines in these moments quietly and calmly but with strong accusations and convictions nonetheless. These moments are not enough to completely erase the memory of the often clumsy performance that came before them but they are enough to look at her work as a whole with a certain satisfaction.

It’s a pity that after all these expensive and big costume Dramas of the 60s, a fascinating story such as that of Mary and Elizabeth was given such a poor vehicle. I guess it’s not wrong to see a strong level of sexism as movies about Kings or Kings and Queens are always given the truly royal treatment while a story about Queens and only Queens appears to have been filmed in some old warehouse between some old props. Mary, Queen of Scots might have been given two fascinating actresses – but as this ranking shows, that’s not always a guarantee for success.

And a hint to the next performance that will be ranked:

Number 14: Vanessa Redgrave as Julia in "Julia" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

What is it about Vanessa Redgrave that makes her such a fascinating actress to watch? I don’t know but she simply has that certain ‘something extra’. And in Julia, she is able to build one of the most complete and complex characters ever to hit the screen with just a few moments of screen time. Vanessa Redgrave is also a first-class example for a supporting role. She is essential to the movie (it’s named after her!), she has little screen-time but shines in every single second of it and her presence can be felt throughout the entire film. Everything in it is happening because of her, for her or with her. Jane Fonda may be the one who carries Julia but Vanessa Redgrave is the one who creates it.

Vanessa Redgrave is one of those actresses who lights up the screen simply with one look. She gives so much energy, mystery and life, so much intelligence and grace is constantly shining inside her. In only a few scenes at the beginning she already establishes the whole character of Julia. She is a fighter, a strong, intelligent woman (excepted at Oxford) and a great friend to Lilly. In one second she can show more passion and determination for her cause than others in 2 hours. When Lilly says that there is a time when every woman reaches a perfect age and that it had happened to Julia, you believe her. When she says to Lilly ‘Lilly, finally there’s some real hope in the world’, Vanessa Redgrave tells everything about Julie – her political views, her own believes and her whole character.

After that, Julia is gone for a long time, but as mentioned before, her presence is everywhere. Just like later in Howards End, Vanessa Redgrave has the ability to create an everlasting character mostly thanks to her own strength and dominating screen presence. And then it all comes to the scene in Berlin when Julia and Lilly meet again. Even Jane Fonda (normally not a favourite of mine) shines during this scene as she and Vanessa Redgrave truly seem like life-longs friends – Lilly, scared und unsure of the whole situation and Julia, strong and protecting. Vanessa Redgrave does not display an easy visible amount of emotions in that scene but she says everything with her eyes – her love for Lilly, her fear, her hope, the joy of experiencing a short moment of happiness even though the danger is constantly present. That glorious inner fire that is burning in Julia and in Vanessa Redgrave makes this scene a masterclass in acting. Even though Julia is only sitting at a table, Vanessa Redgrave makes her a force of nature. When she shows Lilly that she has a false leg, Julia just says ‘It’s done, that’s what it is.’

It is a very small role but Vanessa Redgrave is able to make Julia one of the most fascinating and interesting characters that ever grace the screen.

YOUR Best Actress of 1971

Here are the results of the poll:

1. Jane Fonda - Klute (42 votes)

2. Glenda Jackson - Sunday Bloody Sunday (12 votes)

3. Julie Christie - McCabe & Mrs. Miller (7 votes)

4. Vanessa Redgrave - Mary, Queen of Scots (4 votes)

5. Janet Suzman - Nicholas and Alexandra (2 votes)

Thanks to everybody for voting!

Best Actress 1971 - The resolution

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

5. Janet Suzman in Nicholas and Alexandra

Because the screenplay so rarely lets Alexandra have her own moments to express a more layered side, Janet Suzman took things in her own hands and used the small moments of the movie to show that Alexandra is both Empress and woman. But while she doesn’t do anything wrong there is the constant feeling that she simply could have done more. She suffers nobly and expresses poise and grace, but the tasks of the script simply don’t challenge her as much as most of the other actors.

4. Vanessa Redgrave in Mary, Queen of Scots

                     

Vanessa Redgrave elegantly and intelligently builds the arc of her character and dominates her part of the storyline with ease and passion. She works well with what she is given and even adds a little more with a thought through and entertaining performance but the story of Mary, Queen of Scots never becomes as thrilling, fascinating and tragic as it could have been. The main reason for this seems to be that while Vanessa Redgrave acts beautifully from the outside, there is something missing on the inside. Instead of crafting a character that believably makes history, she lets history and the script dictate her what to do.

3. Jane Fonda in Klute

Jane Fonda clearly knows Bree and what she feels and thinks. While a lot of scenes with her feel forced into the movie and don’t really connect with the rest, Jane Fonda has the ability to turn Bree into one logic creation. It’s only her performance that holds everything together and shows the fear and terror of Bree just as effectively as her insecurity and worries. But the combination of Jane Fonda's constant awareness while acting and her shortcomings as an actress prevent her from giving a fully realized performance and characterization.

2. Glenda Jackson in Sunday Bloody Sunday

In Sunday Bloody Sunday, Glenda Jackson perfectly combined her screen presence with the emotionally unsatisfied Alex. She intelligently explored all the aspects of her character, her background and her past, her thoughts and emotions, her hopes for the present and for the future and gave a heartbreaking and yet encouraging performance that creates some unforgettable images.

1. Julie Christie in McCabe & Mrs. Miller

Julie Christie gives a wonderfully crafted, passionate and almost lyrical performance that brings this complex character to a glorious life – a mystic creation with many shades and edges. Constance Miller is the sort of character a poet would write about and Julie Christie’s performance knows exactly how to add a certain amount of mystery in her character without over- or under doing it. Everything she does, every movement of her body, her hands, her face, adds to the enigma but the result feels never controlled. A fascinating portrayal that is able to catch all the aspects of the character without ever fully exploring them.

Best Actress 1971: Vanessa Redgrave in "Mary, Queen of Scots"

Mary, the ill-fated Queen of Scots and Alexandra, the ill-fated Empress of Russia, have two distinctive things in common (besides their royal status) – a tragic death and the fact that they were both turned into Oscar-nominated characters which resulted in the meeting of these two women who lived in different times and places at the Academy Awards 1971. While Alexandra died from a firing squad together with her whole family, Mary died the way most royals did back then – beheaded. Her execution was the final chapter in her life-long fight against Queen Elizabeth I for the throne of England.

While Empress Alexandra seems to be rather a footnote in (movie) history, the character of Mary Stuart is almost as irresistible for actresses like that of her nemesis Queen Elizabeth I. It’s not difficult to see why since Mary offers basically all the same possibilities of great movie acting as Queen Elizabeth I – royalty, suffering, dominance and she also adds an underdog status, an overcoming of obstacles that ends with tragedy and the eternal mystery if her character is good or bad.

But even though Empress Alexandra might not be as interesting to actresses, she at least got the last laugh since she had been portrayed in a grand, historical epos – Mary Stuart’s 1971 vehicle, Mary, Queen of Scots, unfortunately was a royal soap opera that focused on a two-hour long cat fight between two women who, as history tells us, never even met.

Glenda Jackson is Joan Collins is Alexis Carrington is Queen Elizabeth I.
Vanessa Redgrave is Linda Evans is Krystle Carrington is Mary, Queen of Scots.

Filmed in sets that couldn’t look more fake in a high-school production, Mary, Queen of Scots is certainly not destined for greatness. And like basically all productions around this topic, it also put in not one, but two meetings between the Queens since the audience can’t be expected of watching two actresses scheme and fight against each other without ever sharing the screen.

So, the movie Mary, Queen of Scots itself leaves much to desire but what about its leading ladies? Here is where Mary Stuart got the last laugh as she was portrayed by the (by now) legendary British actress Vanessa Redgrave who right from the start of her career showed talent and poise in every performance. And it was only a matter of time before she, like almost every actor or actress from the island, took on a royal part from British history. And there are surely lots of part that make sure that Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Peter O’Toole and all the others will always have a job.

But even though these royal parts are always juicy and demanding, even the greatest actors and actresses can’t rise too high if the material is keeping them down as Cate Blanchett showed in her second outing as Queen Elizabeth I. And unfortunately for Vanessa Redgrave, the script never enabled her to really rise to the occasion – but also her own performance has various problems that make it hard to completely admire it.

She began her performance with a rather strong emphasis on the hysterical side of Mary who lives in France and constantly fears for her husband’s life. When he eventually dies, her mother-in-law uses the opportunity to send her away and Mary returns to Scotland. When she isn’t allowed to cross England on her way, this already begins the tension between her and Elizabeth I.

The first parts of the story have an equal focus on Elizabeth I and Mary and shows their dislike for each other and how they plan their next steps. As the movie goes on, Mary eventually becomes the clear center of attention and her story and fate is put in the foreground.

As mentioned before, both Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave suffer from the rather bad writing they are given but they both possess such strong personalities and dedication to their craft that the results are still satisfying. While Glenda Jackson, after having appeared on television in Elizabeth R, can obviously do Elizabeth I in her sleep and still create a fascinating character, Vanessa Redgrave doesn’t achieve quite the same level. Her work sometimes feels too rushed for its own good – she obviously knows how to handle the dialogue, how to appear royal but also human, how to display all the sufferings and problems of a Queen but also a woman and how to create the right amount of tension in her scenes with Glenda Jackson but Mary never really feels complete. Vanessa Redgrave runs all the right emotions and expresses the right amount of girlish foolishness and womanly intelligence but the results somehow lacks a certain ‘Je-ne-sais-quoi’ to become really outstanding. For one, the character of Mary makes it hard for Vanessa Redgrave to really shine. While she is given a lot of opportunities to show her talent for subtle and over-the-top acting in situations that go from arriving in Scotland like an inexperienced school girl, being threatened in her own palace, drugging her husband and then cheating on him in the same room and barricading herself in a tower, neither the writing nor Vanessa Regrave’s performance ever make her as captivating and intriguing as Glenda Jackson does Elizabeth I. The main reason for this seems to be that while Vanessa Redgrave acts beautifully from the outside, there is something missing on the inside. Instead of crafting a character that believably makes history, she lets history and the script dictate her what to do. It never feels that Mary is really acting out of her own ideas and believes but rather that Vanessa Redgrave is following the script with a competent, but uninspired performance. This also shows in the fact that she never really explores Mary’s motives for her actions but simply presents them as historical facts.

But there is still a lot to admire in her work. Just like Janet Suzman, royal arrogance and dominance come very easily to Vanessa Redgrave. Her whole body language, her high chin and stubbornness perfectly portray her royal descent and her own opinion of herself.

Vanessa Redgrave also is able to fill her part with a certain amount of comedy. The way she says ‘Working, always working’ to her advisor when she enters his room just moments after his lover (who will become Mary’s husband) left the room, is a wonderful example of brilliant comedic line delivery as she is able to make the sentence both funny and innocent – funny for the audience and innocent as Mary is oblivious to what just had happened in the room.

Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson, even though they only share the screen twice, work very well together as each of them does their best to create a woman as different from the other one as possible. While Glenda’s Elizabeth I is cool, intelligent, a great strategist who watches like an eagle over her kingdom and over her enemies, Mary is rather non-caring, sometimes too impulsive, naïve and inexperienced, a little like a sparrow, a woman who is used to a better life than the one she is leading in Scotland – the look on her face when she sees her now home tells everything. Mary doesn’t really possess anything that would qualify her for a Queen except her blood – but this blood is all she needs to be self-assured in her position. She displays a certain arrogance that isn’t really arrogance but an inbred attitude of not-caring. At the same time, she lacks the ability to mistrust those who are closest to her and so Vanessa Redgrave can show the surprise in Mary every time things turn against her. Unfortunately, Vanessa’s performance doesn’t really capture all the naivety and inexperience of Mary as she always demonstrates a huge amount of intelligence in her performance. Vanessa Redgrave is an actress who almost always creates characters who seem to be observing everything around them, who are always aware of what is happening and like to think one step ahead. This isn’t really working for her in Mary, Queen of Scots.

In her scenes with Glenda Jackson, Vanessa Redgrave reaches the highpoints of her performance. In their first meeting, she finds exactly the right amount of fake friendliness that quickly turns into hate and anger while in their second meeting, she unforgettably shows how Mary has decided for herself to find superiority in acceptance of her own fate. By accepting her own death, Mary is free of Elizabeth – nothing she can do or threaten her with has any effect on Mary anymore. Vanessa Redgrave gives a lot of dignity to Mary as she walks her final walk and movingly portrays a woman who is willing to die for her cause and her religion.

Vanessa Redgrave elegantly and intelligently builds the arc of her character and dominates her part of the storyline with ease and passion. She works well with what she is given and even adds a little more with a thought through and entertaining performance but the story of Mary, Queen of Scots never becomes as thrilling, fascinating and tragic as it could have been. In the end, Vanessa Redgrave gets

Best Actress 1971

 

The next year will be 1971 and the nominees were

Julie Christie in McCabe & Mrs. Miller

Jane Fonda in Klute

Glenda Jackson in Sunday Bloody Sunday

Vanessa Redgrave in Mary, Queen of Scots

Janet Suzman in Nicholas and Alexandra