Here is a new update. The newly added performance is highlighted in bold.
If five performances from the same year are included, the winning performance is higlighted in red.
1. Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind (1939)
2. Jessica Lange in Frances (1982)
3. Gloria Swanson in Sunset
Boulevard (1950)
4. Olivia de Havilland in The
Heiress (1949)
5. Maggie Smith in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969)
6. Anne Bancroft in The
Graduate (1967)
7. Janet Gaynor in Seventh Heaven (1927-1928)
8. Jill Clayburgh in An Unmarried Woman (1978)
9. Glenn Close in Dangerous
Liaisons (1988)
10. Geraldine Page in
The Trip to Bountiful (1985)
11. Susan Sarandon in Thelma & Louise (1991)
12. Katharine Hepburn in
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
13. Edith Evans in The
Whisperers (1967)
14. Norma Shearer in Marie Antoinette (1938)
15. Greta Garbo in Ninotchka
(1939)
16. Faye Dunaway in Bonnie
and Clyde (1967)
17. Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth (1998)
18. Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
19. Simone Signoret in Room at the Top (1959)
20. Bette Davis in The
Little Foxes (1941)
21. Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music (1965)
22. Rosalind Russell in
Auntie Mame (1958)
23. Glenda Jackson in
Women in Love (1970)
24. Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve (1957)
25. Elizabeth Taylor in
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
26. Barbara Stanwyck in Ball of
Fire (1941)
27. Lee Remick in Days of Wine and Roses (1962)
28. Emily Watson in Hilary and Jackie (1998)
29. Julie Christie in
Away from Her (2007)
30. Shelley Winters in A Place
in the Sun (1951)
31. Audrey Hepburn in Wait until Dark (1967)
32. Meryl Streep in The Devil wears Prada (2006)
33. Ingrid Bergman in The
Bells of St. Mary’s (1945)
34. Anne Baxter in All about Eve (1950)
35. Judi Dench in
Mrs. Brown (1997)
36. Helen Hayes in
The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1932)
37. Jane Fonda in
Coming Home (1978)
38. Greer Garson in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
39. Doris Day in
Pillow Talk (1959)
40. Meryl Streep in
One True Thing (1998)
41. Joan Crawford in
Sudden Fear (1952)
42. Deborah Kerr in
From Here to Eternity (1953)
43. Katharine Hepburn in Guess
who’s coming to dinner (1967)
44. Marsha Mason in
Chapter Two (1979)
45. Jane Wyman in
The Yearling (1946)
46. Martha Scott in Our Town (1940)
47. Teresa Wright in The
Pride of the Yankees (1942)
48. Jennifer Jones in Love Letters
(1945)
49. Ellen Burstyn in Same Time, Next
Year (1978)
50. Susan Hayward in My Foolish Heart (1949)
51. Eleanor Parker in Detective Story (1951)
52. Vanessa Redgrave in
Mary, Queen of Scots (1971)
53. Diane Keaton in
Marvin's Room (1996)
54. Loretta Young in Come to the
Stable (1949)
55. Mary Pickford in Coquette (1928-29)
56. Sissy Spacek in
The River (1984)
57. Shirley MacLaine in
The Turning Point (1977)
58. Irene Dunne in Cimarron (1930-1931)
59. Ruth Chatterton in
Madame X (1928-29)
60. Diana Wynyard in Cavalcade (1932-1933)
61. Bette Davis in The Star (1952)
Lee Remick as Kirsten Clay in Days of Wine and Roses
Lee Remick
seems very often to be the typical „fifth“ nominee – an actor or actress who
often gets lost in the competition of four more well-known performers and
performances (other examples that come to my mind are Martha Scott in
Our Town
or Eleanor Parker in
Caged). 1962 saw Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Geraldine
Page and Anne Bancroft battle it out in the Best Actress category, with
signature work from nearly everyone involved and Lee Remick often seems to just
be along for the ride…But very often, the “fifth nominee” does in no way need
to hide between more famous co-nominees (Luise Rainer is basically the “fifth
nominee” in 1937 and she deservedly won), as great performances don’t only come
in movies that are more remembered today and are not only given by well-known
performers. But even if Lee Remick might be the fifth nominee from today’s
point of view, I actually think that she had a much better chance at the gold
than most think today. Apparently, Bette Davis herself found Lee Remick’s
performance astonishing and thought that if anyone would stop her from getting
that third Oscar, it would be her. Personally, I could easily imagine that,
even if most people today seem to narrow the race down to her more well-known
co-nominees, she was an important part of the race.
Katharine
Hepburn was the sole nomination for her movie that is not the kind of movie
that many Academy members were likely to watch in the first place (similar to
Rosalind Russell and Mourning Becomes Electra) and there was not yet a strong
desire to award her with a second Oscar. And let’s be honest: no matter what
Bette Davis said in all those talk-shows later or what Feud might imply, I just
don’t see Academy members embracing her work in Whatever happened to Baby Jane?
and awarding her with a third Oscar. Yes, Whatever happened to Baby Jane? did
receive multiple nominations and even won an Oscar for Costume Design, but the Academy is less afraid to award movies like this on a technical level (for comparisons, see
many of the winners for Best Make-Up) – giving it an acting award however, especially
when the performer in question already has 2 Oscars at home, is an entirely different matter.
Not even Agnes Mooreheard could win a Supporting Oscar two years later for a similar
movie and she was considered overdue for her first win at this point. So, I
personally think that Bette was rather fourth in this race and not as close to
the win as she often liked to say and should have been happy that the Academy actually nominated her. In my eyes, the race actually came down to Anne
Bancroft, Geraldine Page – and Lee Remick. Anne Bancroft’s win is not really
that surprising – she plays the only nominee in this line-up who is not
addicted to alcohol or drugs and instead feels rather heroic in her
determination to teach blind and deaf Helen Keller to understand the world
around her. Of course, besides this, she also delivered a top-notch performance
and the physicality of her role was surely considered a revelation at its time
(both Anne Bancroft and Bette Davis appeared on
What’s my Line? before the
Oscars and while you can see that everyone loves Bette for who she is, everyone
is clearly in awe of Anne Bancroft’s performance). I also think that Geraldine
Page was a strong factor in the race – she had the Broadway prestige, the Tennessee
Williams prestige, the loss a year before and
Sweet Bird of Youth was probably
also seen as a strong movie adaptation (that also won an award for Supporting
Actor). And Lee Remick? I think that hers might have been a popular performance
with voters as well because she was the only “addict” nominee whose downfall
was presented as a heart-breaking development – her addicted co-nominees also
suffer, but they are also sometimes appalling and are suffering from their
addictions right from the start. In the case of Lee Remick, the viewer feels
much more sympathy for her suffering as she starts the movie as a young,
innocent woman and she also never actively decided to become an alcoholic but
rather is pushed along this ride by her husband. All this makes it very easy to
feel for her and I can see a lot of Academy voters reacting positively to this
transformation. Of course, in the end, it’s all pure speculation…so what about
Lee Remick’s actual performance?
Thankfully
I can say that this performance already shows the strength of the 1962 line-up
since even the least talked-about nominee of this group delivers a very strong
and beautiful performance. But this shouldn’t come as a surprise – Lee Remick
was a very unaffected and instinctive screen actress to whom a lot of often difficult
acting jobs came very naturally, something that is especially important in many
key scenes of Days of Wine and Roses. As I said above, this is also a very heart-breaking
performance of a very innocent character – something that provides Lee Remick
with her strongest moments but also prevents her from going further up in my
ranking as the part often holds her back or puts her in a too passive role as
she too rarely gets to shape her own fate.
Days of
Wine and Roses is famously based on a TV movie starring Cliff Robertson (whose
anger over being rejected for the movie version caused him to make sure that
the same thing wouldn’t happen again with his role in The Two Worlds of Charlie
Gordon which would be turned into Charly and win him an Oscar later) and Piper
Laurie, a much more aggressive and dominant actress than Lee Remick. The
casting of Jack Lemmon obviously caused some changes in the production – apparently,
many audience members walked out of Days of Wine and Roses in 1962 as they
expected a typical Jack Lemmon comedy. And for a while, they would be right –
the movie builds its tragedy step by step. The beginning appears like a typical
“Will they, won’t they?” romantic comedy where Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick meet,
encounter an error of identities, dislike each other before they
inevitable fall in love and get married. Jack Lemmon also uses the beginning of
the story for some of his trademark goofy humour and it’s easy to see why
audience might have been shocked when the story suddenly turns from what seems
like a funny drinking game into a tale of two people losing control of their
very existence.
It has to
be said that the changes coming with the casting of Jack Lemmon actually make
the story more devastating than before – the TV version starts right away at a
very low level for both Joe and Kirsten while the movie takes it time and shows
them first as a happy couple, making their downfall even more disturbing. But
the biggest change between TV and movie version of Days of Wine and Roses
actually came in regards to the character of Kirsten – and these changes made
her both more memorable and less interesting at the same time. In the TV
version, Kirsten is already the same kind of drunk as Joe – they meet at an
office party and form a tragic bond while they accompany their growing
alcoholism, each one constantly taking the other one step further. In the movie
version, Kirsten is anything but an alcoholic – she actually makes it a point
that she dislikes alcohol and doesn’t see the point in it. The movie (clumsily)
explains that Kirsten suffers from an addictive personality (apparently shown
by her “addiction” to chocolate) that later causes her to become an alcoholic
once she tasted a sweet Brandy Alexander. This downfall and contrast obviously
benefits Lee Remick – she has a very “All American Girl” personality that makes
her an innocent and fresh-faced young woman that contrasts very sharply with
her later scenes of drunken despair. But this change from TV to movie screen
also caused Kirsten to become a person that is too easily pushed around by
others and lacks too much energy – she doesn’t like alcohol until Joe makes her
taste it, she likes it then but stops after she had a baby until Joe gets upset
with her and wants her to drink with him again which she does until he wants to
stop, so she stops with him until he has a relapse and starts drinking again
which she then does as well…until at the end when he again wants to stop, only this
time she will not join him anymore. This constant “following” makes Kirsten the
classic supportive wife (only in this case in the worst of meanings) and again,
it does make her downfall very memorable but also provides her from being a
stronger or more interesting presence – Piper Laurie obviously took every chance to step into the foreground
and the fact that Kirsten was constantly her own person helped her to achieve a
different kind of impact than Lee Remick. Today, the actress playing Kirsten
would most likely enter the Supporting category – don’t get me wrong, this
would surely be category fraud but it is still a limited co-lead part that also
suffers from the fact that Jack Lemmon gets the clear central role with much
more dramatic opportunities.
But the
limits of the part itself are thankfully the only problems that Lee Remick
faces as her performance within these limits is a beautiful, strong and
disturbing portrayal that certainly gets everything out the role. What’s
surprising right from the start is how strong her Kirsten rejects Joe at the
beginning. He meets her first when he thinks she is one of the party girls he
hired for a party when she is actually his bosses secretary and she immediately
takes a strong disliking to him – Lee Remick plays this without any softening
of her character and when she later slaps him, it again feels surprisingly
serious, considering the rather light touch that the movie and Jack Lemmon had
built up to that point. However, this seriousness also does harm her
performance in a way when Kirsten suddenly has a change of mind and decides to
go out with Joe – so far, their dislike of one another had been so convincing
that this change does not feel entirely true; however, after that scene,
their chemistry much improves and lays the basis for the story to follow.
Lee Remick
possesses a very expressive face and eyes that can easily tell very precise
stories – when she mentions her father, he eyes show for a short moment the
panic in her, the desire to be accepted, the pretending that she does to
herself, before she goes back to being a sweet conversation partner. She also
has a very melancholic personality that shimmers just underneath that sweetness
and innocence that helps to make scenes such as Joe and Kirsten sharing an evening by the waterfront, talking about her parents or a dream about her own
death, very noteworthy and in wonderful harmony with the goal of her personal
journey. As I said earlier, Lee Remick is also a very natural actress who can
express a vast area of different emotions– she can have a totally believable
laughing fit when her neighbours come by to complain about the fact that she is
spraying poison against the roaches in her apartment or when she is drunk
and has to hide it from her father, she
can show the sadness from her father’s disapproval or the pain from Joe telling
her that she will ruin her shape by breast-feeding her child and of course the
drunken helplessness without any artificiality.
In a
certain way, another criticism that one might have of this performance is that
Lee Remick doesn’t do anything with the part that most other actresses couldn’t
do as well. This is true to a certain extent – Lee Remick doesn’t surprise with
her performance but she does add her own personality and she does get out of it
what’s humanly possible. Because it might not be possible to do exactly more
with this role – but a look at the TV version shows that it’s definitely
possible to do less. Piper Laurie was obviously a talented stage actress but
her tics and method approach to this part often makes her performance,
especially in her drunk scenes, too forced and affected. Her delivery of the
line “Can’t you hear a woman calling you?” is done far too aggressive while Lee
Remick captures all of the anger, exhaustion and desperation that Kirsten is
feeling. Her big drunk scene in a shabby hotel room is clearly Lee Remick’s big
“Oscar scene” – and it’s impossible to not feel for Kirsten in this moment as
Lee Remick manages to be completely believable as a drunk, never overdoing it
but also not ignoring any of the effects that alcohol has on Kirsten. It’s a
deeply disturbing scene that might be her “big” moment but, for my money, Lee
Remick is even better in her final scene when a sober Kirsten begs Joe to let
her come back and live with him and their daughter again while being unable to
promise that she will stop drinking. Her face feels so different from the woman
at the beginning of the movie and she wonderfully shows how Kirsten is
unwilling to stop drinking while refusing to be called an “alcoholic” and
finally admits that she rather continues to drink than be with her family. It’s
the only time in the movie that Kirsten makes a decision for herself...
So, this is
certainly a heart-breaking and beautifully executed performance that worked
wonderfully within the movie and in relation to Jack Lemmon. Lee Remick
unfortunately too often had to step back as Jack Lemmon dominated the story but
she nonetheless left a lasting impression, thanks to her natural and memorable
personality that made the journey of Kirsten equally devastating and upsetting.
