Well, finally I did it!
About two and a half years ago, I did a ranking of the Best Actress winners and now I am through with the Supporting Actress winners and I can finally post my ranking.

It was seriously unbelievable hard to rank them and it surely has cost me 5 years of my live to do so. It is just so hard to compare performances with 5 minutes of screen time with those of 90 minutes. You see so many different kind of performances in that category, too, unlike the Best Actress category where you see a lot of similarities.

I will do maybe 10 a day so that it remains interesting.
And don't forget, those are my personal opinions. I know that a lot of people don't share them but, everyone has differerent taste!

I hope you have fun reading my ranking and my comments on the winners!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fritz,

72: Gloria Grahame as Rosemary Bartlow in The Bad and the Beautiful


And here we go!
Gloria Grahame is the first member of a club that I like to call “I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?”
It’s not so much the question “How could she win over Jean Hagen in ‘Singin’ in the Rain’?”, but rather the question “How could she win with that performance?”.
Well, the fact that she had been in three big movies that year, “The Bad and the Beautiful” (winner of 5 Oscars, including Miss Grahame herself), “Sudden Fear” (nominated for Best Actress: Joan Crawford) and “The Greatest Show on Earth” (winner of the Award for Best Picture) definitely helped her to take the Oscar home. But: if, of the three movies she was in, that was her best role, than what was the big deal about her in the first place???
In “The Bad and the Beautiful”, Gloria Graham plays the bored, southern-belle wife of a successful author who wants nothing more than a trip to Hollywood and some excitement. The movie tells three stories from three points of views. The first one from the point of a director, the second from the point of an actress and the third from the point of a writer. Since Gloria Grahame plays the wife of this writer, her character doesn’t enter the movie until the third story, that means her first appearance comes about 80 minutes after movie started and about ten minutes later she’s already gone again which shows that her impact on the movie is negligible.
During these ten minutes Gloria Grahame gives, no doubt about that, an entertaining performance. Each time her husband sits down to start to write something, she comes in and disturbs him. She’s a charming little creature who makes the best of her small role (and is best remembered for her line “James Lee, you have a very naughty mind…I’m happy to say”). I actually give Miss Grahame some credit for making Rosemarie a charming women because she is actually supposed to be completely annoying.
We’re also expected to believe that she flirts a lot with other men but we never see it and from the way Miss Graham plays the character it’s hard to believe. She just doesn’t seem like a man-hunter. As I said, she is charming, but unfortunately not charming enough that we would believe her husband loves her so much despite the fact that she can be such a pain-in-the-ass. What also bothers me about her is the way she speaks her lines…she sounds as if she is reading them from a teleprompter, it seems very artificial to me. Also, she moves like a robot…there is nothing really relaxed or natural about her.
What I do like is that she makes it a comedy-role and makes the viewer smile for the first time in over an hour (if you don’t count the laughs over Lana Turner’s hysterical breakdown in her car…)
As I said, it’s a pretty much nothing-role that could have been played by 1923409820395 other actresses., but she adds some nice things. When her husband is on the phone and doesn’t look at her, watch her face, how she is thinking of tricking him into doing what she wants. Or her child-like excitement when she sees film star Lana Turner in the bungalow next door. And her last scene is also quite good, when she and her husband are having a fight and she tells him: “James Lee Bartlow, you take a good look at yourself in that mirror. You’ve changed since you’ve come to Hollywood, and I don’t mind telling you, it’s no chance for the better.” You can see that Gloria Grahame is a good actress, but this performance is nothing special. She’s no scene stealer and when she’s gone, she’s immediately forgotten but, at least, for ten minutes she breathes fresh air into the movie and gives us some smiles on our faces.

Best performance of the movie: Kirk Douglas

71: Ingrid Bergman as Greta Ohlsson in Murder on the Orient-Express


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 say: I love Agatha Christie, I have read every book by her and “Murder on the Orient Express” holds a special place in my heart because it was the first book I ever read by her. I also enjoy the film version very much and I have to confess that I love Ingrid Bergman’s performance. While all the other actors seem to be in the movie just to have some fun, she is the only one to take her part seriously and her 5 minutes interrogation scene is, at least for me, the high point of the film. In only a few minutes, she creates a complex and memorable character. When she starts to cry because of her non-religious parents, it’s a very moving moment and Ingrid’s performance stays with the viewer for a long time while all the others are pretty much forgotten the moment they leave the room. She also adds some nice moments to her performance: when Poirot asks her about her time in America, she shows for two seconds the horror of that memory before she catches herself and you can also see panic when he asks her why she is making the trip on this train. And I also find her scenes at the end very moving, when Poirot accused her of having lied and he talks about Daisy Armstrong and she just turns her head and cries, still hunted by her past.
So, it’s a very well crafted performance by one the best actresses to ever grace the screen, but despite my love for it, I also have to say that this is simply not an Oscar-winning role. Yes, she is the best part about the movie, but the fact remains, that she is just one of 12 suspects who all come and go and it’s actually a simple role and a lot of actresses could have given the same performance (We actually did a “Murder on the Orient Express” - play back in school and the girl who played Miss Ohlsson was just as impressive as Ingrid Bergman). So, it’s a great performance, but nothing that deserves an Oscar or a better place in my ranking.


Best performance of the movie: Ingrid Bergman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fritz,

70: Miyoshi Umeki as Katsumi Kelly in Sayonara


When Anthony Quinn announced Miyoshi Umeki as the winner of the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, the audience gasped since Elsa Lanchaster was the clear favorite and also the other three nominees seemed to have better chances.
But it was Miyoshi Umeki who took home the Oscar for her very short role as Red Buttons’s suffering wife. I think it can be assumed that both actors, Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki, won their Oscars not so much for their acting but rather for the characters they played and their ultimate tragic fate. Yes, Academy members are sentimental.
But with this observations, I don’t want to take anything away from Miss Umeki’s performance. She has a very small role, maybe fifteen minutes and most of the time she doesn’t say anything, but Miyoshi has an absolutely adorable screen presence that I always compare with that of Audrey Hepburn. You just have to smile when you see her, her shy behavior, her nervous laugh. As Marlon Brando puts it, “She’s just as cute as a bug.”
Another reason for her Oscar win was also that she and Red Buttons totally outshine Marlon Brando and his own storyline of forbidden love. Marlon Brando gives one of his worst performances, talking with the weirdest accent imaginable, and his leading lady is as wooden as…a piece of wood (haha). Yes, it’s Red and Miyoshi who make this movie and who are the most interesting characters. Their simple minds and their unquestioning love are heartbreaking.
Miyoshi has three great scenes: first, when she serves Marlon Brando and Red Buttons with wine before dinner. She doesn’t say much and the scene is surely not very challenging for an actor, but she is so loveable, so adorable that you immediately fall in love with her. She wins you over in two seconds.
But Miyoshi is not only cute, she can also act. Later, there is a heartbreaking scene when her husband finds out that she wants to have an operation on her eyes to make her look American. He is furious about her and she cries, sobbing that “Then I have good eyes. I fool everybody. I look American, like Joe. I want him be proud of me.” It’s just heartbreaking and Miyoshi is wonderful in this scene.
And then, later, they watch a puppet show, where the lovers kill themselves because they can no longer face live. Miyoshi says, moved to tears, “It is so beautiful.”
“Beautiful?”, asks Red Buttons. “They’re gonna die, aren’t they?”
“They will live in another world, on a beautiful lake…floating always together. Like water lilies.”
This last sentence moves me to tears every time. The way Miyoshi says it, she makes it seem like poetry. With so much feeling…
Yes, there is nothing wrong with her performance. Why didn’t I place her higher? Well, for that, the role is just too short and undemanding. 80% of her screen time, she just has to be cute. And one 15-seconds crying scene just isn’t enough to give her a better place. She was surely wonderful, but when it comes to pure acting, there have been more challenging roles for women.
Still, an adorable actress and a wonderful performance.


Best performance of the movie: Miyoshi Umeki

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fritz,

69: Margaret Rutherford as The Duchess of Brighton in The V.I.P.s


First of all: Sorry, Jose!
Here, we have another member of the “I’m glad that this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?” club.
Margaret Rutherford will always be remembered for her work as Miss Marple, but she was more than that: a great character actress!
Still, I think that she owes her Oscar for the fact that she was competing in a very weak year and that the Academy members wanted to appreciate her for stealing the whole movie from Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Personally, I think that it was Maggie Smith who stole the movie and should have won the Oscar, but I can understand why Academy members would think different.
Margaret Rutherford played The Duchess of Brighton, an old, loveable but also often confused lady who wants to travel to America because she has to work to keep her home, a big old English castle. My problems with Miss Rutherford’s performance are basically the writing: the character has no depths, no real background, just nothing. You have the feeling, that someone was reading the script and thought “Mmh, let’s throw in some old lady for laughs. Hey you, write the part and bring it to me in 5 minutes.” It could have very well happened that way. The character appears every twenty minutes or so, acts a little confused for two minutes and leaves again. Don’t get me wrong, Miss Rutherfords plays this very well and gets laughs out of a nothing-script. The way she always takes pills that are either supposed to keep her awake or make her asleep give you a big smile on your face (she once says “I shall clearly arrive in Florida in an advanced state of drug addiction.”). You also have to love her when she is putting an arrogant Stewardess in her place or when she is asked to fasten her seatbelt, and she says “I haven’t brought a seatbelt with me!” And later, she even gets a chance to shine in a serious way, when she talks about her home in England and quotes Shakespeare. Margaret Rutherford is just one of those actresses who can shine in everything she does. Her best scene is at the end, when she meets Orson Welles and they arrange a film shooting in her home which brings her a lot of money. With a quiet, moved voice she says “I can keep my home now.” It’s a very touching moment.
So, I have to say that Miss Rutherford surely makes the most of her role and I don’t want to deny her the Oscar, but at the end of the day, it’s just a role that is too undemanding and doesn’t really deserve an Oscar.


Best performance of the movie: Maggie Smith

68: Ruth Gordon as Minnie Castevet in Rosemary's Baby


Ranking Ruth Gordon was very hard for me because I have so many mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I love her. Simple as that. Ruth Gordon was a wonderful woman who was so over-due for recognition from the Academy (another member of the “I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?” club). An amazing actress, an amazing writer and how great is it to see a woman in her age benefit from the Oscar in such a big way, essentially re-starting her career? It’s just hard to not fall in love with her. And when you see her accepting her Oscar, saying to the audience “I can’t tell you how encouraging a thing like this is”, I am always so happy for her.
Yes, I am happy that Ruth Gordon has an Oscar.
But: I am not so happy about the performance that won it.
I mean, yes: her performance is iconic, there is nothing wrong with it (acting-wise), she is a scene-stealer…but still…
First, what bugs me is that her performance and her character are so one-dimensional…I mean, apart from playing an annoying neighbor, what else does she do? There is no depth, no emotion, nothing. At least I would have expected some hidden signs of evil in her character, but not even that (except for her conversation on the phone when she talks to the doctor about Rosemary’s pregnancy and the look on her face when Rosemary tells her that she’s going out can can’t have her drink, but that’s not enough). And that brings me to the ultimate question: why is her character in the movie??? Why does a horror movie need a comic relief? Why do we never see a more evil side of the witch? So much more could have been done with that character. Just look at the actor who plays Mr. Castevet. He gives exactly the right performance, a wonderful balance of annoying and creepy. Ruth Gordon missed this completely. You have the feeling she plays her part for laughs only, but also fails here because there is nothing funny about her performance. So, Ruth Gordon fails in both parts of her performance: the comedy and the horror. She only succeeds in the annoying part but that is not really a good thing. Isn’t it the plan of the Castevets to get close to Rosemary? In that case, shouldn’t they be a little more likeable? In the end, I think that Ruth Gordon throws the whole movie off-balance and completely destroys the scary atmosphere of it.
But still, when you look at what remains, it is still a very entertaining performance by a very gifted woman (but it is really necessary that her character eats cake like a pig?) and she has some nice moments (like when her husband drops alcohol on the carpet and she says, coughing “The carpet…the brand-new carpet…this man is so clumsy…”).
Despite the fact that all she has to do is appear every twenty minutes and be annoying for a couple of seconds, Ruth Gordon makes her character totally unforgettable, no doubt about that, but just not what I would call Oscar-worthy. For this, there is too much missing in her performance.
Sorry, Ruth, but I still love you!


Best performance of the movie: Mia Farrow

67: Jo Van Fleet as Kate in East of Eden


In her first year in movies, Jo van Fleet made a big impression in Hollywood, starring in “The Rose Tattoo” with Best Actress winner Anna Magnani, “I’ll cry tomorrow” with Best Actress Nominee Susan Hayward and winning an Oscar for “East of Eden” with Best Actor Nominee James Dean.
In “East of Eden”, Jo plays Kate, the madam of a brothel and, as it turns out, the mother of James Dean’s character Caleb and his brother Aaron.
Actually, when you think about it, Jo van Fleet has by far the most interesting character in the movie. A woman, who leaves her husband and her children and opens a brothel in another town. But, sadly, the fact that her role is very short and her character totally underdeveloped, makes the role the least interesting. By making Kate as mysterious and distant as impossible, the screenwriter and Elia Kazan also made her empty and uninteresting. Louise Fletcher was able to make a two-dimensional and distant character fascinating, but Jo van Fleet just fails here. Sure, she is good as the mysterious and bitter Kate, but there is nothing special about her. My biggest problem with the performance is how obvious Jo van Fleet is acting: when she lightens a cigarette, she seems to shout: “Look at me, I’m a method actor!” or when she is moving a chair or bows her head to avoid James Dean’s look. It all just screams acting.
But even though she is very good when James Dean visits her in the middle of the night and she, unaware of his identity, shouts for her bullies to get him out and then she looks at him through the door with a kind of understanding look, as if she recognized him. Also, she is very touching in her last scene, the way she says “Oh, Cal…”. Apart from that, she has her big, 10-minute scene with James Dean. Both do good work here but still, Jo van Fleet leaves me strangely cold. As I said, her character should be very interesting, but I am not interested in her.
Nevertheless, she becomes more impressive when Caleb asks her about his father and she tells him: “I shot him because he tried to stop me. I could have killed him if I wanted to but I didn’t, I just wanted him to let me go… he wanted to bring me up like a kid and tell me what to do, well nobody tells me what to do!” A very good scene, but not Oscar-worthy. Her best scene is when she and James Dean are meeting outside and they talk to each other like strangers (which, basically, they are). She asks about Aaron:
“What’s he like?”
“Well, he looks like you.”
“Well, is he like me?”
”No, he’s good.”
Kate laughs about this because she knows that he’s right: she is not good. Then she asks him, with a smile: “What do you want? Just look at me?”
Here, she seems to open up a little, but when he tells her that he wants money, she immediately changes again and gives him a cold, suspicious look.
All in all, certainly not a bad performance, but hardly Oscar-worthy which is not the fault of Jo van Fleet but rather of the screenplay.
But all in all, the Academy honored a very good actress (and another member of the “I’m glad that this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?” club), shown by her other two very different and very good performances in the same year.


Best performance of the movie: James Dean

66: Shelley Winters as Rose-Ann D'Arcy in A Patch of Blue


While all the other acting categories have a good share of two-time winners, there are only two women who have won two Supporting Actress Oscars. Shelley Winters became the first women to do so when she won her second Oscar for her portrayal of Rose-Ann D’Arcy, the definition of white trash. She is loud, vulgar and disgusting. A racist who treats her blind daughter Selina (whom she blinded herself by accident) like a slave, beating her at every possible situation.
Shelley Winters herself said that she hated the character and didn’t understand her. The Academy was probably very impressed that, despite her hate for the character, Shelley Winters was still able to make her so effective and seriously scary.
“A Patch of Blue” works like a fairy-tale, with a poor princess who is badly treated by her step-mother (only in this case, it’s her actual mother) and waits to be saved by a white knight (only in this case, the knight is black). In this context, Shelley Winters performance works because she is pure evil: full of hate and anger without a single redeeming feature. When we hear her footsteps outside the apartment, we feel just as scared as Selina. Shelley Winters is also very effective when she screams and shouts at her or even slaps her. Yes, she is the evil mother from a fairy tale and we have no sympathy or whatever for her.
But: my problem is that Shelley Winters took a too easy way to play Rose-Ann. She didn’t understand the character and it’s very obvious from the way she plays her, that she didn’t even try. Instead of trying to go really into the part and give Rose-Ann some depths and maybe us an explanation why she is so evil (In one scene, she manipulates her father against Selina with a totally evil look. Why does she do that to her own daughter???), she decided to simply make her as loud and bad as possible, simply working on the outside instead of the inside. Because of that, it’s a totally two-dimensional performance that is only impressive because Shelley Winters gets the opportunity to scream a lot. But what Shelley Winters did, too, is to turn Rose-Ann into a total cartoon character, a caricature. Of course, the script does so, too. Shelley is given lines like “Now who’s been drinking my Gin?” or “Can you believe it? After the smack-around I gave her last night?”. As I said, a total cartoon character. The worst scene is when she and her father are having a loud argument, throwing things at each other. The scene is so over-the-top that you have the feeling you’re watching a parody. Only at the end, Shelley seems to show some feelings for her daughter or when Selina throws up in the apartment, she tells her with a caring voice “Stop that. Stop it, Selina!”
In the end, her performance works as the evil villain who is a total contrast to the saint-like Sidney Poitier, but it’s nothing that should be honored with an Oscar.


Best performance of the movie: Elizabeth Hartman

65: Helen Hayes as Ada Quonsett in Airport


First of all: Sorry, Jose! (again)
Helen Hayes, the “first lady of the American theatre” won a sentimental Oscar for her funny performance as Ada Quonsett, a loveable stowaway on a plane with serious troubles.
Helen Hayes’s performance is one of those cases when a supporting player saves a whole movie from failing completely. “Airport” is a boring mess with an awful script and while Van Heflin and Maureen Stapleton give impressive dramatic performances, it’s Helen Hayes who gives the movie some much-needed humor. The scene when she first enters the screen, with a friendly smile on her face, is a comedy highlight alone because we surely didn’t expect the stowaway to be a little old lady. The following scene, when she explains how she gets aboard, is also priceless. The way she talks with Burt Lancaster is just hilarious: When she is certain that she won’t be punished because “it wouldn’t be good publicity for an airline to prosecute a little old lady just because she wanted to visit her daughter.” Or this scene:
Ada: “May I please have my tea now?”
Steward: “Yes…where are you going?”
Ada: “Can’t I have it in the Commander’s club?”
Steward: “This is for members only.”
Ada: “But I have a card!”
Steward: “This card says ‘Mrs. Andrew Jackson’!”
Ada: “Yes, Gertrud’s a friend of mine, she always lets me use it when I’m traveling.”
Later on the plane, Helen Hayes can show more talent for comedy (“You hurt me! You hurt me!”) and who can’t love her when at the end, she tries to walk away in another woman’s coat.
But of course, despite the fact that Helen Hayes is very funny, this is certainly no great acting. Most of the humor comes from the fact that Helen Hayes is a loveable old woman and in some cases, she makes the humor too obvious (by the way she looks or talks). So, it’s a nice and charming performance but nothing more.


Best performance of the movie: Helen Hayes

64: Lee Grant as Felicia Carr in Shampoo


And we have another member of the “I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?” club.
In Shampoo, Lee Grant plays Felicia Carr, the bored society wife of a politician and one of the many mistresses of Warren Beatty (I lost track how many times she has sex with him during the movie).
First I want to say the good things about her performance:
Lee Grant is a great actress and in “Shampoo”, you can see how she sinks her teeth into this part. Not a single line seems wasted, she uses every opportunity to shine and command the screen (but in a good way). Of all the women in the movie, she seems to be the only one to take her part seriously and gives the best performance (Goldie and Julie just seem to be here to have some fun). First, we only hear Felicia while she is having sex with George in a dark bed-room and Lee delivers her lines excellent (“Could you just move…because that’s…that’s…JESUS CHRIST!…that’s right…”). In a later scene, she has a great emotional moment when she is angry at George and tells him “Don’t take up my time because my time is important!…You have no respect for me. You, you, you, you can’t distinguish between me and one of your goddamn Hollywood numbers!”) And then there is her strong final scene at the election party when is she is realizing that her life is slowly falling apart (she seems to lose both her husband and her lover to another woman) and she tells her husband “I hope you like Miss Shawn. Because she’s going to be very, very expensive.” And her final scene, when she is showing her husband the finger, is a great way for the character to leave.
Now the not so good things: Despite the fact that Lee Grant gives the best performance of the cast, she totally misses what all the others have: Charm. “Shampoo” is a light comedy and Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie and Warren Beatty can make that work, but Lee Grant can’t. Julie and Goldie make their characters loveable and likeable. And: they also have better roles! No matter how good Lee Grant is at the party scene, who can forget Julie Christie throwing food at Lester and later telling George that she wants to s**k his c**k?
Even though Lee Grant gets everything out of her part, the part itself is just too under-written, short and two-dimensional (Felicia seems only to exist to sleep with George). And how sorry can we feel for her at the party scene where she sees her husband’s lover when a few minutes before, she had sex with her own?
So, Lee Grant would have either needed more personal charm or a better part to really make an impression.


Best performance of the movie: Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn, Lee Grant (Lee Grant is the best in pure acting, but Julie and Goldie have the charm that the movie needs)

63: Geena Davis as Muriel Pritchett in Accidental Tourist


And you guessed it: another member of the “I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?” club.
Geena Davis plays Muriel Pritchett, a dog trainer who falls in love with a grieving man at first sight and tries to get him out of his emotional hole.
The role of Muriel is a role Oscar was made for; but unfortunately, only if played by another actress. Celeste Holm would have been wonderful. But Geena Davis? Not so much.
The problem is: “Accidental Tourist” is one of the most boring movies I ever saw in my life. William Hurt and his “I show grief by simply looking bored and not opening my mouth when I talk” way of acting get on my nerves after two minutes. Well, what a great opportunity for Geena Davis to save the movie and give it the spark and humor it needs (that’s at least what I expected). But: instead of being a joyful and charming creature, Geena Davis makes Muriel just as boring and uninteresting as William Hurt his Macon. She delivers her line in such an uninspired way, it’s totally frustrating when you imagine what this role could have been like. (In Paris, Muriel comes back with bags full of clothes and she tells Macon how cheap everything was – this coat only costs 90 Francs!
Macon: “90 Francs, that’s about 15 Dollars.”
Muriel: “Really, I thought Francs and Dollars were about the same.”
Macon: “No.”
Muriel: “Oh…than these things were super-bargains!”
This could have been a funny conversation, but William Hurt and Geena Davis speak their lines as if they had been awake for 72 hours and are one second away from falling asleep. And this is unfortunately representative for all the rest of their conversations).
Geena Davis seems to think that wearing awful clothes and having an awful haircut is enough to make her character refreshing, but it’s not. Another problem: Geena makes Muriel not understandable. I mean, does Muriel always chase the first guy that comes into her shop? We never learn why she is so fascinated by Macon. In the end, she seems more like a stalker than anything else (when she invites him for Dinner, she looks at him with such big eyes and a crazy look that you have to wonder if she will eat with Macon or if he will be the main entrance). So, her attempts to cheer Macon up become rather annoying after a while and because of that you also don’t understand why Macon would fall for her. When she follows him to Paris, it really gets freaky, something that probably shouldn’t be in a romantic comedy. The movie wants to make a point about how perfect they are for each other when they eat at Burger King and she takes all the cucumbers he doesn’t want. Nice, but shouldn’t there be some believable chemistry, too???
Of course, Geena Davis is a very talented actress and despite her misinterpretation she has some very good scenes: her best is when she doesn’t say anything and simply listens to Macon explaining his grief. The look on her face is wonderful. And when they have a fight and she yells at him: “You are so selfish! You are so self-centered! You have all these fancy reasons for never doing a single thing I want!”, it’s also very impressing.
So, Geena Davis does have some good moments and it’s a great role for an actress, but overall, her performance is too disappointing to get a better place.


Best performance of the movie: Geena Davis

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fritz,

62: Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I in Shakespeare in Love


When Helen Hunt won the Oscar for “As Good as it Gets”, Hollywood began to feel guilty very soon for having denied the award to Judi Dench. Well, how lucky that she played another English monarch in her next movie! The perfect opportunity for the Academy to say sorry!
Well, even though Judi Dench’s win is a clear make-up award, I don’t think that an Oscar is undeserving. Judi Dench is one of those amazing British actresses who makes everything look easy and can do more with one look than others with tons of dialogue.
Despite her brief screen time, Judi Dench makes her Elizabeth an unforgettable character (she also benefits from having strategically very good appearances: at the beginning, in the middle and in the end). Her first scene is rather meaningless, but in her second scene, she is able to command a room full of people simply with a look. There is definitely something royal about her! With a few words of sarcasm, she can make Viola look like the biggest fool. And who can forget her delivery of the line “She’s been plugged since I saw her last and not by you. Takes a woman to know it.”
Her best moments are in the end, when her character basically solves all the problems (not necessarily to the happiness of all) and brings everything to an end. And what a wonderful moment when she says “But I know something of a woman in a man’s profession. Yes, by God, I do know about that.” And of course: “Too late, too late.”
Judi Dench certainly gets everything out of her role and her strong screen presence and charismatic voice add a lot to her performance! So, not an undeserved Oscar but also too little to get a better position.


Best performance of the movie: Joseph Fiennes

61: Anjelica Huston as Maerose Prizzi in Prizzi's Honor


Anjelica Huston took home the Oscar and most critics award for her scene-steeling turn as Maerose Prizzi, the fallen daughter of the family.
The problem I have with this performance is similar to the one I have with Geena Davis: “Prizzi’s Honor” is one boring movie and Anjelica Huston doesn’t improve that. Maybe if the movie had centered more on her character, than it might have been better, but Anjelica’s short appearances (and maybe a whole of fifteen minutes on-screen) aren’t enough.
What works in her favor is that it is a very showy role and that Anjelica Huston has an undeniable screen presence. Even Jack Nicholson disappears next to her. Her best moment is at the beginning, when she is crying after having been insulted by her father but still tries to make small-talk with Charlie until she finally breaks down. A very strong scene but somehow unsatisfying. Later, she has great scenes with Jack Nicholson (“You wanna do it, Charlie?”) and her father (“Oh, he had use for me, Pappa. He came to my apartment the other night…and her forced himself on me and he did it to me. Yeah, Pappa, he screwed me, three times, maybe four, I can’t remember. You should see the size of him!”) That scene alone is worth an Oscar.
But the best thing about Anjelica is her accent! I love it!
So, Anjelica Huston does shine whenever she is on-screen but that simply happens too rarely. A little more life in her performance also wouldn’t have been wrong and when is on-screen with William Hickey, your forget she ever existed!
So when the movie is over, her performance is nothing earth-shattering but I have no problems with the Oscar win.


Best performance of the movie: William Hickey

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fritz,

60: Dianne Wiest as Holly in Hannah and her Sisters


Dianne Wiest is one of those actresses everyone seems to love. And there are a lot of places on the Internet where her performance in “Hannah and her Sisters” is called on of the greatest of all time. Personally, I can’t agree with that. I don’t think that it’s one of the best ever, I don’t think it’s the best of the year and I don’t even think it’s the best in the movie. For me, Barbara Hershey gives the stand-out performance that should have been awarded with an Oscar! I even think that Mia Farrow and Carrie Fisher are more interesting.
Well, but Oscar and almost all the critics chose Dianne Wiest for her portrayal of Holly, a neurotic wanna-be actress with some drug problems in her past.
To be honest: I doubt that would have even noticed Dianne Wiest in the movie if she hadn’t won the Oscar. I can’t remember how many times I have seen her performance now, always trying to ‘get it’, but I never did. For me, she is overshadowed by almost everyone else and there is never a moment when I think “Wow, that’s Oscar-worthy!”
But, despite all this, Dianne Wiest certainly gives a very good performance when you concentrate on her. Her little tics, her neurotic behavior, her sad look all work very well. Her best scene is the flashback scene with Woody Allen (“The room is alive with constant vibration!” or “I love songs about extra-terrestrial live, don’t you?” and “I was so bored!!!” or the way she is always moving while sitting in the restaurant). She is also very good in a scene with Mia Farrow when you see how much Holly depends on the opinion of others and that she has very little self-esteem (“I sing Hannah, for Christ’s Sake, you heard me sing!”) and later in the restaurant (“You really think I’m a loser, don’t you?”).
Dianne Wiest also makes Holly a very annoying person, especially in all the scenes with Mia Farrow, but that is actually a good thing because it shows how she slowly changed when we see her as a very charming a loveable person in the later scenes with Woody Allen (and provides her funniest moment when she reads her script to him about the architect and his girl-friend who are stabbed to death by his ex-wife).
So, even though I don’t think that Dianne Wiest was as great as most people always say she was, I think it’s a fine performance by a talented actress. (And somehow I think that every actress who has to kiss Woody Allen should get an Oscar…)


Best performance of the movie: Barbara Hershey

Hi Fritz, congrats for uploading the list... i am surprised how quick you did it...

I knew that Gloria will be the last

Do i have extrasensorial powers? Am i a seer?

By the way, Bayern Munich doesnt deserve being in the next round in the UEFA Cup... i just want to tell you that. I hate Oliver Kahn... short of monkey and orangutan...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JOSE,