Category: Best Actress

1937 – Barbara Stanwyck

Stella Dallas

When the ending credits began to roll, my first thought was that Stanwyck did an incredibly good job in a very complex role.  I went into the film blind, not knowing what it was about or what kind of character she was playing.  But during the first half of the movie, I must confess, I didn’t like her character.  But eventually, it became clear that I wasn’t really supposed to, which made it clear that Stanwyck was actually amazing. 

She played the part of Stella Dallas, a cheap, tawdry woman who had aspirations of being a classy woman in high society.  But the problem was that she had no idea how such women actually behaved.  And a big part of it, as shallow as it sounds, though it was important in the 1930s, was the way she dressed.  She was a coarse floosy.  I think the film was trying to make the point that you can take the girl out of Hicksville, but you can’t take Hicksville out of the girl. 

But what mad the character so wonderfully complex was that she genuinely and sincerely loved her daughter, and she was willing to sacrifice her own happiness for hers.  When she learned that she was a dead weight around Laurel’s future, she did what was necessary to give her the life that she could not provide.  And it was here that Stanwyck really shined.  She was incredible.  The way she displayed her emotions on the screen was perfection, consistently making it absolutely clear what she was feeling, without ever over-doing it.  This role seemed to be made for her.

There was a scene on a train when she overhears people talking about her, saying how they felt bad for Laurel because of the utter embarrassment her mother was.  Stanwyck’s reaction to this revelation was heartbreaking to watch, even though she was a character who I didn’t really like.  She was selfish, and self-centered in everything except her love for her daughter.  And this is made clear in the last few scenes of the films, when she selflessly gives her daughter away so that Laurel can live a life free of her own low-class reputation of shame.  Because of the way Stanwyck portrayed Stella Dallas, I actually ended up liking her character.  She totally deserved her Best Actress nomination.

1937 – Greta Garbo

Camille

Here, we have Garbo doing what she does best, playing a romantic yet tragic role.  I think she was really known for her extraordinary beauty, her often serious and stoic expression, and her fine-tuned dramatic acting.  But every time I see her in a film, I am always amazed at how brilliant her stunning smile was.  I think she really understood that you can’t sell the serious moments in a performance, unless you have a firm grasp on the light-hearted ones.  Here, she showed us both, and did a fantastic job in each. 

It was a period piece, taking us back to the mid-1800s in Paris.  But I think the elaborate costumes and hair styles really suited her.  Then again, Garbo had a timeless beauty that would have made her stand out in any era.  And yes, it was her beauty that made her memorable, but it was her wonderful performances that made her incredible.  And many critics have called her role as Marguerite Gautier as one of the finest performances of her career.

I think her performance was summed up quite nicely by a conversation between the film’s producer, Irving Thalberg, and its director George Cukor, which I have lifted from Wikipedia.  “On watching a scene in the film where Garbo is at a theater, Thalberg said: ‘George, she’s awfully good. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her so good.’ ‘But Irving’, said Cukor, ‘she’s just sitting in an Opera Box.’ ‘She’s relaxed’, said Thalberg. ‘She’s open. She seems unguarded for once.’ Garbo’s new attitude prompted Thalberg to have the script reworked. ‘She is a fascinating artist, but she is limited’, Thalberg told the new writers. ‘She must never create situations. She must be thrust into them. The drama comes in how she rides them out.’”

And it was true.  She seemed very relaxed in front of the camera, whether she was sitting in an Opera Box, lying with her lover’s head in her lap, or reclining on her death-bed.  She seemed very at ease, and it showed.  It was appropriate for the character, a professional prostitute who was dying of tuberculosis.  But I have to agree with the Academy’s decision.  Luise Rainer’s performance in The Good Earth was more dynamic.  Still, beautifully done, Greta.

1937 – Irene Dunne

The Awful Truth

First off, let me say that Irene Dunne was gorgeous, full of personality and talent, and she knew how to act.  It isn’t surprising that this was not her first nomination for Best Actress.  In fact, it was her third of five nominations in the category.  She was incredible, and she never disappoints.

Here, she plays Lucy Warriner, a loving and devoted wife whose marriage ends because her husband believes she has cheated on him.  Never-mind that it is already established that her husband actually has been cheating.  But the accusation of her infidelity is enough to make her call the lawyer on the spot, and file for divorce.  She starts dating a wealthy man for whom she has no feelings.  And when it later becomes clear that she had never been unfaithful, and she realizes that she still loves her husband, the two reconcile, and the marital trust is restored.  But I noticed that his original indiscretion is never mentioned beyond the two second shot where she catches him in a lie about his whereabouts on a trip.

Dunne knew exactly how to play each scene.  From the moment she first appears on the screen, she is in complete control of her craft.  And throughout the course of the movie, she runs the gambit of emotions from happy to nervous, from depressed to cautious, from angry to drunk, and finally to hopelessly in love.  Dunne played it all believably and she made it look easy.  I also loved some of the well-placed quick witted lines that were common to the screwball comedies of the era.  Dunne delivered them with perfect timing and just the right amount of dryness.

But the film ended with a genuinely dramatic moment to give the narrative a little weight.  Dunne really shined during this climax.  Though less than three minutes from the rolling of the ending credits, it was the first scene where the jokes and quick quips were all gone, the silliness was done, and some real dramatic emotion rose to the surface.  Dunne was beautiful as she tells her husband that the marriage only ended because of what he had imagined she had done, not because of what she had actually done.  It was wonderful how she stood up for herself, refusing to take the blame for his groundless suspicions.  Well-done, Dunne.

1937 – Luise Rainer

The Good Earth

I am quite confident in saying two things about Luise Rainer’s performance in this movie.  First, I think she was very well cast.  And the second is that she totally deserved her Oscar win.  She was incredible.  Yes, she was as Caucasian as she could be, but her eyes actually held a marginally Chinese resemblance.  Her co-star Paul Muni, though he acted his part well, didn’t look remotely Chinese.  I’m sorry to say, he didn’t even come close to looking Asian.

True, the film was about the poor farmer Wang Lung, and his wife O-Lan, but O-Lan seemed to take the lion’s share of the dramatic work, and Rainer did a fantastic job.  If I had any criticism about her performance, it would be this:  O-Lan was supposed to be an unattractive woman, but Rainer’s beauty often shined through the makeup they used to make her less appealing.  She was just too gorgeous.  But she acted the hell out of the part.  The way she carried herself, her often blank facial expression as the men in her life treated her with complete indifference, and the way she spoke like one who is used to being ignored, was masterfully done.

You see, O-Lan was a woman in a strongly male dominated society.  Women were seen as property, not people.  Their only value was in how hard they could work, and how many male children they could bear.  O-Lan was treated without respect for most of her life, even though it was she who often held the family together and not Wang Lung.  And when the family was starving and destitute, it was O-Lan who risked her life during a dangerous time of revolution to illegally loot the jewels that saved her family, changing her husband from a penniless pauper to wealthy Lord.  And for this, he never even said thank you, not until she was on her death-bed.

Rainer just seemed so natural in her carefully buried emotions and her strained devotion to her husband.  Because of her performance, I almost felt like O-Lan was the real lead of the film, even though Muni’s part was just as important.  She just seemed like a stronger character.  This is one of those performances where the Academy voters got it absolutely right.  Rainer’s performance was nuanced and detailed, at times, subtle, and yet always believable.  Perfect Performance.

1937 – Janet Gaynor

A Star is Born

The character of Esther Blodgett seemed to have been written for Janet Gaynor.  Here, we have the first woman to have ever taken home an Oscar for the Best Actress category in 1927/1928, being nominated again.  And once again, I think she really deserved the honor.  She did a great job in this movie, playing the young hopeful actress with dreams of becoming a famous movie star.  But the man who helps her to achieve her goals, is the same man who holds her back from greatness, and is also the man she loves.

This is really her story, though in order to make the narrative work, she had to have good chemistry with her leading man, which Gaynor had with Fredrick March.  The two looked as natural together on the screen as any movie couple ever did.  Add to that her obvious skill as an actress, and you have a great movie.  Esther starts out as a naive young woman with stars in her eyes, to a more mature, more experienced soul, who love and tragedy have transformed into a harder woman, more capable of handling the difficult life of a superstar. 

There were several scenes where Gaynor’s performance really caught my attention.  For example, the scene where she is working as a server at a bougey party.  In a sad, almost pathetic effort to make the attending film producers notice her, she tries to impersonate famous Hollywood starlets while serving hors d’œuvres.  Of course, Norman Maine only notices her when she is being herself.  Another impressive scene is where Esther is accepting an Academy Award for Best Actress.  A drunk Norman interrupts her acceptance speech and accidentally strikes her across the cheek in front of the stunned audience.  The pained look of utter embarrassment on her face as her peers try to congratulate her is heartbreaking.

But then, in the final scene of the movie in which Esther is addressing the public after Norman’s death, where she proudly associates herself with her husband’s name, Gaynor really shows us some raw emotion and strength.  She displays the thick skin the character has grown, and it was a pleasure to watch on the screen.  Gaynor was wonderful, and really deserved her nomination.

1936 – Carole Lombard

My Man Godfrey

This was a delightful movie with a delightful plot.  The actors were all perfectly cast, but if there was one character I couldn’t stand, it would be the female romantic lead, Irene Bullock, played by Carole Lombard.  I didn’t like Irene, and I didn’t like the way the movie ended because of the character.  And the strange thing about that ending is that the male lead, Godfrey Park, played by William Powell, never showed an ounce of genuine affection for her either.

The character of Irene Bullock was a spoiled woman with the emotional maturity of a two-year-old.  She threw wailing, crying temper-tantrums when she didn’t get her own way.  She forced her affections on Godfrey, even when he consistently, yet politely, rejected her advances.  She was spiteful and vindictive toward her sister, rude and disrespectful to her parents, and woefully and unapologetically out of touch with reality to the point of willful vapidness.

Now granted, that was not Lombard’s fault.  It was the way the character was written.  But again, I go back to what I’ve said before.  An acting nomination is eighty percent actor and twenty percent how the character is written.  Lombard played the part as it was written, but I still couldn’t stand the character, and I think I was supposed to like her.

You see, Irene Bullock was supposed to be an emotional roller-coaster.  So Lombard had to be deliriously happy one minute and suicidally depressed the next.  She had to be screaming and sobbing one moment, and giddily kissing her man the next.  She had to be viciously angry one minute, and sweet and cheery the next.  But Lombard pulled it off.  So did she do a good job?  Grudgingly, I have to admit that she did, though I still couldn’t stand the character she created.  Personally, I think I would have preferred an ending that would have put Godfrey with Irene’s sister Cornelia, played by Gail Patrick, or better yet, if he’d ended up happily single without either sister.  But she blithely invaded his new home, and obliviously ignored his rebuffs. And since there happened to be a judge on hand, she married Godfrey on the spot.  But I’m not buying it.  Godfrey was smarter than that.

1935 – Miriam Hopkins

Becky Sharp

From what I have read, this movie had the distinction of being the first full length feature film to be filmed in Three-Strip Technicolor.  The version I watched was the restored version, so all the colors looked vibrant and the picture was clear.  It was a beautifully photographed picture. And Miriam Hopkins, though I didn’t always like her character, did a fantastic job.  The character of Becky Sharp was an almost despicable person, and Hopkins did a great job bringing that across in her performance.  The terrible duality of her personality was clear to see.

I’ve heard of Miriam Hopkins before, but I don’t recall ever seeing any of her other films.  She had an interesting beauty about her.  For me, it was about her jawline and her mouth.  They were a facial feature that stood out to me, which made her beauty slightly unconventional, her visage alluring.  She had a fresh and youthful face that was interesting to look at.  And she was downright gorgeous in the party scenes where she was in fancy gowns, with her hair pulled to the back of her head.

The character of Becky Sharp was a rebellious girl, an unapologetic gold-digger.  She is a liar who will pretty much be nice to those who can give her what she wants, then give them the finger after she gets it.  The only time she really suffers from her own machinations is when her husband becomes wise to her constant deceptions and infidelities, and leaves her.  Who knew she was actually in love with him.  But even then, Hopkins made Becky’s motivations clear, her emotions raw.

But in the end, we find that she isn’t all bad.  She sacrifices her own happiness and security so that her best friend can marry the man she adores.  She puts aside her selfish nature to give her friend love.  Fortunately, an old acquaintance shows up and gives her a little money.  He also gives her a book as a gift.  And being true to her nature, Becky waits till he is walking away before throwing the book at his head and laughing in his face for his kindness and his money.  And the whole thing is almost played off as Becky being a scamp, a jolly rogue.  And darn if Miriam Hopkins didn’t have me almost liking the character of Becky Sharp, simply because of her unapologetic wickedness.  Well played, Miriam.  Well played.

1935 – Claudette Colbert

Private Worlds

Man, it’s a good thing I’m only reviewing Colbert’s performance, and not the movie as a whole.  I had to view it through my modern eyes, and the insensitive way it dealt with mental illness was horrible, not to mention the blatant sexist overtones of the film.  But Colbert was fine, though I’ve seen her do better.  Just watch her in 1934’s Imitation of Life, and you’ll see what I mean.

And I think my disappointment in her performance can be traced back to the script.  As I’ve said before, I believe an acting nomination should be a partnership of actor and script.  A wonderful actress can’t do much with a terrible script, but a poor actress can be elevated by a great script.  Colbert was a very good actress, and she did what she could with this one, but there just wasn’t much room to shine.  There was one scene in which she calms an asylum patient having a violent episode, and she was good there.  There was an intensity in that moment that her character seemed to lack in much of the movie.  She simply didn’t have a lot to work with.

She played the character of Dr. Jane Everest, a scientist and clinical psychiatrist working in a mental asylum.  When the hospital’s management changes, the new superintendent is ridiculously conservative, and immediately demotes her without looking at her work history or even speaking to her.  He believes that women have no place in professional medicine.  Her solution is to meekly accept the extreme discrimination and reject the support of her friends and colleagues.  I think she was supposed to be a figure of female empowerment but this utterly failed.  Look how smart she is.  Look how confident she is.  Look how professional she is.  But in the end, falling in love with the man who mistreated her was what made her complete.

Colbert could have been so much better as a woman who fought against the sexist behavior and earned respect and fair treatment from her new boss, not by being a woman he could fall in love with, but by standing her ground and not allowing him to put her down.  I wanted Dr. Everest to be strong, but instead, she was weak.  And I don’t know if there was anything Colbert could have done, as an actress, to bring that to the surface.  That was what the script required, and she did her job.

1935 – Katherine Hepburn

Alice Adams

This was a good movie, and while I enjoyed Hepburn’s earlier Best Actress nomination, and subsequent Oscar win for Morning Glory, I think I liked her performance in Alice Adams better.  I think the role itself was a little more deserving, and I think there was a little more depth to her performance.  There was more subtlety, more nuance, and Hepburn was perfection.

There were so many good things about the performance.  At the beginning of the movie, she is a young and eager girl, innocent almost to the point of naiveté.  There is an immaturity that usually only exists in children.  But by the end, she becomes more aware of the world around her, and is unable to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of her family, the failures of her father.

One of the best scenes in the movie is probably one of the funniest.  It is a study of uncomfortable tension, as Alice and her parents try to convince Arthur Russell, played by Fred MacMurray, that they aren’t poor.  As the evening goes on, Alice’s fiction begins to unravel and you can see it in Hepburn’s face, her voice, her movements.  You can see her slowly starting to lose her grip, desperately struggling to hold back her tears.

As I did a little research on the movie, I learned that the original ending in the source material, a novel by Booth Tarkington, was quite different.  In it, Alice and Russell end up permanently estranged from each other.  Hepburn and the film’s director George Stevens, wanted an end in which the relationship is up in the air and Alice goes off to secretarial school.  However, producer Pandro S. Berman and RKO executives wanted a happy ending where the two end up together and in love.  Well, the studio got its fairy-tale ending.

But now, I’ve seen enough Katherine Hepburn movies to expect great things from her, and here, I was not disappointed.  This performance had depth, and really gave us a glimpse into the deep pool of talent the actress possessed.  Hepburn was wonderful, and I look forward to her next nomination.

1935 – Elisabeth Bergner

Escape Me Never

I am really unsure about this nomination.  My opinion keeps going back and forth.  Did Elisabeth Bergner do a good job, or did she not?  Did I like the portrayal, or did I not?  Honestly, I’m not certain.  On the one hand, she played the part of Gemma Jones, a poor girl with a baby trying to survive on the streets by lying and stealing food, with a frailty that seemed to lend itself to the character.  But on the other hand, when the character became stronger, she never lost that frailty, that not-so-subtle air about her that wasn’t quite in touch with sanity.

You see, I’ve never even heard of Elisabeth Bergner before watching this film, and as far as I know, I’ve never seen any of her other movies.  So I don’t know if this slightly touched persona is inherent to the actress, or if it was her acting the hell out of the part.  So I did a little research.  Bergner started acting in films in the early 20s, which explains why some of her movements and facial expressions seemed almost like throwbacks to the silent era.

She was an Austrian-born actress who made a name for herself for her stage work in Berlin and Paris before moving to London.  That means her accent was not a skilled accomplishment of acting.  It was real.  So really, that’s just smart casting.  That’s not to say her acting wasn’t good, because it really was.  Her natural frailty and vulnerability was perfectly suited to the character.  But then I also learned that the film is based on a play that was written specifically for Bergner by Margaret Kennedy.  So no wonder she seemed so natural in the role.

Yes, she had that natural frailty, but there was also a strange kind of confidence that was somehow also ephemeral.  The scene where Gemma tells her husband’s lover that he is married was perfectly played, with a solid kind of strength that, for that moment, overcame her frailty.  And the scene where her baby died, and her uncaring husband wouldn’t even listen to her enough to learn what had happened, was heartbreaking.  And after that, her already tenuous grip on reality became even weaker.  But was her performance good enough for an Oscar nomination?  Sure.  Why not?  But I think I agree with the Academy’s choice of winner.