Category: Best Actress

1939 – Irene Dunne

Love Affair

It has been a while since I’ve seen this movie, and I am glad to be reminded of just how perfectly cast Irene Dunne was in the role of Terry McKay.  I’ve always really enjoyed Dunne as an actress because had a beauty that was enhanced by an innate intelligence that not all Hollywood actresses possessed.  And that intelligence came out in her acting, too.  So her attractiveness was more than just skin deep.  It came from her body, her heart, and her mind.

So the big draw of the story, as you might imagine from the film’s title, was the romance, and I loved how Dunne portrayed it.  At first Terry tries to resist it.  She tries to use logic to keep her emotions at bay.  But eventually, when she realizes she cannot, she gives in to it completely.  But she allows time for both her lover and herself to put their lives in order so that they could be together without deceiving their current partners.  So they both did just that.  He leaves his fiancée and she breaks it off with her boyfriend.  Unfortunately, on the day they were to reunite, she is hit by a car, paralyzing her from the waist down, preventing her from keeping her appointment with her man.

One of the most powerful moments in the movie is when Terry finally gives in to her passions and accepts that she is in love with Michel, played by Charles Boyer.  The lighting of the scene, the framing, and the dramatic soundtrack all sold the scene, as did Dunne.  As Boyer walks out of the scene, the camera lingers on Dunne and an image of turbulent waters is overlaid over her worried face.  She made me understand all the layers of emotion her character was experiencing as she resigned herself to whatever was to come in her star-crossed romance.

And she could sing too.  I’ve seen her sing in other films, and I really liked her lyrical soprano voice.  Many female singers in films of that era had voices that came across as shrill, but not her.  She sounded robust and yet practiced, and very pleasant to the ear.  I always know I’m in for a good ride when Dunne is part of the cast.  Yes, this was a worthy Best Actress nomination, though I understand why she didn’t win.  I mean, she was up against Vivien Leigh in Gone With the Wind.

1939 – Greer Garson

Goodbye Mr. Chips

Greer Garson was absolutely gorgeous, and she played the part as it was written perfectly.  The problem is that I don’t think the part was an Oscar-worthy role.  The character was sort-of one-note.  She started off as an inhumanly nice lady, and ended the same way.  There was no drama in the character, nothing interesting.  Garson, who I know is a very good actress, didn’t have to stretch herself.  She didn’t have more than two or three emotions in the entire film.  And while she played her part beautifully, it was just a boring part.

I mean, the character was sweet and charming, and that was it, from her first appearance on the screen to her last.  In proper British fashion, there were never any highs or lows to her emotional range, there wasn’t any conflict, no tension, and certainly no anger.  Quite frankly, I can’t figure out why she was nominated.

Garson played the part of Katherine, the young wife of Mr. Chipping.  Honestly, her character was written to be so sweet and perfect, lacking even the smallest flaw, that she was quite unrealistic.  People like Katherine don’t really exist anywhere except on paper, in a writer’s imagination.  And that was how Garson played her.  Her every thought seemed to be pure, loving, completely and unquestioningly supportive of her husband (after all, it was still the 1930s…) and kind to a fault.

Actually, that’s not true.  There was a scene in which she and Mr. Chips were sitting at a table while everyone around them was dancing.  It was clear that she wanted to dance, too, but doddering young Mr. Chips was too clueless to see what she wanted.  I could see a slight furrowing of her brow, and that was all.  It was the only time in the entire movie where she seemed a little frustrated with her man.  But not to worry.  They eventually dance and she feels a little sad because they will have to part and say goodbye the next day.

The thing is, I’ve seen Garson in other films, films in which she was given the opportunity to show off her skills as an actor, and she was great.  I’ll say it again.  I can’t figure out why she was nominated for Best Actress.  The role wasn’t worth it.

1939 – Bette Davis

Dark Victory

Here we are once again with Bette Davis, proving one more time that she was a major powerhouse in her day.  I think this was a rather special role for her, insomuch as I am used to seeing her play mean or even bitchy characters.  Just look at her in her other Best Actress nominated films like Of Human Bondage, Dangerous, and Jezebel, and also future films like The Letter, All About Eve, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.

But here, she plays a woman who uses a slight bit of cattiness to cover a justifiable fear of impending illness and death.  But after the good doctor warms her over, she plays a good and honest woman who only lashes out when she discovers she has been lied to in the most phenomenal way.  Yes, both her doctor and her best friend decide that lying to her about her terminal illness is the best way to handle the situation.  Then when she finds out by accident that she only has a few months left to live, she gets understandably angry, and in that moment, I didn’t blame her.

The difference in the way she approached the character of Judith Traherne was noticeable.  She didn’t go out of her way to attack people, but used sarcasm and flippancy as a way to deflect attention from her failing health.  Other than that, she was kind, generous, and even gracious, a side of the actress that is not entirely absent from her body of work, but is generally overshadowed by her darker side.  I actually liked the character of Judith, as Davis played her.

For me, the scene that earned her the Oscar nomination was the one in which she learns that her brain tumor is terminal.  She discovers the lie, and the look of mortal terror and betrayal is written all over her face.  Davis really sold that moment.  Of course, when she confronts her doctor, who is now her fiancée, and her best friend, she reverts to her old tricks of delivering vicious dialogue with wide eyes and a sharp smile.  As I said, I think that in this case it was justified, but it was an attitude and demeanor we’ve seen all too often in other films.  As usual, Davis did a fine job, proving once again that she deserved the honors the Academy loved to bestow upon her.  I say well-done on the different, nuanced character.

1939 – Vivien Leigh

Gone With the Wind

Vivien Leigh had been working as an actress on the big screen for several years when she landed this role in an incredibly high-profiled movie.  This is the one for which she will be forever remembered.  This is what put her on the public’s radar.  She was so good.  It was as if the part were written for her. 

This movie was an epic that took place over the course of twelve years, following Scarlett from the age of sixteen to twenty-eight.  Leigh had to believably play the young Southern Belle, and the hardened adult.  From the height of happiness and depths of despair, from the ridiculously naive to the weathered and devious.  She sometimes had the physical appearance of frailty, but it was clear that there was an inner strength born of fire and passion. 

Vivien Leigh had to embody all of these things and more in order to do the part justice, and I think she knocked it out of the park.  But that being said, I didn’t really like the character of Scarlett O’Hara.  She was a horrible person who treated everyone around her terribly.  The way she treated the slaves, her family, and her friends just made her an unlikable character.  But that’s why Leigh did such a great job.  I don’t think we weren’t supposed to like her.  We were supposed to hate her for her vanity and selfishness, and yet respect her for her inner strength and resourcefulness.  And that’s exactly what Leigh gave us.

And by the end, despite all the terrible things she did, we were happy when she finally realized that she actually loved Rhett instead of Ashley.  We were hopeful that after the credits began to roll, she would go out and win Rhett back.  We wanted her to turn her life around and become the best version of herself she could be.  The role of Scarlett put Leigh through the full spectrum of human emotions and she did it all while staying incredibly true to the character.  Because of Leigh’s masterful performance, we rooted for her despite all the ghastly behavior. I think Leigh really deserved her Oscar for playing the complex and engaging character so beautifully, with a real understanding of the heroine’s emotional journey.  Congratulations on the well-deserved win.

1938 – Bette Davis

Jezebel

Here we are with another Oscar for Bette Davis.  The Academy sure loved her, and with good reason.  She had an unconventional beauty and she could act.  This was only the third of her career total of eleven Best Actress nominations.  In other words, she was just getting started.  And this was a period piece, showing us that she had a little versatility to her look and her abilities.  And it is easy to see her believability in this performance.

She played the character of Julie Marsden, a spoiled Southern Belle, in 1852.  Not only was she accustomed to getting her way, she had a reputation of being careless of the feelings of others in her pursuit of her desires.  And for some reason, these negative traits were almost admired back in those days.  Look how self-assured and strong willed she is!  Look at how scandalously she is behaving, wink, wink!  Unless she takes things too far.  Eventually, when her actions cause the death of a family friend, her own aunt compares her to the evil biblical character of Jezebel

This is a role that seemed to be made for Davis.  She seemed to have just the right amount of youth, immaturity, selfishness, and petulance to do the part justice.  Through Davis’s acting, it was clear that Julie felt perfectly justified in her cruel behavior, because none of her self-centered schemes had ever really failed her, and she had never faced any consequences, emotional or social, to deter her.  So when her terrible actions in the name of love caused her to lose everything, she became so despondent, she couldn’t even leave her house.  Her fall, and later, her redemption, were very well-played.  In the end, we learn that her love was not as childish as it had once been, turning out to be real and true.

As I’ve mentioned before, an acting nomination needs to be a seamless blending of the actor’s craft, and a well-written script.  Here, Davis had a great character to work with, and she played the part perfectly. The final scene, where she puts her own life at risk to care for the man she loved, knowing that he loved another and would never be hers, was perfectly written, and beautifully acted.  There was a good reason why Davis took home the Oscar for her work in Jezebel.

1938 – Margaret Sullavan

Three Comrades

So, I’m having difficulty putting my finger on exactly why, but I found Margaret Sullavan’s performance to be good, but ultimately average in Three Comrades.  On the one hand, she played a character who was in ill health most of the time, but on the other, it seemed to translate, on the screen, as a lack of energy in the performance.  I don’t know if this was intentional or not.  Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with Sullavan’s body of work, or I would be able to compare the performance with her other films, which were many.  Then I could determine if the weakness came from a place of skill, or a lack of it.  I suppose I should really think of it as a deliberate acting choice, since she was clearly revered by Hollywood for many years, and was nominated for the Best Actress award.

She played the character of Patricia Hollmann, a young German aristocrat who is now impoverished following the end of WWI.  She has had health problems in the past and is now constantly in danger of slipping into terminal sickness.  She meets the three German comrades, and ends up falling for the youngest of them.  I originally thought the three men were Americans staying in Germany in the aftermath of the war, but no, they were all German, Sullavan being the only one of them that had anything even resembling a German accent.

I think the problem I had with Sullavan’s performance was that there didn’t seem to be any difference between Patricia when she was healthy, and Patricia when she was ill.  Even when the character was feeling well, she seemed too frail.  Because of this, I was able to infer that Pat would be dead by the end of the movie, and I wasn’t wrong.  But again, I have to ask if this was intentional or not.  But for all that, I believed her when she became bedridden.  I guess I just didn’t believe her enough when she wasn’t, because it was all the same.

Still, she looked good, even beautiful.  She had a waifish kind of allure that persisted, no matter what the state of the character’s health was at any given time.  And story-wise, I’m not exactly sure why she committed suicide in the end, though I know that wasn’t Sullavan’s fault.  She wasn’t bad, she was just drawn that way.

Sorry, I cannot find this film.

1938 – Norma Shearer

Marie Antoinette

As always, Norma Shearer turned in a wonderful performance.  I only have one grievance with her performance, and it isn’t a big one, so I’ll get it out of the way quickly.  In every performance I’ve ever seen her in, she always has an unnatural ease in front of the camera.  But in Marie Antoinette, there were a few scenes where she seems to be putting on airs.  Not the airs of the character, but those of someone who is trying hard to portray the character.  It didn’t happen all the time, but every once in a while, it was as if she had to really try to be Marie Antoinette.  The role didn’t seem like an extension of herself, which is what I usually get from her in other performances.  Just an observation from an untrained eye.

But the greatness of her performance far outshined that one thing.  The character really went through the full range of emotions over the course of the film, especially near the end.  The emotions she displayed were raw and real.  The tears she shed were not pretty.  They were hard and unapologetic.  She didn’t cry.  She sobbed.  And in those moments, her face was so changed by the emotions, that she didn’t even look like the same actress.  The makeup and lighting helped.  And I have to mention the costumes that she wore in the film.  Talk about grand and opulent!  She looked magnificent!  Absolutely gorgeous!  Although, it was interesting seeing her as a blond, instead of her natural brunette. 

Time and again, Shearer has proven herself to be a natural in front of the camera.  She always seemed to be aware of her surroundings.  She always paid attention to what was going on in a scene, and behaving accordingly.  What I mean is that when someone else was speaking, she listened.  When someone else was the focus of a scene, she didn’t stop acting.  She was actively in the moment, even when she wasn’t the most important part of that moment.  It is a quality that not every actor always has.  She had it in spades.

Norma Shearer was quite a rare talent, and it is no wonder that this was her sixth Best Actress nomination, an impressive feat, considering that the Academy Awards themselves were barely over ten years old.

1938 – Wendy Hiller

Pygmalion

Wendy Hiller did a fantastic job.  This isn’t the first time I have watched this movie, but this is the one that brought Hiller to my attention.  Everything I have ever seen her do has been noteworthy.  But here she was, a fresh-faced twenty-six-year-old actress who was incredibly skilled in her craft.  And she really knocked this one out of the park.  And it didn’t hurt that she was beautiful as well.

The role of Eliza Doolittle is a very complicated one.  Not only is it packed full of emotional gravitas, but it requires mastery of two different accents, the first one being a strong Cockney, and the other being a high-born English, though in this case, it would be high-taught.  Hiller pulled them both off quite believably, and even had to combine the two a little bit in the film’s climactic scene.  But it wasn’t just the accents, it was the attitude.  The way she carried herself from the beginning of the movie to the end had to evolve with the character.  I imagine this could not have been easy, but Hiller was perfection.

One of my favorite scenes with Eliza is the one in which she first comes to Professor Higgin’s house, looking for speech lessons.  The character of Eliza is way out of her depth and doesn’t even know it.  There is a confidence in her that is nervous and vulnerable, and by the end of the scene it is very nearly crushed by Higgin’s acerbic personality.  She ends up terrified, and yet determined to better herself, even if it means allowing him to treat her badly.  And the complete shift in her mannerisms when Colonel Pickering shows her respect and kindness was remarkable.

But probably one of the more difficult scenes for Hiller to play was the climax of the story, where she walks out on Henry Higgins.  There was a strength in Hiller’s eyes that was unmistakable.  There was confidence and a sense of self-worth that was crucial to the narrative.  I thoroughly enjoyed Hiller’s performance in this film.  She made me enjoy the movie, despite the fact that I’ve never been a huge fan of Leslie Howard, who, I must admit, did a good job, as well.  The original play by George Bernard Shaw was beautifully written, and Wendy Hiller really did the part justice.  I think she really deserved her Oscar nomination.

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.