Best Actress 1962

[bizarre]

I've seen Bancroft and Davis. Both are very good.

Bancroft's character doesn't necessarily lend itself to great feats of thespian exploration - she plays someone sensible, someone who has learned to be an authority figure with her wits about her. But she does it with aplomb, and gives a sense of the frustration Annie experiences that a less daring actress would have glossed over.

But if we're talking about daring, Davis is the way to go. Her 40s theatricality is rearticulated as a grotesque baroque - there's no way she isn't in on the joke, even if she's just doing it to pay the bills and it's the only kind of role available to her. But the film even treats her with some degree of sensitivity, so her madness remains compelling instead of cartoonish or one-note. And for someone weaned on the star system, this is an incredibly brave role to take and performance to give.

My picks for this year:

1. Bette Davis, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
2. Monica Vitti, L'eclisse
3. Anne Bancroft, The Miracle Worker
4. Beverly Garland, Stark Fear
5. Janet Margolin, David and Lisa

[The Original BJ]

In preparation for the '62 Supporting Actress discussion, I watched Sweet Bird of Youth, the only film I was missing out of that lineup. It also had the effect of completing my viewing in THIS category too, so I cast a vote, though it was tough -- this has to be one of the finest Best Actress lineups ever.

My fifth spot is Lee Remick, only because her role is less dominant than the others. But she's still very good, and her character's descent into alcoholism is heartbreaking, partly because the actress resists the temptation to overplay showy outbursts and lets us see how her addiction slowly, sadly comes to consume her.

Yes, Geraldine Page was a very mannered actress, but when the role fit her well, as Alexandra del Lago did, she could be excellent. Obviously she plays a very different type of drunk than Remick, but her boozy past-her-prime actress is a tragic hoot nonetheless, and her unique screen presence dominates her film.

Bette Davis was terrifying as the grotesque Baby Jane, her most villainous role of all. I think she's a scream in the film, but of course, there are plenty of more serious roles for which she can be honored, and I don't feel the strong need to vote for her here.

Anne Sullivan may not have been Bancroft's most iconic role -- not with Mrs. Robinson several years later -- but her intelligent, powerful turn here wasn't undeserving of an Oscar at all. The human relationship with Patty Duke feels natural and incredibly realistic throughout the film, and the "she knows!" sequence at the water faucet is a triumphant moment for both actresses.

But I voted for Katharine Hepburn, because I think Long Day's Journey Into Night contains the greatest performance of her entire career. Despite my affection for the actress, I do think sometimes Hepburn's performances can lack for surprises -- she doesn't always make the most exciting, risky acting choices another actress might. But here, I thought she took some real bold chances, and created a startling, devastating portrait of a woman's downward spiral (quite a theme this year among actresses, no?). If she could only win one trophy (and I think she deserves a couple), I think it should be here.

[flipp525]

And what do you have for breakfast on those days?

Hello Eric.....or is this Flipp, by way of that troll, who had Flipp quivering in his ruby slippers last year? LOL.

I'm not sure I completely understand the meaning of this post, but I think this crosses the line quite a bit into offensive territory for a number of reasons.

Sad and desperate, I was thinking.

[ITALIANO]

Let's go for Stanley then.

1964 will be very difficult, but at least we can hope for 1965.

[dws1982]

I won't be voting for Julie Andrews in 64 or 65. I like Andrews, but the real question for 64 is whether I should vote for Kim Stanley or Anne Bancroft. If Andrews had Mary Poppins in 65, I probably would have voted for her that year, but her performance in The Sound of Music isn't quite substantial enough to get Andrews my vote.

[Big Magilla]

Forget 1964. Work on 1965 because I'm going to lead the charge for a back-to-back win for Julie.

[ITALIANO]

You'd better start building up a coalition for Jessica Lange in Frances or Sissy Spacek in Missing now.

No, I want Meryl Streep to win there. My problem is which actress I should build a coalition on for 1964. Maybe Kim Stanley, but I'm not sure many here have seen her movie.

Anyway, the combined armies of Big Magilla and Damien and their followers will result in ITALIANO's defeat I am afraid.

[Okri]

You'd better start building up a coalition for Jessica Lange in Frances or Sissy Spacek in Missing now.

I suspect Streep is fine. There may be vocal detractors, but I think the split between Lange (ew), Andrews and Spacek will be enough for her to win.

[The Original BJ]

The only reason I gave my 1981 award to Faye Dunaway for Mommie Dearest is because I didn't want to give a sixth award to Hepburn but on the days when she loses to Woodward in 1968 I take the 1981 award away from Dunaway in order to keep Hepburn's record over Ingrid Bergman and Jack Nicholson who have four each.

And what do you have for breakfast on those days?

Hello Eric.....or is this Flipp, by way of that troll, who had Flipp quivering in his ruby slippers last year? LOL.

I'm not sure I completely understand the meaning of this post, but I think this crosses the line quite a bit into offensive territory for a number of reasons.

[Big Magilla]

The only reason I gave my 1981 award to Faye Dunaway for Mommie Dearest is because I didn't want to give a sixth award to Hepburn but on the days when she loses to Woodward in 1968 I take the 1981 award away from Dunaway in order to keep Hepburn's record over Ingrid Bergman and Jack Nicholson who have four each.

And what do you have for breakfast on those days?

In the old days I would have said several lawyers, but these days it's usually a bowl of oatmeal and coffee - so bland, so boring. Maybe that explains my choices. :O

[Reza]

I won't admit to being Akash, but I will admit that the only thing I do here anymore is troll, which says to me my stay here is long past its shelf date.

Please don't say that as I enjoy reading your posts.....when you do post something.

[Eric]

I won't admit to being Akash, but I will admit that the only thing I do here anymore is troll, which says to me my stay here is long past its shelf date.

[Reza]

The only reason I gave my 1981 award to Faye Dunaway for Mommie Dearest is because I didn't want to give a sixth award to Hepburn but on the days when she loses to Woodward in 1968 I take the 1981 award away from Dunaway in order to keep Hepburn's record over Ingrid Bergman and Jack Nicholson who have four each.

And what do you have for breakfast on those days?

Hello Eric.....or is this Flipp, by way of that troll, who had Flipp quivering in his ruby slippers last year? LOL.



Edited By Reza on 1252172031

[Eric]

You'd better start building up a coalition for Jessica Lange in Frances or Sissy Spacek in Missing now.



Edited By Eric on 1252171897

[ITALIANO]

No problem. I have to admit the contributing to a fifth Hepburn victory (it's a lot, isn't it) in just over half the time than it took her to win four also weighed on my mind.

Five IS alot, and she'd get most probably another one here for Lion in Winter, which would make SIX Oscars for her. A very good actress, I know, but six (or five, or four, and probably even three) would be too much. Let's not forget that, unlike Meryl Streep now, Hepburn worked in a period during which American cinema was full of unforgettable performances from great actresses, so others should be given what they deserve, too. In my book, Hepburn wins two and that's what it should be.

My next mission? No Oscars for Julie Andrews. Not easy here, but I'll see what I can do.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1252171716