Best Actress 1988

[Mister Tee]

I agree with most of the "others" that could have rated a shot -- esp. Pfeiffer and Sarandon.

As Damien notes, Griffith had been a cult favorite in Body Double and Something Wild, and Working Girl was her coming out party for the mainstream. Her work feels a bit like the domesticated version of what she'd been doing, but it was still nice to see her nominated.

I'm afraid I have to use one of my "just not my thing" cards when it comes to Jodie Foster. She seems like a very likable and bright individual, but I find her adult acting, here and elsewhere, utterly flat and bland -- I see few colors in what she does. This and Silence are surely her peak (and well above the appalling Nell), but I don't see any reason she should ever have won an Oscar.

Glenn Close is solid in Dangerous Liaisons, but I don't think the role has the dominance you'd want in an Oscar winner. I certainly understand everyone here voting for her, given the shocking Oscar-less-ness of her subsequent career, and I'd definitely have voted for her over Foster. But she's not my choice. (Does anyone think, by the way, that, had she not done Fatal Attraction a year earlier, the change of pace -- from her early earth mother roles to villainess -- might have been so startling she might have won?)

A Cry in The Dark was the most roundly, glibly parodied performance of Streep's career -- there are probably people who think the title of the movie was "A dingo ate my baby!" -- but it was probably her best work of the 80s. As all have pointed out, Lindy Chamberlain's grand sin was not coming off likable on TV, so it was essential Streep not show the slightest hint of charm. A brave performance, and one that surely merits consideration.

But I'm the one who voted for Weaver. I went into Gorillas grumpy, expecting a flat true-life narrative, but found the film surprisingly absorbing. And I thought Weaver, in her final, crack-up scenes, showed more range than I've seen from her in almost any other film. It's a close call, in a very strong year, but she's the one I end picking.

[Damien]

Glenn Close was supposed to win. She delivered the best performance of that year.

Nobody was "supposed" to win that year, it was too close to tell. Close, Foster and Griffith al had very strong support and it was anyone's guess who of the three would take it.

[Hustler]

Glenn Close was supposed to win. She delivered the best performance of that year.

[Damien]

Four highly worthy nominees, and while Sigourney Weaver is fine (if perfunctory), I suspect she was nominated more as a tribute to her real-life character than for her actual performance.

Glenn Close perfectly delivered what Stephen Frears called for, but I find the film slightly too remote, and the same goes for her performance -- she's a bit too much of an abstraction. (I much prefer Milos Forman's version of the same material, Valmont -- it's richer, more empathetic, and Annette Bening's performance to Close's for the same reasons.)

Jodie Foster is very good in The Accused, even if around the edges she's a little too actressy in conveying a working class sensibility.

Melanie Griffith has made so much crap after Working Girl (and almost nothing but crap), that it's hard to recall that in the mid-80s she was a hip cult favorite, thanks to De Palma's Body Double (National Society of Film Critics award), Ferrara's Fear City and Demme's Something Wild. So it was a thrill that she had a mainstream sleeper hit with Working Girl. There was also the personal story of her having, at the time, conquered her addiction demons. Hers was like a fairy tale story, and the bottom line is that she's utterly charming in the film. And she's Tippi Hedren's daughter. All of which made her a much more viable contender than she might seem in retrospect -- there was a great deal of sentiment for her A Griffith victory would have been akin to Cher's the previous year, and few people would have complained.

But to me, Meryl Streep is clearly the most deserving of the nominees. Her's is a courageous performance, for she never tries to make her character likable or, even though she's lost her child, sympathetic. There's a quiet wrath here that is mesmerizing, and this is one time where she completely gets under the skin of the woman she is playing. And here here using an accent doesn't seem like an accomplished accent using an accent -- it's a seamless performance and possibly her best work ever. She gets my vote.

My Own Top 5:

1. Ricki Lake in Hairspray
2. Jodhi May in A World Apart
3. Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda
4. Christine Lahti in Running On Empty
5. Meryl Streep in A Cry In The Dark

It was a glorious year for actresses.



Edited By Damien on 1260585287

[ITALIANO]

Yes, this was an interesting year for Best Actress, though I wouldnt say one of the best ever. Griffith is good, not more, in Working Girl (and her much praised, at the time, "talent for comedy" wouldnt amount to much in the following years), and Weaver, certainly one of the big stars of the period, has been better than in the flawed Gorillas in the Mist (though that was, of course, one of her few typical "Oscar" roles).

The other three are definitely better. And, for once, Jodie Foster IS an actress worthy of two Oscars; her talent, if not her films, deserve them. Now her movies are rare and often bad and she seems to have lost interest in acting; back then her movies werent much better (with the exception of Silence of the Lambs), but she was an obviously intelligent, deeply committed, fearless actress. The Accused is one of those movies that Americans find "groundbreaking", "daring", etc, and when we see them in Europe we are like, "So what?!" It is, and it was even then, on the level of a good, well intentioned tv movie; but Foster gave a honest, often impressive performance. I liked to see her winning, though here I will vote for her only once, and that will be for Silence.

Glenn Close was superb, too. She was also so right for the role, her looks I mean. Malkovich was too contemporary to be truly believable, but Close had not only the face, but even the BODY (I seem to remember that she was pregnant during the shooting of Dangerous Liaisons) of the French aristocrats of the time, as we see them from the paintings of the period (Pfeiffer was also, for different reasons, a very good choice). Her showy, entertaining performance probably should have won, in retrospect; while we knew that she wasnt a teenager anymore, NOBODY could have predicted, back then, that this would have been her last nomination for more than twenty years, and maybe forever. Sad to think that such a talent wasnt given more chances by American films, even in good supporting roles (I've heard that she's been luckier on stage and on tv).

Meryl Streep is amazing in A Cry in the Dark. The so called "coldness" that some here find such a terrible crime in her acting has never been used better, and to better effect, than in this role; hers is a mature, subtle performance, and one which doesnt go for easy, reassuring effects (can you imagine a Sally Field in the part?). She won Best Actress at Cannes for this movie.

So whom will I vote for? My heart would say Close; my mind says, again, Streep, and I've learned to trust my mind more.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1260579017

[dws1982]

Now I can vote for Meryl Streep. Her trademark coldness, which has worked against her in the past, is used very effectively here. It's a great performance. You can sympathize with the character, but you can also understand what it was about Lindy Chamberlain that made people turn against her the way they did. If the leading lady had tried too hard for audience sympathy, the audience wouldn't be able to understand why public opinion went so strongly against Lindy Chamberlain. Streep helps us see her both as a victim of unfair public judgement, and someone who unwittingly brought it upon herself.

Close would've been just as deserving (voted for her in the '87 poll because of that), and Foster and Weaver were both very good...from what I remember. I haven't seen either film in a very long time. Griffith is fine, but she's also been much better.

My picks for the year:
1- Jodhi May, A World Apart
2- Meryl Streep, A Cry in the Dark
3- Gena Rowlands, Another Woman
4- Glenn Close, Dangerous Liaisons
5- Barbara Hershey, A World Apart

Christine Lahti, Shirley MacLaine, and Michelle Pfeiffer would have definitely been deserving choices as well.



Edited By dws1982 on 1260577583

[The Original BJ]

How sad comparing a year like this one to 2009 where we're all but scraping the bottom of the barrel to find even five good performances.

I just hate this statement. Why does everybody say this is a bad year for actresses? This exactly like 1994, many great performances but few Oscar-Bait performances. Only because the Academy not always think outside the box there's still is many great performances.

Here's Some:
Maria Heiskanen - Everlasting Moments, Hiam Abbas - Lemon Tree, Charlotte Gainsbourg - Antichrist and Tilda Swinton - Julia.

There's also the tipped lineup
Cornish, Mirren, Mulligan, Sibide, Streep

and some others:
Cotillard, Ronan, Bullock, Pfeiffer, Wright Penn, Tautou, Cruz, Laurent

So Is it really hard to find five nominees. Answer NO!

Not to hijack this thread into a 2009 Best Actress discussion, but I have to side with flipp here. Of course, taste is taste, and mine may not be the same as anyone else's, but a lot of those performances you cite were, to me, not anything approaching great, and a fair number of the ones I haven't seen (i.e. Tautou, Cruz, Wright Penn) haven't exactly received award-worthy individual raves. (And some of them, like Laurent, and, apparently, Cotillard, seem more supporting candidates.)

In fact, I sort of feel like the "it's not such a bad Best Actress year" crowd (of which there certainly are some vocal members, here and elsewhere) has drawn up lists of a lot of these names in hopes to persuade the rest of us to stop griping. I have no argument that a lot of these women were, in fact, lead actresses in movies this year. But is consensus really that these were great-great performances?

For me, no one I've seen but Mulligan would have even placed on my Best Actress ballot the past few years (admitting that I still haven't seen the Swinton vehicle yet.)



Edited By The Original BJ on 1260566036

[Sabin]

Susan Sarandon for Bull Durham would get my vote.

I tip for Glenn Close for Dangerous Liaisons.

[jowy_jillia]

How sad comparing a year like this one to 2009 where we're all but scraping the bottom of the barrel to find even five good performances.

I just hate this statement. Why does everybody say this is a bad year for actresses? This exactly like 1994, many great performances but few Oscar-Bait performances. Only because the Academy not always think outside the box there's still is many great performances.

Here's Some:
Maria Heiskanen - Everlasting Moments, Hiam Abbas - Lemon Tree, Charlotte Gainsbourg - Antichrist and Tilda Swinton - Julia.

There's also the tipped lineup
Cornish, Mirren, Mulligan, Sibide, Streep

and some others:
Cotillard, Ronan, Bullock, Pfeiffer, Wright Penn, Tautou, Cruz, Laurent

So Is it really hard to find five nominees. Answer NO!

[flipp525]

She faced strong competition from all four nominees as well as Shirley MacLaine in Madame Sousatzka; Barbara Hershey in A World Apart, Shy People and The Last Temptation of Christ; Christine Lahti in Running on Empty; Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham; Michelle Pfeiffer in Married to the Mob and Genevieve Bujold in Dead Ringers.

Gena Rowlands' performance in Another Woman should also be included on this list. Her heady, emotionally-vacant college professor is a remarkable acheivement and one of the best performances in a strong year for lead actresses.

Sandy Dennis also makes a striking cameo as her former best friend who, over a late-night drink and a reunion of sorts after years of absence, confronts Rowlands with the accusation that Rowlands once used her intellectual wiles to steal her one true love's affections. Oscar-winner Dennis would've been a worthy addition to the supporting line-up.

I realize that the 1988 slate of Best Actress contenders was an embarrassment of riches -- from Jodie Foster's brutalized and courageous rape victim to Glenn Close at her chillingly bitchiest in Dangerous Liasions -- and it would be difficult for me to choose who to knock out of that fine slate but, I would've loved for Rowlands' brilliant turn as the tortured intellectual in this film to have been recognized.

How sad comparing a year like this one to 2009 where we're all but scraping the bottom of the barrel to find even five good performances.

Big Magilla, I might have to disagree with you that the plot of The Accused was not "anything new", at the time it was released or even since. Sure, there had been films about rape , but never before had a group of people who essentially egged on a gang rape been put on trial. Based on a true event known as "Big Dan's rape", the landmark case portrayed in the film was a watershed moment for victim's rights. I'm not sure that I've seen anything analogous to that situation portrayed on film since.

I vote for Foster.



Edited By flipp525 on 1260566982

[Big Magilla]

At the time I pretty much fell into lockstep with the consensus that Jodie Foster was the most deserving for making an astonishing comeback at the age of 25.

Her film's plot was nothing new though the treatment was. It has, however, seemingly become the subject of several TV shows per week in the years since. That shouldn't detract from her performance which remains one of that year's strongest.

She faced strong competition from all four nominees as well as Shirley MacLaine in Madame Sousatzka; Barbara Hershey in A World Apart, Shy People and The Last Temptation of Christ; Christine Lahti in Running on Empty; Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham; Michelle Pfeiffer in Married to the Mob and Genevieve Bujold in Dead Ringers.

In the end, though, I think the Academy's line-up was the best of a very strong litter.

Close will probably win here in retrospect since we know with hindsight that she never won whereas Foster still has The Silence of the Lambs and Streep many other opportunities.

Griffith never had a shot at another nomination, so it's nice to see her among the finalists for her career high achievement.

Weaver, still has a shot at Supporting Actress for Working Girl.

It's a difficult call, but I see no compelling reason not to stick with my original choice of Foster.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1260556588

[jowy_jillia]

This is one of the best lineups ever in Best Actress History.

Griffith is amusing and natural in "Working Girl". She's though the weak-link in this bunch and there's three other comedy performances that were better than her. Those were Jamie Lee Curtis, Michelle Pfeiffer and the wonderful Susan Sarandon.

Sigourney Weaver is also strong in her movie, but the movie isn't as strong as the rest of the nominated Best Actresses movies so that makes her performance lesser than it could have been.

Jodie Foster in The Accused I saw at a very young age, and her performance has come to haunt me many times. Terrific.

Then There's Meryl Streep in her second best performance EVER. But the victory must go to Glenn Close who gives a sensual and seducting performance in "Dangerous Liaisons".

My Nominees would have been:
Glenn Close - Dangerous Liaisons
Jodie Foster - The Accused
Susan Sarandon - Bull Durham
Meryl Streep - A Cry in the Dark

The Fifth spot right now is Sigourney Weaver, but I haven't still seen "Another Woman", "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown", "Running on Empty", "A World Apart", "Shy People" or "Madame Sousatzka". So I Leave that spot pretty unsafe.