Daisy Kenyon (1947)

Film: Daisy Kenyon (1947)

Stars: Joan Crawford, Dana Andrews, Henry Fonda, Ruth Warrick, Peggy Ann Garner

Director: Otto Preminger

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Throughout the month of June, in honor of the 10th Anniversary of The Many Rantings of John, we will be doing a Film Noir Movie Marathon, featuring fifteen film noir classics that I'll be seeing for the first time.  Reviews of other film noir classics are at the bottom of this article.

We're looking at film noir throughout the month, but with that, we're going to occasionally veer into areas that aren't really film noir.  Usually when you think of noir, you think of something to do with crime, likely murder, and there's at least one antihero detective at the center, and probably a couple of glamorous women who might be bad news (or might be there to save the antihero before the count is done).  Daisy Kenyon is not a film noir, but it is frequently billed as one (hence why it's part of this series).  During inarguably the most creative period of Joan Crawford's stardom (coming off of her Oscar win for Mildred Pierce, for much of the rest of the 1940's & early 1950's Crawford made most of her best movies, and got the remainder of her Oscar nominations), she made several films, including some noirs, but Daisy Kenyon by my definition is not a noir-it doesn't have a crime element, and while its center is certainly a glamorous woman, she's not really dangerous.  That being said, it is a fascinating film, and so I'm glad it randomly came up for this series.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Daisy Kenyon (Crawford), who is having an affair with Dan O'Mara (Andrews), a married lawyer.  After he stiffs her one too many times, she goes on a date with Peter Lapham (Fonda), a widower who recently got back from the war.  This sets in motion a bizarre love triangle, where it's not entirely clear whether or not Daisy loves Dan or Peter more (or, in a weird twist, which one is better for her given their marital status and this being 1947), nor is it clear which of the two men truly love Daisy.  Dan has deep feelings for her, but doesn't want to disrupt his life, and Peter seems at times to be more in love with his dead wife than with Daisy, dating her more because he expected to be married than because she's the one he wants to end up with.

Daisy Kenyon is famous today for its approach to its material.  Dan's eventual divorce in most films of this nature would be handled through melodrama, with his long-suffering wife Lucille (Warrick) likely killing herself or looking out longing windows rather than actually getting revenge on him, but Daisy Kenyon plays this straight.  It's a bit jarring to watch, and kind of hard to explain, but treating divorce, adultery, & romance in a level-headed (rather than overtly cinematic) way is very unusual to watch, and the film reads more like something you'd see in the 1970's or 80's than out of Tinseltown's heyday.  The realism, though, hurts the ending, because it's clear by the end of the movie that neither of these men are good enough for Daisy, or particularly good for her in general, and it'd be best if she just ended up alone.

As a result, I liked it, but didn't love it.  I think it's a fascinating thought experiment, though not everyone seems to understand the assignment.  Fonda is badly miscast here, bizarre as Peter & honestly making him feel too abrupt to believably pair with the confident Crawford.  Despite arguably being the least of the three (very talented) leads, Andrews comes across the best of the crew, giving Dan a realism that you wouldn't expect.  Dan is obviously in love with Daisy, but wishes she'd be less-complicated, and be the sex goddess he clearly initially fell for; he's obviously mad at himself for falling in love with her & not being able to move on to the next woman, but toxic masculinity is never going to allow him to blame himself for having feelings.  Sadly, even in 1947 this movie doesn't quite have the foresight to explore such complicated work from Andrews, and I think while this is good, it's not the reappraised classic some describe it as.

Previous Films in the Series: Murder My Sweet, The Woman in the Window, Scarlet Street, The Killers, The Big Sleep, Nightmare Alley, Ride the Pink Horse, Night and the City, They Live By Night, Gun Crazy, In a Lonely Place, Sweet Smell of Success, The Big Heat, Pickup on South Street, The Killing, The Long Goodbye, Body Heat

OVP: When Ladies Meet (1941)

Film: When Ladies Meet (1941)

Stars: Joan Crawford, Robert Taylor, Greer Garson, Herbert Marshall, Spring Byington, Rafael Storm

Director: Robert Z. Leonard

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Art Direction)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

One of the things that I miss about Classical Hollywood (a nostalgia that requires time travel, since while I'm getting older, I am not quite old enough to have lived through Classical Hollywood cinema when it was being released), is the way that it makes a point of having major film actresses of the era play opposite each other.  While this is getting (somewhat) better, it's rare that modern films put two major female stars as the leads of a movie.  Oftentimes women are paired (usually romantically) with male stars of the era, and so it's a treat when we have a movie like When Ladies Meet (see, it's right there in the title) that puts together two of the biggest stars of the era, Joan Crawford & Greer Garson (Robert Taylor is just along for the ride) on the screen at the same time. And adding to this excitement is the fact that the two of them (despite big stylistic differences in their onscreen approach) are dynamite when teamed up.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about Mary Howard (Crawford), a novelist (how often did Crawford play a writer-this seems like a theme?) who writes frequently about marriage & love, but hasn't quite experienced it until the opening of the film, when it's revealed she's in love with her married publisher Rogers (Marshall).  Mary's pal Jimmy (Taylor) has been wild about her for years, but knows that she could slip away here, so he decides to play a trick on her by having her meet (through circumstance) Rogers' wife Claire (Garson), in a decadent country home owned by their mutual friend Bridgie (Byington).  Once there, Mary & Claire become friends, until it's evident that Claire knows who Mary is, and that while she's become aware of Rogers affairs, she cannot stand the site of Mary with him, understanding that their marriage is effectively over (though the film ends with Rogers, perhaps understanding the error of his ways, pursuing Claire after Mary also dumps him, knowing that she'd always worry about his cheating ways). The film ends with Jimmy & Mary finally realizing they are perfect for each other, as Bridgie beamingly cheers them on.

I quite liked this movie, even though I knew nothing about it.  Obviously at this point all three stars were at different points in their careers.  Crawford just a few years previously had been proclaimed "box office poison" (we were several years away from her creative comeback in Mildred Pierce), while Garson was on the upswing & Taylor was a major star.  Still, Crawford got top billing and (on-paper) the best part as the "other woman" who must choose between her own happiness & destroying Garson's scorned wife.  However, it's Garson who is the best of the three, totally charming & witty in the third lead (or is it a top supporting...a category fraud discussion for another day), who also has to be terribly tragic when she realizes that Crawford's Mary is not like the other girls, and isn't a flight-of-fancy.  Spring Byington is also delicious as a fool (or is she?) who is clearly having an affair with a younger man & is very into the wicked escapades happening around her (Byington's silly nods give you a lot more innuendo than a post-Code film like this should be able to do).

The film was nominated for one Academy Award, and it's one of the weirder nominations you'll ever have.  While in recent years designers like Stuart Craig or Dan Henneh have been nominated for different installments of movie series, they are still different parts of the same series-an extended sequel & stories.  Here, however, Cedric Gibbons had actually done the art direction on the original When Ladies Meet from 1933 with Ann Harding & Myrna Loy, and he was also nominated for that, making this one of the few (probably only?) times someone has been nominated for the same craft for the same story.  The art direction initially seems like an odd citation (it's just a series of drawing rooms), until we get to Byington's Bridgie's house.  In the film it's intended to be a renovated barn, and honestly it's beautiful-it's the kind of thing that would arguably be more fashionable now than it is then (Joanna Gaines would love this place if you want an idea of what it's like), and I couldn't get enough of the way it felt like an actual home & not just a continuous set.  I haven't seen the 1933 film (yet), so I don't know how similar the two are (and if Gibbons essentially cheated giving us the same idea twice), but I thought it was great-very cool, modern design that adds an almost maze-like ambience to the film's many love triangles.

OVP: Sudden Fear (1952)

Film: Sudden Fear (1952)

Stars: Joan Crawford, Jack Palance, Gloria Grahame

Director: David Miller

Oscar History: 4 nominations (Best Actress-Joan Crawford, Supporting Actor-Jack Palance, Cinematography, Costume Design)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

This week our reviews are going to continue to be a mix of films from 2020 (it's hard to imagine that we are still a few weeks away from the conclusion of this snail-paced awards season) and continuing to look into the past as we, well, clean out my DVR.  Today is one of those past-facing titles, as I decided that I wanted to watch a few acting nominees that I've never seen before.  Joan Crawford would only win three Oscar citations in her career, and the last of those would come in 1952, for her work in Sudden Fear.  This film has some iconic imagery, even if it's not the first film you might name-check Crawford for, but it is also noteworthy not just for Crawford, but for bringing another eventual Oscar winner to the Academy's attention: Jack Palance.  Palance was so well-liked in this role that he essentially launched a strange career where he would alternate between international star and nearly work-for-hire parts before finally getting his proper moment-in-the-sun in City Slickers.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on Myra (Crawford), a brilliant & successful Broadway playwright who in the opening act of the film declines to give Lester Blaine (Palance) a part in her play because she feels he's wrong for the role.  They meet on a train, and seem to make up quickly, and that friendship blossoms into love.  Lester & Myra marry, but Myra (who is extremely wealthy) after the marriage dictates that most of her money will go to a foundation.  Thanks to a voice recorder in Myra's office, Myra (and the audience) discover after she says she'll leave some of her money to him in her will that Lester in fact planned on marrying Myra just for her money & humiliating her in the process, as he's in love instead with beautiful young Irene (Grahame), a former flame.  Myra also overhears on the recording that they are planning on killing her, knowing that if they do so before the will goes through that Lester will inherit her fortune.  After mistakenly breaking the recording, Myra must survive the weekend with both of these two plotting to kill her.  In the end, it is them who die, in a tragic case of mistaken identity, and Myra lives, much wiser from the experience.

The movie is noir, but it functions more as a melodrama.  I tend to enjoy melodramas, but I think the acting in them is hard to gage, and I'll be honest here-I don't get the love of Crawford in this role (and Crawford is generally one of my favorite actresses).  There's no depth to her Myra-Crawford plays her as a saint, but a saint so cloying you wonder how, precisely, she made it in the cutthroat world of theater.  There are also suspensions of belief (are we really intended to buy that beautiful, sexy Joan freaking Crawford has never been pursued by a man before Lester comes into the picture?) that make it harder to follow.  Crawford is a true movie star, and this is enjoyable to watch in parts, but is this good acting?  Probably not.

Palace is a bit better in a different part though again, so much of his character takes place offscreen that it's hard to gage (I get why he became a star after this, though, as he got to play a range of options with this duplicitous part).  Honestly, Gloria Grahame's side girl might be the best performance of the lot.  She is the one person who feels they exist outside the confines of a script that defies logic or convention.

The film won two additional Oscar nominations (and I suspect the score was probably close, though it mercifully was skipped as while the Elmer Bernstein music is sweeping, it impedes on the film at points, giving away key clues about the movie before they even occur).  The cinematography is sublime-great wide shots, and some clever uses of dream sequences.  The closet door ajar with the toy heading toward Crawford is ridiculously fun, and something Hitchcock would've been proud of.  And the costumes are intriguing.  I kind of like the iconic dual looks of both Crawford & Grahame in head scarfs...this would become one of Crawford's most recognizable screen moments (her firing a pearl-handled revolver into the dark dressed immaculately from head-to-toe), so they're doing something right.  Overall, though, I left Sudden Fear underwhelmed even though the actors, plot, and lensing all are things I would normally find irresistible.

OVP: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

Film: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
Stars: Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Victor Buono
Director: Robert Aldrich
Oscar History: 5 nominations/1 win (Best Actress-Bette Davis, Supporting Actor-Victor Buono, Cinematography, Costume*, Sound)
(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I promise tomorrow we'll do someone other than Meryl Streep or Bette Davis to finish off our Best Actress week, but I had this in my drafts folder, and couldn't skip the opportunity for such symmetry.  On Tuesday we did the first nomination for Bette Davis, today we're going with the last one.  What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is cheating a little bit with our theme this week, as I have seen the movie before, though it's been at least 20 years, as I saw it as a teenager, and while I remembered it relatively well (probably better because of watching the TV series Feud more than anything else), there were whole chapters of the movie that I had completely forgotten, including the ending, so it was terrific to revisit this movie years later, and reflect on the last great chapter in the careers of two of my favorite Golden Age actresses, Bette Davis & Joan Crawford.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place over three different time eras.  The first is when both Blanche (as an adult, Crawford) and Jane (as an adult, Davis), are children, and Baby Jane is a star on the vaudeville circuit.  The little girl is spoiled rotten, and indulged by her father, and treats her entire family with contempt.  As adults, though, the roles are reversed-Jane is an unsuccessful actress in movies, only allowed to make pictures because the studio doesn't want to upset her sister Blanche, who is a big star.  At the peak of her career, Blanche is in a car accident (and we're meant to assume for most of the picture that it's Jane who was driving, as this has passed into urban legend), and is paralyzed, destroying her career.  We then retreat to the present day, where Blanche & Jane live together in an old house, with Jane living off of Blanche's money & mistreating her sister, who isn't able to stop Jane from abusing her (basically by starving, psychologically torturing, and eventually tying up Blanche to prevent her from selling the house and institutionalizing her mentally unwell sister).  The film has a subplot involving a conman named Edwin (Buono) trying to bilk Jane as an accompanist for her ridiculous attempts at a comeback, which combines the two stories when Edwin discovers Blanche bound-and-tied.  The film ends with Blanche confessing that it was she who was driving the car, and trying to run over Jane for her years of cruelty, and in the process ruined both of their lives.  Jane, now fully insane, dances for onlookers as the police arrive.

The movie has entered a whole different level of lore in recent years thank to Ryan Murphy's Emmy-winning series Feud, which chronicled the bitter real-life rivalry between Crawford & Davis, and the filming of this movie and its spiritual sequel Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte, so it's intriguing to go back to the movie after all of these years and find out it's really good.  There's a certain level of camp that is unavoidable here (hell, movies like Baby Jane basically invented modern camp), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't feel real.  The story is petrifying-you spend most of the movie not sure if Blanche will make it out alive or not, and intrigued by what Jane might do next.  You also have a lot of great throwbacks to Davis & Crawford's careers (this was the final important movie of either of their careers, though they'd both continue working for the next few years, and in Davis' case, the next few decades), including footage of them as younger actors.

The Oscar nominations were all pretty well-earned as well.  The costume work is intriguing, particularly the garish ways that Davis turns Baby Jane into almost a creature dressed as a little girl (this surely would've been a Makeup nominee had that category existed yet).  The sound work is fine, if not quite as inventive; the movie's best sound effect trick is the sort of screeching moment of the car accident between two unknown figures, and then the opening credits come forward announcing a different kind of movie than you might have expected before.  The same can be said for the Cinematography, which has some iconic shots (the final sequence being the most obvious, though Ernest Haller does a good job of making us feel like we're peering into the lives of famous people gone to hell in a way others might not have been able to achieve).

The film won two acting nominations.  I'm always stunned by how young Victor Buono was when this movie was made (he was only 24), and he has a menace to his character even if ultimately it doesn't feel like he has a full-enough grasp on who his character is.  I liked his chemistry with Davis (which ultimately won him this nomination), but his motives other than greed remain unclear, and you are left wondering why he is the way he is.  The script doesn't help here, but neither does Buono.

Davis famously won her 10th and final Oscar nomination for her work here, and was expected to win the Oscar (how she didn't is a story most of you probably know if you've made it this far in this review, but let's just say it's epic).  She's great-she makes Baby Jane a concoction of horror & sympathy all at once, and while she was applauded at the time for letting her vanity go (she makes herself older & uglier to sell the part), it's really the way that she underlines how Baby Jane wasn't allowed to grow up, and the trauma of having success at such a young age, that really sells this movie.  Crawford just missed with the nominations (you have to assume she was sixth place), but is very good in a subtler role.  Yes, she looks awfully glamorous for a shut-in (Crawford, ever vain from being "the most beautiful woman in movies," would try to make herself look better against the wishes of director Bob Aldrich), but she finds great moments in the movie to hint at the woman she might have become without Jane, and to provide hints of the sort of person who would destroy their sister's life for their own mistake.  I loved that scene where she's watching an old movie, complaining, but all-the-while knowing that she looked great & succeeded in a way that her sister never could.  Baby Jane is a legendary movie not because of the offscreen feuds (lord knows countless movies have had costars who despised each other), but because that rivalry didn't stop a truly mesmerizing movie from taking place.

OVP: Hollywood Canteen (1944)

Film: Hollywood Canteen (1944)
Stars: Joan Leslie, Robert Hutton, Dane Clark, Janis Paige...and enough star cameos to fill the Dorothy Chandler
Director: Delmer Daves
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Original Song-"Sweet Dreams, Sweetheart," Scoring, Sound)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Weird coincidence time.  Yesterday we discussed Mr. Dodd Takes the Air, a largely forgotten musical picture that was nominated for Best Original Song and features Jane Wyman.  Today, we look at another largely forgotten musical picture...that was nominated for Best Original Song and features Jane Wyman.  Hollywood Canteen, though, isn't lacking for star power in the way Dodd does.  While Dodd's only recognizable face today is Wyman's, she'd be lucky to make the first page of the call sheet for Hollywood Canteen, a Hollywood propaganda (come on-I know that has pejorative connotations, but that's what this is) movie about the film community's contributions to the war effort, specifically Bette Davis & John Garfield's creation of the Hollywood Canteen.

(Spoilers Ahead) For those unfamiliar, during the war, Davis & Garfield helped lead a war effort that would include people from every single studio coming together and giving out dances, food, and entertainment to men that were about to ship out overseas to fight in World War II.  The canteen was ahead of its time in some ways (it was desegregated) and while it was totally publicity for the Hollywood stars who went there (and admittedly had a darker side, as seen in the unsolved homicide of Georgette Beaurdorf), it was genuinely something that stars actually worked at.  All of the actors in this film were people who in real life were helping to keep the lights on at the actual restaurant, so if a GI came to the Canteen, they'd be able to see proper movie stars right up close, potentially serving them dinner.

In this film, we have two GI's returned from the South Pacific, Slim Green (Hutton) and Sergeant Nolan (Clark) who are looking for a good time and, in Slim's case, the girl of his dreams, Joan Leslie.  Of course, when they get there, Slim meets Leslie (played by the actress herself) and he wins first a kiss with her, and then a weekend date with the actress (in real life this would have been strictly forbidden-there were rules about the girls going home with the soldiers).  They fall in love, while Nolan continually strikes out until he falls for a tour guide (played by Janis Paige in one of her very first roles), with Slim shipping out, but Joan promising they'll meet again after the war.

The movie is shameless in the way it tries to glamorize the dangerous aspects of the war.  There's literally a scene where Nolan claims that he could walk without a cane all thanks to meeting Janis Paige's character at the Hollywood Canteen.  The film's plot is flimsy, a little creepy (it sure feels like Joan Leslie is being forced, while not into prostitution, at least into uncomfortable situations with a man who borders on stalking her), and more-than-once feels like it's simply Hollywood trying to justify itself during a time of great moral duress & uncertainty.

Here's the thing though, you're not going to care, because the film in the first half is about as much fun as a classic film fan can have (the second half is where it makes the mistake of trying to have a plot).  You see more stars than I could count, some of the highlights being Davis, Garfield, Wyman, Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Paul Henreid, Peter Lorre, Jack Benny, Sydney Greenstreet, Ida Lupino, Alexis Smith, and Roy Rogers all showing up in clever cameos, with Crawford arguably getting the best one (you can see her scene here), and it is divine.  This isn't like Around the World in 80 Days where you have to guess-the stars are very much introduced in ridiculously expository ways, but it's magical.  Never mind that some of these actors probably hated each other and weren't this nice & naturally charming in real life...it's bliss every time a new personality comes on to show us the star power going on at Warner Brothers during this era.

The film won three nominations, all of which are fine, if not groundbreaking.  The best of the three is Scoring, as a host of musicians and notable bands make cameos & bring us great numbers, including Rogers, the Andrews Sisters, Joan McCrackon, and the Jimmy Dorsey Orchestra.  It's not all original, but it's a blast.  The nominated song (sung in the film first by Leslie, and later by Kitty Carlisle), is kind of maudlin, and a bit too schmaltzy for my tastes, but all of the film with that music and the frequent crowd scenes handle the sound well.  All-in-all, this isn't a great movie, but man is it one I'd highly recommend for anyone who loves old cinema, as it's the closest you'll probably ever get to walking onto a backlot.

Five Thoughts on Feud

Yes, I'm aware I'm two weeks late on this, but if you knew what my actual life was like, you'd be expressing nothing but sympathy this morning for me.  I'll be honest here-I haven't been to a movie in weeks.  Quite frankly, I haven't seen a movie in weeks-I can't actually remember the last time that I've gone this long without catching a movie either in theaters or at home (literally, cannot remember), which if you can tell, messes a bit with my head.  That's how insane my work life has been in the past few weeks.  But I'm trying to be back and write a bit more on the blog (and gain control over other facets of my life in the process), and timely or not, I want to share my thoughts on the now finished first season of Feud.  Boiling below are the five main takeaways from the series.

1. This Was a Really Cool Concept...That Didn't Really Work

The problem for me with complaining about Feud is that it's a miracle that the show was made at all. In a sign that Ryan Murphy is now so powerful he can get anything greenlit (joining the likes of JJ Abrams and Shonda Rhimes in that regard), we managed to somehow get a story about two major film stars of the 1940's in their twilight years made for television, despite neither of them having a major cache with younger audiences in the way that, say, James Dean or Marilyn Monroe have today.  It's a miracle that the show was made at all, and really cool.  I love the idea that we can venture into a slice-of-life biopic for a television miniseries in such a way, and in particular about two of my favorite actresses.

I just wish it had been better made.  I haven't, admittedly, seen The People vs. OJ Simpson (which I hear just marvelous things about), but biopics are tough for television.  We know how they're going to go, so there's few surprises, and particularly with Murphy there, you can't stray that far from the ostentatious nature of the series into flights-of-fancy, which has been his raison d'être.  Love or hate shows like American Horror Story or Glee, but they don't let reality get in the way of a bold idea, and I frequently felt like he either repeated himself as a creator on Feud, or he made the series too muted. Take the constant back-and-forth between Crawford and Davis throughout the show.  What initially was trashy fun became boring after so many weeks-it would have helped, perhaps, if we'd occasionally gotten out of their cocoon (seen other relics of Hollywood from their era and what was happening to them at the time like Greta Garbo or Loretta Young), but the tight lens on Crawford (and to a lesser extent Davis) got boring after a while, and you mostly wanted to see where things landed rather than enjoy the ride.

2. The Leads are a Big Part of the Problem.

One of the biggest problems in the show may have been the two leading ladies.  For a while I thought the show might get around the age gap (Crawford and Davis were both considerably younger than Lange or Sarandon in real life, making it seem more urgent for them to keep working), and largely it wasn't a problem, but other things got in the way instead with this specific casting.

For starters, Lange played Joan Crawford the same way she played Fiona Goode or Elsa Mars-a woman looking back on the regrets of her life through the lens of lost youth.  The way she played Crawford, it was hard to fathom that at one time she was at the top of her field and a major movie star force.  This is partially the writer's problem-Crawford as written seemed to only get her power through her movie star beauty, not through talent or sheer determination, but that wasn't true in real life, and more importantly it doesn't really work with some of the things she demands later in the picture.  Forget for a second that she doesn't look or sound or act anything like the meticulous but always glamorous Crawford (the scene where she tells off a fan stuck in my craw as Crawford was unusually devoted to her fans to the end), and think instead about how she's constantly struggling with vanity, and yet has the audacity to march into Jack Warner's office or meet with her agents and tell them all to go to hell.  It's an easy out to blame it on her drinking, but she's hardly a believable figure, someone who has to be constantly reassured of her worth, and Lange plays her the same as she plays every other Ryan Murphy creation.  She's giving a good performance (Lange is a very good actress, and Murphy has stumbled upon an aspect of her talents that I hadn't expected based on her cinematic work), but we've been here before-this is not Lange stretching any muscles.  I won't quibble with an Emmy nomination, but the idea that she's doing something that's anywhere as close to what Reese Witherspoon or Nicole Kidman were doing in Big Little Lies is absurd.  If she beats either it will be a travesty.

Sarandon, on the other hand, is not giving a great performance.  I admittedly am sour on her after the election, and don't know if I'm going to gain back the respect I had for her, but only a fool would say the woman can't act-in the 1990's she was consistently mesmerizing.  But here she can't quite find Davis-she alternates between actually playing her (doing the voice, the walk, the very distinctive Davis persona) and then randomly throwing it out the window.  She, again, isn't helped by the writers (I didn't like her relationship with BD Hyman, and Kiernan Shipka has been better before...not to mention the writers' really want this to be the Joan Crawford Story so her screentime is oddly inconsistent), but this is more on her than them.  She can't seem to find her opinions of her daughter, herself, her costar-Sarandon is a movie star whatever else may be said about her, and that sometimes carries the day, but most of the time she was just dull in the role.  Also, the role really hinges on Davis being the talent, but not the beauty, and, well, Sarandon at 70 is still intensely attractive and foxy in a way that Davis, though lovely, never was.  It hurts your argument when she's repeatedly being called "not the glamorous one" when Sarandon herself always looks glamorous.

With neither she nor Lange really carrying the show to a special place, and the writers' slacking off during stretches of time, the show is difficult to save.  However, there is one special performer who will deserve the plaudits coming her way...

3. Judy Davis is the Best Thing about Feud

This is hardly a revelatory surprise, but man is Judy Davis so much better than pretty much everything else happening in Feud.  Davis at once gets the weird balancing problem between straight drama, melodrama, and camp that Murphy is unsuccessfully juggling, and says "to hell with that" vamping onto the screen and making Hopper into an actual character by playing her initially as a cartoon.

Seriously-the best structured scenes of the show are around Davis's Hopper instigating mischief.  It's a pity that the show didn't use that, quite frankly, as a framing device, or simply made a Hedda Hopper miniseries instead, as Davis's character seems to have enough skeletons and delusions come out that Murphy's initial idea about the cruelty of Hollywood could have been filmed through her lens (plus, her legendary feud with Louella Parsons would have gone along with the title).  We get hints from Davis that Hopper is aware that her glory days are over, that she can no longer compete with the teenybopper set and is instead using the fall of her former friends to stay in the limelight, but unlike Lange or Sarandon, she knows what Hopper's public and private faces look like, and is always keeping them separate.  She hasn't survived in Hollywood all of these years giving out information like chewing gum, or not being willing to stab a friend in the back one day and ask them for a favor the next.

No one else approaches Davis.  I quite liked Alison Wright's Pauline, even though she felt underwritten and only came out as a convenient plot point to move Joan Crawford along in one direction or the other.  Dominic Burgess was initially aces as Victor Buono, giving us perhaps the most Ryan Murphy moment of the show (the XXX theater where he says that Dylan Wittrock has "loads of potential" made me do a spit take...and also start following Dylan Wittrock on Instagram), but he's never as fun or saucy as he was in that initial appearance, and the writers quickly forget about him when he isn't feeding plot change ideas to Davis.  Stanley Tucci and Alfred Molina have their moments, but neither win you over quite like Davis does-there's not enough fire or time spent with them for us to see something special happening.  That being said, no one is as bad as a pair of actresses who should know better.

4. The Interview Aspect of the Show Was Abysmal

Interviews as narrational devices are lazy, and have become aggravating in recent years (The Office was an actual documentary, something they acknowledged within the confines of the plot, unlike Parks and Recreation and Modern Family).  Here it's a part of the plot, but totally unnecessary.  All it did was frame up the story, which the writers could have done anyway, and took away from building on supporting players like Buono or Pauline that might have made the experience a little bit fuller.

It has to be said, as well, that Kathy Bates and Catherine Zeta-Jones (playing Joan Blondell and Olivia de Havilland, respectively) are dreadful in their parts.  Bates seems to have become contractually obligated to appear in all Murphy shows, but what was the point of having Joan Blondell even in the series other than to show off that the writers have heard of her?  We never get a background look at her, she's not in Baby Jane or Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte-hell, why not have Bates play Agnes Moorehead instead?  It made zilch sense, and she phones in the role, never really breathing any extra life into it even though you can hardly blame her since the writers don't seem to care.

CZJ at least has a character that factors into the plot, but man is she out-of-practice.  She's beautiful, and arguably the only person playing someone relatively age appropriate of the leading ladies (de Havilland and Zeta-Jones both being in their mid-to-late forties for pivotal scenes in the picture), but she finds nothing in de Havilland other than what is on the paper.  It gets so bad that when she does her Lady in a Cage impression it's hard to tell whether or not she's acting poorly on-purpose to mock the film or whether this is her actually acting.  For someone who has (and earned) her Oscar, this is a travesty-if she wants to continue working, I'd honestly recommend a tune-up with an acting coach of some sorts.

It wasn't all bad in this department-some one-scene-wonders played quite well within the context of the show.  I liked Sarah Paulson's work as Geraldine Page, even if she played it a bit too naively for a woman who had been working in Hollywood for a decade, and Serinda Swan nailed Anne Bancroft's "serious actress" bit with Crawford, in what I'd argue was the best scene featuring Lange outside of the finale. But these weren't consistent roles, and felt necessary to the writing.  The fact that Bates and Zeta-Jones had so many extra lines was infuriating, and made me wonder if they were cast before Murphy had an idea of what he was going to do with the show.

5. The Show Never Solves the "Biopic Problem"

I have never been a fan of a biopic, and that's because only the best of biopics can overcome the "I know what will happen" angle.  The finest biopics, in my opinion (think something like The Social Network and Wild) aren't afraid of making their subject seem more human, more flawed, and manage to be so interesting you forget that you know how this is going to end.  Most biopics, however, don't achieve this and simply strive for accuracy and imitation, but to me that's not interesting, particularly when it comes to television where "what comes next" is so vitally important to keep you tuned in week after week.

With the exception of Judy Davis's comic relief, this problem is never overcome.  You can claim that most audience members aren't going to know the minutia of whether or not Davis won that Oscar or if Crawford would stay on at Charlotte, but let's be honest here: me (gay, cinema-loving me) was Ryan Murphy's intended audience here, and I knew what was coming.  Despite this, the film never focused enough on things I wouldn't know the resolution to when it came to its cliffhangers and plot points.  Even when it fudged with the truth (Davis and Aldrich's imaginary affair), it didn't do so in a way that helped add drama or tension to the actual plot.  Putting more unknowable things (perhaps making Pauline's struggle a bigger part of the show) would have solved this problem, but mostly I felt listless, knowing that Crawford's film Trog would be a huge black-eye on her career, or that neither of these women would ever really have a major comeback chance after Baby Jane.

All-in-all, then, I left Feud underwhelmed.  I can't say I disliked it, because I would have given up on it if I had, but the intrigue factor (and the occasionally light moments) were really all that kept me going.  When Murphy next season tackles the Charles/Diana feud (a more recent affair, and one that has a lot more chances to be needlessly tacky and controversial considering how Diana died and how many people featured in it are still alive) I'll be sitting that one out, as the show didn't have me hooked.  But I'd still like to discuss if you have thoughts-share them below in the comments section!

OVP: The Caretakers (1963)

Film: The Caretakers (1963)
Stars: Robert Stack, Polly Bergen, Diane McBain, Joan Crawford, Janis Paige
Director: Hall Bartlett
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I have discussed quite regularly on this blog the strange situation of reviewing or viewing films that are decades old, and the way that politics oftentimes gets involved.  I try as hard as I can to remember "time and place," though my track record is hardly spotless (particularly when it comes to racial or gender politics, it's hard not to see oblique prejudice as anything other than that).  There's a flip to this too, though-that of an issue that was important at the time that no longer is as relevant.  I am hopeful in the future that struggles like gay marriage or trans rights will be like this-where stories that seem deeply relevant today are treated as such in the future.  That's certainly the case with the treatment of the mentally ill in The Caretakers, a film that feels pretty ridiculous and mundane by today's standards but was nonetheless an Oscar-nominated hit in 1963.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers around Lorna Melford (Bergen), a woman who is suffering from a deep clinical depression after the death of her son in a car accident, and is put into an institution after she starts becoming distraught in public places, screaming and panicking in front of strangers.  At the clinic, she is joined by a group of woman (played by the likes of Janis Paige, Ana St. Clair, and best-of-the-bunch Barbara Barrie as a mute pyromaniac) in group therapies, as her residing clinician Dr. MacLeod (Stack) is at odds with the head Nurse Terry (Crawford), as she prefers treating the women more like prisoners than as patients with a disease.  Even in 1963, you can see where this is headed-as the film progresses we find that Lorna gets better because of Dr. MacLeod, and after a couple of setbacks, eventually proves that his method is better than the dehumanizing ones employed by Nurse Terry.

The film would be fine and perhaps even good if it had just stuck to that issue.  It's not like mental illness doesn't still encounter stigma, and certainly is still an issue explored in film, though perhaps not as frequently with a psychiatric clinic.  But the film is littered with over-the-top, terrible acting, and takes itself way too seriously.  The film is intent on having a fully-fleshed army of side characters to fill up what is a relatively thin plot, but even actors that are having fun with their parts, like Janis Paige's sex-crazed Marion, do so with wild and over-the-top mannerisms.  Worst of the bunch, quite frankly, is Bergen, who was enjoying a very brief period as a leading woman at this stage in her career, but cannot seem to find anything deeper with her character than what is on the page.  I did like Barbara Barrie, as she seemed to be the only patient portrayed as an actual person (and she does a lot with her big scene toward the end of the picture), and am a little surprised she didn't gain more awards traction for such a showy role, and Crawford is her usual good self, even if she plays Nurse Terry a bit stiff when you'd prefer she embrace the scenery being feasted on by the other actors, but in general the acting is holding this movie back.

The same can be said for the mood.  I thought the somber music played over the end credits (which featured photos of most of the cast...I'm drawing a blank on what the term for that is, so if you could tell me in the comments you'd save me a lot of googling) was silly, and the finale was largely unearned-suddenly Lorna is okay because she does the doctor's job for him?  And he's rewarded for this?  It feels a bit silly, and the movie treats certain scenes as far too exploitative (particularly Lorna's grief and when she is nearly raped by the male patients) for my taste.  Overall, though, it's just not a good story or really doesn't have any redeeming qualities.  Even the cinematography is just average-there's nothing striking here to lend itself; perhaps the way the chase sequence is framed, but you could find that in the best Twilight Zone episodes.  I feel like this, the tale end of when AMPAS split black-and-white and color for this category, might have benefited most from a lack of competition.

Those are my thoughts on the disappointing Caretakers-how about yourself?  Anyone want to come to its defense (this is the sort of film that usually gains steam by being campy, but it's far too self-serious to gain that shade)?  If not, anyone have a good Polly Bergen role?  I've liked her in television before, but cinema has so far been mostly misses.

OVP: Mannequin (1938)

Film: Mannequin (1938)
Stars: Joan Crawford, Spencer Tracy, Alan Curtis, Ralph Morgan, Mary Philips
Director: Frank Borzage
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Always and Always")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

One of the biggest problems with the concept of a movie star is that it takes longer for me, as an avid film-watcher, to connect with the actor or actors onscreen as someone other than the movie star.  When I see Reese Witherspoon, for example, I don't see her as a character at the beginning of a film-I see her as "Reese Witherspoon-Movie Star."  It's only later in the film, as I become immersed in the story, that she becomes Tracy Flick or Elle Woods or June Carter Cash.  This is particularly difficult and striking for older film stars, as they have never been anything other than movie stars to me (whereas I remember the moment that Reese Witherspoon started to become famous).

(Spoilers Ahead) This was a particular problem for me during the movie Mannequin, with two of the most iconic stars of Classical Hollywood at the center, Joan Crawford and Spencer Tracy.  At this point in their careers Crawford had been famous for over a decade, Tracy was about to take his first Oscar, and both were major headliners, so having them together is a bit of a moment (this is the only film they ever starred together in), but the film itself asks that, particularly with Crawford, that she be a character that's down-on-her-luck and just some sweet girl from Hester Street that wants to find a way out of her terrible life.

The problem lies in the fact that modern audiences never really ever buy that Joan Crawford is anything other than Joan Crawford, Grade-A movie star and longtime star of the silver screen.  Crawford is one of my favorite actors, to be sure, but she's always at her best playing someone that conceivably could be Joan Crawford-a movie star or heiress, or at least someone with nerves of steal who is willing to do what it takes to survive.  Here we have her in Mannequin, surely self-sufficient as Jessie, but trying to be a girly girl who wants to be whisked away and is smitten with a low-life scum even if she's clearly meant for bigger and better things.  Crawford was 33 at the time, hardly an ingenue anymore even if she's supposed to play one and while she gives it her all (Crawford was always the consummate movie star, never letting things like bad material get in the way of a potential dose of spotlight), she's never really believable as this down-on-her-luck worker.  It's hard to believe that she'd be willing to settle for her louse of a first husband Eddie (Curtis), or that she couldn't convince Spencer Tracy that she loved him unconditionally as the film progressed.

This lack of believability hurts the movie immensely, particularly since without it all we have is Crawford's strong movie star chops.  I've talked on here multiple times about my dislike of Spencer Tracy, and while he's usually slightly better as a romantic lead than a dramatic one, he can't quite compete with Crawford (she feels too good for him too), and his behavior seems more about conquering her and less about being in love with her.  The movie feels terribly slight-the title itself is a reference only to a quick throwaway scene where Crawford is modeling, though she does get a good aside in about lingerie-and the nomination for Best Original Song falls into that category.  "Always and Always" is a trite little number that Crawford and Tracy dance to twice in the movie, including a scene where Crawford sings to him, but it's a bit slow and not at all memorable.  Much like this picture.

Those are my thoughts on this movie, but I'm curious about yours.  This was a relatively successful film during one of the bleaker portions of Crawford's career-anyone want to defend it, or are we all fine saying it's mediocre, and she's the best part?  Does anyone else think it's weird that two films named Mannequin were Oscar-nominated for Best Song (and only Best Song)?  And if you haven't seen it, can someone tell me what movie am I finally going to love Spencer Tracy in?  He's nominated for nine Oscars-he must have deserved it for one of them, right?!?

My Dozen Favorite Actresses

I am back to writing daily blog articles this week, and as a result of that, I want to do a few GTKY articles in relation to movies, as we're now entering the phase of the year where we weirdly overlap movies/politics.  The Oscars are picking up, the elections are in full-swing, and so I decided to do a series of three articles (we'll go one today, one Thursday, and one this weekend) where I count down my dozen favorite actresses, actors, and directors, of all-time.

I haven't really done this before, and I was debating whether to rank or whether to go alphabetical, and partially because of a cop-out, but mostly because I think it's darn near impossible to actually rank different actors/styles, I decided to go alphabetical below.  If I get enough comments (or at least a couple), I'll spill the beans about how I would have properly ranked these, but in the meantime, let's start with the ladies as they're always the most interesting.

Honorable Mentions: It has to be said that a lot of women were in contention here.  There are some that just missed (Cate Blanchett ignobly was positioned at thirteenth, with people like Tilda Swinton, Julie Christie, and Myrna Loy were not far behind).  There are a few actresses where I feel like they're poised for greatness, but haven't quite made enough movies yet (Chastain, Viola Davis, Cotillard, Weisz), while others I've always loved but can't quite claim to have seen enough of their filmography to warrant a spot (Stanwyck, Lombard, Hayworth, and Dietrich all spring to mind).  It also has to be said that I could name-check women that should be on this list until the end of time, while the men's list will not remotely approach this adoration.  This is an endlessly fun activity, though, so please berate, agree, and recommend in the comments (along with providing your own list).

Ingrid Bergman (1915-1982)

Oscar History: 7 nominations/3 wins (Gaslight, Anastasia, The Murder on the Orient Express)
First Impressions: I think my first experience with Ingrid Bergman was actually Casablanca-I want to say I saw it right at the same time as Anastasia so theoretically I could have seen her there first, but my gut is telling me Casablanca was the culprit.
Why the Love: I don't think that you can pinpoint exactly one reason to love Ingrid Bergman, for many years my easy answer for favorite actress (I'm not ranking here, but she'd be still be Top 5).  She has this instinctive, natural introverted glamour in every movie she makes.  Even when she's being funny or joyous, there's something mesmerizing in the way that she does it.  There are few actresses in the history of cinema I've felt more connected to the language of their eyes and faces-she is the sort of performer who would have been famous in every decade of the movies.
My Favorite Performance: Casablanca, most assuredly.  I know she didn't like that everyone pointed this movie out, but she's my favorite performance in my favorite movie, and the way she just effortlessly projects being the object of Rick's affection, and yet still striking in her own ways as a woman complicated by loving two men at once: it's to-die-for.
Missing Piece: Almost certainly the performance of hers I'm missing and most excited to see is Autumn Sonata.  I love both Bergmans, and so the idea of the two of them together is thrilling.

Juliette Binoche (1964-Present)

Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (The English Patient)
First Impressions: I think the first film I ever saw of hers was Chocolat, a film I remember quite enjoying when it came out even if it was a bit frothy (it's the sort of pleasant comedy that I tend to have a lovely time with even if it's not remotely Oscar-worthy), though I will save both my brother and I the embarrassment of sharing my initial thoughts of Binoche, particularly when she shockingly bested Lauren Bacall at the Oscars.
Why the Love: Binoche is truly a superb actress, one who finds the center in pretty much every characterization she's in, and who has been, in her forties and now fifties, continually growing.  Her early work as a young, earthy beauty has transformed into a mature, confident performer, one who continually amazes even decades after she first got onto our screens.  Honestly-Binoche is one of those rare performers I'll not only see all of their movies, I'd be willing to bet I'd like the movie that holds them.
My Favorite Performance: Surely it'd have to be (my favorite?-it competes with Casablanca on a steady basis) movie The English Patient.  The way she handles line readings as the optimistic, but consistently abandoned Hana is a work of pure poetry.
Missing Piece: I've never seen Blue.  I know, I have no excuse on that one.

Joan Crawford (1904-1977)

Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (Mildred Pierce)
First Impressions: Like most people younger than forty, my first impression of Crawford was clutching a wire hanger, being impersonated by Faye Dunaway in a camp classic (which I've never seen somehow, but we all know that rodeo even if we haven't caught the picture).
Why the Love: No Golden Age performer has grown more on me in recent years than Joan Crawford.  Seriously, for all of the Mommie Dearest jokes or the cracks about her shoulder pads, Crawford was a consummate movie star, and a damned fine screen presence.  Honestly-I have yet to find a film of hers where I didn't enjoy her, even if occasionally the films surrounding her border on the absurd (or more accurately in her grand guignol period, the camp).  Crawford is intensely watchable, perhaps even more so than her arch-rival (who, thanks to a fortuitous use of the alphabet, she sits right atop right now), and always holds the attention of every movie she's starring in (Joan Crawford doesn't do bit parts).
My Favorite Performance: I mean, I truly hope one of these isn't a horrible cliche, but I'm going to go with Mildred Pierce, where she's absolutely aces as a melodramatic mother (with a daughter from hell).  She won the Oscar in a bit of a surprise that year, but her victory was well-earned.  Truly, though-Joan Crawford's greatest role was pretty much always Joan Crawford.
Missing Piece: I haven't seen either of her other two Oscar-nominated turns in Possessed and Sudden Fear, so I'll go with those-arguably the two Best Actress nominations I'm most looking forward to from the late 40's/early 50's.

Bette Davis (1908-1989)

Oscar History: 10 nominations/2 wins (Dangerous and Jezebel)
First Impressions: The Kim Carnes song aside, my first introduction to Bette Davis was weirdly Jezebel.  When I first got into the Oscars I started randomly watching any film on AMC that had ever won a Big 6 trophy, which is why a twelve-year-old boy was watching a then sixty-year-old movie about a woman desperately (but unfortunately) in love with Hank Fonda.
Why the Love: Because Bette Davis doesn't take shit from anybody, and you have to admire someone like that.  You'll notice by now if you're peaking ahead that I didn't put her longtime Oscar rival Kate Hepburn on this list.  At one point she absolutely would have made this and if I expanded to 20 I probably would have found room, but Hepburn I almost never could get into when she did drama (1968 set aside).  Davis, on the other hand, was worth it whenever she was delivering a laugh or a dramatic line, and perhaps was best when she was trying to do both (Baby Jane Hudson, anyone?).  She was a consummate actress, even if the public toward the end of her career demanded a movie star, and one that echoed her tough broad persona even more than in her heyday.  Davis always delivered.
My Favorite Performance: I looked ahead-I don't always go with the cliche, so I'm here going to say the role that she was born to play (all do respect to the talented Claudette Colbert, but it wouldn't have been the same had the producers' first choice been available): Margo Channing.  Her throw-a-mink-like-a-wet-umbrella attitude was classic, and she sells all of the lines of (arguably) the best screenplay ever written with All About Eve.  A close runner-up is her desperate romantic nature in Now, Voyager, which is a much better movie than you remember it.
Missing Piece: I'm going to go with Dark Victory, the film she ended up in instead of Gone with the Wind, and the movie that many people suspect she would have clinched her third Oscar for had it not been for Vivien Leigh.

Audrey Hepburn (1929-1993)

Oscar History: 5 nominations/1 win (Roman Holiday)
First Impressions: Like so many, I remember loving My Fair Lady growing up, thinking it absolutely loverly.
Why the Love: Audrey Hepburn has also been someone that I've said for years is "my favorite actress" and depending on the day probably still is.  There's a quiet grace in her work, something that's hard to pinpoint but evident when she's at the top of her game.  It's not just the waif-like beauty, but also the way she presents her heartbroken self as genuine, and genuinely lonely.  I see something like Sabrina, and am flabbergasted at how good her performance is in an era where she was more likely to go into histrionics over a lost man than simply sustain a subdued facial expression.  Hepburn largely disappeared from the cinema after she set it afire for most of the 1950's and 60's, but she left a wonderful footprint.
My Favorite Performance: Sabrina Fairchild is actually pretty close to the top-it's one of those romantic comedies that works better if you slightly change the ending (Sabrina never really needed any man-just her Paris cookbooks), but I can't deny the impact that Holly Golightly has had on me.  I spent years after Breakfast at Tiffany's emulating her deep, distant love for Fred, to the point where I once walked in front of Tiffany's with a croissant, playing "Moon River" on my iPod.  Yes, that happened-the movies are my life.
Missing Piece: Arguably Hepburn is the actress I do the best on in terms of seeing all of the important works.  I am missing her Oscar-nominated turn in The Nun's Story, and while I haven't heard great things (it seems to be the weakest link in her AMPAS quintet), it's the only major film she ever made I haven't caught, so I'll go with that one.

Diane Keaton (1946-Present)

Oscar History: 4 nominations/1 win (Annie Hall, though Keaton better step it up if she's going to continue her strange only-once-a-decade Oscar streak).
First Impressions: One of my mom's all-time favorite films is Baby Boom, and we would watch it as a family on a regular basis for many a movie night-I probably still know most of it by heart.
Why the Love: Keaton's the quirky girl you desperately hope to be while forcing yourself to fit into a group of people you don't really like.  The actress is strangely good in drama (oddly enough, despite her multiple successful forays into comedy, she's actually best as a dramatic actress), imbuing her characters with a wide-eyed forcefulness, even if they don't match her actions.  She's spent years creating a honed, eccentric (and besuited) persona offscreen, but my love for her comes in the quieter, honest moments she brings to the big-screen.
My Favorite Performance: I told you I'd go off the beaten path here.  I love Annie Hall, don't get me wrong, and what a wonderful thing that she got her Oscar for Woody's magnum opus, but for me this has to go to Reds, one of the most romantic films ever made and almost certainly Warren's magnum opus as well.  I might even put Annie in third, behind Louise and then Kay Corleone, in the second installment of the series (I may or may not have done the "it was an abortion" speech every single time my brother and I were washing dishes as a kid).
Missing Piece: Here's a strange case where I've seen most of her work, including a lot of her stuff with Allen.  Perhaps Looking for Mr. Goodbar, the film that many people thought helped carry her Academy Award across the finish line?

Nicole Kidman (1967-Present)

Oscar History: 3 nominations/1 win (The Hours)
First Impressions: I believe that Nicole Kidman was one of the first actresses to ever really underscore what a sexy woman was for me, which is a weird thing for a very gay man to proclaim, but her work in Batman Forever was so glamorous, and I maintain to this day that I'd probably be into blonds if I were straight (fortunately for me I'm gay...and into redheads).
Why the Love: Kidman, after a decade of being married to Tom Cruise with only a spattering of success, managed to have one of the great second acts of movie history, pushing out a series of fine, pitch-perfect performances for auteur after auteur.  She is courageous as a performer (witness The Paperboy), gamely finding herself in pretty much every vision that is put in front of her, and is occasionally lightning in a bottle when she finds the right match for her icy, grand talents.
My Favorite Performance: Oh Satine, you are breathtaking, but I will always be looking to Virginia Woolf, waiting for the train.  I am that person who actually thought she deserved the Oscar for The Hours even in hindsight.
Missing Piece: The 2004 duo of Birth/Dogville stick out in my mind, or perhaps even the dark comedy of To Die For.  Either way, Kidman is that rare recent actress where I actually have some room to grow.

Vivien Leigh (1913-1967)

Oscar History: 2 nominations/ 2 wins (Gone with the Wind, A Streetcar Named Desire)
First Impressions: Strangely, it's not Scarlett, but Blanche that first made my acquaintance.  I was eleven-years-old, and I credit that screening of A Streetcar Named Desire as the exact moment that I permanently became a fan of the movies, someone who didn't just go casually but was willing to devote their life to them.
Why the Love: Because Vivien Leigh is perfect, and not just because she gave two of the world's most iconic performances.  Leigh is glamorous steel, a weird conglomerate of pixieish beauty and a dangerous, ardent performer's heart.  She also may be one of the cinema's most underrated performers.  I mean, look at some of the work that she's done-even if she just had her two most iconic creations, that'd probably be enough to be on this list, but she also found time to make a slew of romantic heroines in the 1940's that were continually excellent.
My Favorite Performance: Leigh's made some of my all-time favorite films, and while Gone with the Wind is a titanic achievement (word-choice quite purposeful) and Waterloo Bridge is one of the most romantic movies I've ever seen, nothing compares to Streetcar.  I've seen thousands of movies, tens of thousands of performances, and this is my favorite in all of film history.
Missing Piece: I'd probably go with The Deep Blue Sea, a film that I absolutely loved Rachel Weisz in a few years (I would have given her the Oscar), as I think the tortured soul having a love affair is a part Leigh was born to play.

Shirley MacLaine (1934-Present)

Oscar History: 6 nominations/1 win (Terms of Endearment...though it's worth noting one of her nominations was for directing the documentary The Other Half of the Sky)
First Impressions: My first impression of Shirley was actually not a film, and not even her belief in channelling or UFO's, but instead an ardent need to see the film Guarding Tess, which looked delightful when I would constantly pass it at our local video rental store, but I never was able to rent it (it had to have been rated PG-13, which was forbidden in my household).  Either way, I loved the sly grin she had on all of those posters and was convinced it could be a favorite movie.
Why the Love: MacLaine is one of those performers I've come to more passionately as the years have gone by, an actress that is so consistent it's hard to remember she's also consistently refreshing.  I honestly can't think of a Shirley MacLaine performance I didn't love.  I've seen other actresses on this list upstaged, but I genuinely can't remember a single MacLaine film where she isn't the best part about it-it's the fact that she's always a trouper.  While other actors of her generation slid into the laziness of playing themselves over-and-over-and-over again (cough, Al Pacino), Shirley continues to make interesting films whenever she gets the chance well into her eighties.  Man do I wish filmmakers would take advantage of her still solid timing and ability.  We deserve a Shirley moment for the ages just one more time.
My Favorite Performance: Aurora Greenway-it's that perfect combination of terrific movie, marvelous movie star turn, and damn fine acting.  It was probably a victory for MacLaine at the Oscars because "how the hell hasn't she won yet?" but it's likely she would have won anyway even if she was hunting for a second trophy as she was just that good.
Missing Piece: I'll go with The Turning Point, a film that stars not only Shirley, but actually gets her to act opposite an actress I haven't seen her with (Anne Bancroft).  Shirley's always at her best starring opposite other women (Debra Winger, Meryl Streep), so this feels like an easy answer to investigate.

Maggie Smith (1934-Present)

Oscar History: 6 nominations/2 wins (The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and California Suite)
First Impressions: Maggie Smith is that rare performer who, especially for Millennials, is littered with performances you remember from childhood.  My first impression of her was actually in Hook, though, as an aging Wendy.  I thought she was wonderfully creepy and old in the role (which is saying something for the makeup department, who made her look older than she was), and it was kind of a love affair whenever I found her later on in any picture.
Why the Love: Smith's voice is where it starts.  That crisp, precise accent that only she can achieve (though countless comedians are constantly trying to parody), is so marvelous and exact.  But she's an actress that can rely on more than just her dialect.  She's someone with great feeling.  It might shock a generation of people who watched her do her "Maggie Smith schtick" in things like Downton, Harry Potter, and Best Exotic Marigold, all prim and upper-crust, to know that she once-upon-a-time was an actress that was quite sexual in her role choices and would fling herself into affairs in my favorite of her works.  Smith is the sort of presence, even if the film's not on the top of its game, I'm always more than joyful to see show up on an opening credits line.
My Favorite Performance: Undoubtedly this would have to be The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, one of those rare Best Actress wins that not only totally deserved the win, but was the exact right moment for an actor who was actually a bit of a surprise victory at the time.  It's a towering achievement if you've never had the chance to catch it, and one of my personal favorite movies.
Missing Piece: I somehow have never seen the other film that won her an Oscar in California Suite, which I'll obviously hit sometime in the OVP, but impatience may get the better of me one day and I'll move it to the top of the queue.

Meryl Streep (1949-Present)

Oscar History: 19 nominations/3 wins (Kramer vs. Kramer, Sophie's Choice, The Iron Lady)
First Impressions: I genuinely don't know what the first film starring Meryl Streep I ever saw was-I want to say it might have been Kramer or The Deer Hunter-that sounds about right as I would have seen both of those films when I was first starting to watch Oscar-winning pictures.  My first impression of her, though, was that she was an actress that was treated as something of a deity, as I remember reading an Entertainment Weekly Oscar issue in 1995 where they talked about how she could upset Susan Sarandon's expected victory as she had legions of fans at the Oscars who always voted for her (they may have been onto something there).
Why the Love: I mean, at this point naming Streep as one of your favorite actresses is like naming Michael Jordan one of your favorite basketball players-everyone has to do it.  But the point of the matter is that Streep deserves her spot in the pantheon.  Some of her work, especially when she's at the top of her game, is unmatched.  She can develop a naturalism onscreen like few others can achieve, and she's that rare multi-talented performer where it's almost hard to tell what she's best at-she can make you laugh, make you cry, she can sing like an angel and forebode with just the slightest of inflections.  All-in-all, Streep is worthy of all the hype.  After all, she can live up to it.
My Favorite Performance: For years I would have said The French Lieutenant's Woman, but I've actually had something of a resurgence this year of Streep roles (I've seen three of her Oscar-nominated turns for the first time...four if we think Florence Foster Jenkins gets there, which is looking increasingly plausible), and one of them has taken the top of the heap: Silkwood, where Streep casts aside pretty much any pretenses we have about her and just, scene-after-scene, is marvelous and exact and nails it.  A brilliant piece of work.
Missing Piece: Like I said, I'm working my way through all of Streep's Oscar-nominated turns quickly and swiftly, but I still have two left: A Cry in the Dark and One True Thing.  So I'll go with those two, but the Streep filmography gaps are closing quickly.

Kate Winslet (1975-Present)

Oscar History: 7 nominations/1 win (The Reader)
First Impressions: I actually most remember my mom talking about how much she liked her.  The 1995 Oscars were the first Academy Awards I really got into (it helped that there were several films like Apollo 13, Batman Forever, and Babe that I had actually seen which were up for a number of awards), and I recall my mom looking at the Supporting Actress lineup and proclaiming Kate Winslet the one that should have won.  As my mom dictated a lot of the movies I could see, that instantly added a huge weight in wanting to see Winslet in more films.
Why the Love: Winslet is the youngest actress on this list by nearly a decade, and so I teetered whether to include her or thinking perhaps she was still too new (and hadn't yet entered the treacherous-for-actresses period of her 40's).  Yet I can't deny the love is there, and pretty much always there.  I've seen most of Winslet's filmography, and she's one of the few women on this list I can genuinely claim I've seen every one of their Oscar-cited turns.  She's a vision, consistently, onscreen-someone who is rarely judgmental of her characters, which gives imperfect creations like Rose or Marianne or Hanna so much more weight as she portrays them on the big screen.
My Favorite Performance: I'm torn.  I think arguably her best acting role ever was Clementine in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a truly wonderful and special movie, one that will probably never be duplicated (it feels like the kind of film you only pull off once in a career), but the other half of me is screaming "TITANIC!" at the top of my lungs.  As she's the last actress listed here, I'll just say both and cheat and bravo for getting through one of my lengthier blog posts.
Missing Piece: Like I said, Winslet's a rare performer I've actually seen most of her major movies.  I'll go with her big break, though, which I haven't caught yet which is Heavenly Creatures.

There you have it-my twelve favorite actresses!  Like I said, please take some time to visit the comments section, as I'm positive you have your own list of favorite actresses, or thoughts on mine!  There's a plethora of comments directions to take, so I encourage you to do so!

OVP: Queen Bee (1955)

Film: Queen Bee (1955)
Stars: Joan Crawford, John Ireland, Betsy Palmer, Barry Sullivan, Lucy Marlow, Fay Wray
Director: Ranald MacDougall
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Costume, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Melodrama is a term that has taken on a pejorative term over the years.  Critics have taken it to task for its lack of realism and its treatment of its characters in less-than-subtle terms, but these films, at their height in the 1940's and 1950's, occasionally reached a wonderful level of excellence.  In my opinion, the best of these melodramas were what is known by film historian's as a "woman's film," films of this era which focused exclusively on female protagonists and the rigors/travails of domestic life.  Some of the biggest names in Hollywood history made the bulk of their films in this genre including Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Olivia de Havilland, and perhaps most memorably, Joan Crawford.  The women that Ms. Crawford played were noble, but flawed, frequently trying to make a better life for themselves amidst a world that was trying to give up on them.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is why Queen Bee is such a delight, as it turns our typical Crawford protagonist on her head.  Her Eva Phillips looks like the sort of character that Crawford was born to play: she's in a loveless marriage, but vastly determined, and is fawned over by many men.  She's the sort of person that you expect to rise above it all and either heroically sacrifice herself for her marriage or for love.  And yet Crawford turned this on its head when she herself ends up being the harsh villain.  Eva Phillips is a nasty woman, consistently getting what she wants through almost any means necessary-she has manipulated and blackmailed the world around her so that everyone essentially caters to her every whim.

The best part about all of this is that Crawford makes Eva incredibly intoxicating.  There's no lack of star charisma in this performance, which could so easily border onto cartoonish (and occasionally it does, which I'll admit was pretty gleeful since after all of these years of Mommie Dearest-style depictions of Crawford this is that rare screen performance that emulates her post-career public persona), and we all desperately want to see what Crawford does next.  It helps that Lucy Marlow as her onscreen counter, the woman who is playing the role that Crawford might have taken earlier in her career (as a young, hard-luck girl who tries to find love in the most unlikely of scenarios), is incredibly mousy and is towered over by Crawford in performance, which lends itself to why her Jennifer actually sticks with Crawford in the film despite all evidence to the contrary.  The film continues with Eva continually getting her way until one of her underlings has enough and decides the only way to stop her is by killing her, though it's not initially the one that you would have expected.  The role is a perfect fit for Crawford, and you'd almost think it was written for her she performs it with such precision (indeed, Crawford, eternally the savvy star, bought the rights to the novel which Queen Bee is based upon and when she sold them to Columbia she stipulated that she would star).

The film received a pair of Oscar nominations, both highly-deserving.  The best of the two would be the wonderful costume design.  The film isn't shy about realism in this regard (it's hard to imagine even someone as self-involved as Eva dressing up in Jean Louis on a regular basis), but the French designer is marvelous, creating a series of get-ups and gowns for Crawford that are fascinating, and increasingly gaudy as her character succumbs to more and more vanity and gets a bit more reckless as the film progresses.  The other nomination for Cinematography is also well-earned.  Despite being filmed principally on a closed set (this category typically favors the out-of-doors), the film makes excellent use of camera angles and shadow, frequently highlighting characters in the background through slightly skewed angles.  There's also the terrific introduction of Crawford's Eva that is helped by the cameraman; we spend the first ten minutes or so of the picture waiting for Eva to make her entrance, and even when we are anticipating and know who will be playing her, the camera lights the scene well enough that it's first her dress, and then her face that is shown to the audience.  It's one of those rare cases where the black-and-white nominations from the 1950's for Cinematography actually feels earned, rather than just being tossed aside for a big name movie.

Those are my thoughts on this surprisingly fun melodrama-what are yours?  Do you think it deserved its two Oscars?  And share your thoughts on art-reflecting-life with Crawford's rare villain.