I went and looked and calculated that I've seen about maybe 4-5 actual performances from the next 20 years or so of this category. So there is a whoooole lot that I haven't seen yet and I'm super excited to finally be knocking some of these off my list. I have seen none of the below women yet, so let's get started!
1971 Best Actress
Jane Fonda - Klute
This was Jane Fonda's first win and I had heard nothing but great things about the film and her performance. I knew she played a hooker/call girl, so I was expecting the hooker with a heart of gold trope but luckily the role avoids that stereotype. I also was expecting to wowed or bowled over or say this is my favorite Fonda performance of hers. But I only found it to be a very solid job by Fonda, one that fits into her strong, independent woman roles that she finds and excels at. That sounds like damning with faint praise but Fonda is very good and you can absolutely see that she dives deep into the character and produces something really strong. The win feels deserved, though as I write this I haven't seen the other performances yet. Some of her other, later work really feel like she is trying to send or promote a message with her work, not just delivering great acting. This one feels like purely acting on her part. She does play a hooker/call girl who Donald Sutherland finds because a missing person he is trying to locate sent her a letter. The two try to track down some clues to find this missing man and paranoia abounds. The film itself is very moody and that matches the performance by Fonda. She's a smart woman who is involved in the lifestyle because she has a compulsion that draws her in. I think due in part to her being a struggling actress, the lifestyle allows her to play a role she can control and be the lead in. I also like how restrained Fonda is in this. She never goes off into histrionics or breaks down crying and screaming or anything like that. The acting choices are pretty measured and Fonda makes her character come off as a regular flawed human being. I also believe that the paranoia and tension of the film really adds to the overall performance. Fonda is very serious and she matches the tone of the film spot on, so it in turn makes us more invested in both the performance and the film. This win just honestly feels like Fonda really putting in the work and dedicating herself to creating the best performance she possibly could. She herself even said that she nailed this role and usually looks back and critiques her work but not this one. It's strong work that I'd recommend especially because this review was clear as mud about how good Fonda is in this role. Go watch it and see for yourself.
Julie Christie - McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Christie was a previous winner from 1965 for Darling (not Doctor Zhivago, which was the same year) and yeah, I've never heard of that film either. We will get there in a few years, but Christie was a major actress who was beloved in America and England and had the awards love to prove it. So it's no surprise to see her nominated here for Robert Altman's anti-western, as he called it. Christie plays a brothel madam who is addicted to opium and partners up with Warren Beatty, who owns the local whorehouse. It's mutually beneficial and the two get along quite well for the most part. The drug addiction really doesn't come into play for Christie, though she does want the money when a mining company comes in and offers to buy the town, which Beatty refuses. Christie puts in solid work as the madam and has some moments where she really shines when she stands up to Beatty when initially trying to partner up to him. She's this fierce, independent woman who knows her shit and takes none from anyone. But sadly, Christie is underutilized. She disappears from the film for long stretches and is seen as nothing more at times as a love interest for Beatty. It's a good performance but we never get to see Christie full stretch out her acting muscles and do much after her initial entry to the film. I wanted more of her but we never get it. She was also in The Go-Between which had a nomination in Supporting Actress, so she was visible to the Academy in a couple films this year. So while it's good, it's certainly not enough to unseat the winner, especially in this stacked group of women.
Glenda Jackson - Sunday Bloody Sunday
The two-time Oscar winner was always an enigma to me. I've gone into her story in her other, later reviews, but she was an actress that just happened to capture the attention of the Academy in the 70s for some reason. I feel like Jackson is nominated here because of the strength of this film and because of her performances in Mary, Queen of Scots and a mini-series where she played Queen Elizabeth I. She was in the minds of the voters for sure and had just won her first Oscar the year prior. That all adds up to this nomination. That also makes it sounds like this is an awful nomination that is terrible and bad and no good and all that. It's not. I just didn't feel much affinity towards this performance in the film as I did for Peter Finch. I described her performance as "whatever" in a text to my boo and I meant that. The story alternates between Finch and Jackson sharing the same man and both are very into this young artist guy. Jackson shows more of the jealousy and worry than Finch's total love. Jackson is fine in the role but she never really stirs anything inside of me. I don't feel for her one way or the other. She is more a woman in a midlife crisis than a woman purely devoted to her man. I do think this is more Finch's film than hers and that's because he does more with his performance so I just am not as enamored with Jackson in this role. Anytime the story veered away from Finch, I wanted it to return to him. Mostly because Jackson isn't as compelling but also because Jackson isn't as strong. It's not fair to compare the two but they do share a man and Jackson seems to be nothing more than a weak willed, worrisome woman. That's a bit harsh but her love seems like a fling and not legit and Jackson can't convince me otherwise. It's just a performance that exists and I much prefer her work in the below film with Vanessa Redgrave to this, no matter how supporting it is. I'll see in my next group just exactly if she deserved her first win.
Vanessa Redgrave - Mary, Queen of Scots
This film is a holdover from the 60's where these costume dramas were all the rage. It's like the end of an era with this film and probably would have been more of an awards darling if it came out a few years earlier. It's actually a pretty good film, though. I feel like because the subject has so much intrigue and events happening, that it doesn't get bogged down in endless, boring court scenes. The film is alive in a sense and some of that is due to Redgrave's portrayal of Mary Stuart. Now, Glenda Jackson plays Queen Elizabeth I in this film and for my money, has the better performance (though really she is more supporting). That's probably part of the reason she is also nominated along side Redgrave just in a different film. Redgrave's role as Mary is a bit different, though, as she is supposed to be a woman in her teens and early twenties, so she has this youthful naivete and idealism. Whereas Jackson gets to play the composed, calculating Queen of England who has tons of experience being a leader. It's hard to really compare the two, but Redgrave is able to standout on her own. I think it just comes down to preference on who you like more. Redgrave grows with the character as she becomes a stronger leader over time and Redgrave becomes more confident as an actor. By the end of the film, you see what makes her such a great actress as Mary stays strong and resolute in the face of death. Compare and contrast it to the young Mary from the beginning and it is a satisfying character arc and a very deserving performance. She has a lot to do as Mary but never devolves into whining or any other child-like behavior (Redgrave was in her 30's at this point) and gives the film a stately feel to it. She also makes the film way more tolerable and worth watching than I had anticipated (so does Jackson) and it's just an overall good performance.
Janet Suzman - Nicholas and Alexandra
I was trying to figure out just what to say about Suzman and this performance but I don't have a ton to say really. She was a stage actress in London and this was her debut film role. It doesn't look like it's her first film role because she is very polished as Alexandra, wife to Czar Nicholas II. Suzman delivers a very solid performance that perfectly supports Nicholas. She speaks her mind, loves her husband, loves her kids, and comes across as a noblewoman comfortable with her lot in life. Suzman is essentially the only female lead in the film as there is a lack of top females roles in this one. It's strong work in a historical epic about the downfall of the last Czar of Russia. That's about the best I can do with talking about this. It's good and I see why the Academy nominated her. It seems like an overall weaker year, so a holdover film that would fit perfectly in the 60s gets one last gasp with a few nominations (and two wins) to close out an era. Suzman is a beneficiary of that process but also stands on her own with a good performance, if a little lacking in something to set it apart from the others on this list. It's good, maybe forgettable, but you could easily find a ton more that are worse than Suzman is in this one.
This is actually a pretty great group of women. None of these performances are bad in the slightest. They may be a little underwhelming, but certainly not bad at all. And that's pretty good for this category because I always seem to dislike at least one if not more. Fonda is the clear winner and really the only one you could choose. It's her first win and feels like the natural choice for the Academy given her output up to that point and given who her family is. Jackson had just won the year prior, so she wasn't winning unless she gave us something amazing. She was good but I don't think it was anything amazing to deserve a back to back win. Christie was also a previous winner but didn't wow in her performance, either. It's good but she disappears for a bit. Suzman was making her film debut in a historical epic and did some solid work, but again doesn't wow or have any big moments. Redgrave had been nominated a couple times before this one and was from a beloved acting family, so her nomination makes sense for the Academy. Again, not amazing but still good. I think that's the theme of this year for this category - good, but not amazing. Still, I'd rather have a year like this than one where I hate half of the list. Let's finish out the 70s now and hopefully close out with a good one!
Oscar Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
My Winner: Jane Fonda - Klute
Glenda Jackson
Janet Suzman
Julie Christie
Vanessa Redgrave
No comments:
Post a Comment