Leading Actress 1968

The tie! All that needs to be said.

1968 Best Actress

Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter

I was not a fan of Hepburn's fourth and final win for On Golden Pond. It wasn't that good of a performance and it was a waste of a Best Actress Oscar. Not gonna lie, I was worried coming into this won where she tied with Barbra Streisand and won her third Oscar that it would be similarly undeserved. But that's not really the case with this performance. Hepburn is on top of her game starring opposite of Peter O'Toole. The two go head to head and just deliver great performances while balancing each other out to where neither style overtakes the other. Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine, the estranged Queen of Henry II who is in jail. Henry summons her and his boys to a Christmas gathering to declare his heir and then intrigue abounds as the story twists and turns with backstabbing and machinations. Hepburn gets to play this plotting woman who wants to see Henry choose their son Richard and has all of these scenes where she is attacking other characters with her words in a clever way or fending off these dialogue attacks from the same. It's a push and pull game where Hepburn at times has the upper hand and comes off as confident and assured and bitingly condescending and ruthless and all those strong adjectives. Other times she loses the war of words and seems resigned or aware of her defeat as she vows to strike back with more precision and cunning. She is best when she and O'Toole are going at it because you can tell there is still great respect between the two royals and even some attraction still, but it also feels like posturing to get the better of the other and it's thrilling to watch. The two are acting titans and seeing them at their best is an absolute treat. I also like Hepburn manipulating her sons who it would seem she both loves and hates equally depending on how it affects her own goals and aspirations. The whole film is like this with everyone trying to play the rest and seeing Hepburn in her sort of laconic old Hollywood style play these men for fools is why we watch film. I had gone in to this thinking the tie might have been some bullshit, but this seems like a well earned win. These are two really great performances so I can see why the Academy produced a tie.

Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl

The second of the two winners, Streisand won her Oscar in her debut film role. And what a debut it was! This is unequivocally Babs' film. Like completely and totally hers. She had originated the role on Broadway for a couple years before this, so naturally she is very comfortable in the role of Fanny Brice. The story is about a girl who comes from humble beginnings to become a huge star in NYC, which apparently isn't true at all, but that's Hollywood. The supporting characters had a much bigger impact and role on stage, but they all fall to the wayside in the film version as Streisand just takes over. Her opening number is pretty great as she sings about being the best ever and you feel like it's Streisand singing about herself. And how you feel about the performance may really come down to how you feel about Streisand as an entertainer. I'm not her biggest fan by any means and don't really care about her persona, but she is really great in this performance. Maybe because it is her debut that what annoys me about her ends up being a positive in this film. She's funny and her comedic style works well with the story. She can obviously sing amazingly well and some of these songs are classics you've heard many times before. She can even dance and do a little bit of ballet. She does it all and that energy comes through the screen. It also make sense that she had a heavy hand in what happened with the film, from the directing to the hair and make up to the lighting. She annoyed director William Wyler but he allowed her because she is stubborn but also because we see what the result was. It's a powerhouse, star making performance and one that wasn't going to be overlooked. This is definitely the best Streisand performance I have seen - impressive for her debut.

Patricia Neal - The Subject Was Roses

I don't want to be dismissive, but I think a lot of this nomination is due in part to Neal having suffered a series of strokes a few years earlier and this being her big return to film. I do think that's what got her nominated even though it is a very good performance. She had the health issues and had to memorize the lines and movements of her character and at times didn't believe in herself but kept going. The Academy rewarded her and it feels like a deserved nomination no matter what. Whereas Jack Alberston and Martin Sheen, who originated the roles on Broadway, were comfortable in the roles but Neal brought something different. Albertson and Sheen have that theatricality to their performances, Neal has a more film quality aspect to hers. She is more quiet in the role while the other two have a very demonstrative presence in the film. They yell and posture and try to be alpha while Neal just quietly says her lines. The film is based on a son returning home from WWII and the married couple are having problems that keep coming up while he is home. She is a caring mother who has waited for him to come home for 3 years and is mad he can't remember that his favorite meal is waffles because that's what she's dreamed about in that moment for years. It's a quietly strong performance by design because of the strokes and because the other two men take over. Neal disappears for a long stretch so maybe this isn't quite leading but she is the only woman besides a small 10 second part from a girl in the club. Anyway, Neal is acting in a different film at times from Albertson and Sheen. She didn't originate the role like they did so she is bringing something different and cinematic to the role. She has a presence even when being quiet and it's felt throughout the film. It's a good performance that makes more sense when you learn she was coming back from a series of strokes. It might not be the winner but I have no problem with it being nominated.

Vanessa Redgrave - Isadora

I have been pretty ambivalent about Redgrave's nominated work during this project. This is my fifth of her six nominations and while I can definitely say she is a great and well respected actress, a lot of the work she has been in just hasn't been for me. This film is another one of those kinds of stories and performances. I was only somewhat aware of who Isadora Duncan was before this film. She was an American dancer in the early 1900s who had a lot of acclaim and was a sensation all over Europe and Russia. She had many lovers and was mostly a free spirit type of person. This film is all about her life even though I would say it doesn't go too deep into who she is as a person. Redgrave does a great job at being fully invested in the character. She goes all out in the couple of dance scenes and we can feel her energy and artistic expression come through the screen. The dances aren't really my thing and look like just a bunch of flailing around but Redgrave gives them her all as she whirls around and prances and dances in a unique style. I feel that those are the scenes where Redgrave really shines and especially in her final dance scene when she is being booed and heckled and spontaneously rips off her top while dancing. There's a lot of confidence and chutzpah to her performance in this scene and most of the dancing throughout the film. As for the rest of the film, meh. Redgrave is fine as Isadora and has a lot of charm and personality that men love and throw them self at her. She has a bubbly personality almost and is very carefree and wild at times, which makes sense as she is a very free form kind of dancer and artist. Redgrave displays all of these characteristics perfectly. It's just that the film doesn't really endear me to the character and it is mostly boring overall. Redgrave is the best part of the film and the only reason to watch and though she carries this weight, it doesn't really affect her much. She does her thing well and we get a good performance that could have probably been so much better with a more interesting story around her.

Joanne Woodward - Rachel, Rachel

I have always had trouble with coming up with how to write about Woodward's performances. None of her previous work that I've reviewed has wowed me but it was also never bad by any means. In my last review of hers, I noted how much I liked her quiet, restrained acting. To me, that is what Woodward has been so far in what I have seen. She is this dignified, restrained, minimalist type of actress. She is not launching herself into hysterics or getting overly dramatic or doing anything other than what looks to be calculated acting. It's simple looks that can convey a whole monologue's worth of feeling or description of what she's thinking. For her, less is more and I have always been a big fan of that style of acting. In this film, Woodward plays a middle aged school teacher spinster who lives with her mother and is expecting another dull summer. Things happen and her life takes on new meaning and direction. But her character is a sort of meek and mild woman with nervous energy who has a lot of thoughts and visions in her head of how she would react in a situation like her walking into town and thinking everyone is looking at her weirdly and her dropping dead or at least fainting. This doesn't actually happen, but we see it portrayed on screen because that's what she's thinking. It's interesting in showing how her character deals with things but also means Woodward has to do a lot with only voice over saying something completely different. I think the restrained acting style really goes well with this nervousy, skittish woman because when hit on by a guy she bumbles around and is frazzled without being so demonstrative about it. It's quivers in her voice or quick glances and not running into people or things or causing a scene. It's looks of frustration and anger when dealing with her overbearing mother. All of those little things add up to quite the complete performance and helps contribute to a fully realized character arc. She's a late bloomer but we see the change and the awakening and it feels authentic. I have become more interested to see her Oscar win with each new review of hers. This is a quietly strong performance that will be in my consideration for the win.



This was a phenomenal category! It was the first and only tie in the acting categories and I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. Maybe you could argue that Streisand's debut trumps Hepburn's third win and second in a row, but they are equally great. I'm just gonna roll with the Academy on this one because separating the two seems a bit sacrilegious. And none of the other three even come close so this works out for me. Redgrave is last because the film is boring and the performance is really only interesting because of the dance scenes for me. Everything not dance is mostly boring. Neal does a good job with the character but she is clearly here because she bounced back after some strokes to act again and be good at it. I can respect that. Woodward was maybe the best I've seen from her so far in this project. I enjoyed the performance and appreciated what she brought to a very different role. So there we have it for 1968. A pretty good year overall with no stinkers and I'm eager to move on.

Oscar Winner: Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
                           Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
My Winner:  Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
                       Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
Joanne Woodward
Patricia Neal
Vanessa Redgrave