LEAST Deserving Best Actress Oscar - the Fagulous Fifties

Who was more robbed -- Bette in 1950 or Judy in 1954?

I think Leslie Caron in Lili gave a better performance than Audrey Hepburn, but clearly Hepburn had a star-making role and everyone fell in love with her. Though to a somewhat lesser extent they also fell in love with Caron, and, though not her first role, it made her a much bigger star and showed many people that she could act.

If anyone had to beat Davis or Swanson I'm glad it was Judy Holliday since a comedy performance was awarded, for once, and she was great. (Another case of a star-making performance being awarded.)

Judy

I'll say Bette was, R1, no thanks to that hammy dwarf Anne Baxter, who insisted that she be give a lead actress nod, instead of supporting.

Judy gave a great performance - but in the wrong film. The big musical numbers were out of place in a film about a man's downfall in Hollywood. And some of Judy's scenes were, well, rather hammy. I love Judy, so before you cut me, please know that.

I wanted Simone Signoret to win so badly. I never saw the movie, but it was condemned by the Catholic Legion of Decency, so it was a winner in my book.

Judy was deserving because Bette and Gloria basically cancelled each other out.

[quote]Judy gave a great performance - but in the wrong film. The big musical numbers were out of place in a film about a man's downfall in Hollywood.

The film is called A Star Is Born. It's not a film about a man's downfall. It's a film about the love between a rising star and a falling star. The focus has never been on the male star to the exclsuion of the woman. Also, the idea that musical numbers are out of place in the 1954 Star is a pretty unusual one.

[quote]And some of Judy's scenes were, well, rather hammy. I love Judy, so before you cut me, please know that.

It's sad that you love Judy and you think she was "hammy" in her one Oscar-nominated lead. I've read trhis before (maybe here) but I don't get it. Hammy usually means fake-theatrical or mugging, or whatever. Not a strong emotional performance. Anyhow, I don't agree.

*exclusion

Personally, I thought Judy was magnificent in "The Clock"...but that was in the forties. She could be a quite capable dramatic actress.

Wow, Grace Kelly for the win.

There's no contest here, OP, no arguments at all. Every actress but one was somewhere damn good and absolutely great, but one and only one was laughably bad!

And that is, of course, Grace Kelly in "The Country Girl", where she prove that she couldn't act for shit without a designer wardrobe. Of course she couldn't act for shit with one either, but at least when she was at maximum glam she was worth watching, and she could work as part of a generally glamorous film. But this film exposed all her limitations as an actor, her big emotional scene always makes me laugh out loud... but the Hollywood of the time thought that she shat chocolate mousse, so she stunk up the screen and they gave her an Oscar for it.

This is DL. It was always going to be Grace Kelly.

This is DL. It was always going to be Grace Kelly.

Vivien is the only one here whose performance is near perfection.

I disagree, I also think Judy Holliday's performance is near perfection.

She's so damn good, I didn't realize how incredibly weak the script was, until I saw part of a 1980s remake with Melanie Griffith. And that is a testament to how amazing she was, because only the absolute best actors on Earth can make a script seem to be better than it is.

Judy was great. Except for the fact that she played the same role in every single movie she made. Extremely one note actress.

[quote]I didn't realize how incredibly weak the script was, until I saw part of a 1980s remake with Melanie Griffith

They used the same script, r15?

There should be no dissing of Judy Holliday. That was one of the all-time great comedy performances.

She was like the top line Buick Electra.

Limited.

Judy Holliday didn’t do anything except play a retarded version of what Jean Harlow did a million times in the 30s. Pass.

I’m shocked that Deborah Kerr never won a competitive Oscar. I’d have nominated her for her performance in BONJOUR TRISTESSE. AND some of her best performances were in the fifties.

Judy is spectacular and remains one of the biggest robberies of all time. She was a remarkable actress. How anyone can say her performance in The Clock is the same as in Meet Me In St. Louis is the same as Star Is Born is the same as For Me And My Gal is the same as I Could Go On Singing is just ridiculous.

She was so sweet and vulnerable in THE CLOCK.

No one is answering OP's question.

I say Judy Holliday wins…

Grace Kelly was nominated for Best Supporting Actress in Mogambo, in 1953. She was billed under the title. She wasn't a real star yet. By 1956 she was retired.

I agree she was not a great actress but think about how famous she became in such a short time and how we still talk about her even though she was a star for only about 2 or 3 years. If she comes on TV now I will still drop what I'm doing and watch her. That's a star. Not to be corny but really, she had it. The Country Girl was not a great part for her (and she was way too young for it) - she replaced Jennifer Jones (ten years older), who was pregnant. But acting chops aside, she was smashing in To Catch A Thief and Rear Window. I would have given her some kind of award for those. Nobody was like her - they tried, with many wannbes - but nope.

*wannabes

I agree that Holliday did nothing you didn't see screwball comediennes do in their sleep in the '30s. It was a waste of an Oscar for a woman who didn't really do anything memorable against two actresses whose performances that year have gone on to be at the top of classic cinema. No one remembers Holliday today, and for good reason. Whereas Davis' and Swanson's performances are part of the language of film even to this day.

You can't know what it was like to be part of the audience of a particular time, or part of the Hollywood community of that time, either. Oscars obviously aren't about how a performance or film works 60+ years later.

Bette Davis was very familiar to the audience of the time and they flocked to All About Eve and loved her in it, and so did Hollywood, I imagine, but they had been looking at Bette Davis for roughly 15-20 years, sometimes in several films a year. Born Yesterday was Holliday's first lead, people had not seen her on screen before, except in Adam's Rib the previous year with Tracy and Hepburn (where she was marvelous). I don't care if she's "remembered" now (after all she died really young and didn't make a lot of movies people still watch today).

Besides Bette had 10 Oscar noms in her life and 2 Oscars. If she won another Oscar it'd be about as exciting as Meryl Streep winning another Oscar today. Maybe let someone else good get one, especially a newcomer.

[quote] "but think about how famous she became in such a short time and how we still talk about her even though she was a star for only about 2 or 3 years."

This is just insane, and absolutely is a testament to her staying power as a star.

Becoming a princess also helped.

The poster who voted for Vivien Leigh= Joan Plowright

Judy Hollyday was good but only won because the competition that year was so fierce it split the votes. Vivien Leigh in streetcar gave one of the greatest performance in film history. Anna Magnani and Simone Signoret were great in their parts and deserved to win. Didn't see Shirley Booth in anything, Ingrid Bergman is generally terrible, but I didn't see that particular movie, so I'll give her a pass, and that year the line up was very weak. Grace Kelly was very good in the Country girl, and it was a shocking contrast with her glamour puss image. Audrey was unstoppable in those years. Susan Hayward was a big ol' ham, but she could be very effective. I can't see Joanne Woodward giving a bad performance, even though I didn't see her in that movie. I think it's between Bergman and Hollyday, but considering that Hollyday took the award away from Bette davis in ALL ABOUT EVE, I say Hollyday. Baxter was awful and shouldn't have been nominated, and anyway Gloria was almost as deserving as Bette. That Bette davis didn't win for EVE nor BABY JANE is beyond ridiculous

It's a cold-hearted DLer who can vote against any of those.

Nat should have won supporting for REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, Marilyn should've got a nod for BUS STOP, Vivien gave a very intriguing and subtle performance in THE DEEP BLUE SEA, that holds up very well , and is quite different from everything else she did.