Best Actress 1992

[Uri]

My life long crusade, calling for the Academy to concentrate on what it's capable of dealing with - and that's English speaking (narrative and performance driven a.k.a. mainstream) movies - and leave "foreign" cinema alone, was best served with Deneuve's nomination. Although not an actress of Moreau's or Huppert's caliber, she made a very interesting journey as an actress from her days as a rather limited thespian willingly allowing great directors to turn her into a cinematic icon to the much more complex and warm one she it now. Yet the academy went for a performance and a film which, while being perfectly respectable if not that interesting, had nothing to say about this fascinating career. A totally unnecessary nomination.

It was hardly an ''unnecessary'' nomination for Deneuve. It was a recognition of her long and quite distinguished career even if it was during a rather weak year for actresses and she became a filler on the list.

Pity Moreau has never been honoured to date.

Repulsion, Belle de Jour, Tristana, The Last Metro, My Favorite Season, Place Vendome, A Christmas Tale – all these performances would have deserve a nomination more than that in Indochine. But when it comes to aliens actors it's all about "career recognition" – all of you misfortunate Divas with funny accents – wait for a year when Streep goes in front of a blue screen instead of adopting a funny accent so her slot is free for us, The Academy, to generously bestow it on Kathryn De Nave or whatever the name of that blond frog is.

[Reza]

My life long crusade, calling for the Academy to concentrate on what it's capable of dealing with - and that's English speaking (narrative and performance driven a.k.a. mainstream) movies - and leave "foreign" cinema alone, was best served with Deneuve's nomination. Although not an actress of Moreau's or Huppert's caliber, she made a very interesting journey as an actress from her days as a rather limited thespian willingly allowing great directors to turn her into a cinematic icon to the much more complex and warm one she it now. Yet the academy went for a performance and a film which, while being perfectly respectable if not that interesting, had nothing to say about this fascinating career. A totally unnecessary nomination.

It was hardly an ''unnecessary'' nomination for Deneuve. It was a recognition of her long and quite distinguished career even if it was during a rather weak year for actresses and she became a filler on the list.

Pity Moreau has never been honoured to date.

[Uri]

Far from being a filler, Sarandon back then was perceived to be the only potential upset winner;

On the red carpet that year, Sarandon was asked by one of those dumb interviewers about her being a frontrunner and she quipped back something like "What frontrunner? Everybody knows Emma's going to win tonight". And rightly so. Emma Thompson is a rather unique Film Star since her appeal is the result of being able to project common sense and a deeply rooted reasonability and make these seemingly anti star-making qualities appear fresh, stylish and attractive. She is really all about sense and sensibility, and her Margaret Schlegel is a prime showcase of her strengths. (And this is why her Lady Marchmain was such a failure – spirituality is certainly not her forte).

I'm a big John Sayles fan and Passion Fish is probably his most relaxed, smooth film, and it's all about the flawless performances given by its two leading ladies and the great interaction between them. They should have both been nominated here and each would have been a worthy winner had it not been for Thompson. Sarandon and Pfeiffer were good, managing to overcome the obviousness factor of the characters they were playing.

My life long crusade, calling for the Academy to concentrate on what it's capable of dealing with - and that's English speaking (narrative and performance driven a.k.a. mainstream) movies - and leave "foreign" cinema alone, was best served with Deneuve's nomination. Although not an actress of Moreau's or Huppert's caliber, she made a very interesting journey as an actress from her days as a rather limited thespian willingly allowing great directors to turn her into a cinematic icon to the much more complex and warm one she it now. Yet the academy went for a performance and a film which, while being perfectly respectable if not that interesting, had nothing to say about this fascinating career. A totally unnecessary nomination.



Edited By Uri on 1262071774

[Reza]

Voted for Thompson.

My picks:

Emma Thompson, Howards End
Gong Li, Raise the Red Lantern
Sharon Stone, Basic Instinct
Mary McDonnell, Passion Fish
Catherine Deneuve, Indochine

[Snick's Guy]

no contest here -- Emma Thompson by a mile

[dws1982]

Went with Sarandon's great performance. McDonnell and Thompson are very good as well...couldn't argue with them as winners. The others are two of the few acting nominees in the past couple of decades that I haven't seen. Have never been able to work up the interest.

My picks:
1- Susan Sarandon, Lorenzo's Oil
2- Mia Farrow, Husband's and Wives
3- Sheryl Lee, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
4- Mary McDonnell, Passion Fish
5- Alfre Woodard, Passion Fish

With Cynda Williams in One False Move as a close runner-up.



Edited By dws1982 on 1262048828

[ITALIANO]

Thompson created a unique, sympathetic character and certainly deserved her trophy. Impossible not to vote for her warm performance. Even before nomination morning we all knew she'd win.

Far from being a filler, Sarandon back then was perceived to be the only potential upset winner; she was very good in Lorenzo's Oil, and the nomination confirmed that, after Thelma & Louise, she was now on the Academy's A list.

The three others were also good, so I wouldn't say that this was such a weak year for actresses. But it's true that they were essentially fillers; it was always Thompson, from the early critics' awards to Oscar night.

[Greg]

For me, it is clearly Thompson. Also, Vanessa Redgrave should have won in supporting.

[Mister Tee]

Another McDonnell vote, though it may be partially contrarian. We'd heard from March on that Thompson was the Oscar leader, and for me the performance, while quite good, didn't live up to that level of hype. I, too, preferred her the next year -- though not for Remains, but for the un-nominated Much Ado About Nothing.

There was alot of cavilling about Pfeiffer's nod for a glorified Lifetime movie. But she was as fine as ever in the film, and deserved to be cited in a legendarily weak year for actresses. (The Academy deciding to knit the year's presentations around the theme The Year of the Woman showed a tone-deafness that startled even me) I'll also flaunt my who-cares-if-I'm-a-hipster-or-not credentials by saying I thought Pfeiffer was more deserving for Love Field than she was for Batman Returns.

The other nominees were strictly filler. It was a nice lifetime tribute to Deneuve, and another point for Sarandon building up to her award three years later.

So, McDonnell. Passion Fish was a very nice surprise at the end of the year, and both she and the scandalously-omitted Woodard were terrific in the film. I'd have voted for her -- though of course, in career terms, Thomspon makes far more sense as an Oscar winner.

[rudeboy]

I voted for McDonnell, although her co-star Alfre Woodard (unfairly pushed as supporting) was better still.

Didn't care too much for Thompson's performance - she was far, far better the next year in The Remains of the Day. Pfeiffer really should have been nominated for her Catwoman, an uncommonly complex and interesting character for a comic book movie.

[Big Magilla]

Emma Thompson for sure. The others are just fillers.

[mlrg]

Emma Thompson - Howards End

[jowy_jillia]

There's only one winner for me in this category and that is Emma Thompson in her best performance ever. Runner Up is Pfeiffer who does a good performance but still she does her second-worst performance she did in her peak years 88-93, that said it wasn't a bad performance but she was better in another role that year.

Omissions:
Tilda Swinton in "Edward II", it may be called a supporting role but I think of her as the lead

Miranda Richardson in "Enchanted April", this was her only lead performance in the best year of her career.