Saturday, August 21, 2010

Best Actress 1968: Joanne Woodward in Rachel, Rachel

Joanne Woodward received her 2nd Oscar nomination for playing Rachel Cameron in Rachel, Rachel. Rachel is a very sheltered person who still lives with her mother and is unable to connect to hardly anyone, especially herself. But when she starts to become closer to her friend (Estelle Parsons) and begins a romance with an old friend, her life begins to change, but not in the cliched way that these types of films usually to go.

Rachel, Rachel is a film that I originally found to be terrible and it's true, a lot of it is a misfire (Like the whole church scene, like what's that about?). In the beginning, I felt that Joanne Woodward was really bland and awkward, but I suppose that this is the point, since Rachel IS bland and awkward. But in retrospect, Woodward does a good job at showing how her character is so afraid of change, but she wants to be able to be more open in her life. Woodward does this all with her facial expressions and she is perfect.

The best thing about her performance is that she superbly handles Rachel's character development- She makes her build and build, and shows many facets of her character along the way, until we see who she really is inside. Her scenes with Estelle Parsons are excellent, very convincing as best friends, even better are the scenes with her mother, which are very sad.

Rachel Cameron is not an easy role to play, but Woodward was able to make her a fascinating character and delivered an outstanding performance.

P.S: I couldn't find a good enough picture for Woodward in Rachel, Rachel, so I just did one of her instead.


Louis Morgan said...

She might be fourth, and it sounds like her performance is much better than the film is.

joe burns said...

Yes, her performance rises above the film, though the film isn't all bad, it just has a really weird plot.

Anonymous said...

I liked the film...the nomination for Best Picture was sort of odd...still better then Oliver! however...

Malcolm said...

The movie was peculiar and too arty and it doesn't have a clear focus.

Woodward was semi-brilliant.

joe burns said...

Sage: I didn't hate it, but the plot just never seemed to go together. As for Oliver, I haven't seen it in a long time, so can't judge.

Malcolm: It was weird, but how was it artsy? Not to be mean, but how can you think it artsy?

joe burns said...

Never mind, now I see what you mean! After reading your writeup, I read when you said it tries to be modern, but ends up dated, now I see what you mean. It just failed on being something different and it is weird to begin with.

Malcolm said...

It was artsy in those early daydreaming scenes. I mean, it was quite good. But the daydreaming became redundant and just repetitive and it even brought the movie to a mess.

It's just for me. It tried to be a crafty one. And for me, only 10% of the art went okay with my taste.

dinasztie said...

Started this one once but I finished after a minute or so, because I had to go somewhere. I'm going to watch it I guess once, probably when I do 1968.

dinasztie said...

Oh and my prediction:
1) Hepburn
2) Neal
3) Redgrave
4) Streisand
5) Woodward

Though with Streisand and Woodward it might be the other way around.

joe burns said...

Malcolm: Yeah, it tried to be something different, but just didn't work.

Dinasztie: Have you found The Subject Was Roses yet???????? And we'll see today.

dinasztie said...

Oh, no I haven't unfortunately, but I want it soooo badly. It's soooo hard to find.