1975: Louise Fletcher for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

In this Best Picture winner, the second of three films to win all five major Academy Awards, Louise Fletcher plays the infamous Nurse Ratched, the cold, unfeeling head of the ward in the mental institution where Randle P. McMurphy is sent instead of prison. Though McMurphy does everything he can to bring mayhem to the ward, Nurse Ratched refuses to relinquish her control.

Unless I'm remembering wrong, this is the first time anyone received the Best Actress Oscar for playing the antagonist. There were portrayals of unlikable characters before, but the story was always told from their perspective, or occasionally from their love interest's perspective. I've seen this movie a couple times before, but because I was specifically watching for her this viewing, it was the first time that I noticed that Nurse Ratched actually doesn't appear in very much of the movie. We mostly see McMurphy and the inmates without her around. Yet her presence permeates the entire film. She is the most disturbing character in a profoundly disturbing story. I don't really like McMurphy, but he's infinitely preferable to Ratched.

The fact that Nurse Ratched is often cited as one of the greatest movie villains of all time proves that Fletcher did an amazing job of portraying her. Usually acting requires a lot of different facial expressions; her character requires two. She's always either firmly emotionless or angry, and the only time she's angry is towards the end. The vast majority of her performance is made up of a blank face and a calm voice. I can't even imagine the amount of focus and willpower it must have taken to maintain that demeanor, especially when the rest of the characters were literally going crazy around her. But she managed it, and while it's usually not very complimentary to say a performance has no expression, it was perfect for this character. Because she is in so little of the film, there isn't much time to develop her character, yet she has to be seen as the villain for the story to work. Thus the audience has to strongly dislike her throughout the film without having much time to get to know her, and it's Fletcher's chilling, almost inhuman performance that makes this possible. Jack Nicholson's incredible and all, but without Louise Fletcher, I don't think this film would be nearly so highly acclaimed.

This was Fletcher's only Academy Award nomination, which makes sense because I feel like it's pretty much the only thing she's known for, especially as far as movies are concerned. She has appeared on a lot of TV shows, but they've mostly been single-episode guest appearances. I think she's still working, though, so there's still a chance that she'll give another Oscar-winning performance someday. But even if she doesn't, her iconic performance in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has already ensured that her name will be remembered for a very long time.

Up next: Faye Dunaway, in the second, and so far last, movie to win three acting Academy Awards

1974: Ellen Burstyn for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

As the title character, Burstyn plays a housewife living in Socorro, New Mexico. When her husband dies, she decides to take her 11-year-old son to her hometown of Monterey, California so she can start a new life there as a singer. The only problem is, she doesn't have enough money to get there, but she is determined to overcome that and any other obstacles she may face.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie because I had a lot of trouble finding a way to watch it. The library didn't have it, I couldn't find a way to buy a copy for a reasonable price, and it wasn't on any of the usual streaming websites. Ultimately I ended up renting it on demand, which I really didn't want to do, but I am just as determined to watch all the Best Actress winners in order as Alice was to get to Monterey, so I had to cave in and pay the $3.99. After watching it, I'm sad this movie isn't more readily available because it's actually quite good, and I think other people would like it if they had an easier way to watch it.

Burstyn's performance overall is wonderful. My main criticism would be that her singing isn't really that great for someone who's only ever made her living as a singer, but I think that enhances the character. It makes her situation seem more desperate and hopeless that her only job experience is at something she's not even very good at to begin with. By far the best aspect of her performance is her interaction with the kid who played her son. They have one of the most believable mother-son dynamics I've ever seen portrayed on screen, although maybe I just think that because pieces of it reminded me of the way my mom and my brother interact. The way they jokingly tease each other and share fun moments that no one else would really understand: I've seen that in real life a lot, but I hardly ever see it on the screen. So that was my favorite part.

In addition to her relationship with her son, I found most other aspects of her character very believable because she embodies them so well: the frustrated but still devoted wife, the wannabe singer, the disappointed waitress. The only thing I didn't find believable was her relationship with Kris Kristofferson's character. They keep saying they're in love, but they don't really act like it. It's not even that they have a dysfunctional relationship that they've mistaken for love; it's more like they have no relationship. He just kind of appears out of nowhere and suddenly they're sort of involved, but we don't really see them interact that much, and they don't have very good chemistry. I don't think he should be billed as her co-star; the story's mostly about Alice and her son, not Alice and random sort-of-lover-boy. But other than that, it's a moving performance in an engaging story, and I'm very glad I found a way to watch it.

Ellen Burstyn has been nominated for six Academy Awards: five Best Actress and one Best Supporting Actress. She was first nominated for her supporting role in 1971's The Last Picture Show. She was then nominated for 1973's The Exorcist before winning for this movie. After this she was nominated for 1978's Same Time, Next Year, 1980's Resurrection, and 2000's Requiem for a Dream. Burstyn is now in her 80s, but she's still working, so it's possible she'll receive another nomination, or even another win, at some point. We'll have to wait and see.

Next up: Louise Fletcher, in the fifth Best Picture Winner to feature a Best Actress winning performance, and the first in 33 years.

1973: Glenda Jackson for A Touch of Class

In her second Oscar winning performance, Jackson plays a recent divorcee who runs into a married man and decides to have a brief affair with him. The affair gets off to a very rocky start, but eventually they start to care for each other and try to keep it going longer than they originally intended. But he's still devoted to his wife and kids, which makes things complicated.

There's a little bit of a kick to it, but mostly this is a fairly typical romantic comedy, which is not at all typical Oscar fare. So I was very surprised to learn that it was actually nominated for Best Picture. It lost to The Sting, which was definitely the right choice. But I actually enjoyed this movie a lot more than I thought I was going to, and certainly way more than Glenda Jackson's previous Oscar-winning movie, Women in Love. At least A Touch of Class is entertaining, and Jackson actually gets more of a chance to demonstrate her talent. She has such a fabulous speaking voice, and her delivery of sassy comebacks is simply marvelous. Particularly in the first half of the movie, that's most of what her role consists of, so it works out perfectly. She and George Segal play off each other remarkably well, although they are one of the weirdest couples ever and I'm not sure why someone would think to put them in a movie starring opposite each other. But it actually works. I wouldn't call this one of the best movies ever, or even one of the best rom coms ever, but it's surprisingly entertaining. Jackson's performance isn't mind-blowing or anything, but it's still good. Most of the movie's flaws - like she's a single mom and we never see her kids after the first scene - have to do with the writing and the story itself, rather than her performance. Her character's a little on the ridiculous side, but she clearly had fun with the role, which is what was required. Was it an Oscar-worthy performance? Probably not. I haven't seen any of the other performances she was nominated against (yes, I'm admitting that I haven't seen The Exorcist) so I'm not sure if hers was the best, but I would be very surprised if it was. That being said, far worse performances have won this award, and I'm not at all sorry I had to watch this movie.

This was Jackson's second of two Oscars, and third of four nominations. Her final nomination was for 1975's Hedda. I haven't seen her in much else, but I'm pretty sure that she, like many actresses, didn't win Oscars for her best performances. She did win an Emmy for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth I in the 1971 mini-series "Elizabeth R," which I remember being a fantastic performance, although it's been a while since I watched it. Jackson continued acting until 1992, when she was elected to Parliament, making her the first, and so far only, Oscar-winning British MP. She decided to stand down this year, but whether she will return to the screen or simply retire (she is 79 years old, after all) only time will tell.

Next up: Ellen Burstyn

1972: Liza Minnelli for Cabaret

In this disturbing, thought-provoking musical, Liza Minnelli plays Sally Bowles, an American performer working at a cabaret in 1931 Berlin. Sally's too busy having a good time and trying to become an actress to worry about politics, but 1931 Berlin is a time and place when everyone should worry about politics.

Every time I watch this movie, I am in awe of how well done it is. The way the silly, dramatic cabaret numbers are set up to mirror the very serious, devastating events that are happening outside conveys a powerful message without belaboring it. And it's impossible to talk about this movie without mentioning Joel Grey's incredible, eerie portrayal of the Master of Ceremonies, which very deservedly earned him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. But despite the fact that Grey kind of steals the movie, Minnelli's performance is also quite stunning, and certainly Oscar-worthy.

For one thing, she has a killer voice, so her songs are fabulous. The way she belts out the title number still gives me chills, and it's one of my most-played songs. She also does some great dancing, especially in "Mein Herr." Her performance would be worth watching for the musical aspect alone, but it's not just the singing and dancing; her acting is spot-on as well. She perfectly embodies every aspect of this character. She delivers her lines, some of which are very bizarre, as though it's exactly the way she always talks. Maybe it is, but I kind of doubt it. Sally is utterly ridiculous, and I've never met anyone remotely like her, but I still find her believable. It would have been very easy, especially with that makeup, to ruin the character by going way over-the-top with this performance, but Minnelli refrains from doing so. Not to say that she's never over-the-top, but it's only when it makes sense for the character to be over-the-top. Basically, Liza Minnelli is perfect for this role, and her performance is incredible to watch. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out.

Given that she's the daughter of Judy Garland and film director Vincente Minnelli, Liza surprised exactly no one by ending up in the entertainment field. She made her first appearance in a movie when she was a toddler. However, most of her career has been spent on the stage, so this is her only Academy Award. She was nominated for Best Actress once before, for 1969's The Sterile Cuckoo. She's still around, but she hasn't made any movies for a while so I'm pretty sure this will remain her only Oscar. It's also her most famous, and quite possibly best, performance, which is unusual.

Coming up next: Glenda Jackson's second win

1971: Jane Fonda for Klute

In her first Oscar winning performance, Jane Fonda plays Bree Daniels, a call girl with a homicidal stalker. Private Detective John Klute thinks that her stalker might be connected with his missing friend, and the two of them develop an interesting relationship as they try to track him down.

This was my first time watching this movie, and I really need to watch it again at some point because I was kind of confused for a lot of it. But it was very different from the confusion I felt when watching the previous year's winner, Women in Love. I still haven't figured out why that won Best Actress. With Klute, however, that was the thing I was least confused about. The movie kind of dragged and I wasn't sure I always understood what was going on, but Fonda's acting was superb.

The way the story works depends largely on the audience's perception of Fonda's character. She does a remarkable job of making Bree sympathetic enough for us to be completely on her side while still portraying her as a deeply flawed human being - which in a way makes her even more sympathetic. Though the movie is named after Donald Sutherland's character, and I guess you'd call him the protagonist, Bree is really the central focus of most of the film. There isn't a lot of dialogue; most of the talking comes from tape recordings and sessions with her psychiatrist. This allows us to see her from different perspectives: in the actions of her daily life and in the recordings, she is generally manipulative and self-controlled, but with her psychiatrist she is vulnerable and honest. As her relationship with Klute develops, and as it becomes more and more clear that someone is indeed trying to kill her, that vulnerability begins to appear more and more outside the psychiatrist's office. Fonda makes the audience feel not only that Bree is a real person, but also that we know her inside and out. We understand her fears and insecurities, even as she tries so desperately to hide them from the rest of the world. Without such a deep connection between the audience and Bree, the movie could not have worked. Thanks to Fonda, it does. It's really as simple as that. Sutherland and the other actors do a good job, too - although I swear the creepy guy seems like a different person every time we see him - but it's her performance that brings it all together.

Being the daughter of legendary screen star Henry Fonda, it's not too surprising that Jane turned out to be an incredible actress. She has been nominated for seven Oscars - six Best Actress and one Best Supporting Actress - and won two. This was her second nomination, the first being for 1969's They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Her third nomination was for 1977's Julia, and then she won for her fourth nomination for 1978's Coming Home. So I'll be talking about that before too long. But next up is Liza Minnelli, another daughter of a legendary screen star.

1970: Glenda Jackson for Women in Love

Glenda Jackson plays one of two schoolteacher sisters in early-1920s England who enter into relationships with two men who are very close friends - perhaps even more than friends. The four of them wander around trying to figure out what love truly means, or if it even exists at all.

I'm so confused right now. Part of it is that I didn't really understand the point of this film. It was very artistically shot, but there wasn't really much of a story. Every time a promising plot line came up - the transformation of the coal mine, the deranged mother, etc - it was abandoned in favor of more nudity, dancing through nature, and philosophical discussions that tried, and usually failed, to be profound. It's definitely not my kind of movie. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself; I don't have to like every movie. I wasn't watching it for the film as a whole; I watched it for Glenda Jackson's performance. Unfortunately that's the part that really confuses me.

I don't understand why she won Best Actress for this performance. She didn't really do anything. Of the four main characters, hers is the least intriguing, and probably the least important. Everything she does, the other three do more of in a more interesting manner, except perhaps dance. She does have some very bizarre dance scenes. Maybe that's why she won. I just don't understand how anyone could come away from that movie thinking, Wow, what a great performance by Glenda Jackson. I didn't really think anything about this movie was Oscar-worthy, except maybe cinematography, but I would have nominated the other three main actors for Oscars before Jackson. How she won when none of the others were even nominated I simply cannot fathom. I'm not saying it's a bad performance; I just found it wholly unremarkable. It does have the distinction of being the first Best Actress winning performance to feature nudity, but even that is unremarkable in the context of this movie. Jackson has way fewer nude scenes than co-stars Alan Bates and Oliver Reed, which was one of the few interesting things about this movie, since generally female nudity is far more prevalent in movies than male nudity. Not only did Jackson have less nudity, she also had fewer scenes than the other main characters (although her sister kind of faded toward the end, but at the beginning she was more important), and her character's objectives were the least clearly defined, in a movie where no character had very clearly defined objectives. So what made her performance stand out above the others? I've tried to come up with something for the sake of this blog, but I still have no idea.

I haven't seen any of the other Best Actress nominated performances from this year, but I do know that it was the only year so far since the 2nd Academy Awards that all five were first-time nominees. Jackson would go on to be nominated three more times, winning again for her third nomination, in 1973's A Touch of Class. I hope that's a more interesting performance than this. I remember being extremely impressed by her performance as Queen Elizabeth I in that mini-series, although I think I was 12 when I watched it. Anyway, I'll talk about her more soon, and I really hope I'll have something more interesting to say than, "I don't get it." But in the immediate future, I'll talk about Jane Fonda.

1969: Maggie Smith for The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie

Maggie Smith plays the title character, a private school teacher who refuses to follow the curriculum, preferring to express her rather odd and extremely controversial views to her impressionable young students, particularly a small group of chosen girls whom she deems special. She spends her spare time trifling with the male members of the faculty.

This movie was nothing like I expected it to be. I thought it was going to be one of those uplifting stories about an unconventional teacher that the more traditional faculty members hate but the students really benefit from. Instead it's a disturbing story about an unconventional teacher who thinks she's doing good but actually has a terrible influence on her students and ends up totally ruining their lives. Yes, the headmistress seems to have a personal vendetta against her, but she is also an awful teacher who deserves to be fired. The movie sort of sets you up to be on her side and then switches it so you can't be. I'm sure this is on purpose, but it makes for an uncomfortable viewing experience, which didn't make me like the movie very much.

So this definitely hasn't been my favorite Best Actress winner so far. I'm not saying it was a bad performance. I mean, it's Maggie Smith; I'm pretty sure she's incapable of giving a bad performance (unless she's trying to do a Louisiana accent, but let's just pretend that never happened). It just seemed like she wasn't sure whether to be likable or not. Her character was very confusing, and I never really understood her motives or objectives. I think she was intentionally ambiguous, especially at the beginning, but I would have liked to get a better feel for who she was, or at least what she was trying to do. As it was, she didn't seem like a real person, or even like a fully formed character. I didn't find her believable, and I can't tell if that's more the fault of the story or the performance, but either way I didn't particularly like it. Honestly, I thought that if anyone deserved an Oscar for this movie it was Pamela Franklin, who played the one special student who ultimately saw through Miss Brodie. She was only 19 at the time and still managed to hold her own against intimidating veteran adult actors, including Maggie Smith. She should have at least been nominated for Best Supporting Actress, but she wasn't, although she was nominated for a BAFTA and won a National Board of Review award. I think Franklin outshines Smith in this movie, which in my mind makes Smith's Oscar less deserved.

I think another part of my problem is that I'm watching this 46 years after it was made, so my view of Smith is much different from that of people who saw the movie back then. When I think of Maggie Smith, I usually think of "Downton Abbey," Sister Act, or the Harry Potter movies. The earliest of those was made in 1992, 23 years after this movie. So it was very funny to me when she kept talking about being in her prime, especially when she was finally forced to conclude that she was past it. While that was certainly true for Jean Brodie, it was far from true for Maggie Smith. I don't even think she had hit her prime when she made this movie. I've seen so many spectacular performances from her that I found this one rather disappointing. But they pretty much all came later, so Academy voters couldn't know what they had to look forward to during the prime of Dame Maggie Smith.

Smith tends to get nominated more for supporting roles than leading roles. That seems to be more her skill set, since she's brilliant at delivering one-liners and sweeping in to steal scenes from the leading characters who think they're so important, taking them down a notch or two. That was another reason it was weird to see her in this movie, since she was playing a conceited leading character who had scenes stolen from her, only it seemed to take her down more than a couple of notches. She isn't nearly as good at recovering from stolen scenes as she is at stealing them. Anyway, this was her first of only two Best Actress nominations, the second being for 1972's Travels with My Aunt, but she's been nominated for four Best Supporting Actress Oscars, winning for 1978's California Suite. She's now 80 years old, and as far as I can tell she hasn't passed her prime yet. Now that she's finished filming the final season of "Downton Abbey" - for which she's been nominated for four Emmys (winning two) and two Golden Globes (winning one) - she might have time to make more movies than she has been. Will she perhaps someday win another Oscar? I doubt it will be for Best Actress in a Leading Role, but maybe Best Supporting Actress? Only time will tell.

Next up: Glenda Jackson

1968 (tie): Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter

In a performance that could not be more different from the one it tied with, Katharine Hepburn plays Eleanor of Aquitaine. Her husband, King Henry II, has her imprisoned in exile most of the time, but decides to let her come home for Christmas so that they can fight over which of their three surviving sons should inherit the throne.

I've seen this movie twice before, and this was the first time I managed to follow most of it. There's a lot of scheming and lying and shifting alliances, so it's hard to keep track of who's trying to do what when. All of the characters are kind of awful, so it's difficult to know whose side to be on. Personally, I usually find myself on Eleanor's side because, though she's just as despicable as everyone else, Hepburn makes her delightfully despicable.

She is absolutely perfect for the role. Her posture, her voice, her expression; everything about her demeanor completely embodies a bitter, exiled queen. Some credit should be given to the script, as it helps that she has such great lines, but her delivery makes them even better. She really relishes every word, especially when she's insulting people. Which brings me to her chemistry with Peter O'Toole, who was 25 years younger than her but still believable as her mostly-estranged husband, and who is the object of the majority of her insults. He's clearly supposed to be younger than her, but not by that much. She's supposed to be 61, which she was, and he's supposed to be 50, when he was really 36. The main reason I bring this up is while O'Toole also does an incredible job, occasionally he appears to be struggling to keep up with her, which you wouldn't expect given how much younger he was. Not too many people speed up with age, but Hepburn seems way more sprightly in this film than in her first Oscar winning performance, when she was 26. I cannot stress enough how well she fits this role. Maybe it was easier for her to channel bitterness and resentment so soon after Spencer Tracy's death, but I don't really think that had too much to do with it. Though I love that she's won so many Oscars, I feel like this was the first one she truly deserved. So it's funny that this is the one that was a tie.

My intent was to decide who should have won between Hepburn and Streisand, but it's a lot harder than I thought it would be. Their characters are so incredibly different - rags-to-riches love-struck Broadway star versus aging queen of 12th century England - and thus require such different acting skills that it's nearly impossible to compare their performances. This highlights the main problem with the Oscars only having one category for all leading roles, unlike the Golden Globes, which separate comedy/musical from drama. But at least for this one year two completely different types of performance were recognized at the Oscars, too. I am inclined to think that Hepburn probably would have won outright if she hadn't just won the previous year, since I think that probably discouraged some people from voting for her, but Streisand's performance was also quite impressive, especially given that it was her first movie. Both Hepburn and Streisand were perfectly cast this year. I guess if I had to pick a winner it would be Hepburn, but mostly just because I like her better in general.

With this, her third win in the category, Katharine Hepburn set a record that still, 46 ceremonies later, has not been matched by anyone else. She herself would go on to beat it by winning a fourth 13 years later, when she also broke the record for oldest recipient of this award. So stay tuned for that. But first comes Maggie Smith, speaking of people who become more sprightly with age, back when she was only 35 and had no idea that about 40 years later she would go on to steal pretty much every scene in one of the most highly acclaimed British TV shows ever.

1968 (tie): Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl

In her first movie, legendary performer Barbra Streisand re-creates her Broadway portrayal of legendary performer Fanny Brice. The story is (very loosely) based on Brice's rise to fame and her turbulent relationship with gambler Nick Arnstein.

It's a testament to how perfect Streisand was for the role that she was cast in the movie, considering how studios felt about taking chances on film novices in big musicals like this. It wouldn't have been surprising if they'd tried to My Fair Lady her, but I'm pretty sure the movie would have completely failed if they had. No one else could have so impeccably embodied this role. Quirky comedy, passionate love, devastating heartbreak: she played it all to perfection. She does a very good job of making that Fanny Brice face, opening her eyes and mouth really wide, but she does her own take on it, rather than an exact imitation or caricature. She also had great chemistry with co-star Omar Sharif, probably helped by the fact that she was having an off-screen affair with him at the time. And then there's the singing. Nobody can sing like Barbra Streisand, and her voice is exactly right for these songs. If Fanny Brice had lived to see this movie, she probably would have been offended by all the inaccuracies, but I think even she would have been impressed by Streisand's performance.

I'm always torn with respect to Barbra Streisand because I think she's a very good performer and I love that she's one of the few women to also achieve success behind the camera, but by all accounts she's kind of a pain. Other actors in this film complained that she had a lot of their scenes cut so she would get more screen time. When director William Wyler was asked if she was hard to work with, he reportedly responded, "No, not too hard, considering it was the first movie she ever directed." She seems like a total diva and control freak, which kind of rubs me the wrong way, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that if she was a man she wouldn't get nearly as much criticism for doing the things she does, so I still have to admire her. And though I thought this movie was kind of long and draggy, her performance really was very good, so I think she deserved this Oscar. I'm not sure whether she deserved to beat Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter, though. I'll have to re-watch that before I can decide.

Fun fact: Fanny Brice actually played herself in 1936's The Great Ziegfeld, for which Luise Rainer won Best Actress. Unless I'm much mistaken, that means that this is the first time somebody won Best Actress for playing someone who was in a previous Best Actress winner. Which is a super random distinction, but just something I noticed.

This was Streisand's only Best Actress Oscar. She was nominated just once more in this category, for 1973's The Way We Were, but she's also the first Best Actress winner to receive nominations in non-acting categories. She was nominated twice for Best Original Song, winning once for the love theme from 1976's A Star Is Born. In addition, 1991's The Prince of Tides, which she co-produced and directed, was nominated for Best Picture, so she would have gotten to share the Oscar for that if it had won. Now she's 73 years old and though she's still working, it's mostly behind the camera, so while it's possible that she'll get another nomination for something, I doubt it will be for Best Actress. But I could be wrong.

It must have been hard on Streisand to have to share her thunder by tying for this award, although Hepburn never showed up to the ceremonies so at least Streisand had the speech all to herself. Stay tuned for Katharine Hepburn's third Oscar winning performance, and my thoughts about who should have won.

1967: Katharine Hepburn for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

In her second Oscar winning performance, Katharine Hepburn plays an art gallery owner whose daughter comes home early from a trip to Hawaii and announces that she's getting married to a man she just met who is 14 years older than her and oh, by the way, is black. He's also played by Sidney Poitier, who is one of the most attractive human beings ever, which I think makes all three of those objections irrelevant, but back then the race difference was a huge deal. Hepburn's character is proud of her daughter and wants to support her, but her husband (played by Spencer Tracy) is afraid of all the problems she'll face if she marries outside her race.

I have to say a few words about the movie itself because, while it seems tame by today's standards, it was revolutionary in its day. Though the Supreme Court had officially legalized interracial marriage by the time the movie was released, when it was filmed interracial marriage was still illegal in 17 states and was generally frowned upon by society. Though racism is still alive and well in this country, interracial marriage has become much more common and is now pretty much accepted. There are still people against it, but now it's those people who are generally frowned upon. So it's kind of nice to watch this movie and realize that, while we still have a ton of issues, at least some things have gotten better in the last 48 years. Anyway, back to Katharine Hepburn.

A lot has happened to Hepburn since her first, rather disappointing Oscar winning performance in 1933's Morning Glory. After being nominated once more for 1935's Alice Adams, the rest of the 1930s did not go well. She made several films that are now considered classics, but at the time were not well-received by critics or audiences. So at the end of the '30s, she left Hollywood for Broadway, where she starred in a play called The Philadelphia Story, which she bought the film rights for, and in 1940 turned into her comeback movie (which also happens to be my favorite movie of all time), and her third Oscar nominated performance. Soon afterward, she met Spencer Tracy, and starred opposite him in 1942's Woman of the Year. This not only earned her another Oscar nomination, but also, perhaps more importantly, marked the beginning of a decades-long partnership, both on and off the screen. Between that and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Hepburn earned 5 more Best Actress nominations in addition to starring in 7 other pictures with Tracy. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was their ninth and final film together, as Tracy died only a few weeks after filming had ended.

So while I love Katharine Hepburn and this movie, I'm not convinced that she actually deserved the Oscar. A significant portion of her performance involves watching Spencer Tracy with tears in her eyes. Though she could not have known for sure that she was watching his last performance, she had to have known that he wasn't doing well, so I don't think it took much acting to tear up, especially during his big speech at the end when he's talking about how much he loves her. The love of her life is in failing health and is standing there telling a room full of people that if his daughter and her fiance love each other half as much as he and Hepburn do, that's everything. It would have been incredible acting if she hadn't had tears in her eyes.

Still, I think Hepburn's performance in this movie is infinitely better than her last Oscar-winning one. Though most of it is very emotional, and I'm sure it's that aspect that won her the award, I prefer her more humorous scenes, such as her discussion with her daughter when they're trying to iron a shirt and the way she unceremoniously fires her racist assistant. She clearly has a lot more confidence than she did in 1933 and always seems to know exactly what she's doing. And, of course, she has excellent chemistry with Tracy, although again, that didn't take much acting. She's very convincing as Katharine Houghton's mother, but Houghton was actually her niece in real life, so that also probably didn't take much acting. It's a great performance that's fun to watch, but I think Oscar winning performances should be more of a challenge.

Hepburn is already looking kind of old in this movie, so it's rather surprising to watch it now knowing that not only would she live for another 36 years, but she would also go on to win two more Best Actress Oscars. The following year she became the first, and so far only, person to win a third Best Actress in a Leading Role Academy Award. It was also the first, and so far only, year that two actresses tied for this award. So my next post will either be another one about Kate, or it will be about Barbra Streisand, depending on which film I get around to watching first.

1966: Elizabeth Taylor for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

In her second and final Oscar winning performance, Elizabeth Taylor plays a loud, vulgar woman who invites a couple she just met over to her house in the middle of the night to watch her fight with her husband while they all get drunk together.

This is one of those movies that I've heard about for a long time but had never gotten around to watching until now. I wasn't quite sure what to expect going into it, since most of what I'd heard about it was very positive, except from my parents, who both hated it. I thought that was all I knew about it, but once the movie started I remembered that the ending had actually been spoiled for me by a game of Trivial Pursuit. While I'm curious about how I would have reacted to the film without knowing the twist, I'm pretty sure I enjoyed it a lot more this way. And while I can certainly see why people wouldn't like this movie, I can also totally see why it receives so much praise.

I really want to talk about the movie as a whole, but I watched it because of Elizabeth Taylor, so I'll try to focus on her. Basically her performance is astounding. She's completely into her character the whole time, and what a character it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad I don't know anyone like her in real life. She's incredibly obnoxious, but in a way that's really fun to watch, at least from afar. I don't think I would have been quite so amused if I were, say, Sandy Dennis's character. But from the safety of the audience I really liked watching her. Most of what she says and does makes very little sense, which is intentional, but the conviction with which she says and does irrational things almost makes them seem logical, in a bizarre sort of way. That must have been quite a challenge to pull off so effectively. Then there's all the yelling and shrieking she has to do. I don't know how she could still talk after making this movie. It was also a pretty physically demanding role, which one wouldn't expect of a movie that only has a couple of sets and mostly just involves conversations. But she's so dramatic that I got exhausted just watching her. Apparently she also gained a lot of weight so she'd look more like a middle-aged housewife when she was actually only 34. She really put a lot into this role, and thoroughly earned her Oscar. The one thing she probably didn't have to work too hard at was playing Richard Burton's wife, since that's who she was in real life, but while I know they had their issues, I'm pretty sure their actual relationship wasn't quite like their characters' relationship. And not to say that Burton isn't also incredible, or that it didn't help that they had amazing chemistry, but I think Taylor would have been fantastic in this role playing opposite pretty much anybody.

I'm still kind of in shock right now, both because I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I was going to, and also because I can't believe it came out in 1966. Like, okay, today in 2015 we have movies with full-frontal nudity and actors spewing obscenities left and right, and they stick an R rating on it and it's all good, but back then they didn't even have a rating system. That didn't come until nearly two and a half years after this movie was released. Admittedly there's no nudity or f-bombs in this movie, but it's still very racy, especially for nearly 50 years ago. Apparently it was the first movie that unaccompanied minors were not allowed admittance to, so effectively it was the first R-rated movie. I'm just really surprised that it was allowed to be released at all. Reportedly the censors did make them take out the line "screw you," but they left in some other lines that I personally consider more offensive. But I think the main reason they got away with being so obscene is that it enhances the characters and plot. The story as a whole is rather shocking, so the shocking language actually seems appropriate.

To summarize my thoughts: if you want to watch a thoroughly well-deserved Oscar-winning performance, watch this movie. If you want to watch a happy, wholesome, uplifting story unfold, don't watch this movie. If you want to see four people being absolutely ridiculous, and yet somehow serious at the same time, watch this movie. If you already have a headache, don't watch this movie.

This was Taylor's fifth and final Best Actress nomination, having previously won for her fourth nomination for BUtterfield 8, which is my new favorite bad movie. She also was awarded the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award in 1993, at the same time as Audrey Hepburn. Taylor continued acting through the 1990s, though by then it was mostly on TV, and eventually retired in 2001, five years after divorcing her 7th or 8th husband, depending on how many times you count Richard Burton. She died in 2011, at the age of 78. She had a crazy life, but she also had exceptional talent, and this movie is proof.

Coming up next: Katharine Hepburn finally wins a second Oscar, a mere 34 years after her first one