2006: Helen Mirren for The Queen

In the title role, Helen Mirren plays Queen Elizabeth II during one of the most difficult weeks of her reign, immediately following the death of Princess Diana.

This is one of the best examples of perfect casting I can think of. True, Mirren doesn't look exactly like Queen Elizabeth, or capture all her mannerisms perfectly, but that's not really the point. In the context of this movie, she's the perfect Queen. She is poised and regal and disciplined, yet still very human. I think that's what makes this movie so powerful; it allows us to empathize with someone who is so often seen and portrayed as lofty and removed from us common folk. Indeed, as shown in the film, that's what most people thought of her in the days following Diana's death. But the way Mirren portrays her, those people seem incredibly wrong. She is dignified and reserved, but by no means cold and unfeeling.

It definitely helps that the script puts a positive spin on her position, but a lot of the credit has to go to Mirren, since this has to be an exceedingly difficult role to play, and she pulls it off so brilliantly. She couldn't make her too regal or she wouldn't be accessible to the audience, but she also couldn't make her too relatable or she wouldn't be a realistic monarch. Somehow Mirren finds that perfect spot in the middle so that we believe she's spent her whole life in a palace but is in many ways just a normal human being. She is always dignified, but much less so when she's by herself or with just her family than when she's around other people, and I like the way she shows that difference. It's subtle, but still noticeable. Her face is not incredibly expressive, but it's apparent that she feels more deeply than she lets on, and it's decades of self-discipline that keep her from showing these feelings to the world. Because of this, we can see where the people are coming from when they criticize her for not sharing their grief, but we can also tell that she does share it, just not in the same way they do.

In short, Helen Mirren was the perfect person to play the Queen in this movie. She completely embodies the role, and without that, the movie could not have worked. Unlike some of the films I've blogged about recently, which I think should have won more or different Oscars than Best Actress, I think it's absolutely appropriate that Helen Mirren won this film's only Academy Award. Overall it's a really good movie, but Mirren's brilliant performance is at its core.

This was Mirren's third Oscar nomination, and her first in the leading category. She was previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for 1994's The Madness of King George and 2001's Gosford Park. She has since been nominated once more for her leading role in 2009's The Last Station. She was nominated for a Golden Globe this year, but didn't get an Oscar nomination. She's such a wonderfully talented actress that I'll be surprised if she doesn't get another nomination at some point.

Is it just me, or was there a sudden influx of portrayals of real people winning Best Actress around the turn of the century? This was the sixth time in eight years that it happened, and the following year it happened again, when Marion Cotillard played Edith Piaf. So stay tuned for that.

2005: Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line

Witherspoon plays June Carter, a country singer who finds herself falling for messed up, drug addicted, already married Johnny Cash in spite of herself.

A lot of people don't think Witherspoon deserved this award, and I can understand why. The movie's way more about Johnny Cash than June Carter, and Joaquin Phoenix did such a tremendous job as the lead that it doesn't really make sense that she won the film's only Oscar. That's my biggest objection to her win. Other complaints I can't speak to with much authority, even though I can believe that they're valid. I don't know very much at all about the actual June Carter, but people complain that Witherspoon doesn't channel her very well. And a lot of people seem to think that other nominated performances were more worthy, but I haven't seen any of them except Keira Knightley's in Pride & Prejudice, and I've seen way better portrayals of Elizabeth Bennet than hers, so I don't think she deserved to win. Anyway, I get it, this isn't the best Oscar-winning performance ever. But partly because I love Reese Witherspoon, and partly because watching the movie specifically for her performance gave me more of an appreciation for it than I had before, I'm going to talk about why this is a more deserving performance than everyone seems to think.

First of all, Reese Witherspoon is not known for her singing talents, yet here she is, consistently killing it with every song. Of course, the same can be said of Joaquin Phoenix, and I still really don't understand why he didn't win an Oscar, too, but I digress. Her unexpectedly amazing singing was probably a big factor in her win, but I don't think it was the only one. Because despite the fact that June is not the main character, she's still a very complex person whom Witherspoon portrays very believably. She may not act like the real June Carter, but she does act like a real person who has been in the spotlight her whole life, has experienced very public heartbreak, and is still trying to maintain a positive attitude. Her explanation of how she "learned to be funny" because her sister was always seen as the better singer is almost unnecessary because you can see it in her face when she's doing her schtick versus when she's singing. She looks at home while she's singing, like this is what she wants to do, but she looks more confident when doing comedy, like she's thinking that at least she's the best in the family at something. As for the love story aspect, for most of the movie June doesn't really have anyone to talk to about her feelings, but we don't need that because we can see it all clearly written on her face. She cares about him a lot, but she doesn't want to, at first because they're both married to someone else, then because of his drug addiction. This struggle is readily apparent to the audience, despite her attempts to hide it from other characters. And she and Phoenix have such interesting chemistry that we're rooting for them to end up together even when he's going through one of his psychotic spells.

To summarize, although Phoenix overshadows her and she doesn't have that much screen time, I think Witherspoon gives the best possible performance given these limitations. It's nowhere near the best performance to ever win this award, but it's better than it's given credit for. I just think you need to watch it a few times before you can move past Joaquin Phoenix's captivating performance and appreciate hers. Seriously, how in the world did he not win an Oscar?

This was Reese Witherspoon's first Oscar nomination. Personally I think she was more worthy in 2001's Legally Blonde, but that's not really an Oscar-type movie, so it's not too surprising that she wasn't nominated. Anyway, she's only been nominated once more since this, for 2014's Wild. According to IMDb she's got about a zillion projects in development right now, so we'll have to see how those turn out.

Up next: Helen Mirren

2004: Hilary Swank for Million Dollar Baby

In the most recent film to win both Best Actress and Best Picture, Swank plays a very determined but untrained boxer. Her persistence ultimately convinces a manager to train her, despite his insistence that he doesn't train girls.

This movie is kind of similar to Swank's other Oscar-winning performance in that it's really good but also excruciatingly painful. I don't really have any desire to watch either of them again any time soon. Still, another thing they have in common is that Swank is very impressive in both of them. I think I was more impressed with Boys Don't Cry, partly because we get to see more of her in that movie, while this focused a lot on Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman. We mostly see her through their eyes, so I don't feel like we get to know Maggie as well as we got to know Brandon.

That being said, she is thoroughly convincing in this role. Though the story is not told from her perspective, she still clearly conveys her feelings and motivations for everything she does, making her character completely believable. Her determination and eagerness is readily apparent in every look she gives and the way she says every line. Her demeanor as she interacts with her family, when we finally meet them, gives us more than enough information to fill in her back story. Her boxing skills, and the way they improve throughout the training portion of the film, are very convincing. And then there's her chemistry with Clint Eastwood. Her persistence is so charming and real that we have no doubt that he'll eventually end up training her, and when he does they work so well together that we have no trouble believing that they're actually an athlete and her manager. She develops a different sort of relationship with Morgan Freeman's character, which is no less realistic. It's the way these three actors play off each other, rather than one single performance, that makes this movie work so well. No wonder they all won Oscars (well, Eastwood's were for directing and co-producing, but he was still nominated for acting). What a well-put-together movie.

So far I've tried to keep this blog relatively spoiler-free, but I have to talk about my favorite part of Swank's performance, and it comes toward the end. I'll try not to spoil everything, but if you haven't seen this movie you might want to skip the rest of this paragraph. Anyway, my favorite aspect of her performance is also one of my least favorite parts of the movie: when her family comes to visit her in the hospital at the end, trying to get her to sign all her assets over to them. Her family members are really awful losers, which she's always known, but somehow she's never lost faith in them completely...until that moment. In one instant we can clearly see all the hope she had left draining from her eyes as she spits the pen out of her mouth and orders them to leave. Before that, it looks like she's going to fight to live, but after that this is replaced by a determination to die with some semblance of dignity. I simultaneously love and hate this because it's awful and tragic and completely believable because it's so consistent with her character, and she plays it perfectly. The rest of the performance is very good, but I feel like it's that moment that ties it all together and turns it into a great performance.

This is Hilary Swank's most recent Oscar nomination. She has won both Oscars for which she was nominated, and if you ask me, both were incredibly well-deserved.

I only have 10 left before I'm caught up! Assuming I catch up before February 28, that is. Anyway, next I'm going to talk about Reese Witherspoon

2003: Charlize Theron for Monster

Theron plays Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute who kills a john in self-defense and ends up becoming a serial killer.

I think this might be the best performance I've ever seen. It's such a demanding, intense role, and Theron nails every moment. At the beginning of the movie, she's already totally messed up, but she still has some hope of turning her life around and finding happiness. Things actually start to look up when she finds someone to love, but then her hope begins to fade, and is eventually completely extinguished. Incredibly, you don't even really need to be paying attention to what's going on in the story to see this transformation as long as you're closely watching Theron's face and mannerisms. I don't know how she does it, and I don't even really know how to describe it, but somehow you can see the hope draining from her and the impulse to kill replacing it. You can tell that she knows that what she's doing is wrong but no longer has the strength to care. This is just one of the many ways that Theron takes this incredibly complex, damaged, probably mentally ill woman, gets completely inside her head, and makes her accessible to any audience. I cannot stress enough how difficult this must have been or how apparently effortlessly Charlize Theron pulls it off.

Before watching this movie, all I knew was the basic plot and that Theron was made up to look ugly, which doesn't seem like it would be possible, but clearly it is. I kind of expected it to be more like Nicole Kidman's win the previous year, when it was difficult to tell whether the embodiment of the character was more due to the makeup or the acting. But after watching this film, I have no doubt. Though the makeup certainly helps - particularly I'm sure for people who remember what the actual Wuornos looked like - it's not what makes this performance Oscar-worthy. It's not just that she looks the part; she actually becomes the part. I know that that's the whole point of acting, and yes, to a certain extent, all the women I've talked about on this blog have done the same thing, but never quite as well as this. Theron completely embodies her character in every possible way. The rage and despair from her troubled past, the fear of getting caught that she all but buries, the love for Selby that she barely understands or knows how to express: it's all there, seemingly part of her. Which is kind of terrifying if you think about it. That's actually a really good way to describe this performance: she's so good it's terrifying.

This was Charlize Theron's first Oscar nomination. Since then she has received one more nomination, for 2005's North Country. While she may receive more awards and nominations in the future, I think it's highly unlikely that she will ever be able to top this performance. But you never know.

Next up: the return of Hilary Swank, in the 11th and most recent Best Picture Winner to receive a Best Actress Oscar

2002: Nicole Kidman for The Hours

Barely recognizable Nicole Kidman plays Virginia Woolf as she writes the novel Mrs. Dalloway and deals with mental illness.

This is a highly unusual movie, in that it tells the story of three women living in different times, whose stories are related but don't really intersect at all until the very end, when two of them meet. All three of these women are played by extremely talented actresses, all giving fantastic performances. In the opening credits, they are billed in this order: Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman. Streep has 42 minutes of screen time, Moore has 33 minutes, and Kidman has 28 minutes. The reason I'm pointing this out is that, given this, it makes very little sense that Kidman was nominated for Best Actress, Moore was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and Streep, Queen of Oscar Nods, wasn't nominated at all for this movie. This has baffled me for years, but I think I've finally figured out why. That year, Julianne Moore was also nominated for Best Actress for a different movie, and you can't be nominated twice in the same category anymore. Streep was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for something else, so if Kidman had also been nominated in that category, the thought probably was that the three of them would cancel each other out. As it was, Catherine Zeta-Jones got the supporting Oscar that year, despite being nominated against someone else from her movie, and poor Julianne Moore had to be one of the few double nominees who didn't win either.

All of that was just a very long-winded way of saying that, had circumstances been different, Kidman's role probably would have been considered a supporting one, rather than a leading one. I also can't help feeling that her prosthetic nose had a lot to do with her win. Seriously, if I didn't know it was her, I don't think I would have recognized her at all. Her nose combined with her relatively short screen time makes it tempting to call the Oscar undeserved, yet I can't quite go that far. The scenes she is in are very well acted. She incredibly effectively conveys the almost overwhelming feelings of hopelessness and alienation that eventually lead Virginia to suicide. She does a particularly good job in the scenes when she's around other people but only thinking of her story, and I find her confrontation with her husband convincingly heartbreaking. I also admire her dedication to the role: Kidman is left-handed, but Woolf was right-handed, so in the scenes when we see her writing (of which there are many) she uses her right hand. And if I hadn't known that, I never would have guessed that she wasn't using her dominant hand. While she didn't try to imitate Virginia Woolf's actual voice, she still changed her voice in a way that is perfect for the emotions she's trying to convey, and probably way more consistent with the character than an imitation would have been. Though the nose helps a lot, ultimately I think her acting has a lot to do with why she's unrecognizable, and from that perspective, she definitely deserved an Oscar.

To summarize, Kidman gives a very interesting and well-executed performance, and though I'm still not convinced that it deserves the distinction of a leading role, or that it was better than the other performances in this film, I won't deny that it was worthy of some recognition. I just don't think this should have been the film's only Oscar. It's a very intriguing, thought-provoking, and well-made film, and if it were up to me, at the very least the three main actresses would have gotten to share this award. But the other two have won Oscars for other movies, and Kidman hasn't, so it works out well that she's the one who got it this year.

This was Kidman's second Oscar nomination, her first being for 2001's Moulin Rouge! I have to wonder if that also helped her win this year. Since The Hours, she has been nominated for one more Oscar, for 2010's Rabbit Hole, but I'll be very surprised if she doesn't receive more nominations at some point, given her incredible talent.

Following barely recognizable Nicole Kidman will be barely recognizable Charlize Theron, so stay tuned for that.

2001: Halle Berry for Monster's Ball

Berry plays a woman who is at the end of her rope until she becomes involved with a corrections officer, who happens to have helped execute her husband.

Honestly, I was rather disappointed in this movie. The premise is promising, but the story is rather thin. There is very little character development, and apart from a couple of marginally interesting twists, nothing much happens. Halle Berry does as much as she can with her underdeveloped character. She conveys her distress and confusion very effectively, and though at times I couldn't quite understand her, I think she was intentionally enigmatic. Not much of her backstory is revealed. We don't know why her husband was on death row, and we also don't really know exactly what happens to her son. Yet I have no doubt that Berry knew. She clearly understood everything about this character, and thus did a tremendous job portraying her. I just wish, and I feel like I've been saying this about a lot of these performances, but I really wish she had more to do. Way too much of her performance consists of miming sex with Billy Bob Thornton, which was admittedly very convincing, but it got rather old after a while. To a certain extent, the sex was necessary to the story, but couldn't they have cut some of it in favor of more interesting scenes? I get that she was holding in her emotions, but some sort of confrontation or resolution would have been nice. I don't know. This was my first time watching this movie, and I'm sure I'm missing something, but I just really felt like the film was trying to be more profound than it was. Anyway, there isn't much to the role, but her performance is almost certainly the best it could possibly be, so I think the Oscar was deserved.

Even if it wasn't an extraordinarily great performance, no one could begrudge her this win. This was the 74th Academy Awards ceremony, and the very first time that not only an African-American woman, but any woman of color ever won this award. (To be fair, some of the previous winners were of mixed heritage, but all of their characters were either explicitly supposed to be white, or at least passed for white. And yes, Berry is half white, but her character is clearly a person of color.) About darn time, right? But what I find even more disturbing is the fact that we've now had 13 ceremonies since then, and Halle Berry is still the only woman of color to win this award (with the possible exception of Natalie Portman, but I'm not sure what race she identifies as). And this distinction will continue for at least another ceremony, since all the 2015 nominees are, once again, white. I know race shouldn't be a factor, it should just be whoever gave the best performance, but when all the nominees in this category are white for three years in a row, there's a problem. And it's not a lack of talent among women of color. So it's either a lack of good roles for women of color, a lack of recognition for their performances, or a combination of both. This is ridiculous and disgusting and should be fixed. That's all. Rant over.

To further demonstrate my point, this is Berry's only Oscar nomination so far. But we'll see what happens in the future.

Coming up next: Nicole Kidman

2000: Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich

As the title character, Roberts plays a single mom barely scraping by until she manages to get a job at a law firm. Despite her lack of experience and unconventional dress and attitude, she proves herself more worthy of the job than anyone could have predicted when she becomes very involved in a case against a big power company that has been polluting a town's water supply.

This is a pretty emotionally demanding role. In the beginning, Erin is barely holding her life together and is desperate for a job. Then later she becomes very emotionally attached to her clients and her cause, despite the upsetting fact that it's pulling her away from her kids. She uses excessive sarcasm and profanity, which rubs many of the other characters the wrong way, but has to let the audience see that it's often a defense mechanism to keep from crying. Roberts pulls all this off wonderfully. She makes Erin's complex emotions incredibly believable and understandable, mostly with her eyes and her voice. Of course, my favorite parts of the movie are her zingers that put condescending people in their place, which she delivers perfectly. She also has really good chemistry with Albert Finney, who plays her initially reluctant boss, and I enjoy watching their relationship develop. I also think her relationship with her kids, particularly her son, are very real and well done.

My main complaint is that I don't think she has very good chemistry with Aaron Eckhart, who plays her neighbor with whom she becomes romantically involved. Their romantic relationship didn't seem believable to me. The relationship is supposed to become unhealthy once she becomes more involved in her job, but I feel like there was very little believable attraction even at the very beginning. So that whole thing is my least favorite part. But other than not being convincingly attracted to her boyfriend, on the whole it's a solid performance.

So far, Julia Roberts has received a total of four Oscar nominations: two for Best Supporting Actress and two for Best Actress. This is her only win. Prior to this she was nominated for her supporting role in 1989's Steel Magnolias and her leading role in 1990's Pretty Woman. More recently, she was nominated for her supporting role in 2013's August: Osage County. One way to know that you're a great performer: you get nominated for an Oscar for a Meryl Streep movie when you're not Meryl Streep (of course, Streep was also nominated for that movie). Anyway, Roberts will probably be nominated for more Oscars, and might even win again, although I think I like her best in romantic comedies, which are hardly ever recognized, so we'll see.

Next up: Halle Berry, the first African-American woman to win this award (that certainly took long enough)

1999: Hilary Swank for Boys Don't Cry

In this profoundly disturbing film, Hilary Swank plays Brandon, a transgender man struggling to find love and happiness in a society that may never accept him.

Very rarely does Hollywood delve into the issue of gender identity in such a real and powerful way, and even more rarely do such films win Oscars. Usually cross-dressing characters in movies do so temporarily, in order to disguise their true selves, and when they are unmasked it is to return to their true identity - a very handy example being in the previous year's Best Actress winner, Shakespeare in Love. But Brandon's true identity is as a male, and when he is "unmasked" it only reveals that he was born in the wrong body. I think this message would have been even more powerful if Brandon had been played by an actual transgender actor, but I'm pretty sure Swank was the next best thing.

Seriously, she embodies this character so completely that it feels wrong for me to refer to her as "she" right now. It helps that she's made up to look more masculine, but it's her mannerisms and behavior that make her most convincing as a transgender man. She looks comfortable in male clothing, hanging out with other men, and hitting on women, yet there's always an underlying element of awkwardness around other people. In everything Swank does you can see, sometimes more clearly than others, the ever-present fear of how people will react when they find out the truth; a fear which almost always turns out to be 100% justified. In her face and body language you can see how desperately Brandon wants to relax and be comfortable, despite years of persecution that have made him almost give up hope of ever really fitting in anywhere. But struggling with his gender isn't the only thing that defines Brandon. That part is crucial to the story, but Swank also makes him a real, relatable human being to everyone, regardless of gender expression. I wish I knew how to explain just how believable she is in this role, but it pretty much defies description. All I know is that I have to keep reminding myself that Hilary Swank isn't actually transgender. To prepare for this role, she did live as a man for a while, but that was only for about a month. She gives the impression that she's been living with this for most of her life, which means she is an incredible actress who absolutely deserved this award.

On the one hand, I'm proud of the Academy for recognizing this performance, since there isn't a whole lot of diversity in the sexual identity of Oscar-winning roles. On the other hand, I feel like this movie was worthy of more awards, or at least more nominations. The only other Oscar nomination it received was Best Supporting Actress for Chloë Sevigny's very worthy performance as Brandon's girlfriend, which somehow didn't win. Personally I think a Best Picture nomination wouldn't have been uncalled for - it's certainly better than the movie that won that year - and writer/director Kimberly Peirce also should have gotten some recognition. But of course, she's a woman, and we all know how rarely women get nominated for working behind the camera. So although this was a step forward for the Academy, it was still a relatively small one.

Hilary Swank has been nominated for two Oscars and won both of them. Her second was for the Best Picture Winner of 2004, so I'll be talking more about her soon. But first, Julia Roberts leads us into the 2000s.

1998: Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love

In the tenth Best Picture Winner to feature a Best Actress Winning performance, Gwyneth Paltrow plays a woman enthralled by the stage, particularly the work of William Shakespeare. Since women aren't allowed on the stage, she disguises herself as a man to play the role of Romeo in Shakespeare's newest creation, which leads to a passionate affair with the playwright himself.

First of all, I have to say that I feel like in general, this movie and this actress get a lot of unfair hate. It's pretty safe to claim that this is the worst Best Picture Winner; no one will argue with you, since everyone knows that Saving Private Ryan should have won that year. Well actually, I will argue with you, because I've actually seen all the Best Picture Winners and this is way better than some other winners I could mention, but I digress. It also seems to be the cool thing to diss Gwyneth Paltrow, for some reason. I've never really understood why everyone seems to hate her. I mean, yeah, I thought it was weird that she named her kid Apple, but she's a fine actress, and if she comes across as somewhat of an out-of-touch, wealthy celebrity, guess what? It's because she is. And so is literally every celebrity, so why does she get so much more hate than everyone else? Wow, sorry, I'm totally getting off track here.

Unfortunately, the point I have to make here is that while this is a better movie than it's given credit for, and Paltrow is a better actress than she's given credit for, I really don't think this is an Oscar-worthy performance. Mostly it consists of making out with Joseph Fiennes, which doesn't seem like it would be very difficult at all. Her male disguise is laughably unconvincing, which is kind of the point, but she could have put a little more effort into trying to make her voice more masculine. On the other hand, her British accent is very convincing, so at least she nails that. But overall the performance is underwhelming, I think mostly because she isn't given very much to do. She does have a few rather brilliant moments that provide glimpses of what she could do if given the opportunity. It's not a fabulous performance, but it's pretty good; it's just that in my opinion a Best Actress winning performance should have a lot more to it than this. Other aspects of this movie are much better and more interesting than her performance, and she's given better performances in other movies, so I stand by what I said before about this movie and this actress: they don't deserve the hate they get, but they also didn't deserve this Oscar.

So far, this is Paltrow's only Academy Award nomination. Do other people in the entertainment field also hate her? I guess, to be fair, she seems to be mostly in romantic comedies or superhero movies, which in general don't tend to get a lot of Oscar recognition. Except in 1998, for some reason.

Coming up next: Hilary Swank

1997: Helen Hunt for As Good as It Gets

Helen Hunt plays a single mother struggling to support her mother and her perpetually ill son by working as a waitress. Her job unintentionally makes her a vital part of an obsessive-compulsive author's routine, so when she starts having to miss work to take her son to the hospital, the author steps in.

This is a fascinating movie. I've seen it several times, and I still can't decide how I feel about it. One thing I know is that I would never have described it as a Helen Hunt movie. The star is unquestionably Jack Nicholson. He is the dominant force in this film, and his perfect embodiment of such a complicated, quirky, barely tolerable yet somehow still sympathetic character essentially makes his Oscar win a shoo-in. Since he takes over so much of the movie, before this re-watch I kind of expected this post to be about how Hunt really didn't deserve this award. But, while I still don't think this is anywhere near the top Best Actress Winning performance, it was a more worthy win than I previously thought.

Hunt's character is absolutely vital to this movie because she's the one that makes it bearable. She provides a perfect foil for Nicholson, making his character more believable by seeming so real herself. Despite his incredible performance, I think without her he could have bordered on ridiculous; with her there he becomes both more real and more tragic than ridiculous. Nicholson and Hunt might seem like two very odd co-stars, not just because of the 26-year age gap, but also because their acting styles are so different, but in this movie it works. They play off each other remarkably well, and their arguments are actually kind of fun to watch, since they seem so evenly matched. Few actors, if any, could have done as well as Nicholson, but I also think few actresses could have kept up with him as well as Hunt. His character is intimidating, self-centered, and rude; hers is the only one who successfully puts him in his place.

I know I'm saying more about her character than her performance, but I think it would have been easy to make her character just as unlikable as his, since she has some pretty rude lines as well. But she portrays much more sympathetic emotions. For much of the movie she seems confused, which I think is how most of us would feel in her situation. Even when she thinks she has Nicholson's character figured out, he never stops visibly surprising and confounding her, but she recovers quickly. Just reading her lines without these flashes of confusion would make her unrealistic; no one could possibly think of comebacks that quickly, except perhaps Nicholson's character. Her pause before some of her lines makes her seem more real and relatable. She also gives the impression that part of her snappiness is a defense mechanism against falling into depression over her barely-held-together life. The role requires her to be simultaneously incredibly strong and totally vulnerable, which it would be nearly impossible to pull off better than she does. All of this is not even to mention the fact that Nicholson's character becomes more bearable around her because she is literally the only one besides himself that he cares about at all. So while it's mostly a Jack Nicholson movie, if it didn't have Helen Hunt in it, I think very few people would be able to sit through it. I'm pretty sure that's why she won the Oscar.

This was Hunt's first Oscar nomination, and her only one in this category so far. She was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress for 2012's The Sessions. Most of her work has been in comedy, which the Academy apparently doesn't like to recognize very often, so it's not too surprising that she hasn't been nominated more. But we'll see what happens in the future.

Stay tuned for Gwyneth Paltrow, in the 10th Best Picture Winner to also win Best Actress, and possibly the most unexpected

1996: Frances McDormand for Fargo

I don't want to say too much about the plot of this movie in case anyone's reading this who hasn't seen it, since you kind of just have to watch it unfold. Without giving too much away, McDormand plays Marge Gunderson, a police officer from Brainerd, MN in charge of investigating a vicious crime.

This is a very strange but fascinating film, as Coen brothers films tend to be (although you may recall that I didn't think much of their Best Picture Winning film), and I personally think that Frances McDormand is hands down the best aspect of it. Hers is definitely the best character, and she is absolutely perfect for the role. My favorite thing about her performance is the way she delivers her lines. She possesses the incredible talent of making moderately funny lines hilarious, and lines that were already hilarious even more so. In addition to using her voice well, she also has some priceless facial expressions when reacting to what other people are saying, so she's very funny even when she isn't speaking. I pretty much laugh at everything she does, except of course for her few serious moments, which are also incredibly well done. It's rare that the Academy recognizes comedic performances, but this one is so good that they kind of had to.

My one complaint is that she is not in nearly enough of this movie. She doesn't even show up until over 30 minutes into it, and it's not a very long movie. Then even after her character is introduced we have to keep going back to William H. Macy and Steve Buscemi, both of whom also do a very good job but neither of whom is anywhere near as fun to watch as Frances McDormand is. I kind of feel like her role is right on the leading/supporting border, and I'd be tempted to say her Oscar was for the wrong category if she didn't just completely dominate the movie the way she does. The first half hour, when you think the movie's all about Macy and Buscemi, turns into merely the setup to introduce us to McDormand. So though I feel like the movie would have been better if she'd been in every scene, what she does with the limited screen time she has is more than enough to establish hers as a leading role.

McDormand is in a lot of Coen brothers films, probably helped by the fact that she's married to one of them. This makes her the first, and so far only, person to win a Best Actress Oscar for a role directed by her spouse. Though it seems pretty obvious that she got this role because of her relationship with the director, I don't think they could have found a better Marge Gunderson if they'd tried.

Although this is McDormand's only nomination in this category, she's been nominated three times for Best Supporting Actress: for 1988's Mississippi Burning, 2000's Almost Famous, and 2005's North Country.

Next up: Helen Hunt

1995: Susan Sarandon for Dead Man Walking

Susan Sarandon plays a nun who forms an unlikely friendship with a young man who is on death row for the brutal slaying of two teenagers. Though she is disgusted, both by what he did and by his attitude, and heavily criticized by people she knows, the media, and especially the parents of his victims, she holds firm in her belief that every human being deserves love and respect.

This movie kind of reminds me of previous Best Actress winner I Want to Live! except in that movie it was the woman who was on death row. While I think Dead Man Walking is unquestionably a better movie overall, I found Susan Hayward's performance in I Want to Live! much more remarkable than Susan Sarandon's in this. Not that Sarandon's performance is bad; it's just mostly overshadowed by Sean Penn's incredible, Oscar-nominated (but not -winning) performance as the man on death row. I don't really like Sean Penn, but I think that actually helped get the film's message across even more. He makes his character despicable but very human, and he steals almost every scene. If only one of them could win an Oscar, it definitely should have been him.

That being said, Sarandon's performance is still pretty impressive. She very effectively portrays her character's internal struggle between wanting to only help and support "good people" and trying to follow Jesus' example as a friend to sinners. Often when movies portray a character like this, they make "love thy neighbor" look effortless, at least for that character, but this movie effectively shows how truly difficult that can be. She also could have erred on the side of too arrogant, as if she's only befriended this convict to show what a good nun she is, but instead she mostly seems confused and conflicted, like she's pretty sure she's doing the right thing, but not positive. This makes her much more relatable than most religious movie characters, which prevents the audience - or at least this audience member - from siding with the people who criticize her for showing kindness to such a man.

I want to say more about her performance, but I can't think of much else. This was the first time I'd ever seen this movie, and I was too distracted by the intriguing story, Penn's performance, and the fascinating camera work to pay too close attention to Sarandon's performance, despite my best efforts. Her performance is good, certainly, but there are other aspects of the film that are much better, or at least much more engaging. I definitely don't think she deserved to win the film's only Oscar, but once again, nobody asked me.

So far, Susan Sarandon has been nominated for five Academy Awards for Best Actress, with Dead Man Walking as her most recent nomination. Prior to that, she was nominated for 1980's Atlantic City, 1991's Thelma & Louise, 1992's Lorenzo's Oil, and 1994's The Client. I still mostly think of her as Janet in The Rocky Horror Picture Show or the evil queen in Enchanted, which made it kind of weird to see her playing a nun. Anyway, she's still working a lot, so she could potentially get nominated again, although she's also pushing 70 and hasn't been nominated for 20 years, so it seems unlikely. But you never know.

Coming up next: Frances McDormand

1994: Jessica Lange for Blue Sky

Lange plays an army wife whose promiscuity and unpredictable behavior (probably a result of un-diagnosed bipolar disorder) cause problems for herself, her husband, and their children.

I had never seen this movie - or indeed, even heard of it - before, and at the beginning it looked like it was going to be one of the worst performances to win this award. At first the movie seems like it's going to focus more on the husband than on her character, and her first few scenes consist mainly of over-the-top temper tantrums. I was less than impressed. But then the story takes a few rather unexpected turns, and she becomes both more important and more interesting. Initially she seems like an over-simplified, stereotypical "crazy wife," but about halfway through she turns into a realistic protagonist, and from then on the performance becomes much more impressive. While at first we can only see the disease, ultimately we are able to see the human being struggling with it. Possibly the best example is when someone calls her crazy and she retorts that people have been calling her that for so long that it no longer has any impact on her. Except there are tears in her eyes and the slightest hint of a quiver in her voice as she says that.

Another thing I like about this performance is that although her illness is a big part of her life, it's not the only thing that defines her. When, in an ironic twist, her husband ends up in a mental institution, I kind of expected her to descend deeper into depression, but she has a lot more fight in her than is evident in the first few scenes. Yes, Lange's performance is often over-the-top even in later scenes, but sometimes the role calls for it, and I think her overacting serves to enhance the character more often than it detracts from the story. I've certainly seen much better performances in the course of this project, but I've also definitely seen worse. It isn't amazing, but it was better than expected.

This was Jessica Lange's second Oscar, her first being for Best Supporting Actress in 1982's Tootsie. That same year she was nominated for her first Best Actress Oscar for Frances. She was nominated for Best Actress three more times - for 1984's Country, 1985's Sweet Dreams, and 1989's Music Box - before winning for this, her most recent nomination. Now she's mostly known for the TV show "American Horror Story," for which she has won a Golden Globe and two Emmys, but she's still in the occasional movie, so she could still get another Oscar nomination someday.

Up next: Susan Sarandon