Bette Davis gave a very good performance in "What ever Happened to Baby Jane?" I love that movie so much and she was just great! She really deserved it. Not saying Anne Bancroft was bad, but seriously the best actress award was for Bette i am really upset she did not win.
Anyone else agree that Bette Davis deserved the Oscar more that year?
WARNING: I'M SEXY!
I couldn't disagree more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?
Couldn't disagree more...Anne Bancroft conveyed more emotion and feeling than I have yet to see and she did it with most of her screen time wearing sunglasses!! Bette Davis was amazing in Baby Jane but this was one of those years when they only nominated four other performers out of politeness, it was always Bancroft's award!
share Bette Davis was amazing in Baby Jane but this was one of those years when they only nominated four other performers out of politeness, it was always Bancroft's award!
______________
I would say, they were nominated because they were worthy of being nominated, not just because Bancroft was 'amazing'. This same argument could likely be made for the other contenders. It was not a sole stand-out year. Bancroft also had an edge, due to the inspirational nature of her character.
Davis won no precursor awards, some of the others did; I think Hepburn /Page
shareWhenever I re-watch BABY JANE I think "Dammit, she should have won!" But then, when I re-watch MIRACLE WORKER, I think, "But of course..."
There's no doubt that winning the Oscar for BABY JANE would have had a major effect on Davis's career - yes, she would have been the first to win 3 Oscars in the lead category, but more that that, it would have legitimized JANE and the genre it inspired. And even more importantly, it might have meant better scrpts for Davis - JANE was considered a freak show, and she wasn't really taken seriously for the rest of the 1960s. The simple fact is that Davis made Jane because at the time it was the best Hollywood had to offer offer her. Fearlessly, she made the most of the opprtunity.
"Forget it, Jake. It's the internet."
It should have been a 5-way tie. All the nominees deserved the award. It was a great year for actresses.
And for just this once, I disagree with you, HaroldRobbins. The film Baby Jane was legitimized when it won five Oscar nominations. Bette Davis and her performance in Baby Jane were taken seriously by her peers because they nominated her for Best Actress.
Bette Davis post-Baby Jane didn't do too badly, but of course, her film credits pale when compared to what Hepburn did in the late 1960s. But between 1962 and 1967 -- a five year span-- Hepburn didn't work in films, which was her choice. No other actress their age did anything spectacular. Yet Bette Davis continued to work and what she did weren't bad at all. Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte won seven Oscar nominations, the most for any thriller to that date.Her other credits were vastly superior to such Z-grade schlock like The Witches, Strait-Jacket, Die, Die, My Darling, Lady in a Cage, I Know What You Did, and Night Walker.
Davis was also considered for lead roles in projects like The Visit, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and The Killing of Sister George. Prior to Baby Jane, she did A Pocketful of Miracles and was actually in the running for Suddenly, Last Summer. Hepburn got the latter film because the producer wanted an actress audiences could never suspect of being the true villain. (Sort of like Olivia de Havilland in Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte.) As the famous producer said, "Bette has done it before. With Hepburn, you don't see it coming."
And Hepburn got Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? because the casting capitalized on the Tracy and Hepburn team. Its success paved the way for Hepburn's comeback. That's just too bad for the other actressess who were not part of a legendary team and were just known to carry a movie by themselves.
[deleted]
I completely agree with you. Bette Davis and Angela Lansbury should have won Best Actress in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role respectively. Bette made Baby Jane a real human being - the role would have become a caricature had anyone else played it. Her performance is mindblowing, a real masterclass on acting. And of course Angela Lansbury created one of the best female villains that ever graced the screen. She's equally terrifying and stimulating. Also their performances have stood the test of time. People still remember and watch "What ever happened to Baby Jane ?" and "The Manchurian Candidate" as opposed to "The Miracle Worker", which has become obscure. A quick browse through the IMDb pages of the films can confirm that.
shareBoth deserved to win. Too bad they were competing in the same year.
shareNobody loves Bette more than me, but...
I re-watched The Miracle Worker last night, and WOW... Anne Bancroft (and Patty Duke, of course) was really fantastic. That role must have been truly demanding both mentally and physically, and even as a viewer it took my breath away, so I'm really glad she won.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop
As much as I love the movie and Bette Davis, I have to say that Anne Bancroft deserved the Oscar.
I am glad that Bette was recognized for her wonderful performance.
Bette is great fun in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? but I don't think I would even rank it among her top ten performances. If I picked the Oscars I'd give it to Katharine Hepburn that year - I personally believe Long Day's Journey into Night to be one of her top two or three - but Bancroft was a thoroughly deserving winner, a wonderful performance (although in this game I would hold off for two years and reward her for The Pumpkin Eater).
share