Clearly, the majority of AMPAS voters of 1955 agreed. It's a safe bet that no matter who wins for what, there are always dissenters. And it certainly was the biggest stretching, acting-wise, that Kelly had had to do. However...
Judy was playing JUDY...
That very statement may be the best argument in favor of Garland's
ASIB work. I've seen the same thing said many times about Jenny Bowman in
I Could Go On Singing, a role that was much closer to the offscreen Garland personality than that of Esther. And while the Parker/Campbell/Carson screenplay was retooled to suit her, that she gives that impression of playing herself speaks to the quality of the performance.
I recall an interview with James Garner in which he was questioned about a similar impression of playing himself instead of acting in his performances, and his reply was, "You'd be surprised how much hard work goes into making it look like you're not acting."
My single rule for judging the quality of any performance is this: do I believe the end product?
If I can forget that I'm watching a performer on a set in front of a camera, surrounded by technicians and other crew - knowing their blocking and business, hitting their marks, staying in their keylight and at the proper distance from camera for the focal length, reciting dialogue written by others sincerely, as though they reflect the spontaneous thoughts in the character's mind at that moment, imparting the appropriate levels of emotional intensity for the scene regardless of their actual mood at the time, and doing so repeatedly for multiple takes, often modulating it from one to the next according to the director's wishes - and really buy into the honesty of what I'm seeing and hearing, then it's successful in my book.
It's all subjective (as are the votes of AMPAS members), but I buy and believe Garland in
ASIB in a way that I've never been able to with Kelly in
TCG. As I said, it may be the best performance of Kelly's career, but I'm always aware that it
is a performance. Garland's is equally a performance for all the same acting techniques that must be employed and challenges presented by the mechanics involved but, while watching, I'm never aware of any of it for a minute, and it's easy to believe she's, as Garner said, "not acting."
AMPAS voters felt as you do and Kelly got the statuette and accolades, but I've seen
ASIB at least ten times for every single
TCG viewing, and the way it holds up and still convinces me every time is my reward.
Poe! You are...avenged!
reply
share