For a performance that clocked in at under 3 minutes, she wasn't merely Best Supporting Actress category filler. She made an impact and deserved her nomination!
That said, usually the actors who get nominated for such little screen time truly deserve it (quality, not quantity). But then there WAS some filler in the '50s, like Mercedes McCambridge in Giant.
I agree she made an impact but an Oscar nomination was ridiculous. It's not like 1959 wasaweak year for her category.
shareI have just seen the film and I'm stunned by her Oscar nomination.
It isn't that I don't like Hermione Baddeley. She's a fine actress. But there must have been some sort of Academy politics involved in her nomination for such an incredibly tiny role.
Hair today. Goon tomorrow.
It wasn't just the Oscars either. Hermione Baddeley was also nominated for the Bafta Award as well for Best British Actress for this role. Although I actually think she deserved both as she is truly a great actress and great in this role, but it seems both Academies had a great love for her in general. lol
shareShe was very good, it was indeed a tiny role but she did so much with 2 and a half minutes on screen, it's pretty incredible and an inspired nomination. Good on her.
shareI remember her from Maude
shareYes, I believe this is the shortest performance ever nominated for an acting Oscar. She's terrific - one gets an idea of this woman's whole life story from her brief moments on screen. Powerful stuff, and kudos to the Academy for noting such a tiny but effective role.
Baddeley was always good value. She should perhaps have been nominated for her role in Brighton Rock, too.