In 1965 the 5 nominees for Best Actress were Julie Andrews(The Sound Of Music), Samantha Eggar(The Collector), Elizabeth Hartmann(A Patch Of Blue), Simone Signoret(Ship Of Fools), and, of course, Julie Christie, who won the Best Actress award for Darling. Does anyone think Natalie Wood should have been in the final 5 for her Daisy Clover? If so, whose place should she have taken?
shareSimone Signoret could have been cut for Natalie's inclusion;never would have happened ,of course,because Wood's gutsy,tough Daisy was much too uncompromising a performance.Daisy Clover is a female Faustian creature.She goes along with her Mother's commitment,sleeps with Raymond Swan,a man that she despises and continually battles a world that seems to be unnatural and creepy but one holds a disturbing lure for her. Signoret,unlike Wood,wallows in self pity and grossness,a dumb show that makes audiences nicely reassured that their lives are not THAT bad.Incidentally,Carol Lynley's work in BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING could also have been included,possibly droppingHartman's almost equally good work but in an easier more pitiful role .I myself would have voted for Eggar.
shareI totally agree with the view that Natalie Wood and Carol Lynley should have been given greater recognition for their performances in Daisy Clover and Bunny Lake. I have just watched Daisy Clover again and their are moments in the film when Natalie is brilliant, and certainly deserved to be nominated over Simone Signoret. The Oscar lists are often very odd - and eccentric - though. There are soooooo many examples of poor choices over good. For example, in 1952 they nominated Susan Hayward (With a Song in My Heart) over Ethel Waters (The Member of the Wedding) - NO!!!
shareWell, Waters should probably have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress-Frankie is the leading role. That said, Waters was better than any of the nominees for Sup Actress that year, perhaps save Jean Hagen in "Singin' in the Rain." Gloria Grahame was a great actress, but her role in "Bad and Beautiful" was barely a cameo.
shareUh, no.
shareNo.
times two
No to the nth power! - not for anything! - the cult of Natalie does not impress me - she always plays the same character - a semi-slutty nervous wreck in the throes of an emotional catastrophe. In the 1960s, before the age of film skin, Wood promised to show some tit, which, combined with her on-screen presence of the neurotic, over-amped, available hottie, netted her acting credentials that were never actually earned. This trifling movie has nothing in it even worthy of being noticed, much less awarded. As time goes on, I find Wood's screen presence more and more irritating and nerve-wracking - 10 minutes is all I can bear. Well, one should make an exception for MO34thS. Before she became herself, so to speak.
-drl
Uh, heck no!!!
shareI believe so. In the World of Hollywood, it is the male actors who usually get to fully display their talent. Women were reduced to more stereotypical roles. This is definitely a great acting role for a woman. This film explores every emotion - from the great sadness to the greatest laughter. I think that Natalie Wood was a great actress. This film clearly shows her range.
share[deleted]
Her performance in the film is a mess. She has no talent for singing or movement, and the idea that this pretty, wacky high school (?) girl could capture the hearts of the country is ludicrous. Christopher Plummer is wonderfully oily - a perfect studio head. Redford is good, too. But the movie doesn't hold together, mainly because the leading lady is a hack. At least in this film.
shareCompletely agree. She was extremely limited as an actress and this role exposed those limitations, when I watch her performance I feel embarrassed for her. They should have used Sherry Jackson or Veronica Cartwright.
shareEggar fully deserved her nomination for The Collector. She was fantastic in that film, particularly toward the end. Wood's performance in this film, on the other hand, is all over the map. At times she's great (like in the breakdown scene), and other times I thought she was unconvincing, particularly when she had to act like a fifteen year old tomboy toward the beginning of the film.
shareNatalie is about five years too old to portray a fifteen year old convincingly - she may have been able to pull it off if the movie was made as late as the early 1960s. I think she had a less mannered acting style in her earlier years which would have suited the role better. She, in my mind, was miscast. So my answer is no.
shareI think they should have changed the age of Daisy to be a bit older. Natalie did have some really great scenes in this movie. Her nervous breakdown was on the money. I think this movie was underrated and I've seen the stuff on You tube where Natalie was singing and she actually sounded pretty damn good. Most 1930's singers were not great singers anyway. The style of the music back then didn't call for great voices.
Yes, there are one or two scenes that are a bit campy but overall I like the movie and like it even more the more I see it.
Natalie was 27 when she made this film way to old to play a 15 year old. Also most the songs were sung by Jackie Ward.
shareQuit simply, no, not for this film.
My Movie List:
http://www.rinkworks.com/checklist/list.cgi?u=avalon123&p=seen
For some unexplicable reason, Wood was over-indulged by Warner Bros. as they
kept giving her roles for which she lacked the range. An Oscar for this tripe?
No way. Wood reached her peak in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE and looked good for
GYPSY...but all the rest, forget it. Her Maria in WEST SIDE STORY proved she's
no singer and her acting left a lot to be desired. Rita Moreno truly out-acted
her. She's the perfect Hollywood example of a "star" who let big studio hype
go to her head. Now...let's punish ourselves and watch her and hubby Robert
Wagner in ALL THE FINE YOUNG CANNIBALS. Any takers? Huh? What fraidy cats.
Wood didn't know, or understand, subtlety. I've seen some of her movies & she's always over(re)acting. Notice how she's always "great" in the breakdown scenes, going wild, being histrionic & dramatic? That's saying something. Here's the thing: If you can TELL or SEE that an actor is acting, then that's a pretty bad actor.
shareThat's definitely the case in much of her acting, pure 1950s melodramatic spectacle. But at other times she IS subtle, with a gentle tilt of the head or a glisten in her eyes that conveys so much true emotion. It's why she remains so iconic and likable. She really is "all over the map," as a poster said above. She was just so young and impressionable, always at the mercy of her director and script. Here she's not always good, but no thanks to the fact that her character is poorly written.
As for the other nominees, Simone Signoret was excellent, as always, though it wasn't the most complicated role. I honestly thought Vivien Leigh stole Ship of Fools, and could have been put in lead. She was beautiful and mesmerizing on screen, as she always is, and despite having less to work with, when she had to go fiery and crazy a la Streetcar, the moment felt genuine and chilling.
The best acting in Inside Daisy Clover is by Christopher Plummer, though it was nothing you could nominate.
The problem with this movie is that they want you to laugh at the silly musical numbers, but it's hard to make a good musical satire, so instead we're just laughing at the actors for playing the superficial material so literally, whether overacting or not. The musical numbers are unfunny and not silly enough, and the drama is too silly because the breakdowns feel so unwarranted and melodramatic - they come out of nowhere!
I just saw this film and while she had a few good moments, overall, I don't think she deserved an Oscar nomination. She isn't convincing as a 15 year old and I thought her performance was uneven and not too impressive. The film was also terrible!
share[deleted]
Personally I feel she was miscast. Then again, almost everyone is this film is overacting so perhaps she fits right in.
For one, they should have adjusted her age. The idea of her supposedly being 15 is ridiculous and took me out of the film from the beginning. That has nothing to do with Natalie Wood's age in real life at time of filming as I honestly had no idea what her actual age was. It's like Stockard Channing in Grease bad.
But looking beyond that, I don't feel there is anything particularly authentic about Natalie's performance here.