as JO MARCH
Won: Gold Medal Winner for Best Actress - Venice Film Festival |
"As vital, sympathetic and full of the joie de vivre as one could hope for...Miss Hepburn goes darting through this picture without giving one a moment to think of her as other than Jo," praised Mordaunt Hall of The New York Times at the time of Little Women's release. Trusty ol' Wikipedia says joie de vivre "may be seen as a joy of everything, a comprehensive joy, a philosophy of life..." This is a more than accurate assessment of Katharine Hepburn, whose luminosity spearheads Little Women and whose performance is just as joyous if not more than that of her role as Eva in Morning Glory.
As I had mentioned earlier, it's peculiar that Hepburn managed a nomination for Morning Glory, which was only a moderate success and a picture that The New York Times wasn't as enthused about, over her work in Little Women, which placed third in the votes for Best Picture. In hindsight, this helps us to better understand why she'd won that year, despite not being the most popular actress amongst her peers--Kate had had a banner year, what with these two features and her lead role in Christopher Strong, another piece of work in which she was praised, and called by Hall "an American Greta Garbo". So it seems that 1933 was to Hepburn as 2011 was to Jessica Chastain--she had made a splash in Hollywood and was young and pretty (though it seems Oscar now requires that a pretty starlet be in the biz a little longer and prove themselves a little more before they are able to strike gold). My best guess is that this was similar to the Kate Winslet scenario of 2008--more than one performance was available to be nominated, to which voters were beside themselves in confusion and ended up nom'ing the lesser performance.
No comments:
Post a Comment