Greer Garson, Madame Curie

as MARIE CURIE

The Role: as the pioneering scientist who *overcomes all odds* to discover radium, and in turn redefining the face of science, this is the kind of role that Oscar will eat up over and over and over again. It's the kind of role that inherently stands for *importance*, thus typically ensuring an actor an Oscar nomination very handily (because what could be more important than the story of real people doing important things?). So I can't begrudge this nomination by Oscar's reigning Best Actress and decade Golden Child Greer Garson; anyone else playing it would have nab herself a spot in the top five as well. But I can begrudge how dull both picture and actress are.

What I Didn't Like: It's an inconsistent performance, that's for sure. Which is interesting, because I'd have never pegged Garson to be an inconsistent actress. Boring at times...perhaps. But she's usually uniform enough in her acting to carry out a cohesive performance. I'll go ahead and blame the inconsistencies on the film, because Madame Curie just sucks. Golden-era Hollywood filmmaking was too simplified to be tackling science-based biopics, and like The Story of Louis Pasteur, watching Madame Curie I often felt as though I was watching a video you feed fourth graders during Science class to watch so that they can get the very watered-down, bare-bones version of something they would otherwise not really be able to grasp. That in turn affects Garson's performance, who is given horrid, corny dialogue for which she cannot pull off. (For instance, instead of simply saying "I've discovered a new element!", she's forced to yammer on and give viewers a step by step briefing on science in early 1900s so that we can be set up to understand the importance of this moment before announcing that she's discovered a new element.) And often times it feels like Garson and Pidgeon are just playing dress-up in the worst and obvious way--both glammed up and lit and coiffed and uttering long-winded monologues about science--and it's painfully clear that neither gets the brevity of what they're talking about. Simply put, she's in over her head here--I don't buy her for a damn second as a great scientist because it just looks like she's an amateur playing dress-up. Doesn't help that the film sucks a big one and Garson unfortunately lacks the glowing radiance that made her previously banal films a little more watchable (Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Blossoms in the Dust).

What I Liked: However, the one thing that I really, truly enjoyed about Garson here is her commitment. She may not be pulling it off, but you can tell that she's really trying her best to make it happen. She has an amazing ability at making it look like she really believes the things she's saying and the things that are happening, such that watching her I'm almost on board (even though I'm not really). So it's kind of funny how that is, that the commitment seems to be there and yet the performance as a whole lacks consistency. Regardless, it's not one of her better nominations, and even though on paper it checks off all the clichés that equate to a nomination, the end result makes this nomination look superfluous.