Sophie’s Choice: The greatest performance ever by an actress?

If one were to take a poll of “Who do you consider the greatest actress alive?” most respondents would likely choose Meryl Streep. In the same vein, if there is one female acting performance that is generally thought of as the best (or the greatest) of all time, it’s Streep’s performance in the 1982 movie Sophie’s Choice. The role itself is one of Streep’s best-known roles, and I’m sure most people who’ve seen the movie would say that Streep’s performance definitely ranks as one of the best ever by any actor or actress. Streep, being the queen of mastering foreign accents, takes on a Polish accent in this movie. She plays a Holocaust survivor from Poland who lives in a boarding house in Brooklyn, New York with an unstable, abusive boyfriend named Nathan (played by Kevin Kline). The couple befriends a new boarder at the house -- a novelist who’s known as Stingo (played by Peter MacNicol) who hails from the South.

The movie, which takes place two years after the end of World War II, mainly focuses on the friendship of the trio as they go about their day-to-day lives in the boarding house and elsewhere. Sophie had been an inmate of the Auschwitz concentration camp during the war, and while there, she was chosen to work as a secretary for the camp’s Nazi commandant, due to her fluency in German. Once in the United States, and suffering from anemia, she was taken in and looked after by Nathan who works for a pharmaceutical company. As Stingo gets to know this couple better, he comes to discover that there’s more than meets the eye with them. Not only does Sophie have some skeletons in the closet, but it just so happens that Nathan harbors a shocking secret of his own.

 

The movie itself can be described as lukewarm at best. Directed by Alan J. Pakula, and having a runtime of 2 hours and 30 minutes, it's slow-paced and overlong for its subject matter (it’s primarily a story of friendship). Also, there aren't many scenes showing Sophie’s past, which is somewhat ironic, considering that the title of the movie refers to a choice she made during the war. The actual scene involving the revelation of Sophie’s “choice” is, for the most part, underwhelming.

Nonetheless, Streep delivers a spellbinding performance, and she speaks three languages in the movie: English, Polish, and German -- rumor has it that she actually spoke German with a Polish accent. One particular scene, in which she delivers a lengthy monologue, is the best scene of the movie.

This performance remains Streep’s greatest performance ever, and nothing that she's done since has surpassed the caliber of it. Her performance in 1985’s Out of Africa is perhaps the only one that comes close. Streep rightfully won a Best Actress Oscar for her performance in Sophie’s Choice, and it’s bewildering that despite her multiple Oscar nominations since then, the Academy did not give her another Best Actress award until this year (for The Iron Lady, nearly 30 years after her win for Sophie‘s Choice).

When it comes to determining what’s the best performance ever given by an actor or actress, it’s all subjective. I’ve seen lots of films from several decades. To me, Streep’s performance in Sophie’s Choice is, without question, the best performance by any actress during the decade of the 80s. But the best performance ever? Sorry, Meryl, but that is an honor I can only reserve for someone else. As far as I’m concerned, THIS is the greatest female acting performance of all time:

And if you're wondering, the actress is Vanessa Redgrave, and the movie is Isadora (from 1968).

80s neo-noir: House of Games

There seems to be a not-too-uncommon stereotype about psychiatrists and psychologists, which is that more often than not, they turn out to have psychological issues of their own. Or at least that’s what some people believe. And this notion is explored in David Mamet’s 1987 movie House of Games.

 

Lindsay Crouse plays a psychiatrist (and author of a best-selling book) whose sessions with a compulsive-gambler patient inspire her to conduct research by interacting with some of his gambling associates, in an attempt to help him out. Through her own curiosity, she winds up getting herself drawn into a risky underground world of professional con artists. Her striking sense of adventure seems contrary to her otherwise stoic demeanor. And, as the movie progresses, it becomes apparent that she (despite being a psychiatrist) has some unresolved issues of her own. Certain aspects of her personality begin to unfold as she continues to venture with the grifters. Though, prior to her involvement with them, she had already exhibited a particular peculiarity of making occasional-but-noticeable Freudian slips -- something which later plays a significant role during a pivotal scene in the movie. It’s also worthy of note that she doesn't ever reveal her name to any of the grifters until that very scene. The movie begs two questions: What will result from her interactions with the grifters? And will it lead her to learn more about con-artistry or to learn more about her own self?

During the early and mid 80s, Crouse put in some impressive performances in movies such as Prince of the City, The Verdict, and Places in the Heart (for which she received an Academy Award nomination as Best Supporting Actress). I happen to love the movie Places in the Heart, and I will write a blog entry about it hopefully sometime soon. Despite Crouse’s accomplishments back then, however, she now seems to have fallen off the radar.

The movie also stars Joe Mantegna, JT Walsh, Meshach Taylor, as well as William H. Macy in a small role. In addition, this was the directorial debut for Mamet who was previously a playwright and a screenwriter. For me, the best aspect of the movie is that it has an overall neo-noir feel to it. In particular, some viewers have suggested that this movie’s dialogue (and the delivery of that dialogue) is a sort of homage to film noir of the 40s and 50s. Interestingly, this movie was Roger Ebert’s choice for best movie of 1987.

Here’s the trailer:

Roger Ebert picks House of Games as the best movie of 1987 @6:25

Dune: A movie I once disliked but I now love

Picture life in the universe in the year 10,191. Such is the basis of the movie Dune, which was adapted from the 1965 novel of the same name, written by Frank Herbert. The story takes place on 4 different planets, and it deals with the harvesting of a so-called spice known as “Melange,” which is used to extend life and to allow an individual to fold space, among other things.

An interplanetary body known as the Spacing Guild arrives at the determination that there may be an interruption to the harvesting of the spice Melange, and thus sends a representative to investigate the circumstances by speaking with the emperor of the known universe, Shaddam IV. What subsequently ensues involves a feud between warring, rival, noble dynasties for control of the spice harvesting and of the planet where the spice is produced: Arrakis…also known as Dune.

 

The leading character, Paul Atreides, is played by Kyle MacLachlan. And, as it turns out, Paul happens to be a messianic figure of sorts, due to his having been conceived by a “Bene Gesserit” mother -- who, like those of her kind, possesses a particular variety of mind powers which Paul himself has inherited.

The movie boasts a stellar cast that includes Francesca Annis, Jose Ferrer, Jürgen Prochnow, Sean Young, Patrick Stewart, Max von Sydow, Dean Stockwell, Siân Phillips, Everett McGill, Brad Dourif, and Sting. Virginia Madsen plays the emperor’s daughter Irulan, who also happens to serve as the movie’s narrator.

Speaking of the narrator, there are two versions of this movie. One version is known as the “theatrical version,” which is 137 minutes long and features Madsen narrating the opening monologue. The other version is known as the “extended version” or the “tv version”, and it is 176 minutes long. There is a prologue at the beginning of the extended version with an undisclosed male narrator, and it contains paintings which help to set the story up. Also, the extended version lists the director’s name as “Alan Smithee” (rather than the real name of the movie’s director, David Lynch). Supposedly, Lynch did not have a hand in the editing of the extended version and did not want to be associated with it, and therefore the pseudonym “Alan Smithee” was used in place of his own name.

Two additional Dune movie posters

I first saw this movie on cable in the 80s, and I didn't really understand what it was about. In fact, I saw it multiple times back then, and I still didn't understand it. I even found it boring. Now as an adult, the movie makes better sense to me, and thus I have a better appreciation for it. It’s a visually stunning movie, and I really like the whole atmospheric feel that the movie has. It's the type of movie that makes you wanna stay in on a weekend night and watch it in its entirety.

I think a reason why some people don't like this movie is probably because they've only ever seen the extended/tv version and not the theatrical version (which in my opinion is the more coherent version). The extended version is more confusing, and I can understand why people who’ve only seen that version don’t like the movie. But regardless, I can honestly say that I love this movie. It's one of my favorite movies from one of the greatest year for movies: 1984.