Can anyone explain why Olivia lost the Oscar to Jane Wyman in her syruppy preformance in Johnny Belinda?This has to be one the the greatest prefomances of the century for an actress, even by todays standards.Girl Interrupted didnt even come as close, so how could Olivia have lost the oscar. BTW, another great prefomance by Olivia is Lady in a cage, a little known film that I feel was a terrifieing portrayal of violence.
shareI agree with you, because olivia gave a wonderful performance much better than jane wyman(who was superb but olivia was much better)
In my opinion, olivia must have won 4 oscars one for hold back to the dawn for which she lost to his horrible sister in suspicion, the other two she won and this for this wonderful film in which she gave one of the best performances in history.
I must include that this film won best sound but it must have won original score, actress, screenplay and film.
I agree. THE SNAKE PIT had six Oscar nominations and only won for Best Sound. Alfred Newman's score was brilliant--as was Olivia's performance as the guilt-ridden mental patient.
Olivia was definitely robbed even though Jane Wayman was fine in JOHNNY BELINDA. No doubt in my mind that she should have won her third Oscar for this one (aside from TO EACH HIS OWN and THE HEIRESS).
I agree with you, because olivia gave a wonderful performance much better than jane wyman(who was superb but olivia was much better)
In my opinion, olivia must have won 4 oscars one for hold back to the dawn for which she lost to his horrible sister in suspicion, the other two she won and this for this wonderful film in which she gave one of the best performances in history.
Jane Wyman is marvelous in Johnny Belinda. Yes, Olivia gives arguably her best performance in The Snake Pit, but I can't complain that Jane won for Johnny Belinda. This might have been the only time that a tie for an Oscar would have been acceptable (though Streisand and Hepburn tied in '68).
"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."
[deleted]
After seeing de Havilland in this film, I felt compelled to see Johnny Belinda, as I wanted to see the performance that got the Best Actress Oscar for that year. That must have been a tough year of voting - both Wyman and de Havilland gave tremendous performances, and the characters they played were polar opposites. Comparing the performances would be like comparing apples and oranges. De Havilland can be proud of her spectacular performance in "The Snake Pit," and her fans can continue to enjoy it for years to come.
VERY difficult...I love both films AND performances....Johnny Belinda was a fantastic performance by Wyman....so was Olivia's here.....can't judge...I love them both too much....Both should have won, but then again, judging by Oscar's history, it don't count for much!.....(Tom Hanks TWICE!)
share[deleted]
I think the poster above me hit the nail on the head. Apples and oranges...which always makes Oscar voting hard, I imagine. Wyman had just gotten divorced from Ronald Reagan and had the public sympathy in her favor, plus she hadn't won yet while de Havilland already did (and Johnny Belinda was just as if not more beloved by the Academy than The Snake Pit).
As far as performance, though, apples and oranges. Few if anyone could do what de Havilland did; it's a shame she doesn't have more name recognition today because she really was the Hilary Swank of her generation.
That said, I think she truly topped herself with The Heiress the following year. At least 75% of what makes a great performance is a great part. Wyman had a once-in-a-lifetime, sympathetic role. De Havilland was a highly skilled technician making the most of a character that was both demanding and of a familiar type (though admittedly no film had ever really tackled mental illness before). Oscars don't always go to the most difficult performances but the most "special" or "poignant," so I can easily understand why Wyman won.
It's kind of like Gwyneth Paltrow vs. Cate Blanchett...though it's kind of hard to look back on that one too.
Great response. Incidentally, I liked you in "Singin in the Rain."
There is no doubt in my mind that de Havilland should have won that year. As I've said on another message board, Wyman's performance is good, but Olivia's performance was not only better it was also a more difficult portrayal to give; especially for that time period.
“I already know an awful lot of people and until one of them dies I couldn't possibly meet anyone else”
And the task of interacting with her own thoughts is almost two performances.
The two intertwined conceits of this movie are de Havilland's impressive performance (in which she's allowed to look disturbed and unglamorized) and a technically daring soundtrack. Throughout the movie, de Havilland interacts with her own thoughts as if she were two actors and perfectly-timed reactions fly across her face. It's pretty impressive.
I find her performance much more impressive than Jane Wyman's from 'Johnny Belinda.'
I am glad to see so many people noticing what a careful and yet brave performance Mme. de Havilland gives in this movie. I was doing research on Max Reinhardt in grad school and wrote to the great star with some questions about how he "discovered" her and about "Midsummer's" in general. A year later I received a very personal reply and a great autographed picture of her and her two oscars. Makes a nice picture, but there should at least be 3, especially since her acting in Snake Pit is so different from what she did in The Heiress (and then again different from To Each His Own.) I went to school with Tom Hanks, and I have to agree that he is NOT in the same league as Olivia or Spencer Tracy ( or many others from that generation who won two oscars or should have...like Edward G Robinson!)
shareShe was robbed because even then the Oscars were a joke. I haven't seen Johnny Belinda but I don't care what the competition was that year - Olivia deserved that Oscar! I was absolutely in awe of her. Hers is one of the most incredible performances in any movie I've seen. Just sheer brilliance. She had me breathless. It's got to be one of the biggest Oscar mistakes in history.
I'm an adult who loves Digimon and I don't care who knows it!
I haven't seen Johnny Belinda but I don't care what the competition was that year
I wish I knew why she was robbed. This movie has held up well over time. In that sense, De Havilland has become timeless. I was struck by how real everything seemed in this movie. It was almost as if someone wanted to make a documentary without the dryness associated with that genre and instead created a great film that draws you into the story rather than making you a impassive viewer.
shareHell yes. One of the best performances of all time!
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyleshare
[deleted]
It is so hard to put in words how great her performance was; not just for 1948.......but for the whole of 20th century cinema. Needless to say it surpasses her 2 Oscar-winning roles (not to diminish them). But her performance supercedes anything before or after that deals with the delicate matter of mental illness. Her brilliance makes it all the more frighteningly real, and truly horrifying in its depiction. Perhaps the subject matter was a little too close to home for Hollywood, who knows. But she should have won, there is no doubt about that.
By the way, Jane Wyman, who did win , was marvelous, but the other competition was fierce as well. Irene Dunne was nominated for 'I Remember Mama' an incredible tear-jerker and superb performance as well. If you see this movie after you've lost your own mother, well see it with a box of Kleenex. One of my favorite actresses, Barbara Stanwyck was nominated for 'Sorry Wrong Number' another great role and performance and finally there was Ingrid Bergman in 'Joan of Arc' a movie I have not seen and cannot therefore comment on.
I was thrilled to see Olivia de Havilland on the Academy awards about 5 or 6 years ago looking fabulous!
Finally, the great performance of the 21st century has to be Marion Cotillard in 'La Vie en Rose'. Brilliant!
That was certainly one very contentious year for Best Actress, very hard to pick the best out of a great bunch of performances. My personal choice would have been Irene Dunne, who received her 5th nomination that year for "I Remember Mama" and who never won the Award. She was unforgettable. Olivia de Havilland and Jane Wyman were also. I do know there was no denying Miss de Havilland the next year: her performance in "The Heiress" is my very favorite from a fine actress, she really outdid herself.
shareI agree. If we take it that DeHavilland gave the "greatest performance," IMO it has to have been The Heiress. Katherine Sloper in that movie goes through enormous emotional ranges, which DeHavilland portrays in a hushed, contained manner. Even Katherine's anger is a hard, withholding anger rather than an outwardly demonstrative one; and DeHavilland accomplishes the considerable feat of making us see her as homely. I think her great gift was letting us see the inner core of whatever woman she portrayed. Virginia Cunningham is a much showier role.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Both were great performances. I have seen both films on TCM. If it were me, Olivia would've gotten the Oscar. But just because I feel that way, I'm not going to dis Jane Wyman. She was a very talented actress. It's a hard call. But - overall - I must concur with the OP that Olivia deserved the gold statue.
"You can dish it out, but you got so you can't take it no more." - Caesar Enrico Bandello