Does anybody think Bette should have been nominated for Best Actress? I wonder if Bette was pissed that she wasn't nominated especially after going through all that trouble with Joan during the production.
shareI was wondering the same thing, but soley based on the merit of her performance. Could it had been a case of expecting Davis to be excellent, so she got less recognition than she normally would.?
shareIt's as good a work as Bette's done. But Crawford probably campaigned against her (again).
Also, at that time, the industry in the '60s was probably only willing to give one nomination for an actress in a horror film, and she got that already (for BABY JANE).
--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;
Like 1962, the year 1964 was a strong year for actresses. But this time the battle was between the contending musical stars. Julie Andrews (for Mary Poppins) and Debbie Reynolds (For Unsinkable Molly Brown) were the big tickets. And the big news was Audrey Hepburn's omission for her performance in My Fair Lady. So my guess is Bette Davis understood that, though it would have been a bigger disappointment for her had Olivia de Havilland been in the running and she wasn't.
I don't think Crawford had any influence on Academy voters. I'd think wasn't even popular with them since despite her admirable performance in Baby Jane, she wasn't nominated for Best Actress. At least Davis was nominated.
It was a great role for Bette and the scene when she is leaving the house and she is given the note that Jewel gave Harry and her reaction to it is some of Bette's finest acting ever, not even an ounce of dialogue from Bette, just her facial expressions said everything.
As good as Bette was in Hush Hush though, I didn't really see an Academy award nomination in the making, her nomination in Baby Jane was definitely warranted, it was a multi layered character which Bette played to perfection and I do think she was very unlucky not to get her third Oscar for such a tour de force performance.