Judi Dench’s roughly eight minute performance as Queen Elizabeth I in Shakespeare in Love was not the briefest to ever win an Academy Award; that record is still held by Beatrice Straight at six minutes for 1976’s Network. But it’s still pretty friggin’ short — and pretty friggin’ memorable. Dench’s droll, deftly understated take on the monarch sets much of the film’s plot in motion, gives its theatrical climax a pungent grace note, and steals every square inch of the screen for every precious second she’s on it. And yet, when Dame Judi collected her Oscar for the performance, even she felt obliged to note, while regarding her statue, "I feel for eight minutes on the screen, I should only get a little bit of him."
Should she have gotten any of him? We’ve been looking back at all the major Oscar categories from 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years ago and asking just that question in our Recall the Gold survey of the entertainment industry. For a decade, the performances of these five best supporting actress nominees — including Kathy Bates (Primary Colors), Brenda Blethyn (Little Voice), Rachel Griffiths (Hilary and Jackie), and Lynn Redgrave (Gods and Monsters) — have percolated in the popular culture, and now we want to know if you, PopWatchers, think Dench’s still rates as the most Oscar-worthy.
Ten years ago, her win wasn’t a sure thing. Redgrave had won the Golden Globe for her role as the hilariously no-nonsense maid to Bride of Frankenstein director James Whale (fellow nominee Ian McKellan). Bates had taken home the Screen Actors Guild award for her role as a hilariously take-no-prisoners political operative. Both were far more traditional supporting performances (i.e. they we’re a fair shade longer than eight minutes). Bates’ movie, however, was otherwise seen as a disappointment, and it was released way back in March 1998 — rarely an Oscar-friendly month. As for Redgrave, perhaps some voters thought Gods and Monsters should be recognized by McKellan’s performance instead (er, whoops), or by screenwriter Bill Condon’s win for best adapted screenplay.
Blethyn and Griffiths were caught in a different bind: They arguably gave lead performances against a fellow actress with a far showier role. Blethyn tore into the chance to play an oft-sozzled stage mom to Jane Horrocks’ meek title character; the movie, however, was specifically created to show off Horrocks’ jaw-dropping impersonations of legendary Hollywood singers (Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland), and Blethyn’s over-the-top scenery chewing may have turned off voters besides. (The film, alas, has also lived up to its title: I can’t even find the trailer on the Web.) Meanwhile, much of Hilary and Jackie, a biopic about sisters and musical rivals Hilary and Jacqueline du Pré, is told from Griffiths’ perspective as the older, more ordinary sister Hilary…who is overshadowed by her brilliant, egomaniacal younger sister Jackie, played by (ahem) Best Actress nominee Emily Watson. Though the Griffiths stunning work in the film launched quite the healthy career (HBO’s Six Feet Under, ABC’s Brothers & Sisters), she was, at the time, the designated "now who is she again?" nominee.
So, PopWatchers, is there still, in the inimitable words of presenter Robin Williams, nothing like a Dame? Or should another actress have be anointed with Oscar gold? Vote in our poll below; if you need a reminder of the performances, check out the clips after the jump. While you’re at it, if you haven’t already, vote in all the other polls from our ongoing walk down Oscar’s memory lane. Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at the 1993 Best Picture race; also, check out coverage of this year’s awards contenders in Dave Karger’s Oscar Watch blog.
Judi Dench’s Oscar victory for Shakespeare in Love, with short excerpts of all five nominated performances (Robin Williams’ japery ends at the 1:20 mark)
Kathy Bates, Primary Colors
Judi Dench, Shakespeare in Love
Rachel Griffiths, Hilary and Jackie
Lynn Redgrave, Gods and Monsters (Redgrave’s scenes start at 4:05 mark)
Comments (1-30) of 37 Add your comment
I always thought it was either Dench or Redgrave in the race that year.
I didn’t think there was anything like a sure thing that year in this category. I did think to myself, “if Dame Judi can win for this brief performance like the way Juliette Binoche did the shocker over Lauren Bacall, then Shakespeare in Love just might take home Best Picture”. This turned out to be, for me, a key to unlocking the surprise of the win.
I did enjoy Dame Judi very much and would nominate her since she is so memorable even so briefly, but nothing beats Kathy Bates’s barnstorming go-for-broke work that year.
Couldn’t have gone wrong with any of these ladies, honestly. Lynn Redgrave was wonderful. Brenda Blethyn was wonderful. But I’ve got no problem with Dame Judi hanging onto her Oscar.
Let her keep it. She was mesmerizing in those eight minutes. Besides 1998’s true best supporting actress, Joan Allen in Pleasantville wasn’t nominated, so I say Dench deserved it.
There are only a handful of actresses that I could watch reading a phone book and still be engaged and enthralled: Judi Dench, Kate Winslett, Cate Blanchett, Helen Mirren, to name but a few. As is often true of the Oscars, this award was long overdue for the Dame. Although she only held the screen for the briefest of moments, she rocked it like no other. I really disliked the film but she was the one shining light. A truly deserved award not only for this work but for her entire canon of work leading up to this triumph.
Let the Dame keep the Oscar. In those brief moments, she was an amazingly strong part of the film; you felt her hanging over everything. Any one of the others could have also won, although I am partial to Kathy Bates in “Primary Colors” (because I won a bet when she was nominated). Would love to break down the Beatrice Strait Oscar and her competition, but, of course, in these parts, we can’t discuss things that happened before EW existed.
This is one of those where I would have loved to have had a 5 way race – all the women were wonderful! And let’s face it, as much as I love Dame Judi, she got it because she was robbed the year before by Helen Hunt (who I still say shouldn’t have even been nominated, let alone have won!)
This post needed some better copy editing. There have been many grammatical inaccuracies and inconsistencies lately on ew.com’s blogs, and it’s kind of upsetting.
Redgrave or Griffiths. Dench was hilarious, but it’s not far off from other things she’s done and was such a blip. I don’t feel like cameos should be nominated (cough, cough, Tom Cruise’s GG nom this year).
No matter how good she is as the Queen, I don’t think it’s right. There should be some kind of time requirement to be considered “supporting”. Eight minutes is a pretty week support.
Judi Dench deserved it. She was fearless in that role.
No matter how good she is as the Queen, I don’t think it’s right. There should be some kind of time requirement to be considered “supporting”. Eight minutes is a pretty weak support.
Dench was fearless in that role, she deserves it.
Judi Dench needs an Oscar, cuz she’s JudiFreakin’Dench. also, the competition against her was weak that year, so I say, she deserves it.
also, i know popwatch is going with the whole 5,10,15,20, 25 years ago timeline, but couldn’t they just, in the near future, pick out some random years w/ truly debatable wins? i’d love to read posts concerning julia’s 2000 win over ellen burstyn or reese’s win in 2005 or ordinary people winning over raging bull in 1980. come on EW!
Lynn Redgrave was terrific in “Gods And Monsters.” Ms. Redgrave is a superior actress. So I was rooting for her in 1998 to take home an Oscar. Besides, it was such a long stretch of time from her “Georgey Girl” nomination to her “Gods And Monsters” nomination. Dame Judi was right…”a little bit” of Oscar is what she deserved that night.
Dench’s part was not a supporting role–it was a cameo. Thus the academy needs to come up with a best cameo since all the movie-goers out there seem to simply react to whatever name actor or actor’s name is thrown their way. Let’s just People’s Choice the Oscar freak-show up a wee bit more.
That oughta do ya, ya pack of Pavlovian curs!
Again, its the Oscars…who cares what the academy thinks. If they want to give an Oscar to someone who gave an 8 minute performance, that’s their issue. No one cares about the Oscars anymore. It’s too long, written horribly, and what ‘the people’ want to see…the acceptance speeches. It’s true. I’d buy all 4 hours of it on DVD each year if they actually let the people who win speak, but it’s Hollywood peers patting eachother on the back (I’ve stated this before), who what’s an Oscar worth? Nothing to the people who spend the cash to actually watch movies.
Now that you remind me what the competition was, it does seem less than a straightforward “no she didn’t deserve it for such little screen time.” Huh.
Dame Judi’s win was, sadly, a consolation prize for her stunning work in Mrs Brown in 1997, the year that that TV actress Helen Hunt shockingly won! So EW, next time you recall the Gold, make sure it’s for those really egregious wins… like for Helen Hunt, Gwyneth Paltrow and Crash!
Yes, Bryan you have. Please stop. The point doesn’t get strong the more you use it.
Not only should Judi Dench keep her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love, the Academy should take back the ones they gave Helen Hunt and Helen Mirren and give them to their rightful owner, Judi Dench.
Having seen all 5 performances, I would say the best was Griffiths but her win was the nomination. I would remove Dench and add Lisa Kudrow in The Opposite of Sex, who won many critics awards and then give the award to Kathy Bates, the only reason to watch Primary Colors. Dench can do so much with a role that an award for her 8 minutes seems a disservice to her and her abilities.
The category is “Best Supporting Actress.” How many minutes the actor is on the screen should not matter. The shorter role is the more difficult one, anyway. You better make those 8 minutes matter. And Dame Judi seared the screen. Just like Viola Davis does this year in “Doubt.”
Boy, do I love Judi Dench. But, man, did Lynn Redgrave deserve that award that year.
Dame Judi deserved it that year.
Judi Dench deserved the Oscar that year. The amount of on screen time does not matter, it is what is done with the time. She created an entire character in just 8 minutes which is something very rarely done.
Yes, it’s a short performance, and at the time, I wouldn’t have given it to her, but really, looking at these nominees again, Dench’s performance is the only one I really remember.
And actually the 2 Best Supporting performances weren’t even nominated: Joan Allen, “Pleasantville”
Lisa Kudrow, “The Opposite Of Sex”
i believe that judi dench really deserved her oscar that year…even though it’s a little more than 8 minutes, but she gave a wonderful performance… i agree that the academy should take back the oscar from helen hunt and helen mirren and reese…..i love judi….
I don’t really have much of an issue with any specific nominee, although out of the 5, I’d have to go with Lynn Redgrave. As for who should REALLY have won, I second graeme…Joan Allen in “Pleasantville” deserved it. (She was recognized by both the L.A. and the Broadcast Film Critics awards).