The face of Dame Judi Dench

Stale Popcorn

The Invincible Stubbornness of Judi Dench

[7 February 2007]

Some consider her one of the grand dames of modern motion picture acting. But when it comes to her actual performances, this celebrated Oscar winner is decidedly one note.

By Amos Posner

The members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are no different from any of us. They have their favorites. And with good reason when you consider actors like Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson. Some actors can almost guarantee their seats in the Kodak Theater come late winter when they’re firing on all cylinders. But just like any of us, the Academy can be irrational in its fancies. No one better illustrates this than Judi Dench. Last week, Dench received her sixth Oscar nomination in a decade, and each one has been for giving almost the exact same performance.

From Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth, M to Mrs. Henderson, Dench is roundly praised for her gravitas and skill. But she never really changes her on-screen presence. In nearly every role, she plays the imperious frump. It’s not just a matter of typecasting; it’s a weighty arrogance she imposes on so many of her roles, regardless of their requirements. And she’s not always given a role in which she can get away with her same old posturing.

It shines through clearly in Iris, a layered work in which Dench’s flat style was entirely inappropriate. In it, she’s the older version of the title character played by Kate Winslet. Where Winslet takes chances, laying the groundwork, Dench is too prone to her standard performance to capture the brilliance or dementia of the noted author and Alzheimer’s victim. Of all the roles for which Dench has been celebrated, it was downright distracting to see her in Iris. She was a square peg in a round hole.

All of which makes her most recent celebrated performance so funny. Notes on a Scandal sees her reunited with Iris director Richard Eyre, and once again paired with an actress willing to put herself in much riskier and more challenging positions: Cate Blanchett. Except this time, instead of being two occupants of the same character, Dench and her co-star are positioned as opposing forces of differing philosophies. The result is a brilliant joke at Dench’s expense.

Dench’s Barbara Covett narrates the story as diary entries from a curmudgeonly schoolteacher, stuck in her ways, too arrogant to respond to calls for change in her approach or self-examination. She passes judgment on others, alienating and intimidating her colleagues, but is tenured and revered for her strength and stature. When Blanchett’s Sheba Hart, an open, daring, and ultimately vulnerable instructor arrives at the school, we watch — with Barbara’s narration in our ears — as she imposes her will and scorn on Sheba, simultaneously attempting to woo and destroy her.

The story is emblematic of Dench and Blanchett themselves, each representing separate schools of thought. Dench is the obtrusive monument of an actor, merely showing up and posturing the same way she does in every other role, while Blanchett adapts toward the vision of the larger project. The joke here is that the movie is built in such a way that Dench, by habitually not adapting or changing her standard performance, fits her role perfectly. And as a result, she unwittingly pokes great fun at herself. Yet once again, her turn is celebrated as one of the year’s great performances, it is nominated for an Oscar, and deemed another triumph from a great actress. Go figure.

It says a lot about movie audiences and critics that the same qualities that make Dench a less than stellar actor are the very elements that draw people to her. It’s indicative of the way we Americans view British actors, and of how the British view their own stage icons. The fact that her assumptive acting style is such a product of the theater, that she’s been around so long, and that she’s known as “Dame Judi”, not just plain old Judi Dench, seems to affect people’s judgment.

It’s the same thing that often happens with Sir Ian McKellan, or that happened to a previous generation with Sir Laurence Olivier, for that matter. Legends of the stage aren’t necessarily great screen actors. These actors are perennially praised for their film work for possessing great presence and majesty. But while McKellan has delivered strong work in select movies like Gods and Monsters, recent years have seen him give the same performance repeatedly. Take X-Men or Lord of the Rings. The man is essentially a walking, talking prop, now. We see much of the same phenomenon stateside with Morgan Freeman’s ironed-out mannerisms, and we love him for it.  Stature often blinds us to actual quality. But Dench offers the least effort for her fame and import.

Movie snobs like to dismiss movie stars as being marketing vehicles, packaged personalities that carry their celebrity stature from project to project, corrupting any chance for art. Then they go to the year’s prestige pictures to see people like Dench lend their own prepackaged personae to notionally higher-minded material and never give it a second thought, even if someone like Dench is every bit as predictable as Julia Roberts. We’re all guilty of the same sin. Familiarity and fandom make us all look silly when it comes to judging actors. And the Academy is no different. This may be an indictment of performers like Dench, but not nearly as much as it is an indictment of how and whom we choose to honor and celebrate.

But this year, with Notes on a Scandal, at least we have a fun new way of looking at the same old Dench. As the best actress in a leading category comes up, we can watch Dench smile politely as she is denied her second Oscar win, most likely for Helen Mirren’s superior delivery of Dench’s own royalty routine. Then we can imagine her going home, opening her diary, and reliving her horror at the openness of Blanchett, Winslet, and the room’s other nominees - like Forrest Whitaker. And she will write with great venom on the scandalous nature of actors who deign to actually act.

 
Bookmark and Share
Share

A born and raised New Yorker with an unhealthy fondness for both Hepburns, Amos Posner attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison. There, he studied film and worked for The Daily Cardinal, where he reviewed over 100 movies and won a Mark of Excellence Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for best general column writing in his region. Returned to Manhattan, Amos works as a script reader in New York’s independent film scene and spends most of his time waiting for John Cusack to return to making good movies.

Stale Popcorn

Rewarding the Oscar Also-Rans

By Amos Posner

23.Feb.07

With the Academy's 'big dance' on the horizon, it's time to recognize those motion pictures and performances overlooked by Oscar's self-serving system of artistic determination.

Analingus and the Borat Antidote for Cultural Thin Skin

By Amos Posner

15.Nov.06

He's the most polarizing figure in recent pop culture history, and our mainstream movie maven is here to tell us why that's a good thing - for comedy and for society.

The Great Wait for Oscar Bait

By Amos Posner

16.Oct.06

If there's anything to be learned from a review of the year so far, it's that 2006 will either go down as a terrible movie year or a tremendously back-loaded one.

 
 
Comments

Judi Dench is one of the greatest actresses of our times - and contrary to some of the young bimbos who quite often get praise and awards for just two reasons (a right and a left one… and mind you, I’m no talking about their eyes!!), Ms Dench has charisma, discipline, charm and more talent in her pinky finger than many of her colleagues in their whole body.

I’m sorry for you that you don’t see how great she truly is - without being big-headed or arrogant.

Comment by Ulrike Hildebrandt from Germany — February 7, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

Quite honestly, I don’t think this entire article shows one good reason to disapprove of Judi’s work… apart from an entire lot of rather spiteful generalizations, the point of which entirely evades me, but that is probably merely due to my own limited brain capacity.

Anyways, all things aside, I doubt there are many actors still alive who possess the talent and the ability that Judi puts into every single role she plays, even if some - like for example Elizabeth I - are not very large.

On a final note, I had not thought that someone with an unhealthy fondness of both Hepburns could show such blindness towards someone who is, in my opinion, one of the only truly worthy successors they have nowadays.

Comment by Lies Lanckman from England — February 7, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

Ditto to both previous comments, and thank you ladies for posting! JUDI FOREVER!

Judi Dench said something once. It was about another actress, but I think it fits perfectly here: “In this world where celebrity trumps talent, [Judi Dench], God bless her, is an actress.” I really don’t think anything else needs to be said. But, alas, I will continue.

I actually thought I would fly off the handle, and post some raving comment in Judi’s defense, but then I realized that I don’t really have to. So many wonderful things have been said about her, that they FAR out weigh random articles like this. As someone that has had the honor of meeting Miss Dench, as many of her fans have, we know the truth. Some people are just haters. While there certainly are other amazing actors like Streep, Mirren, Smith, etc, and they are all perfectly wonderful in their own way, Judi Dench has a rare talent that others can only DREAM of having. What about these dumb twig actresses we have today?

Hmm, well, as a film & theatre critic myself, as well as a Casting Director, I must say that this article surprised me. Why isn’t there any respect for greater, and older actors? I’d MUCH rather see Judi Dench on screen and winning awards than these dumb twig actresses that all look the same that keep being thrown in my face. They don’t have any talent. They don’t even know the meaning of the word. I agree with Lies, that someone that claims to have such an appreciation for the great classic actors should CLEARLY be able to see the HUGE & TRUE talent that Miss Dench is. You obviously haven’t seen most of her films, OR seen her on stage. If you have, well, hmm, then this is worse than I thought. “Dench is the obtrusive monument of an actor, merely showing up and posturing the same way she does in every other role”: Ha, I find that rather funny, as well as absurd. Judi has the amazing ability (which is quite rare today) to NOT present the same character again and again. I don’t know what else can be said really. I’m sure someone else will come up with something, but for now, I think I have said what I had to say. All that’s left is, BRAVO Miss Dench, bravo.

Comment by FilmFemmeNoir — February 7, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

“Less than stellar” is the where I stopped reading. Can you imagine some one finding fault with an actor because of the script? If you do not like the characters she portrays in mainstream films perhaps the fault lies in the roles offered to middle-aged women? But to write that Dame Dench is anything but truly talented leads me to believe that you are not very familiar with her vast body of work. Maybe next semester you can do a bit more research.

Comment by haywood jay — February 7, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

Amos, Amos, Amos, my dear, such cynicism and journalistic posturing doesn’t suit such a young man (with such bright prospects—as I can only surmise by your little bio and picture at the end of your column). 
I bet we can all remember our highschool journalism courses, or for that matter from Sam Donaldson, that “being shocking” or “controversial” is what makes the reader sit up and take notice. Unfortunately, this article is unbelievably transparent in motive.
Who better to criticize, to put oneself in the spotlight, than a person who is universally revered and has a charisma that couldn’t be marred even with an H-bomb.
I give you credit for trying. Unfortunately for you, Dame Judi has a golden appeal, as well as almost 50 years of unbelieveable theatrical performances under her belt, and I am sure she wouldn’t mind helping you out with your career.  So, I think you can probably keep trying out your targets, but next time may I suggest starting with a more believable opposition. 

Best Regards!

Comment by LM_nyc from NYC — February 7, 2007 @ 7:12 pm

“Familiarity and fandom make us all look silly when it comes to judging actors. And the Academy is no different. This may be an
indictment of performers like Dench, but not nearly as much as it is an indictment of how and whom we choose to honor and celebrate.”

Amos, you “silly” boy, this says more about you than it does about Judi Dench (who insists on being called “just Judi”, not “Dame Judi”) or the Academy.  The main thing wrong with the Academy is that it hasn’t yet awarded Judi with the Best Actress Oscar. The main thing wrong with you is your youthful arrogance and limited knowledge of Judi’s abilities and of Judi herself.  The main thing wrong with Judi Dench is, hmmm, well, nothing.

Comment by Sandy Hudson from Westfield, IN — February 8, 2007 @ 10:08 am

‘Tis easier to try to knock down than to step up to the stature of a good artist, isn’t it?  Well, few could even approach the stature of Dame Dench, anyway.  And few, no matter how they wave their little fists in the air, can even approach the height of the soles of her shoes . . .

Comment by Max Aliamanos from San Diego — February 8, 2007 @ 10:39 am

Amos - Judi Dench does not need anyone to defend her, but I just had to write and tell you what I think!  No one can hold a candle to her. She’s Britan’s most loved person and one of the most talented actors in the world - she’s untouchable!  Go back to school and learn real journalism - not yellow journalism.  “What were you thinking?

Comment by KC from Utah — February 8, 2007 @ 11:03 am

— PopMatters sponsor —

Reading this article really made me wonder whether they now give the “Mark of Excellence Award” so likely that they award it to just any young writer who PRETENTS to have an idea about what he’s writing about.

Over the years Judi Dench’s keeps being on such a HIGH acting-level, in theatre AND film,  that people like you just don’t seem to see the basic level anymore. That’s a shame cause you, as a so called “movie critic” keep interested movie-goers away from GREAT movies simply because they read your articles. Sure you’re entitled to your own opinion, but I think you URGENTLY need to hear a LOT more different opinions. For instance from people who don’t care for the usual “bimbo-nonwrinkled-modelbeauty-no-acting-talent”- type in movies and appreciate the great continuing class and talent of true acting God’s like DENCH, Streep, Mirren, Smith and go see their movies. I’m totally greatful for that ‘cause as a result there are more great mature roles in good movies around worthy of their talent.
Sure, not all movies Miss Dench appeared in are brilliant (you show me an actress who has) but her performance is always top rate. And if you say that her role in NOTES ON A SCANDAL is the “same old Dench” as usual you have not only no idea about acting, but also no idea about Judi Dench’s film roles which is why you should quit writing articles about her permanently!

JUDI FOREVER IN DEED !!!!!

Comment by Anke Bauer from Germany — February 8, 2007 @ 11:08 am

Please do not post expletives to insult either the author or anyone else.  They will be deleted.  Please stick to debating the topic in a civilized manner.  Thanks everyone.  Now back to the debate…

Comment by SysAdmin — February 8, 2007 @ 11:20 am

Just a few comments in regards to Mr. Posner’s insightful article. 1) If Hollywood is so keen on nominating their favorites, why are there THREE BRITS, one Latin and only one American nominated in the Best Actress Category? Irrational? Doubtful. 2)Mr. Posner claims he’s studied film—great…making??. That’s a lot different than understanding acting and CREATING A CHARACTER (it’s not changing on-screen presence and it’s very difficult to achieve, try it.) And a FRUMP in every role? Your vocabulary, Mr. Posner, runs the gamut from A-B…a similar description a critic once wrote of a stage attempt by Katherine Hepburn only it concerned her emotions! Ms. Hepburn, by the way, never attended ONE Oscar Ceremony and thought the whole business ridiculous. (Guess tha was her White Anglo-Saxon upbringing there in New ENGLAND.)
3) By the way, Mrs. Brown was far from a FRUMP. The entire film was completed in thirty days and probably cost 1/3 of what most similar American projects cost—and it was Harvey Winestein who recognized Judi’s talent on film, and the $$$ that could be made with her. So, give me a break. And finally, 4) if Judi Dench the person was at all like the character Barbara in Notes on a Scandal, I wouldn’t have traveled a total of 8000 miles to see here in Stratford Upon Avon in the Merry Wives of Windsor—the Musical. I wouldn’t have gone across the street to see her. That’s the genious of creating a truthful character—there was not one ounce of Judi Dench on screen in NOAS. And I will go back to England again to see her in person, even if she’s slouching in a doorway. Can’t say that about anything or anybody in New York City.

Just be careful, Mr. Posner, don’t let your ignorant Americanism show. America isn’t the be all end all. You really have to travel in the UK and meet the English people to know what I’m talking about. The funny thing is, Judi could give two hoots about what you think, she just is who she is just as Katharine Hepburn was. And by the way, Judi won’t be at the Oscar ceremony this year. She’s having knee surgury so she can be up and about ready for work with summer in a neww BBC series she’s doing. I know she’s probably more excited about that than the red carpet deal at the end of the month in beautiful downtown Los Angeles. Cheers!

Comment by MF Kirkpatrick from Tarpon Springs, FL — February 8, 2007 @ 2:50 pm

As was mentioned previously, the author of this article is quite obviously not familiar with her vast collection of work. Too bad.

“Maybe next semester you can do a bit more research.”

That’s the burn! Stay in school, kid.

Comment by Stephen Wynne from Columbus, OH — February 8, 2007 @ 4:23 pm

The complaints Posner levels against Judi Dench could in fact be levelled with equal justice against virtually any of the Academy’s favorites (or the favorite actors of critics in general), with the possible exception of Streep.

Contrary to what Posner asserts, Nicholson plays most parts in a near identical manner: he has a set of standard mannerisms and line readings he brings to most of his roles, no less than Dench. 
There is absolutely nothing unique to Dench in that regard.  Posner simply doesn’t like Dench’s screen persona, whereas evidently he DOES warm to Nicholson’s.

“It says a lot about movie audiences and critics that the same qualities that make Dench a less than stellar actor are the very elements that draw people to her.”  Earth to Posner: you could insert virtually any famous movie star’s name in this sentence and it would be equally apt.  That’s what makes a star a star: the very fact that they give recognizably similar performances each time out, so that the audiences feel able to warm to them and have some idea what they’re going to get when they purchase a ticket.

“The joke here is that the movie is built in such a way that Dench, by habitually not adapting or changing her standard performance, fits her role perfectly….”  This is true of virtually any movie star - Cate Blanchett is NOT the rule but the RARE exception: she’s famous DESPITE changing her mannerisms and line delivery for each movie.
That’s actually a rare quality in famous actors.  Most chameleons become famous DESPITE, not BECAUSE OF, their metamorphic quality. 

“Familiarity and fandom make us all look silly when it comes to judging actors.  And the Academy is no different…”  Yeah, and you’re no different either, given that YOUR favorites evidently include Kate Winslet and Jack Nicholson, two more actors who, no less than Dench, bring a standard set of mannerisms and vocal inflections and familiar qualities to each and every character they inhabit.  One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind NOT to see that Winslet and Nicholson are the same “type” of performer that Dench is.  (Why do you fail to see the obvious?  Beats me.  Maybe you just happen to like Nicholson’s “rebel/bad boy” persona or Winslet’s “vibrant/boisterous” persona more than Dench’s “sharp/imperious” persona.  But still, all three are clearly recognizable personas nonetheless.)

Winslet and Nicholson are just as much “obtrusive monuments” who “posture the same way in every role”.  And the reason is simple.  The other type of performer - the Blanchett/Streep “chameleon” type - is extremely rare, and even more rarely attains celebrity status in the first place.

It does not follow, however, that just because there are recognizable similarities between each of Nicholson’s, Winslet’s, and Dench’s performances that any of the three are “bad” actors per se.  In fact they are all very talented (even if Nicholson too often squanders his talent these days).  All three are “good” actors who also happen to have some significant limits to their abilities.  All three are or can be “deep” without being “wide”.  Whereas Streep and Blanchett are both “wide” and “deep”.  But you could probably count on your fingers the number of screen stars who fit into that latter category.  So stop picking on Dench, and start realizing that everything you criticize in her is to be found in the large majority of film actors period.

Comment by Happy Warrior — February 8, 2007 @ 10:43 pm

I’m grateful to you for writing this article, Amos. I agree with most things that have been said. Having to live in the UK, where The Dench’s reputation is even more repulsively overbloated than in the US, causes me to empathise. Maybe one day the Academy, and filmmakers as a whole, will wake up and realise that there are some far more talented ‘older’ actresses from Britain and reward them instead of the one-note frump that is Judi - imagine what Maggie Smith or Vanessa Redgrave could have done with the role of Barbara in Notes. We can but dream.

Comment by bujumbo from UK — February 9, 2007 @ 9:50 am

“imagine what Maggie Smith or Vanessa Redgrave could have done with the role of Barbara in Notes. We can but dream.”

Um - have you ever seen Travels with My Aunt?  Or Maggie Smith’s hamming in the Harry Potter movies?  Don’t get me wrong, she’s a tremendous talent, but she’s no more immune to giving one-note performances than anyone else. 

And before you praise “Amos” the pseudo-intellectual for his tedious and predictable (and failed) attempt at contrarianism, try reading some of his other articles.  The boy is a third-rate hack.  His Dench attack is stupid and abysmally argued, and certainly fails to make its point.  The question is not whether Dench is overrated (she may well be), but whether she is any more overrated than any other household name actor.  Posner fails miserably to demonstrate anything of the sort - EVEN IF ONE IS NOT A DIE-HARD DENCH FAN. 

His attack is especially pathetic coming from a defender of Tom Cruise (he actually made the preposterous claim that A Few Good Men holds up really well over time - when in fact the overwrought performances are nearly unwatchable now - and that Cruise makes daring choices in an actor, when in fact there are few more blander and pedestrian and LESS risk-taking stars around).  If Posner seriously thinks A Few Good Men is well-crafted and well-acted - where does that leave his attack on Dench?  The acting in A Few Good Men is far more “mannered” and “stagey” with a “hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-hammer” quality than Dench’s usual performance - even if one grants she has her limitations, which I never denied and I don’t think most people, if they stopped and thought about it, would deny.  But compared to Nicholson’s and Cruise’s relentlessly bombastic histrionics in A Few Good Men, a bad movie Pop Matters’ resident pseudo-intellectual Amos Posner foolishly defends, Dench looks like a genius.

Comment by Happy Warrior — February 9, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

I like Judi Dench movies, but she does kinda give the same performance in every movie, doesn’t she? I like the idea that this poor chap only likes actors who are young and pretty. That is definately why he says he likes Meryl Streep and Forrest Whitaker right? Give the kid a break.

Comment by ziggystardust from london — February 10, 2007 @ 11:42 am

— PopMatters sponsor —

what are you talking about? i would totally do judi dench.

Comment by Tiny AZ — February 10, 2007 @ 12:23 pm

Dear Sir,

The content of your article is complete nonsense. The only thing that makes any sense is the fact that Judi Dench has been nominated for several awards, however how you come to your conclusion for the rest of the article honestly baffles me. Not only do I find the article bemusing, I also find it offensive that you can describe the performance in “Iris” as flat. I am sure if you speak to anyone with first/second hand or merely knowledge of someone with alzheimers they will strongly disagree, as this performance was the true grit that films are made of.

If this article were to define you as a critic, it would make you a critic of poor judgement and little knowledge- and you are obviously blind to the breathtaking talent that Dame Judi Dench posesses. The nature of all her work shows true dedication and belief in the character, surely shown in the success that she has with films, plays, musical…oh yes and those little awards known as Oscars, Baftas, Tonys and Golden Globes.

Get your facts right, and open your eyes to the world around you. I find it hilarious that out of all the current thespians and performers, you chose Judi Dench to criticise…you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried.

Comment by Hanna — February 10, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

Any actress (or actor for that matter)  who isn’t afraid to have that sort of picture (as shown at top) taken and widely circulated, has some brass (mind you, this one—used at the top of this column, was plastered all over NYC for “Amy’s View” when it was here in ‘99—what “balls”).  Judi’s got it, that’s for sure!  I can’t think of one actress who would willingly put themself out on the line like she does…over and over and over again.  Good try Amos, as was said above, I am sure Dame Dench wouldn’t mind giving you a hand with your career…she seems like that sort of gal.  Just one note: you might want to work on your delivery next time…whatever celeb you attempt to choose next.  Good luck with your career kiddo!

Comment by dramaqueennnyc from NYC — February 15, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

If you can say Dench is one noted—you can certainly say the same about Kate Hepburn—she played the same note through her entire career—well, from the mid 40s onward—when she did try another ‘note’ she was not at her best—that’s just the truth—however, we all think she was one of the greatest actors of all time—why not think the same of Dench today?

Comment by crl from LA — February 24, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

Hahahahahaaaaa. hahaha “decidedly one note”. hahaha!! I just wish I had a laugh like Judi Dench because her’s would be so perfect right about now!

Everyone certainly has a right to make an attempt, a stab, at a career advancement, but this one is completely funny! HILARIOUS EVEN!!! 

HAHAHAHAHA, funnnny article. Keep ‘em coming Amos, you are helping me keep my liver healthy.

Nice try kid.

Comment by onenote from NYC — February 24, 2007 @ 7:11 pm

Judi Dench is the greatest living actress.

Bar none.

However, most of the time, the movies she’s been in are not worthy of her talent.

Comment by Derrick from New York — March 29, 2007 @ 2:42 pm

“Decidedly One Note”—what Amos?  A link that might help with perpective…or for anyone to marvel at really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqy7b5-4tk

Comment by pandoras box from NYC — April 14, 2007 @ 1:07 am

Oh man, you are an ill-informed kid Amos…or maybe just completely out of touch.  “Notes on a Scandal”, “Iris”, Mrs. Brown”, Esme in “Amy’s View”, Cleopatra, Major Barbara, Mdme. Ranevskaya of the Cherry Orchard…her list is totally endless really. The only thing she creates in common with any part she creates is that they are all completely authentic women characters. I can’t believe such a young kid would venture into such territory without knowing what he is talking about.  One doesn’t need to be an admirer or her work to see that she completely works the character to life. Not herself into the character. Amos you have done a good job of appearing ignorant..poor kid.  Back to the school books I suppose.

Comment by torentofparts — May 9, 2007 @ 5:36 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?