Ranking the two-time Best Actress winners
Tuesday, July 30, 2024 at 5:00PM by Baby Clyde
Hilary Swank accepts her second Best Actress Oscar at the 77th Academy Awards.
To celebrate the 50th birthday of two-time Best Actress winner Hilary Swank, I've decided to rank all of the double champs in everyone's favorite category. It's a list of all-time greats, but the performances range from the sublime to the truly Dangerous. They are being judged solely on the performance, but I may be somewhat swayed if they beat out more deserving nominees or didn't win for their best work. I do not include those overachieving triple and quadruple recipients (Kate, Frances, Meryl, and Ingrid) who don't need any more attention. So, with a hearty Happy Birthday to the birthday girl, let's see how our Million Dollar Baby stacks up against her second-time sisters…
11. GLENDA JACKSON (1970/1973)
There is no doubt that Glenda Jackson was a superb actress and her late career acting comeback including BAFTA and Tony Awards was a joy to witness but two Best Actress wins seems like overkill. Especially as neither of them is remotely necessary. In fact, had she been an early 70s four-time nominee, few would be complaining now that she'd never triumphed. I find her first win for Women In Love baffling as she's no better or worse than her three co-stars, so it's hard to understand why she was singled out. Her second for A Touch of Class is equally curious against such powerhouse competition, but I assume the fact that she showed her versatility with a comedy against the heavy drama of the other ladies made the difference. I was really hoping for a Glenda Jackson/Mike Leigh or Ken Loach collaboration before she died and a final deserved hurrah at the Oscars.
- WOMEN IN LOVE: 2/5
- A TOUCH OF CLASS: 3/5
Total: 5/10
10. BETTE DAVIS (1935/1938)
Surprising to see the premier movie actress of her generation so low but unfortunately whilst Jezebel is a triumph, Dangerous is an absolute debacle. The first example of both a make-up award and the Academy's ever-present predilection for rewarding young up-and-coming actresses (it's always actresses) with unwarranted early wins when they will undoubtedly do far more interesting work in the future. 1938 is the start of Bette's 'Imperial Phase,' and a win here is entirely deserved. Had she also won for Little Foxes, Now Voyager, All About Eve, or What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, I'd probably place her second, but her first win is the worst performance on this whole list, so she ends up near the bottom.
- DANGEROUS: 1/5
- JEZEBEL: 4/5
Total: 5/10
09. LUISE RAINER (1936/1937)
The first person to win consecutive acting awards, the poster girl for Oscar curses, and surely most people's 11th placer, but Ms. Rainer was a fine actress despite being largely forgotten today. If two wins for Glenda seems excessive, then Luise's seem positively ridonculous. That said, her performances are terrific. Unfortunately, one is an obvious Supporting role promoted in Lead to try and secure her stab at stardom, and the other is a problematic yellow-face performance in The Good Earth that has aged like a century egg, but Rainer isn't to blame for either. The telephone scene from The Great Ziegfeld is deservedly a classic. She fled Hollywood very soon after her biggest success, chafing at the strictures of the studio system. Who knows what could have been had she been more amenable to Louis B. Mayer's dictatorial ways?
- THE GREAT ZIEGFELD: 3/5
- THE GOOD EARTH: 3/5
Total: 6/10
08. SALLY FIELD (1979/1984)
I love Sally Field. After Meryl, I consider her the finest American actress of her generation. But I also consider her finest performance to be playing Maura Tierney's bipolar mother in ER, so that doesn't say an awful lot about the quality of her Oscar wins. Norma Rae is a worthy win against a stellar lineup, whilst Places in the Heart is the best of a terrible bunch.
- NORMA RAE: 4/5
- PLACES IN THE HEART: 2/5
Total: 6/10
07. JANE FONDA (1971/1978)
I love Jane Fonda. A truly outstanding actress full of intelligence and conviction. I'm entirely on board with her having two Oscars, but I'm not overly keen on either of her 1971 wins for Klute or 1978 for Coming Home. Had she won in '69, '79, or even '86, she'd be higher up this list. I'd even consider giving her a Supporting win in '81 as well.
- KLUTE: 3/5
- COMING HOME: 3/5
Total: 6/10
06. ELIZABETH TAYLOR (1960/1966)
My opinion of Liz's Oscar wins is seemingly the exact opposite of everyone else on the planet's. I have no problem with her 1960 victory for the appalling Butterfield 8. She gives a great, big, brassy Movie Star performance the sort that only Liz Taylor can give and whilst she may not be my personal pick it's hard to begrudge her after four losing nominations on the trot. She also gives a big, brassy movie star performance in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, but this time, there's no getting around the fact that she's WAY too young for the role. Martha is supposed to be in her early 50's, Liz was 34. A few grey streaks in her hair can't disguise that she's the same age as George Segal. She doesn't do anything wrong, it's just not wholly convincing. It's like getting Jennifer Lawrence to play the role nowadays. Imagine Susan Hayward, Shelley Winters, or my first choice, Ava Gardner, as Martha. Of course, the perfect casting would have been Liz Taylor, in her early 50s. Wish she'd done it on Broadway.
- BUTTERFIELD 8: 3/5
- WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF: 3/5
Total: 6/10
05. EMMA STONE (2016/2023)
What I was saying earlier about Bette's first win is just as valid for Emma's entirely unnecessary first Oscar. She's fantastic in La La Land's audition scenes but these are totally undermined by the lackluster singing and dancing and limited chemistry with her equally uninspired co-star. But she was the American It Girl that year so of course she won. This victory looks particularly ridiculous now that the performance pales in comparison to her astonishing turn as Bella Baxter in the weird and wonderful Poor Things. Who knew she had it in her? One of the most remarkable of all Best Actress wins and undoubtedly a sign of far more interesting work to come.
- LA LA LAND: 2/5
- POOR THINGS: 5/5
Total: 7/10
04. JODIE FOSTER (1988/1991)
Here we go again. Jodie's return as a grown-up leading lady in The Accused was enough of a narrative to nab her first Best Actress win. Unfortunately, it was against an all-timer Best Actress lineup and the performance, while fine, doesn't hold up against the likes of Close and Streep at the top of their game. It's also hard to believe she'd have received the votes if we'd known that a well-deserved second win for the iconic role of Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs was just around the corner (And we could have saved ourselves 35 years of Glenn Close angst).
- THE ACCUSED: 3/5
- THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS: 5/5
Total: 8/10
03. OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND (1946/1949)
To Each His Own is possibly the most obscure Best Actress win of all time. There's no revered director, famous co-stars, or best-selling novel it was adapted from to increase its cultural impact. If it weren't for Olivia's first statuette, it would likely be completely forgotten now. Which is a shame because it's a first-rate romantic drama, and she's terrific in it. Not my first choice (That's Celia Johnson obvs) but a worthy winner all the same, now totally overshadowed by her second award a short three years later. The Heiress is, of course, an acting masterclass and the high point of Olivia's illustrious career. Seldom there has been so decisive a winner.
- TO EACH HIS OWN: 4/5
- THE HEIRESS: 5/5
Total: 9/10
02. HILARY SWANK (1999/2004)
Were two wins in five years too much? Did they set expectations for Swank's subsequent career too high? Possibly, but the truth is both awards are entirely justified. Boys Don't Cry is an audacious piece of work that could (should) have aged horribly but, instead, feels fresh and provocative, and modern 25 years later. This is almost entirely down to the star-making turn by Hilary Swank as Brandon Teena. A subtle, powerful, empathetic, performance that probably wouldn't be allowed today but stand out as one of the best wins this category has ever seen. Unfortunately, her second win may have typecast her. So effective did she prove herself playing tough, masculine, 'White Trash' roles that she deservedly triumphed again for Million Dollar Baby just five years later. Since then, Hollywood hasn't quite known what to do with her, but these two acclaimed performances will always prove what a first-rate actress yet underutilized talent Hilary Swank is. Let's hope her 50s will bring some meaty opportunities that again catch Oscar's attention.
- BOYS DON'T CRY: 5/5
- MILLION DOLLAR BABY: 4/5
Total: 9/10
01. VIVIEN LEIGH (1939/1951)
Two of the most iconic roles in cinema history. Two of the greatest performances ever put on screen. Sometimes, the Academy does get it right.
- GONE WITH THE WIND: 5/5
- A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE: 5/5
Total: 10/10
How would you rank these eleven double Best Actress champions?
Reader Comments (21)
Only Vivian Leigh genuinely deserves to have two Oscars.
Emma Stone and Luise Rainer are the worst Two Best Actress Oscar winner. Neither win is justified.
Baby, this was a super fun article. Great to see the eleven actresses all together like this.
I was freaked out that your ranking would be crazy similar to mine. For me, Swank would be a little lower, with Fonda and Field a little bit higher, but otherwise we are soulmates. :)
I count Field/Norma, Fonda/Klute, Taylor/Woolf, Stone/PoorThings, Foster/Lambs, deHavilland/Heiress, and Swank/Boys as among the greatest Best Actress wins ever: beautiful, stunning work from all of them. And of course Leigh is untouchable in those two roles.
Brava!
This is a fun list and an inspired ranking. I'm not sure if it's always fair to compare women's winning performances to the ones they lost for, but in the case of Bette Davis it makes sense.
I'd rank the top contenders Vivien Leigh, Olivia De Haviland, Elizabeth Taylor, Hillary Swank and Jane Fonda. Oddly enough, Hillary Swank isn't an actress that thrills me, but her wins are quite good. I think Jane has one amazing win and a so so one. Sally Field, one of my favorite actresses is in the same position, but I'm far less fond of her second win.
Liz is an odd one. She has an all timer performance in Woolf and a win with a poor reputation with Butterfield. However, I think Butterfield is a fine performance that won in a year that's a bit odd. Deborah and Greer were out, getting we love you nominations. Mercouri would be my pick, but she's more of a one time wonder in a foriegn language film. And while Shirley was brilliant, it's hard to see her topping Liz on her fourth nomination.
Thank you for this great piece! I loved reading it, from start to finish.
Indeed, I feel inspired to do my own ranking of these eleven actresses:
11) BETTE DAVIS
Dangerous: 1/5
Jezebel: 4/5
TOTAL: 5/10
10) SALLY FIELD
Norma Rae: 4/5
Places in the Heart: 2/5
TOTAL: 6/10
9) LUISE RAINER
The Great Ziegfeld: 3/5
The Good Earth: 3/5
TOTAL: 6/10
8
) EMMA STONE
La La Land: 4/5
Poor Things: 3/5
TOTAL: 7/10
7) OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND
To Each His Own: 2/5
The Heiress: 5/5
TOTAL: 7/10
6) HILARY SWANK
Boys Don’t Cry: 5/5
Million Dollar Baby: 3/5
TOTAL: 8/10
5) JODIE FOSTER
The Accused: 3/5
The Silence of the Lambs: 5/5
TOTAL: 8/10
4) ELIZABETH TAYLOR
BUtterfield 8: 3/5
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf: 5/5
TOTAL: 8/10
3) GLENDA JACKSON
Women In Love: 5/5
A Touch of Class: 3/5
TOTAL: 8/10
2) JANE FONDA
Klute: 5/5
Coming Home: 4/5
TOTAL: 9/10
1) VIVIEN LEIGH
Gone with the Wind: 5/5
A Streetcar Named Desire: 5/5
TOTAL: 10/10
Glad we can agree on the number one spot.
Anyone but Luise Rainer last to me feels insane. The number one is impossible to argue with.
I'm one of the few people that prefer's Emma's performance in LA LA LAND to POOR THINGS. I don't think it can be underestimated how much that film just would not work without her performance, and how difficult it is to pull off such effortless charm.
I'm also a defender of Taylor's BUTTERFIELD 8 and Foster's THE ACCUSED performances.
It’s funny, I never realized how many of these women have one great win and one “ugh” win. Most of them!
I thought surely there were more who were really deserving both times but you’re right, it’s really just Leigh you can say that about without argument. There are a few who deserve two wins but not for these roles.
Ugh! This feeble attempt to award merit to Elizabeth Taylor in the torrid melodrama BUtterfield 8 leaves me gobsmacked.
Following the death of third husband Mike Todd, Taylor received stunned headlines for almost immediately finding solace in the bed of Todd’s best friend, pop singer Eddie Fisher who in turn left his wife and two young children for the movie star.
At the time Taylor wanted out of her contract to MGM to accept a tempting flat million from 20th Century Fox to star in Cleopatra. MGM agreed if Taylor would star in the sordid BUtterfield 8 and allow the studio to cash in on her tarnished image.
Taylor acquiesced, though she had no respect for the script. "This is the most pornographic script I have ever read," she raged at one point.
MGM studio honchos were correct. The actress’s notoriety generated a large box office return. Liz was unimpressed with the film’s ticket sales. She spoke out in the press, “I still think it stinks.”
However, this is show business. Both MGM and 20th Century Fox would profit from Taylor earning a fifth Oscar nod. She was subsequently nominated for a film with few critical plaudits. The New York Times called movie “hackneyed.”
During the voting, Taylor was hospitalized with a life threatening illness that required a tracheotomy. Suddenly Taylor was sympathetic and the front runner. The Oscar was a foregone conclusion. The other Best Actress nominees opted to stay home with the exception of Greer Garson who had a made an earlier commitment to present during the ceremony.
And the film itself? I’m with Liz. Six plus decades hasn’t improved the movie. I still think it stinks.
I remain obsessed with "La La Land." It's not the audition scene that gets me. It's the final musical fantasy number. Absolutely heartbreaking in the most exquisite way.
Bette Davis deserved Oscars for reading a phone book. One of a kind.
Vivien Leigh is by far the queen. Every time I rewatch "Gone With The Wind," I'm blown away by her mercurial turn in one of the all-time greatest female roles.
Jane Fonda/Sally Field--still working.
Finally, Jodie Foster. "Silence of the the Lambs" is an all-timer. Soon she will have an Emmy as well. Deservedly so.
You spoke justice to Swank for Million Dollar Baby and I'm with it
I do not understand the love for Leigh in Streetcar. This is soap opera acting, and Leigh is not good enough to endow her pathetic character with a sense of reality, but imbues her with more grand guignol histronics.
I also don't care much for her in GWTW. She's fine, but not much more than that. This is a case of a performer where so much mystery has shrouded her persona that she gets the Sarah Bernhardt treatment when lists like these are made.
The correct winner of this list would be de Havilland. Often Haughty or overly doe-eyed, she does exel in both films as an actress who is capable of keeping a secret, and who has complete control over her instrument.
I love how Emma Stone's performance in Poor Things aged badly very quickly. I predict she's going full Sally Field after stealing Gladstone's Oscar
I wish Emma Stone would lean into her megamoviestar persona the way Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock do, and stop chasing these bizarro roles. She’s one of the few people with the charisma and star power to carry, say, a Nancy Meyers movie “playing herself.”
Instead of chasing Oscar #3 I hope she leans into her gifts as an entertainer. She'd be so good in a Working Girl, a Soapdish, a Death Becomes Her. Or even a Contact or an Erin Brockovich. Or a Peggy Sue Got Married or a Romancing the Stone or a War of the Roses. Lately it feels like she's really overcomplicating it.
Haven't seen Jackson's movies so I cannot comment.
10- Luise Rainer- She gives great interviews but her performances are only ok. And the ones outside of her Oscar nominations, like Great Waltz, are almost terrible.
9- Jane Fonda- I never really liked either of these nominations. I would rather she won for China Syndrome and On Golden Pond.
8- Emma Stone- Both performances ok.
7- Sally Field- As Baby Clyde said- one for the ages and one is the best of a bad situation.
6- Jodie Foster- Clarice keeps her over the others.
5- Hilary Swank- I actually think her MDB performance is better but BDC is still great.
4- Oliva de Haviland- honestly, her first win and first two lead nominations are so bland. Now if we are talking about Snake Pit and Heiress, then #1 actually has some competition.
3- Elizabeth Taylor- B8 is still bad but she is much better. I think the fact that she hated it works in her character's favor- the screw all of this attitude. And WAOVW is magnificent.
2- Bette Davis- Am I the only one who liked Dangerous?
1- Vivien Leigh- rightly in first place. I am in the minority but I think ASND is the better performance. Leigh did not make a lot of movies but just these 2 films have kept her in the pantheon for all cinema history.
What actressexual could possibly think Fonda is superior in The Morning After or The China Sydrome as solid as she is in both compared to Klute it's not in the same league,it is considered by most one of the best winners ever.
Davis's wins do not represent her best work if i had to give her 2 it would be for Now Voyager and Baby Jane.
I don't think Stones win for LA La Land is ageing very well though her Poor Things win will,props to those saying she should entertain us rather than weird us out .
Happy 50th Hils,I like both of Hilarys wins though she bested superior competition in 2004 and was better in 2014's The Homesman and beaten to a nomination by Jones doing ordinary work and a miscast Pike flailing about in Gone Girl
Never seen any of the wins by Rainer,De Havilland,Leigh or Taylor,Terrible I know and I count myself an actress and Oscar fan.
1970's Glenda win was her fresh unusual presence and her rivals in 1970 yeesh!,I prefer Ellen in 73 but Glenda strangleholds that film into comedy.
Sally deserved the first but not so much the second and I quite like all the 84 nominees with Vanessa my winner but only slightly.
Foster would be my favourite 2 time winner,such opposites,I know the accent's a bit forced in The Accused but she's powerful in it but still a Glenn voter,she could have been overshadowed by Hopkins but creates a character we root for her due to her intelligence and grit.
cal roth
There's no denying that Stone's win for Poor Things is an all-time great choice. Only few Gladstone-obsessed people try to question it. Stay pressed.
DK
I don't think Emma is against a great romantic comedy/drama, but are these films really getting made? The recent romantic comedies have relied on cheap laughs and thinly written drama.
@Mr Ripley79
Bette Davis nominations, ranked:
1. Jezebel
2. Now, Voyager
3. Dark Victory
4. All About Eve
5. The Letter
6. Of Human Bondage*
7. The Little Foxes
8. Mr. Skeffington
9. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
10. Dangerous
11. The Star
And yes, she would have better as Scarlett than Leigh.
(And some days I might swap put number 4 at the top of the list. Might...)
In the spirit of the Olympic Games, here is the medal that I would bestow on each two-time winner’s first & second victory:
-Glenda: Bronze/Silver,
-Bette: Bronze/Silver,
Luise: Bronze/Silver,
Sally: Gold/Bronze,
Jane: Gold/Silver,
Liz: Bronze/Gold,
Emma: Bronze/Gold,
Jodie: Bronze/Gold,
Olivia: Bronze/Gold,
Hilary: Gold/Gold,
Vivien: Gold/Gold.
So if Gold=3, Silver=2, Bronze=1, my (tied) podium ranking would be:
1st place/Gold: Vivien Leigh & Hilary Swank,
2nd Place:/Silver: Jane Fonda,
3rd Place/Bronze: Sally Field, Liz Taylor, Emma Stone, Jodie Foster and Olivia de Haviland.
(Out of contention for a medal: Glenda Jackson, Bette Davis and Luise Rainer).
The fact that the Emmys did not nominate Emma Stone as widely predicted proves that cal roth may be onto something. (They nominated her fellow winner RDJ despite no overall love for his show - and hey, look, they nominated Gladstone, too.)
"There's no denying that Stone's win for Poor Things is an all-time great choice."
It's not
"Only few Gladstone-obsessed people try to question it. Stay pressed."
Should have been Hüller
jules -- That could be an interesting topic to explore in a write-up. Or maybe an exploration of what I'd like to call an "afterglow nomination," when it materializes and when it doesn't. Thank you.
It's foolish to watch Poor Things and not marvel at Emma Stone's remarkable performance. With the passage of time, people will realize what a phenomenal choice for Best Actress that was.