I'm Ok, You're Really Not : Dunst vs. Watts

There's only one answer and that's Naomi Watts.

Don't ask questions you're not willing to answer yourself! Stop being silly and vote in your own poll dammit

Anyway, on a more serious note - I know that there's a strong Dunst fanbase on this board of ours and I do like her overall but I never thought that she was that remarkable in "Melancholia". When I was watching it, it felt to me that usually the Trier leads go into much deeper and more dangerous waters when it comes to the psychological whirlwinds of their performances, while Dunst just seemed to be swimming on the more surfacy waters, even if she was doing a solid job there. It seems fitting seeing how "Melancholia" is clearly Trier going more mainstream but it's still what it is.

Meanwhile, Watts in "Mulholland Drive" is nothing short of astonishing. It's amazing to think just how many registers she gets to portray in it and how extreme some of them seem on paper - the wide-eyed LA dreamer could've really gone wrong if played by a worse actress with less understanding of Lynch's peculiarities. But Watts nails it all, making you completely buy the illusion of a Bambi-like ingenue and then luring you deeper and deeper into her transformation. Imagine if these roles were switched between the two of them. I think Watts would've totally nailed "Melancholia" but I just can't see Dunst reaching the same level in "MH".

Watts is one of my favourite actresses, while I never really cared for Dunst. So yeah, easily Naomi.

As I've said on here, Watts in MD flat out gives the most impressive performance I've ever seen in a film - it's tremendously layered and nuanced, always conveyed with such devastatingly convincing feeling behind it all, and goes deep into the idea of acting itself in a way so brilliant it's almost difficult to articulate.

Dunst is great in Melancholia, and it seems to me like one of the best representations of severe depression, but this is no contest.