It is a sad and common fact that the public ignore an actor or actresses artistic abilities in favour of their private life.
Relationships become more interesting than characters, performances are overlooked in favour of stunts, and mistakes are remembered instead of career highlights. Such has always been the case with American film star Winona Ryder, whose life in the public eye often masks the artistic genius in her films. Ryder is an underrated actress. People are quick to categorise her with has-beens like Lindsay Lohan, when she should be placed on a much higher pedestal; slightly beneath Audrey Hepburn, but miles above the strangely loved Kate Blanchett or Nicole Kidman. Ryders relationship with Johnny Depp has haunted her career like an annoying but attractive ghost, whilst her 2001 shoplifting charges have put an unnecessary stain on her creative dress for no good reason other than magazine coverage. Personally, this author doesn’t mind a woman not impartial to crime, but whether or not Ryder is guilty should have no affect on her cinematic reputation, especially with such a petty crime (it wasn’t murder for Gods sake). With this public idiocy and tabloid negligence, Ryder has been overlooked. What we, the viewers, often fail to see in her films, are strong portrayals of personal change and renewal, and masterful representations of corruption or distortion of innocence prevalent in nearly all her characters. Ryders’ unique, tactful expression of these qualities solidifies her not just as an actress, but as a figure much more abstract and meaningful, an enigma that floats its way amongst film screens to give out a vital message on the nature of life.
In almost all of her films, Winona Ryders’ character undergoes some kind of personal, social, or philosophic change. We see her, often through expressions of an irrepressibly feminine outlook, undergo a renewal of ideals and values, intended to teach the audience something about their own life. This is seen in Drama/Comedy ‘Mermaids’ (1990), as well as the extremely underrated ‘Girl, Interrupted’ (1999). Both these films are archetypal examples of human change and thought, important temperaments of humanity that should excite the public but are overlooked in favour of trivial things like costumes, hair-styles, and sex scenes.
‘Mermaids’ sees Ryder as Charlotte, a 15 year old girl constantly moved around by her family, forced to make new friends, new fun, new anything to distract herself from the painful absence of a father. The film, also featuring Cher and a young Christina Ricci, is the best of many 90s films about family, and one in which Ryders’ portrayal of a troubled, awkward, initially Christian-valued young girl is deeper and more powerful than similar roles of the era. Charlotte undergoes an immense personal change throughout the film. Her adaptation of values is due both to puberty and to love and family, and the intertwining of these ideas which confuse her into action within her life. This being the case, the character is actually quite Hamlet-esque. Charlotte is torn between a simultaneous attachment to her sister and a strong disdain for her mother, as well as a personal duty to faith that conflicts with a body that wants nothing more than the young gardener of the local nunnery. If you added a murder, you’d think the film was based off an Agatha Christie novel, the small town mentality infusing with the above mentioned personal troubles of Charlotte to create a mindset that desperately craves change. All this may seem quite ordinary, like a film the reader may have seen before, with an interesting but admittedly not spectacular plot. This is not the case. The fascinating, philosophical depth of the film comes in Ryders portrayal. In the one character she encompasses lust, love, faith, hate, gossip, and growing up, all expressed with a masterful curve of the lips. Her embodiment of these ideals floats through the film like bubbles of air; rippling at the surface, causing eyes to sting, then bursting in expressions of sadness on Ryders face. Charlotte undergoes a change from a distraught, confused young girl to an accepting, independent, intellectual woman, her journey and Ryders wonderful performance making the film not just another 90s flick, but an intrinsic expression of human values.
A criminally underrated film not only of Ryders, but also of the worlds, is 1999s ‘Girl, Interrupted’. Based on Susanna Kaysens’ memoir of the same name and co- starring Angelina Jolie in her best ever performance, the film takes place in a female mental institution that Ryder, portraying Kaysen, has been hastily rushed into after a suicide attempt. Philosophic aspects of Ryders portrayal aside, the film is astounding. It features some of the most wonderful acting, editing, structure and mood ever to be displayed on screen. It is hard to see why the film is not widely considered a classic. It could be because people tend to favour the equally wonderful male comparison ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest’, or maybe because of confronting themes of suicide and self harm that people tend to be afraid of. Although, the taboo of mental health that has for some reason formed when explored in films\ would not explain the aforementioned success of ‘Cuckoos Nest’, and it is likely the fault of the media that the film is not more broadly appreciated. Regardless, it is a film to be watched and re-watched, with incredible performances from the whole cast, including Ryder. The character of Susanna Kaysen undergoes a change similar to that of film critics when reviewing movies about insanity. At first, they are shocked and scared by what they see, as Kaysen is when put into the company of pathological liars, sufferers of eating disorder, tormented childhoods, and the sociopathic Lisa, played by Jolie. But, through experiences in the film, both Kaysen and the critics come to accept the disabilities they are surrounded by as reflections on the sadness of life; something that shouldn’t be locked up and medicated, but thought through and discovered in order to overcome destructive tendencies whilst retaining an educational value. Ryder, who championed the film to be made and was an executive producer, portrays sadness and fluctuations of mental state so vividly that it changes ones view of institutionalised sickness. It was obviously a story very close to her heart, as her performance communicates intensely sincere, melancholy, desperate aspects of life delivered in an encompassing attitude. Her expressions of personal renewal are comfortingly relatable to anyone fortunate enough to view this film, and solidify Ryder as one of the most powerful and unique actresses of the era. The personal change inherit in many of Ryders films reflect and provide insight into integral aspects of humanity, her performances in such films proving the level of intellectual reasoning and process behind what appears to be simple acting.
In her multiplicity and levelling of thematic portrayals within characters, a common aspect of Winona Ryders films is innocence. Innocence is a difficult thing to act; a subtle underlining within a characters personality but also an extremely integral feature. Ryder reflects this quality as a vital part in life, but a part that inevitably must either change or disappear. This is what people often call a ‘corruption’ of innocence, but this term has for some reason a negative link, thus the term ‘distortion’ or ‘fluctuation’ of innocence would do better in its place. This theme can be seen in nearly all of Ryders films, but most strongly in the cult classic ‘Heathers’ (1988), and in Francis Ford Coppolas’ adaptation of Bram Stokers ‘Dracula’ (1992). Both films see Ryder in initially innocent, but disgruntled and dissatisfied, roles, which then transform into new perspectives and new understandings of life.
This is a strong theme in ‘Heathers’, a satirical look at the romanticising of teen suicide and the negligence towards death that comes with getting older. Although this author personally finds Daniel Waters, who wrote the film, confused in exactly what he was trying to say, and in how positively he views himself in the mirror (enough to suggest Ryder was not attractive enough for the part), the film is a funny, wonderfully perverse, and quintessential 80s film. Ryders character, Veronica Sawyer, is fed up with High School life. She realises she hates her friends, that everyone around her is sad, stupid, and sexually deprived, and that there has to be more to life than what people talk about in the cafeteria. Thus, she enlists the help of J.D, played by Christian Slater, to seek revenge on her popular, arrogant, mean friends; the Heathers. But where Veronica thinks orange juice and milk the perfect lesson, J.D leans more towards poison. The film is all about murder, glorification of death, and an unwillingness to accept tragedy, as people only mourn for a few hours before retreating back into normal, falsely happy lives. Veronica is extremely innocent at the beginning of the film, feeling as all teenagers do about parents, friends, and school. But through her very sinister distortion of innocence- A.K.A murder- she gains a new and more knowledgeable perspective on death and the nature of humanity. She realises that yes, death can seem tragic, but it is a part of life we have to accept, which some people do too readily, lying about how they feel when death surrounds them. Although the film gets meddled towards the end, becoming confused between a satirical take on the glorification of suicide and an actual desire for death and destruction, Ryder holds it together in her absorption of these ideals, leading her to act towards a judicial end. Her innocence has changed from being that of an unfulfilled, dissatisfied longing, to a reasoned, thorough understanding of the idiocy of other people. Ryders performance is what rightly put her on the path to stardom, her way of simultaneously portraying detachment to death and a painful understanding of it astounding in someone so young.
Coppolas’ 1992 adaptation of ‘Dracula’ is not faithful to Stokers novel. This is okay. It is a risk every author takes once they release their work to give it over to interpretation, distortion, and sometimes downright fanatical change. If it were any old director, the transformation of Count Dracula from a terrifying, merciless creature in the book to a romantic heartthrob in this film would be repulsive, but Coppola pulls it off. He is assisted by a cast of fine actors such as Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, and of course, Winona Ryder. Ryder plays Wilhelmina Harker, one of the greatest female characters in literature the world has ever been blessed with, though often overlooked in favour of Nancy Drew or some other soulless creation. Ryder is the perfect Mina; innocent, intellectual, pure and loving in her thoughts and filled with sadness at the horrible events that take place around her. In the film, there is an obvious change in Minas’ attitudes. Where she once was in love and engaged to Jonathon, played by Keanu Reeves, she undergoes a fluctuation in innocence and perspective, leading her to realise her re-embodiment as Draculas past love, thus surrending herself to him. Indeed, it is Mina herself who encourages Dracula to turn her, to become what he is by feasting on his blood and ridding herself of the innocence that once flowed in her veins. Although the film does differ drastically from the book, Ryder manages to retain the integrity of Mina that was so charming to read, reflecting a deep understanding of the plot in an intensely powerful performance, outshining even that of some classic Hollywood film stars in earlier reproductions of Stokers classic. Throughout both ‘Heathers’ and ‘Dracula’, Ryders portrayal of how events and lessons affect innocence within a personality teach the audience something shockingly relatable to their own life, thus instigating a thought process after viewing the film(s) instead of simply walking away.
The work of Winona Ryder is too easily overlooked. She is seen as an 80’s celebrity, a girlfriend, an actor once favoured but now rarely appearing in magazines. But this is why Ryder deserves to be studied and applauded. She never gave in to all the gossipy trash that society thrusts on film stars. She didn’t marry hastily, didn’t have numerous affairs and give interviews on them, didn’t wear ridiculous clothes just for the sake of being known as someone who wears ridiculous clothes. Winona was, and is, just Winona. She does what she wants, she loves what she does. Throughout all her films there is a level of deep knowledge and sophistication, a purposeful subtlety that allows stories to float around her like waves around a buoy. She floats on the surface, artistically formed and confident, treating her roles not as make believe, but as extensions of herself in which to leave behind little pieces of her life that are given out to the audience slowly with every viewing. Ryder is, in a word, authentic, and this author for one will continue to campaign her as one of the few really talented, unique actresses we have left, solidified in her previous roles, braced for equally significant new ones…
