Best Supporting Actress 1968

5. Kay Medford - Funny Girl
I don't understand this nomination, actually, because Kay Medford didn't show anything in her role in Funny Girl. There was not very much to play, but even the parts where she had something, she didn't use it very well. This nomination for this performance belongs to the misunderstood ones.

4. Estelle Parsons - Rachel, Rachel
Parsons makes a person from this terribly written character, but unfortunately it's many times very overacted and unnatural person. But never mind it, because the film is so boring that you will not see it objectively, because she is one of the best things in it.

3. Lynn Carlin - Faces
Almost the same case like Parsons. It's a terribly boring film she plays in, but her performance makes the film even watchable. She gives the best performance of the film, no doubts about it (maybe Cassell is also great), but it was still nothing special. Just very good...

2. Sondra Locke - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
Extraordinary performance of a young actress that gave here the best performance of the film. Her Mick is a wonderfully written and likable character and I loved her. Not even the character, but the whole performance, too.

1. Ruth Gordon - Rosemary´s Baby
Very hard pick between Locke and Gordon, but Gordon brings the fresh air and a great charm and humor into this horror film that has got a great atmosphere. The scenes in the beginning and in the end of the film are wonderful and the proof that Ruth Gordon gave everything into this performance.

My Nominees:

1. Ruth Gordon - Rosemary's Baby
2. Sondra Locke - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter
3. Shani Wallis - Oliver!
4. Lynn Carlin - Faces
5. Estelle Parsons - Rachel, Rachel

Best Supporting Actress 1968:Estelle Parsons - Rachel, Rachel

Rachel, Rachel is an unbelievably boring film. I don´t usually have problems with slow films, but this was one of the slowest films I´ve ever seen. It doesn´t even have any story. I can´t really understand, how could the script without any plot ever been filmed. But this film proves, it actually is possible.
The only good thing about this film are the performances. Estelle Parsons and Joanne Woodward are making this film even watchable. I´m not saying, they are extraordinary or excellent, but they are the only reason to watch this film till the end. But as I said in the beginning, they are "just" good.
Parsons is a terribly written character. It doesn´t have any depth, in some moment, we just find out, she is a lesbian, but there is not talked about it before, or later. In one scene we just find out, she´s a lesbian. It´s something terrible, how the writer has this character written, but Parsons is too great actress to play it as badly, as it is written. She makes a person from this character, she makes it to be a human being.
Even though it is not an excellent performance, I appreciate what Parsons has done, because she had a difficult thing to do. Not just because of the fact, that her character was terribly written, but even because of the horrible glasses, she has on throughout more than a half of her performance...