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:Sondra Locke - The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

I think, that The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter is a great film. Throughout the whole film I was not very charmed by it, because it has got some boring moments, but the end is terrific and it makes The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter to be a better film.
The performances in it are actually not some kind of excellent. Some are very dull (Wayne Smith), some are too overacted (Chuck McCann) and even some are really good (Alan Arkin). And where belongs Sondra Locke? Nowhere actually. She is excellent and gives the best performance of the film. She´s wonderfully believable and charming. She has got some great monologues written and she makes them excellent. You would say, that it is not her work, but the scriptwriter´s. But that´s not true, because she makes them believable and very clever.
I can even hardly choose the best scene of her performance, but I prefer maybe three scenes. (SPOILER!!!) The first scene is the scene where she finds the Arkin´s dead body. This type of scene we can see in many other picture and they are mostly terribly played by the person, that finds some dead body, but it´s not Locke´s case. (SPOILER ENDS)
The second scene is where she has the fight with his father in the beginning of the film and the third scene is the scene of the fight with her mother in the end.
So what else to say about this performance? You have to see it, because it is a wonderful and extraordinary performance.

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...

Best Supporting Actress 1968:Ruth Gordon - Rosemary´s Baby

OK, let´s be honest: Who doesn´t like Rosemary´s Baby? OK, you don´t have to love, but at least you must realize, that it´s a very good and very well done film. Roman Polanski has always been a master of a great atmosphere and this film doesn´t make any difference in this fact. But the main question here is about Ruth Gordon´s performance. Was it as great, as the film?
Actually, it was. Her performance is the only funny character in Rosemary´s Baby, but it doesn´t take too much of the watcher´s attention, like (for example) Renée Zellweger in Cold Mountain did. Gordon is able to be funny, but still terrifying. She always appears in the right moment and brings a fresh air into the film. There are some scenes in the film, that would be absolutely uninteresting and forgotten, but Gordon makes them great. For example the scene of her first appearance. In the hands of any other actress (and it could have been even some great actress) there would not be anything special, but Gordon´s performance is just extraordinary.
(In this part I´ll have to write a SPOILER.) Even in the end, when we actually find out, that is the helper of the devil itself, her performance doesn´t seem broken or incompact. Be can easily believe, that this funny old lady is the devil´s helper. (THE SPOILER´S END)
You know, many actors and actresses should see this performance and play like this. Because Dame Ruth Gordon did an excellent job...

Best Supporting Actress 1968:Kay Medford - Funny Girl

What to say about this performance? It´s another example of a very misunderstood nomination by me. You know, Medford appears in the film many time, but always just for a few minutes, so she doesn´t even have very much to do.
But even though I think, that this character has got a great potention to be very funny, but Medford doesn´t use this potention. She has got some wonderful line, that were meant to be funny, but from Medford´s mouth, they only seem normal, in some cases even boring.
You know, this is that kind of a performance, which you forget after a weak after watching the film. I don´t understand, how could she get the Academy attention. I don´t know, if it is because she was overshadowed by Barbra Streisand, but I always found her performance extremely uninteresting.

Best Supporting Actress 1968:Lynn Carlin - Faces

You know, I cannot actually say, I enjoyed Faces very much. I don´t like films, without any story very much and this film is a great example of a film of that kind. For me, it was terribly boring picture. I didn´t care about the characters, I only wished the ending. And ending is the best part of the film, actually, not even because, this terrible movie is ending.
The reason is Lynn Carlin. I think, her performance is the best of the film, even though it is not any excellent performance, at all. It is very good and realistic, but still not perfect, but I think, it´s not her guilt, because the screenplay is just boring. She actually does the best, she can, but the bore, that I felt throughout the whole film, I felt even in the scenes with her.
The best scene of her performance is in the end, when she is fainted and when she rouses. I´m not saying it ironically, she played the fainted person really wonderfully. I mean, you know, when some actors try to play a fainted person, it seems many times unnatural. But not in this case. I almost could not believe, she was not really fainted. And the scene after her awakening is just wonderful. With Seymour Cassell they made the only good scene in the film, which is actually good only because of their acting.
So I don´t think, that Carlin was bad in the film, she gives a very natural performance, but it happens to be overshadowed by the badness of the whole film...