My picks for this year:
1. Janice Rule, The Swimmer
2. Ruth Gordon, Rosemary's Baby
3. Beverly Garland, Pretty Poison
4. Judith O'Dea, Night of the Living Dead
5. Daisy Granados, Memories of Underdevelopment
Best Supporting Actress 1968
Re: Best Supporting Actress 1968
I have only seen Gordon and Carlin (the former excellent, the latter unpolished but incredibly impressive) so I won't vote. But I would like to throw in some support for Janice Rule's remarkable ten minutes in Frank Perry's The Swimmer.
Re: Best Supporting Actress 1968
As a huge fan of Oliver I'd like to nominate Shani Wallis for her warm and wonderful performance as Nancy.
-
Cinemanolis
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:27 am
- Location: Greece
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
1968 was a year of retrenchment, for both me and the Academy.
For me, it was because I was uncharacteristically ill-informed. During the previous two years, I'd tried to track down as many nominated films as possible prior to the awards. This year (for the last time in my life) I'd seen very little. Part of the reason for this is, it was my senior year in high school, and I had a very bustling, spend-as-much-time-with-friends-before-we-all-leave-for-college social lfe. But the other part is, many of the big ticket films in the race -- Lion in Winter, Oliver!, Funny Girl, Star, even 2001 -- played exclusive, reserved seat enagements that made them difficult for the masses to get to. (I, in fact, didn't see any of those films until 1970, that's how slowly they rolled out) And the big role those films (excluding 2001) played in that year's race was the sign of Academy retrenchment. The nominees in '67 -- particularly Bonnie and the Graduate -- had been exciting, immediate, of-the-moment. Suddenly we were back in the era of white elephants -- the costume epics and expensive musicals that had been the Oscar default throughout the 60s. It turned out this was pretty much the last hurrah for such films -- even those that got nominated in the years following, like Hello Dolly! and Nicholas and Alexandra, were viewed as expensive flops and embarrassments, not the focus of races. But at the time the year's awards felt like a dreary throwback to me.
Medford's nomination of course fits squarely into that corridor of disappointment. I grant her role was likely cut, but even left whole she'd be a remnant of a bygone era. However strange the idea might seem today, the only thing about Funny Girl that wasn't viewed as hopelessly retro at the time was Streisand -- she was a star unlike any America had ever seen, and did more to revive the corpse of the project than anyone else connected with it.
In this context, Carlin's nomination (along with Casell's and Cassavettes') at least represented something new. I saw this film way too late -- sometime in the 90s -- by which time I'd truly wearied of Cassavettes' endlessly prolix actors, so it's not like Carlin has a chance at my vote. But I can see why she appealed to a sliver of voters at the time.
Sondra Locke is genuinely touching in her borderline-lead role. Maybe even a winner in a lesser year, and a well-worthy nominee here.
The last two, from widely-released films, are the only ones I'd seen prior to the Oscars. As I said in the '67 thread, I think Parsons is maybe even better here than in Bonnie and Clyde -- no histrionics; just simple humanity. It's odd to look back at her career -- with two nominations in consecutive years, when we were only just getting to know her, you'd have expected she'd return with some frequency. But it turned out this was the end.
Anyway, it was Ruth Gordon's year. Always loved her outsized personality, and Minnie was just a perfect fit for her. And Rosemary's Baby, though certainly miles away from an "important" movie, at least felt like it was taking place in the 20th century, which is more than you could say for most of the films in that year's race, so she even picked up a point or two for her film's prominence. The kind of veteran win I can always get behind.
For me, it was because I was uncharacteristically ill-informed. During the previous two years, I'd tried to track down as many nominated films as possible prior to the awards. This year (for the last time in my life) I'd seen very little. Part of the reason for this is, it was my senior year in high school, and I had a very bustling, spend-as-much-time-with-friends-before-we-all-leave-for-college social lfe. But the other part is, many of the big ticket films in the race -- Lion in Winter, Oliver!, Funny Girl, Star, even 2001 -- played exclusive, reserved seat enagements that made them difficult for the masses to get to. (I, in fact, didn't see any of those films until 1970, that's how slowly they rolled out) And the big role those films (excluding 2001) played in that year's race was the sign of Academy retrenchment. The nominees in '67 -- particularly Bonnie and the Graduate -- had been exciting, immediate, of-the-moment. Suddenly we were back in the era of white elephants -- the costume epics and expensive musicals that had been the Oscar default throughout the 60s. It turned out this was pretty much the last hurrah for such films -- even those that got nominated in the years following, like Hello Dolly! and Nicholas and Alexandra, were viewed as expensive flops and embarrassments, not the focus of races. But at the time the year's awards felt like a dreary throwback to me.
Medford's nomination of course fits squarely into that corridor of disappointment. I grant her role was likely cut, but even left whole she'd be a remnant of a bygone era. However strange the idea might seem today, the only thing about Funny Girl that wasn't viewed as hopelessly retro at the time was Streisand -- she was a star unlike any America had ever seen, and did more to revive the corpse of the project than anyone else connected with it.
In this context, Carlin's nomination (along with Casell's and Cassavettes') at least represented something new. I saw this film way too late -- sometime in the 90s -- by which time I'd truly wearied of Cassavettes' endlessly prolix actors, so it's not like Carlin has a chance at my vote. But I can see why she appealed to a sliver of voters at the time.
Sondra Locke is genuinely touching in her borderline-lead role. Maybe even a winner in a lesser year, and a well-worthy nominee here.
The last two, from widely-released films, are the only ones I'd seen prior to the Oscars. As I said in the '67 thread, I think Parsons is maybe even better here than in Bonnie and Clyde -- no histrionics; just simple humanity. It's odd to look back at her career -- with two nominations in consecutive years, when we were only just getting to know her, you'd have expected she'd return with some frequency. But it turned out this was the end.
Anyway, it was Ruth Gordon's year. Always loved her outsized personality, and Minnie was just a perfect fit for her. And Rosemary's Baby, though certainly miles away from an "important" movie, at least felt like it was taking place in the 20th century, which is more than you could say for most of the films in that year's race, so she even picked up a point or two for her film's prominence. The kind of veteran win I can always get behind.
-
Bruce_Lavigne
- Graduate
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm
- Location: Boston
Locke, to me, is in the right category; I don't remember anybody but Arkin having a lead-level role in The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter. And I love Carlin's nomination; very raw, very real, and very not in keeping with what got Oscar nominations at the time, which endears it to me all the more.
But honestly, I've got nothing of substance to add here besides another enthusiastic vote for Ruth Gordon.
Edited By Bruce_Lavigne on 1280249191
But honestly, I've got nothing of substance to add here besides another enthusiastic vote for Ruth Gordon.
Edited By Bruce_Lavigne on 1280249191
It's hard to imagine anyone being able to topple Ruth Gordon's iconic performance in the horror classic Rosemary's Baby. It's creepy, exciting; Gordon infuses the character with a sort of netherworldly air of concern. Somehow you can't quite imagine not letting this kindly woman into your house, even if you can see the malevolent steam rising from her protein shakes. Very deserving of the gong.
Sondra Locke is more of a lead in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, but her age and newcomer status meant she had to be considered here. Her performance is helped out by the structure of McCullers' novel which allows for several "main" characters to assume the forefront of the story's action (as previously mentioned, her character's importance to the story is at least on par with Alan Arkin's). It's sweet, serviceable work, not necessarily deserving of a win, but a nice welcome-to-the-club nomination in a movie that has all but faded away from popular culture.
I think Big Magilla's categorization of Faces is fairly on-point. However, I think that Lynn Carlin manages to rise above the "pack of drunks" to turn in a vulnerable, maybe even brave, turn as a damaged woman looking to tip the scales back in her favor. It's not a negligible nomination.
And, really, what is there to say about Kay Medford? A coattails nod if ever there was one.
Since Gordon will most likely run away with this, I'm going to throw a vote to Estelle Parsons for her heartbreaking work in Rachel, Rachel which might even be better than her Oscar-winning performance the prior year. As Joanne Woodward's long-suffering co-worker, Parsons telegraphs the terrible longing of unrequited same sex love. When she finally explodes in a torrent of tears and shame, all but dissolving into a puddle in front of Rachel's feet, it's the character's (was her name Calla?) long, perhaps impossible, journey to happiness you see creeping through Parsons' expressive eyes. I might need to watch the film again, but I didn't see Parsons as actively trying to make her character prim, as Damien has suggested. The character, to me, seemed like the gregarious counterpart to the more priggish schoolmarm Woodward.
Also, wouldn't the natural inclination have been, in this pre-Stonewall era, to portray Calla as some type of predatory dyke? I appreciate the careful, sensitive way she is handled by Parsons. The worst you can say about the character is that she's a strange mix of earnest and pathetic. It's fairly amazing actually to have this sort of honest portrayal alongside some of the more stereotypical representations of lesbians offered in The Killing of Sister George (which is, nevertheless, great) that same year.
And on that note, Susannah York and especially Coral Browne for The Killing of Sister George would be excellent additions to this category. The latter's take-down of Beryl Reid is absolutely delicious.
Edited By flipp525 on 1280249868
Sondra Locke is more of a lead in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, but her age and newcomer status meant she had to be considered here. Her performance is helped out by the structure of McCullers' novel which allows for several "main" characters to assume the forefront of the story's action (as previously mentioned, her character's importance to the story is at least on par with Alan Arkin's). It's sweet, serviceable work, not necessarily deserving of a win, but a nice welcome-to-the-club nomination in a movie that has all but faded away from popular culture.
I think Big Magilla's categorization of Faces is fairly on-point. However, I think that Lynn Carlin manages to rise above the "pack of drunks" to turn in a vulnerable, maybe even brave, turn as a damaged woman looking to tip the scales back in her favor. It's not a negligible nomination.
And, really, what is there to say about Kay Medford? A coattails nod if ever there was one.
Since Gordon will most likely run away with this, I'm going to throw a vote to Estelle Parsons for her heartbreaking work in Rachel, Rachel which might even be better than her Oscar-winning performance the prior year. As Joanne Woodward's long-suffering co-worker, Parsons telegraphs the terrible longing of unrequited same sex love. When she finally explodes in a torrent of tears and shame, all but dissolving into a puddle in front of Rachel's feet, it's the character's (was her name Calla?) long, perhaps impossible, journey to happiness you see creeping through Parsons' expressive eyes. I might need to watch the film again, but I didn't see Parsons as actively trying to make her character prim, as Damien has suggested. The character, to me, seemed like the gregarious counterpart to the more priggish schoolmarm Woodward.
Also, wouldn't the natural inclination have been, in this pre-Stonewall era, to portray Calla as some type of predatory dyke? I appreciate the careful, sensitive way she is handled by Parsons. The worst you can say about the character is that she's a strange mix of earnest and pathetic. It's fairly amazing actually to have this sort of honest portrayal alongside some of the more stereotypical representations of lesbians offered in The Killing of Sister George (which is, nevertheless, great) that same year.
And on that note, Susannah York and especially Coral Browne for The Killing of Sister George would be excellent additions to this category. The latter's take-down of Beryl Reid is absolutely delicious.
Edited By flipp525 on 1280249868
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
In a Barbra Streisand movie - especially in an early Barbra Streisand movie, when she had to become a star at any cost - other actors would be very lucky to have a close-up, or even just to stay in the movie; in these circumstances, the fact that I do remember - though vaguely - an actress playing her mother must represent some kind of personal triumph for Medford; but except for that, I don't see any other reason to justify her nomination.
Sondra Locke has at least as much screen time as Alan Arkin in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter - and a more active role, so yes, hers could be considered a co-lead. Otherwise, it is of course a wonderful, poetic part, well played by a very-well cast, not yet experienced young actress.
I saw Faces only once, and when I did I was too young (high school time) to truly understand it; plus, I saw it in its original English language version WITHOUT Italian subtitles - and back then my English was worse than it is now. The experience was so exhausting that, of course, I immediately felt the movie was a major work of art. I should see it again now - I'm older and wiser; I guess that I would find it more interesting than great - but interesting it certainly is, especially if one puts it in the context of its time; and maybe even revolutionary - if not by European standards, at least by American ones. And it's exactly the type of movie that is usually ignored by the Academy, so three nominations in the year of Funny Girl and Oliver! shouldn't be quickly dismissed. As shouldn't be Cassavetes's work with his actors - which was, back then, something new and quite daring. The movie may not be a masterpiece but the acting is remarkable - and after all Lynn Carlin had as much experience as an actress as, say, Jocelyn LaGarde, and you'd never guess it when you see her in Faces. Not a "great" performance perhaps, but very real, raw, and at times even affecting (the characters aren't especially agreeable, true, but that's not the actors' fault). I'm not saying that she could play Hedda Gabler or Blanche Du Bois, and I've never seen Carlin in her other screen roles (including Taking Off, where I've heard she's very good), but she's well-used by the director in this one.
Rachel, Rachel is another movie I should see again, but as a teenager I found Estelle Parsons very human, even touching in a role that, at the time, not many actresses would have felt confortable with. Of course times have changed, and it's possible that some cliches weren't avoided - but I seem to remember that the filmmakers' attitude was quite sympathetic towards her character. Playing homosexual, of course, was and still is - for the Academy - a major acting challenge like playing Helen Keller, but in this case the nomination was deserved.
But the supporting actress of this year is the great Ruth Gordon.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1280225891
Sondra Locke has at least as much screen time as Alan Arkin in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter - and a more active role, so yes, hers could be considered a co-lead. Otherwise, it is of course a wonderful, poetic part, well played by a very-well cast, not yet experienced young actress.
I saw Faces only once, and when I did I was too young (high school time) to truly understand it; plus, I saw it in its original English language version WITHOUT Italian subtitles - and back then my English was worse than it is now. The experience was so exhausting that, of course, I immediately felt the movie was a major work of art. I should see it again now - I'm older and wiser; I guess that I would find it more interesting than great - but interesting it certainly is, especially if one puts it in the context of its time; and maybe even revolutionary - if not by European standards, at least by American ones. And it's exactly the type of movie that is usually ignored by the Academy, so three nominations in the year of Funny Girl and Oliver! shouldn't be quickly dismissed. As shouldn't be Cassavetes's work with his actors - which was, back then, something new and quite daring. The movie may not be a masterpiece but the acting is remarkable - and after all Lynn Carlin had as much experience as an actress as, say, Jocelyn LaGarde, and you'd never guess it when you see her in Faces. Not a "great" performance perhaps, but very real, raw, and at times even affecting (the characters aren't especially agreeable, true, but that's not the actors' fault). I'm not saying that she could play Hedda Gabler or Blanche Du Bois, and I've never seen Carlin in her other screen roles (including Taking Off, where I've heard she's very good), but she's well-used by the director in this one.
Rachel, Rachel is another movie I should see again, but as a teenager I found Estelle Parsons very human, even touching in a role that, at the time, not many actresses would have felt confortable with. Of course times have changed, and it's possible that some cliches weren't avoided - but I seem to remember that the filmmakers' attitude was quite sympathetic towards her character. Playing homosexual, of course, was and still is - for the Academy - a major acting challenge like playing Helen Keller, but in this case the nomination was deserved.
But the supporting actress of this year is the great Ruth Gordon.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1280225891
-
Precious Doll
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4453
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
Of the nominated actresses I voted for Ruth Gordon's wonderful over the top performance.
My best of the 1968 are:
1. Coral Brownie for The Killing of Sister George
2. Beverly Garland for Pretty Poison
3. Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby
4. Eileen Heckart for No Way to Treat a Lady
5. Sondra Locke for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
The only reason I haven't got Susannah York listed is because I consider her a co-lead with Beryl Reid.
My best of the 1968 are:
1. Coral Brownie for The Killing of Sister George
2. Beverly Garland for Pretty Poison
3. Ruth Gordon for Rosemary’s Baby
4. Eileen Heckart for No Way to Treat a Lady
5. Sondra Locke for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
The only reason I haven't got Susannah York listed is because I consider her a co-lead with Beryl Reid.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Kay Medford was genial in her few scenes in Funny Girl, but a nomination was a head-scratcher.
To me the cinema-verite-esque performances in John Cassavetes's pictures, rather than having the ring of truth to which he obviously thought he was exposing the audience, rang hollow and phony. Lynn Carlin's is no exception.
Estelle Parsons is affecting in Rachel, Rachel but she is straining a little bit to batten down her natural exuberance in order to be prim. I also have problems with the character, a typical pre-Stonewall pathetic same-sexer, but that's not Parsons' fault, the blame lies with (ironically) Paul Newman and Stewart Stern,
Ruth Gordon is wonderful in Rosemary's Baby -- you just love every moment she's on the screen. Is it a believable characterization? Probably not, but, damn, she sure is fun to watch.
To me, however, Sondra Locke is head and shoulders above the competition (even though I think she was a ringer in this category -- I was shocked when the nominations came out and she was in Supporting). This is one of the most true coming-of-age performances ever; Locke's unaffected acting style in the film moves me to my soul.
My Own Top 5:
1. Sondra Locke in The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter
2. Joyce van Patten in I Love You, Alice B. Toklass
3. Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby
4. Shelley Winters in The Scalphunters
5. Beverly Garland in Pretty Poison
{but in my world Locke would be a Lead, and then the 5th slot would go to Jo van Fleet in I Love You, Alice B. Toklass)
To me the cinema-verite-esque performances in John Cassavetes's pictures, rather than having the ring of truth to which he obviously thought he was exposing the audience, rang hollow and phony. Lynn Carlin's is no exception.
Estelle Parsons is affecting in Rachel, Rachel but she is straining a little bit to batten down her natural exuberance in order to be prim. I also have problems with the character, a typical pre-Stonewall pathetic same-sexer, but that's not Parsons' fault, the blame lies with (ironically) Paul Newman and Stewart Stern,
Ruth Gordon is wonderful in Rosemary's Baby -- you just love every moment she's on the screen. Is it a believable characterization? Probably not, but, damn, she sure is fun to watch.
To me, however, Sondra Locke is head and shoulders above the competition (even though I think she was a ringer in this category -- I was shocked when the nominations came out and she was in Supporting). This is one of the most true coming-of-age performances ever; Locke's unaffected acting style in the film moves me to my soul.
My Own Top 5:
1. Sondra Locke in The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter
2. Joyce van Patten in I Love You, Alice B. Toklass
3. Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby
4. Shelley Winters in The Scalphunters
5. Beverly Garland in Pretty Poison
{but in my world Locke would be a Lead, and then the 5th slot would go to Jo van Fleet in I Love You, Alice B. Toklass)
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Ruth Gordon without any doubt for me.
Have never seen Lynn Carlin in Faces.
Locke is superb and very moving. Parsons also very good and different to her Oscar winning turn of the previous year. Always wondered why Medford was nominated.
My top 5:
Ruth Gordon, Rosemary's Baby
Sondra Locke, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
Coral Browne, The Killing of Sister George
Estelle Parsons, Rachel, Rachel
Susannah York, The Killing of Sister George
Have never seen Lynn Carlin in Faces.
Locke is superb and very moving. Parsons also very good and different to her Oscar winning turn of the previous year. Always wondered why Medford was nominated.
My top 5:
Ruth Gordon, Rosemary's Baby
Sondra Locke, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter
Coral Browne, The Killing of Sister George
Estelle Parsons, Rachel, Rachel
Susannah York, The Killing of Sister George
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Fifty three years after she made her film debut, Ruth Gordon became a bona fide movie star at the age of 72. Wearing garish makeup, loud clothes and a white wig, she was alternately annoying, funny and scary as the witch next door in Rosemary's Baby and you couldn't take your eyes and ears off of her.
She appeared in almost thirty more films and TV shows before her death at 88, pretty darn wonderful in most of them, too, most notably as the 80 year old woman with a 20 year old lover in Harold and Maude and as the nice old lady you wanted to get away with murder in TV's Columbo: Try and Catch Me.
No one else this year could hold a candle to her, though two of her fellow nominees turned in excellent work.
The previous year's winner, Estelle Parsons was back in another strong performance as Joanne Woodward's friend in Rachel, Rachel and Sondra Locke made a lovely screen debut as the impressionable teenager in The Heat Is a Lonely Hunter.
Kay Medford's role in the stage version of Funny Girl was substantial and she won a richly deserved Tony nomination for her work, but her role in the film version was cut to shreds. What remained wasn't remotely worthy of awards recognition.
I never liked any of John Cassavetes' independent films, least of all Faces which is basically about a bunch of losers getting drunk, talking loud and laughing while being mean to one another. Lynn Carlin as the wife who gets even with her philandering husband by taking up with a younger man was less annoying than Gena Rowlands playing a prostitute, but not much.
My choices for the last two slots are the perennially ignored Coral Browne as the mean network executive seduced by Susannah York in The Killing of Sister George and Pat Heywood as the nurse in Zeffirelli's age appropriate rendering of Romeo & Juliet.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1289756713
She appeared in almost thirty more films and TV shows before her death at 88, pretty darn wonderful in most of them, too, most notably as the 80 year old woman with a 20 year old lover in Harold and Maude and as the nice old lady you wanted to get away with murder in TV's Columbo: Try and Catch Me.
No one else this year could hold a candle to her, though two of her fellow nominees turned in excellent work.
The previous year's winner, Estelle Parsons was back in another strong performance as Joanne Woodward's friend in Rachel, Rachel and Sondra Locke made a lovely screen debut as the impressionable teenager in The Heat Is a Lonely Hunter.
Kay Medford's role in the stage version of Funny Girl was substantial and she won a richly deserved Tony nomination for her work, but her role in the film version was cut to shreds. What remained wasn't remotely worthy of awards recognition.
I never liked any of John Cassavetes' independent films, least of all Faces which is basically about a bunch of losers getting drunk, talking loud and laughing while being mean to one another. Lynn Carlin as the wife who gets even with her philandering husband by taking up with a younger man was less annoying than Gena Rowlands playing a prostitute, but not much.
My choices for the last two slots are the perennially ignored Coral Browne as the mean network executive seduced by Susannah York in The Killing of Sister George and Pat Heywood as the nurse in Zeffirelli's age appropriate rendering of Romeo & Juliet.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1289756713