Number 57: Gale Sondergaard as Faith Paleologus in "Anthony Adverse" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

Few Oscar-winning performances are so deliciously entertaining and so shockingly empty at the same time as Gale Sondergaard’s turn as Faith Paleologus, an evil-minded, manipulating and gold-digging maid in the overblown epic Anthony Adverse.

It seems, that with her performance, Gale Sondergaard wanted to prove that she had the best teeth in Hollywood, giving us a big, cat-like but not to be trusted grin at every possible situation. From the way the character is presented and played by Gale Sondergaard, there can be little doubt that Faith is up to no good – she does not murder anyone but her small eyes, her evil grin, her way of speaking her lines make sure that even a blind person sees the evil in her. It’s a performance that is never over-the-top but it isn’t subtle either – Gale Sondergaard seems to enjoy herself very much and she also makes it very easy for the audience to enjoy her work. Her deep voice, that wide grin, her expressive eyes all create a very intriguing character – Faith never appears like a maid, rather like a queen, a woman who commands instead of taking commands. Sometimes it all seems rather confusing and the most confusing aspect is certainly why anyone would have this woman in the house but there is something magnetic about her that seems to explain the reason.

One thing has to be said: Gale Sondergaard, together with Claude Rains, is easily the best thing about the movie. Neither the story of Anthony Adverse nor the other actors provide any entertainment. Frederic March seems rather uncomfortable in a role he seems to know he’s miscast in while Olivia de Havilland seems still to try to find herself as an actress. No, Claude Rains and Gale Sondergaard easily stand out and make you wish that the movie was only about them. But maybe, too much of them would ruin the effect of their appearances. In fact, Gale Sondergaard has very little screen time in this two and a half hour-movie – maybe fifteen minutes and only one of her scenes lasts longer than two minutes. This is also the reason why her performance is so empty despite being so delicious – apart from giving evil grins and trying to get ahead socially, there is not much to do for Gale Sondergaard. Like Anjelica Huston she steals the show but has the advantage of not having to do very much for it since nobody else seems to want to steal it.

But Gale Sondergaard certainly brought life to her part and every scene she appears in. Her wonderful chemistry with Claude Rains and Frederic March turns all their scenes into gold. It’s easy to see that Gale Sondergaard was the physical role-model for the evil witch from Disney’s Snow White. 

So, Gale Sondergaard definitely played the evil bitch to perfection but the emptiness of the part and the limits of the performance prevent her from receiving a better position. Still, a wickedly entertaining performance. 

Number 58: Anjelica Huston as Maerose Prizzi in "Prizzi’s Honor" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

Anjelica Huston took home the Oscar and most critics award for her scene-steeling turn as Maerose Prizzi, the fallen daughter of the Prizzi-family.

Considering how popular Prizzi’s Honor was among the members of the Academy, it can’t be a surprise that they wanted to give it an award in at least one category – and Anjelica Huston was certainly the easiest chance to do that. Apart from her dominance in the race, hers is also the kind of performance that steals the show without even trying. But for me, the reason that Anjelica Huston was able to do that is not because her acting is on such a high level but rather because Prizzi’s Honor, like The Accidental Tourist, is a rather lifeless and dated movie with a cast that certainly gave its best but failed to bring the material to a really intriguing level. So, Anjelica Huston was able to use her strong screen presence and her unforgettable talent for accents to leave the greatest impression even though her role and her performance aren’t really that great.

The problem I have with this performance is similar to the one I have with Geena Davis – Anjelica Huston is not able to breath life into her lifeless movie. She becomes the center of attention whenever she appears but she does not really improve what she is given. Maybe if her role had been a bit larger, she might have been able to do more but the way it is, her turn as the young woman who secretly pulls the strings in the background feels rather underdeveloped and negligible at times.

Still, what works in her favor is that it is the fact that Maerose Prizzi is a very showy role and that Anjelica Huston has an undeniable screen presence. Even Jack Nicholson disappears next to her. Her breakdown at the beginning or her seduction of Charlie later in her apartment are very strong moments and Anjelica Huston proves that her voice is her biggest asset – if she didn’t deliver her lines so deliciously calculated and with that wonderful accent, her performance would only be half as good. Who can forget the delivery of ‘Oh, he had use for me, Pappa. He came to my apartment the other night…and he forced himself on me…and he did it to me. Yeah, Pappa, he screwed me, three times, maybe four, I can’t remember…you should see the size of him!’ Again, this moment would only be half as good if it wasn’t for this accent!

So, Anjelica Huston shines whenever she is on the screen and even though she doesn’t really lift her material to a higher level she still manages to impress easily.

Number 59: Jennifer Connelly as Alicia Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

The role of the suffering but supportive wife is always an award-magnet and so it was no surprise when Jennifer Connelly won an Oscar for her portrayal of Alicia Nash, the wife of John Nash, a brilliant academic mind who suffers from hallucinations and other problems.

Basically, this performance can be separated in two different parts – the boring one and the great one. 

Unfortunately, Jennifer Connelly began her performance extremely lifeless and rid of almost every bit of charm and energy. Her way of whispering instead of talking, her lack of any screen presence and her almost sleep-inducing line-delivery almost ruin her entire performance since these early scenes actually demand exactly the opposite of her – she has to be charming, lively, captivating and full of confidence to make it believable that this young woman could actually conquer the heart of a man like John Nash. She improves during a later scene when she reacts to John Nash’s open frankness very differently than his previous dates. And she also becomes much more relaxed in her role when John Nash proposes to her.

It’s an unfortunate start to what becomes an occasionally very strong performance, even if there are still some missteps. The moment Jennifer Connelly stops being a love interest and actually becomes the suffering wife, something in her changes and her work becomes much more memorable and she even begins to find some energy in her acting – there is still a strange lack of life in her but it’s much less obvious now. Tears and pain seem to come very easily to her and so it’s no surprise that the scenes that show her character at its lowest are also her highpoints. Her chemistry with Russell Crowe is also much stronger now.

What remains, as just mentioned, is the lack of life in some scenes – especially when she is talking to an old friend about her life with John and she basically opens her heart and thoughts to him. In these moments, Jennifer Connelly should have found the core of her whole character but in her hands, the moment comes and goes without any further exploration and Jennifer Connelly misses an important opportunity to develop her character.  

It’s mostly her dramatic moments that carry this performance and help to achieve this position – when she fears for the life or her baby or breaks down in her bathroom, she impressively shows how talented she actually is. And her famous ‘You wanna know what’s real?`-scene is easily among the best moments of the whole movie. Her tenderness, her love and her devotion are finally completely visible in this small moment.

This could definitely have been a much stronger performance and Jennifer Connelly found some unforgettable moments that she delivered with a strong dedication but the overall effect is still too little to place her higher than this.

Number 60: Whoopi Goldberg as Oda Mae Brown in "Ghost" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

Just like Helen Hayes, Whoopi Goldberg single-handedly saved her movie from being a complete disaster. With one of the worst scripts ever (‘Oda Mae, where did all these ghosts come from?’) and extremely unsatisfying performances from the two leads, it was up to her to make the whole thing tolerable.

And in the part of Oda Mae, a woman who pretends to be able to see the dead only to discover that she can actually talk to them, Whoopi Goldberg certainly is a breath of fresh air every time she appears and uses her talent for comedy at every situation. Her first séance is already an early highlight (‘I see him. He’s wearing a black suite…could be blue.’) and later she gets a lot of laughs out of her awful material by doing the kind of comedy she is best at – loud and broad. So many of her line deliveries are certainly first-class (‘You wanna kiss my butt?’ or ‘Does it look like I’m talking to you? You know when I’m talking to you! You’re supposed to be concentrating, ain’t you?’ or ‘I’m no damn secretary!’) and she again and again proves that she is, without a single doubt, the best thing about Ghost.

Yes, I won’t deny that Whoopi Goldberg gives a performance that is very easy to love and it’s no wonder that the applause was loud and strong when she received her Oscar. It’s the kind of performance that dominates a whole movie and that is probably the only topic of conversation among the audience after the movie is finally over. So, I don’ t mind that she took home an Oscar for her work since she proves how effective comedy can be and she was able to let her performance work even within the context of Ghost – a comedic role like hers could easily have felt out of place but Whoopi Goldberg was luckily able to avoid this feeling.

Unfortunately, I still do have problems with her performance – on the one hand, it’s hard to deny how negligible her role and her performance are. Yes, she provides some laughs but it’s still hard to really admire her work here. I also think that, sometimes, she overdid the comedy in her performance. Too often she wrinkles up her face in too many weird positions that can certainly make the viewers at home laugh but that feel strangely out-of-place in the scenes she appears in – especially the scene at the bank. She’s certainly a hoot here but it’s simply too much at the wrong time – would somebody really give this woman 4 million Dollars, even if she did have identification?

Her later dramatic scenes also fall rather short and show that Whoopi Goldberg could only save the material she was given if she was able to play it for laughs – anything else seems too heavy-handed, even for her.  

So, it’s maybe not a truly great performance but Whoopi Goldberg is a wonderful comic relief with some wonderful moments.

Number 61: Geena Davis as Muriel Pritchett in "The Accidental Tourist" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

Geena Davis is most certainly another member of the ‘I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?’ club. She’s a very talented and underrated performer with a strong screen presence and brings almost all roles she plays to wonderful life – unfortunately, her Oscar-winning performance is the exception. In The Accidental Tourist, Geena Davis played Muriel Pritchett, a wacky dog trainer who falls in love with a grieving man at first sight and tries to get him out of his emotional hole.

The role of Muriel is a role the Oscars were made for. She gets a lot of screen time, stands as the emotional anchor of the movie, constantly brings the movie forwards and due to her eccentricities and unusual character stands out among the other, more conventional cast members. Unfortunately, Geena Davis missed most of these aspects of Muriel and that way what could have been a wonderful and lively performance became a rather standard, very often lifeless and confusing piece of work.

The problem is that The Accidental Tourist is an extremely, or better, unbearably slow movie with wooden performances from the entire cast. Well, what a great opportunity for Geena Davis to save the movie and give it the spark and humour it needs (that’s at least what the part promises). But instead of being a joyful and charming creature, Geena Davis makes Muriel almost just as boring and uninteresting as William Hurt his Macon. She seemed to think that Muriel’s horrible haircut and cloths alone make her quirky and interesting and because of that she didn’t need to invest any of these qualities into her acting. But so many of her lines that could have been funny, charming and a breath of fresh air just feel like a never-ending repetition because she delivers them so completely uninspired, letting almost every chance to become the force of nature we would have expected go by.

Another problem is that Geena Davis fails to make her character truly understandable. Does Muriel always chase the first guy that comes into her shop? We never learn why she is so fascinated by Macon. In the end, she seems more like a stalker than anything else (when she invites him for dinner, she looks at him with such big eyes and a crazy look that you have to wonder if she will eat with Macon or if he will be the main entrance). So, her attempts to cheer Macon up become rather annoying after a while and because of that you also don’t understand why Macon would fall for her.

Well, all this sounded very negative and Geena Davis also used to have a lower position in this ranking – so why did I upgrade her? Well, even though she isn’t the breath of fresh air this boring movie would have needed, she is still the best thing about it. It may be frustrating to watch her misinterpretation of the character but she is still very charming – simply on a lower level than could have been possible. And while I think that she does not use her comedy very wisely, she is still extremely strong in the more dramatic parts of her performance. Her best is when she doesn’t say anything and simply listens to Macon explaining his grief. The look on her face is wonderful and finally, she gets a chance to explain that there is much more underneath her strange cloths and that Muriel possesses a true inner strength. Geena Davis is also excellent when Muriel and Macon have a fight and she yells at him ‘You are so selfish! You are so self-centered! You have all these fancy reasons for never doing a single thing I want!’.

So, I think the biggest disappointment in this performance is that Geena Davis could have been excellent but only settles for competent. But on this lower level, she still does some enchanting and memorable work.

Number 62: Angelina Jolie as Lisa Rowe in "Girl, Interrupted" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

The fact that Angelina Jolie is an Academy-Award-winner seems to be rather forgotten today since by now she is mostly known as one half of Hollywood’s hottest couple. But in 2000, she took home an Oscar for playing a wild and rebellious patient in a mental institution in what was supposed to be a showcase for Winona Ryder.

Basically, this is the kind of role that the Oscars loves to honour and that actors love to play – it offers almost never-ending possibilities to run the gamut of human emotions from A to Z and back again in 2 seconds and start all over again right away. Rage, anger, wild hysterics, laughter, kindness, malignance, tears, break-downs – it’s all there and Angelina Jolie makes sure to not miss any of those emotions and situations and, while she is at it even puts in a few more, too. It’s all you would expect from a role like this and Angelina Jolie posses the necessary talent and charisma to pull it off.

My problem with this performance is mostly that it’s a very one-dimensional role in which Angelina Jolie gives a performance that seems to often too limited. Every gesture, every look, every line-delivery indicates that Lisa is crazy, rebellious, wild, uncontrollable – this is certainly impressive when she appears for the first time but ultimately her performance becomes rather repetitious very soon. Since Angelina Jolie isn’t given any more depth in her character, this kind of ‘surface-acting’ is all she can do to succeed in her part and I don’t blame her for trying and applaud her for being such a force of nature but somehow everything about her feels too much out of the book ‘How to play crazy in 10 days’. Because of this, her work feels also very calculated and contrasts sometimes with the rebellious and unpredictable character she plays – basically, it’s a calculated attempt to appear spontaneous and so Angelina Jolie tried to think of as many unusual moves and gestures as possible while letting her voice run the whole spectrum from ‘mousy’ to ‘menacing’. Angelina Jolie also does not get much help from the director of the movie who tried to turn Lisa into some kind of crazy queen in the hospital (she moves her head with a cigarette in her mouth and immediately a hand with fire appears out of nowhere).

So, after explaining the limitations of the parts and her performance I want to say that within these limitations Angelina Jolie gives a very strong performance. Yes, her hysterics are very predictable but she still commands the screen effortlessly and terrifies everyone around her in a very intense, uncomfortable way. She’s able to show that Lisa is a woman who is very fascinating at first but who can put you off just as easily a few moments later. Angelina Jolie also tries to show some new sides of Lisa once she and Winona Ryder are out of the hospital and the moments when she terrorises a former friend with her way of talking is done masterfully.

So, a limited role and a limited performance but very impressive within these limitations.

Number 63: Jo Van Fleet as Kate in "East of Eden" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

In her first year in movies, Jo van Fleet made a big impression in Hollywood, starring in The Rose Tattoo with Best Actress winner Anna Magnani, I’ll cry tomorrow with Best Actress Nominee Susan Hayward and winning an Oscar for East of Eden, co-starring with Best Actor Nominee James Dean.

In East of Eden, Jo van Fleet played Kate, the madam of a brothel and, as it turns out, the mother of James Dean’s character Caleb and his brother Aaron.

This performance is one that is usually praised and admired – personally, I don’t quite understand that. When I first started watching the winners in this category I even had Jo Van Fleet on the last position simply because I found her performance so unspectacular and even obvious in a lot of moments. Well, my opinion has changed a little bit – I still have some problems with this piece of work but at the same time I began to appreciate the level of both mysteriousness and realism that she brings to her role.

But I also think that the mysteriousness of Kate works both for and against Jo Van Fleet. On the one hand, she has by far the most interesting character to play – a woman who leaves her husband and her children to open a brothel in another town sounds like a juice and interesting role, that’s for sure. But sadly the movie never truly connects with Kate – she is always an outsider, we hardly learn anything about her and the movie tries to keep as much distance from her as possible while at the same time Jo Van Fleet tries to keep as much distance as possible from the movie. The result is the already mentioned mysteriousness but sadly the movie also dropped everything that could have been interesting about Kate and left Jo Van Fleet with little to do apart from her big scene opposite James Dean.

This doesn’t mean that Jo Van Fleet faced a lost battle – Louise Fletcher was able to make a two-dimensional and distant character fascinating. Jo Van Fleet had some good material but her acting-style is often too distracting. When she lightens a cigarette, she seems to shout: ‘Look at me, I’m a method actor!’ or when she is moving a chair or bows her head to avoid James Dean’s look – it all just screams acting and feels very calculated. Nevertheless, she becomes rather impressive when Caleb asks her about his father and she tells him: ‘I shot him because he tried to stop me. I could have killed him if I wanted to but I didn’t, I just wanted him to let me go… he wanted to bring me up like a kid and tell me what to do, well nobody tells me what to do!’ But her best moment came earlier when she and James Dean are meeting outside and they talk to each other like strangers (which, basically, they are). The way she accepts his presence, laughs at bit, teases him before she ultimately realizes what he really wants is done extremely well – also because her chemistry with James Dean is perfect.

So why this position? Well, somehow what’s so distracting about Jo Van Fleet also works for the character and vice versa. There is something fascinating about Kate but the question is: does this fascination come from the writing or from the acting? I think it’s more the writing but Jo Van Fleet is still an acceptable vessel for Kate’s words. She is also very good when Caleb visits her in the middle of the night and she, unaware of his identity, shouts for her bullies to get him out and then she looks at him through the door with a kind of understanding look, as if she recognized him. Also, she is very touching in her last scene, the way she says ‘Oh, Cal…’.

At the end, the Academy honoured a very good actress, shown by her other two very different and very good performances in the same year.

Number 64: Teresa Wright as Carol Beldon in "Mrs. Miniver" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

In my first ranking, Teresa Wright made it right up to position 55 but now she dropped down a few spots for her simply and lovely performance as the ill-fated Carol, Mrs. Miniver’s daughter-in-law, who lives in an idealized England, full of lovely and nice people who have nothing more to say than ‘May I?’, ‘How kind’, ‘Thank you’ and ‘Oh please!’

Teresa Wright is a very natural actress with a lot of personal charm – and it’s mostly this charm that helps her to turn Carol into a very sweet and memorable character. Carol may start out as a fresh and interesting woman but, before you know it, she has been turned into the little wife who fears for the life of her husband during World War II. In this way, Teresa Wright does not play a true character but rather a symbol – Carol seems to stand for all the new young brides who married her love as soon as possible because every day may be the last. In this context, Teresa Wright, despite being charming and lovely, does not really have that much to do apart from either looking happy or worried and the character of Carol might have been more interesting if a less sugar-coated actress had tried a more realistic approach but at the end of the day, Teresa Wright certainly does succeed in her performance.

With her first appearance, Teresa Wright easily lays the foundation for her storyline: she asks Mrs. Miniver to make the man who works at the station to withdraw his rose from a flower contest because Carol’s grandmother also takes part in this contest and isn’t used to competition. Vin Miniver, the son of the Minivers who is just back from Oxford, reacts angrily and accuses Carol of manipulating the contest because she is a member of a better social class. In the following conversation, Teresa Wright easily makes Vin look like a fool without losing her charm or her lively spirit. In this one scene, Teresa Wright has shown that Carol cares very deeply about her grandmother, that she is a lovely young girl – and that she obviously will fall in love with Vin sooner or later.

Unfortunately, Teresa Wright is also an actress who often tends to overdo her expressions – whenever a moment requires a neutral face from her she decides to smile brightly and whenever she is supposed to be a little sad she looks as if somebody just died.

In some ways, Teresa Wright failed to make Carol a truly interesting character – it’s easy to feel sympathy for her and the love story between her and Vin is done as enchanting as possible but, as I said, there is not much to the role except smiles and tears. But, thankfully, Teresa Wright still holds a tight grip to the part and obviously understood her. This is most clear when she is able to show perfectly just the right moment when Carol truly falls in love with Vin and realizes that he is a much more mature character than she had expected – when sirens announce a German attack, Vin immediately starts to take over the situation and even gives orders to Carol’s grandmother. And suddenly, you can see how Carol sees him with different eyes.

Her biggest moment is undoubtedly her speech to her mother-in-law in which she defends her right to be as happy as possible since there could be a lifetime of tears ahead of her.

Teresa Wright does show a woman full of hopes and fears and the performance is extremely easy to like and enjoy and it’s no surprise that she won an Oscar for it but my admiration has cooled down a bit.

Number 65: Ruth Gordon as Minnie Castevet in "Rosemary's Baby" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

I already showed in my Best Actress Ranking that some performances, no matter how iconic they are, simply don’t do it for me. In the Supporting Actress category, there is probably hardly another performance more iconic than Ruth Gordon’s next-door-witch but as you can see from this ranking, I am not a real admirer. Compared to my old ranking, she got a higher position, but only a few spots…

Ruth Gordon is certainly another member of the ‘I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?’ club. First, what bugs me is that her performance and her character are so one-dimensional…I mean, apart from playing an annoying neighbor, what else does she do? There is no depth, no emotion, nothing. At least I would have expected some hidden signs of evil in her character, but not even that (except for her conversation on the phone when she talks to the doctor about Rosemary’s pregnancy and the look on her face when Rosemary tells her that she’s going out can can’t have her drink, but that’s not enough). Ruth Gordon’s own personality and screen-presence make sure that Minnie is as eccentric and weird as possible but underneath all this lays a sadly very empty and unremarkable performance.

It’s mostly the combination of Ruth Gordon’s unusual voice and her costumes that creates Minnie as the well-known character she is. With these assets, she is able to leave an impression and becomes strangely entertaining but, ultimately, her role is really nothing more than an underwritten comic relief since her chances to portray a more sinister side in her character are so limited. It’s really frustrating to watch her, like Lee Grant in Shampoo, give everything for a part that isn’t worth it. I think that the actor who played Minnie’s husband was more successful in creating a character that is both the stereotypical annoying neighbor but also evokes a feeling of insecurity, of danger. It’s a combination that Ruth Gordon missed unfortunately.

It’s certainly an interesting performance and I won’t deny that Ruth Gordon is amusing to watch but there is too much missing in this part for me to give her a better position.

Number 66: Lee Grant as Felicia Carr in "Shampoo" (Best Supporting Actress Ranking)

And we have another member of the ‘I’m glad this actress has an Oscar but why did it have to be for this movie?’ club.

In Shampoo, Lee Grant plays Felicia Carr, the bored society wife of a politician and one of the many mistresses of Warren Beatty (I lost track how many times she has sex with him during the movie).

First I want to say the good things about her performance: Lee Grant is a great actress and in Shampoo, you can see how she sinks her teeth into this part. Not a single line seems wasted, she uses every opportunity to shine and command the screen (but in a good way). Of all the women in the movie, she seems to be the only one truly dedicated to her role, trying make as much impression as possible. First, we only hear Felicia while she is having sex with George in a dark bed-room and Lee delivers her lines excellently (‘Could you just move…because that’s…that’s…JESUS CHRIST!…that’s right…’). In a later scene, she has a great emotional moment when she is angry at George and tells him ‘Don’t take up my time because my time is important!…You have no respect for me. You, you, you, you can’t distinguish between me and one of your goddamn Hollywood numbers!’ And then there is her strong final scene at the election party when is she is realizing that her life is slowly falling apart (she seems to lose both her husband and her lover to another woman) and she tells her husband ‘I hope you like Miss Shawn. Because she’s going to be very, very expensive.’ And her final scene, when she is showing her husband the finger, is a great way for the character to leave.

Now the not so good things: Despite the fact that Lee Grant gives all she has in this role, she totally misses what all the others have: charm. Shampoo is a light comedy and Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie and Warren Beatty can make that work, but Lee Grant can’t. Julie Christie and Goldie Hawn also have much more chemistry and screen presence – and, on top of that, better roles that require much more emotional and intellectual acting.

It’s almost thrilling to see Lee Grant take such a throwaway-role and fill it with life but at the same time her combination of missing screen-presence and lack of screen-time make it hard for her to stand out – even in an overall rather lifeless movie like Shampoo. It’s frustrating that Lee Grant, despite all her efforts, remains so incredibly pale – as I said, she tries very hard but can only go so far and, at the end of the day, it seems rather shocking that a majority of Academy members actually thought that this was an Oscar-worthy performance.

An actress with more natural charm and a stronger screen-presence might have done more in this role but ultimately, even the most talented actress could not have overcome the limitations of the script and the part. In this way, Lee Grant did a respactable job – but hardly praiseworthy.