Brian last week: 5 reasons why Emma Stone will win best actress Brian this week: 10 reasons why Emma Stone won best actress Brian next week: 25 ways in which the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi prophesied Emma Stone’s second Oscar win in 1750 BC
of course she won, this was Hollywood's attempt at disguising pedophilia as a farce, a baby's brain inro a grown woman who is obsessed with sex? and Hollywood is in favor of pedos, if it's dressing up little girls in tiaras and gowns, makeup.... name a child actor in Hollywood that wasn't raped? so that they are tring to normalize pedophilia, that;s what poor things is, a soft porn film of a baby woman, who is obssessed with sex, enjoys being a prostitute, ...it's so ridiculous, what baby or child is obessessed with sex? in fact the word child & sex don't belong in the same sentence, ...how did mark rufolo go from spotlight to playing a character who exploits a child in a womans body??? I saw he initially turned down the role when first offered, he should have listened to his gut & soul, but I guess the money bought that off...he sold out... doesn't it bother anyone that the dr willem dafoe who was obviously abused by his mad scientist father, kills a viable baby & puts it's brain into a woman? why? who would do such a thing, this film is a hollywood producer pedophile's wet dream, a dad having sex with a baby woman in front of his two son's... Hollywood STOP sexualizing & exploiting children, it's disgusting & amoral.
Yorgos Lanthimos has directed Olivia Coleman and Emma Stone to Oscar victory. Now he needs to reunite with Rachel Weisz and direct her to a second Oscar and THE FAVOURITE trifecta will be complete
@@brentholcomb7842 I agree Nicole Kidman is a phenomenal actress. She should team up with him or Cate Blanchett. But Nicole Kidman definitely deserves a second Oscar considering how consistent she is.
Emma's performance in "Poor Things" is one of the best acting performances I have seen in several years. Thank goodness I saw this movie in the theatre.
@@destinypirate, Casey Affleck in Manchester by the Sea, Charlize Theron in Monster, Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins (and Ted Levine) in The Silence of the Lambs, Natalie Portman in Black Swan...
@@rafac7384 Absolutely on Foster (and Levine!) & Hopkins in Silence. (Like Emma Stone, the others you noted are quit good yet.... compare their range-intensity and naturalness of expression with the 'Silence' cast and you will see the distinction between good and great). While the hard work is evident and impressive, none of the next Gen come close to allowing their craft to so settle them into character (as do the best of the Foster's/Hopkin's Gens).
@@destinypirate, Natalie Portman in Black Swan and Jackie is amazing! Brie Larson in Room... It depends on what kinda role we're talking about cause each performance has its own way.
I also predicted Emma Stone would get it, because this year really didn't seem to be anything like last, except how the awards were split again. She definitely earned the Oscar this time around, and it really is too bad voters can't see the future, because knowing she won this time, makes it even more heartbreaking that Isabelle Huppert didn't the last time. Knowing Emma will have many more chances for a third, I just hope Lily is seriously afforded another chance. I also REALLY hope Annette gets another opportunity.
I've seen a lot of people say that this was the 'only shot' Lily had of winning an Oscar, but I don't think so. Her performance was hugely acclaimed and I think she has a great career ahead of her. I hope so anyway: even if I prefer Emma Stone's performance, she was amazing!
Depends - I don't trust Hollywood to give her a role of this heft anytime soon. We can only hope. But I don't see Emma winning a 3rd anytime soon (Frances was an exception and not the rule)
Unfortunately the problem is roles like the ones Lily can take are rare. There aren't many directors making native american movies for which she can be cast and they always seek out white actresses for normal roles. If a white actress won an oscar or not, it would be fine because Hollywood has plenty of opportunities for them but a native American actress has almost none - especially ones that could offer an oscar nomination. This probably was her only chance.
what i kept hearing is "this might be the best shot gladstone has at an oscar" and unfortunately i think that's true. when an acting category doesn't have a singular stand-out performance, i feel like everyone gravitates toward the biggest, loudest performance as a default. knowing the type of roles gladstone has been in, i don't see the academy championing quiet, subdued performances like the ones she often gives
Yeah the Academy really values physicality and loudness over nuance and subtlety, as evidenced by Amy Adams not even getting a nomination for Arrival (no I will not get over this)
I also don't understand the recent winners cannot win oscars when literally Maheshala Ali has sandwich victory and Frances McDormand winning her 3rd Oscar short after her previous win. Heck, if we will factor other categories, Alejandro has even a back to back win for Directing
Makeup and Hairstyling is now a major indicator for lead actor/actress. Amadeus, Driving Miss Daisy, La Vie en Rose, The Iron Lady, Dallas Buyers Club, Darkest Hour, and the past 3 years; The Eyes of Tammy Faye, The Whale, and Poor Things. The Oscars don't love a narrative but SAG absolutely does. Lily going for lead was a smart decision. It adds value to her status as an actor. It will do her good in the future. She will get more lead roles rather than supporting. I don't think anyone in our lifetime will pass Meryl but Emma might be on the level of Bette Davis one day. She will be a future name check nominee because she's that good.
It's too easy to win the Oscars recently, just do a character with some Physical disability, put on tons of Make up, a British accent would be a plus and even better if you play a Bi/Gay character for Diversity puropses. Real Acting like Sandra Huller in Anatomy is barely recognized these days
I felt that Poor Things is not a film for everyone (personally, I thought it was the best film of 2023), but one thing you can't deny - Emma Stone's performance was the best of last year. She deserved this second Oscar - just as she deserved her first for La La Land. I can't wait for her next Oscar nomination.
I never for a second though after seeing Poor Things that Emma would lose the Oscar. I liked Killers of the Flower Moon more than you Brian but still.. I always go by performance. And as you said Emma gave the performance of the year!
I knew Emma was going to win, she nailed that role and it was truly the Best! Lily's role (IMO) was a bit one level, it's not a bad thing, but Emma gave us a performance unlike what we've seen before.
I think looking at the strength of the movie can be a good way to determine the outcome of lead performances as the lead performance is such a crucial part of a movies succes. Especially with Poor Things where Emma Stone's performance was heralded as the big highlight of the movie, it just didn't make sense that Emma wouldn't win if Poor Things was the stronger movie.
Gladstone could have possibly won if Scorsese wasn't so obsessed with wasting his time on Leo and the villanous activities. Did we really need to see AC Kirby rob a bank when we could have had more scenes with Lily.
The scene where deniro was hitting leo bum with a wooden stick wasn't need. Those court room scenes weren't needed. A native american should have directed/written the screenplay for this film
Apparently he departed from the book a decent amount by including as much native perspective as he happened to in the film. I also think he should’ve just fully committed and made Lily a true co-lead with Leo. This is why I thought Emma was much more deserving. Huller would’ve also been a great pick as well.
Yeah like if anyone’s complaining about her loss blame the script, and also the fact that that’s how much they included after a rewrite, she had like 2 scenes before apparently
1. Because Emma and Sandra were the best in their category 2. Because Flowers is SUPER LONG that Lily's role seemed so small (it wasn't.) 3. Lily's outstanding performances were based on Leo's character. She was reacting. More of a "they complimented each other" type of thing. 4. Flowers was NOT an actress' movie. It wasn't solely about showcasing her talent, it was about telling a dark story from US history. It's a movie critic's/historian's film. 5. Sandra and Emma's movies were about how far they can go, and how great they are. It's an award about who was the "Best Actress" and while that will always be subjective, Lily's win would have been a Kate Winslet-type of category fraud for The Reader. Lily's role in Flowers is NOT a leading actress-type performance. It's not as crazy as Michelle Williams' category fraud last year, but still, I watched Flowers twice (I know, I have a lot of time 😂) and I still can't see how she could be nominated for LEAD.
Emma and Sandra ? we all know Sandra was the best this Year, who was amazing in two of the best Movies of this year, if she was American she would sweep the Season
Never got the impression that Kate Winslet was anything but a lead in The Reader. Didn’t know she competed in supporting in other awards until after the fact.
As sad as I am for Lily, great performance, Emma Stone's turn in Poor Things was just amazing. Best performance of 2023. And personally I didn't care for La La Land or her performance in it.
Lily had the Stone effect: Easily could have won in Best supporting actress category but she campaigned for Best Leading actress.... I always said her role was more of a side character and would have not made me happy if she wins Best actress.... However Emma literally carried the whole PT on her shoulders, literally any of her scenes could have been an Oscar clip. It was such an interesting experience..... Totally earned her 2nd Oscar!
Emma's Oscar win is well-deserved 👏 Her 3rd film with Yorgos Lanthimos Kinds of Kindness is coming out in June, and I'm curious about her Oscar chances with that film 🤔
'Kind Of Kindness' is an anthology film.. so maybe Stone might get at the Oscars noms for supporting.. but I think it might end up as in Live-Action in the category
Not yet. We need to see the next 10 years of Emma Stone’s career and how it’s going to turns out. Look at after Hilary Swank’s 2nd Oscar, how was her career after that ?
A well deserved win for Emma. This was the performance of the year. Lily should have positioned herself for the supporting actress category. Lily would definitely have swept all the awards over Da'vine Joy Randolph.
Tbh, Emma deserved it. She was just fantastic in poor things…lily was also very good in killers of the flower moon, but Emma transformed into her role.
I think it was mostly that Poor Things was the more popular picture come awards season. Killers of the Flower Moon received some great reviews and tons of nominations but won very little, and nothing at the Oscars (literally the second time in a row Marty made a movie, got ten nominations and won nothing, like, seriously I feel like the Oscars have something against him, it was especially sad since most if not all of the Indigenous nominees who were nominated lost to previous winners). This is a shame because Killers of the Flower Moon is pretty damn good. I haven’t seen Poor Things (frankly it doesn’t look appealing to me) but I’m a Scorsese fan, of course I’m gonna prefer his movie generally. Whatever the case, I still think Gladstone was amazing in her movie and deserved that Best Actress nomination. I don’t even care about people’s opinions about her category.
I don't think anyone has a vendetta against Marty and his generation, which includes Spielberg and Cameron. He's just easy to take for granted when there are always newer talents (who owe him a great deal of gratitude!) to celebrate and guys like Nolan waiting for their turn. If only the academy had given Marty his due when he was younger. Waiting until The Departed was insane.
@@richkee2024 yeah, I was more joking around with that, but it is crazy to imagine that Billie Eilish has more Oscars than Martin bloody Scorsese. And I mean, I love The Departed, it’s one of my favourite of his movies, but waiting until that movie to award Best Director and Best Picture. Insane. Then again, given the way the Academy treated Kubrick, Hitchcock and other legends maybe he’s lucky.
She won because she was simply the best out all acting nominees! All those “experts”, media outlets… all immediately jumped on Lily bandwagon. I’m happy to be one of those who felt and predicted that right. Happy for you! Thank you for this video❤Emma’s filmography is truly outstanding…maybe soon #3 will be in conversation 🤞😏
Excellent deepdive!! Congrats for sticking w Emma!! 🎉✌️ I reckon only you and Luke Hearfield stick w her while the vast majority (99.5%) of Oscars experts/pundits follow the herd n switch camp to Lily in the last few days leading up to the Oscars, even thot many were super unsure of their final choice. All of them are totally blindsided by SAG!! 😂 I luv that the SAG stats are broken!! so that no expert/pundit can be 100% sure or just rely on SAG's winners to make their last min predictions next year!! 🤗
There is a lot of overlap between Oscar voters and voters for SAG and BAFTA. I really hope he starts to acknowledge this in the future. People who are voting for the Globes and Critics Choice are not Academy members. Yes winning the prize helps amplify your chances and shines a spotlight on your performance. However, SAG & BAFTA are critical due to the similar voting blocks were there are a lot of voters who are members of both the Academy & SAG & BAFTA or the Academy & SAG. Yes, screen time, performance, release date, and the campaign machine behind it also matter. I still feel if the Color Purple had come out sooner it would have done better. I think Zac Efron would have garnered some nominations somewhere if the Iron Claw did not come out so criminally late in the year.
I predicted Emma Stone too, because 1. she won most of the precursors 2. her film Poor Things was getting a lot of attention and love with its win for Best Picture, Musical or Comedy at the Golden Globes and its wins at the Oscars, including Makeup and Hairstyling, which can sometimes be an indicator who could win Best Actor or Actress 3. Killers of the Flower Moon was not getting many wins at various awards shows except Lily Gladstone winning Best Actress at Golden Globes and SAG. It did not win anything at Critics’ Choice and BAFTA and eventually with the Oscars.
Lily is a very good laid-back actress but Emma totally "carried" her movie. I think the Academy recognized the talent it took to front a Rated R film in this day and age.
Because Emma had the most unique, original, one of a kind male or female performance of the year!I think SAG gave the award to Lily to welcome her warmly as a member of the union. But still Emma had the edge, as her performance was something you have never seen before. I think I will never forget the wave of overwhelming feelings I had when I left the cinema after watching Poor Things
I'm British and my favourite film of the decade is Everything Everywhere All At Once... it will always be weird to me that BAFTA was the only major awards body to not fully embrace EEAAO for the big prizes, and it was such an outlier that it messed up predictions for this year.
I think the technical acting challenges that Poor Things poses probably helped. Developing from the mind of a fetus to adulthood in an adult's body required more choices all around - her physical acting was nearly as diverse as her overall performance, it was at times humorous, repellant, gleeful, sex positive with the "furious jumping" -- sometimes that was disturbing based on some of her clients. I wish I had the movie available to me now so I could name more examples, but she adjusts her body as a student, a daughter, a wife, a mistress, a guilt-ridden steamboat passenger learning of poverty that when combined with the rest of a her performance displayed someone learning about themselves in a range of shifting mental ages based on her character's development in threads that aren't always linear, i.e., we see her develop more quickly as a sexual partner than we do in her relationship with her "father"/"God." I know they don't film in order, but I think it's impressive that she built in all this complexity into a performance that's not as linear as it seems on first watching it and hits right at those critical moments.
Firstly, thank you Brian for all your content, it's really been keeping me going through a rather tough time, and we tend to agree most of the time. Secondly, THANK YOU for mentioning Emma in The Curse. Every time I've had a debate with someone over why I thought Emma Stone was going to win the Oscar, I would mention The Curse. She gave an equally phenomenal, wholly unique, totally committed, and absolutely original performance that it was almost frightening (and sometimes, well, just frightening-- especially that clip you used of her in this video, ha). PLUS, she was also nominated for it at the Globes along with Poor Things. So was Sandra Huller (which if it wasn't for Emma, I'd have given the Oscar to her), but it just proved that this was Emma's year that she dominated. And of course, like you said, there was so much debate whether Gladstone was leading or supporting, which I think also went against her. I'll stop rambling, but I'm stoked Emma won. She's quickly become one of my top five favorite actresses working today after her double whammy of The Curse and Poor Things. Can't wait to see what she does next.
It was category fraud putting Lily Gladstone in the best acress race instead of best support. She was great but she felt more like a supporting character than the main lead.
The problem was that they campaigned to have Lily gladstone in Best Actress and that was the mistake, it was partly not the Academy's fault. When the Awards race began, everyone assumed that Lily gladstone would be in Best Supporting Actress but surprisingly she was moved to Best Actress, due to the campaign.
Some people act as if Gladstone should have won when we all know that her ancestry is the only thing going for her. Emma won all except SAG (which is understandable given that SAG cant be objective). Race should not be a factor in awards.
Emma won because she was the better actress in the bunch her performance was the best out of the bunch and that's that, period Tbh i think Sandra Hüller was her closest competition
Nicole Kidman won for THE HOURS she was 22 minutes on screen. Anthony Hopkins won for THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, he was 15 minutes only. It's not about how long you show on screen, it's how impactful you are in the story. And she was fantastic. Honestly the two were good runner-ups until the last minute.
@@adilelnhaily6014it’s just more examples of actors being in the wrong category. Screen time should absolutely matter. You can’t be a lead if you aren’t in the majority of the film. None of those winners should’ve been in the lead categories as well. It’s a bit of an ongoing joke that this happens every couple years. Lily could’ve had an Oscar if she was advised to campaign for the role she actually held in the movie!
She gave the best performance since, well, Cate Blanchett gave in Tar just last year. But last year, politics won over Blanchett, who clearly should have won, head and shoulders above everyone (yes, I'm talking to You Michelle Yoeh). The difference this year is that Lilly was in the wrong category: if Apple instead justifiably campaigned her for best supporting actress like her role in the movie actually was, she would've won handily over Randolph, no question 11:22
The Academy put Lily Gladstone in the wrong category. Emma didn't rob nothing. Lily should've been in and won for supporting actress instead of Ameríca.
I know this about Emma Stone, but she gave the second best performance of the year. Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer is the best performance of 2023. And he won all the awards, didn't he. As RDJ did.
Oh, no Stones' performance was the best. Stone stood out for her different role. Murphy, RDJ and Randolph all did well but played pretty standard roles.
the actress who SHOULD'VE WON wasn't even nominated. Margot Robbie in BARBIE was the best actress in 2023. Of those that were nominated, Lily Gladstone should've won. Emma Stone did nothing but do PORN in Poor Things. If that's what the academy calls acting you may as well give an Oscar to Jenna Jameson.
The only way I see her winning is either in Supporting Actress OR an Honorary Oscar at this point. Glenn I feel will have one year where the Academy will be thoroughly embarrassed if they don't give it to her - it is just shameful at this point.
She was so multifaceted in Poor Things. She had to make us believe she grew from a literal newborn to a rebellious teen, to an intelligent, compassionate, learned woman - WOW. She was great and I want to see it again.
Michelle yeoh also had a very different narrative from Lily Gladstone veteran of the screen who had been passed over way too many times whereas Lily Gladstone is relatively new to the industry
Yep,I have a friend who was an extra on one of her earlier films (she was already well known) and he’s also said she was I friendly, and made sure to make time talking and even hanging out with extras on the set. Even played a game of checkers with her
Sometimes I wonder if I accidentally took crazy pills. Emma Stone gave such a dynamic and interesting performance that I didn’t even think I would see her get to do. She was a winner for me, easily, and I saw all those movies. She owned Poor Things.
I have always really liked her - but Maniac was when I became an absolute die hard fan. She was the only reason I watched Poor Things and I do not regret it at all. That film was a whole ass ride.
With a less talented filmmaker, Poor Things could have easily been bait for the Razzies. Emma is really brave & talented for taking on this type of role.
One small but huge thing I appreciate in your videos is that when you mention a past win or nomination, you always name the film and year. Some people don't, and it makes the experience less satisfying. Great attention to detail, much appreciated!
All the other pundits were completely wrong. Especially after Emma won the BAFTA and Lily wasn't even nominated. Sandra probably even beat Lily to 2nd place.
A big issue is that KOTFM put all their hopes of winning on Lily. The film was doing better and so was Lily (with early critics’ prizes) because the emphasis was on Scorsese, and the strengths of the movie as a whole. KOTM looked like a weak film overall compared to PT and I think it affected Gladstone and KOTFM in all categories.
'Killers of the Flower Moon' Is Martin Scorsese's Third Film to Go 0-10 at the Oscars. I don't know who he pissed off or what branch but something is up.
2 reasons Emma won: it was actually a lead performance. Gladstone’s was not. Them pushing the first native american to win this award is the second reason she won. It backfired. Gladstone was good. Dont get me wrong. But if you’re comparing the two… there is comparison. One is experimental, revolutionary, and fully lived in. The other is the equivalent to someone showing up to work on time. Good job but not enough to be a win. Its not gladstone’s movie, perspective, plotline or character arc.
I really do think that Emma, could have yet another Oscar in her career. making it 3. I have always been aware of her acting ability for years now. I have always said since i saw Paper Man/ Unlikely Hero. that Emma Stone, could win a Oscar, and she did of course in La La Land. and after that i thought it wont be to long till she gets another, and she did for Poor Things. Time will tell of course for a 3rd but i think it will happen.
She is only 35... Frances McDormand got her second and third Oscar age 61 and 63. Meryl Streep got her third Oscar (second Best Actress) at 63. Katherine Hepburn got her second Oscar at 65, her third at 66 and her fourth one at 79... So it's just a matter of what roles she keeps having. Hilary Swank who won 2 Oscars before the age of 31 didn't get any Oscar worthy role since Million Dollar Baby in 2004. Jodie Foster got some nominations here and there since her two Oscars win at the age of 28, but never managed to win..
@@destinypirate I doubt she gets her 3rd in the next 10-15 years. Certain circumstances have to happen that the Academy will give you a 3rd. Frances is a special exception although I feel Carey Mulligan gave her a run for her money that year and is now overdue.
@@kevink9764 I truly wish that the Academy had taken a Mulligan (sorry I couldn't resist). Nomadland was essentially a mockumentary without the humor. The Academy felt obliged due to the level of ''immersion'' that Frances went to. Somehow, actually living in a van is mistaken for method acting, which it can be, but we are on a slippery slope now - where the actors BECOME the characters - She just did a better job than most on their ''reality'' shows and was given the feature format. Sigh, Back to Mulligan - the issue wasn't her acting, but the script. The plot accelerated the arc and in an era where subtext has to be so evidently worn, there just wasn't enough given in Promising.
Oh yes, I think Paperman was the first movie her immense talents really came through. That movie really showed she could become one of the best actors in the industry. And now she is a two time Oscar winner and she only seems to be getting better :)
I was rooting hard for Lily but I actually changed my vote to Emma at the last minute. After Michelle Yeoh's win it was clear the Academy was hungry for something out the norm in performances and while Lily did do an amazing and I find Poor Things to be problematic, at the end of the day Lily would have gone in history for being the 1st Native American Best Actress with a solid performance but Emma Stone will go down in film history like Michelle Yeoh for one of the most eyebrow raising versatile Best Actress performances.
Emma Stone deserved that Oscar! She was amazing. The best performance of the year and one of the greatest performances of the decade! Lily should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress, where she belonged. And America Ferrera being nominated for that cr4p performance was the joke...
That was precisely the mistake they made. They campaigned for Lily gladstone to be nominated for Best Actress when her place was for Best Supporting Actress. If Lily gladstone had been in Best Supporting Actress she would surely have won the Oscar, although Da'vine joy randolph's performance in The Holdovers is incredible, Lily gladstone manages to steal Killers of the flower moon and overshadow two great Actors.
@@neutral7786, yeah. Sometimes, the ego does that haha. But seriously, I think she would have been the winner for Best Supporting Actress, and that would have been so deserving.
hoping Lily Gladstone can get her Oscars Best Actress victory in the future also to Annette Bening, Glenn Close, Lupita Nyong'o, Viola Davis, Lady Gaga, Melissa McCarthy, Amy Adams, Angela Bassett, Regina King, Greta Lee, Angelina Jolie, Kristen Stewart & etc...
We have literally have the same predictions. Lily’s yearbook prophecy will come to fruition. Angelina can definitely win a second Oscar if she ever makes a serious return to acting. And the fact that Angela or Glenn hasn’t won is ridiculous.
@@Alchamei Renée Zellweger, Jessica Lange both have Oscars in lead & supporting so why not those actresses already won the Oscars.. look at Emma Stone both have the Oscars Best Actress trophies then why not Nyong'o, Davis, Jolie & King can't have?
I got 21/23 on Golderby right. My best results yet. I knew Poor Things would overperform, and Emma would win. Honestly, people have this idea Oscars always go for narrative. The Academy takes into account multiple things: movies passion, performance, narrative, competition, etc... it's not just one thing. I feel like people where always focusing on the narrative for Gladstone and that's it. Brian, you were one of maybe another RU-vidr that stuck to his guns. Congrats. 🎉🎉🎉 Really excited for your predictions nexts year. You seem to know your stuff.
@@rbak2679 Yeoh was in the Best Picture winner that literally swept the Oscars with 7 wins. It's very similar to Cillian this year. Fraser had without a doubt the best performance that year. Again, there are multiple factors not just one.
The ego's of Leo and Marty ruined killers of the flower moon. That could have been a Best Picture Winner if they had paired it down quite a bit Martin Scorsese had made her more the central protagonist of the film instead of Leonardo DiCaprio's super uninteresting character
@@tony4534 you seriously don't think Martin Scorsese has control over the movies he makes at this point? I would buy this for a first time director but not him
Love your thoroughness, Brian, as always! I 100% agree that Lily Gladstone made the right decision campaigning for lead. I want more actors to do that - and I agree that Viola Davis could have won in lead for Fences (I would add that Mahershala Ali could have won over Rami Malek for lead in Green Book given that Green Book ultimately won Best Picture). Speaking of strong films, I do not think Lily Gladstone could have beaten Da’Vine Joy Randolph in the supporting category because Da’Vine was SWEEPING the supporting category from beginning to end. The Holdovers had a stronger performance this awards season with televised awards for Paul Giamatti and Dominic Sessa (Critic’s Choice). And I’m saying this as a Lily fan who wanted her to win Best Actress! In supporting, she might have gotten a BAFTA nomination, but The Holdovers over performed with BAFTA nominations and Killers of the Flower Moon missed many for which it was shortlisted, not just lead actress. So I think Lily took the right risk going in lead, and I don’t think she could have won over Da’Vine in supporting actress.
I always think transformative roles (playing distinct, historical figures or someone otherwise unusual) automatically give you a leg-up for awards if you do it right.
Michelle won not because of race but because she was also a standout performer that year similar to Cate. But with Michelle, her movie did exceptionally well so a lot of people saw that and hence more voters. You cannot equate Michelle with Lily, that was an average performance, in a movie that didnt do well.
I was avoiding watching Poor Things because I'm not Yorgos Lanthimos previous works but after Emma won I decided to check it out and watched it this weekend and so glad I did was amazing performance by Emma Oscar deserved.
Sandra was the best this Year, who was amazing in two of the best Movies of this year (The Zone Of Interest & Anatomy Of a Fall), if she was American she would sweep the Season
Yes, that's true. But she was the foreign outsider that makes it from times to times to the Oscars without great chance to win (like Isabelle Huppert).
Agree, Anatomy of a Fall should’ve won several awards. I’m fine with Stone winning though. I think the true race really should’ve been between Sandra and Stone. Gladstone should’ve been supporting and likely would’ve swept award season if she had decided to campaign for that award.
Within the first 10 minutes of Poor Things, I was locked in to the movie based solely on Ms. Stone's performance. And within 30 minutes, I was convinced she'd get best actress (and I hadn't seen any of the other performances).
all valid reasons - having not seen Gladstone but knowing a bit of the role - Emma Stone had to create a persona, a character and not just play a person - physical and mental acrobatics - I can't say enough about how difficult I thought that role would have been to create
Viola won SAG twice, once for The Help and another for Ma Raineys but went on to lose the Oscar both times for Meryl Streep and Frances McDormand respectively.
@@jacklemm1518 I am salty about Meryl Streep beating Viola and Carey Mulligan losing to McDormand. Mulligan should be an Oscar winner by now and Davis should have two Oscars!
@@お笑いヌーヴェルヴァーグLaghterneuv wow ok go to asia and say the award cerenomies are too asian. go to africa and say there are too many black people. SAG showed actors in hollywood refelect the population in america - guess what america is mostly white
I kept Emma as my guess too (by a slim margin tho lol) after SAG as well mostly because KotFM was not a major awards darling (wins-wise) or front runner in anything else. And with Emma and Lily seeming pretty neck-and-neck I was like 'I feel like the person in the better received movie has the advantage when it's so close.' Once Poor Things won technicals back-to-back, I was like 'yeah, I think it's Emma.' I will say I thought Emma having one already did hurt her chances (hence the 'slim margin') and I did not pay enough attention to Lily completely missing out at even a BAFTA nom (hence the 'slim margin' part 2 lol). I legit would have been super happy with Emma, Lily, or Sandra. All three of them gave absolute masterclass performances (in three very different ways) and I was in awe of all three of them tbh like what a great year for the Lead Actress category. I know Emma and Sandra will be back at the Oscars and Lily will too. I just know that WOC actresses have less opportunities to even audition for nuanced roles (since it's simply that less exist for them to go for) that lead them to the Oscars (especially for Lead), but I'm hopeful at the news of her upcoming roles that she'll be back in time. Bravo to all three of them tho!
I knew Emma was going to win too - it was obvious, I'm not a huge Emma fan, but actors vote for actors, and you can't deny it was a strong performance, better than Lily frankly. Lily was good, but Emma had a massive acting challenge and she hit it out of the park.
