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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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 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.
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?
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
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).
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 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 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 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 RUclipsr 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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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 ?
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
She might be a two time academy award winner actress, but she could never fake the shock, surprise and breathless reaction of that night. She’s an amazing actress and always have seen like a great person. So happy for Emma, she deserves it
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.
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.
She won because her performance was by far the most memorable, daring, interesting and to my subjective opinion, the best performance of the year. She had no narrative at all, already a winner, she wasn't starring in an Important!!! film about the Holocaust or the genocide of American-Indians, or playing some historical figure, she played a role that's an anthesis to the usual Oscar winner. It's a comedic, complicated, provocative performance. And in spite of all that, she still won. Deservedly.
When I left the theater upon watching poor things, I knew she had best actress clenched. I don't know what the pundits were smoking, because after seeing her performance next to Lily Gladstone. I knew Emma had it. Emma Stone carried that film every scene every act. Lily Gladstone may have had "wishful opinion" awakened for her, but call on Stone that she had it firmly in her mind body and soul was right. (btw, I had 3 picks wrong... boom!)
It's a big showy performance which typically fares very well across most branches of the academy. When it came to the acting community, the SAG (Screen Actor's Guild) went to Gladstone's more nuanced, soulful performance.
@@jacklemm1518 it may not be outlandish for ppl that look at the pundits for their answers. if you view art works from a point of effort and final product, then the pundits seem like lemmings just walking back and forth as the tides of the cycle repeat itself.
Poor Things was just by miles a stronger contender than Killers of the Flower Moon. This isn't like EEAAO and Tar getting almost equal love. Also the SAG being made up of actors is far more likely to single out a performance over the film which is why Lily Gladstone and Glenn Close (The Wife) won those. In contrast the bigger voting body of the Oscars tends to get influenced a bit more by the entire film overall which is why Emma Stone and Olivia Coleman had better chances with their far superior films.
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 had Emma the whole season up until SAG, and then I switched. However, I knew deep inside it would be Emma. For me, it comes down to her being the actual lead in her film, and Lily felt more like a supporting role. Also, Emma was a producer in Poor Things as well, that added an extra layer to her involvement and investment in the film. She also had the bigger performance of the 2.
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.
I have always thought Emma Stone SHOULD be the winner because her performance in Poor Things was definitely the best of the year, certainly better than Lily Gladstone in Killer. Not to take away Gladstone’s performance, I believe she is having a bright career ahead of her! Her name and her face are out there now - she is good, she is young, and she’s been acting for some time already and getting better. Gladstone will be having a great future. Emma Stone’s performance in Poor Things was truly the performance of the year! I do agree on that comment! Well deserved!
Despite all the buzz around Poor Things, I tried to not know anything about it and postponed watching it until the weekend before the oscars. I was also convinced that no matter how good Emma Stone was, the oscar would go to Gladstone nonetheless. However, when I finally watched the movie I was in such freaking awe at Emma's performance I couldn't wrap my head around anyone else winning. Thank God she won. Not that Gladstone didn't deserve it, but Stone is just on another level.
Most branches of the Academy like big, showy performances, so Emma's win makes complete sense. If it were up to the actors it would've gone to Gladstone, who won the SAG. Lily was awarded by her peers, which is probably the greatest professional complement of all.
I am glad i also stuck to predicting Emma, i knew people were too quick to dismiss BAFTA (from the day of the ceremony til the very last second) because of its bad record last 2 years. BAFTA has had a very good predictive body in the past and SAG had quite a few misses that were forgotten about
Her acceptance speech reminded me of Sally Fields second Oscar moment, it seems like #2 really hits home for winners. And how fitting she got to present her name
No one who was nominated for an Oscar that year was nominated for a BAFTA, so it’s not the same. BAFTA that year was pretty much irrelevant in predicting Best Actress, 0 overlap between BAFTA and Oscars. Whoever was going to win a BAFTA was 100% not winning an Oscar, since the eventual winner wasn’t even nominated there, and the other way around: the eventual winner of the Oscar (Jessica Chastain) wasn’t winning a BAFTA by any chance.
Agreed. I wish the general public would understand that and apply that logic when reacting to other awards shows too. It seems to be lost on people when it comes to the Emmy’s, for instance.
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.
Gladstone's personal "identity" narrative took over and sadly influenced the thinking of those who were making Oscar predictions. Those folks, however, failed to take something into account: Gladstone's performance was lovely, but she wasn't the film's central character, AND it was a bit too subtle for today's Academy voters. Stone's film was ABOUT Stone's character... that fact, alone, sealed it. In addition, it was showy, crazy, and unlike anything we've seen before. Hands down... Stone had it from the start. Cheers!
That's not an excuse though... Many Oscar winners for Best Actress were not the central characters (Olivia Colman in THE FAVOURITE, Jennifer Lawrence in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, Kate Winslet in THE READER, Reese Witherspoon in WALK THE LINE, Hilary Swank in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, Nicole Kidman in THE HOURS, who was only in 22 minutes of the film, Halle Berry in MONSTER'S BALL, Helen Hunt in AS GOOD AS IT GETS, etc...). Gladstone was A lead, and not THE lead, as the film was not centered only on her, but on Leonardo DiCaprio's character as well. Both of them are lead. What sealed the deal was that more people ended up voted for Emma Stone. It was like in 2019. Glenn Close was the big favorite (and she was THE lead in THE WIFE), she was this queen of Hollywood, longtime overdue, her performance was critically acclaimed and she won the Golden Globes, Critics Choice and SAG Awards... and she lost to Olivia Colman for THE FAVOURITE, while she was not THE lead... technically the lead was Emma Stone... who was nominated as a supporting role... It's really a matter of votes.
@@adilelnhaily6014 Olivia Colman was the central character - both women were revolving around her. also just because someone oscar fraud is a thing sometimes doesnt remove the definition of a lead. The oscars got havey critisim for the Reader
@@deusexmachina9776 Actually the main character was Emma Stone's character. She was the one fighting to become THE FAVOURITE. It's about her hussling from the bottom, to reach the top, and then being dismissed. She was definetly the lead. As for Kate Winslet, she had two great films the same year : "REVOLUTIONARY ROAD'' and ''THE READER. She was competitive in both films, but she campaigned as supporting for THE READER so she could get a double nomination and then the focus was on THE READER when REVOLUTIONARY ROAD left the race. So it was category fraud in the Supporting category.
@@adilelnhaily6014 Coleman's character is the one who made the decisions to drive the plot forward. her decision allowed eMMA'S chracterto become a lady, to to fire and have Rachel's character in jail.
@@adilelnhaily6014 CHATGPT says: Queen Anne's emotional journey, her struggles with health, her vulnerability, and her relationships with both Sarah Churchill and Abigail Masham are central to the story. The power dynamics between these characters, particularly the tug-of-war between Sarah and Abigail for the Queen's favor, revolve around Queen Anne's position and decisions. Therefore, Queen Anne can be considered the main character around whom the narrative revolves.
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 🤞😏
So many contenders lost alot of steam. Charles melton Rosamund pike Julianna moore and Natalie Portman Fantasia Andrew scott and Paul mescal Priscila actress
@@singstreetcar5881 Rosamund Pike will always be ICONIC because Saltburn is already a cult movie. So the recognition will be there BUT Charles Melton totally deserved the nomination. May December was wrongly marketed
@@TaquitoDeAsadayea the award shows just didn’t like Saltburn which surprised me. Even if they don’t appreciate that film I know a lot of people love it. Even if you hate it, you can’t deny it’s damn entertaining!
@@user-mm3mm6qx8f 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'm glad you pointed out the Anthony Hopkins win over Chadwick Boseman. Stone's and Hopkin's scenarios are identical. When their respective films hit the festival circuit both performances were heralded as unbeatable, brilliant, Oscar-in-waiting showstoppers. The talk on both diminished through the year with the rise of two narratives that may upset the apple cart, but, the Academy does the right thing and awards the superior performances. Both were destined to win.
I’m not even mad that Emma won even though I was really gunning for Lily. Emma delivered her Charlize Theron “Monster” performance in “Poor Things”. I do feel like Lily’s time is coming just by the reaction at the SAG Awards you can tell that the actors are ready for something new. She just needs that lead role and a truly unforgettable monologue. Thinking of something like Cloris Leachmen in “The Last Picture Show”. She almost did have a few monologues but Martin rewrote the script to bring Molly in more. If y’all think this is the last we’re going to see of Lily you’re wrong she’s about to have a hell of a career. I mean “The Memory Police” is already getting some Oscar Buzz for next year. She just needs a role where she isn’t silent but the role needs depth. Her acting feels so genuine like the scene when she’s in the basement and she finds out that her sister is dead that scream she let out was heartbreaking. If someone told me that Martin killed one of her family members before shooting that scene I would have believed it. Mark my words she will keep making history and opening doors. Her yearbook prophecy will come to fruition can y’all imagine if her and Josh Ryder win at the same ceremony now that would be ICONIC.
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.
The BAFTAs got it right. Lily was great, but viewing things from England, I couldn’t help but think the cousins across the pond got carried a way a bit about her native-American ancestry. It clouded their judgment. I think being slightly removed here in the 51st state, it was clear that Emma Stone deserved the best actress award.
Not saying Emma didn't deserve it but even you have to admit the Oscars (and BAFTA's for that matter) have a spotty history when it comes to Best Actress Winners. Hoping that changes in the next 20 years
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!! 🤗
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
😂
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
100 reasons why I fell in love with @user-of6in5th4h
😂
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.
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.
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!
I definitely don't agree with winning an Oscar for a damn porno!
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.
The Hollywood industry is racist. Periodt. Emma has a better shot at a 3rd Lead win than Lily does a 2nd Lead nomination.
LOL. It's always racism.
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
I mean, exactly what I was thinking!!!!
Also need him to work with Nicole Kidman again to get her another Oscar!
He led all 3 to Bafta Wins. I think the Triple trifecta is 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.
I'd love it if Lanthimos worked with Lily Gladstone at some point.
You were so right with pointing out lily not getting a nomination at BAFTA as a hint of her not winning the Oscar. You nailed it.
My friend was a PA on one of her projects and he could not stop saying how nice she was to everyone!
I keep hearing that too
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
Also said Amanda Bynes was very nice, but you could tell she didn’t really want to be there
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!
@@N_Loco_Parenthesisfew words big impact
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.
It IS something for the Razzies. It's a sick pile of garbage.
Same thing goes for barbie also. Barbie would have been a disaster if the director and lead actress were less talented
I think it is still a candidate for a Razzie
Less talented than who ?
Watching it, it had me curious what a David Lynch version wouldve looked like. Not as good probably but still curious
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
Emma Stone has always been my favorite actress, dating all the way back to Superbad and Easy A. She is so deserving of all the accolades
Absolutely. She is fantastic! Not only is she insanely talented, but she also gives herself 100% for every project.
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.
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.
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.
Yea, it’s hard to get naked and screw on screen.
Name another best acting performance
@@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.
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.
Considering how much the Oscars aligned with BAFTA, that's very possible.
Ok Than SAG???
Sag is voted by peers. Oscars are voted by the entire eligible voting members of the Academy.
Sandra Hüller was my favorite.
Mine too. She was robbed. @@ljacobs357
I predicted Emma Gladstone
😂
Next years winner in a film directed by Yorgos Scorsese
Aw damn, I predicted Lily Stone!
My money was on Lily Mulligan. Oh well, you live and you learn.
Lilly Gladstone people are proud of you 👏 🥰💓💕
I placed a lucrative bet on Emma Stone to win and I'm so proud of my winnings. I knew she'd win as her performance was extraordinary.
i placed a lucrative bet on Lily Gladstone and I'm very sad with my loss 🥲
How much money did u win?
@@singstreetcar5881 I bet £1000 on 11/8 odds. My profit was £1375 plus my original £1000 stake back.
@@singstreetcar5881 enough to pay the bills for a month.
That was risky. Academy makes the wrong picks pretty regularly. But were actually very solid this year finally, congrats on the win haha
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.
@@kevink9764so why it didn't hype up ?
I love your enthusiasm. Emma was amazing and her speech/reaction to her win was so real and emotional. Definitely the high point.
When I saw Poor Things I was like Emma's winning that Oscar. Like she DID THAT!
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 thought the same thing, Isabelle Huppert!
Totally agree. I support Emma's getting her Oscar for Poor Things BUT Isabelle Huppert was robbed for her stunning performance in Elle.
Me too. Indigenous actresses or woc don't get a lot of lead roles, let alone Oscar attracting roles.
@@skatingcanuck9837 For real. And it is extremely shameful.
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
Alejandro G. Inarritu robbed David Fincher one year.
And Emmanuel lubeski won 3 in a row lol
Christoph Waltz too.
Poor Things was the most unexpected movie I’ve ever seen. I never thought I would actually love it. Just shows you how good it is. Emma killed it 💖.
HANDS DOWN She made me LOVE that MOVIE! What a GREAT Actress Emma Stone IS!😚🥰♥️♥️♥️
🙏🙏🙏
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.
This. I remember when Poor Things won makeup (which I predicted on Golderby) told my friends... It's over. Emma won.
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
@@tenzen6899 Stop the crying. Yeoh won last year without any of the things you mentioned.
@@tenzen6899”How dare you be interesting.” 😂
@@tenzen6899, it's easier to crying on RUclips comments about diversity...🤪
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
Sucks. There are real people like that and it's an acting accomplishment same as playing a flashy character well. But I know what you mean.
Emma Stone had the singular stand out performance.
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)
@@kristinalfc5846 I'm never getting over it either
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.
Unfortunately true
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.
Lupita, Jolie, Davis and King have at least supporting Oscars.
@@Alchamei I know.. but I want to see them collecting this women thier Oscars Best Actress trophy too
@@aaronjanlistanco I understand, but at least they have one Oscar.
@@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?
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
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).
Yay! Best win of the night and my personal favorite speech of the night. So glad the best performance in the four acting categories won!
🍾 yeah!😎
@@marikamarika7205 Hi again 🤣
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 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.
It's the most disgusting film in recent history. I despise that movie. And Emma Stone should not have gotten an Oscar for that kind of garbage.
She deserved it this time for sure, but for La La Land? No. Isabelle Huppert was robbed big time.
Totally agree with you ! This movie is its own kind of masterpiece and Emma's performance was unprecedented in every way possible ! Well deserved.
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..
amazing to think they would give her more than Streep, Taylor, Blanchett.
@@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 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 RUclipsr that stuck to his guns. Congrats. 🎉🎉🎉 Really excited for your predictions nexts year. You seem to know your stuff.
I guess the fact that some of the winners from the previous years, Fraser and Yeoh has the best narrative is a huge factor. Specially for Fraser
@@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.
I thought Lily's performance was one note.
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.
I completely agree. Well said.
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
There's also a part where Kelsey Morrison is dancing which feels like 5 mins! Who cares Marty.
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.
TWO TIMES ACADEMY AWARD WINNER EMMA STONE 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
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.
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 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.
Personally, I thought Sandra Hüller’s performance was more deserving from a pure acting perspective. But Emma Stone was a good choice.
Completely agree, sad to think greats like her and Huppert will never win cause they mainly star in 'foreign' films
She is this generation's Meryl Streep, hand's down.
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 ?
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.
Agree. I feel like Killers could be made without Lily, Poor Things couldn’t be made without Emma, that’s how leading was her perfomance
@myytchanneldinakoha8498 the story is really about the male in that movie. Kate is only in 34% of that film.
@AlvaroIbacacheS This has to be the most asinine comment I have seen in this topic. Was Leo's character going to be married to himself?
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!
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.
She should have beat Streep! The Help was the best movie personally that year and she was robbed!
Her or Carey Mulligan should’ve won in 2021. I’m still salty about it
@@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!
@@tonyg76 Totally agree. Some Oscar Politics were at play there that cost Viola and Carey - I feel especially bad for Viola against Meryl
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.
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.
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.
Hell no
It went to her because she deserved it. She was so good in that movie!
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.
Right.
every single speech the cast made they would mention their race. they played the race card so hard. so yeah it was down to race.
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 was definitely the best performance of the year 🎉
SAG wins are only voting actors. Oscar wins are the total academy voting, not just actors.
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
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
which also would have been more true to the book
Don’t blame Marty and Leo. They made the film they were paid to make.
@@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
The ego of Lily ruined her. She could have been Best Supporting Actress winner if she was where she belonged...
@@rafac7384 she could not have beaten D'Avine Joy Randolph, I don't think.
I couldn't agree with you more. Such a brilliant analysis as always. I love your posts, looking forward to the next one, thanks!
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.
I stuck with Emma from the very beginning as well - thrilled (and glad I was correct) that she won!
She might be a two time academy award winner actress, but she could never fake the shock, surprise and breathless reaction of that night. She’s an amazing actress and always have seen like a great person. So happy for Emma, she deserves it
She really didn't believe she would won because Lily's victory was the most obvious choice, in terms of politics, representation and symbol.
🤔
what? she might be an actress but she cant act.....
the *better* performance won. No one should be mad about this 🍿🏆
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.
So true
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.
She won because her performance was by far the most memorable, daring, interesting and to my subjective opinion, the best performance of the year. She had no narrative at all, already a winner, she wasn't starring in an Important!!! film about the Holocaust or the genocide of American-Indians, or playing some historical figure, she played a role that's an anthesis to the usual Oscar winner. It's a comedic, complicated, provocative performance. And in spite of all that, she still won. Deservedly.
It reminds me of cate vs michelle! If lilly had a career like michelle yeoh, yes I believe the academy would reward her
Poor things also won gold lion in veniz film festival for best picture and that is important
When I left the theater upon watching poor things, I knew she had best actress clenched. I don't know what the pundits were smoking, because after seeing her performance next to Lily Gladstone. I knew Emma had it. Emma Stone carried that film every scene every act. Lily Gladstone may have had "wishful opinion" awakened for her, but call on Stone that she had it firmly in her mind body and soul was right. (btw, I had 3 picks wrong... boom!)
It's a big showy performance which typically fares very well across most branches of the academy. When it came to the acting community, the SAG (Screen Actor's Guild) went to Gladstone's more nuanced, soulful performance.
The pundits probably assumed that if you win SAG= you win the Oscar. Which isn’t even that outlandish.
@@jacklemm1518 it may not be outlandish for ppl that look at the pundits for their answers. if you view art works from a point of effort and final product, then the pundits seem like lemmings just walking back and forth as the tides of the cycle repeat itself.
Poor Things was just by miles a stronger contender than Killers of the Flower Moon. This isn't like EEAAO and Tar getting almost equal love. Also the SAG being made up of actors is far more likely to single out a performance over the film which is why Lily Gladstone and Glenn Close (The Wife) won those. In contrast the bigger voting body of the Oscars tends to get influenced a bit more by the entire film overall which is why Emma Stone and Olivia Coleman had better chances with their far superior films.
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!
She won because she's an acting ALIEN .
Maybe she's the One who will break Katharine Hepburn's record of four wins !
Lily ahould have stayed in the supporting category.
I had Emma the whole season up until SAG, and then I switched. However, I knew deep inside it would be Emma. For me, it comes down to her being the actual lead in her film, and Lily felt more like a supporting role. Also, Emma was a producer in Poor Things as well, that added an extra layer to her involvement and investment in the film. She also had the bigger performance of the 2.
Love the videos, man. Keep it up!!!
Emma stone has another yorgos lanthimos movie coming out in june. She coming back again😂
Just give her the Oscar’s every year. It’s rigged
@@tashkenty😆👏😆😆
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.
I have always thought Emma Stone SHOULD be the winner because her performance in Poor Things was definitely the best of the year, certainly better than Lily Gladstone in Killer. Not to take away Gladstone’s performance, I believe she is having a bright career ahead of her! Her name and her face are out there now - she is good, she is young, and she’s been acting for some time already and getting better. Gladstone will be having a great future. Emma Stone’s performance in Poor Things was truly the performance of the year! I do agree on that comment! Well deserved!
Despite all the buzz around Poor Things, I tried to not know anything about it and postponed watching it until the weekend before the oscars. I was also convinced that no matter how good Emma Stone was, the oscar would go to Gladstone nonetheless. However, when I finally watched the movie I was in such freaking awe at Emma's performance I couldn't wrap my head around anyone else winning. Thank God she won. Not that Gladstone didn't deserve it, but Stone is just on another level.
Most branches of the Academy like big, showy performances, so Emma's win makes complete sense. If it were up to the actors it would've gone to Gladstone, who won the SAG. Lily was awarded by her peers, which is probably the greatest professional complement of all.
I love lily so very much but emma ate that up babe yanno
I am glad i also stuck to predicting Emma, i knew people were too quick to dismiss BAFTA (from the day of the ceremony til the very last second) because of its bad record last 2 years. BAFTA has had a very good predictive body in the past and SAG had quite a few misses that were forgotten about
What do you mean by that ?
Her acceptance speech reminded me of Sally Fields second Oscar moment, it seems like #2 really hits home for winners. And how fitting she got to present her name
You didn't mention Jessica Chastain who won an Oscar for best actress in 2022 for The Eyes of Tammy Faye, but it wasn't even nominated at Bafta's!
No one who was nominated for an Oscar that year was nominated for a BAFTA, so it’s not the same. BAFTA that year was pretty much irrelevant in predicting Best Actress, 0 overlap between BAFTA and Oscars. Whoever was going to win a BAFTA was 100% not winning an Oscar, since the eventual winner wasn’t even nominated there, and the other way around: the eventual winner of the Oscar (Jessica Chastain) wasn’t winning a BAFTA by any chance.
That was a very weird year at bafta
But it won makeup, that was the key.
That wasn't a strong year as this year was!
She won the oscar because the most voters voted for her. It's that simple.
Agreed. I wish the general public would understand that and apply that logic when reacting to other awards shows too. It seems to be lost on people when it comes to the Emmy’s, for instance.
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.
I love Emma Stone and think that she is an incredible actress! She certainly deserves the Oscar! ❤
I always pick Emma to win. I felt Lili's character isn't the core of the story of the film. That's what cost her
Gladstone's personal "identity" narrative took over and sadly influenced the thinking of those who were making Oscar predictions. Those folks, however, failed to take something into account: Gladstone's performance was lovely, but she wasn't the film's central character, AND it was a bit too subtle for today's Academy voters. Stone's film was ABOUT Stone's character... that fact, alone, sealed it. In addition, it was showy, crazy, and unlike anything we've seen before. Hands down... Stone had it from the start. Cheers!
That's not an excuse though... Many Oscar winners for Best Actress were not the central characters (Olivia Colman in THE FAVOURITE, Jennifer Lawrence in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, Kate Winslet in THE READER, Reese Witherspoon in WALK THE LINE, Hilary Swank in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, Nicole Kidman in THE HOURS, who was only in 22 minutes of the film, Halle Berry in MONSTER'S BALL, Helen Hunt in AS GOOD AS IT GETS, etc...). Gladstone was A lead, and not THE lead, as the film was not centered only on her, but on Leonardo DiCaprio's character as well. Both of them are lead.
What sealed the deal was that more people ended up voted for Emma Stone. It was like in 2019. Glenn Close was the big favorite (and she was THE lead in THE WIFE), she was this queen of Hollywood, longtime overdue, her performance was critically acclaimed and she won the Golden Globes, Critics Choice and SAG Awards... and she lost to Olivia Colman for THE FAVOURITE, while she was not THE lead... technically the lead was Emma Stone... who was nominated as a supporting role...
It's really a matter of votes.
@@adilelnhaily6014 Olivia Colman was the central character - both women were revolving around her. also just because someone oscar fraud is a thing sometimes doesnt remove the definition of a lead. The oscars got havey critisim for the Reader
@@deusexmachina9776 Actually the main character was Emma Stone's character. She was the one fighting to become THE FAVOURITE. It's about her hussling from the bottom, to reach the top, and then being dismissed. She was definetly the lead. As for Kate Winslet, she had two great films the same year : "REVOLUTIONARY ROAD'' and ''THE READER. She was competitive in both films, but she campaigned as supporting for THE READER so she could get a double nomination and then the focus was on THE READER when REVOLUTIONARY ROAD left the race. So it was category fraud in the Supporting category.
@@adilelnhaily6014 Coleman's character is the one who made the decisions to drive the plot forward. her decision allowed eMMA'S chracterto become a lady, to to fire and have Rachel's character in jail.
@@adilelnhaily6014 CHATGPT says: Queen Anne's emotional journey, her struggles with health, her vulnerability, and her relationships with both Sarah Churchill and Abigail Masham are central to the story. The power dynamics between these characters, particularly the tug-of-war between Sarah and Abigail for the Queen's favor, revolve around Queen Anne's position and decisions. Therefore, Queen Anne can be considered the main character around whom the narrative revolves.
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 🤞😏
The biggest rob of the Oscars was Charles Melton not being nominated
So many contenders lost alot of steam.
Charles melton
Rosamund pike
Julianna moore and Natalie Portman
Fantasia
Andrew scott and Paul mescal
Priscila actress
@@singstreetcar5881 Rosamund Pike will always be ICONIC because Saltburn is already a cult movie. So the recognition will be there BUT Charles Melton totally deserved the nomination. May December was wrongly marketed
@@TaquitoDeAsadayea the award shows just didn’t like Saltburn which surprised me. Even if they don’t appreciate that film I know a lot of people love it. Even if you hate it, you can’t deny it’s damn entertaining!
Why? Because Da’vine Joy Randolph was 100% sure to win. Otherwise if Lilly lost, Oscarsowhite would have been a big movement again!
I agree. Two Actor categories were sure to be dominated by white actors. All four white actors wins could be very problematic now.
@@user-mm3mm6qx8f 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
Yes. Even if they gave the best performance.
I'm glad you pointed out the Anthony Hopkins win over Chadwick Boseman. Stone's and Hopkin's scenarios are identical. When their respective films hit the festival circuit both performances were heralded as unbeatable, brilliant, Oscar-in-waiting showstoppers. The talk on both diminished through the year with the rise of two narratives that may upset the apple cart, but, the Academy does the right thing and awards the superior performances. Both were destined to win.
I’m not even mad that Emma won even though I was really gunning for Lily. Emma delivered her Charlize Theron “Monster” performance in “Poor Things”. I do feel like Lily’s time is coming just by the reaction at the SAG Awards you can tell that the actors are ready for something new. She just needs that lead role and a truly unforgettable monologue. Thinking of something like Cloris Leachmen in “The Last Picture Show”. She almost did have a few monologues but Martin rewrote the script to bring Molly in more. If y’all think this is the last we’re going to see of Lily you’re wrong she’s about to have a hell of a career. I mean “The Memory Police” is already getting some Oscar Buzz for next year. She just needs a role where she isn’t silent but the role needs depth. Her acting feels so genuine like the scene when she’s in the basement and she finds out that her sister is dead that scream she let out was heartbreaking. If someone told me that Martin killed one of her family members before shooting that scene I would have believed it. Mark my words she will keep making history and opening doors. Her yearbook prophecy will come to fruition can y’all imagine if her and Josh Ryder win at the same ceremony now that would be ICONIC.
So true the Charlize Theron reference ❤
I think this upcoming 2025 awards season between Angelina Jolie vs Jessica Lange maybe
Hoping for saoirse ronan
@@juicebuko Me, too!
Really, Michelle Yeoh, a woman of color? Why can't we just say she's a truly second time Asian woman (after Miyoshi Umeki) to win an Oscar?
When Lily got snubbed at BAFTA even with the jury in place, that should have been the tipoff that she was losing this race.
It was big time robbery
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.
Emma singlehandedly carried the movie, but it was more a ego starring role.
I really do love Emma Stone and she definitely deserves this one more than the last one but Gladstone and Hüller were both better imo
Her performance was brilliant and is a prime example of great CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
Sinking feeling that Lily was actually third.
She’s good enough, She’s smart enough, and doggone it, people like her.
Poor Things is so good and Emma did the craziest shit I've ever seen an actor do and she did it sooo well. Brava!
The BAFTAs got it right. Lily was great, but viewing things from England, I couldn’t help but think the cousins across the pond got carried a way a bit about her native-American ancestry. It clouded their judgment. I think being slightly removed here in the 51st state, it was clear that Emma Stone deserved the best actress award.
Not saying Emma didn't deserve it but even you have to admit the Oscars (and BAFTA's for that matter) have a spotty history when it comes to Best Actress Winners. Hoping that changes in the next 20 years
One of the biggest reasons is international voters of the other branches of the Academy pushed Emma Stone over the line
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!! 🤗
Yeah, in my head it made so much sense that Emma would win, but when all experts/pundits went Lily Gladstone I got pretty unsure.