I'm so glad Cillian Murphy is getting his flowers this season. Also a near 30 year acting veteran with a spade of amazing performances behind him that haven't really been recognized at award shows because as you say he tends to not go very big. Still, if the movie that ultimately rests on his shoulders for its whole runtime is going to be rewarded so widely, I'm glad he'll reap the benefits as well! I loved Paul in the Holdovers but it always read a little hollow to me to see him singled out as the overdue vet in a category arguably filled to the brim with overdue vets. Hell, when it comes to actual award wins, Paul actually has the most out of anyone. Prior to this season Cillian only had the one BAFTA nom. Bradley has a whole bunch of nominations but very few wins.
i agree lily gladsome narrative is so huge that it's hard for Oscar voters to ignore. when halle berry became the first black to win best actress Oscar in 2002, the only award that she won was sag, monster's ball was only nominated for best actress and original screenplay, in the case of halle berry, michelle yeoh, and lily gladstone, they all have a huge narrative, halle first black to win best actress, michelle first Asian to win best actress, and lily will be first indigenous to win best actress. all of their chief rival had ready won Oscar for best actress, sissy spacek in the case of halle, cate blanchette in the case of michelle, and emma stone in the case of lily, and halle, michelle, and lily have won sag. so i think the stars again are lining up for lily to win.
Very good point and I will just add that they all lost sag and the ones who won sag also won the Oscar. Another important point is that their competitors were not in a traditionally Oscar friendly films in terms of winning leading actress (arthouse, indie, weird, slow). It's hard to win your first for that kind of roles and films let alone your second or third. Lily is a borderline supporting and yes quiet performance but it's still more traditional than Bella Baxter and Killers is a classic Oscar huge film.
She act piopic molly kyle good and searisly The academy treat her role as a best acting not as a long acting. So if she win that becase she make best acting to pipic role not becase she act long time in screen And her charachter is mean role even if she act it as supporting role And all film about indian wife Abut her Even if haspend was long in screen So she in race becase of that
What about Patricia Neal (HUD, with a screen time of just under 22 minutes (lowest ever screen time to win either lead category)), Louise Fletcher (ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; lowest by percentage at 16% and 45 seconds longer than Patricia Neal), Nicole Kidman (THE HOURS), and Frances McDormand (FARGO)? ALL of these performances are less than 30 minutes of screen time, and ALL of them won LEAD actress. Lily Glastone's screen time was around 57 minutes.
5 years ago I'd say Lily is a shoe-in, however it cannot be ignored that the Academy is much more regionally diverse and Poor Things will play MUCH better in Europe than Killers
Brian, I am with you on Emma Stone. I think the strength of Poor Things and the fact that Bella IS the film, takes her over the edge. Lily Gladstone is good in Killers, but I don't believe the academy LOVES that film. And arguably, she's supporting. I wonder how she would have done up against Da'Vine had she gone supporting? Also, I'm still holding out hope for Paul Giamatti. :)
Lilly supporting but the story about her orginally and in the film Leanordoo de caprioo he is leading role becse the script focus about criminal more than the victim. But academy if give lilly gladston the oscar not becase of time of her role They will give her oscar for her strong perfoemance and acting
The Truth! Lily Gladstone is the story of the year and the Academy likes to script these things. Emma Stone already won and they like to award new blood.@@mattcampbell7669
I saw poor things and I was blown away by the entire film. The costumes, the set design, the vfx, the cinematography. Emma stone outdid herself in this film. I couldn't believe it was the same emma stone from EASY A
Emma stone if she lose oscar for poor thing and she win oscar for lala land That mean she win for wrong role She must win for poor thing not for lala land Her body acting for teaching in acting school
@@alinesodre334 Tienes razón muy americano ....cuántos actores nunca ganaron mereciéndolo con creces!! Eje: Richard Barton...se lo.robaron muchas veces !!!
The performance of the year for me was Sandra Hüller in Anatomy of a Fall, so I personally would love an out-of-nowhere win in a pretty predictable year. (I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream 😂)
"Paul Giamatti is a veteran actor who has been working for so many years and it feels like he is due an Oscar because he has been nominated before" 1) He isn't even the oldest actor here, that's Jeffrey Wright. 2) The age gap between Giamatti and Murphy is like 8-9 years, and Murphy has also been working for almost 30 years and has gotten LESS recognition than Giamatti despite giving killer performances. 3) Giamatti isn't even the most nominated actor here, that would be Bradley Cooper, with 9 previous Oscar losses, so by that logic he is "more due" an Oscar than Giamatti. Look, I love Paul Giamatti and thought he was great in The Holdovers, and definitely was snubbed for his role in Sideways, but where the hell did this narrative even come from? It makes 0 sense given that he was easily 2nd best this year to Cillian Murphy, and by quite some distance.
Paul jiamatii he is the best... Best acting Sillian marphy best role. If the academy give marphy wining becase he make famous film and pipic charchtar But paul jiamatii was amazing His body and voice and tragedy and comedy acting so strong Bradly cooper he has weak script
Giamatti is far ahead of Cillian, just based on the merit of performances… And also he’s more overdue than Cillian, because he has been robbed of an Oscar win before and he has a better filmography than Cillian… That’s where the narrative comes from…
Paul Giamatti is a cut above the rest. “Holdovers” was his command performance! All nominees gave fine performances and deserved the nominations. But Giamatti’s performance was a superb master class! 🏆
I'm team-Brian for best actress. I so agreed with your initial review of Flower Moon. There were 2 fundamental flaws for LG in this film for me - which were not her fault: 1. The end of the movie was too much through Leo's voice instead of hers - which robbed her & the film of some power. 2. By virtue of #1, this should have been a supporting actress win. - and - Emma Stone's transformation throughout Poor Things is amazing! While much of the performance is so showy, I thought her transformation was actually quite subtle. It was the performance of the year.
The good in lilly gladstone She act her role sooo good If she leading or supporting. If she supporting she will sweep and davine lose And instead battle of stones In leading We will watch the battle of gladstone and joy randolf And lilly win
Emma Stone's performance looks like she is acting and is too showy and weird for Oscar voters. Reminds me of Edward Scissor Hands. This is Lily Gladstone's year and her performance fits the narrative that the show will be built around this year--History!
I'm surprised when I hear anyone think Giamatti will win. It's not that one performance is better than the other, but Murphy just turned in the performance of 2023.
Yeah, Murphy’s film is the front runner for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor and other technicals, not to mention being the centre of all that, I don’t really see Murphy not taking home that award. Especially since he’s playing a real person unlike Giamatti.
@@samuelbarber6177 Being in a BP front runner or contender doesn't necessarily make you a front runner for Best Actor, but yeah Murphy is holding together a big time project that was a major event too.
I’m all for Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey, Jr. winning. Oppenheimer is my favorite film of last year and I’m glad it’s received all the awards it’s gotten so far. Thank you for the video Brian, hope you’re doing well!
Lily Gladstone gave a wonderful understated performance. But it’s no question in my mind Emma Stone gave the female lead performance of the year. Fingers cross this will be another Hopkins/Boseman or Coleman/Close
Sandra was wonderful in Anatomy of a Fall (and I speak French ) (she’s a German actress) but it is a two woman race at this point Lily versus Emma. And it is too close to call…. Could go either way and I’ll be happy with either outcome. Think Emma’s performance deserves it more. Felt like a stronger Oscar winning role to me but I’m pulling for Lily as she was amazing in KOTFM and will be the first Native American winner. Her performance certainly deserves it too. In fact after seeing that movie I said there’s our Best Actress winner… lily (who I had never heard of before)….. but then I saw Poor things… Emma already has an Oscar but to me she deserves Oscar number 2 After I saw PT a few days ago I said to myself, Emma will win this. And deserves to….. Hated the movie by the way but her performance was beyond exceptional. It was mesmerizing to watch her…..
It doesn't matter. Lily was put in the category the nominating committee felt she belonged in. She has won multiple awards this season and will win the Oscar for Best Actress.@@nafischowdhury7375
Cillian Murphy, Emma Stone, Robert Downey, Jr., and Da'Vine Joy Randolph...predictable, yes, but I'd have no complaints if this were the winning lineup
Boring aff although most likely to happen ngl. I would personally much rather smt exciting like Cillian Murphy (lead), Margot Robbie (lead), Ryan Gosling (supporting), Lily Gladstone (supporting)... but not that it matters
The thing is: how can you not LOVE Bella Baxter? I think history is to repeat itself, but not from last year, and instead from 2019. Olivia Colman kept losing for Glenn Close (and Lady Gaga). She just won the globes, but also did Glenn, and she lost critics choice and *sag*. Yet, she won the BAFTAs (people assumed it was just because she was british lol) and went to win the Oscar. She had NO narrative at all, was against a giant wall that was Glenn Close in 2019, and the strength of her performance was enough to give her the win. Emma Stone is also in a Yorgos Lanthimos picture, with a crowdpleaser, funny and absolutely strong performance. She lost sag? Yes, but sag voters favour narrative (Denzel, Viola twice, Glenn Close, Chadwick) that doesnt always translates into Oscars. And it’s not the same trajectory from last year. Yeoh was in the best picture frontrunner, a juggernault of a movie. Killers is dwindling fast. I know Lily has the narrative, but her performance is too subtle, she doesnt have a lot of screentime and she’s accused of being in the wrong category, whereas Emma Stone IS Poor Things. I think she will prevail
Because not all of us fall for the same overacting Emma Stone role that she plays in every movie? How can you seriously consider Emma babbling like a toddler and then a child and then a teen and then an adult as a serious acting role? People like you are going to make a big deal of it when she loses when she never should have been this close to winning in the first place.
@@HumbleGrinderI totally agree with you. I love Emma stone and I think she’s a great actress. But I feel like people are overreacting a bit with her performance lol
Glen glose and her fans Iam one of her fans Was sooo confidant of her wining Becase she win golden and critics and sag Before bafta So when she lose bafta she remmber olivia win golden globe in comedy If bafta was before sag or critics she will not be confidant enouph
But many people argued that Tar was Cate Blanchett's best performance of her career and she was more deserving of the Oscar than Michelle Yeoh. And it shouldn't matter whether Yeoh's movie was leading in terms of nominations or whatever. Kate Winslet lost for Titanic even though the movie won big at the Oscars that year. I've always been a huge fan of Yeoh but she had never struck me as a really great actress the way Cate has. And I'm Asian so I'm not being biased at all! Even though I was rooting for Yeoh to win because of her narrative as the underdog, deep down I knew that Cate was better. Emma is a good actress but is she as good as say Cate or Meryl? Nope. Not by a mile. Did she deserve to win for Lala Land imo? Nope. I do like her but I do feel that she's slightly overrated. If she hadn't won for Lala Land, I would be more than happy for her to win for this one, but I just think that it's a bit too soon for her to be inducted into the list of two-time Oscar winners. But that's just my two cents.
I agree. I think Emma will win. And she deserves to win it for this performance. I was pulling for Lily up until a few days ago when I saw Poor Things. I did not like the movie but wow was Emma outstanding in it. A strong enthralling mesmerizing performance. Now I’ve switched. I want Emma to win Best Actress. So much so that I’ll be upset if she doesn’t win….. she lost the SAGS but they are not always predictive of Oscar wins The supporting categories are givens Da’Vine and RDJ I would love to see two “upsets” in the leading actor categories. Paul G. The Holdovers and Emma S. Poor Things Hope they both win!
But they are not! The front runner is Lily Gladstone--she chews the scenery with her performance. You can't take your eyes off of her--she's magnetic.@@nafischowdhury7375
Both Emma and Sandra deserve the award. Two very different roles. Comedy doesn't usually get acknowledged. It was a fun movie. I loved both her and Mark Ruffalo. Such a cad! Sandra was perfection. Two very different arguably great performances.
Lily Gladstone was good, but Emma stone had the strongest actress performance by far. As a Latino with clearly indigenous blood I think it would be a beautiful moment if Lily wins, and also it always bothered me the lack of recognition best actress gives to women of color, however, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth if Emma doesn't win the Oscar because her performance is stellar.
Cillian Murphy deserves the Oscar. He is the probably most talented actor in all categories. Bradley Cooper can't win, because Maestro presents a distorted version of Bernstein, whose reputation is based on a false narrative from the sacred cow coverage in the press. I posted a new video on my RUclips channel titled THE BERNSTEIN EFFECT that explains the collateral damage he caused to the arts. I studied with one of his friends, Ivan Davis, who also performed with him. His stunts and scams were part of my education. He ruined the way symphonies and concertos are performed and his teachings eliminated the development of processing variables in bigger and bigger batches, which destroyed the intellectual development of conductors, pianists and composers. This ruined classical music as an art form and a business. Most of the classical recordings are now vanity records. I explain who's making the vanity records and who's paying for it.
At the beginning, I was thinking that the best actress race was between Emma and Sandra because both were only main lead in their movies. But things changed. I prefer Emma but I think Lily will win. The Oscar loves narrative and she’s also great in KOTFM. Nobody cares about %screen-time when voting.
What people are forgetting is how pivotal campaigning is to the outcome. Who's doing it - too much, too little ,or not at all. Who's doing an effective and smart job and who's shooting themselves in the foot. Lily's KOTFM campaign is flawless, eloquent and captivating. Oppenhomies' is smart, classy and restrained. The dirty little secret is many Academy members don't have time to watch ALL the nominated films but they LOVE being courted - wined and dined by those glamorous stars. The performance should just speak for itself but it's a popularity contest and boy, do they love a good Oscar show.
I'm guessing you are NOT a member of the Academy. Gladstone's articulate, sincere, substantive actions and reflections on issues and shared professional challenges seem to be resonating with her colleagues @@tonyg76
lot of Emma Stone fans here but honestly my interest in Oscars is going down every year. It is evident that awards are being patronized. I mean you can still go with a controversial victory and some favoritism but patronizing of a prestigious awards ceremony like Oscars represented by knowledge and experience and expertise of Academy of Motion Pictures' Arts and Sciences is really disappointing. Anybody who saw Joaquin Phoenix is Beau is Afraid or Glenn Howerton would say they deserved the nominations. Remember they were much tougher roles. In particular Phoenix's. Phoenix had to really stretch his character's paranoia and not just display emotion but physical distress and anxiety and that too in a movie which extends almost 3 hrs. Anybody else would have turned the role a caricature. How was he not nominated. Howerton really played a corporate character who shows conviction in variety of situations. This was a role which required sharpness. For a younger actor to play a more mature role and display the character's traits in a variety of situations is an accomplishment. Remember when you are the "hero" of the movie like the dominating character who is the achiever or the likeable character the role is always easier unless you are playing a really odd or idiosyncratic character. Both Phoenix and Howerton were not playing very heroic or dominating or powerful characters. They were acting against the narrative. For them to be ignored is a huge disappointment. I would be only interested in Best Picture and Best Director. But no matter what happens Anatomy of a Fall takes the award for the Top Movie of the year.
Great conversation between these two men. I was mesmerized by every word they said and mostly agreed with everything they said. Who do I want to win? Paul Giamatti The Holdovers Robert De Niro KOFTM America Ferrara Barbie Lily Gladstone KOFTFM Who do I think will win? Cillian Murphy Oppenheimer Robert Downey Jr. Oppenheimer Da’Vine Joy Randolph The Holdovers Emma Stone Poor Things Hated the movie Poor Things but Emma’s performance in it was exceptional
I can see this years Best Actress category being exactly like the year Annette Bening was nominated for American Beauty where Annette won the Sag Award but Hilary Swank won Critics choice and the Golden Globe and then won the Oscar mostly since Hilary’s role was viewed as a lead and Annette’s was viewed more as a supporting role. It feels exactly the same this year where Lily Gladstones role is viewed more supporting and Emma Stones role is viewed more as a lead role.
My current GoldDerby predictions (as of 9.3): *Best Lead Actress:* 5. Annette Bening (Nyad) 4. Carey Mulligan (Maestro) 3. Sandra Hüller (Anatomy of a Fall) 2. Emma Stone (Poor Things) 1. Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon) *Best Lead Actor:* 5. Colman Domingo (Rustin) 4. Bradley Cooper (Maestro) 3. Jeffrey Wright (American Fiction) 2. Paul Giamatti (The Holdovers) 1. Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer) *Best Supporting Actress:* 5. Jodie Foster (Nyad) 4. America Ferrera (Barbie) 3. Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer) 2. Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple) 1. Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers) *Best Supporting Actor:* 5. Robert De Niro (Killers of the Flower Moon) 4. Mark Ruffalo (Poor Things) 3. Sterling K. Brown (American Fiction) 2. Ryan Gosling (Barbie) 1. Robery Downey Jr. (Oppenheimer)
@@encheknizam got the Oscar for Supporting... Lily's is more a supporting role than lead. If she wins lead- it will be more for narrative than lead. Women seem to win lead often for second or third characters... the only time I can think of a man winning who wasn't #1/lead was Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.
Actors and Actresses don't get to pick which category they are nominated in. The producers of their movies submit their performances to the nominating committee that makes the decision. Randolph was brilliant in her performance.
I agree , the narrative of lily gladstone is amazing and will be a emotional win. But emma stone was the best actress of 2023 she is the deserve winner of that extraordinary perfomance.
A point of note, if Lily wins, wouldn't it be exactly 50 years since an woman of American Indian descent was on the stage collecting an Academy Award, when Brando won for The Godfather?
I don't think a candidate's "narrative" is relevant nowadays. If that were the case, wouldn't the academy have given the Oscar to Chadwick Bosman instead of Hopkins? They even saved that category for last because it would've been the perfect homage to a late, colored actor who gave his all for his final performance, but instead they gave it to an old white man who had already won that award previously, and who didn't even bothered to show up to receive it.
Anthony Hopkins himself spoked about this, never thought he could win it. Due to COVID, he couldn't travel. At 83, he received it. His performance in "The Father" is insane. I couldn't sleep after watching; it hit deep
@@shifananizam1837 I agree, and that's my point, the academy rewarded the superior performance, and didn't cater for any of these identity narratives that people keep mentioning everytime Gladstone's perfomance is discussed. If she wins, it'll be because her perfomance was deemed the superior one among the other nominees.
I always wonder this about last year, everybody said Brendan won because of narrative. What if they were just more impressed with what he did compared to Austin? I wonder how much these things matter, compared to what the pundits make it out to be.
I thought Gladstone was good, but this was a supporting performance. Stone and Huller were true lead performances that each carried their films and they were both wonderful- both performances really stayed with me. I think Stone or Huller deserves it, but I think it will probably be Gladstone due to narrative (but I do think Stone still has a chance). EDIT- based on some responses, there's obviously a lot of love for Gladstone and pushback from people who disagree that this is not a lead role, and that's fine! I can agree to disagree. The whole point of this is it's my subjective opinion. I did like her performance, and I will not be upset if she wins. This isn't a Shakespeare in Love situation. But her performance isn't my favorite out of the nominees and again, in my opinion, is not a lead role (although the Oscars often don't care about screen time anyway).
screen time does not decide lead or supporting. these best actress winners, patricia neal had 21 minutes, louise fletcher had 22 minutes, nichole kidman had 23 minutes, and frances mcdormand has 26 minutes of screen time. lily had 57 minutes.
@minavamp2811 screen time is absolutely a factor, but obviously there's category fraud all the time. But it's not just screen time- it's impact. For me, Stone and Huller had a much bigger impact in the film and after. I won't be upset if Gladstone wins but I agree with Brian- she was good. In my opinion, Huller and Stone were great. I love subtle performances, I think Davine deserves to win. I just think Gladstone's performance, which is partially tied into what and how much she was given, is less deserving of a Best Actress Oscar than Stone's or Huller's. I understand if you disagree, this is my opinion and opinions will differ!
@@rebeccag8589Molly Burkhart was the female lead. She was married to the male lead. She was the one who had all the money in her family (essentially making her the de facto matriarch). She’s the main character who is impacted by all of the things that De Niro and DiCaprio’s characters do. She is absolutely a lead in that movie.
@superfox5707 The largest female role in a film does not make that role a lead role. Being married to a lead role doesn't make you the lead. Being passively impacted by actions in a film doesn't make you the lead. She had half the screen time as her husband, around the same as De Niro, who went supporting everywhere. I'm definitely not alone in thinking this, haha. By your reasoning, Kuan last year should have been lead for EEAAO. But even if, for argument's sake, we call it a lead performance, because voters often don't care in any of the categories, I still feel that Huller and Stone just gave stronger performances. I liked Gladstone's performance! But I didn't love it. And again, if you talk to people or read comments sections anywhere, I'm not alone here. As I shared in another comment though, at the end of the day, this is my opinion, obviously. It's subjective. We can agree to disagree. I certainly won't be upset if Gladstone wins.
Emma stone will be winner....if Emma stone not win, I want Sandra huller won because I love her performance in anatomy of a fall....btw Emma stone will be winner for poor thing
I personally think Carey Mulligan would have a better shot at winning an Oscar this year if her performance was considered a supporting performance. Also, fun fact about Bradley Cooper that I'm sure you guys already know: Each time he's lost an acting Oscar, he's lost it to someone playing either the lead or supporting role in a biopic. In 2012, he lost to Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln. In 2013, he lost to Jared Leto for Dallas Buyers Club. In 2014, he lost to Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything. In 2018, he lost to Rami Malek for Bohemian Rhapsody, and with this seemingly being the year of Oppenheimer, it's likely that streak will continue.
Though I love all of the front runner in the acting categories, I'd love to to see big ass surprises and see Paul Giamatti, Lily Gladstone, Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt win!
My qualms about Lily Gladstone winning Best Actess over Emma Stone is that she would become the first indigenous person in an acting category, which is amazing, but would the Oscar’s give it to her if the first Asian women to win Best Actress won last year? Maybe it’s just me being pessimistic, but I doubt that the Oscar’s would do back-to-back WOC lead acting wins, even more so that a WOC (Da’Vine Joy Randolph) is almost 100% winning in the only other Actress category. But maybe I’m just reading too much into it haha
Neither one of you talked about whether Gladstone is in the right category and whether that might work against her. Will voters see her role as more of a supporting one?
The academy has a record of putting actors in the wrong category. In 1974 ten yr old Tatum O'Neal who was in most every scene in Paper Moon and carried the film was put in the supporting category. She won but wouldn't have if the best actress category.
ه Gladstone her original story Colly kyle the hero of the real story so they put her in leading role Scorssissy foucus in white haspend more than wifes The leading criminal not victim
Nobody is talking about it because we don't decide which category she is nominated in. Producers of movies submit performances and the Oscar Voting Committee makes the decision. What we think as viewers doesn't matter. The voters felt Lily Gladstone gave a leading performance.
@@marrmart7690 she was fading- had a lot of early support and Glenn surged late- Olivia's support remained steady... Emma was early favorite, Lily's surging and Sandra's remaining steady- maybe not enough to catch them, but- would be interesting. Same thing happened the 2 Bette Davis years- All About Eve and Baby Jane- she and Gloria Swanson, then later she and Katharine Hepburn split the vote and Judy Holiday and Ann Bancroft held the middle and won.
The hate because a performance is quiet and restrained is absurd. Cillian keeps wining because he gave the performance that deseves to win because it was the best performance of the year. This bs narrative of becauee another is owed and been in the business for a long time is some crap.
Supporting Actor Will and should win: Robert Downey Jr- Oppenheimer Supporting Actress Will and should win: Davine Joy Randolph- The Holdovers Actor Will and should win: Cillian Murphy- Oppenheimer (I'd vote for Andrew Scott in All of Us Strangers if he was here) Actress Will win: Emma Stone- Poor Things Should win: Lily Gladstone- Killers of the Flower Moon
I would add should win Paul Giamatti. Will win Cillian Murphy Yes agree should win Lily Gladstone but will win Emma Stone but it also sounds right to me to switch that…. Should win Emma, will win Lily. Best Actress is a tough call…. It could go either way. I was in the Lily camp up until a few days ago when I saw poor things (a movie I hated)…. Now I’m in the Emma camp. Want her to win and I feel she should win…. Emma’s performance was stronger than lily’s. IMHO
Lily Gladstone - I’d love for her to win because of her performance and the narrative it stands for. However, I saw Poor Things and you cannot count out Emma Stone just yet. Her performance was a brilliant powerhouse. The is really the only cliffhanger at the Oscar’s this year.
Im Sticking with Emma Stone for beat actres , the performence was fantastic in Poor Things , i just dont like when the oscar voter considered some issue like narrative of anything ,for me the performence is the most important thing , as for last year ,Michelle Yeoh is indeed great in EEAAO but the nartative about being the Firat asian os what make her win , the true winner for me was Cate Blanchet for Tar ,
Only thing Emma have to offer is just her ACHIEVEMENT IN ACTING she doesn’t have Narrative. But this award should be about performance not narrative, unfortunately this not the case with this woke cult that been going on. If Lily was truly wanted to be recognized by her work she’d be in supporting category, but they know they have strong narratives with her. Not really fair . This awards things has already lost respect and credibility but if narratives will go before art. This will be dead to me forever!
Thanks once again, Brian, for a great video. I think Lily Gladstone will win because she is a woman of color. Oscar voters are now sensitive to racial issues because a few years ago there was an effective protest campaign of "Oscars so White." I was not overly impressed with Lily's performance. I have not yet seen Emma Stone in "Poor Things," but will be seeing it for free at my local library in two weeks. From what I have witnessed online, I believe that she--Emma-- deserves to win. I do NOT think she deserved the Oscar for "La-La Land." She was good, IMO, but not great. In general, I agree with your predictions. The Oscars will be the least suspenseful in decades, IMO.
Cillian Murphy is in another league.. Giamatti has given this performance dozens of times, Cillian for the win. Emma Stone was astounding in that role but culturally Lily has the edge. Unfortunate that that has anything to do with winning the Oscar.. It's the performance that matters. In that case Emma wins by a mile
Wrong, why do you think that Lily Gladstone is a she-in because she has a cultural edge. If anything, her being Native American is a detriment considering the history and present Hollywood when it comes to people of color. Have you seen the way Native Americans have been depicted in movies?--negative stereotypes galore! Only two women of color have ever won the Oscar for Best Actress--shameful! Lily Gladstone deserves and will win because of her brilliant performance. Emma Stone's performance was too showy, and weird, and looked like she was acting--all turn-offs for Oscar voters.
Both great performances. The Oscars love to make "statements", and Lily Gladstone is a statement. Emma Stone is so incredible, she deserves the win absolutely, it shouldn't even be a race. However, I see a split and the path to a win and for fun, I'm calling it for Sandra Huller. Also a Best Picture nominee with strong support and she likely missed being a double nominee by "this much". Most likely wrong, but hey, no guts no glory. And I haven't given up on Giamatti or Gosling quite yet. I think if the "leak" that the latter was performing on Oscar night is a few days sooner, it's a little closer. Regardless, a great year for film and none of your predicted winners would be a disappointment. In fact. out of the 20 acting nominees, not a one would be an embarrassing winner.
I agree with Brian and I'm just going to say it and I don't care if I get hate comments about this but dammit if Lily Gladstone wins this Oscar it will be because the Academy wants to have a sociological history moment, not because her performance was better than Stone's. Nobody on this planet is going to convince me, ever, and I'm sure some will try, that Gladstone gave a better performance than Stone. Nobody is going to convince me that Gladstone, sleepily walking her way through her movie with quiet looks in her eyes, some small quivers in her voice, some tears, and a little bit of anger was better acting than Emma Stone's fully transformative performance that was all at once funny, sad, dramatic, sexy, outward, inward, serious, comedic, joyous, heartbreaking, physical, mental, that showed an entire arc of character from newborn infant to older smarter stronger empowered woman. Gladstone may be the main female in her movie, but it is still a supporting role as her character supports Leo's. Stone IS HER MOVIE. Emma Stone getting the Oscar will be one of the most deserved wins of all time. Gladstone winning the Oscar will be making a sociological statement.
Cate blanchet support lilly gladstone for her role becase she make realistic story same tar She make with her convrsation in youtube Emma stone same mesheal yuo two make fantsy and siance fiction Maybe academy dont want give fantsy role the oscar in leading role again
For Best Actress, Brian kept saying that he is not a fan of Killers of the Flower Moon so maybe this is the reason why he can’t recognized the every nuance of Gladstone performance. Imagine, she was with Leo and De Niro yet her presence eclipsed the two in that film, and even when she’s not onscreen, as audience, you are thinking about her and where is she. That’s impactful because her performance made us audience felt her character. I dont like Killers too, same as Iron Lady when Streep won over Viola. I dont like Tammy Faye but I love Chastain in it and Oscar voters respect Chastain a lot and her performance. Brian also mentioned that Stone gave the performance of the year. It reminded me of last year as everyone said Cate Blanchet gave the performance of the year. Maybe voters are thinking, Blanchet has 2 oscars already and the Academy is ready to award a woman of color in Michelle Yeoh. Maybe same narrative as Stone because she has an oscar too so its easy for voters to vote for another actress whom they felt also gave an outstanding performance. Brian said Stone has a lot of screentime than Gladstone. I remember Renee Zellweger having a lot of screen time at Chicago whole Kidman has lesser screen time even with her co-leard Julianne Moore, yet Kidman took the win over Renee. Predicting the winner at the Oscars nowadays is not always based from what had happened in the past because there were less voters unlike in this day and age wherein Oscars have many voters internationally. My choice for Best Actress is Gladstone as she is the definition of what Oscars want to be seen for this very moment. She is giving us a different narrative, the same as Cillian Murphy, both of then are saying that in this world, it is not always the loudest voice that people can hear, nor the showiest performances that can only be felt… because even their quiet performances can also win because it is both heard , felt and seen BIGTIME. Best Actress : GLADSTONE Best Actor : MURPHY Best Supporting Actor : RDJ Best Supporting Actress : DJR
I still think Lily will win because also Killers is much more traditional Oscar film than Poor Things and no a single actress in the history of the Oscar's won two leading Oscar's for comedies or lighter roles. BUT anyone who is saying oh it's just like last year with Michelle Yeoh and Cate Blanchett doesn't make sense cause Michelle's passion came also from the fact that SHE WAS FEW DECADES IN THE INDUSTRY and a very respected underrated veteran. This is only first big breakthrough role for Lily and 99% present of the people just discovered who she is(other 1% being the people who watched her in Certain Women few years ago). Michelle had that big OH IT'S FINALLY HER TIME, OH SHE FINALLY GOT A ROLE WORTHY OF HER TALENT MOMENT which Gladstone doesn't. Gladstone only has the power of her performance and political narrative behind her but NOT that OVERDUE factor.
But I think due to how native americans have been treated historically that first native american winner is a stronger narrative than first asian winner. So there is that.
God, this is tough. I like both performances a lot and to be honest for me it doesn't matter who wins, since both wins will be great. However, I personally like Emma Stone's performance much more, and I think that would be my choice. If she just didn't win for La La Land... It would be different. I know it's never going to happen, but the best thing would be a tie between them. I'd love to see that
Emma stone when she win for lala land was in bad year Natally bortman was bad in jacki kinidy role and myreel streep make silly role So she win for ramance film And she lose in favirite in supporting role And olivia colman win for leading role category When emma stone was leading in the favirite and olivia colman was supporting.
I am surprised that Murphy is ahead of Giamatti. Giamatti had more memorable moments in the movie than Murphy. Murphy is very good but he doesn’t have that “scene”. I am also surprised that RDJ is getting so much praise. He’s good but he plays the same character in every movie; his character in OPPENHEIMER is very similar to his character in SOAPDISH from thirty years ago.
I'm kinda over this awards season tbh its so predictable and therefore boring, just give Cillian, Lily, RDJ and Da'Vine the Oscars and get it over with. And to the people who say Oh SAG made the Actress race exciting, if anything it made it more boring, it's Lily's shes taking it, the stats and narrative are on her side while Emma has people saying shes too young to get a second Oscar which is total BS, rooting for her but I know shes not winning.
Aren't we tired of this "gladstone is supporting" nonsense? The whole KOTFM revolved around Molly: her family, her tribe, her wealth, her horrid husband. Screentime matters way less than influence on the narrative. If Gladstone wins, she will not be the shortest winning percentage by a long shot. And it will be a deserving win: she manages to portray the grief of losing both her family and her tribe without ever crossing the line of overacting, be the very heart of her film and overshadow DiCaprio and De Niro, so much so that is considered the standout in a Scorsese film. And obviously voters don't consider hers to be a supp. performance either, since she bagged GG + SAG. I also don't get this whole "PT is so beloved" argument. A couple of tech potential wins don't make make a film particularly beloved, and KOTFM got 10 noms. Obviously there's respect for it, whether it's winning or not. This argument would only have made sense had PT been the Oppenheimer of the season. Also, apart from the fact that PT is an mess ideologically, personally, not once did I forget I was watching Emma Stone (in a particularly flashy, too on the nose performance) and not Bella Baxter.
Absolutely. The whole discourse about “supporting vs. lead” is pretty arbitrary, but ultimately Killers of the Flower Moon is Lily’s story. It’s through her that we get to see the real hurt that Hale and Ernest are forcing. To contrast, the Oscars gave Brando lead for The Godfather, and I’m sorry but he’s not the lead of that movie. The Godfather is about Michael Corleone, his father supports that story. The question to ask is “well what do they support?”. Gladstone also has the superior narrative. First time nominee, first Indigenous woman, playing a real person in a deeply tragic drama. The Oscars eat this stuff up.
@@samuelbarber6177 agreed. On the contrary, Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs was absolutely a lead, despite a screentime of around 15 minutes. Separating lead and supp performances based on that alone is a very poor way of looking at films. And, of course, her narrative is a strong thing, which I don't see as something that would "lessen" her win, considering that her performance is so admirable. Narratives shape the outcome of most, if not all, awards, and does anyone buy that the Oscars are the pinnacle of credibility, or that the films who are nominated or win are the absolute best in their categories? Studios spend millions on campaigning, and suddenly the problem is an Indigenous actress that has cut her teeth in small indies and that got her first major role at like 35 ?
my realistic predictions in acting categories: actor (murphy), actress (stone), supporting actor (downey jr), supporting actress (randolph) my blind, hopeful predictions: actor (giamatti), actress (stone), supporting actor (ruffalo), supporting actress (blunt)
You are not thinking realistically. Lily Gladstone just won the SAG Award which is a precursor for an Oscar win. The narrative is in her favor. Love Emma Stone, but her performance is too showy and weird for Oscar voters--overacting and looks like she is acting. It's basically Edward Scissor Hands 2024.
I agree many comidian performance win in the past He make film in 70 s And in that time many win Paul make tragedy and comedy in same time And if he win after lose sag academy will make big surprise for audiance Even if i dont surprise becase he still in race
@@fredamurphy7827 Jamie lee at least won at SAG as well, so there was momentum there. Paul needed SAG to stay in the race and even when everyone thought it'd go to him they got behind Murphy. Would be the first time in at least 20 years someone won with just a globe and a CCA and his performance is not THAT special, nor is the narrative all that strong.
They need to still give oscar to Angela Bassett and Glenn Close...waaay over due I will die if ryan Gosling wins... Seems the typical winners who already won awards will win oscars...there will be no surprises...
Love Emma Stone, haven't watched the movie. Don't know Lily, haven't watched the movie.😂 But the Oscars has been trying to mend its image in recent years after it's been accused of racism so after Michelle's historic win last year, they might just let Lily win this year. There can be no doubt that Emma is a fantastic actress (and she already has the Oscar to prove it too), but i can imagine her winning again might upset a lot of people.
Come on - Murphy plays 1. a real life person, 2, in a WWII-related film; 3. that's about American superiority over the Nazis. It's a foregone conclusion
I am wondering if the graphic sex scenes in POOR THINGS would turn off votes for Emma Stone. Would conservative voters really want to vote her way after seeing those scenes? Lily Gladstone’s character comes across as a positive role model, something that voters would want to reward.
I'm so glad Cillian Murphy is getting his flowers this season. Also a near 30 year acting veteran with a spade of amazing performances behind him that haven't really been recognized at award shows because as you say he tends to not go very big. Still, if the movie that ultimately rests on his shoulders for its whole runtime is going to be rewarded so widely, I'm glad he'll reap the benefits as well!
I loved Paul in the Holdovers but it always read a little hollow to me to see him singled out as the overdue vet in a category arguably filled to the brim with overdue vets. Hell, when it comes to actual award wins, Paul actually has the most out of anyone. Prior to this season Cillian only had the one BAFTA nom. Bradley has a whole bunch of nominations but very few wins.
i agree lily gladsome narrative is so huge that it's hard for Oscar voters to ignore. when halle berry became the first black to win best actress Oscar in 2002, the only award that she won was sag, monster's ball was only nominated for best actress and original screenplay, in the case of halle berry, michelle yeoh, and lily gladstone, they all have a huge narrative, halle first black to win best actress, michelle first Asian to win best actress, and lily will be first indigenous to win best actress. all of their chief rival had ready won Oscar for best actress, sissy spacek in the case of halle, cate blanchette in the case of michelle, and emma stone in the case of lily, and halle, michelle, and lily have won sag. so i think the stars again are lining up for lily to win.
Good point. I think if Killers Of The Flower Moon is winning anything, it’s definitely Best Actress.
@@samuelbarber6177AS IT SHOULD
couldn’t of worded it any better!!! them winning the sag was already a good sign that halle and michelle would win and now lily!!
But her role is just a supporting role.
Very good point and I will just add that they all lost sag and the ones who won sag also won the Oscar. Another important point is that their competitors were not in a traditionally Oscar friendly films in terms of winning leading actress (arthouse, indie, weird, slow). It's hard to win your first for that kind of roles and films let alone your second or third. Lily is a borderline supporting and yes quiet performance but it's still more traditional than Bella Baxter and Killers is a classic Oscar huge film.
Gladstone was more of a supporting role in my opinion.
She act piopic molly kyle good and searisly
The academy treat her role as a best acting not as a long acting.
So if she win that becase she make best acting to pipic role not becase she act long time in screen
And her charachter is mean role even if she act it as supporting role
And all film about indian wife
Abut her
Even if haspend was long in screen
So she in race becase of that
@@marrmart7690 what???
Gladstone was just playing her boring pokerface self in the movie and Emma stone was hamming to the hilt.
Viola Davis was a lead in Fences but she still won the Oscar.
What about Patricia Neal (HUD, with a screen time of just under 22 minutes (lowest ever screen time to win either lead category)), Louise Fletcher (ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; lowest by percentage at 16% and 45 seconds longer than Patricia Neal), Nicole Kidman (THE HOURS), and Frances McDormand (FARGO)?
ALL of these performances are less than 30 minutes of screen time, and ALL of them won LEAD actress. Lily Glastone's screen time was around 57 minutes.
5 years ago I'd say Lily is a shoe-in, however it cannot be ignored that the Academy is much more regionally diverse and Poor Things will play MUCH better in Europe than Killers
Seems you nailed it!
Brian, I am with you on Emma Stone. I think the strength of Poor Things and the fact that Bella IS the film, takes her over the edge. Lily Gladstone is good in Killers, but I don't believe the academy LOVES that film. And arguably, she's supporting. I wonder how she would have done up against Da'Vine had she gone supporting? Also, I'm still holding out hope for Paul Giamatti. :)
Lilly supporting but the story about her orginally and in the film
Leanordoo de caprioo he is leading role becse the script focus about criminal more than the victim.
But academy if give lilly gladston the oscar not becase of time of her role
They will give her oscar for her strong perfoemance and acting
Plus if she wins it will be a historic win!
The Truth! Lily Gladstone is the story of the year and the Academy likes to script these things. Emma Stone already won and they like to award new blood.@@mattcampbell7669
@@mattcampbell7669 Who cares? She should not win because IMO her performance is overrated and Emmas' was best of the year.
@@tonyg76 IMO?
If it’s simply and solely about who is the actress of the year… it’s Emma Stone… I mean….
I hope not!
@@mattcampbell7669 I hope so!
@@tonyg76 Well I don't!
@@mattcampbell7669, well, you're an idiot!
I’m team Emma!
Me, too!
I remember seeing Robert playing Chaplin , and was AMAZED by his performance . I agree with you on your prediction of him winning
He was truly phenomenal in Oppenheimer
He deserves the academy award.
@@ajordan1976 i have to see it
Team Sandra 😊😊😊
I hope there is an Adrien Brody like upset and Sandra Huller takes the win.
Sandra huller has alot of fans
I saw poor things and I was blown away by the entire film. The costumes, the set design, the vfx, the cinematography. Emma stone outdid herself in this film. I couldn't believe it was the same emma stone from EASY A
Emma stone if she lose oscar for poor thing and she win oscar for lala land
That mean she win for wrong role
She must win for poor thing not for lala land
Her body acting for teaching in acting school
I have not seen it yet , on my list
It looks similar to Edward Scissor hands . And that was a true original genius performance by Johhny Depp .
The Best Actress of the year is Sandra Hüller (Anatomy + Zone).
I'm predicting Gladstone, but I'd rather you be right, Brian, as Emma gave my favorite performance of the year.
When I saw KOFTM I wanted Lily to win. Then I saw PT and now want Emma.
To me Emma’s performance was better
Sandra Huller should win. That was a masterclass in acting.
The race should be between Emma stone and Sandra huller
Loved Sandra Huller’s performance. Loved the film. My favorite of 2023.
Lily will win.
Agree! But it’s the Oscar’s. So American. Foreigners are often invited to the party but rarely they get a piece of the cake( except the brits)
@@alinesodre334 Tienes razón muy americano ....cuántos actores nunca ganaron mereciéndolo con creces!! Eje: Richard Barton...se lo.robaron muchas veces !!!
The performance of the year for me was Sandra Hüller in Anatomy of a Fall, so I personally would love an out-of-nowhere win in a pretty predictable year. (I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream 😂)
She was outstanding in that movie….. agree
I never knew this amazing German actress before…. Never heard of her until this year
….but she’s not going to win. She’s a very close third behind Emma and Lily…
"Paul Giamatti is a veteran actor who has been working for so many years and it feels like he is due an Oscar because he has been nominated before"
1) He isn't even the oldest actor here, that's Jeffrey Wright.
2) The age gap between Giamatti and Murphy is like 8-9 years, and Murphy has also been working for almost 30 years and has gotten LESS recognition than Giamatti despite giving killer performances.
3) Giamatti isn't even the most nominated actor here, that would be Bradley Cooper, with 9 previous Oscar losses, so by that logic he is "more due" an Oscar than Giamatti.
Look, I love Paul Giamatti and thought he was great in The Holdovers, and definitely was snubbed for his role in Sideways, but where the hell did this narrative even come from? It makes 0 sense given that he was easily 2nd best this year to Cillian Murphy, and by quite some distance.
Paul jiamatii he is the best...
Best acting
Sillian marphy best role.
If the academy give marphy wining becase he make famous film and pipic charchtar
But paul jiamatii was amazing
His body and voice and tragedy and comedy acting so strong
Bradly cooper he has weak script
@@marrmart7690 i had an aneurysm reading that
Giamatti is far ahead of Cillian, just based on the merit of performances… And also he’s more overdue than Cillian, because he has been robbed of an Oscar win before and he has a better filmography than Cillian… That’s where the narrative comes from…
Paul Giamatti is a cut above the rest. “Holdovers” was his command performance!
All nominees gave fine performances and deserved the nominations.
But Giamatti’s performance was a superb master class! 🏆
Im sticking to my intuition that Bradley will get the Academy Award for his incredible performance as Leonard Bernstein .
I'm team-Brian for best actress. I so agreed with your initial review of Flower Moon. There were 2 fundamental flaws for LG in this film for me - which were not her fault:
1. The end of the movie was too much through Leo's voice instead of hers - which robbed her & the film of some power.
2. By virtue of #1, this should have been a supporting actress win.
- and - Emma Stone's transformation throughout Poor Things is amazing! While much of the performance is so showy, I thought her transformation was actually quite subtle. It was the performance of the year.
The good in lilly gladstone
She act her role sooo good
If she leading or supporting.
If she supporting she will sweep and davine lose
And instead battle of stones
In leading
We will watch the battle of gladstone and joy randolf
And lilly win
Emma Stone's performance looks like she is acting and is too showy and weird for Oscar voters. Reminds me of Edward Scissor Hands. This is Lily Gladstone's year and her performance fits the narrative that the show will be built around this year--History!
I'm surprised when I hear anyone think Giamatti will win. It's not that one performance is better than the other, but Murphy just turned in the performance of 2023.
Yeah, Murphy’s film is the front runner for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor and other technicals, not to mention being the centre of all that, I don’t really see Murphy not taking home that award. Especially since he’s playing a real person unlike Giamatti.
@@samuelbarber6177 Being in a BP front runner or contender doesn't necessarily make you a front runner for Best Actor, but yeah Murphy is holding together a big time project that was a major event too.
@@samuelbarber6177Giamatti is playing a real person. He’s playing Paul Giamatti :)
Paul jiamatii same lilly gladston win two awards
So he is in race...need cmpaign before show
THE performance of 2023 is Sandra Huller in AOAF… If Murphy wins, it’s only because it’s an Oscar-baity biopic role, not the best of the category…
I’m all for Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey, Jr. winning. Oppenheimer is my favorite film of last year and I’m glad it’s received all the awards it’s gotten so far. Thank you for the video Brian, hope you’re doing well!
Lily Gladstone gave a wonderful understated performance. But it’s no question in my mind Emma Stone gave the female lead performance of the year. Fingers cross this will be another Hopkins/Boseman or Coleman/Close
I hope not!
Sandra huller deserves to win.
Sandra was wonderful in Anatomy of a Fall (and I speak French ) (she’s a German actress) but it is a two woman race at this point
Lily versus Emma.
And it is too close to call…. Could go either way and I’ll be happy with either outcome. Think Emma’s performance deserves it more. Felt like a stronger Oscar winning role to me but I’m pulling for Lily as she was amazing in KOTFM
and will be the first Native American winner. Her performance certainly deserves it too. In fact after seeing that movie I said there’s our Best Actress winner… lily (who I had never heard of before)….. but then I saw Poor things…
Emma already has an Oscar but to me she deserves Oscar number 2
After I saw PT a few days ago I said to myself, Emma will win this. And deserves to…..
Hated the movie by the way but her performance was beyond exceptional. It was mesmerizing to watch her…..
RDJ, Cillian, Da'vine for sure. Emma will probably win.
Hopefully Lily will instead!
@@mattcampbell7669 she's in the wrong category.
It doesn't matter. Lily was put in the category the nominating committee felt she belonged in. She has won multiple awards this season and will win the Oscar for Best Actress.@@nafischowdhury7375
@@nafischowdhury7375 Then I suppose they put Carey Mulligan in the wrong category to then huh?
Cillian Murphy, Emma Stone, Robert Downey, Jr., and Da'Vine Joy Randolph...predictable, yes, but I'd have no complaints if this were the winning lineup
Or Lily Gladstone could still win!
No Lily Gladstone will win. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Boring aff although most likely to happen ngl.
I would personally much rather smt exciting like Cillian Murphy (lead), Margot Robbie (lead), Ryan Gosling (supporting), Lily Gladstone (supporting)... but not that it matters
@@Kituchxy Margot Robbie hasn't won a single award at any of the major awards ceremonies and neither has Ryan Gosling.
@@mattcampbell7669
Ik right... what a shame, they're way too good for this world😔😔💔
Thanks Brian and Cody 😊
Exactly, I want Emma to win ❤❤❤
The thing is: how can you not LOVE Bella Baxter?
I think history is to repeat itself, but not from last year, and instead from 2019.
Olivia Colman kept losing for Glenn Close (and Lady Gaga). She just won the globes, but also did Glenn, and she lost critics choice and *sag*. Yet, she won the BAFTAs (people assumed it was just because she was british lol) and went to win the Oscar. She had NO narrative at all, was against a giant wall that was Glenn Close in 2019, and the strength of her performance was enough to give her the win.
Emma Stone is also in a Yorgos Lanthimos picture, with a crowdpleaser, funny and absolutely strong performance. She lost sag? Yes, but sag voters favour narrative (Denzel, Viola twice, Glenn Close, Chadwick) that doesnt always translates into Oscars.
And it’s not the same trajectory from last year. Yeoh was in the best picture frontrunner, a juggernault of a movie. Killers is dwindling fast. I know Lily has the narrative, but her performance is too subtle, she doesnt have a lot of screentime and she’s accused of being in the wrong category, whereas Emma Stone IS Poor Things. I think she will prevail
Because not all of us fall for the same overacting Emma Stone role that she plays in every movie? How can you seriously consider Emma babbling like a toddler and then a child and then a teen and then an adult as a serious acting role? People like you are going to make a big deal of it when she loses when she never should have been this close to winning in the first place.
@@HumbleGrinderI totally agree with you. I love Emma stone and I think she’s a great actress. But I feel like people are overreacting a bit with her performance lol
Glen glose and her fans
Iam one of her fans
Was sooo confidant of her wining
Becase she win golden and critics and sag
Before bafta
So when she lose bafta she remmber olivia win golden globe in comedy
If bafta was before sag or critics she will not be confidant enouph
But many people argued that Tar was Cate Blanchett's best performance of her career and she was more deserving of the Oscar than Michelle Yeoh. And it shouldn't matter whether Yeoh's movie was leading in terms of nominations or whatever. Kate Winslet lost for Titanic even though the movie won big at the Oscars that year. I've always been a huge fan of Yeoh but she had never struck me as a really great actress the way Cate has. And I'm Asian so I'm not being biased at all! Even though I was rooting for Yeoh to win because of her narrative as the underdog, deep down I knew that Cate was better.
Emma is a good actress but is she as good as say Cate or Meryl? Nope. Not by a mile. Did she deserve to win for Lala Land imo? Nope. I do like her but I do feel that she's slightly overrated. If she hadn't won for Lala Land, I would be more than happy for her to win for this one, but I just think that it's a bit too soon for her to be inducted into the list of two-time Oscar winners. But that's just my two cents.
I agree. I think Emma will win. And she deserves to win it for this performance. I was pulling for Lily up until a few days ago when I saw Poor Things. I did not like the movie but wow was Emma outstanding in it. A strong enthralling mesmerizing performance. Now I’ve switched. I want Emma to win Best Actress. So much so that I’ll be upset if she doesn’t win….. she lost the SAGS but they are not always predictive of Oscar wins
The supporting categories are givens
Da’Vine and RDJ
I would love to see two “upsets” in the leading actor categories.
Paul G. The Holdovers
and
Emma S. Poor Things
Hope they both win!
I'm sticking with Emma Stone in an amazing performance. What could top this? NOTHING!
*cough* Sandra *cough* Hüller
Lily will stop her easily.
@@slickwill9000 both sandra and emma should be frontrunners in my opinion.
But they are not! The front runner is Lily Gladstone--she chews the scenery with her performance. You can't take your eyes off of her--she's magnetic.@@nafischowdhury7375
Both Emma and Sandra deserve the award.
Two very different roles.
Comedy doesn't usually get acknowledged.
It was a fun movie. I loved both her and Mark Ruffalo. Such a cad!
Sandra was perfection.
Two very different arguably great performances.
Cillian is the core of the best movie of the year. That is very hard to ignore.
Lily Gladstone was good, but Emma stone had the strongest actress performance by far.
As a Latino with clearly indigenous blood I think it would be a beautiful moment if Lily wins, and also it always bothered me the lack of recognition best actress gives to women of color, however, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth if Emma doesn't win the Oscar because her performance is stellar.
Emma Stone should win this.
Cillian Murphy deserves the Oscar. He is the probably most talented actor in all categories. Bradley Cooper can't win, because Maestro presents a distorted version of Bernstein, whose reputation is based on a false narrative from the sacred cow coverage in the press. I posted a new video on my RUclips channel titled THE BERNSTEIN EFFECT that explains the collateral damage he caused to the arts. I studied with one of his friends, Ivan Davis, who also performed with him. His stunts and scams were part of my education. He ruined the way symphonies and concertos are performed and his teachings eliminated the development of processing variables in bigger and bigger batches, which destroyed the intellectual development of conductors, pianists and composers. This ruined classical music as an art form and a business. Most of the classical recordings are now vanity records. I explain who's making the vanity records and who's paying for it.
Davine is so good on only murders in the building. I hope they guve her a bigger part next season
In this War of the "Stones"(sorry guys, stole your joke 😂)...I definitely give it to Emma. Excellent set of opinions from both of you!!! Saludos
*sigh* Wish Sandra Huller won
The Oscars haven't happened yet. Emma and Lili could split the votes, and Sandra could end up winning.
@@kirkreid743in the multiverse maybe not here
@@kirkreid743 That would be awesome 😌
At the beginning, I was thinking that the best actress race was between Emma and Sandra because both were only main lead in their movies. But things changed.
I prefer Emma but I think Lily will win. The Oscar loves narrative and she’s also great in KOTFM. Nobody cares about %screen-time when voting.
Three compititors
Lilly emma sandra
Emma as a wining of seasion
Emma and lilly got all the award and sandra not
So will surprise if she win
good picks
What people are forgetting is how pivotal campaigning is to the outcome.
Who's doing it - too much, too little ,or not at all. Who's doing an effective and smart job and who's shooting themselves in the foot. Lily's KOTFM campaign is flawless, eloquent and captivating. Oppenhomies' is smart, classy and restrained.
The dirty little secret is many Academy members don't have time to watch ALL the nominated films but they LOVE being courted - wined and dined by those glamorous stars. The performance should just speak for itself but it's a popularity contest and boy, do they love a good Oscar show.
flawless, eloquent and captivating? I have gotten little from Lilys' campaign. She is pandering to voters mainly.
I'm guessing you are NOT a member of the Academy.
Gladstone's articulate, sincere, substantive actions and reflections on issues and shared professional challenges seem to be resonating with her colleagues @@tonyg76
Obviously you're not a SAG member. @@tonyg76
Emma won, brian is right 👍👍👍
Even though Lily won SAG, I think Emma deserves the Oscar. Her performance was the movie.
lot of Emma Stone fans here but honestly my interest in Oscars is going down every year. It is evident that awards are being patronized. I mean you can still go with a controversial victory and some favoritism but patronizing of a prestigious awards ceremony like Oscars represented by knowledge and experience and expertise of Academy of Motion Pictures' Arts and Sciences is really disappointing.
Anybody who saw Joaquin Phoenix is Beau is Afraid or Glenn Howerton would say they deserved the nominations. Remember they were much tougher roles. In particular Phoenix's. Phoenix had to really stretch his character's paranoia and not just display emotion but physical distress and anxiety and that too in a movie which extends almost 3 hrs. Anybody else would have turned the role a caricature. How was he not nominated. Howerton really played a corporate character who shows conviction in variety of situations. This was a role which required sharpness. For a younger actor to play a more mature role and display the character's traits in a variety of situations is an accomplishment.
Remember when you are the "hero" of the movie like the dominating character who is the achiever or the likeable character the role is always easier unless you are playing a really odd or idiosyncratic character. Both Phoenix and Howerton were not playing very heroic or dominating or powerful characters. They were acting against the narrative. For them to be ignored is a huge disappointment.
I would be only interested in Best Picture and Best Director. But no matter what happens Anatomy of a Fall takes the award for the Top Movie of the year.
Agree!!
Great conversation between these two men. I was mesmerized by every word they said and mostly agreed with everything they said.
Who do I want to win?
Paul Giamatti The Holdovers
Robert De Niro KOFTM
America Ferrara Barbie
Lily Gladstone KOFTFM
Who do I think will win?
Cillian Murphy Oppenheimer
Robert Downey Jr. Oppenheimer
Da’Vine Joy Randolph The Holdovers
Emma Stone Poor Things
Hated the movie Poor Things but Emma’s performance in it was exceptional
I can see this years Best Actress category being exactly like the year Annette Bening was nominated for American Beauty where Annette won the Sag Award but Hilary Swank won Critics choice and the Golden Globe and then won the Oscar mostly since Hilary’s role was viewed as a lead and Annette’s was viewed more as a supporting role. It feels exactly the same this year where Lily Gladstones role is viewed more supporting and Emma Stones role is viewed more as a lead role.
Best performance should win ! So Emma or Sandra
So make a prediction… will it be Emma or Sandra?
My current GoldDerby predictions (as of 9.3):
*Best Lead Actress:*
5. Annette Bening (Nyad)
4. Carey Mulligan (Maestro)
3. Sandra Hüller (Anatomy of a Fall)
2. Emma Stone (Poor Things)
1. Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon)
*Best Lead Actor:*
5. Colman Domingo (Rustin)
4. Bradley Cooper (Maestro)
3. Jeffrey Wright (American Fiction)
2. Paul Giamatti (The Holdovers)
1. Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer)
*Best Supporting Actress:*
5. Jodie Foster (Nyad)
4. America Ferrera (Barbie)
3. Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer)
2. Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple)
1. Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers)
*Best Supporting Actor:*
5. Robert De Niro (Killers of the Flower Moon)
4. Mark Ruffalo (Poor Things)
3. Sterling K. Brown (American Fiction)
2. Ryan Gosling (Barbie)
1. Robery Downey Jr. (Oppenheimer)
Can we get Isabella Rossellini to present and declare it a tie?
Right?! Emma and Lily will be happy, and their fans will finally calm down.
I’m in favor of anything involving Isabella Rossellini.
I see what you did there. I remember the shock on her mother's face when she had to announce that Katherine Hepburn AND Barbra Streisand had won.
Randolph got this handed to her when Lily opted out of the category and entered the lead category.
I agree if lilly in supporting
Davine joy randolf will not sweep
Davine will sweep.@@marrmart7690
Viola Davis was a lead in Fences but she still won the Oscar.
@@encheknizam got the Oscar for Supporting... Lily's is more a supporting role than lead. If she wins lead- it will be more for narrative than lead. Women seem to win lead often for second or third characters... the only time I can think of a man winning who wasn't #1/lead was Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.
Actors and Actresses don't get to pick which category they are nominated in. The producers of their movies submit their performances to the nominating committee that makes the decision. Randolph was brilliant in her performance.
I hope Lily Gladstone wins the Oscar! Love her performance!
I agree , the narrative of lily gladstone is amazing and will be a emotional win. But emma stone was the best actress of 2023 she is the deserve winner of that extraordinary perfomance.
A point of note, if Lily wins, wouldn't it be exactly 50 years since an woman of American Indian descent was on the stage collecting an Academy Award, when Brando won for The Godfather?
I don't think a candidate's "narrative" is relevant nowadays. If that were the case, wouldn't the academy have given the Oscar to Chadwick Bosman instead of Hopkins? They even saved that category for last because it would've been the perfect homage to a late, colored actor who gave his all for his final performance, but instead they gave it to an old white man who had already won that award previously, and who didn't even bothered to show up to receive it.
Anthony Hopkins himself spoked about this, never thought he could win it. Due to COVID, he couldn't travel. At 83, he received it. His performance in "The Father" is insane. I couldn't sleep after watching; it hit deep
@@shifananizam1837 I agree, and that's my point, the academy rewarded the superior performance, and didn't cater for any of these identity narratives that people keep mentioning everytime Gladstone's perfomance is discussed. If she wins, it'll be because her perfomance was deemed the superior one among the other nominees.
I always wonder this about last year, everybody said Brendan won because of narrative. What if they were just more impressed with what he did compared to Austin? I wonder how much these things matter, compared to what the pundits make it out to be.
Lazy analysis from Cody “it’s the same path like last year”
Turned out it’s not 🤣😭
I thought Gladstone was good, but this was a supporting performance. Stone and Huller were true lead performances that each carried their films and they were both wonderful- both performances really stayed with me. I think Stone or Huller deserves it, but I think it will probably be Gladstone due to narrative (but I do think Stone still has a chance).
EDIT- based on some responses, there's obviously a lot of love for Gladstone and pushback from people who disagree that this is not a lead role, and that's fine! I can agree to disagree. The whole point of this is it's my subjective opinion. I did like her performance, and I will not be upset if she wins. This isn't a Shakespeare in Love situation. But her performance isn't my favorite out of the nominees and again, in my opinion, is not a lead role (although the Oscars often don't care about screen time anyway).
screen time does not decide lead or supporting. these best actress winners, patricia neal had 21 minutes, louise fletcher had 22 minutes, nichole kidman had 23 minutes, and frances mcdormand has 26 minutes of screen time. lily had 57 minutes.
@minavamp2811 screen time is absolutely a factor, but obviously there's category fraud all the time. But it's not just screen time- it's impact. For me, Stone and Huller had a much bigger impact in the film and after. I won't be upset if Gladstone wins but I agree with Brian- she was good. In my opinion, Huller and Stone were great. I love subtle performances, I think Davine deserves to win. I just think Gladstone's performance, which is partially tied into what and how much she was given, is less deserving of a Best Actress Oscar than Stone's or Huller's. I understand if you disagree, this is my opinion and opinions will differ!
@@rebeccag8589Molly Burkhart was the female lead. She was married to the male lead. She was the one who had all the money in her family (essentially making her the de facto matriarch). She’s the main character who is impacted by all of the things that De Niro and DiCaprio’s characters do. She is absolutely a lead in that movie.
@superfox5707 The largest female role in a film does not make that role a lead role. Being married to a lead role doesn't make you the lead. Being passively impacted by actions in a film doesn't make you the lead. She had half the screen time as her husband, around the same as De Niro, who went supporting everywhere. I'm definitely not alone in thinking this, haha. By your reasoning, Kuan last year should have been lead for EEAAO. But even if, for argument's sake, we call it a lead performance, because voters often don't care in any of the categories, I still feel that Huller and Stone just gave stronger performances. I liked Gladstone's performance! But I didn't love it. And again, if you talk to people or read comments sections anywhere, I'm not alone here. As I shared in another comment though, at the end of the day, this is my opinion, obviously. It's subjective. We can agree to disagree. I certainly won't be upset if Gladstone wins.
@@minavamp2811 57 minutes in a 3 hour and 27 minute movie.
Emma stone will be winner....if Emma stone not win, I want Sandra huller won because I love her performance in anatomy of a fall....btw Emma stone will be winner for poor thing
And Emma stone should be the winner for poor things
@@nickxyx2879 Because Lily is native american? Bs reason. It should be because she gave the best performance, IMO she did not.
I personally think Carey Mulligan would have a better shot at winning an Oscar this year if her performance was considered a supporting performance. Also, fun fact about Bradley Cooper that I'm sure you guys already know: Each time he's lost an acting Oscar, he's lost it to someone playing either the lead or supporting role in a biopic. In 2012, he lost to Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln. In 2013, he lost to Jared Leto for Dallas Buyers Club. In 2014, he lost to Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything. In 2018, he lost to Rami Malek for Bohemian Rhapsody, and with this seemingly being the year of Oppenheimer, it's likely that streak will continue.
Emma Stone gives the performance of the year in Poor Things. She deserves the Oscar over everyone else.
Though I love all of the front runner in the acting categories, I'd love to to see big ass surprises and see Paul Giamatti, Lily Gladstone, Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt win!
I hope paul jiamatii win😍
The big ass surprises would be Giamatti over Murphy and Stone over Gladstone
Has anyone won lead actress without a Bafta nomination? Recently?
Yes
My qualms about Lily Gladstone winning Best Actess over Emma Stone is that she would become the first indigenous person in an acting category, which is amazing, but would the Oscar’s give it to her if the first Asian women to win Best Actress won last year? Maybe it’s just me being pessimistic, but I doubt that the Oscar’s would do back-to-back WOC lead acting wins, even more so that a WOC (Da’Vine Joy Randolph) is almost 100% winning in the only other Actress category. But maybe I’m just reading too much into it haha
If she win after sacheen littlefeather take oscar as native amrican on behalf of marlon brando they will make history
Neither one of you talked about whether Gladstone is in the right category and whether that might work against her. Will voters see her role as more of a supporting one?
The academy has a record of putting actors in the wrong category. In 1974 ten yr old Tatum O'Neal who was in most every scene in Paper Moon and carried the film was put in the supporting category. She won but wouldn't have if the best actress category.
ه Gladstone her original story
Colly kyle the hero of the real story so they put her in leading role
Scorssissy foucus in white haspend more than wifes
The leading criminal not victim
Viola Davis was a lead in Fences but she still won the Oscar.
Nobody is talking about it because we don't decide which category she is nominated in. Producers of movies submit performances and the Oscar Voting Committee makes the decision. What we think as viewers doesn't matter. The voters felt Lily Gladstone gave a leading performance.
Who ever wins, no doubt all nominations are worthy of an Oscar. Such a strong year for film!
Stone and Gladstone could split the vote and Heuller could win- like Glenn and Gaga did and Olivia won.
Gaga was out of comption
@@marrmart7690 she was fading- had a lot of early support and Glenn surged late- Olivia's support remained steady... Emma was early favorite, Lily's surging and Sandra's remaining steady- maybe not enough to catch them, but- would be interesting. Same thing happened the 2 Bette Davis years- All About Eve and Baby Jane- she and Gloria Swanson, then later she and Katharine Hepburn split the vote and Judy Holiday and Ann Bancroft held the middle and won.
My Picks - Giamatti, Hüller, RDJ, Randolph
Likely: Murphy, Gladstone, RDJ, Randolph
Stone or Gladstone?
I’m rooting for the former…..
Also rooting for Giamatti but don’t think he will win. Losing the SAGS deflated his chances
The hate because a performance is quiet and restrained is absurd. Cillian keeps wining because he gave the performance that deseves to win because it was the best performance of the year. This bs narrative of becauee another is owed and been in the business for a long time is some crap.
Supporting Actor
Will and should win: Robert Downey Jr- Oppenheimer
Supporting Actress
Will and should win: Davine Joy Randolph- The Holdovers
Actor
Will and should win: Cillian Murphy- Oppenheimer (I'd vote for Andrew Scott in All of Us Strangers if he was here)
Actress
Will win: Emma Stone- Poor Things
Should win: Lily Gladstone- Killers of the Flower Moon
I would add should win Paul Giamatti. Will win Cillian Murphy
Yes agree should win Lily Gladstone but will win Emma Stone but it also sounds right to me to switch that…. Should win Emma, will win Lily. Best Actress is a tough call…. It could go either way.
I was in the Lily camp up until a few days ago when I saw poor things (a movie I hated)…. Now I’m in the Emma camp.
Want her to win and I feel she should win….
Emma’s performance was stronger than lily’s. IMHO
Honestly I loved this year's performances but boy, Cillian Murphy was out of everyone's league, what a monumental performance!
Lily Gladstone - I’d love for her to win because of her performance and the narrative it stands for. However, I saw Poor Things and you cannot count out Emma Stone just yet. Her performance was a brilliant powerhouse. The is really the only cliffhanger at the Oscar’s this year.
And I’m predicting Carey Mulligan. I’m going to be wrong, but at least I’m true to myself.
Im Sticking with Emma Stone for beat actres , the performence was fantastic in Poor Things , i just dont like when the oscar voter considered some issue like narrative of anything ,for me the performence is the most important thing , as for last year ,Michelle Yeoh is indeed great in EEAAO but the nartative about being the Firat asian os what make her win , the true winner for me was Cate Blanchet for Tar ,
Who I want, not necessarily who I think will win:
Actress Stone
Actor Giamatti
S Actress Ferrara
S Actor Ruffalo
Who will win
Stone/Gladstone too close to call
Murphy
Randolph
Downey Jr
Only thing Emma have to offer is just her ACHIEVEMENT IN ACTING she doesn’t have Narrative.
But this award should be about performance not narrative, unfortunately this not the case with this woke cult that been going on.
If Lily was truly wanted to be recognized by her work she’d be in supporting category, but they know they have strong narratives with her.
Not really fair .
This awards things has already lost respect and credibility but if narratives will go before art. This will be dead to me forever!
I think we are gonna see an Olivia Colman moment with Emma winning people are gonna end up voting for their personal favorite, outside of narrative.
Thanks once again, Brian, for a great video. I think Lily Gladstone will win because she is a woman of color. Oscar voters are now sensitive to racial issues because a few years ago there was an effective protest campaign of "Oscars so White."
I was not overly impressed with Lily's performance. I have not yet seen Emma Stone in "Poor Things," but will be seeing it for free at my local library in two weeks. From what I have witnessed online, I believe that she--Emma-- deserves to win. I do NOT think she deserved the Oscar for "La-La Land." She was good, IMO, but not great.
In general, I agree with your predictions. The Oscars will be the least suspenseful in decades, IMO.
Emma is great in Poor Things
Lily was only good in KOTFM
Emma deserves an Oscar for PT
she didn’t deserve it for La La
Cillian Murphy is in another league.. Giamatti has given this performance dozens of times, Cillian for the win. Emma Stone was astounding in that role but culturally Lily has the edge. Unfortunate that that has anything to do with winning the Oscar.. It's the performance that matters. In that case Emma wins by a mile
Wrong, why do you think that Lily Gladstone is a she-in because she has a cultural edge. If anything, her being Native American is a detriment considering the history and present Hollywood when it comes to people of color. Have you seen the way Native Americans have been depicted in movies?--negative stereotypes galore! Only two women of color have ever won the Oscar for Best Actress--shameful! Lily Gladstone deserves and will win because of her brilliant performance. Emma Stone's performance was too showy, and weird, and looked like she was acting--all turn-offs for Oscar voters.
Both great performances. The Oscars love to make "statements", and Lily Gladstone is a statement. Emma Stone is so incredible, she deserves the win absolutely, it shouldn't even be a race. However, I see a split and the path to a win and for fun, I'm calling it for Sandra Huller. Also a Best Picture nominee with strong support and she likely missed being a double nominee by "this much". Most likely wrong, but hey, no guts no glory. And I haven't given up on Giamatti or Gosling quite yet. I think if the "leak" that the latter was performing on Oscar night is a few days sooner, it's a little closer. Regardless, a great year for film and none of your predicted winners would be a disappointment. In fact. out of the 20 acting nominees, not a one would be an embarrassing winner.
I agree with Brian and I'm just going to say it and I don't care if I get hate comments about this but dammit if Lily Gladstone wins this Oscar it will be because the Academy wants to have a sociological history moment, not because her performance was better than Stone's. Nobody on this planet is going to convince me, ever, and I'm sure some will try, that Gladstone gave a better performance than Stone. Nobody is going to convince me that Gladstone, sleepily walking her way through her movie with quiet looks in her eyes, some small quivers in her voice, some tears, and a little bit of anger was better acting than Emma Stone's fully transformative performance that was all at once funny, sad, dramatic, sexy, outward, inward, serious, comedic, joyous, heartbreaking, physical, mental, that showed an entire arc of character from newborn infant to older smarter stronger empowered woman. Gladstone may be the main female in her movie, but it is still a supporting role as her character supports Leo's. Stone IS HER MOVIE.
Emma Stone getting the Oscar will be one of the most deserved wins of all time. Gladstone winning the Oscar will be making a sociological statement.
Cate blanchet support lilly gladstone for her role becase she make realistic story same tar
She make with her convrsation in youtube
Emma stone same mesheal yuo two make fantsy and siance fiction
Maybe academy dont want give fantsy role the oscar in leading role again
@@marrmart7690Only basis of performance, Emma is far better irrespective of fantasy or narrative. But sag lass makes that possible hard
100% agree
I’m rooting for Emma
It was the stronger performance
I was Lily camp
Now Emma camp
Saw PT two days ago
Hated movie
Loved Emma’s role
She deserves to win!!
A sublime mesmerizing performance by Emma
Sandra Hõller !!! 💪💪💪💪💪
I hope Lily will get it.
I used to be in Lily camp
Now in Emma camp
For Best Actress, Brian kept saying that he is not a fan of Killers of the Flower Moon so maybe this is the reason why he can’t recognized the every nuance of Gladstone performance. Imagine, she was with Leo and De Niro yet her presence eclipsed the two in that film, and even when she’s not onscreen, as audience, you are thinking about her and where is she. That’s impactful because her performance made us audience felt her character. I dont like Killers too, same as Iron Lady when Streep won over Viola. I dont like Tammy Faye but I love Chastain in it and Oscar voters respect Chastain a lot and her performance.
Brian also mentioned that Stone gave the performance of the year. It reminded me of last year as everyone said Cate Blanchet gave the performance of the year. Maybe voters are thinking, Blanchet has 2 oscars already and the Academy is ready to award a woman of color in Michelle Yeoh. Maybe same narrative as Stone because she has an oscar too so its easy for voters to vote for another actress whom they felt also gave an outstanding performance.
Brian said Stone has a lot of screentime than Gladstone. I remember Renee Zellweger having a lot of screen time at Chicago whole Kidman has lesser screen time even with her co-leard Julianne Moore, yet Kidman took the win over Renee.
Predicting the winner at the Oscars nowadays is not always based from what had happened in the past because there were less voters unlike in this day and age wherein Oscars have many voters internationally.
My choice for Best Actress is Gladstone as she is the definition of what Oscars want to be seen for this very moment. She is giving us a different narrative, the same as Cillian Murphy, both of then are saying that in this world, it is not always the loudest voice that people can hear, nor the showiest performances that can only be felt… because even their quiet performances can also win because it is both heard , felt and seen BIGTIME.
Best Actress : GLADSTONE
Best Actor : MURPHY
Best Supporting Actor : RDJ
Best Supporting Actress : DJR
I still think Lily will win because also Killers is much more traditional Oscar film than Poor Things and no a single actress in the history of the Oscar's won two leading Oscar's for comedies or lighter roles. BUT anyone who is saying oh it's just like last year with Michelle Yeoh and Cate Blanchett doesn't make sense cause Michelle's passion came also from the fact that SHE WAS FEW DECADES IN THE INDUSTRY and a very respected underrated veteran. This is only first big breakthrough role for Lily and 99% present of the people just discovered who she is(other 1% being the people who watched her in Certain Women few years ago). Michelle had that big OH IT'S FINALLY HER TIME, OH SHE FINALLY GOT A ROLE WORTHY OF HER TALENT MOMENT which Gladstone doesn't. Gladstone only has the power of her performance and political narrative behind her but NOT that OVERDUE factor.
But I think due to how native americans have been treated historically that first native american winner is a stronger narrative than first asian winner. So there is that.
Lily Gladstone has it in the bag after winning SAG. Gosling is definitely not in second place wtf 🤣. He’s happy to be 5th and nominated
The war of the stones
God, this is tough. I like both performances a lot and to be honest for me it doesn't matter who wins, since both wins will be great. However, I personally like Emma Stone's performance much more, and I think that would be my choice. If she just didn't win for La La Land... It would be different.
I know it's never going to happen, but the best thing would be a tie between them. I'd love to see that
Emma stone when she win for lala land was in bad year
Natally bortman was bad in jacki kinidy role and myreel streep make silly role
So she win for ramance film
And she lose in favirite in supporting role
And olivia colman win for leading role category
When emma stone was leading in the favirite and olivia colman was supporting.
Lily Gladstone most likely
Lily Gladstone should win
Emma Stone should win.
Emma stone deserve it
Emma stone deserve it
I am surprised that Murphy is ahead of Giamatti. Giamatti had more memorable moments in the movie than Murphy. Murphy is very good but he doesn’t have that “scene”. I am also surprised that RDJ is getting so much praise. He’s good but he plays the same character in every movie; his character in OPPENHEIMER is very similar to his character in SOAPDISH from thirty years ago.
Now that I've actually watched Poor Things, it's Lily Gladstone all the way!
Now that I r actually watched Poor Things it’s Emma Stone all the way
I’ve switched from Lily to Emma
I'm kinda over this awards season tbh its so predictable and therefore boring, just give Cillian, Lily, RDJ and Da'Vine the Oscars and get it over with. And to the people who say Oh SAG made the Actress race exciting, if anything it made it more boring, it's Lily's shes taking it, the stats and narrative are on her side while Emma has people saying shes too young to get a second Oscar which is total BS, rooting for her but I know shes not winning.
I agree with Cody on all 4, sorry Brian!
Was Lily camp
Now Emma camp
Best Picture: Oppenheimer
Best Actor: Cillian Murphy
Best Actress: Lily Gladstone
Best Director: Christopher Nolan
Aren't we tired of this "gladstone is supporting" nonsense? The whole KOTFM revolved around Molly: her family, her tribe, her wealth, her horrid husband. Screentime matters way less than influence on the narrative. If Gladstone wins, she will not be the shortest winning percentage by a long shot. And it will be a deserving win: she manages to portray the grief of losing both her family and her tribe without ever crossing the line of overacting, be the very heart of her film and overshadow DiCaprio and De Niro, so much so that is considered the standout in a Scorsese film. And obviously voters don't consider hers to be a supp. performance either, since she bagged GG + SAG.
I also don't get this whole "PT is so beloved" argument. A couple of tech potential wins don't make make a film particularly beloved, and KOTFM got 10 noms. Obviously there's respect for it, whether it's winning or not. This argument would only have made sense had PT been the Oppenheimer of the season.
Also, apart from the fact that PT is an mess ideologically, personally, not once did I forget I was watching Emma Stone (in a particularly flashy, too on the nose performance) and not Bella Baxter.
Oooooh poor thing 😂
@@marikamarika7205 ?
Absolutely. The whole discourse about “supporting vs. lead” is pretty arbitrary, but ultimately Killers of the Flower Moon is Lily’s story. It’s through her that we get to see the real hurt that Hale and Ernest are forcing. To contrast, the Oscars gave Brando lead for The Godfather, and I’m sorry but he’s not the lead of that movie. The Godfather is about Michael Corleone, his father supports that story. The question to ask is “well what do they support?”.
Gladstone also has the superior narrative. First time nominee, first Indigenous woman, playing a real person in a deeply tragic drama. The Oscars eat this stuff up.
@@samuelbarber6177 agreed. On the contrary, Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs was absolutely a lead, despite a screentime of around 15 minutes. Separating lead and supp performances based on that alone is a very poor way of looking at films.
And, of course, her narrative is a strong thing, which I don't see as something that would "lessen" her win, considering that her performance is so admirable. Narratives shape the outcome of most, if not all, awards, and does anyone buy that the Oscars are the pinnacle of credibility, or that the films who are nominated or win are the absolute best in their categories? Studios spend millions on campaigning, and suddenly the problem is an Indigenous actress that has cut her teeth in small indies and that got her first major role at like 35 ?
my realistic predictions in acting categories: actor (murphy), actress (stone), supporting actor (downey jr), supporting actress (randolph)
my blind, hopeful predictions: actor (giamatti), actress (stone), supporting actor (ruffalo), supporting actress (blunt)
You are not thinking realistically. Lily Gladstone just won the SAG Award which is a precursor for an Oscar win. The narrative is in her favor. Love Emma Stone, but her performance is too showy and weird for Oscar voters--overacting and looks like she is acting. It's basically Edward Scissor Hands 2024.
I still think Paul has a chance don’t count him out
I agree many comidian performance win in the past
He make film in 70 s
And in that time many win
Paul make tragedy and comedy in same time
And if he win after lose sag academy will make big surprise for audiance
Even if i dont surprise becase he still in race
After losing the SAG I’d love to see him win the Oscar !
@@Allie8567 I just have this wierd feeling he’s going to win and gagggg the whole internet like Jamie lee
@@fredamurphy7827 Jamie lee at least won at SAG as well, so there was momentum there. Paul needed SAG to stay in the race and even when everyone thought it'd go to him they got behind Murphy. Would be the first time in at least 20 years someone won with just a globe and a CCA and his performance is not THAT special, nor is the narrative all that strong.
@@HermitForHire if Paul doesn’t win they are definitely going to give him the honorary Oscar for next gov ball
I don't care who wins. I liked Sandra Huller's performance.
They need to still give oscar to Angela Bassett and Glenn Close...waaay over due
I will die if ryan Gosling wins...
Seems the typical winners who already won awards will win oscars...there will be no surprises...
Love Emma Stone, haven't watched the movie. Don't know Lily, haven't watched the movie.😂 But the Oscars has been trying to mend its image in recent years after it's been accused of racism so after Michelle's historic win last year, they might just let Lily win this year. There can be no doubt that Emma is a fantastic actress (and she already has the Oscar to prove it too), but i can imagine her winning again might upset a lot of people.
ه This year same 1951 when the comption was btween sunset bulvard and all about eve and judy holliday win
Was strong year
Not me. Emma deserves it
Sandra Huller was the best followed by a Lily Gladstone
Come on - Murphy plays 1. a real life person, 2, in a WWII-related film; 3. that's about American superiority over the Nazis. It's a foregone conclusion
Emma Stone MUST win!!!!!
I am wondering if the graphic sex scenes in POOR THINGS would turn off votes for Emma Stone. Would conservative voters really want to vote her way after seeing those scenes? Lily Gladstone’s character comes across as a positive role model, something that voters would want to reward.
It definitely doesn't help her.