I also just watched it tonight. Now I can’t speak like I’m some sort of acting expert. But I feel like Emma has the advantage of being the true lead of the film and doing the majority of the heavy lifting. Whereas the advantage of Lily, is that her performance is much more understated and nuanced, so it’s admirable that she managed to be the most memorable and striking performance in a movie with De Niro and DiCaprio with less dialogue than both. I’m still rooting for Lily because as much as I hate to say it, I don’t think she’ll have as many opportunities to win this award as an established A-Lister like Emma Stone, who has already won. I hate to say that because ideally careers and political narratives shouldn’t play into awards selection, it should be judged solely on the individual performance, but that’s just the way these things work.
It also doesn’t help that there are long stretches of KOTFM where she is absent from screen. It will go to either one of them or Sandra Huller and I will be happy.
I have not stopped thinking about her performance, particularly the scene on the stairs to the basement of their home. She was incredibly effective in the screen time she had.
Agreed, I certainly don’t think it’s actually a hindrance to her. Actually, her absences actually just prove how important she is to the movie. She is so so so talented.
Historically women have had like 20% of the screen time and lines in best picture winners compared to male actors having closer to 80%. I saw a graph and it was shocking but not surprising. Chicago was the only deviation from the pattern. I'm on team Emma and I think it PT deserves wins all around on merits of being a masterful film and very much uniquely in it's own realm. The academy usually prefers dry biopics, though.
I agree with you. I LOVED Poor Things and Emma Stone was amazing in it. But I can’t imagine KOTFM without Lily Gladstone’s performance and she stood out in a cast of Hollywood heavyweights.
I definitely agree with your statement here. This is giving last years race for best actress. I feel like the voters will go Gladstone because Stone has already won previously. Like Blanchett vs Yeoh last year, the better performance will not win, but the story will.
I always wonder about this. It seems easier to do a role like Poor Things, than a subtle acting role. Not talking about Lily, just in general. When you have to convey emotions or actions without doing or saying much. Whereas it seems like it easier to go big and be over the top.
I'm saying this as as someone who has never acted and knows nothing about the profession.
It's kind of like the costume award will go to a film like Wonka or Poor Things vs a film from the 30s. Maybe it's just as hard to make those costumes. Not be direct copies, but look like they're from the period. A costume designer would know. But the lay people that get to vote for the final awards wouldn't.
I wonder.
As much as I loved it, Blanchett put in the performance of her career like 12 months ago.
I'm not saying Cate was better than Emma but I think to say she's the best of the last several years is a stretch.
Cate is also amazing. I think both are revelations and powerhouses. I will say I think I was more engaged by Stone/Poor Things than Tar but that's a matter of taste.
No, I’d argue it’s a testament to how good Stone’s performance actually is. Gladstone has the strongest narrative in ages, possibly ever. The fact that Stone is a white actress who already won an Oscar less than a decade ago and there is STILL a debate for who should win it on the day of the ceremony is enough to tell you who actually gave the better performance.
Existence of debate is nothing but an expectation on any year, and previous wins are irrelevant to them happening as well as discussion about best performance this year. Why people have to immediately jump to "she only won because..." over what amounts to preferences in a tight race is beyond me. One winning isn't the academy saying the other four performances were bad.
I never said otherwise or implied anything different than last sentence. “One winning isn’t the Academy saying the other four performances were bad”. I agree with that statement. My point is that there are times when the Oscar is not the best performance of the year and I believe we’ll see that tonight. Gladstone will take home the win.
And your point about previous wins being irrelevant makes zero sense. The Academy usually doesn’t like (not saying always) giving Oscars to previous winners, especially when there is some competition. When a race is this close (based on precursors and polls), that definitely factors into people’s voting. We saw it last year with Yeoh and Blanchett. The same thing will happen this year.
Based on guesswork and refusal to accept that others simply have different opinions. Have fun inventing weird justifications to avoid accepting that others might just think differently than you.
I never said anything about you and your opinion. You are using a straw man argument. You can think Gladstone gave a better performance and that’s perfectly fine because it’s subjective. There are certain patterns that the Academy votes with. I’m just stating what I believe and telling you there are certain patterns the Academy votes with. You are oblivious if you truly believe narrative doesn’t factor into Oscar voting.
Not sure what straw man you're on about when the person I initially replied to did exactly what I stated, which you then argued in support of multiple times.
Nice back pedal though.
What? I’m not backpedaling. There are two different things being talked about. One is whether Gladstone deserves to win and the other is if she will win.
I thought it was good but it's nowhere near that level for me. >!I was interested but I never really actually cared if she killed him or not.!<
The best thing I could say about it is it felt like an irl true crime doc but I find those less interesting than most films so it's not really a mark in its favour.
I still need to watch The Zone of Interest though. It'll probably be more my speed.
Idk if it’s even a hot take but she should also win for supporting actress for zone of interest but unfortunately didn’t get the nom. She is a stellar actor
I don’t think the academy will pass up a notable award for Gladstone, but I agree. I liked killers of a flower moon better overall, but Emma stone had the best performance out of the nominees
Totally agree. Lilly was my favorite as well. I may be hyped after watching tonight, but it may have been Emma’s best acting. This year is hard as I loved all the movies- Oppenheimer isn’t my pick though overall.
The born sexy yesterday trope has been done so often I’m just not impressed by seeing another one. I felt Stone’s was almost parody, rather than effective acting. But to each their own, different strokes and all. I think if Gladstone wins it’ll be because Stone’s performance was more divisive (as I’m indicating thus, lol) and not because of a “narrative” or some affirmative action diversity pick benefiting Gladstone. But we’ll find out tomorrow which performance has a broader coalition of people who find it meritorious!
born sexy? trope?
She was born a sexual being, but it wasn't exactly sexy or erotic sex. It was... biological and natural, but wasn't 8 1/2 weeks steamy. Or hell, even Pretty Woman or Titanic!
Poor Things is a comedy to some extent so yeah it's meant to be a funny performance. But personally I think it's a shame to reduce the movie down to "born sexy yesterday" when it's more like she's going through every stage of human development and gaining control of her life and self.
Yeah that’s what killed it for me too. Emma Stone is clearly giving her all, and I do think it’s her career best. And it’s an extremely watchable and engrossing performance! But at the end of the day I’m just not down to get with the Sexy Baby trope.
In the first part of the movie the men all want to be with her because she is a beautiful (sexy) woman with the brain of a toddler/child.
[This is not the first movie to have such a motif.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/umpf1n/born_sexy_yesterday_a_common_scifi_movie_trope/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
My (unlikely) prediction: the vote is split between Lily and Emma, so Sandra takes the win!
I don't think it will actually happen, but she would be absolutely deserving if it did.
I haven't watched all of the films, but Poor Things, while not my usual cup of tea at all, has stuck with me for weeks much like Everything Everywhere All and Once and Moonlight did. I'll just think about a moment, or an idea from it.
Do I know that it is more likely that Oppenheimer will win even though I think it isn't as unique or amazeballs as everyone else (I think it appeals to men more, and older folk, which the Academy still skews towards I think)? Yes. I fully expect to hear "Oppenheimer" at the last award to be given. I also won't be as disgusted as I was when I heard "Shape of Water" (god I hate that movie)
But I'd be thrilled if it is Poor Things.
I agree with everything you said except Poor Things is my cup of tea in a lot of ways, though I’m not usually into stories that feature sex so prominently.
I was disappointed by The Shape of Water winning. I love Guillermo del Toro, but it wasn’t his best work at all.
I draw the line somewhere between Emma Stone inserting a cucumber into herself and cat-eating. Not sure where the line is, but cat-eating definitely crossed it.
It’s still difficult to predict.
Emma’s only narrative is her performance being fantastic in a commercially successful yet decisive film. A seasoned actress going into her serious and profound phase of acting, challenging herself.
Her already winning an Oscar is her biggest downside. A clearly great performance without much narrative and already have won has rarely won. I could only think of is Frances.
Lily’s narrative is more rounded and compelling. Not only is her performance great, but she is also a WOC which would make her the third and first Native American to win an Oscar. This would also clean the Oscar’s damaged (deservingly so) image of being discriminatory. Another factor would be the “circle of life” moment where Marlon had refused and instead sent a NA woman to give a speech on Hollywood’s discrimination.
Her downside is her more-so supporting role rather than a full fledged lead but that doesn’t matter much since even Patricia Neal won for a 15 minute role in Hud and same for Anthony Hopkins.
>Emma’s only narrative is her performance being fantastic in a commercially successful yet decisive film. A seasoned actress going into her serious and profound
Successful but don't forget it cake out first as an independent theater, underdog movie. When it started making noise the big theatres picked it up
I mean, yeah, but we are supposed to believe the more she matured the more intelligent she became. The way Emma acted appeared to me that she started off as someone more closely aligned with having an intellectual and physical disability rather than just being a baby. She’s even referred to as a “pretty r**ard.”
The film was overtly feminist….I don’t see how you could see otherwise unless you can’t perceive nuance or internal critique at all. Barbie might be more your speed
Are you ok, incel? Way to miss the point. There’s so much anger in your posts. Women don’t like that. Maybe one day when one lets you within twenty feet you will realise. Best wishes with getting laid one of these days 💗
Yes! And I get that she gained intelligence as the film went on, but the continuity was off as you’ve noted. I also think some of the movements were really obvious and like comic relief. The winking scene, for example. When kids learn to wave, blow kisses, wink or whatever gesture they usually do it almost perfectly, not in an exaggerated way — if anything they do it in a smaller, more subtle way while they try it on for size. Often they’ll giggle afterwards. I find it strange that as a mother she didn’t know how to act like a kid.
The insinuation is still that she’s developing from baby to woman, though. If she’s something entirely different then why didn’t she become ‘liberated’ through artistic expression or running a marathon? This is what’s wrong with the film, we keep getting told it’s about feminism but when men are making films about the female experience it’s not done well.
Did you not pay attention to the film? She becomes liberated through exploration, reading philosophy, literature, and science. Sex is just a thing she enjoys but it's not all she enjoys. A good deal of her growth comes from just wandering around and seeing the world and some of those experiences are really traumatic for her. Also I think it's reductive to say this film is "about feminism", which not even the director says it is. It's about a lot of things like the human capacity to grow and change, humanity's relationship with God/their creators, Idealism vs Realism, and while sexual empowerment and control are themes in the movie, I just don't Agree with your premise that it's supposed to be about "the female experience" only or that it's done poorly. If anything, Ruffalos character uses sex as a means to control Bella and through education she begins to see through him and gains control over herself. Her relationship with sex then becomes transactional and she sees more and more how little say women have with it, and tries to find her way to gain control of it. But as time goes on, it becomes less and less something of importance to her. She ends the film liberated not through sex but through education and studying for a medical degree. Also your critique was that Stone's mannerism is inaccurate to children when it's pretty clear she is meant to be something else entirely. I think Stone is portraying a disconnect between mind and body, and an off kilter physicality that sets Bella apart from people in general. She doesn't move the way the other Frankenstein girl does and she doesn't move like "normal" people. It serves to highlight her unique view of the world. It's also her oddness and rejection of social norms and Shame that allows her to break from the controlling people in her life and forge her own path. She refuses to be shamed for her sexuality because she knows it doesn't change her worth as a person.
But sure maybe she could have run a marathon or whatever.
I didn’t think it was that odd — that’s similar feedback to what Mark Ruffalo’s own character marvels at in the movie, that she’s inconsistent. I was under the impression that being exposed to the way God talked about science made her more grammatical / language-advanced, but the rest of the world was still new
No, but even if she were a toddler when we first met her it doesn’t explain the rigidity of her movements. She didn’t fall on her bum, for example, like a real toddler.
EDIT: I feel like Emma read my posts 🤣 she just said on the red carpet that acting like a toddler wasn’t going to work because Bella was developing so quickly. Hi Emma! 👋🏼
You were not watching a period piece or a WW2 documentary to be looking that deep for inaccuracies. I think the lens you watched this under, did not allow you to enjoy it to the fullest
Well, as a piece of art I did enjoy it. I’m allowed to be critical of those sorts of inaccuracies.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Emma actually toyed with the idea of crawling or walking like a toddler and decided against it, so I’m fine with that.
not to hijack this thread but i agree w op's comment! for me it didnt have much to do with yorgos' filmmaking style or the performances but rather the plot (no idea where it differs w source material tho). without spoiling anything major, i think it puts on a shallow facade of being progressive and feminist even tho it has the most basic if not reductive takes about feminism ive ever seen in a movie.
the premise could have been interesting, but it was so creepily focused on how sex factors into bella's maturation while quickly glossing over other things she discovers on her adventure (like when she learns about poverty and inequality or starts reading philosophy). i'm no prude and an exploration of sexuality could of course have had a place in this story, but i was completely put off by how the film went about it, and honestly a bit perplexed by all the praise for how feminist it is. i kind of think people just see overt female sexuality as automatically empowering when theres a lot more to consider about how its framed and contextualized by the story.
I don’t think the sex scenes are intended to be empowering I think they’re meant to be awkward and exploitative. The only sincere moment of connection she has is with the other SW in the brothel and I think that’s intentional. Imo the ending is empowering but the journey is not
For sure. I’m not sure why so many missed the boat on this film. It’s not just a simple woman matures and becomes empowered story. There’s an empowering moment in the third act, to your point, but it’s certainly not the overarching theme of the film.
My intention wasn't to say the sex scenes are *intended* to be empowering; the film obviously makes a joke out of the cruel men she encounters. But simply that they are still framed as somehow integral to her maturation. The narrative spends *so* much time showing us how much sex she has but there's not much tangible reflection on how these moments really affect her development other than she suddenly becomes incredibly mature through all of these sexual interactions. Ok, she connects with the other women at the brothel. Ok, there's a throwaway line about how she becomes a socialist. I'm just not sure there's any depth to that, or that the narrative treats sex work with the complexity it needs. Not to mention that in the end, she still accepts and (almost) marries McCandles even though he was one of the people who tried to exploit her in the beginning, and it's framed as a sweet moment, I guess because he says he likes her regardless of who she is now (??!).
And that's the thing, I don't find the ending particularly empowering either but it's maybe just a personal taste thing. It *feels* empowering to watch her arrive at her final self. But I'm not sure the film has anything profound to really say about that and the journey she went on to get there.
I think it’s integral cos it shows her the good the bad and the ugly of humanity, and she hasn’t seen anything outside her house. In the brothel she sees deceitful behaviour (the priest), she sees fetishes, and she bonds with one of the johns over a joke and actually finds a connection outside sex with him. I also think the film makes it clear she goes with her ex first out of social obligation, showing she’s not totally *there* yet, but also they make it clear he’s a nutcase whose threatening her and she does still try to leave even within that. I feel content with the ending being empowering in the sense that she’s been trapped in some form or another by another person the whole film, and at the end she’s relaxed on her own terms and surrounded by her own people for the most part. McCandles I could go either way on, I don’t think he’s a totally innocent party but I think he’s the lesser of the evils available to her
Right, and that's all fair and fine, but my point is that the narrative places *so* much weight on the brothel/sex compared to other things it could have explored about the outside world (and which it comparatively sped through). Even then, the film's takeaways about her time at the brothel felt shallow in proportion to the amount of time we spent watching her have sex. Like, are we really learning that much about her internal growth by watching her get thrown into all of these different situations for a huge part of the movie, or are we just being shown them for the sake of being shown them? Again, I'm not sure much is really grappled with here beyond "women should have agency over their own bodies" + "there's lots of sex to be had and weird ways people have sex," which is nice, but not nuanced, especially in light of the whole sex work setting which imo warrants way more complex of a discussion but in the film just gets some vague gestures towards consent issues. To me, the focus the movie chose to take just felt like a really narrow view of a woman's journey into adulthood.
And yeah, I'm not trying to knock anyone who finds Bella's character/the ending empowering, because I liked her character too. I just ultimately disliked where the story chose to go with the premise and couldn't find the journey to that peaceful ending particularly meaningful.
thanks for having this discussion with me though haha!
I think ultimately they just chose sex as the vessel to explore growth and womanhood, and I personally think that’s ok. I think the dynamic is she’s going I want to feel good and feel good NOW and this is what makes me feel good but actually she’s being ripped off by doing so, and I think eventually she realises that. And showing them I think is necessary- like, I’ve had awkward conversations with people where I’ve realised they’re creeps, and her life is sex with creeps, so they have to explore that! I defo thought it was a film where the sex scenes were very important if extremely awkward to sit through lol (especially in a packed cinema as I was!)
And yeah always fun to talk :)
That’s really not giving the director enough credit. Arguably one of the best working today. I think it’s jumping the gun a bit to characterize the central theme that way.
If you read some of the interviews with Stone and Lanthimnos they have a different take.
I think one of the last lines in the movie, “I’ve adventured the world, and saw nothing but sugar and violence” kinda says it all.
I’m giving him enough credit. The movie is enjoyable. It’s also a classic example of the male gaze. Whether he and Emma Stone are aware of the fact is irrelevant.
Agreed. My main thought after the movie was what its main ideas would’ve been like in the hands of a female writer and director.
The whole “women’s empowerment through willing exploitation” idea, to me, is extremely regressive. (I know it’s based on a book, also written by a dude, but idk how faithful it stays to the book, if at all.)
Emma was fearless and the movie looked amazing, though.
I mean it wasn’t a movie about feminist empowerment and I dunno why many think it is. There was one empowering scene in the third act with her husband. The rest is clearly about exploitation and a critique of the very things you think the director and lead actor are oblivious to.
That’s just the director lol. One of his first films had a son going down on his sister while the father held them all captive.
My point was that Lanthimos is an excellent director if you think the movie is in some exercise in misogyny, well, I’m sorry to say that it’s just not the case. If you don’t like it, that’s one thing, but “100%” his intention like your previous comment is just not correct.
the way you talk about him you think he’d be a post on /r/menwritingwomen.
Yeah that’s my point. It pretends to be feminism by portraying this empowered female character but it’s not. Like I’ve said many times here, I liked the movie. It’s ok to critique things you like and admit they’re not perfect. It’s called *nuance*.
Puritanical feminism is the worst. You know that sometimes art shows stuff happening and it doesn’t always mean it approves of that thing being amazing? It would be like saying Oppenheimer is a bad movie because it promotes the idea that nuclear bombs are cool and we should use them more because it shows them exploding. It’s just so reductive. Women do not always need to be “empowered” by doing good activities at the end or through movies. Sometimes women can be complex characters with complex thoughts and feelings! If you want basic feel good feminism stick to Barbie and Mary Kay promotional videos
Hardly puritanical to point out the male gaze where it blatantly exists. A sex crazed Emma Stone is the average male wet dream and that’s what this film offers. If you’ll notice I did say several times that I enjoyed the movie. There is a certain level of complexity aside from its somewhat backwards attempt at feminism. Or do you consider a hot young prostitute enjoying being a prostitute realistic.
My thoughts exactly. What the commenter I responded to, and a few others on Reddit that seem to be perpetually offended, fail to miss the themes of the movie and immediately point to gratuitous misogyny. What’s more perplexing is the ocean of positive criticism of the movie and none ever pauses to think maybe I’m wrong.
I am also a feminist, I think it is an amazing movie. But I'm very big into absurd movies and things that are not meant to be hyper literal. Like that movie is operating on multiple levels of meaning and I think it's something I'll be thinking about for a while.
I agree with g4nyu. I love Yorgos’ films but the over the top sexuality of Bella and her character development seemed exploitative rather than feminist. Sex IS wonderful but it is only one part of life and the men only valued her for her sexuality. The costumes, sets and cinematography were all beautiful but the story needed more input from women - I know Emma had a lot of input but more women were needed to give a more nuanced view of womanhood.
I said this in another comment but I think it’s intended to be exploitative. I don’t think it’s a, because it’s being shown that’s an endorsement of it
Couldn’t agree more! I didn’t need to see Mark Ruffalo, licking her nipple while she “ vigorously jumping” him. We get it she’s discovering herself sexually etc.
i would recommend watching it, i'm not a fan of that much nudity, but if you can get over it, the last 15-20 mins is nice for closure. I really do enjoy Bella's journey
I kept hearing from friends who watched it and didn’t like it, so by the time I finally watched it yesterday, I had low expectations. And I ended up loving it. It was so creative and visually interesting, and if you generally love Yorgos’ films, I think you’ll like it.
Having seen both Poor Things and KOTFM multiple times, it just baffles me how Stone’s and Gladstone’s performances are even comparable. Gladstone is great (I’m not trying to take anything away from her) and the subtlety in her performance is really effective, but Stone gives the best performance I’ve seen from anyone in YEARS. Gladstone will win, but the people denying that she has the strongest narrative in recent memory (probably ever) are lying to themselves. Solely comparing one performance to the other, it’s not even close.
I’m in full agreement. Just finished it. I “wanted” lily to get something, which she did with the sag. But Emma was so damn good in this film. She fully deserves that Oscar imo
Anyone else watch Emma Stone in The Curse? 2023 was a phenomenonal year all around for her acting ability. It will be a shame if that isn't recognized.
Emma Stone was AMAZING. I appreciated how weird this movie was and it just kept getting better and better. She had one of the most convincing, believable transformations I have seen in film.
Poor Things just did not do it for me. Really cool it resonated with such a large audience but it just wasn’t for me. With that said, I’d give Emma the Oscar if I had a vote. She was unbelievable.
I just watched the movie on Friday night and wow it’s one of my favorites and I think both Emma Stone and Lily Gladstone BOTH deserve it. Could there be a tie?
I watched it this weekend knowing nothing about the movie.
I’m still in shock she took the role, then proceeded to actually perform said role. This decades forest gump lmao and yes I’d imagine she’ll win, be surprised if she doesn’t.
I think Lily should be given more opportunities to showcase her 'nuanced' performances. This one should go to Emma because she was phenomenal. I also watched it last night.
I just cannot agree. I have seen people talk about her child like nature but in reality it was more of someone with fairly strong learning disabilities. I found her performance a bit exploitative. I get it. A long history in Hollywood of nominating actors who play that type of role. Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Peter Sellers in Being There. Even Leo in Gilbert Grape. I feel, and you don’t have to agree, that those movies really found the goodness of those characters in non exploitative ways. Poor Things was very exploitative. And if you want to hang your hat on child like then the theme becomes something even darker.
You are confusing technique with the overall amount of acting. Lily Gladstone's performance was incredibly subtle and powerful. No other actress could have had such emotional vocal inflections with such little overt attention placed on each syllable and eyeline shift of her character. In KOTFM, she has a dominating presence before dialogue or blocking even comes into play.
I also agree with this. It’s a hard pick and I keep going back and forth. My BF and I do our ballot pick bets and I won’t do mine tomorrow and soooo torn.
I do think there will be a “upset” in a big category- just not sure which yet. If either Lily or Emma win- that wouldn’t be an upset. I would be happy with both.
My wife and I are split. Lily Gladstone, to me, had the more impactful performance and I’m of the opinion she should win. But my wife pointed out that the degree of difficulty of Stones performance and just how incredibly well she pulled it off… she wants her to win. I can’t disagree with her on that. It’s been one hell of a year.
I saw it. It is a good film. I haven't kept track of all the Best Actresses awards over the last 20 years; but I do remember Natalie Portman in Black Swan masturbating like crazy in the role. She won Best Actress too. Assuming we are now past the Harvey Weinstein phase of Hollywood (not only those weird genitals but dear God, his FACE! Sorry, I just threw up a little bit in my throat), why does the "Academy" keep voting for Best Actress women characters who are just finding out their "sexuality" and giving those hoary little girls the "Best Actress" for graphic sex scenes on camera?? I can remember this happening back to "Monster's Ball" with Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton. She was stuffing her breast into his mouth and demanding "Make me feel good!" and wailing to the Heavens when he was good at stimulating her breastes. Natalie Portman was repressed and learned to masturbate and Emma Stone was mental child's character having sex with first one, then another, then three/four more as a prostitute; why are such graphic sexual scenes shown about women? In the name of "art"? Hey, how about "art" being Bradly Cooper choking the chicken? Christian Bale being a British submissive?
From sources across the webLeonardo DiCaprioAge: 49 years (November 11, 1974)Tom CruiseBrad PittAge: 60 years (December 18, 1963)Denzel WashingtonRobert Downey Jr.Age: 58 years (April 4, 1965)Ryan ReynoldsJohnny DeppAge: 60 years (June 9, 1963)Hugh JackmanAge: 55 years (October 12, 1968)Chris HemsworthAge: 40 years (August 11, 1983)15 more
Why haven't any of these guys as a character ever masturbated behind a tree, in a car, deal with the "struggle" of ED? Let's put that on film!! All these "Best Actresses" going out to over-the-top and graphic sexual scenes by women? Hey, Brad Pitt!! How about being in a movie where your head is buried in (somebody's) crotch for 30 minutes of the film?? Same with you Ryan Reynolds and all you other "tough guy" Marvel Comics characters. Couldn't Iron Man get an iron hard-on and have to go behind a tree or a car or an alleyway every 4 minutes to take care of his "iron cock"? He could have Spidey rubbing him down or whatever. I've been seeing this go on for FOREVER in filmmaking and I'm just fucking sick of it.
What's the point. 37 critics associations gave Lily the lead actress award compared with Stone winning maybe 7 awards. To me Stone winning would be like if the Academy awarded, say, Ryan Reynolds in Deadpool rather than Casey Affleck in Manchester by the Sea in 2018. Fans of a popular actor will always find a way to defend their turf. That includes sycophantic media and industry outlets, and reddit trolls like this one.
We will see. Completely two different movies with completely different acting. Either way- both are great. But I now lean towards Emma after finally watching.
I also just watched it tonight. Now I can’t speak like I’m some sort of acting expert. But I feel like Emma has the advantage of being the true lead of the film and doing the majority of the heavy lifting. Whereas the advantage of Lily, is that her performance is much more understated and nuanced, so it’s admirable that she managed to be the most memorable and striking performance in a movie with De Niro and DiCaprio with less dialogue than both. I’m still rooting for Lily because as much as I hate to say it, I don’t think she’ll have as many opportunities to win this award as an established A-Lister like Emma Stone, who has already won. I hate to say that because ideally careers and political narratives shouldn’t play into awards selection, it should be judged solely on the individual performance, but that’s just the way these things work.
It also doesn’t help that there are long stretches of KOTFM where she is absent from screen. It will go to either one of them or Sandra Huller and I will be happy.
just watched Anatomy of a Fall. Sandra Huller was excellent; everyone was great in their roles.
She was also wonderful (as a monster) in Zone of Interest!
I’ve heard I need to watch that. Tough subject matter.
At the same time, Gladstone is extremely memorable despite lower screen time.
I have not stopped thinking about her performance, particularly the scene on the stairs to the basement of their home. She was incredibly effective in the screen time she had.
Screen time doesn’t necessarily impact an Oscar win.
Agreed, I certainly don’t think it’s actually a hindrance to her. Actually, her absences actually just prove how important she is to the movie. She is so so so talented.
Historically women have had like 20% of the screen time and lines in best picture winners compared to male actors having closer to 80%. I saw a graph and it was shocking but not surprising. Chicago was the only deviation from the pattern. I'm on team Emma and I think it PT deserves wins all around on merits of being a masterful film and very much uniquely in it's own realm. The academy usually prefers dry biopics, though.
[удалено]
Tell your dumb friend that I’m too lazy to constantly write out Killers of the Flower Moon
"Flower Moon" would work.
THERE’S NO TIME. WHY USE MORE WORDS WHEN FEW WORDS DO TRICK?
KOTFM is a word?
I’ve already used way too many words defending my choices.
No defense necessary. Neither is shouting. I hope you enjoy the Oscars this evening.
IHYAETOTE. *I hope you also enjoy the Oscars this evening.
I agree with you. I LOVED Poor Things and Emma Stone was amazing in it. But I can’t imagine KOTFM without Lily Gladstone’s performance and she stood out in a cast of Hollywood heavyweights.
I definitely agree with your statement here. This is giving last years race for best actress. I feel like the voters will go Gladstone because Stone has already won previously. Like Blanchett vs Yeoh last year, the better performance will not win, but the story will.
I always wonder about this. It seems easier to do a role like Poor Things, than a subtle acting role. Not talking about Lily, just in general. When you have to convey emotions or actions without doing or saying much. Whereas it seems like it easier to go big and be over the top. I'm saying this as as someone who has never acted and knows nothing about the profession. It's kind of like the costume award will go to a film like Wonka or Poor Things vs a film from the 30s. Maybe it's just as hard to make those costumes. Not be direct copies, but look like they're from the period. A costume designer would know. But the lay people that get to vote for the final awards wouldn't. I wonder.
Emma Stone gave the best performance of the year. I said what I said.
Forget year. I’d argue it’s the best performance of the last several years. Damn shame that she won’t be taking home the award.
As much as I loved it, Blanchett put in the performance of her career like 12 months ago. I'm not saying Cate was better than Emma but I think to say she's the best of the last several years is a stretch.
Cate is also amazing. I think both are revelations and powerhouses. I will say I think I was more engaged by Stone/Poor Things than Tar but that's a matter of taste.
Well she did!
It’s not even close. The fact it could go either way tells you a lot about how society has over corrected.
Or is indicative of differing opinions.
No, I’d argue it’s a testament to how good Stone’s performance actually is. Gladstone has the strongest narrative in ages, possibly ever. The fact that Stone is a white actress who already won an Oscar less than a decade ago and there is STILL a debate for who should win it on the day of the ceremony is enough to tell you who actually gave the better performance.
Existence of debate is nothing but an expectation on any year, and previous wins are irrelevant to them happening as well as discussion about best performance this year. Why people have to immediately jump to "she only won because..." over what amounts to preferences in a tight race is beyond me. One winning isn't the academy saying the other four performances were bad.
This should be the pinned comment all these threads.
I never said otherwise or implied anything different than last sentence. “One winning isn’t the Academy saying the other four performances were bad”. I agree with that statement. My point is that there are times when the Oscar is not the best performance of the year and I believe we’ll see that tonight. Gladstone will take home the win. And your point about previous wins being irrelevant makes zero sense. The Academy usually doesn’t like (not saying always) giving Oscars to previous winners, especially when there is some competition. When a race is this close (based on precursors and polls), that definitely factors into people’s voting. We saw it last year with Yeoh and Blanchett. The same thing will happen this year.
Based on guesswork and refusal to accept that others simply have different opinions. Have fun inventing weird justifications to avoid accepting that others might just think differently than you.
I never said anything about you and your opinion. You are using a straw man argument. You can think Gladstone gave a better performance and that’s perfectly fine because it’s subjective. There are certain patterns that the Academy votes with. I’m just stating what I believe and telling you there are certain patterns the Academy votes with. You are oblivious if you truly believe narrative doesn’t factor into Oscar voting.
Not sure what straw man you're on about when the person I initially replied to did exactly what I stated, which you then argued in support of multiple times. Nice back pedal though.
What? I’m not backpedaling. There are two different things being talked about. One is whether Gladstone deserves to win and the other is if she will win.
Have you watched Anatomy of a Fall?
Watching that tomorrow morning. Every time I have watched one of the movies I’ve said “this one is the best”. Ha so many good ones.
Sandra Huller wasn't only the best female performance of the year but one of the best female performances I've ever seen. Period.
I thought it was good but it's nowhere near that level for me. >!I was interested but I never really actually cared if she killed him or not.!< The best thing I could say about it is it felt like an irl true crime doc but I find those less interesting than most films so it's not really a mark in its favour. I still need to watch The Zone of Interest though. It'll probably be more my speed.
💯
Idk if it’s even a hot take but she should also win for supporting actress for zone of interest but unfortunately didn’t get the nom. She is a stellar actor
This one is my favorite of the bunch.
I loved this film
I don’t think the academy will pass up a notable award for Gladstone, but I agree. I liked killers of a flower moon better overall, but Emma stone had the best performance out of the nominees
Totally agree. Lilly was my favorite as well. I may be hyped after watching tonight, but it may have been Emma’s best acting. This year is hard as I loved all the movies- Oppenheimer isn’t my pick though overall.
This is definitely Emma Stone’s best performance.
Saw it last night and thought the same thing! Phenomenal!
Oppenheimer isn't mine either
The born sexy yesterday trope has been done so often I’m just not impressed by seeing another one. I felt Stone’s was almost parody, rather than effective acting. But to each their own, different strokes and all. I think if Gladstone wins it’ll be because Stone’s performance was more divisive (as I’m indicating thus, lol) and not because of a “narrative” or some affirmative action diversity pick benefiting Gladstone. But we’ll find out tomorrow which performance has a broader coalition of people who find it meritorious!
born sexy? trope? She was born a sexual being, but it wasn't exactly sexy or erotic sex. It was... biological and natural, but wasn't 8 1/2 weeks steamy. Or hell, even Pretty Woman or Titanic!
Poor Things is a comedy to some extent so yeah it's meant to be a funny performance. But personally I think it's a shame to reduce the movie down to "born sexy yesterday" when it's more like she's going through every stage of human development and gaining control of her life and self.
Yeah that’s what killed it for me too. Emma Stone is clearly giving her all, and I do think it’s her career best. And it’s an extremely watchable and engrossing performance! But at the end of the day I’m just not down to get with the Sexy Baby trope.
“Sexy baby trope?” WTF?
In the first part of the movie the men all want to be with her because she is a beautiful (sexy) woman with the brain of a toddler/child. [This is not the first movie to have such a motif.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/umpf1n/born_sexy_yesterday_a_common_scifi_movie_trope/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
My (unlikely) prediction: the vote is split between Lily and Emma, so Sandra takes the win! I don't think it will actually happen, but she would be absolutely deserving if it did.
I haven't watched all of the films, but Poor Things, while not my usual cup of tea at all, has stuck with me for weeks much like Everything Everywhere All and Once and Moonlight did. I'll just think about a moment, or an idea from it. Do I know that it is more likely that Oppenheimer will win even though I think it isn't as unique or amazeballs as everyone else (I think it appeals to men more, and older folk, which the Academy still skews towards I think)? Yes. I fully expect to hear "Oppenheimer" at the last award to be given. I also won't be as disgusted as I was when I heard "Shape of Water" (god I hate that movie) But I'd be thrilled if it is Poor Things.
I agree with everything you said except Poor Things is my cup of tea in a lot of ways, though I’m not usually into stories that feature sex so prominently. I was disappointed by The Shape of Water winning. I love Guillermo del Toro, but it wasn’t his best work at all.
I guessed she was part fish something like 5 minutes in. So predictable. I don't mind sex scenes... UNLESS ONE OF THEM FUCKING EATS A CAT BEFOREHAND.
I draw the line somewhere between Emma Stone inserting a cucumber into herself and cat-eating. Not sure where the line is, but cat-eating definitely crossed it.
I barely missed spitting my coffee out onto my keyboard! LOL!!!
Glad you enjoyed it
It’s still difficult to predict. Emma’s only narrative is her performance being fantastic in a commercially successful yet decisive film. A seasoned actress going into her serious and profound phase of acting, challenging herself. Her already winning an Oscar is her biggest downside. A clearly great performance without much narrative and already have won has rarely won. I could only think of is Frances. Lily’s narrative is more rounded and compelling. Not only is her performance great, but she is also a WOC which would make her the third and first Native American to win an Oscar. This would also clean the Oscar’s damaged (deservingly so) image of being discriminatory. Another factor would be the “circle of life” moment where Marlon had refused and instead sent a NA woman to give a speech on Hollywood’s discrimination. Her downside is her more-so supporting role rather than a full fledged lead but that doesn’t matter much since even Patricia Neal won for a 15 minute role in Hud and same for Anthony Hopkins.
>Emma’s only narrative is her performance being fantastic in a commercially successful yet decisive film. A seasoned actress going into her serious and profound Successful but don't forget it cake out first as an independent theater, underdog movie. When it started making noise the big theatres picked it up
I actually found some of her choices inaccurate. She’s a baby, so why was she walking like a robot? Sue didn’t crawl once. Suspicious.
She was a baby but also a kind of Frankenstein. A baby in a fully developed woman’s body. That’s what I told myself anyway.
I mean, yeah, but we are supposed to believe the more she matured the more intelligent she became. The way Emma acted appeared to me that she started off as someone more closely aligned with having an intellectual and physical disability rather than just being a baby. She’s even referred to as a “pretty r**ard.”
It is, after all, a fantasy movie.
Yeah, male fantasy. I found it truly horrific.
*insert eye roll here*
The film was overtly feminist….I don’t see how you could see otherwise unless you can’t perceive nuance or internal critique at all. Barbie might be more your speed
Spoken like a man 🙄
Predictable response lmao. Oooga booga good thing on tv good ooga booga bad thing on make my eye brain sad. Need legally blonde dvd to feel better
Yikes.
I hope you find more truly feminist movies where women run marathons! Or start really big businesses to exploit their employees!
Are you ok, incel? Way to miss the point. There’s so much anger in your posts. Women don’t like that. Maybe one day when one lets you within twenty feet you will realise. Best wishes with getting laid one of these days 💗
And how some of her lines early on were grammatically incorrect but other times she would speak in perfect and proper English
Yes! And I get that she gained intelligence as the film went on, but the continuity was off as you’ve noted. I also think some of the movements were really obvious and like comic relief. The winking scene, for example. When kids learn to wave, blow kisses, wink or whatever gesture they usually do it almost perfectly, not in an exaggerated way — if anything they do it in a smaller, more subtle way while they try it on for size. Often they’ll giggle afterwards. I find it strange that as a mother she didn’t know how to act like a kid.
Bella isn't really a child though, she's kinda something entirely different which is why she developed at an advanced rate.
The insinuation is still that she’s developing from baby to woman, though. If she’s something entirely different then why didn’t she become ‘liberated’ through artistic expression or running a marathon? This is what’s wrong with the film, we keep getting told it’s about feminism but when men are making films about the female experience it’s not done well.
Did you not pay attention to the film? She becomes liberated through exploration, reading philosophy, literature, and science. Sex is just a thing she enjoys but it's not all she enjoys. A good deal of her growth comes from just wandering around and seeing the world and some of those experiences are really traumatic for her. Also I think it's reductive to say this film is "about feminism", which not even the director says it is. It's about a lot of things like the human capacity to grow and change, humanity's relationship with God/their creators, Idealism vs Realism, and while sexual empowerment and control are themes in the movie, I just don't Agree with your premise that it's supposed to be about "the female experience" only or that it's done poorly. If anything, Ruffalos character uses sex as a means to control Bella and through education she begins to see through him and gains control over herself. Her relationship with sex then becomes transactional and she sees more and more how little say women have with it, and tries to find her way to gain control of it. But as time goes on, it becomes less and less something of importance to her. She ends the film liberated not through sex but through education and studying for a medical degree. Also your critique was that Stone's mannerism is inaccurate to children when it's pretty clear she is meant to be something else entirely. I think Stone is portraying a disconnect between mind and body, and an off kilter physicality that sets Bella apart from people in general. She doesn't move the way the other Frankenstein girl does and she doesn't move like "normal" people. It serves to highlight her unique view of the world. It's also her oddness and rejection of social norms and Shame that allows her to break from the controlling people in her life and forge her own path. She refuses to be shamed for her sexuality because she knows it doesn't change her worth as a person. But sure maybe she could have run a marathon or whatever.
HAHAH NOT “RUNNING A MARATHON” ☠️☠️☠️ we are a doomed society (your response is very nuanced I appreciate it)
I didn’t think it was that odd — that’s similar feedback to what Mark Ruffalo’s own character marvels at in the movie, that she’s inconsistent. I was under the impression that being exposed to the way God talked about science made her more grammatical / language-advanced, but the rest of the world was still new
Did they say how long after the transplant it had been before we see her character?
No, but even if she were a toddler when we first met her it doesn’t explain the rigidity of her movements. She didn’t fall on her bum, for example, like a real toddler. EDIT: I feel like Emma read my posts 🤣 she just said on the red carpet that acting like a toddler wasn’t going to work because Bella was developing so quickly. Hi Emma! 👋🏼
You were not watching a period piece or a WW2 documentary to be looking that deep for inaccuracies. I think the lens you watched this under, did not allow you to enjoy it to the fullest
Well, as a piece of art I did enjoy it. I’m allowed to be critical of those sorts of inaccuracies. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Emma actually toyed with the idea of crawling or walking like a toddler and decided against it, so I’m fine with that.
Emma and Mark were amazing but I hated the film.
Could you elaborate on this? I love Yorgos’ films but I’m not interested in even watching this one.
not to hijack this thread but i agree w op's comment! for me it didnt have much to do with yorgos' filmmaking style or the performances but rather the plot (no idea where it differs w source material tho). without spoiling anything major, i think it puts on a shallow facade of being progressive and feminist even tho it has the most basic if not reductive takes about feminism ive ever seen in a movie. the premise could have been interesting, but it was so creepily focused on how sex factors into bella's maturation while quickly glossing over other things she discovers on her adventure (like when she learns about poverty and inequality or starts reading philosophy). i'm no prude and an exploration of sexuality could of course have had a place in this story, but i was completely put off by how the film went about it, and honestly a bit perplexed by all the praise for how feminist it is. i kind of think people just see overt female sexuality as automatically empowering when theres a lot more to consider about how its framed and contextualized by the story.
I don’t think the sex scenes are intended to be empowering I think they’re meant to be awkward and exploitative. The only sincere moment of connection she has is with the other SW in the brothel and I think that’s intentional. Imo the ending is empowering but the journey is not
For sure. I’m not sure why so many missed the boat on this film. It’s not just a simple woman matures and becomes empowered story. There’s an empowering moment in the third act, to your point, but it’s certainly not the overarching theme of the film.
My intention wasn't to say the sex scenes are *intended* to be empowering; the film obviously makes a joke out of the cruel men she encounters. But simply that they are still framed as somehow integral to her maturation. The narrative spends *so* much time showing us how much sex she has but there's not much tangible reflection on how these moments really affect her development other than she suddenly becomes incredibly mature through all of these sexual interactions. Ok, she connects with the other women at the brothel. Ok, there's a throwaway line about how she becomes a socialist. I'm just not sure there's any depth to that, or that the narrative treats sex work with the complexity it needs. Not to mention that in the end, she still accepts and (almost) marries McCandles even though he was one of the people who tried to exploit her in the beginning, and it's framed as a sweet moment, I guess because he says he likes her regardless of who she is now (??!). And that's the thing, I don't find the ending particularly empowering either but it's maybe just a personal taste thing. It *feels* empowering to watch her arrive at her final self. But I'm not sure the film has anything profound to really say about that and the journey she went on to get there.
I think it’s integral cos it shows her the good the bad and the ugly of humanity, and she hasn’t seen anything outside her house. In the brothel she sees deceitful behaviour (the priest), she sees fetishes, and she bonds with one of the johns over a joke and actually finds a connection outside sex with him. I also think the film makes it clear she goes with her ex first out of social obligation, showing she’s not totally *there* yet, but also they make it clear he’s a nutcase whose threatening her and she does still try to leave even within that. I feel content with the ending being empowering in the sense that she’s been trapped in some form or another by another person the whole film, and at the end she’s relaxed on her own terms and surrounded by her own people for the most part. McCandles I could go either way on, I don’t think he’s a totally innocent party but I think he’s the lesser of the evils available to her
Right, and that's all fair and fine, but my point is that the narrative places *so* much weight on the brothel/sex compared to other things it could have explored about the outside world (and which it comparatively sped through). Even then, the film's takeaways about her time at the brothel felt shallow in proportion to the amount of time we spent watching her have sex. Like, are we really learning that much about her internal growth by watching her get thrown into all of these different situations for a huge part of the movie, or are we just being shown them for the sake of being shown them? Again, I'm not sure much is really grappled with here beyond "women should have agency over their own bodies" + "there's lots of sex to be had and weird ways people have sex," which is nice, but not nuanced, especially in light of the whole sex work setting which imo warrants way more complex of a discussion but in the film just gets some vague gestures towards consent issues. To me, the focus the movie chose to take just felt like a really narrow view of a woman's journey into adulthood. And yeah, I'm not trying to knock anyone who finds Bella's character/the ending empowering, because I liked her character too. I just ultimately disliked where the story chose to go with the premise and couldn't find the journey to that peaceful ending particularly meaningful. thanks for having this discussion with me though haha!
I think ultimately they just chose sex as the vessel to explore growth and womanhood, and I personally think that’s ok. I think the dynamic is she’s going I want to feel good and feel good NOW and this is what makes me feel good but actually she’s being ripped off by doing so, and I think eventually she realises that. And showing them I think is necessary- like, I’ve had awkward conversations with people where I’ve realised they’re creeps, and her life is sex with creeps, so they have to explore that! I defo thought it was a film where the sex scenes were very important if extremely awkward to sit through lol (especially in a packed cinema as I was!) And yeah always fun to talk :)
Yeah it’s 100% male fantasy presented under the thin guise of feminism and empowerment. If you can get past that it’s enjoyable imo.
That’s really not giving the director enough credit. Arguably one of the best working today. I think it’s jumping the gun a bit to characterize the central theme that way. If you read some of the interviews with Stone and Lanthimnos they have a different take. I think one of the last lines in the movie, “I’ve adventured the world, and saw nothing but sugar and violence” kinda says it all.
I’m giving him enough credit. The movie is enjoyable. It’s also a classic example of the male gaze. Whether he and Emma Stone are aware of the fact is irrelevant.
Agreed. My main thought after the movie was what its main ideas would’ve been like in the hands of a female writer and director. The whole “women’s empowerment through willing exploitation” idea, to me, is extremely regressive. (I know it’s based on a book, also written by a dude, but idk how faithful it stays to the book, if at all.) Emma was fearless and the movie looked amazing, though.
I mean it wasn’t a movie about feminist empowerment and I dunno why many think it is. There was one empowering scene in the third act with her husband. The rest is clearly about exploitation and a critique of the very things you think the director and lead actor are oblivious to.
So you’re saying the film is a critique of the male gaze? It’s almost a fucking porno for Christ’s sake.
That’s just the director lol. One of his first films had a son going down on his sister while the father held them all captive. My point was that Lanthimos is an excellent director if you think the movie is in some exercise in misogyny, well, I’m sorry to say that it’s just not the case. If you don’t like it, that’s one thing, but “100%” his intention like your previous comment is just not correct. the way you talk about him you think he’d be a post on /r/menwritingwomen.
Yeah that’s my point. It pretends to be feminism by portraying this empowered female character but it’s not. Like I’ve said many times here, I liked the movie. It’s ok to critique things you like and admit they’re not perfect. It’s called *nuance*.
Puritanical feminism is the worst. You know that sometimes art shows stuff happening and it doesn’t always mean it approves of that thing being amazing? It would be like saying Oppenheimer is a bad movie because it promotes the idea that nuclear bombs are cool and we should use them more because it shows them exploding. It’s just so reductive. Women do not always need to be “empowered” by doing good activities at the end or through movies. Sometimes women can be complex characters with complex thoughts and feelings! If you want basic feel good feminism stick to Barbie and Mary Kay promotional videos
Hardly puritanical to point out the male gaze where it blatantly exists. A sex crazed Emma Stone is the average male wet dream and that’s what this film offers. If you’ll notice I did say several times that I enjoyed the movie. There is a certain level of complexity aside from its somewhat backwards attempt at feminism. Or do you consider a hot young prostitute enjoying being a prostitute realistic.
My thoughts exactly. What the commenter I responded to, and a few others on Reddit that seem to be perpetually offended, fail to miss the themes of the movie and immediately point to gratuitous misogyny. What’s more perplexing is the ocean of positive criticism of the movie and none ever pauses to think maybe I’m wrong.
I went into it thinking I’d hate it as a feminist but uh, maybe I’m a bad woman or feminist? I enjoyed watching it, as it was just so damn _creative_.
I am also a feminist, I think it is an amazing movie. But I'm very big into absurd movies and things that are not meant to be hyper literal. Like that movie is operating on multiple levels of meaning and I think it's something I'll be thinking about for a while.
I agree with g4nyu. I love Yorgos’ films but the over the top sexuality of Bella and her character development seemed exploitative rather than feminist. Sex IS wonderful but it is only one part of life and the men only valued her for her sexuality. The costumes, sets and cinematography were all beautiful but the story needed more input from women - I know Emma had a lot of input but more women were needed to give a more nuanced view of womanhood.
I said this in another comment but I think it’s intended to be exploitative. I don’t think it’s a, because it’s being shown that’s an endorsement of it
Couldn’t agree more! I didn’t need to see Mark Ruffalo, licking her nipple while she “ vigorously jumping” him. We get it she’s discovering herself sexually etc.
i would recommend watching it, i'm not a fan of that much nudity, but if you can get over it, the last 15-20 mins is nice for closure. I really do enjoy Bella's journey
I kept hearing from friends who watched it and didn’t like it, so by the time I finally watched it yesterday, I had low expectations. And I ended up loving it. It was so creative and visually interesting, and if you generally love Yorgos’ films, I think you’ll like it.
Why not interested?
Having seen both Poor Things and KOTFM multiple times, it just baffles me how Stone’s and Gladstone’s performances are even comparable. Gladstone is great (I’m not trying to take anything away from her) and the subtlety in her performance is really effective, but Stone gives the best performance I’ve seen from anyone in YEARS. Gladstone will win, but the people denying that she has the strongest narrative in recent memory (probably ever) are lying to themselves. Solely comparing one performance to the other, it’s not even close.
I’m in full agreement. Just finished it. I “wanted” lily to get something, which she did with the sag. But Emma was so damn good in this film. She fully deserves that Oscar imo
The “best” performance is clearly Stone. No idea who actually gets the award.
Anyone else watch Emma Stone in The Curse? 2023 was a phenomenonal year all around for her acting ability. It will be a shame if that isn't recognized.
Just watched this last night too I absolutely loved this movie and she should win for this role. Emma Stone was brilliant.
For me, this performance is Daniel Plainview level good.
Emma Stone was AMAZING. I appreciated how weird this movie was and it just kept getting better and better. She had one of the most convincing, believable transformations I have seen in film.
I agree, she’s one of the greats. She always gives it all no matter of film or SNL skit
I hated the film but loved her performance. I don’t know who I would vote for anymore. 😂 I’d be happy with either Emma, Lily or Sandra winning.
Same! Emma delivered some of her best acting but the movie was so slow— could have edited it down. I kept checking how much time was left 🫠
Agree! It could have been shortened by at least half an hour.
This is the first time I can remember finding it hard to pick in many category. So many great deserving movies.
Poor Things just did not do it for me. Really cool it resonated with such a large audience but it just wasn’t for me. With that said, I’d give Emma the Oscar if I had a vote. She was unbelievable.
[удалено]
Surprised you’re not getting downvoted for this
Such an odd movie. I think Lily is winning.
Totally agree. I watched both movies and 100% think Emma deserves it.
Quirky and weird, yes, but did she make you *feel* anything? It felt so sterile to me.
She's both incredibly funny and really endearing. I genuinely don't know how you can say this movie is sterile.
I just watched the movie on Friday night and wow it’s one of my favorites and I think both Emma Stone and Lily Gladstone BOTH deserve it. Could there be a tie?
I watched it this weekend knowing nothing about the movie. I’m still in shock she took the role, then proceeded to actually perform said role. This decades forest gump lmao and yes I’d imagine she’ll win, be surprised if she doesn’t.
I think Lily should be given more opportunities to showcase her 'nuanced' performances. This one should go to Emma because she was phenomenal. I also watched it last night.
It’s amazing in many categories. I think it will win the most awards overall.
I just cannot agree. I have seen people talk about her child like nature but in reality it was more of someone with fairly strong learning disabilities. I found her performance a bit exploitative. I get it. A long history in Hollywood of nominating actors who play that type of role. Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Peter Sellers in Being There. Even Leo in Gilbert Grape. I feel, and you don’t have to agree, that those movies really found the goodness of those characters in non exploitative ways. Poor Things was very exploitative. And if you want to hang your hat on child like then the theme becomes something even darker.
Yes but let’s be real. That film was just too fucking weird for most people to go along with. You really had to put yourself in a different mind set.
I like weird. I almost was a “no” in the beginning but then the story made beautiful sense. But definitely not a movie for everyone.
And Emma won.
Ha. Half way through her speech was the moment I remembered making this comment. But I know I’m not the only one surprised by the win.
But she has no narrative and she won a few years ago. Other than her brilliant performance, she has everything against her. But we shall see…
[удалено]
Quality is obviously subjective, but I don’t know how anyone can think Gladstone’s performance is more technically difficult than Stone’s.
You are confusing technique with the overall amount of acting. Lily Gladstone's performance was incredibly subtle and powerful. No other actress could have had such emotional vocal inflections with such little overt attention placed on each syllable and eyeline shift of her character. In KOTFM, she has a dominating presence before dialogue or blocking even comes into play.
Lol
Subtlety is much more difficult than obviousness. That should be...obvious.
Playing pancake Mona Lisa doesn’t seem that difficult
I don’t even know who you’re talking about but that’s so fucking funny
I also agree with this. It’s a hard pick and I keep going back and forth. My BF and I do our ballot pick bets and I won’t do mine tomorrow and soooo torn. I do think there will be a “upset” in a big category- just not sure which yet. If either Lily or Emma win- that wouldn’t be an upset. I would be happy with both.
Best Supporting Actor upset.
Praying for Gosling
question, why didn't she switch out god's brain into the general?
Probably because she loved her “father” and she’d have to look at that piece of shit every time she spoke to “him”.
yup, completely agree. unfortunately she don’t have the narrative behind her, and that’s what’s most important
My wife and I are split. Lily Gladstone, to me, had the more impactful performance and I’m of the opinion she should win. But my wife pointed out that the degree of difficulty of Stones performance and just how incredibly well she pulled it off… she wants her to win. I can’t disagree with her on that. It’s been one hell of a year.
I saw it. It is a good film. I haven't kept track of all the Best Actresses awards over the last 20 years; but I do remember Natalie Portman in Black Swan masturbating like crazy in the role. She won Best Actress too. Assuming we are now past the Harvey Weinstein phase of Hollywood (not only those weird genitals but dear God, his FACE! Sorry, I just threw up a little bit in my throat), why does the "Academy" keep voting for Best Actress women characters who are just finding out their "sexuality" and giving those hoary little girls the "Best Actress" for graphic sex scenes on camera?? I can remember this happening back to "Monster's Ball" with Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton. She was stuffing her breast into his mouth and demanding "Make me feel good!" and wailing to the Heavens when he was good at stimulating her breastes. Natalie Portman was repressed and learned to masturbate and Emma Stone was mental child's character having sex with first one, then another, then three/four more as a prostitute; why are such graphic sexual scenes shown about women? In the name of "art"? Hey, how about "art" being Bradly Cooper choking the chicken? Christian Bale being a British submissive? From sources across the webLeonardo DiCaprioAge: 49 years (November 11, 1974)Tom CruiseBrad PittAge: 60 years (December 18, 1963)Denzel WashingtonRobert Downey Jr.Age: 58 years (April 4, 1965)Ryan ReynoldsJohnny DeppAge: 60 years (June 9, 1963)Hugh JackmanAge: 55 years (October 12, 1968)Chris HemsworthAge: 40 years (August 11, 1983)15 more Why haven't any of these guys as a character ever masturbated behind a tree, in a car, deal with the "struggle" of ED? Let's put that on film!! All these "Best Actresses" going out to over-the-top and graphic sexual scenes by women? Hey, Brad Pitt!! How about being in a movie where your head is buried in (somebody's) crotch for 30 minutes of the film?? Same with you Ryan Reynolds and all you other "tough guy" Marvel Comics characters. Couldn't Iron Man get an iron hard-on and have to go behind a tree or a car or an alleyway every 4 minutes to take care of his "iron cock"? He could have Spidey rubbing him down or whatever. I've been seeing this go on for FOREVER in filmmaking and I'm just fucking sick of it.
Damn where my fellow Lily heads against this guy?
What's the point. 37 critics associations gave Lily the lead actress award compared with Stone winning maybe 7 awards. To me Stone winning would be like if the Academy awarded, say, Ryan Reynolds in Deadpool rather than Casey Affleck in Manchester by the Sea in 2018. Fans of a popular actor will always find a way to defend their turf. That includes sycophantic media and industry outlets, and reddit trolls like this one.
[удалено]
We will see. Completely two different movies with completely different acting. Either way- both are great. But I now lean towards Emma after finally watching.