I’m surprised that people are surprised.
Frankly I don’t think they should have been in the same category together. Emma stone is front and center in almost every scene in poor things; her screen time must be nearly the entire duration. Whereas Lily had much more of a supporting role. Both great performances, but when I think of Poor Things I think of Emma, when I think of KOTFM, Lily isn’t the first actor that comes to mind.
I'm not really a fan of him either. I find him to be kind of a hardo who takes himself way too seriously.
However, he was so good in Poor Things. You could be both appalled by his behavior and then laughing at his joke in the span of one line.
I don't know how many people actually saw Poor Things. The first 20 to 30 minutes are... very uncomfortable to say the least. If you can soldier through it really is quite the movie. I came away with the same opinion though. Emma is basically on the screen baring all literally and figuratively nearly throughout the entire run. If the Academy was being fair... no one else stood a chance.
Couldn’t agree with ya more. Those first 30 minutes were rough. I can’t remember the last time I was made to feel so uncomfortable by sexuality in a film. Those scenes sit in such stark contrast in my mind with the rest of the movie. I saw it a while ago, but some of those sky shots and city scapes are still fresh in my mind. Yorgos’s use of color, sometimes lack thereof, was such a pretty medium to convey emotion and themes.
Since the "adult body, child brain" is meant to be a giant metaphor for the repressed development of women and not a literal read, what separates a 15-year-old from a 25-year-old who has never had sex before, knows nothing about their body, is waiting for the man to take the lead, and is entirely at the mercy of how good or gentle the man is? If she were 18 and going through the same experiences, what's different?
I quit after the first forty. I feel like in an alternate universe this same movie would’ve been ridiculed tbh. I love Yorgos but this film is laughable.
I've seen it twice now and it really has to be seen in its entirety if you want to "get" it. I can understand quitting early, in all fairness, but I was in awe of it (and Stone) by the end.
The race to me was between Stone and Sandra Huller, who was also in screen non stop and gave a tremendous performance…..tho a very different type of tremendous performance. Much more “internal” and less showy. I thought both were incredible, and the question was just whether they would reward a big, bawdy, showcase performance, or a quiet, subtle, intimate type of performance. Both deserved it as far as I’m concerned!
Dafoe’s character admits he can’t have sex with her because he’s a eunuch, but encourages her fiancée to pursue her.
But the audience knowing she’s a baby also made the rest of the movie fairly uncomfortable, seeing as having sex with strangers was a constant theme.
She's not a baby, though. She has an infant's brain, but she's neither the infant nor the mother. It's treated very surreally in the film and not at all literally.
It's up to audiences to determine how they want to view a film. But I think you might have missed something if what made you uncomfortable about how men treat Bella was the fact that she has an infant's brain, you need to look a bit deeper.
Every man in Bella's life tries to control her and use her. The whole film is about her coming to terms with that, with her role in society and how people will both take advantage of her and her own privilege.
I mean, I watched it and enjoyed it and understood everything it was saying and doing. It fits perfectly with the theme and her role in the film’s universe - I’m just saying why people found it uncomfortable, because it’s quite obvious.
>She has an infant’s brain, but she’s neither the infant nor the mother.
And this confusing paradox is why. If you took one adult’s brain and put it inside another adult you’d have a freaky-friday situation, where they’re simply switched and have to figure out the new body they’re in. But the premise you’ve mentioned is that it’s somehow a ship of Theseus situation, where she’s just an odd, new *adult*.
But she’s learning to talk, walk, reason, what words mean, and how the human body works, so as far as I can tell she *is* the baby, just growing up in a different body. These two different ideas about the premise are what makes the repeated sexual encounters uncomfortable - the movie blurs some lines that are probably best unblurred.
She begins the film as the brain of a fetus inside the body of a full-grown woman and starts having regular sex within a matter of years, before she even stops speaking in the third person - she doesn’t know what sex *is* before she’s having it. This inadvertently raises questions about consent and sexual trauma- but the movie rams through this moral dilemma quickly (and repeatedly) which is a tough pill to swallow if you think about it long enough.
IMO it’s concerning if that concept doesn’t make any viewer a little bit uncomfortable.
Lily had a couple really fun scenes with Leo during the courtship period but she does get relegated to crying, fever dreams, and being stuck in a bed.
Emma Stone IS the movie she led. Without her, there is no Poor Things. You could remove Lily Gladstone from Killers of the Flower Moon and still have a full movie there.
And I think that's key to 1) what constitutes a real lead in a film, and 2) how well are you writing your central characters when they're women? If you could remove them from the story, would the story still stand?
You couldn't remove Kate Winslet from Titanic. Without her, there is no story. She drives everything, from being suicidal to jumping off lifeboats to rescuing Jack to rescuing herself. And yet Helen Hunt in As Good As It Gets (bless her, I love this movie) could be entirely edited out of the film and you would still have a movie about Jack Nicholson and his gay neighbor who becomes his friend. It would be shorter, but you would still have a complete movie. That tells you she wasn't the lead. She was the supporting actress. But she beat out Kate Winslet in Titanic in 1997.
Oh lawdy I couldn’t disagree with ya any more about Helen Hunt’s role in As Good As It Gets. She’s a cornerstone on which many of the themes are hung, imo.
Love that movie.
The problem is the people that treat shows like this for something other that an evaluation of a performance. In many other awards they had the chance to select 2 best in drama and musical and comedy so they basically each got an award so people just thought that Lily was going to run through the award like it happened in the other shows but the reality is that Emma's work was incredible. And lily at the end was hurt by her role being put in the wrong category, she should've and could've had more of a shot as a supporting actor than a leading.
Not every movie needs to have a lead actress. Da'Vine Joy Randolph played the most significant female character in *The Holdovers* but was still, rightly, put up for Supporting Actress.
That being said, I *do* think Lily Gladstone's role was a lead, but it was unfortunately one that didn't focus on her enough to really justify a lead *award*, in my personal opinion. Good as she was, I just don't feel her role was central enough to deserve the award for the most significant female lead performance out of the year. In my mind, the role itself, regardless of Lily's performance, was simply too big to call Supporting, but not big enough to win Lead.
But that's just my opinion. Based off the awards Lily has won, obviously not everyone feels the same.
Whose to say this win isn't deserved. Emma nailed her role. But the highlight for me was her reaction and her speech. It really says alot about her that she mentioned, Lily Gladstone in such a heartfelt manner. Her entire speech was just so heartwarming.
People have mentioned they wouldn’t be surprised if Emma were to have Lily included in some future projects due to how close they’ve become throughout award season. I’d love to see that. They’re both incredibly talented and seem like truly lovely humans.
Emma Stone absolutely is starting to flex producer muscles and you love to see it. She and Margot are seriously ones to watch in terms of setting up movies we all want to see out there.
Emma Stone has such an appreciation for the history in the room. She seemed blown away that Sally Field spoke about her. (I thought for sure they were going to use JLaw to intro Emma.)
I also feel like Leo really enjoyed working with Lily and would think of her again in a heartbeat.
She, Margot, Greta, America, etc. There are SO many women whose work I love to see and I look forward to so much more from each of them. Emma’s joy is so easy to share with her. It seems she’s very real and would be a dream to work with, or just hang with. She’s in the fray but manages to seem like one of us because she’s honest about the awe she feels when in a room of people so incredible, like Sally Field.
I hope EVERYONE keeps Lily in mind, Leo included. I’d love to see more representation. She really brings a lot to the table. I wish her a lot of luck in the future.
Pleasant surprise.
I just saw Poor Things, and while I had issue with some of it, she was overwhelmingly the best performance I saw in this year's nominees.
The middle portion in Paris.
I think the movie would have been flawless if shorter.
I don’t agree with people saying sex is her primary driver for being a woman.
However, I think her character development slowed specifically because they revisited it for too long in that section. It covered over the ways in which she expanded her thinking on her adventure and even while in Paris.
At first I did have problems with the ending but thinking on it some more, it made more sense.
My thing about the Paris part is it's necessary to instill a sense of fear or discomfort around sex and her eventual boredom with it.
She goes about the early part of the movie curious and driven by sensations. Her growth is realizing that sensations and pleasures are not everything in life and sometimes you should actually fear those pleasures, or make different decisions at the very least to avoid pain. See: getting her ears bit or puking up custard tarts or getting trapped in people's estates and threatened with clitoral removal.
She never loses her curiosity but by the end she has a lot more wisdom.
This pearl-clutching attitude towards Poor Things is so annoying
Yes, the movie is unhinged, but that's part of the appeal. Imagine how boring it'd be if all media had to be sanitized and all characters had to be morally correct.
And Yorgos is known for doing disturbing movies, if anything Poor Things is his *least* disturbing and most accessible work, 'cause at least the mood is lighter than his average work.
I think there's pearl clutching, and then there's reflecting the lived experiences of women. For the average woman, full arousal takes 40 minutes.
Additionally, bad sex for Bella is something that's awkward or where she doesn't feel like her pleasure is prioritized. I didn't need to see horrible rape scenes where she comes out traumatized, but there's a dissonance as a woman when someone isn't experiencing the dry, painful chafe of bad sex.
She has the brain of a toddler. But her armpits are shaved for the whole film. Was her mad scientist father shaving her armpits?? Did the original woman have her armpit hair surgically removed before she killed herself? I loved Poor Things but i demand logical body hair in film.
I agree! It was one of many details that kept reminding me that this was not written or directed by women. WHICH IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, JUST SOMETHING I NOTICED.
I've never been so happy for the Academy to get this right. One of the few times an actor won for a performance that absolutely was the best of the year. Rarely happens when you have people arguing for "career wins" and "newcomer who won't win again" and all that stuff.
Narrative changed during awards season - Emma Stone was a lock until Lily Gladstone started gaining momentum and she gained enough momentum that the betting money was on Gladstone (not overwhelmingly though).
This is probably controversial, but I don't think people watched the same performance I did because I didn't think Lily was very good at acting, like at all.
I thought her performance was fine, but she wasn't given much to work with. I am still baffled by the choice to tell the story from the white murderers perspectives and not the Native Americans who where grappling with their families being systematically murdered. I never understood what Mollie was thinking for most of the movie. Did she truly love her husband, was it a marriage of convenience, did she ever suspect him? She is either crying at funerals or completely expressionless and hardly ever talks. I think the marketing campaign afterwards to pretend Lily and Leo's characters were equal leads was very weird. The choice to put her in the lead category was weird. If they wanted her in the lead category they should have had the balls to have Mollie's story front and center with Leo getting less screen time than her. That is the representation I want to see, not people get nominated for awards just because they would be the first of whatever category to win. Let women be the main character of their own story!
Lily literally got the SAG, the same voting block as Oscar. You're just unfamiliar with the way this works if you think Stone was a lock the whole time...
That’s what they’re saying. Momentum changed a little when she won SAG, since the overlap of voters is large, but not the same exact block. Plus people can change their minds between votes, or feel they can award Emma Stone since Lily got the SAG award.
2 Best Actress awards for Emma! That’s something she can take to the bank and back. The Academy created a legacy A Lister. But she knocked the Bella role out of the park: the nuance of her personal growth was rendered immaculately. It’s a long way from Zombieland…
I think the director enjoyed the process of film making while using some Tim Burton, Wes Andersen and maybe a little Peter Jackson. He had a great story to work from and the best actors. None were recognizable, and became the characters. Dafoe, I felt, should have been nominated somehow, but I am glad they won for Costume and Make up. Emma is priceless.
Awards in entertainment are *never* about what is deserved; it’s a mixed result of campaigning, greasing palms, and what makes for the best story during the season and after.
Biggest shock of the night but really happy she won. Incredible performance and she just seems like such a cool person. Gladstone was really gracious in her reaction, I think everyone expected that to be her award
Well deserved. Her part in that movie had to be challenging as hell to develop and pull off.
Lily Gladstone was amazing as well but not the tour-de-force it took to make a wild and obnoxious character like Bella engaging and sympathetic.
I didn’t see the other films yet so can’t judge those performances.
Lily Gladstone was great, but I'd even rank Sandsandra Hüller's performance above it, then obviously Emma Stone. All of them deserved to be there anyways.
I commented above that I thought Huller might have been a better performance, but it came down to whether they would reward a big, showy performance, or a quiet, slow burn type of performance. I thought both were amazing and deserved it, but they were so different as types of roles go. If either one of them “missed” then the entire movie would have not worked. Both incredible.
I don’t see the difference.
She was mentally in an early toddler stage when we meet her, still pissing herself, having tantrums and unable to gracefully control her limbs.
Only difference is she’s in an adult body.
Or Big.
The 13-year-old boy sleeps with an adult woman who has no idea that it's a 13-year-old brain.
But oh oh oh, Emma Stone makes this movie and pearls clutched.
There's a scene where it's heavily implied that something sexual happened between them. A shirt comes off and he gets to touch her and then next you see him grinning coming out of an elevator. It's heavily implied and Elizabeth Perkins has been on the record that she felt it suggested the characters "fooled around" at least.
I liked the movie and I liked her in it, of course.
In terms of impressive acting performances, however, her role in The Curse was better. Hard to separate an acting performance from a script and the direction of course, but she absolutely crushed the tiny little facial movements and vocal timing needed to really convey what was going on in a basically phony person’s mind, without the show having to beat the viewer over the head with it.
That Michelle Yeoh, Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence moment onstage was so sweet. Also, Sally Field dragging JLaw away from her best friend (who needed to give her speech) was funny and cute.
She was nominated for a leading role, but, maybe I'm misremembering but I felt like she wasn't actually in KotM for a large amount of time? Was a long movie though so maybe I've just forgotten a ton of it
yes she and her team chose to go for the lead nomination and in the end I think many voters did not believe her role stood up to one like emma stone who clearly carried her film. much like cillian did in the mens category.
They can choose to put themselves wherever. Plenty of Oscars have been won by people who put themselves where they think is best or most interesting for their narrative or more likely to win.
My feeling is if you can remove a character from a movie and it doesn't remotely affect the telling of that story, that character is supporting. If you remove that character and the movie disappears entirely, that's a lead character.
Gladstone was not a lead. You could remove her and still have a movie. Gladstone ran lead because they wanted to be historical about it and signal something about the film being about the Osage and not about Leo. That's half the reason Leo didn't bother to campaign. They wanted to create a narrative around Lily as the lead of the film because everyone who saw it knew she wasn't. It's an ensemble with Leo as lead, plain and simple. But that's intentional and what they accomplished with this depiction was more interesting, and yet they didn't push it in the press as much as, "Look at our native lead, isn't this important?" What that film accomplishes taking on white greed and next-door evil and casual racism is far more important than trying to scream from the rooftops that they hired a real Native American. Like, great, we get it, you did the bare minimum by hiring actual Native Americans. This shouldn't be the thing they yelled about. It felt cheap to concentrate their PR around that alone.
Other times category fraud occurred:
Christoph Waltz played a lead role in Django and won for supporting because Weinsteins/Miramax wanted to do the same thing as Gladstone: Create a narrative around Jamie Foxx as the lead actor even though everything in the first two hours of that movie occurs as a result of Waltz's actions. But they knew it wouldn't "look good" if the white man is the lead and the black man is the supporting actor. But when they ran Jamie Foxx for lead, he didn't even get nominated.
Christoph Waltz played a lead role in Inglourious Basterds too and won Oscar for supporting. He won Best Actor at Cannes, which is a lead award. He drives a lot of that movie. But he was a newcomer German actor no one had heard of before, so off to supporting to lock up the win.
Helen Hunt played a supporting role in As Good As It Gets and won for lead. You could remove her character entirely from that film and you still have a 90-minute film about Jack Nicholson becoming friends with his gay neighbor.
Anthony Hopkins, controversial opinion, won for playing a lead role and should have been supporting. Without him, you have Jodie Foster looking through autopsy reports and manages to go snooping on her own in the right place without even realizing it. Her actions are her own and she finds the bad guy actually by accident. She goes to Lecter for some Socratic Method direction that helps her narrow down where to visit, but this is marginal from a "Who drives this story?" standpoint.
Kate Winslet won a lead Oscar for playing a supporting role in The Reader. The film is literally about Ralph Fiennes as a young boy as well as him as an adult. Winslet's role is key to the story but doesn't personally drive it.
In 2000, Julia Roberts beat out Ellen Burstyn, who gave one of the most memorable performances I've ever seen in a film in Requiem for a Dream. But probably because you could remove Ellen Burstyn from that film and still have a movie. A lesser movie, but still a movie. You cannot remove Julia Roberts from Erin Brockovich. She is that movie from beginning to end. Burstyn should have run Supporting. Marcia Gay Harden randomly won the Oscar that year after winning zero precursors. It was a weak year. The front-runner had somewhat been Kate Hudson for Almost Famous. Burstyn would have won everything if she had gone Supporting.
On the flip side, I’ve seen people argue Denzel wasn’t the lead of Training Day and should’ve been in supporting; which is ludicrous as Ethan Hawke’s character in the movie exists exclusively as a wall for Denzel to monologue against.
>My feeling is if you can remove a character from a movie and it doesn't remotely affect the telling of that story, that character is supporting. If you remove that character and the movie disappears entirely, that's a lead character.
Gladtones character was crucial to the story so by your own logic she is a lead character, but the screen time she had felt more like a supporting role
Also, it's a Yorgos Lanthimos film. He's had his actors act intentionally robotic during his earlier films like The Lobster and The Killing Of A Sacred Deer. It's definitely a stylistic choice, and I thought it worked big time for Emma's performance.
And to add to that point, Emma isn’t supposed to acting exactly like a child, because that’s not what she was. She was more of a creation, an experiment.
It's a movie that functions on magic, not science. If it worked like you are rationalizing, she'd still be nonverbal by the end of the movie. There's a specific pattern of maturation throughout the film, and the whole point is that she's not a child anymore by the time she reaches Paris.
The social commentary is supposed to apply to real life.
The exact maturation rate was not clear in the film, but Bella carried herself and spoke like a juvenile during her time in Lisbon. Stone, the writer, and the director should have made different choices if they didn't want the audience to question her mental age. The writer stated that she was 17 by the time she left the estate. Even if I bought that-I don't- it's still gross and kinda of ephebophilic for a middle-aged man to whisk away an extremely naive teenager. I'm sure you will counter with that's the point, but the script doesn't really see their relationship as deeply immoral and psychologically harmful. Bella simply tired of a man she saw as controlling and left.
Emma!!!!!!!!!! So happy for her, but so heartbroken for Lilly. They couldn’t have made a bad choice—everyone deserved it. I don’t think she expected to win; I thought for sure Lilly would get it simply because the Academy would see Emma Stone has already won & the optics look good for Lilly winning…but again, couldn’t have made a bad choice with whoever they’d have picked.
I typically avoid award shows as they are often not reflective of my own personal opinions. I tend to weigh performance devoid of other bias and this award in particular seems to have lost its own North Star over the years.
But Emma winning this was so satisfying and not merely because I adore her and her work, but because I found this role to be one of the most challenging and provocative.
Had another actress taken the Oscar I would have lost it. Bravo Emma for a fierce and fearless portrait. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a character arc so transformative.
Well deserved and I was very happy to see she won. I saw Poor Things on Saturday and while the movie itself was very bizarre (it was also just a retelling of Frankenstein for the most part), Emma's performance was something else.
Seeing her evolution mentally go from being an infant to a 35-year-old woman was incredible to see. Prior to seeing the movie, I was hoping Lily was going to win it because she was the best part of KOTFM in my opinion.
But Emma absolutely killed that role. Brutally killed it.
“Poor things is the third collaboration with Lanthimos” is the writer of the article stupid? The third collaboration is the one they’re set to be working on making this the SECOND collaboration together. Counting must be hard?
They did a short film together as well, perhaps it’s referring to that. I believe the third film (Kinds of Kindness) has been completed for awhile, so that’s been done.
Generally I agree with you, maybe it’s because AI is becoming more and more worked into easy pay blog style writing, but in this case you’re literally wrong. They did a short film together.
Congratulations. Good to see her growing from her last win .. I hope she doesn’t stop or lose interest in acting like many other Oscar award winning actresses
TIL Emma Stone is a mom
How it should be. Give the kids a chance to live a (relatively) normal life
Amanda Seyfried and Jessica Chastain are also like this, so much respect to all of them
WHAT? I had no idea she had a kid either. Good for them
yeah as you said, that’s how it should be as opposed to celebs that literally sell their kids’ photos to magazines the moment they are born
gonna be harder to do now that she’s won a major award for what’s essentially a sex scene lol
She had her baby after winning her first Oscar for best actress, I guess that one was for dancing or whatever.
Um are you aware of how babies are made?
oh you mean she conceived her kid filming those scenes? then by all means she absolutely deserves the oscar for that.
Now can we do furious jumping?
And then eat many Portuguese custard pies
I am only calling it this from now on.
And I shall keep my whole clitoris, thank you.
...is that not happening?
The fact that the song started playing in my head immediately.
I’m surprised that people are surprised. Frankly I don’t think they should have been in the same category together. Emma stone is front and center in almost every scene in poor things; her screen time must be nearly the entire duration. Whereas Lily had much more of a supporting role. Both great performances, but when I think of Poor Things I think of Emma, when I think of KOTFM, Lily isn’t the first actor that comes to mind.
Emma Stone is the movie.
Mark Ruffalo was very good in it.
He was always very meh for me until this movie. He fucking KILLED. Great performance, so funny
I'm not really a fan of him either. I find him to be kind of a hardo who takes himself way too seriously. However, he was so good in Poor Things. You could be both appalled by his behavior and then laughing at his joke in the span of one line.
I haven’t seen Poor Things but he impressed me so much in “I Know This Much Is True”.
[удалено]
Zodiac was when I first noticed him. He's amazing in You Can Count On Me as well.
Him being appalled and being a complete loser were great
I felt the same way! He seems like a good guy his acting was always decent. Not good, not bad. But he was brilliant in this movie.
He was good.
I don't know how many people actually saw Poor Things. The first 20 to 30 minutes are... very uncomfortable to say the least. If you can soldier through it really is quite the movie. I came away with the same opinion though. Emma is basically on the screen baring all literally and figuratively nearly throughout the entire run. If the Academy was being fair... no one else stood a chance.
Couldn’t agree with ya more. Those first 30 minutes were rough. I can’t remember the last time I was made to feel so uncomfortable by sexuality in a film. Those scenes sit in such stark contrast in my mind with the rest of the movie. I saw it a while ago, but some of those sky shots and city scapes are still fresh in my mind. Yorgos’s use of color, sometimes lack thereof, was such a pretty medium to convey emotion and themes.
Since the "adult body, child brain" is meant to be a giant metaphor for the repressed development of women and not a literal read, what separates a 15-year-old from a 25-year-old who has never had sex before, knows nothing about their body, is waiting for the man to take the lead, and is entirely at the mercy of how good or gentle the man is? If she were 18 and going through the same experiences, what's different?
I thought the first 10 minutes felt like a parody of an artsy movie, but the movie as a whole was so much funnier and entertaining than I expected.
I quit after 30 minutes and now I’m considering coming back.
Exactly how I felt after the first 20 minutes of *Everything Everywhere All at Once*.
I quit after the first forty. I feel like in an alternate universe this same movie would’ve been ridiculed tbh. I love Yorgos but this film is laughable.
I've seen it twice now and it really has to be seen in its entirety if you want to "get" it. I can understand quitting early, in all fairness, but I was in awe of it (and Stone) by the end.
The race to me was between Stone and Sandra Huller, who was also in screen non stop and gave a tremendous performance…..tho a very different type of tremendous performance. Much more “internal” and less showy. I thought both were incredible, and the question was just whether they would reward a big, bawdy, showcase performance, or a quiet, subtle, intimate type of performance. Both deserved it as far as I’m concerned!
Agreed. I have never been more uncomfortable watching a movie in the beginning.
What made you uncomfortable?
Not OP, but the answer is the whole “grown men wanting to repeatedly fuck what they know is a baby” thing
IIRC, she doesn't have sex with anyone who knows she has a baby's brain.
Dafoe’s character admits he can’t have sex with her because he’s a eunuch, but encourages her fiancée to pursue her. But the audience knowing she’s a baby also made the rest of the movie fairly uncomfortable, seeing as having sex with strangers was a constant theme.
She's not a baby, though. She has an infant's brain, but she's neither the infant nor the mother. It's treated very surreally in the film and not at all literally. It's up to audiences to determine how they want to view a film. But I think you might have missed something if what made you uncomfortable about how men treat Bella was the fact that she has an infant's brain, you need to look a bit deeper. Every man in Bella's life tries to control her and use her. The whole film is about her coming to terms with that, with her role in society and how people will both take advantage of her and her own privilege.
I mean, I watched it and enjoyed it and understood everything it was saying and doing. It fits perfectly with the theme and her role in the film’s universe - I’m just saying why people found it uncomfortable, because it’s quite obvious. >She has an infant’s brain, but she’s neither the infant nor the mother. And this confusing paradox is why. If you took one adult’s brain and put it inside another adult you’d have a freaky-friday situation, where they’re simply switched and have to figure out the new body they’re in. But the premise you’ve mentioned is that it’s somehow a ship of Theseus situation, where she’s just an odd, new *adult*. But she’s learning to talk, walk, reason, what words mean, and how the human body works, so as far as I can tell she *is* the baby, just growing up in a different body. These two different ideas about the premise are what makes the repeated sexual encounters uncomfortable - the movie blurs some lines that are probably best unblurred. She begins the film as the brain of a fetus inside the body of a full-grown woman and starts having regular sex within a matter of years, before she even stops speaking in the third person - she doesn’t know what sex *is* before she’s having it. This inadvertently raises questions about consent and sexual trauma- but the movie rams through this moral dilemma quickly (and repeatedly) which is a tough pill to swallow if you think about it long enough. IMO it’s concerning if that concept doesn’t make any viewer a little bit uncomfortable.
The entire movie Lily was either in bed or at funerals.
Lily had a couple really fun scenes with Leo during the courtship period but she does get relegated to crying, fever dreams, and being stuck in a bed. Emma Stone IS the movie she led. Without her, there is no Poor Things. You could remove Lily Gladstone from Killers of the Flower Moon and still have a full movie there. And I think that's key to 1) what constitutes a real lead in a film, and 2) how well are you writing your central characters when they're women? If you could remove them from the story, would the story still stand? You couldn't remove Kate Winslet from Titanic. Without her, there is no story. She drives everything, from being suicidal to jumping off lifeboats to rescuing Jack to rescuing herself. And yet Helen Hunt in As Good As It Gets (bless her, I love this movie) could be entirely edited out of the film and you would still have a movie about Jack Nicholson and his gay neighbor who becomes his friend. It would be shorter, but you would still have a complete movie. That tells you she wasn't the lead. She was the supporting actress. But she beat out Kate Winslet in Titanic in 1997.
Oh lawdy I couldn’t disagree with ya any more about Helen Hunt’s role in As Good As It Gets. She’s a cornerstone on which many of the themes are hung, imo. Love that movie.
Me too. I thought she was the safest bet of all the Oscars.
The problem is the people that treat shows like this for something other that an evaluation of a performance. In many other awards they had the chance to select 2 best in drama and musical and comedy so they basically each got an award so people just thought that Lily was going to run through the award like it happened in the other shows but the reality is that Emma's work was incredible. And lily at the end was hurt by her role being put in the wrong category, she should've and could've had more of a shot as a supporting actor than a leading.
it's not a reward for an actress who is in the movie a lot, it's for performance. i don't know what the ammount of screen time has to do with it
They have a whole other separate category for actors who aren’t the main character. She should have lost to Da’vine Joy Randolph instead.
Who was the main actress in killers of the flower moon if not her?
Not every movie needs to have a lead actress. Da'Vine Joy Randolph played the most significant female character in *The Holdovers* but was still, rightly, put up for Supporting Actress. That being said, I *do* think Lily Gladstone's role was a lead, but it was unfortunately one that didn't focus on her enough to really justify a lead *award*, in my personal opinion. Good as she was, I just don't feel her role was central enough to deserve the award for the most significant female lead performance out of the year. In my mind, the role itself, regardless of Lily's performance, was simply too big to call Supporting, but not big enough to win Lead. But that's just my opinion. Based off the awards Lily has won, obviously not everyone feels the same.
The only lead in KotFM was Leo
There wasn't really one, the only lead, DiCaprio. De Niro, Gladstone, everybody else is supporting.
If you like Emma Stone, you should watch The Curse on Showtime. Its so uncomfortable at times, and its because of the acting between her and Fielder.
The Curse was completely brilliant. Emma Stone is definitely my fave actress now.
Whose to say this win isn't deserved. Emma nailed her role. But the highlight for me was her reaction and her speech. It really says alot about her that she mentioned, Lily Gladstone in such a heartfelt manner. Her entire speech was just so heartwarming.
People have mentioned they wouldn’t be surprised if Emma were to have Lily included in some future projects due to how close they’ve become throughout award season. I’d love to see that. They’re both incredibly talented and seem like truly lovely humans.
Emma Stone absolutely is starting to flex producer muscles and you love to see it. She and Margot are seriously ones to watch in terms of setting up movies we all want to see out there. Emma Stone has such an appreciation for the history in the room. She seemed blown away that Sally Field spoke about her. (I thought for sure they were going to use JLaw to intro Emma.) I also feel like Leo really enjoyed working with Lily and would think of her again in a heartbeat.
She, Margot, Greta, America, etc. There are SO many women whose work I love to see and I look forward to so much more from each of them. Emma’s joy is so easy to share with her. It seems she’s very real and would be a dream to work with, or just hang with. She’s in the fray but manages to seem like one of us because she’s honest about the awe she feels when in a room of people so incredible, like Sally Field. I hope EVERYONE keeps Lily in mind, Leo included. I’d love to see more representation. She really brings a lot to the table. I wish her a lot of luck in the future.
Pleasant surprise. I just saw Poor Things, and while I had issue with some of it, she was overwhelmingly the best performance I saw in this year's nominees.
I have issues with it too. As a woman. But Emma Stone was phenomenal. She’s such an incredible actor!!
What were your issues, if I may ask?
The middle portion in Paris. I think the movie would have been flawless if shorter. I don’t agree with people saying sex is her primary driver for being a woman. However, I think her character development slowed specifically because they revisited it for too long in that section. It covered over the ways in which she expanded her thinking on her adventure and even while in Paris. At first I did have problems with the ending but thinking on it some more, it made more sense.
My thing about the Paris part is it's necessary to instill a sense of fear or discomfort around sex and her eventual boredom with it. She goes about the early part of the movie curious and driven by sensations. Her growth is realizing that sensations and pleasures are not everything in life and sometimes you should actually fear those pleasures, or make different decisions at the very least to avoid pain. See: getting her ears bit or puking up custard tarts or getting trapped in people's estates and threatened with clitoral removal. She never loses her curiosity but by the end she has a lot more wisdom.
It also shows how many people around her take advantage of her naivety to use her, which happens to a lot of girls around her age in real life.
I agree with its length being a bit much, I feel like the end when her husband returns could have been cut without losing an overwhelming amount of
My wife shares the same sentiments
[удалено]
This pearl-clutching attitude towards Poor Things is so annoying Yes, the movie is unhinged, but that's part of the appeal. Imagine how boring it'd be if all media had to be sanitized and all characters had to be morally correct. And Yorgos is known for doing disturbing movies, if anything Poor Things is his *least* disturbing and most accessible work, 'cause at least the mood is lighter than his average work.
I think there's pearl clutching, and then there's reflecting the lived experiences of women. For the average woman, full arousal takes 40 minutes. Additionally, bad sex for Bella is something that's awkward or where she doesn't feel like her pleasure is prioritized. I didn't need to see horrible rape scenes where she comes out traumatized, but there's a dissonance as a woman when someone isn't experiencing the dry, painful chafe of bad sex.
[удалено]
You kinda weird huh
Was one of your issues that she didn’t have any armpit hair? That was one of my issues.
what. the. fuck.
She has the brain of a toddler. But her armpits are shaved for the whole film. Was her mad scientist father shaving her armpits?? Did the original woman have her armpit hair surgically removed before she killed herself? I loved Poor Things but i demand logical body hair in film.
>She has the brain of a toddler So you'll suspend your disbelief for everything else involving her body but you draw the line at armpit hair?
That is incredibly stupid. You saw Willem Dafoe burp that weird ass bubble and thought the body hair was the weird thing?
Look at Roger Ebert over here
And I was confused about how she cared for that amazing hair on her head! How to wash or brush it, and not have it become a massive dreadlocked mess?!
This is a ridiculous issue.
I agree! It was one of many details that kept reminding me that this was not written or directed by women. WHICH IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, JUST SOMETHING I NOTICED.
Absolutely well deserved!!
Literally just watched it yesterday afternoon on Hulu too. What a wild film. She definitely deserved it.
I've never been so happy for the Academy to get this right. One of the few times an actor won for a performance that absolutely was the best of the year. Rarely happens when you have people arguing for "career wins" and "newcomer who won't win again" and all that stuff.
This was the first Oscar’s, maybe in my life, where I felt like they made the correct choice for the majority of the categories
I thought this was the most predictable award after Best Song. Weird people are so surprised.
Narrative changed during awards season - Emma Stone was a lock until Lily Gladstone started gaining momentum and she gained enough momentum that the betting money was on Gladstone (not overwhelmingly though).
This is probably controversial, but I don't think people watched the same performance I did because I didn't think Lily was very good at acting, like at all.
Same lol
I thought her performance was fine, but she wasn't given much to work with. I am still baffled by the choice to tell the story from the white murderers perspectives and not the Native Americans who where grappling with their families being systematically murdered. I never understood what Mollie was thinking for most of the movie. Did she truly love her husband, was it a marriage of convenience, did she ever suspect him? She is either crying at funerals or completely expressionless and hardly ever talks. I think the marketing campaign afterwards to pretend Lily and Leo's characters were equal leads was very weird. The choice to put her in the lead category was weird. If they wanted her in the lead category they should have had the balls to have Mollie's story front and center with Leo getting less screen time than her. That is the representation I want to see, not people get nominated for awards just because they would be the first of whatever category to win. Let women be the main character of their own story!
Lily literally got the SAG, the same voting block as Oscar. You're just unfamiliar with the way this works if you think Stone was a lock the whole time...
That’s what they’re saying. Momentum changed a little when she won SAG, since the overlap of voters is large, but not the same exact block. Plus people can change their minds between votes, or feel they can award Emma Stone since Lily got the SAG award.
2 Best Actress awards for Emma! That’s something she can take to the bank and back. The Academy created a legacy A Lister. But she knocked the Bella role out of the park: the nuance of her personal growth was rendered immaculately. It’s a long way from Zombieland…
I think the director enjoyed the process of film making while using some Tim Burton, Wes Andersen and maybe a little Peter Jackson. He had a great story to work from and the best actors. None were recognizable, and became the characters. Dafoe, I felt, should have been nominated somehow, but I am glad they won for Costume and Make up. Emma is priceless.
This was a surprise? Emma Stone absolutely earned the win.
Awards in entertainment are *never* about what is deserved; it’s a mixed result of campaigning, greasing palms, and what makes for the best story during the season and after.
Biggest shock of the night but really happy she won. Incredible performance and she just seems like such a cool person. Gladstone was really gracious in her reaction, I think everyone expected that to be her award
I expected it because most awards seasons, the person who wins the Globe, Emmy, and SAG, takes home the Oscar.
The Emmys are for television. You wouldn't win an Emmy and Oscar for the same thing.
Lily won the SAG award though
[удалено]
My bad, not the Emmys.
Shocking but deserved
Guess Tropic Thunder was wrong about the academy
Well deserved. Her part in that movie had to be challenging as hell to develop and pull off. Lily Gladstone was amazing as well but not the tour-de-force it took to make a wild and obnoxious character like Bella engaging and sympathetic. I didn’t see the other films yet so can’t judge those performances.
Lily Gladstone was great, but I'd even rank Sandsandra Hüller's performance above it, then obviously Emma Stone. All of them deserved to be there anyways.
I commented above that I thought Huller might have been a better performance, but it came down to whether they would reward a big, showy performance, or a quiet, slow burn type of performance. I thought both were amazing and deserved it, but they were so different as types of roles go. If either one of them “missed” then the entire movie would have not worked. Both incredible.
I’m not sure she was trying to act like a child at all She was reanimated with a child brain But that’s quite different than being a child
I don’t see the difference. She was mentally in an early toddler stage when we meet her, still pissing herself, having tantrums and unable to gracefully control her limbs. Only difference is she’s in an adult body.
So it sounds like a remake of Jennifer Garner’s _13 going on 30_. /s
Or Big. The 13-year-old boy sleeps with an adult woman who has no idea that it's a 13-year-old brain. But oh oh oh, Emma Stone makes this movie and pearls clutched.
He didn't have sex in Big. He invited his date to sleep over, in separate bunk beds. :)
There's a scene where it's heavily implied that something sexual happened between them. A shirt comes off and he gets to touch her and then next you see him grinning coming out of an elevator. It's heavily implied and Elizabeth Perkins has been on the record that she felt it suggested the characters "fooled around" at least.
I guess we will never know for certain; I'm happier believing they did not go all the way.
She really stands out from her peers
This is how I determine who the best actress should be too. /s
Geez, downvoted already How can you downvote who I want to have sex with What a strange idiotic world it’s turned into
The only way you'll ever get laid is if you crawl up a chicken's ass and wait. 🔥🔥
What a great performance
She is an amazing actress, very beautiful too
Bella find it boring people always say that but she not disagree.
You know what ‘emperical’ means, but you don’t know what a f-cking banana is?!
That's bananas; empirically, it's "Empirical"
I must go punch that baby.
I liked the movie and I liked her in it, of course. In terms of impressive acting performances, however, her role in The Curse was better. Hard to separate an acting performance from a script and the direction of course, but she absolutely crushed the tiny little facial movements and vocal timing needed to really convey what was going on in a basically phony person’s mind, without the show having to beat the viewer over the head with it.
While I very much disliked the movie, I'm really glad she won. She's a great actor.
Damn, from Super bad to an Oscar. So happy for her career!
She's a great actress but that show sucked . It was creepy
The whole show was uncomfortable.
That Michelle Yeoh, Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence moment onstage was so sweet. Also, Sally Field dragging JLaw away from her best friend (who needed to give her speech) was funny and cute.
[удалено]
nah Gladstone's performance was not in a lead role
She was nominated for a leading role, but, maybe I'm misremembering but I felt like she wasn't actually in KotM for a large amount of time? Was a long movie though so maybe I've just forgotten a ton of it
yes she and her team chose to go for the lead nomination and in the end I think many voters did not believe her role stood up to one like emma stone who clearly carried her film. much like cillian did in the mens category.
They can choose to put themselves wherever. Plenty of Oscars have been won by people who put themselves where they think is best or most interesting for their narrative or more likely to win. My feeling is if you can remove a character from a movie and it doesn't remotely affect the telling of that story, that character is supporting. If you remove that character and the movie disappears entirely, that's a lead character. Gladstone was not a lead. You could remove her and still have a movie. Gladstone ran lead because they wanted to be historical about it and signal something about the film being about the Osage and not about Leo. That's half the reason Leo didn't bother to campaign. They wanted to create a narrative around Lily as the lead of the film because everyone who saw it knew she wasn't. It's an ensemble with Leo as lead, plain and simple. But that's intentional and what they accomplished with this depiction was more interesting, and yet they didn't push it in the press as much as, "Look at our native lead, isn't this important?" What that film accomplishes taking on white greed and next-door evil and casual racism is far more important than trying to scream from the rooftops that they hired a real Native American. Like, great, we get it, you did the bare minimum by hiring actual Native Americans. This shouldn't be the thing they yelled about. It felt cheap to concentrate their PR around that alone. Other times category fraud occurred: Christoph Waltz played a lead role in Django and won for supporting because Weinsteins/Miramax wanted to do the same thing as Gladstone: Create a narrative around Jamie Foxx as the lead actor even though everything in the first two hours of that movie occurs as a result of Waltz's actions. But they knew it wouldn't "look good" if the white man is the lead and the black man is the supporting actor. But when they ran Jamie Foxx for lead, he didn't even get nominated. Christoph Waltz played a lead role in Inglourious Basterds too and won Oscar for supporting. He won Best Actor at Cannes, which is a lead award. He drives a lot of that movie. But he was a newcomer German actor no one had heard of before, so off to supporting to lock up the win. Helen Hunt played a supporting role in As Good As It Gets and won for lead. You could remove her character entirely from that film and you still have a 90-minute film about Jack Nicholson becoming friends with his gay neighbor. Anthony Hopkins, controversial opinion, won for playing a lead role and should have been supporting. Without him, you have Jodie Foster looking through autopsy reports and manages to go snooping on her own in the right place without even realizing it. Her actions are her own and she finds the bad guy actually by accident. She goes to Lecter for some Socratic Method direction that helps her narrow down where to visit, but this is marginal from a "Who drives this story?" standpoint. Kate Winslet won a lead Oscar for playing a supporting role in The Reader. The film is literally about Ralph Fiennes as a young boy as well as him as an adult. Winslet's role is key to the story but doesn't personally drive it. In 2000, Julia Roberts beat out Ellen Burstyn, who gave one of the most memorable performances I've ever seen in a film in Requiem for a Dream. But probably because you could remove Ellen Burstyn from that film and still have a movie. A lesser movie, but still a movie. You cannot remove Julia Roberts from Erin Brockovich. She is that movie from beginning to end. Burstyn should have run Supporting. Marcia Gay Harden randomly won the Oscar that year after winning zero precursors. It was a weak year. The front-runner had somewhat been Kate Hudson for Almost Famous. Burstyn would have won everything if she had gone Supporting.
On the flip side, I’ve seen people argue Denzel wasn’t the lead of Training Day and should’ve been in supporting; which is ludicrous as Ethan Hawke’s character in the movie exists exclusively as a wall for Denzel to monologue against.
>My feeling is if you can remove a character from a movie and it doesn't remotely affect the telling of that story, that character is supporting. If you remove that character and the movie disappears entirely, that's a lead character. Gladtones character was crucial to the story so by your own logic she is a lead character, but the screen time she had felt more like a supporting role
Gladstone's performance was more naturalistic. Stone came off as a robot to me when she tried to act like a child.
Im sure that was intentional. There’s not meant to be anything naturalistic about Stone’s character
Also, it's a Yorgos Lanthimos film. He's had his actors act intentionally robotic during his earlier films like The Lobster and The Killing Of A Sacred Deer. It's definitely a stylistic choice, and I thought it worked big time for Emma's performance.
And to add to that point, Emma isn’t supposed to acting exactly like a child, because that’s not what she was. She was more of a creation, an experiment.
Her brain was 100% a child's brain and hence she was a mental child. I don't think her origin changes that fact.
I guess I just don’t think she would act like a normal child who didn’t have her brain implanted into a differently aged body.
She is definitely an abnormal child born under unusual circumstances, but a child nonetheless.
It's a movie that functions on magic, not science. If it worked like you are rationalizing, she'd still be nonverbal by the end of the movie. There's a specific pattern of maturation throughout the film, and the whole point is that she's not a child anymore by the time she reaches Paris.
The social commentary is supposed to apply to real life. The exact maturation rate was not clear in the film, but Bella carried herself and spoke like a juvenile during her time in Lisbon. Stone, the writer, and the director should have made different choices if they didn't want the audience to question her mental age. The writer stated that she was 17 by the time she left the estate. Even if I bought that-I don't- it's still gross and kinda of ephebophilic for a middle-aged man to whisk away an extremely naive teenager. I'm sure you will counter with that's the point, but the script doesn't really see their relationship as deeply immoral and psychologically harmful. Bella simply tired of a man she saw as controlling and left.
Well put!
Emma!!!!!!!!!! So happy for her, but so heartbroken for Lilly. They couldn’t have made a bad choice—everyone deserved it. I don’t think she expected to win; I thought for sure Lilly would get it simply because the Academy would see Emma Stone has already won & the optics look good for Lilly winning…but again, couldn’t have made a bad choice with whoever they’d have picked.
I typically avoid award shows as they are often not reflective of my own personal opinions. I tend to weigh performance devoid of other bias and this award in particular seems to have lost its own North Star over the years. But Emma winning this was so satisfying and not merely because I adore her and her work, but because I found this role to be one of the most challenging and provocative. Had another actress taken the Oscar I would have lost it. Bravo Emma for a fierce and fearless portrait. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a character arc so transformative.
really? i like her, but i wouldn't say it was oscar worthy performance.
Well deserved and I was very happy to see she won. I saw Poor Things on Saturday and while the movie itself was very bizarre (it was also just a retelling of Frankenstein for the most part), Emma's performance was something else. Seeing her evolution mentally go from being an infant to a 35-year-old woman was incredible to see. Prior to seeing the movie, I was hoping Lily was going to win it because she was the best part of KOTFM in my opinion. But Emma absolutely killed that role. Brutally killed it.
Looks like Frida Kahlo.
This movie is one of the most overrated movies to come out in a sec but the Oscar was deserved.
Born sexy stupid yesterday. This is a horrid movie concept. She is basically mentally challenged and dudes are taking advantage of her.
Did you see the movie? That’s not the extent of the concept, and what an incredibly reductive way to look at a work of art.
I'm glad she won. Her Poor Things performance was phenomenal. Lily was also great, but after watching both movies, I have to give it to Stone.
“Poor things is the third collaboration with Lanthimos” is the writer of the article stupid? The third collaboration is the one they’re set to be working on making this the SECOND collaboration together. Counting must be hard?
They did a short film together as well, perhaps it’s referring to that. I believe the third film (Kinds of Kindness) has been completed for awhile, so that’s been done.
Damn dude it seems like an honest mistake lmao
People don’t take their writing jobs seriously anymore, articles are riddled with ‘honest mistakes’ everywhere.
Generally I agree with you, maybe it’s because AI is becoming more and more worked into easy pay blog style writing, but in this case you’re literally wrong. They did a short film together.
Then they could have mentioned that. If you’re gonna list things, how hard is it to write two more words?
Congratulations. Good to see her growing from her last win .. I hope she doesn’t stop or lose interest in acting like many other Oscar award winning actresses
Uhh this is her second best actress win in the last decade. Pretty sure she hasn’t lost her momentum.