Categories One-by-One: Best Actress

[Big Magilla]

All the signs point to a Lily Gladstone win which I don't begrudge her, but I'm still predicting Sandra Hüller who deserves it on the basis of performance.

Emma Stone gives a much better performance than she did in that headscratcher for which she won, but even if she hadn't won before, I don't think her performances, as good as it is, is as commanding or as full of surprises as Hüller's is.

Carey Mulligan should have won for Promising Young Woman. Hopefully, someday she'll have a role as good as that one. Her role in Maestro is not that.

Annette Bening should have won for The Kids Are All Right, but after losing for that and not even being nominated for Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool, that I thought her chances at winning an Oscar were probably over. That she is even nominated for Nyad is a small miracle. Maybe there's yet a chance for her to win, but this isn't it.

[dws1982]

I've said before that Oscars are often won on PR narratives as much as performances. Not always: voters didn't bite on Chadwick Boseman a few years back, and we all know how Glenn Close's nomination for The Wife worked out, but last year Michelle Yeoh, who had "great performance + Best Picture frontrunner + unrewarded legend + Oscars have historically ignored non-white actresses" beat Cate Blanchett who had "one of our greatest actresses + tour-de-force", but little else. I predicted Blanchett, because I thought the tour-de-force factor would be enough to push her over the top, but I leaned the wrong way, and when Jamie Lee Curtis won early in the evening, I knew I had made a mistake. Over in Best Actor, Brendan Fraser, who was nothing but PR narrative, beat Austin Butler, who had the strength of a Best Picture nominee and good reviews, but who--and I will believe this until my dying day--was probably hurt by negative publicity around the whole "why does he still talk like that??" question. Sometimes, the narrative is pretty basic--I think Jessica Chastain was helped immensely by not having won yet after a decade of widely-seen and acclaimed work. But some type of narrative is generally helpful I think. A narrative plus a performance that is also seen and talked about as very accomplished is the ideal. And I think that's what hurt Glenn Close: the narrative was entirely "why hasn't she won yet?" and the performance, which wasn't bad, and had good reviews, was, from the get-go, seen as secondary.

All that to say, I am leaning towards Lily Gladstone. The Killers team, perhaps understanding that their chances weren't great elsewhere, has zeroed in on Gladstone as the focal point of their campaign; she has been a great ambassador for the film, and is very eloquent in discussing the film, what it's about, and how Native Americans have been portrayed in film and treated by the film industry. And, it is a widely-acclaimed performance, almost universally seen as one of the best performances of the year. She has a great narrative plus a great performance.

If it were just on the performances alone, Emma Stone and Gladstone would be on about equal footing, and Emma Stone might be slightly ahead because her movie may be more broadly liked. But Gladstone winning would be more of a "moment", and I think that may be enough.

[Greg]

I would prefer if they go the old-fashioned route where they award it to the one here who has paid her dues - a career award - Bening.

On this, I agree with what I saw on a YouTube video of Glenda Jackson presenting the Best Actor award the year Art Carney won, the award is for the best performance by an actor (or actress), not the best actor (or actress).

[Reza]

I would prefer if they go the old-fashioned route where they award it to the one here who has paid her dues - a career award - Bening.

All the others are young and are sure to get their time in the limelight down the line.

Although if not, then Gladstone will be an historic win. I think its too soon for Stone to get a second one.

[Mister Tee]

As it turned out, I could have addressed this category prior to the SAG/BAFTA rounds, because each went precisely as I'd expected, setting up the only truly up-in-the-air acting category this year. (Barring upset, which is always possible -- though not as much in this millennium.)

You can make the argument this is, top-to-bottom, as competitive a category as could have been assembled. Bening wouldn't be a good choice, but (prior to SAG) she at least had some chance of actually contending -- and better than the women (Robbie/Lee) she likely beat out for that final spot.

All four others give performances I see as perfectly solid Oscar-win calibre.

Carey Mulligan simply picked the wrong year, and her very fine work will only serve to fatten up her already-respectable Oscar-hopeful resume. Sometimes such folk eventually win (Sarandon, Mirren, Winslet, Moore); others can go a lifetime unawarded (currently Close, Pfeiffer, Weaver, Adams). Whatever: this clearly isn't her time.

Sandra Huller would undoubtedly be the choice of many, but a till-now-no-name-for-most subtitled actress would need something like a miracle to win. Such miracles can happen...but it's not the way to bet.

Emma Stone's handicaps -- going for a second lead prize in a still-young career; a film that may be too sexualized for some voters -- are offset by Poor Things' 11 nominations and "best work of her career" reviews. Her performance is certainly impressive -- what's most remarkable is how you can feel she's matured emotionally over the course of the film, but the process is so gradual that you barely notice the steps along the way. But I have to say, purely personal take, that I don't see this as a clear, hands-down career peak for her the way I did for Blanchett last year. So, for those betting on "she's so obviously the best, that's why she'll win"...that approach doesn't work for me.

And, man...I truly love what Lily Gladstone does in Killers of the Flower Moon. The film obviously has its audience-unfriendly aspects, but I think Gladstone rockets past all objection: her innate good heart, even one tempered by the skepticism of a lifetime being hoodwinked, is the soul of the movie, something to which I think even the film's detractors respond fully. There's the politics, as well -- the indigenous aspect of the campaign, which leads to people like the odious Jeff Wells contending it's the only reason she's in the race -- and that may well not hurt (as it didn't hurt Ms. Yeoh a year back). But I think Gladstone is where she is on merit.

I see this as pretty much 50/50. I might lean Gladstone for my own ballot, but a Stone win is obviously fully possible.

[Okri]

But are you talking about the BFCA or BAFTA? Bc Gladstone was nominated for the former (lost to Stone), but not the latter. If you're saying Lily Gladstone missed out on a BAFTA nomination due to category confusion, well, why couldn't she get nominated over Fantasia Barrino (The Color Purple) or Vivian Oparah (Rye Lane) for lead or, y'know, the weakest Best Supporting Actress field in my life? I also think this "category confusion" thing is a little overstated. She's been out there, clear as day, telling the world she's a lead. These voters know.

I guess my biggest thing about this issue with Gladstone's category confusion is that we're not talking about someone getting a nomination. We're talking about someone who people think is going to win. Like, get the most votes. There was "category confusion" around Kate Winslet for The Reader as well. She was supporting at the Globes and SAG, lead at the BAFTA, and was nominated for lead at the Oscars and won. And the reason is because people who saw the performance were passionate about it as a winning performance so it didn't matter where she got nominated. I'm not saying it can't happen but it is concerning that a film like Killers of the Flower Moon can get 9 BAFTA nominations but not Lily Gladstone. It missed out on a few other nominations as well (Scorsese, DiCaprio, Screenplay) and, y'know, those either missed out on nominations or aren't going to win an Oscar either.

The BFCA. I'd assert that category confusion in the general air contributed to Gladstone losing to Stone.

Re BAFTA: You've got me with Barrino - outside of the diversity push, I just don't get her nomination. re: Oparah - I'd argue that's Brits voting for Brits - a la Thompson, Scanlan, Emilia Jones, etc.

I was never predicting DiCaprio, so him missing out didn't make a dent in my thinking.

Anyway - SAG and BAFTA (wins) can render everything I said fishwrap.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Thanks Sabin. Some thoughts

a) I could very well be making a race where there isn't any. I have a tendency to do that. So, in that vein... I don't take the BFCA very seriously, if I'm being honest. I don't view them as dispositive. I almost assume that Gladstone lost because there was still confusion about her being placed as lead/supporting in the air when they were voting. That, in tandem with Stone not winning in 2016 gives me enough straw to grasp at.

I don't take the Critic's Choice Awards seriously beyond one regard: they're just a moderately-sized group of film literature-ish folks who vote on who and what they think is the best. If someone wins a Critic's Choice Award, that means their performance can be taken as best by people who watch films. It doesn't lead to a win but it could. But are you talking about the BFCA or BAFTA? Bc Gladstone was nominated for the former (lost to Stone), but not the latter. If you're saying Lily Gladstone missed out on a BAFTA nomination due to category confusion, well, why couldn't she get nominated over Fantasia Barrino (The Color Purple) or Vivian Oparah (Rye Lane) for lead or, y'know, the weakest Best Supporting Actress field in my life? I also think this "category confusion" thing is a little overstated. She's been out there, clear as day, telling the world she's a lead. These voters know.

I guess my biggest thing about this issue with Gladstone's category confusion is that we're not talking about someone getting a nomination. We're talking about someone who people think is going to win. Like, get the most votes. There was "category confusion" around Kate Winslet for The Reader as well. She was supporting at the Globes and SAG, lead at the BAFTA, and was nominated for lead at the Oscars and won. And the reason is because people who saw the performance were passionate about it as a winning performance so it didn't matter where she got nominated. I'm not saying it can't happen but it is concerning that a film like Killers of the Flower Moon can get 9 BAFTA nominations but not Lily Gladstone. It missed out on a few other nominations as well (Scorsese, DiCaprio, Screenplay) and, y'know, those either missed out on nominations or aren't going to win an Oscar either.

Moving on...

Okri wrote
b) I find it odd that you don't view Mulligan as even extended competition for Stone, given that she also got those nominations, to be honest.

I think Mulligan should be a contender. It's the best performance I think she's given to date. I almost wrote that she is extended competition but I didn't for two reasons: 1) there's no real narrative around her winning, and 2) she has one precisely one award for her work in Maestro (The Palm Springs Something Or Other Film Festival). So she hasn't really demonstrated that her performance is winning over pools of voters in contrast to the competition. Now, does that mean she could turn it around and start winning? Sure, and honestly I'd be fine with it. I think Emma Stone is better but I'd have no problem with Carey Mulligan winning. But my question is why would she start winning now?

Okri wrote
c) Poor Things did miss out on Ensemble at the SAGs and Killers of the Flower Moon has grossed over twice as much. I can just as easily imagine Gladstone winning the SAGs based on that. Both arguably underperformed with Oscar - no Dafoe for the former, no screenplay for the latter.

I have some scattered thoughts on these observations but I'll just say that I don't think they matter as much because I don't think Poor Things is going to win Best Picture. Neither is Killers of the Flower Moon. So, Poor Things missing out on a SAG nomination doesn't matter as much. There's not really strong correlation between a film getting a SAG nomination and one of its leads winning an Oscar. Like, by that rational then there's no getting around it. Lady Gaga IS the favorite to win for House of Gucci. Also, you mentioned that Killers of the Flower Moon grossed twice what Poor Things did. I think it's a different set of math. DiCaprio and Scorsese (and DiCaprio AND Scorsese) are worldwide very established brands at this point. Emma Stone and Yorgos Lanthimos are not. That said, the film has already outgrossed The Favourite and will likely continue to make more and more as the awards season goes on. Right now, it sits at $80m with a month-ish to go before Oscars. I'm not so sure it doesn't clear Killers of the Flower Moon's worldwide $150m.

But you mention that both Killers of the Flower Moon and Poor Things both underperformed at the Oscars. I don't think that's a fair categorization. Killers of the Flower Moon missed out on Best Actor and Screenplay to competition that arguably it shouldn't have. Poor Things merely missed out on double nominations for Best Supporting Actor and showed up everywhere else. When Lanthimos wasn't nominated for a BAFTA, that was a worrisome sign. He overcame it. The film got a Best Original Score nomination despite having a really weird sound to it. I think if we were to draw up a list of Winners and Losers on Oscar Morning, Oppenheimer comes out on top, and Poor Things probably shows up next or it ties with Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest.

Oh by the way, I agree. I can definitely see Lily Gladstone winning the SAG. It's not a sure thing but it could happen.

Okri wrote
d) I've got no idea how much stock to place in 2020-2022 as indicative, if I'm being honest. So I don't know if we're living in a post-EEAAO universe or if that was just a blip into another multiverse but regular order will be restored. That said, I also think that when you look at winners before that - Birdman, The Shape of Water, Parasite.... the definition of Oscar bait has changed. So perhaps I should expand my mind a bit.

I think you probably should expand your mind a bit. I don't really see Oscars "going back." And by going back, I mean to a world where weird, edgy, or indie shit can't win. This is a long blip. I think the new status quo is when something like Oppenheimer comes out, they'll give it to Oppenheimer. But if it doesn't, then it probably goes elsewhere. I mean, if Oppenheimer wasn't nominated, then we'd be talking about a race between Barbie, The Holdovers, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Poor Things. The one film I'd feel the least confident in is the Scorsese.

[Okri]

The 80s, though, offered a turnaround; breakout women nearly every year. And, basically, none of them ever managed to win with AMPAS (the way the entire male cohort that preceded them had -- though it took hoo-ah Pacino all the way to the 90s to do it). If you had told me, around 1990, that we'd be almost a quarter-century into a new millennium, and none of Debra Winger, Glenn Close, Sigourney Weaver or Michelle Pfeiffer would have won an Oscar, I'd have thought you were lying to me. (Yeah, Bening too -- but, honestly, I'd rate all four of them far more deserving than her in overdue terms.)

Never give entirely up someone winning as long as they're alive/employed -- I remember those 80s supplying Oscars to a whole slew of actors whose day seemed to have passed (Henry Fonda, Shirley MacLaine, Geraldine Page, Paul Newman). The right vehicle and a sentimental push can change a lot.

Slightly tangential: The discouraging thing about last year's outcome was, all four winners triumphed on some level of sentiment -- but not one of them was someone you'd have said, prior to their vehicles, deserved it on cumulative basis. It feels like it's become easier to win for a one-off than for a long-deserving career.

That deserves a thread of its own to unpack, but I blame the Oscar Industrial Complex for that.

The precursor advantage that Emma Stone has is that she's nominated for a SAG and a BAFTA. Gladstone and Huller, her main competition, are not. Even Annette Bening, her extended competition, is not.....

But what really puts me over the top is that it seems like everyone has this idea that Emma Stone's role isn't "Oscar-y." I don't disagree in the traditional sense. But let's put aside the word "Oscar-y" for a moment, because we live in a post-EEAAO world. Is it the type of performance where voters can get through her film and think it's the best of the competition? We've already seen the answer is yes, both for her Golden Globe win and her Critic's Choice win (over Gladstone & Huller), whereas SAG didn't nominate Huller while BAFTA didn't nominate Gladstone. Tbh, I think Gladstone missing a BAFTA nomination is a much larger problem.

Thanks Sabin. Some thoughts

a) I could very well be making a race where there isn't any. I have a tendency to do that. So, in that vein... I don't take the BFCA very seriously, if I'm being honest. I don't view them as dispositive. I almost assume that Gladstone lost because there was still confusion about her being placed as lead/supporting in the air when they were voting. That, in tandem with Stone not winning in 2016 gives me enough straw to grasp at.

b) I find it odd that you don't view Mulligan as even extended competition for Stone, given that she also got those nominations, to be honest.

c) Poor Things did miss out on Ensemble at the SAGs and Killers of the Flower Moon has grossed over twice as much. I can just as easily imagine Gladstone winning the SAGs based on that. Both arguably underperformed with Oscar - no Dafoe for the former, no screenplay for the latter.

d) I've got no idea how much stock to place in 2020-2022 as indicative, if I'm being honest. So I don't know if we're living in a post-EEAAO universe or if that was just a blip into another multiverse but regular order will be restored. That said, I also think that when you look at winners before that - Birdman, The Shape of Water, Parasite.... the definition of Oscar bait has changed. So perhaps I should expand my mind a bit.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
What precursor advantage specifically? Globe + BFCA but losing the Oscar? Jessica Chastain had that for Zero Dark Thirty. So did Glenn Close (+ the SAG). Probably not worth anything, but Stone didn't win the BFCA in 2016 - Portman did. I also don't think that Stone is in an "Oscar-y" role, but I kinda get where you're coming from.

The precursor advantage that Emma Stone has is that she's nominated for a SAG and a BAFTA. Gladstone and Huller, her main competition, are not. Even Annette Bening, her extended competition, is not. In the last twenty years, there's only been two Best Actress nominees who overcame those odds to win: Jessica Chastain in The Eyes of Tammy Faye and Sandra Bullock for The Blinde Side. The former case can be excused because no Best Actress nominees were nominated for a BAFTA that year. Bullock was the only other Best Actress nominee who went onto win without a BAFTA nomination, and I remember not liking her odds either but she was helped immeasurably by the fact that her competition had significantly larger weaknesses.

But what really puts me over the top is that it seems like everyone has this idea that Emma Stone's role isn't "Oscar-y." I don't disagree in the traditional sense. But let's put aside the word "Oscar-y" for a moment, because we live in a post-EEAAO world. Is it the type of performance where voters can get through her film and think it's the best of the competition? We've already seen the answer is yes, both for her Golden Globe win and her Critic's Choice win (over Gladstone & Huller), whereas SAG didn't nominate Huller while BAFTA didn't nominate Gladstone. Tbh, I think Gladstone missing a BAFTA nomination is a much larger problem.

[Okri]

Well, I'm not going to be a weenie and I am going to comment on the race. I think it's going to be Emma Stone. I posted something to this effect in another thread but I'll be brief.

I just think for Emma Stone to not be considered the favorite going into Oscar night, she'd have to start to get really unlucky and I don't see that happened because she has every advantage she needs to win. She's up for a SAG and a BAFTA and Gladstone and Huller aren't. Who knows? Maybe Stone loses both of them. But why would she? History exists to be broken but when was the last time someone had this kind of precursor advantage and just spun out? I don't think it's happened. Especially considering that she's already won the Critic's Choice Award going up against both of them, proving that a mass voting body will look at all three of these performances and vote for her. Which is to say she has a role that can win. By any metric, she has a big, showy Oscar-y role that just about everyone thinks is the best of her career.

What precursor advantage specifically? Globe + BFCA but losing the Oscar? Jessica Chastain had that for Zero Dark Thirty. So did Glenn Close (+ the SAG). Probably not worth anything, but Stone didn't win the BFCA in 2016 - Portman did. I also don't think that Stone is in an "Oscar-y" role, but I kinda get where you're coming from.

[flipp525]

The desire in some quarters for her to get two nominations, as an example.

That “desire” was completely warranted. I’m actually surprised her supporting nomination didn't materialize since her work in the film is one of its greatest strengths and that category was literally all over the place as far as potential nominees prior to nomination morning. Hüller’s performance in The Zone of Interest is better than at least three of the actual nominees in supporting and anchors the film.

For me, the movie explodes the myth of "good Germans" in the sense that they could ever claim they didn't know what was going on. The characters in this film don’t deny the Holocaust. They embrace it and that is no better portrayed than in Hüller’s Hedwig Höss.

I highly recommend this New Yorker piece about Hüller: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023 ... tVImrJP2nY

[Reza]

If Stone wins both BAFTA and SAG, she will be the presumptive Oscar winner, which would make a win by either Gladstone or Hüller a bit of a surprise but not a shock as it would if Bening or Mulligan were to win.

I am so looking forward to a shock this year. Time we had one....but strictly of the Bening kind.

[Sabin]

Well, I'm not going to be a weenie and I am going to comment on the race. I think it's going to be Emma Stone. I posted something to this effect in another thread but I'll be brief.

I just think for Emma Stone to not be considered the favorite going into Oscar night, she'd have to start to get really unlucky and I don't see that happened because she has every advantage she needs to win. She's up for a SAG and a BAFTA and Gladstone and Huller aren't. Who knows? Maybe Stone loses both of them. But why would she? History exists to be broken but when was the last time someone had this kind of precursor advantage and just spun out? I don't think it's happened. Especially considering that she's already won the Critic's Choice Award going up against both of them, proving that a mass voting body will look at all three of these performances and vote for her. Which is to say she has a role that can win. By any metric, she has a big, showy Oscar-y role that just about everyone thinks is the best of her career.

So why wouldn't it happen? There are reasons that have nothing to do with her role (she's too young, she's already won) and reasons that have to do with her role that probably don't matter (it's too risqué... and got 11 nominations). Those are weaknesses but they're not significant ones in this field. Yes, she's young and has an Oscar. That would matter more (IMO) if her two stronger competitors weren't total outsiders. They know Emma Stone. They've just met Lily Gladstone and Sandra Huller. Annette Bening and Carey Mulligan are more "due" to win their first and I'd be more bullish on their chances if they've won a single award by now. Maybe they picked up something somewhere but I'm not award of it. Is it possible they come out of nowhere to win a SAG or BAFTA? Sure. But I just ask why would Emma Stone stop being lucky now and Bening/Mulligan start? As for Gladstone (and this matters), she has the shortest % of any Best Actress nominee since Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. Not a deal-breaker but not an advantage. Beyond that, it's a subtle performance (no idea what her clip is going to be) and I'm just not sure they like Killers of the Flower Moon.

Which leads me to my next point. I think this belief that Lily Gladstone is going to win for the narrative is propelled entirely by Michelle Yeoh winning over Cate Blanchett last year. I'll just say that Michelle Yeoh had a movie that went onto win seven Oscars. They liked it, she was the center of it, and while I have no way of knowing what that vote total was, does anyone think it was a landslide for Yeoh or was it probably pretty close. I think it was probably some version of close. I think Yeoh needed all the advantages she could get. I don't think Gladstone has as many.

I'm not say that Emma Stone is going to win both awards. But even if she wins one, I think she has to be considered the favorite to win.

[Big Magilla]

It's impossible to know for sure what they're going to do this year, but if the Oscar nominee's luncheon earlier today is any indication, it was the dog from Anatomy of a Fall that stole the show giving the film new momentum, indicating to some that that is a good predictor of where they're going with the Original Screenplay award. But what about the film's star?

I think if Sandra Hüller wins the BAFTA, she'll be almost impossible to beat for the Oscar regardless of who wins the SAG for which she is not nominated.

Emma Stone may be the critic's darling, but I do think there is enough "she's already won one" thinking to keep her from winning another so soon. That may benefit early favorite Lily Gladstone, but Oscar may be over its representation phase for now. If those two positions are as pervasive as I think they may be, Hüller is the likely beneficiary, not Bening who, good as some of us think she is in Nyad, is lucky just to be nominated this year.

Carey Mulligan has no chance. Pre-publicity for Maestro so hyped her performance that it was a major disappointment. Even more than Bening, she's lucky to be nominated this year.

If Stone wins both BAFTA and SAG, she will be the presumptive Oscar winner, which would make a win by either Gladstone or Hüller a bit of a surprise but not a shock as it would if Bening or Mulligan were to win.

[Mister Tee]

I think this is a four-way race. Whether I’m right or wrong, it’s rather fun to think in those terms.

I'm not in flat disagreement with this assessment, but I'm going to be a weenie and wait till BAFTA/SAG have weighed in before taking on the race directly.

About this, however...

I also don’t see her winning (ever, if I’m being honest. Again, that cohort from the 80s/early 90s – just bad timing).

It really is remarkable. The 70s, as much as many of us loved them, were notably short on female stars to match the extraordinary panoply of male leads (Hoffman, Nicholson, Hackman, Pacino, DeNiro, Duvall) -- Fonda, Burstyn, Dunaway were about it (Spacek/Keaton/Field/Streep came late in the decade, and felt part of a different time).

The 80s, though, offered a turnaround; breakout women nearly every year. And, basically, none of them ever managed to win with AMPAS (the way the entire male cohort that preceded them had -- though it took hoo-ah Pacino all the way to the 90s to do it). If you had told me, around 1990, that we'd be almost a quarter-century into a new millennium, and none of Debra Winger, Glenn Close, Sigourney Weaver or Michelle Pfeiffer would have won an Oscar, I'd have thought you were lying to me. (Yeah, Bening too -- but, honestly, I'd rate all four of them far more deserving than her in overdue terms.)

Never give entirely up someone winning as long as they're alive/employed -- I remember those 80s supplying Oscars to a whole slew of actors whose day seemed to have passed (Henry Fonda, Shirley MacLaine, Geraldine Page, Paul Newman). The right vehicle and a sentimental push can change a lot.

Slightly tangential: The discouraging thing about last year's outcome was, all four winners triumphed on some level of sentiment -- but not one of them was someone you'd have said, prior to their vehicles, deserved it on cumulative basis. It feels like it's become easier to win for a one-off than for a long-deserving career.