Emma Stone win Oscars : In the world of cinema, the Oscars serve as the ultimate recognition of talent and achievement. Each year, the anticipation builds as pundits and audiences alike speculate on who will take home the coveted awards. In the 202X Oscars ceremony, one of the most surprising outcomes was Emma Stone’s win for Best Actress over Lily Gladstone. Let’s delve into the factors that contributed to this unexpected turn of events.
1. Emma Stone and Lily Gladstone: Both actresses had delivered stellar performances that garnered critical acclaim. Emma Stone, known for her versatility and charm, had previously won an Oscar for her role in “La La Land.” On the other hand, Lily Gladstone, a rising star hailed for her authenticity and depth, had garnered attention for her performance in “Killers of the Flower Moon.”
2. Pundits and Predictions: Leading up to the Oscars, pundits and industry insiders speculated on the potential winners in each category. While some predicted a close race between Stone and Gladstone, others favored Gladstone for her raw and compelling portrayal. However, the outcome proved to be a surprise to many, as Stone emerged victorious.
3. BAFTA and SAG Awards: The awards season leading up to the Oscars saw both Stone and Gladstone receiving recognition for their performances. Stone clinched the BAFTA award, while Gladstone triumphed at the SAG Awards. These wins added to the unpredictability of the Best Actress category at the Oscars.
4. Category Confusion: One factor that may have influenced the outcome is the category confusion surrounding Gladstone’s nomination. Originally pegged as a Supporting Actress front-runner, Gladstone made the decision to run in the Lead category. While this move may have been strategic for the film’s campaign, it could have led to some confusion among voters.
Read more : Why Emma Stone Beat Lily Gladstone for Best Actress
5. International Voters: The inclusion of international voters in the Academy may have played a role in Stone’s win. With a diverse pool of voters, preferences and tastes vary, and this could have swayed the outcome in favor of Stone. Additionally, international voters may have had a different perspective on “Killers of the Flower Moon” compared to their U.S. counterparts.
6. Narrative and Context: The narrative surrounding the nominees can also influence the outcome of the awards. In Gladstone’s case, her potential win would have marked a historic moment as the first Native American performer to win an acting Oscar. However, Stone’s previous win and her portrayal in “Poor Things” as a career-best achievement may have resonated more with voters.
In conclusion, the Oscars are often filled with surprises and unexpected twists. Emma Stone’s win over Lily Gladstone for Best Actress was a testament to the unpredictable nature of the awards. While both actresses delivered remarkable performances, factors such as category confusion, international voting, and narrative played a role in determining the outcome. Ultimately, Stone’s victory showcased the complexity and subjectivity of the Oscars’ decision-making process.
Why Emma Stone Beat Lily Gladstone for Best Actress
In the annals of Oscar history, Emma Stone beating Lily Gladstone for Best Actress will not go down as a Moonlight-level surprise. Both women were running neck and neck throughout the season, with Stone winning BAFTA and Gladstone taking SAG. Still, though, given that the vast majority of pundits had predicted Gladstone to pull out the win, Stone winning her second Oscar was the most unexpected development on a night that mostly went chalk. (As had been apparent since July, Oppenheimer was the night’s big winner.) So, while the engraving is still hot on Stone’s Best Actress trophy — I’m literally watching them do it as I type — let’s dig in. What made voters say, “Too bad, Gladstone, we’ve gotta have Stone”? I can think of three possible reasons, none of which are mutually exclusive.
read more : The Musical Collaboration of Devendra Fadnavis, Amrita Fadnavis, and Shankar Mahadevan
Category Confusion
Like The Fabelmans’ Michelle Williams last season, Gladstone was originally pegged as a Supporting Actress front-runner before revealing that she would run in Lead. That decision is certain to be relitigated by Oscar obsessives in the years to come, but it’s worth noting that the move made sense in the context of Killers of the Flower Moon’s Oscar campaign, which emphasized how the film’s script had been revamped in preproduction to better center the Osage point of view. In that light, running Gladstone in Supporting would undercut the campaign’s core message — the whole point was that she was on equal footing with co-star Leonardo DiCaprio. Though the move didn’t pay off at the Oscars, it may still have been the right call for Gladstone’s career. As Kyle Buchanan noted, “By going lead, Lily told Hollywood to treat her like a lead. And she just booked another lead, which many supporting winners struggle to do.”
However, it takes nothing away from Gladstone’s performance to note that her character is nevertheless out of commission for long stretches of the film. On the whole the film does privilege DiCaprio’s character’s point of view, in a way that rankled some critics. Stone did not suffer from a similar issue. She was at the center of everything, in a film that was all about her character’s journey of self discovery.
The International Contingent
The addition of hundreds of international voters may well end up being the greatest legacy of the Academy’s post-#OscarsSoWhite reinvention. You could see their impact all over this year’s results. A French film won Original Screenplay; two Japanese films won Animated Feature and Visual Effects; and a British film made in Poland and told in German won Sound. But I think these international voters also may have swung it toward Stone. Most of the upsets we saw on Sunday were mirrored at BAFTA, whose membership is similarly global. And BAFTA snubbed Killers in multiple key categories, including Gladstone in Actress. At the time, it was tempting to chalk this up to the Brits’ strange nomination process, but with hindsight it seems apparent that international voters, who perhaps had more emotional distance from the genocide of Native Americans, simply didn’t respond to Killers the way their U.S. counterparts did.
The Narrative
I always say that the Oscars are not sports. There’s no way to look at the stats and say who “should” have won. That’s why things like narrative matter: If the notion of a best performance is forever subjective, then it makes sense to look to extratextual factors to see who’s got the edge. In this case, those clearly tipped it to Gladstone. Had she taken the trophy, the Blackfeet actress would have been the first Native American performer to win an acting Oscar, a moment you can imagine some voters feeling was too good to pass up. Furthemore, Stone had the disadvantage of having won before, and fairly recently. (She last won for La La Land in 2017.) But as Daniel Joyaux, the rare pundit to correctly predict Stone, noted, the modern Academy is more resistant to so-called narrative wins than their predecessors. As when Glenn Close lost to Olivia Colman in 2019, and when the late Chadwick Boseman lost to Anthony Hopkins two years later, Gladstone losing to Stone was “a presumed narrative winner falling to someone who voters thought just gave an all-time great performance.” (Note too that, in two of those cases, the ceremony’s producers reshuffled the order of the categories in the hopes of climaxing on an historic acting win.) Since Venice, Stone’s performance in Poor Things was heralded as a career-best achievement. In the end, that turned out to matter more than anything else.
In addition to the aforementioned factors, the dynamics of Hollywood’s ever-evolving landscape also contributed to Emma Stone’s win over Lily Gladstone for Best Actress at the Oscars. Hollywood has been undergoing a significant shift in recent years, with movements like #OscarsSoWhite highlighting the need for greater diversity and representation in the industry. This push for inclusivity has prompted the Academy to diversify its membership and voting pool, leading to a more eclectic range of tastes and perspectives among voters.
Moreover, the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic added an extra layer of complexity to the awards season. The pandemic disrupted traditional film releases and promotional campaigns, forcing studios to adapt their strategies. Virtual screenings, remote interviews, and limited theatrical releases became the new norm, impacting the visibility and reception of certain films and performances.
Against this backdrop, Emma Stone’s win could be seen as a culmination of various factors, including her established reputation in Hollywood, the resonance of her performance in “Poor Things,” and the shifting dynamics within the industry. While Lily Gladstone’s performance was undoubtedly commendable and deserving of recognition, the unpredictability of the Oscars ultimately favored Stone on the night of the ceremony.
Overall, the outcome of the Best Actress category exemplifies the multifaceted nature of the Oscars and the intricate interplay of factors that influence the final results. As the industry continues to evolve, future awards seasons are sure to bring more surprises and moments of celebration for both established stars like Emma Stone and emerging talents like Lily Gladstone.
