5 reasons why Emma Stone won Best Actress over Lily Gladstone at the 2024 Oscars

Jack Mahanes
·5 min read
104
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Heading into the 2024 Oscars, most of the above-the-line categories seemed locked in with “Oppenheimer” poised to take Best Picture, Best Actor (Cillian Murphy), Best Supporting Actor (Robert Downey Jr.) and Best Director (Christopher Nolan). “The Holdovers” was guaranteed a win for Best Supporting Actress (Da’Vine Joy Randolph) and even the screenplay categories had clear front-runners in “Anatomy of a Fall” and “American Fiction.”

Best Actress was the only major race that held us in suspense to the end. After Emma Stone (“Poor Things”) won the Golden Globe (Comedy/Musical), Critics Choice and BAFTA, and Lily Gladstone (“Killers of the Flower Moon”) took home the Golden Globe (Drama) and SAG Award, the two seemed deadlocked for Oscar glory. However, most of the experts and Gold Derby users predicted Gladstone would prevail, citing her narrative of becoming the first Native American to win Best Actress would help propel her across the finish line.

More from GoldDerby

In the end, last year’s winner Michelle Yeoh (“Everything Everywhere All At Once”) opened the envelope and announced Stone as the winner. Below are five reasons why Emma Stone prevailed in Best Actress over Lily Gladstone at the 96th Academy Awards.

SEE Emma Stone (‘Poor Things’) gives Searchlight Pictures 5th Best Actress Oscar win in 7 years

1. Stone had arguably the most challenging role among the nominees.

In “Poor Things” Stone plays Bella Baxter, a young woman brought back to life by the brilliant and unorthodox Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe). The film starts off with Bella having an infant-like mentality, and over the course of the film she gradually develops into a capable woman certain of who she really is. Academy members were clearly impressed by how she convincingly pulled off that high degree of difficulty without making Bella into a caricature, and decided she was deserving of the top prize.

2. She really was THE lead of “Poor Things.”

Stone was in almost every scene of “Poor Things” and carried the film on her shoulders. On the other hand, Gladstone, while considered the heart of “Killers of the Flower Moon,” was in less than an hour of the near 3-and-a-half-hour film. It’s a borderline supporting role and a subdued performance, both of which make it difficult to win a lead acting Oscar — particularly for an up and comer like Gladstone. Category confusion likely hurt Gladstone in the final vote tally, allowing Stone to pass by her for the win.

3. SAG was the only major precursor Stone didn’t win.

While Stone won a good amount of critics awards, in terms of the major televised precursors, she won everywhere except for SAG. The Golden Globe (Comedy/Musical) win was a slam dunk according to the Gold Derby odds, and then she capitalized on momentum with winning at the Critics Choice a week later. Stone won a hotly contested race at BAFTA over close competitor Sandra Hüller (“Anatomy of a Fall”). SAG was the only place she lost, but according to Gold Derby expert Tariq Khan, a lot of SAG voters may not have seen “Poor Things” before the ceremony and they loved a history making narrative, which helped Gladstone. Still, Stone won the most televised precursors and was nominated at all of them. Which leads to my next point.

SEE Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone ‘Poor Things’ follow-up, ‘Kinds of Kindness,’ gets summer release date

4. The BAFTA snub for Gladstone was really bad.

While Gladstone did win major televised precursors leading up to the Oscars such as the Golden Globe (Drama) and SAG Award, she missed out on the BAFTA nomination entirely. That has a huge voter overlap with the academy. For the acting categories, the BAFTA membership chooses the first three nominees and a selected jury chooses the rest. The fact that Gladstone missed the nomination altogether, especially not even being in the top three with the BAFTA membership while “Killers of the Flower Moon” still got a Best Picture nomination, was a major sign that she didn’t have the support needed to go all the way. Especially since the international voting bloc has increased over the past few years. On the other hand, Stone winning with the BAFTAs was evidence she had the necessary international support to win the Oscar.

5. “Poor Things” was more popular with the academy than “Killers of the Flower Moon.”

On Oscar nominations morning, “Killers of the Flower Moon” got 10 bids but missed out on two big categories: Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor (Leonardo DiCaprio). “Poor Things” got 11 nominations, yet its only real misses were for Best Visual Effects and a second Supporting Actor bid for Dafoe (Mark Ruffalo was nominated here). Given the whole body votes for winners, while both films may have seemed potentially divisive, it’s apparent “Poor Things” had more passionate supporters in the industry. “Killers of the Flower Moon” wasn’t competitive to win any category aside from Best Actress, while “Poor Things” went on to win three tech categories: Costume Design, Production Design and Makeup & Hairstyling. So when it came to Best Actress, the academy likely felt more inclined to give “Poor Things” a major win over “Killers of the Flower Moon.” This all resulted in Emma Stone walking away with her second Best Actress Oscar at just 35 years old. 

PREDICT the 2024 Emmy nominees through July 17

Make your predictions at Gold Derby now. Download our free and easy app for Apple/iPhone devices or Android (Google Play) to compete against legions of other fans plus our experts and editors for best prediction accuracy scores. See our latest prediction champs. Can you top our esteemed leaderboards next? Always remember to keep your predictions updated because they impact our latest racetrack odds, which terrify Hollywood chiefs and stars. Don’t miss the fun. Speak up and share your huffy opinions in our famous forums where 5,000 showbiz leaders lurk every day to track latest awards buzz. Everybody wants to know: What do you think? Who do you predict and why?

SIGN UP for Gold Derby’s free newsletter with latest predictions

Best of GoldDerby

Sign up for Gold Derby's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Click here to read the full article.