I’ve been saying that Lily Gladstone is the lead in Killers of the Flower Moon for a while now. But for whatever reason, pundits kept placing her in the supporting category. This, to me, always seemed strange, even if I did play along. Too many pundits really do believe that we decide the race. That we decide the frontrunners. That we decide the category placements and then we deliver our verdicts about the race into the laps of Academy voters. Sometimes it works that way, sometimes it doesn’t. But in situations like this, we all tend to re-arrange the pieces on the board to suit our ideas of how the race should go.
For instance, planning on this person “going supporting” so that they are more likely to win, or that person “going lead,” or voting for this person over that person so this person isn’t shut out, etc. We know the problems and can see them coming. For instance, last year when I saw the push for Andrea Riseborough I knew that it meant that Viola Davis would likely be cut. I didn’t foresee both Davis and Daniele Deadwyler both getting cut but that’s how it turned out.
When Jennifer Lopez was up for supporting in Hustlers, the Little Women team was pushing for recognition and Florence Pugh ended up taking the slot instead, chaos ensued. You just never know how things are going to go ultimately, but when the industry assumes people are safe and pushes for last-minute entry of someone at risk of being overlooked, sometimes it can rock the boat in unintended ways.
In the past, these kinds of fights existed mostly without the added component of identity. Now, because everything is about identity all of the time, we tend to see more power struggles — and I have contributed to this a lot over the years — regarding who is white and who is not. When identity is a factor, there is always going to be extra stuff to deal with in a contest between actors or actresses.
Last year’s rivalry between Michelle Yeoh and Cate Blanchett, for instance, tipped in Yeoh’s favor ultimately, both because they liked the movie but also because it meant choosing between an Asian actress winning her first Oscar in her entire career, and Blanchett, a white actress, winning her third. Blanchett honestly didn’t even seem to want it by the end. Giving Yeoh the win made the Academy feel like they were doing something good for humanity and their industry image by righting the wrongs of the past.
We’re in that same boat today heading into this year’s race. We now have Emma Stone — a white actress who has already won a lead Oscar going up against, potentially, at least two women of color, one of them being Lily Gladstone for Killers of the Flower Moon. We haven’t yet seen The Color Purple, but it is assumed, based on her previous Tony win, that Fantasia Barrino might be the other contender.
But let’s stick with Gladstone for just a minute before we analyze the entire race. Adding to the complexity of this issue was the story of Sacheen Littlefeather’s appearance at the Oscars in 1973, and the long history of the controversy and revelations that followed.
So often lately, at gatherings of the richest and the whitest in this country and elsewhere, there is are questions raised about Indigenous land acknowledgement. I personally cringe when I hear this because I think, if you care, then give the land back. Otherwise, what is the point? Well, here is a TED talk explaining what it’s all about:
If you watch any award show now — it’s mercifully less at the Oscars than anywhere else — like the Gothams or the Spirit Awards you will hear what the uninitiated might call “woke gobbledegook.” And that is the shiny new religion that overtaken nearly all of American culture and the Democratic Party. Land acknowledgements must now be part of it because the whole purpose is to respect marginalized groups, atone for the sins of our past, etc.
Here is what the most recent land acknowledgements at TIFF looked like:
I bring it up because one has to understand what the industry has now become. While they do allow for more libertine decadence regarding sexuality and behavior, in general, it is to the exclusion of white, heterosexual males. Everything else goes. Except that. But in all other ways, meet the new Puritans. A group of people who genuinely believe they are building a shining new city on the hill with their goodness. This shift happened right around the time Obama won. He was so good and his goodness shamed those at the top, mainly, but also those of what the Right would call “elites.” Goodness became the driving force in the industry and in the Oscars especially after Trump won. He was the “bad” and we were the “good.” Our awards, our movies, our journalism, our art, our science, our politics is all encased in a cocoon of goodness.
What seems to be happening lately is a need for atonement of our past sins, or rather, absolution. Perhaps it could also be called modern-day Indulgences, wherein the richest and high-status figures in the Catholic Church were allowed to use their wealth to buy absolution from their sins prior to death. I think that’s how it went.
When you listen to people talk now at award shows or any gatherings of the people at the top and on the Left this is how they will speak. It is a language onto itself. I happen to be fluent in it, and am bi-lingual. I can speak and understand the languages of both Americas now.
All of this is to say that Lily Gladstone’s nomination is not going to be just about the performance, not even a little bit. Her performance is the anchor and the moral center of the Scorsese film, without a doubt, and her character represents the final judgement of all of the truly terrible things that happened as America expanded its territorial reach, obliterating all that came before. We could talk about human migration in general and our tribal tendencies overall (we build tribes, we fight wars for territory) but the focus here and now is on the Oscar race for Best Actress.
The thing about Lily Gladstone is that she’s the real deal. Cher, who won an Oscar, turns out to not be Native American, despite earlier claims that she was 1/16th Cherokee. And then there’s the Sacheen Littlefeather saga and the Academy’s recent apology — and then it turned out she wasn’t Native American either. It was an embarrassing thing for the Academy to deal with, even if they apologized with the best of intentions.
But Gladstone? She’s actually and genuinely from the Res.
And if you don’t get what a big deal that will be for this industry at this moment in time for this movie, I don’t know what to tell you. Campaigning her in supporting is an insult to her role, to her performance and, frankly, to our shared history. Again, if you can’t get that, I don’t know what to tell you.
Gladstone’s tears during this standing ovation at Cannes was the kind of powerful moment these voters at this moment in time seek in their award ceremonies:
This is more than just a movie. It’s a reckoning. And if you don’t get that, I don’t know what to tell you.
Okay, now that we’ve given appropriate attention to exactly where we are at this exact moment in time and why it’s such a big deal that she be campaigned in lead, let’s talk about the race itself.
There is no question Emma Stone’s performance in Poor Things has captivated the film community. A saucy wench in all manner of undress, delivering hilarious lines perfectly, seems like a slam dunk. But there is also Fantasia Barrino whose role as Celie in The Color Purple on Broadway earned Tony Awards for LaChanze in 2006 and for Cynthia Erivo in 2016. That is an Oscar story to die for. The Color Purple has its own notorious history with the Oscars. 11 nominations for Spielberg’s version and no wins. There were also complaints from the gay community and the Black community that they whitewashed and straightwashed the novel. I haven’t seen the musical or the movie but my guess is that they do not do that in this most recent adaptation. That’s going to be a realignment, if all goes as expected, that will be hard for these voters to resist.
Carey Mulligan is said to give a powerhouse performance (yet another) in Maestro as the beleaguered wife of Leonard Bernstein. Jodie Comer is fantastic in The Bikeriders and she also might have a chance. And then there’s Sandra Hüller, whose work in both Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest are standouts early on.
https://youtu.be/VCG2xAx6Prc?si=4v048N-rqZutQham
And, of course, if anyone wants to glam up the joint and have fun on Oscar night, they’ll also invite Margot Robbie to the show in the Lead Actress category. Of course, she’ll be there anyway as a producer on Barbie but as a Best Actress contender, it would be just the thing to make fans want to actually tune in. If I were the producers and the director, I would bedeck the Oscar stage in pink for the opening number.
I mean….
And, as if all of that wasn’t enough, Annette Bening is still one of the most celebrated actresses who has yet to win an Oscar. She put her all into playing Diana Nyad and, with the help of Jodie Foster, brings a moving story of accomplishment and friendship to the big screen.
When you put it all together and you look at the big picture, you see — or at least I do from this very early vantage point — a three-way race between Emma Stone, Lily Gladstone and Fantasia Barrino. It will then have to fall on strength of the film itself — which of these three movies has enough heft heading into the Oscar voting season to maybe drive the performance to a win? Could it be that Lily Gladstone and Fantasia Barrino split the vote among those socially conscious voters try to do “good” with their vote? Hard to say.
Who knows how things will go, but as I see it right this moment:
Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon
Emma Stone, Poor Things
Fantasia Barrino, The Color Purple (sight unseen)
Annette Bening, Nyad
Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall OR Margot Robbie, Barbie
