It’s interesting (telling) that no one reporting about last night’s Critics Choice awards has mentioned any surprised, raised-eyebrow reactions about Emma Stone’s Best Actress win. Stone herself clearly didn’t expect it. Kyle Buchanan’s table “yelped in surprise”, he said.
And this morning, it seems, showbiz media reporters and columnists are all passing along the news in emotion-less, no-big-deal, police-blotter fashion.
Why is this? Because, I suspect, they’re probably terrified of acknowledging the Stone triumph as indicative of any kind of shift in the winds, as they don’t want to convey the slightest whiff of approval or excitement as that would go against “the narrative”, and hence might be read as an unfriendly-to-Lily sentiment.
The identity-counts-more-than-quality-or-depth-of- performance sentiment has been the foundational basis of the Gladstone campaign all along.
Stone’s Golden Globes win, last night’s score and her likely forthcoming win at the BAFTA awards will be three-in-a-row. If SAG gives it to Lily regardless then all bets are off — agreed.
Jordan Ruimy: “I think Stone wins the Oscar. If voters actually watch both films [Poor Things and KOTFM] Stone wins due to Lily clearly being a supporting turn.”
Friendo #1: “Academy voters might feel one person of color is enough with Da’Vine Joy Randolph and will not therefore feel obligated to pick Lily. That’s the best argument I can make for a Stone win.”
Friendo #2: “I’m not a fan of Gladstone’s performance, and even the misplacing of her in the lead actress category is a kind of performative identity bullshit. But sorry, I think she’s a lock to win the Oscar. (Might not be true if Stone hadn’t already won.)”