Anonymous Oscar voter: Loved Lily Gladstone, hated ‘Poor Things’ & ‘Zone of Interest’

The Oscars are this coming Sunday, March 10th. They start an hour earlier this year, 7 pm EST instead of 8pm. You guys know that they’ll probably use that extra hour for g–damn padding, like “here’s a 15 minute long tribute to typewriters on screen!” Anyway, the week before the Oscars is actually one of my favorite times of the year, because the Hollywood Reporter does their Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot series, where they sit down with Academy voters as they’re filling out their Oscar ballots, and the voters explain why they’re voting for particular people or movies. The Hollywood Reporter’s series is so popular, other sites have copied the whole thing, so now multiple sites are running Oscar ballot pieces. Anyway, this piece in IndieWire was one of the first ones I’ve seen this week. They spoke to a member of the costume designers’ guild – you can see the full piece here. Some highlights:

Their top pics for Best Picture (remember, voters “rank” their top choices): “American Fiction” spoke to me. I liked the message and the way it was done. It was my first choice. “Past Lives” was powerful. “Anatomy of a Fall” was great. I loved the journey that it took you on. You’re not sure at the end what happened. I loved the ambiguity of it, watching the French court world play out, all the points of view and different languages, the unreliable narrators. “Barbie” I saw the first day it came out with my two nieces. I was sad Greta [Gerwig] wasn’t nominated [for Best Director] and Margot Robbie [for Best Actress]. That’s how it goes with comedies. “Killers of the Flower Moon” was terrific.

Their thoughts on “The Zone of Interest.” Right now things are so sh-tty in the world, there’s so much awful stuff, that my tolerance for anything disturbing is low. A lot of people love this film, I get it. Not for me. I saw it in a theater and didn’t know much about it, except for the outline. I was really disturbed by it, but I felt slightly “what’s the point?” I get it, it’s horrifying, I liked his other films better. The use of clothing was good. It had some great moments, as when [Frau Hoss] tries on the fur coat of Jewish people sent to the gas chambers.

Loved the costumes on “Killers of the Flowers Moon”: It is fantastic: all the research, attention to detail. [Jacqueline West] hired local people to make everything. She did a fantastic job. Missing is “Poor Things,” which everybody thinks is the bee’s knees. I couldn’t sit through it. We went to see it in a theater and left after 40 minutes. Other costume designers thought it was fantastic. I’m not a huge fan, even though I liked “The Favourite.” I can’t vote for the “Poor Things” costumes. It’s my policy. I have to enjoy the film.

Best Actress: Lily Gladstone was amazing. She didn’t speak that much, but had an incredible presence. Sandra Hüller was great in “Anatomy of a Fall.” It’s tough. Emma Stone. I don’t like “Poor Things.” She was terrific. I like her a lot. She’ll probably win. She deserves to win. She has won once. They should spread it around.

Thoughts on the Best Actor race: Paul Giamatti in [“The Holdovers”] gave a great performance with the weird eye; he captured something that was so moving. Bradley Cooper did a great rendering of Lenny. Jeffrey Wright‘s performance [in “American Fiction”] is so great. Cillian Murphy was almost Asperger, in “Oppenheimer,” which he probably was.

Supporting Actress: Da’Vine Joy Randolph. She’s such a great actress. We have to do something about clothes. Nobody over 25 should wear a strapless gown. It’s so unflattering. How dare any stylist let her walk out [at the Golden Globes] looking like that? I’m sorry.

Voted for Ryan Gosling for Supporting Actor: I did love Ryan Gosling. I’ll vote for him. “Barbie” needs some kudos. Sterling K. Brown is great in “American Fiction.” I didn’t like him in “This is Us.” Robert De Niro [“Killers of the Flower Moon”] is always great. But he’s won a million times.

Director: It was between Martin Scorsese and Justine Triet [“Anatomy of a Fall”]. Every time I hear Scorsese talk about the making of his films, how every decision is carefully thought out from an emotional standpoint, where to place the camera. Chris Nolan. I appreciated “Oppenheimer.” Then, it left me; it didn’t stay with me. The more I read outside the film, I felt stuff was missing about him, given how much time they took to tell the story. It didn’t remain with me. It looked great. Emily Blunt and the other women weren’t part of the story. I thought he was a more complicated person.

[From IndieWire]

I’ll admit that I’m kind of meh on Nolan’s march to the Best Director Oscar as well, just I’m ambivalent about Oppenheimer likely winning Best Picture. The good thing about those potential wins is that it’s great that a lot of casual film-goers have seen the film and it’s genuinely a popular “arty” film. I also think people probably believe that Nolan has already won a bunch of Oscars – he hasn’t, this will be his first.

I also agree with this voter on The Zone of Interest – it was an interesting and horrifying film and I get why so many people are talking about it, but what did it actually say? The Nazis had families too and their families were just as terrible as the Nazi party members? That Hedwig Höss should have been tried for war crimes alongside her despicable husband?

The big race to watch is Best Actress, and I’m very interested to see how it plays out in the Oscar ballot pieces we’re getting this week. This voter clearly went for Lily Gladstone, even though the voter believes that Emma will probably win. After seeing Poor Things, I totally believe Emma will win another Oscar too. We’ll see what the real Oscar voters say.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, ‘Poor Things’ poster, KOTFM still courtesy of AppleTV.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

64 Responses to “Anonymous Oscar voter: Loved Lily Gladstone, hated ‘Poor Things’ & ‘Zone of Interest’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ML says:

    Who uses the expression “the bees knees” anymore? I associate that with the 1920s. This anonymous voter is sympathetic towards Barbie and into the use of fashion to tell a story. They also appreciate the dinosaurs of the film industry. An older woman?

  2. SAS says:

    I agree that Emma Stone seems a lock and good for her.

    Hope this is a safe space but like this voter, I also walked out of Poor Things! It was so visceral, I just couldn’t stomach it. After seeing (some of) it, I’m honestly surprised it wasn’t a more polarising film- it seems almost universally loved!

    • Whatever says:

      I’m interested to hear any take on this film. I had the impression it was a real “love it or hate it” kind of thing, so I was surprised that I just… nothinged it? I didn’t hate it, but I thought it was too long and I don’t feel like I ever need to see it again.

      Having said that, I feel like Emma Stone deserves every award that comes her way for it. She was really just absolutely outstanding, and her performance elevated a movie that would have been unwatchable otherwise.

      • Becks1 says:

        I haven’t seen it yet, and I wont get to before Sunday, but it seems like whether people liked the movie or not her performance is getting praise.

        I just think its unfortunate that she won for La La Land which was the one of the biggest nothing burgers I’ve ever seen lol.

      • Hexicon says:

        I appreciated the design and the performances . . . but I felt like it was a gross male fantasy, and I was there with a friend who wanted to stay so I didn’t walk out even though I wanted to on multiple occasions. Let’s put a horny toddler in a woman’s body . . . let’s show a woman who becomes a prostitute because she loves sex so much. I felt like I was watching a child be sexually exploited and everyone else was calling it feminist art.

      • Harper says:

        @Hexicon I agree it was a gross male fantasy, and on top of it, the men in the film were just gross. Fat, hairy and up close. No thanks. Now I kind of side-eye Emma for her buddy buddy thing with Yorgos because I was so turned off not only by the expoitation, but by the absolute out of proportion amount of screentime he DEVOTED to the sex scenes. I thought the Favourite was bad too so I don’t know why I thought this Yorgos film would be better.

        I haven’t seen KOTFM yet but now I need to see Lily Gladstone’s performance before Sunday because I don’t want to miss out on enjoying her win if it’s coming.

      • lucy2 says:

        I love the design of the film, but yeah the story was really odd and disturbing. Emma was really good in it.

      • February pisces says:

        With Poor things, the performances were great, and the quality of production was excellent.

        However the premise of the film is disturbing. I think the worst thing about it is that the film is being celebrated as a woman’s journey of exploration and sexual expression by taking charge of her own destiny. Whilst that is true in one sense, it’s also about a woman with the brain of a baby being sexually exploited repeatedly. That latter has been largely ignored, downplayed and excused.

        The film is dominated by sex and yet (spoiler alert) never reaches a conclusion about sex. In the end Bella (Emma stone) feels nothing but ‘meh’ about her sexual journey that the entire film is based upon.

      • Stephanie says:

        I weirdly had a lot of fun at Poor Things or at least I was quite entertained but the promotion around it being “feminist” baffles me as I’ve been saying it’s no such thing.

    • NotSoSocialB says:

      It was so bizarre and plodding that we broke it into two nights, and I’m the one who wanted to watch it. Often funny, but two and a half hours I’ll not get back.

      I kept saying, ” Whose idea was this???”

    • taris says:

      poor things was genuinely awful!

      it honestly depresses me that as a society we’ve reached a point where female exploitation is heralded as ‘art’.
      i swear more and more men nowadays have hitched onto the women’s ‘sexual’ empowerment bandwagon and feel so free to degrade women, knowing they’ll get away with it so long as they sprinkle some stuff about ‘choice’ etc.
      so many men are appropriating women’s bodies and sexual choices, in fiction and in IRL, unfortunately.

      it’s not just this movie, even .. some things out there that are considered ’empowering’ for women are seriously questionable. why won’t more people – especially the feminists – just call it out?
      sigh..

      • livealot says:

        Haven’t seen the film but agree with your general take and thus not in a hurry to watch it though I do appreciate Emma’s talent.

    • SAS (and Hexicon below), I agree – the film was disgusting… the subject matter is sickening. It is about the exploitation of a child.

    • FHMom says:

      Interesting. I love Emma but won’t see Poor Things. It sounds perverse to me. I have no desire to watch her in it.

      • Matilda says:

        It was perverse and my friend and I wanted to walk out (we should have). It made the Hollywood pedophile trope come to life in an odd way. I hated it and I am dumbfounded Emma Stone is walking away with all these awards. It’s like Hollywood is saying, award the commercial actress for taking on such an odd role.

    • pyritedigger says:

      I “liked” Poor Things in the sense that I found it weird and intriguing. It’s an art house movie that got popular and I think that bodes well for movies because it means more interesting, arty movies will get made and put out. It’s a hard movie to “like” in the traditional sense and I don’t think “likability” was what the filmmaker was going for.

      I think people who think the story is some horrible male fantasy (rather than seeing the empowerment of Emma’s character as she breaks from society’s norms and conditionings) have regressive ideas about sex and sex work. The most transgressive element of the film is the fact that the men are trying to control and use her and she refuses, finding her own path in a grossly misogynist world. This goes for the men she is in a relationship with as well as the men who are trying to intellectually mold her.

      • Harper says:

        If Yorgos had Emma’s character explore the albeit limited options available to her to make money–housekeeper, chambermaid, cook, sewing–and then decide she like the sex job the best, then great. He could have done a charming montage of her flailing around in her naive state trying to fulfille expectations in those roles and failing. But, nope, he went straight to sex worker without the exploration of other options.

      • ABCD says:

        And an important point is also that it wouldnt be celebrated as empowering and a feminist choice had she chosen to work as a housekeeper or cook

      • taris says:

        excuse me, but breaking away from norms and tradition isn’t necessarily always a positive or wise thing.
        i’m so tired of the whole ‘feminism is women doing whatever the f-ck they want!’ mentality. hardly anyone nowadays even wants to attempt to intellectually dissect the complexities between smart and foolish choices out of fear they’ll get yelled at to ‘stop telling women what to do’.
        the whole issue of choice is so abused and misunderstood at this point. can we just agree that some ‘choices’ are objectively worse than others?
        let’s think, please.

        rebellion for rebellion’s sake is just childishness, and questioning some ‘choices’ made by women is not misogynistic.

        *end rant* 🙂

  3. Amy Bee says:

    The only thing this person can say about the sole black female nominee is she doesn’t like who she dresses. Yeah…

    • Whatever says:

      Right? That was such an unnecessarily nasty comment. As a costume designer, I wonder if she gave any thought to how limited formal dress options are for curvier women, and how many designers don’t seem to want take the trouble to fashion sleeves for heavier arms.

      • Normades says:

        What a wretched comment. Da’Vine has worn several strapless dresses on the red carpet and kills it every time. She doesn’t have to wear tent dresses. Older and/or bigger women can absolutely show their shoulders/arms and look good doing it.

      • whatever says:

        Of course they can. But some women prefer to cover their shoulders/arms, regardless of their size, for a variety of reasons, and slim women have tons of options to choose from. Heavier women don’t, and they should. That’s really the only point I was trying to make.

      • Normades says:

        I wasn’t referring to your comment pretty sure we’re on the same page here

    • Pomski says:

      Danielle Brooks is also nominated for The Color Purple.

    • Jules57 says:

      She doesn’t really mean over 25, she really meant over size 2. She hasn’t commented on every other actress wearing strapless (like Emma).

      What a disgusting comment. I bet she’ll be easy to pick among costume people.

  4. sevenblue says:

    “Nobody over 25 should wear a strapless gown.”

    What does she think happens to women when they hit 25? That is very weird statement to make in 2024. Personally, I hate strapless anything, I want to feel safe in my clothes, but the clothes are not about age most of the time, it is how you carry it. Please love of the god let’s leave that kind of ageist statements in the past.

    • Michelle says:

      Gravity. Thats what happens to women over 25. And while it was a mean thing to say, it was also the most horrible dress that made that lovely woman look horrible in her finest moment.

      • sevenblue says:

        Umm, I have passed my 20’s some time ago, but gravity didn’t hit my body. Our bodies are not the same, wth? It is about dressing according to your body/body type, not your age.

      • Normades says:

        What are you talking about she looked great???

      • Korra says:

        This is the type of thing that men of certain vile ideologies think to justify diminishing women as they age. And sure we can say screw them, but it clearly influences how others think — this Oscar voter being a victim of that type of mindset. No, gravity doesn’t just suddenly hit at 25 and I can’t imagine believing a beautiful woman between 26-40s would be disqualified from wearing a strapless dress.

    • Jules57 says:

      I just wrote above, she means anyone over size 2. She doesn’t care about age, she cares about size.

  5. WindyClouds says:

    Interesting that this site thinks Emma is a lock. Actress is one of the tightest and closest races of the night and many believe the momentum has shifted to Lily with her SAG win during Oscar voting (precursor with most amount of overlap with the Academy, also represents the largest branch – actors). Hardcore supporters of either wouldn’t be able to say it’s a lock because it’s exactly 50/50. I am rooting for Lily – she communicated things with her eyes and expressions that no writer could describe in a thousand words. But it’s definitely a nail-biting photo finish.

    • SAS says:

      I will be truly over the moon if Lily wins!!! I didn’t watch the film but she has shown such presence and charisma in her campaign and has been incredibly thoughtful and heartfelt in participating in the really sensitive discourse around the film.

    • Normades says:

      Yea if Emma had won sag I’d say it was 100% hers but she didn’t. Lilly can win this thing by a nose.

    • Jill says:

      I’m pulling for Lily. While I didn’t love Killers of the Flower Moon, she had such presence. I can’t bring myself to watch Poor Things. It feels like it was made to shock and exploit in the name of ‘art’ and to be honest, I’m side-eyeing Emma a little bit for taking the role. She had to know it was gross but she probably also knew that it was awards-baity. Another reason I’m really pulling for Lily is that let’s be honest, she is not going to be given the same opportunities going forward that Emma will. Emma will continue to have first look at everything and many more chances at awards and Lily is going to have to fight for everything she gets and even then will probably not get a wide variety of roles to choose from. We all know why because we have seen this industry to it to women of color again and again and again.

  6. taris says:

    um, airing out voters’ thinking processes like this is not a great idea, i think. i prefer this stuff stay mysterious as possible, you know.

    people don’t need to be reminded that academy voters are just as biased as anyone, i worry what that might do to the legitimacy of award shows at a time when fewer people than ever even watch anymore.

    anyways … oppenheimer will def win big. it’s nolan’s time, and cillian is such a cool guy it’s impossible not to root for him.

    sadly, i don’t see barbie getting anything major creds. looking forward to ryan’s performance, tho 🙂

    poor things was such a problematic film, nobody other than the brave souls on social media seem to want to say it. i thought it was exploitative and had a tricky subject matter that was handled immaturely. people complained about barbie being feminism-lite, well i say this movie was a way bigger affront to feminism and to women. at least barbie was actually fun!
    emma was good in it, tho, so she might win – this one will actually be well-deserved, unlike the la la land oscar.

    rooting for da’vine, she was so good in the holdovers.

    RDJ will probably walk away with an oscar at last, argh…

    • OriginalLeigh says:

      I respectfully disagree. The voting bodies of these awards shows are extremely biased and people do need to be reminded of their biases. Otherwise, artists are made to feel that they are unworthy because they don’t meet the racist and sexist standards of the voting bodies. I’m all for the delegitimization of all of these awards shows. If they want better ratings then they should be more inclusive.

      • MissMarirose says:

        I agree with you. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Show how dumb and superficial the voters are and folks won’t take this so seriously.

  7. Mireille says:

    My favorites are The Holdovers and American Fiction. I’m rooting for wins for both films and their cast. Sorry as this may be an unpopular opinion, but I did not care so much for Barbie, Oppenheimer, and (especially) Killers of the Flower Moon. I hated the movie version of KOTFM (loved the book). I didn’t care for the direction Scorsese took with this film as if his main priority was to score Oscar wins for he/himself and his bruhs De Niro and DiCaprio. I also loved Godzilla Minus One. That was a great story and it managed to snag one Oscar nomination for visual effects. Wish it had gotten more.

  8. Kirsten says:

    Eh… The Zone of Interest was supposed to be disturbing. I feel like this person didn’t really pay attention if their main takeaway was that the clothing was good. People can like different things, obviously, but that’s just so far off the mark that I’d have a difficult time putting stock in anything else they say.

    • Twin Falls says:

      +1

    • Lightpurple says:

      I read her comments as thinking the use of the clothing, the way the wife casually tosses a bag of baby clothes to the staff, telling them they can each have only one while she runs and hides to try on the stolen fur coat, playing with the lipstick and hidden jewelry she finds in the pocket and lining, making it clear she has no regard for the lives of the babies and the woman her husband just murdered. She only cares about how she can use their clothes. It was a chilling point.

  9. Keke Swan says:

    65. Black. And have used the expression “bee’s knees” in ‘24. IJS.

  10. LittlePenguin says:

    I have nothing substantial to add but @Kaiser thank you so much for the line ‘tribute to typewriters on screen’. It’s had me giggling since I read it before school drop off. I needed that today.

  11. Biffy says:

    This voter has no clue about The Zone of Interest. The whole point is to show how “normal” people can literally live next door to moral horror and not be remotely disturbed about it. The Nazi family’s beautiful garden is fertilized with the ashes of dead Jews and they breathe in the smoke from the crematorium. Meanwhile, they’re convinced they’re living the good life. The movie left me wondering to what extent I ignore moral horrors all around me in the year 2024, and I would think it does the same for any moviegoer with a brain.

    • Twin Falls says:

      +1

    • manda says:

      It was shown again by the cleaning scene, where the people are just sweeping the floors and windexing the glass without even flinching at where they were or what was behind the glass. Nothing changed. Very disturbing for me

  12. Matilda says:

    Zone of Interest is a very important film with a very specific message of how we as a society can stand by and pretend atrocities can happen right under our noses and we do mental gymnastics to not call them out and learn to live with them like the genocide that is happening right now in Gaza. The director had no idea how timely his movie would be but that is the message. It’s always happening and we go on turning a blind eye thanks to our governments and a biased media.

  13. C Dubs says:

    Oh wow. I am completely confused at the “but what did it actually say” comment about Zone of Interest. It’s an extreme example of the ways that we justify/ignore/cope/accept living in a world of systematic oppression of groups. The point is we can see aspects of ourselves and our experiences in the Hoss family and reflect on that. And also. Like… “there’s so much awful stuff, that my tolerance for anything disturbing is low”. What? Yea things are bad now, movies can be good escape tools but also we need to LOOK at how and why things are bad and how we are complicit, SO WE CAN MAKE CHANGES. But also it was really interesting, like their choice of the night-vision camera. It was a really interesting film!!!

    Or i dunno maybe I’m wrong! It’s reallly interesting to read other peoples’ interpretations!!

    • pyritedigger says:

      I haven’t seen this movie– but in general I think media literacy is low. Drawing out implications and themes that aren’t telegraphed by a sledgehammer is not something many people are good at.

      I will say that after experiencing some really horror in my life, my capacity for seeing movies that bring up these feelings is low.

    • Veronica S. says:

      My friends and I saw it and thought it was frankly pretty relevant to current political trends. That was a film that stuck with me for days after. I don’t think I ever realized those concentration camps were right in the middle of towns. I’d always assumed they were tucked away somewhere. When you realize thousands of people were living right next to what was literally an industrialized human murder factory, it puts the extent of the modern horror into perspective.

  14. Berlinesa says:

    Regarding the zone of interest, why do such films get made? In Germany, the new Nazis of the AfD party gain further ground with every election, they are guests in the most widely-watched late night talk shows, evil is right there under our noses and in our faces. I don’t want to watch any more movies as if we don’t know enough about how evil happens – as a German I see it unfolding once again in our country! I follow the Auschwitz memorial on Twitter; I’d like to know many more of the stories of the nazis’ victims – so many stories that are still untold. There are films to be made, instead of the umpteenth version of films focused in the perpetrators.

  15. Ginger says:

    She’s so real for leaving 40 minutes into Poor Things.

  16. Veronica S. says:

    Gotta say I question the media literacy of anybody who watched Zone of Interest and came out of it thinking “what’s the point?” It’s an extremely prescient film given what’s going on in the world right now politically — not to mention the director worked on it for more than a decade. It’s not like he just dropped it out of nowhere.

    Humans find ways to live around horror, and that’s how we normalize it. That’s it. That’s the point. It’s a warning we should all heed to how easily evil can make a place on our lives.

  17. R says:

    to amplify other commentators on ‘zone of interest’; its meant to show how we all normalise and minimalise horrible, violent events, how we all can easily be complicit and contribute to a culture/society in which horrors like genocide can happen and to paraphrase Hannah Arendt; how often banal evil is.

  18. julie jules says:

    No clue who the mystery man/woman is but I dig them.

    I love love love Emma and wanted so to love Poor Things but meh

    Zone … sigh yk if Im going to sit thru the 1753rd unsettling Holocaust drama show me something unique. If that’s even possible cause I think we’ve covered every angle several times over.

    I didn’t bother with Barbie. Would be funny if the only Barbie winner was a man.

    For real, just give Lily all the Oscars and call it a day