Why Lily Gladstone’s Oscar loss shames Hollywood
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Academy Awards might be a great American tradition, but in 96 years they still haven’t got around to honouring one of the locals. Had Lily Gladstone won Best Actress for her performance in Killers of the Flower Moon at last night’s ceremony – or, further down the bill, had Scott George taken Best Original Song for Wahzhazhe (A Song for My People) from the same film – they would have become the first Native Americans to receive a competitive Oscar in the history of the event. Yet neither did. Instead, Emma Stone took home Best Actress and Billie Eilish won Best Original Song. Both already had Oscars on the shelf at home.
In a night that otherwise broadly ran as predicted, the Gladstone loss was a shock – not least because last month she won the equivalent prize at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, whose voters heavily overlap with the Oscars’ own. But this was stranger than a bookies’ favourite simply not coming good on the night. After all, Hollywood has spent the last decade obsessing over diversity. So why can it still not bring itself to tick this particular box?
The movie business was largely built on stories featuring their fair share of Native American characters. From the 1940s to the 1960s, westerns comprised around a quarter of Hollywood’s total output. But both then and since, the studios have been notably reluctant to actually create any stars from that particular demographic.
Gladstone, who grew up on the Blackfeet reservation in Montana, was (and remains) an especially good candidate to buck the trend: as Mollie Burkhart in Killers of the Flower Moon, she holds her own on-screen opposite Leonardo DiCaprio, for goodness sake. But as an actress specifically, she would have also been well placed to help the Academy move past its most notorious entanglement with Native American culture to date.
That was the Sacheen Littlefeather debacle, which began at the 1973 Oscar ceremony when a 26-year-old woman in Native dress took to the stage of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. She was standing in for Marlon Brando, and had come to refuse the Best Actor award on his behalf – in protest both at Hollywood’s cliched representations of Native Americans, and an ongoing siege between the US Marshals, the FBI and the American Indian Movement at the South Dakota town of Wounded Knee.
The image of Littlefeather on stage as the beautiful, vulnerable uninvited guest was an unquestionably powerful one, and the stunt caused its fair share of outrage, for which the Academy later decided it had to atone. In 2022, the organisation wrote a formal letter of apology to Littlefeather for the reception to her appearance – “The abuse you endured because of this statement was unwarranted and unjustified,” it read – and later organised a solemn “evening of reflection” at the Academy Museum, at which Littlefeather was the guest of honour, and the apology was read aloud.
Following her death three months later, however, it came to light that Littlefeather, whose real name was Maria Louise Cruz, was in fact of white and Spanish-Mexican descent – and, according to her two sisters, her claims of Native American heritage had been bogus all along. In addition, a widely circulated anecdote – that the former western star John Wayne had had to be restrained from assaulting her in the wings at the 1973 ceremony – was also fairly conclusively debunked.
In a business that knows the value of good optics, voters must have realised that a Gladstone win would have done a lot to clean up this mess – at the very least, it would have finally put a Native American on the winner’s podium who was actually a) a winner and b) Native American. And because of the industry’s broader ambivalence towards Native performers, such opportunities are rare.
Before last night, the closest they got was at the 2019 ceremony, when the veteran Cherokee actor Wes Studi was presented with an honorary Academy Award. Why honorary, rather than competitive? Because despite having worked regularly since his breakthrough appearance opposite Daniel Day-Lewis in 1992’s The Last of the Mohicans, none of Studi’s individual roles had been prominent enough to make their members sit up and take notice.
For Native American actors, this is par for the course. A survey last year by the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative found that of the 1,600 most successful films released theatrically between 2007 and 2022, only one – 2020’s X-Men spin-off The New Mutants – had a Native American lead. (That was the 28-year-old part-Oglala Lakota actress Blu Hunt.) More broadly, only a quarter of one percent of speaking roles in all of those films were played by Native actors – which, compared to the wider US population, means the group was underrepresented by more than a factor of eight. (Native Americans make up roughly 2 per cent of American citizens.)
A Gladstone win might have helped shift the needle on this, although in recent times, the path from breakthrough Oscar to meaningful or even steady work hasn’t been smooth. After all the rejoicing around Troy Kotsur’s Best Supporting Actor win for Coda in 2022, the deaf star has, to date, been cast in just one more film: a psychological thriller due for release next year. Or take Yalitza Aparicio, who in 2019 became the first indigenous Mexican to be nominated for her performance in Roma. After dutifully pounding the circuit, she returned to work in her home country: Hollywood loved her, but not quite enough to offer her a job.
Lily Gladstone was expected by some to win best actress tonight and after #Oscers statue went lost to Emma Stone, Lily's Killers of the Flower Moon director Martin Scorsese was seen consoling his star and giving her a big hug. pic.twitter.com/C1pnmZQGDr
This has not always been the case. Golden-age Hollywood may have been far from an equal-opportunities utopia, but in those days, Oscar-night trailblazers had a better hope of converting their wins into long-lived careers. In the decidedly un-woke 1950s, José Ferrer built a fruitful four-decade career on his nomination for his supporting turn in 1948’s Joan of Arc. (Just two years after that, he won Best Actor outright for Cyrano de Bergerac.)
Then there was Hattie McDaniel, who in 1940 became the first black actress to win an Oscar for her role as Mammy in Gone with the Wind. True, in many of the 21 films she made in the decade that followed, she played servants and maids: for McDaniel, opportunity in Hollywood required pandering to stereotypes her own success theoretically defied. But like any actor, she was only able to work in the times in which she lived. “Hell, I’d rather play a maid than be one,” she once told a friend.
The times in which Gladstone finds herself might feel a great deal more progressive than McDaniel’s. But it’s worth noting that even the best recent films to give a platform to Native American talent – Riley Keough and Gina Gammell’s War Pony, and Chloé Zhao’s Songs My Brother Taught Me and The Rider – overwhelmingly tend to be small, independently made stories of reservation life.
Gladstone is a terrifically talented actress, who may now be doubly resolved to bring specifically Native characters to the screen. But even without an Oscar, there’s no reason she couldn’t also star in, say, a new Dungeons & Dragons film, or a Blumhouse horror about a haunted puppet. In awards season or out of it, that’s the tricky thing about inclusion: the less obvious it is, the more genuine it tends to be.
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
The Oscars missed a big chance.
I don't know what you mean by that. I thought she would win based upon her performance.
That is all that she should be judged on.
And her performance was amazing.
Despite this I think it is encouraging that Native American stories have become relatively common on streaming television channels. I can think of three or four series with Native American main characters that have appeared in the last couple of years.
So you suddenly want the Oscar’s to be fair and insightful?
C’mon man.
Like with virtually all award shows, someone is always pissed off at the end of the night.
Par for the course.
It seems the article was a little light on what it was about.......you know.........her actual performance in the movie........that made her deserve the Oscar.
A mutual admiration contest ….
Her performance was amazing, and I can say that without reservation (no pun intended). The other person who got screwed was Paul Giamatti.
I didn’t see the movie or it’s competition so I can’t speak to the merits of her claim, but the idea that she deserves to win because she’s an Indian is just more racialist nonsense. It’s not supposed to be a participation Trophy and this sort of pandering just demeans the award for future Indian actors, as Its not seen as merit based.
Lily Gladstone won the Screen Actors Guild award in the same category and against the same competition just a few weeks ago. It is difficult to deny that she is qualified to win an Oscar for this part. Was she better than Emma Stone the winner? I haven't seen either of the movies and in any case who is better is a subjective judgment call ,but Hollywood in any case missed an opportunity to validate stories about American Indian characters and history, and I don't think there's any doubt about that. If Stone and Gladstone were both worthy, why not give it to the American Indian and give some recognition to people in the movie business that get very little recognition?
Because the point of the award is to recognize the best performance, not to make up for something.
She got recognition. She was nominated. Also, if SAG gave her an award, that’s part of “people in the movie business” too.
Except she, Gladstone, made no claims and is not even complaining. She was honored just to be nominated. There is no there there...
This article is there.
I saw all the movies Sean, and her's was the best by far, for female actrees, The idea that she was up against a stupid movie like Barbie, is rediculous. Now here is something to think about. Last year, was all about "Everything Everywhere All at Once", which was all about that being an all Asian movie. The movie was OK at best and none of the performances were outstanding (they were not bad either for a silly plot like that movie had). So why is that OK?
and her's was the best by far, for female actrees
that’s your opinion. Which is fine, but to pretend it’s an objective fact is preposterous.
but at least you made an attempt to justify An argument that she deserved the award for something other than her race, which is what the article does.
Everything Everywhere All at Once", which was all about that being an all Asian movie. The movie was OK at best and none of the performances were outstanding (they were not bad either for a silly plot like that movie had). So why is that Ok
my point would be the same for that. No one should vote for an Oscar because of race. And if the Oscar’s simply become a ceremony where each year a different race gets awards based on their 23 and me Results, it will be a tremendous step backward for our culture,
I think that we should re-litigate the final 2024 NCAA football rankings.
I’m still fighting 1993. I don’t expect to move onto 2024 for at least a decade
Judging performances is subjective and the fact that Lilly Gladstone had won the SAG award, which is a prestigious award, and had won the Golden Globe, is what makes the point of view of the seeded article viable. On paper, it seems easy to argue Lilly Gladstone was worthy of the oscar. Since that is true why not give it to her and give recognition to a group of people that don't get much recognition in the movie business.
I don't think she should have gotten it as a participation award , but it is also almost impossible to argue that it would have been merely a participation award.
Was that the year that Auburn, with a new head coach got screwed?
Gladstone has 56 minutes of screen time in an 3 1/2 hour movie. DiCaprio had 1 hour and 49. DeNiro had 49 minutes and was nominated as best supporting actor which is what Gladstone should have been nominated for.
Except that she's the main female character ,and 56 minutes of screen time is more than enough to be considered a lead actress.
26.6% screen time.
I’m not saying she should or shouldn’t have won, but the entire point of this article is she deserves it because of her race which I find objectionable. It’s demeaning to her as an actress. Academy Voters should vote for whoever they think gave the best performance, period.
I prefer to think of it as the year Notre Dame got screwed by the voters giving the title to a one loss FSU team who Notre Dame beat in the game of the century, or least the last game of the century.
I think that we all know the the Academy members are reactionary racists that only vote their prejudices.
I wonder how much campaign dollars the Dems will accept from these racists.
Yep, good point.
Exactly. Sean tried to make it sound like it was my opinion, but it was not mine alone and was also evaluated by her peers with the same opinion. Just the scope of her work places it in a whole different category to those she was competing against.
And as for race, apparently, it was OK for Jews and Italians to play Indians for years. There wasn't a member of the "Howkowi" tribe on "F Troop" that wasn't either Jewish or Italian. Don't you think that when it merits it ( and this performance does) it's time to level the playing field?
That’s Hollywood for you.
"Won" or "was given"? There is a fine line between the two. And virtue signaling is NOT part of "the competition" criteria.
Were you upset by Denzel Washington playing Hamlet?
yes
No!, giving anyone anything, award. job, anything based on the color of their skin is racist by definition.
The Oscars are about awarding the prize to the actor/actress/movie etc judged to the be the best in the given year, it is not about balancing a diversity scale.
Gladstone's performance in Killers of the Flower Moon was great, but so was the performance of Emma Stone in Poor Things and the voters picked her in a close decision I am sure.
This is not an everyone gets a participation trophy event after all
I would hardly call giving an oscar to someone who won the Screen Actors Guild award for the same role a "participation trophy"
Sometimes it’s to make up for past mistakes, for example Scorsese was nominated for Best Director for Raging Bull and Goodfellows but didn’t win. The Academy tried to make up to him by giving him an Oscar for The Departed.
Drinker,
He has been nominated 15 times and got one. I mean come on.
You mean to tell me that these are not all classific films?
Agree, an injustice.
Robert no one says it should be, but given the breadth and scope of that story, frankly, I think it was so shabbily treated as a whole, including Scorcese, who has been one of our greatest directors and has only won one Academy award. He has won more BFATA's. So I think that there are a lot of reasons why this film got screwed.
Perhaps Hollywood had trouble with it being too historically accurate and much too close to modern-day injustices or crimes. Interesting that Martin Scorsese rewrote and changed the direction of the movie. At first was all about the FBI and their first big case and after Scorsese dug into more of the true story and met with the Osage people the movie changed direction and centered on the Osage and crimes committed against them. To this day many of the Osage never had their headrights (oil) returned to them. I believe that there are a lot of reasons why this film got screwed.
For Lily to attain the knowledge she did about the accurate story and to present herself as Osage to the Osage people required probably more than usual including learning all the way Osage women act, walk and carry themselves and most of all she learned the Osage language. There was so much behind the scenes that the public didn't know and it should be made know. Each small detail was accurate since the Osage oversaw every bit and piece to be sure it was accurate.
I'll also add that both DeNiro and DiCaprio were outstanding in their roles.
Can you imagine the anti-woke explosion there would have been if they had given the oscar to the Native American drumming song ?
Exactly, that’s what Hollywood was fearing.
Oh, hell yes shit flying everywhere cuz it's not 'merican
Chickenshit Hollywood Liberals.
Anti-woke isn't Hollywood, Drinker.
Huh?
Liberals are not anti-woke.
Well they didn’t vote for Gladstone over Stone.
Perrie
Good points
But checking a diversity box, or making up for past snubs should not be and is not part of the selection criteria for an Oscar. I stand by my point that Gladstone's performance was excellent, but so was Emma Stone's and more people voted for her than for Gladstone and she won.
You may call me a thespian, but the two roles were incomparable. One of a very authentic, dignified and stoic Native woman and the other the exponentially expanding character of a dead baby's brain reanimated in the body of its own mother's reanimated body. A toddler with the needs of a mature woman. Stone had to emote her tiny butt off, and she did...
Until I saw Poor Things I believed Lily Gladstone would win. After seeing both I suspect Gladstone agrees with me and has no problem with Stone's award...
Lily Gladstone has way too much grace and dignity to have ever complained about losing to Emma Stone, and it should be noted that she has not. Gladstone's performance was appropriately honored by her nomination. I am sorry if feelings are hurt, but after reviewing both actresses' roles the real travesty would have been if Stone had lost. Her winning role in Poor Things was an Oscar worthy role of a lifetime and is why Stone won...
Full agreement ….. I know right …..
maybe so, but they missed a chance to make some positive history.
stone would have gotten over it too.
They made history with Dancing with Wolves won best picture instead of Scorsese’s masterpiece, Goodfellows.
Have you even seen Poor Things yet?
Get back with us after you seen both movies...
I'm not going to argue with you about this. I'm sure Emma Stone gave a great performance. But the fact is in spite of Emma stones great performance a lot of people voted for Lily Gladstone. In fact she beat Emma Stone for the SAG award just a few weeks ago, for the same roles, so obviously a lot of people thought Lily gladstone's performance was good enough to win the SAG and the oscar . You seem to be saying that Emma Stone was in a class by herself, but evidently a lot of people in Hollywood don't necessarily agree with that.
Then Emma Stone was robbed by the SAG awards. Another wrong would not have made that right. Lily Gladstone is being gracious and was probably relieved not to win the Oscar...
It was not close and I am not being subjective. Stone acted circles around everyone else nominated. That is why she won...
They are both classic films. Hard to make the call.
I have and I thought that Stone's acting was good, but not great and the film was not nearly as demanding.
What happened to “it’s an honor just to be nominated?” Fercryinoutloud, these people were nominated. Does that count for nothing? Unless there is some reason to think the academy voted against them because they’re native, this seems like a petty complaint.
It is what it is. Hollywood missed a chance to right some old wrongs
No. You’re not going to right those wrongs by throwing an award at one actress who may or may not deserve it.
IMO, Lily Gladstone deserved the Oscar and not because she is an Indian although we have been underrepresented in the film industry but because her performance was outstanding and certainly Oscar-worthy. I find it strange that some are saying she is complaining about not winning, that is simply not true she as always was classy in a disappointment. What is even more questionable is that in the nine other categories that ''Flower Moon'' was nominated for they did not win any of them. Martin Scorsese is one of the great directors of our time yet ..another loss for him Robbie Robertson, a great musician, writer, singer, and guitar player wrote the score for the movie and it was overlooked. Martin and Robbie have been collaborating since the ''Last Waltz'' in 1978 including Robbie scoring ''The Irishman'', Raging Bull (1980), The King of Comedy (1983), Casino (1995), Gangs of New York (2002), The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), ...
Oh, BTW Robbie Robertson is Native American.
Martin Scorsese said in a recent interview that ''Killers of the Flower Moon'' was the most important movie he has ever done.
As a side note, Apple is putting two of her other movies on their prime channel...''Under the Bridge'' in it Lily plays a cop and ''Fancy Dancer'' plays a hustler.
It was great seeing young and upcoming Native American actors at the awards.
Amber Midthunder (Prey) and Tatanka Means
I haven’t seen Stone in Poor Things yet so I can’t compare them. I found Gladstone’s performance as exceptional. Given the amount of her screen time, I think she should have been nominated and would have won best supporting actress.
Exactly. Because she did give the best performance. End of story.
Well hush my mouth.
LOL I am agreeing with you.
From the article:
Geez do you think that a ''fucking Indian'' should be nominated for an Oscar? Just to update everyone this is what a ''fucking Indian'' looks like.
Fine looking woman.