The night that we have all been waiting for for the last few months finally happened yesterday. The 96th Academy Awards presented the winners with their respective Oscars, with Oppenheimer winning the most awards. Actress Lily Gladstone was nominated in the Best Actress in a Lead Role category for her work as Mollie Burkhart in Killers of the Flower Moon.
If you were active on social media, you’d know that Lily Gladstone was a fan-favorite nominee and a ton of people were rooting for her to win the Oscar. However, that’s not what happened as Emma Stone ended up taking the award home for Poor Things. Now, there’s a debate going on that Lily Gladstone should’ve been nominated in the supporting category instead to ensure her win.
Lily Gladstone’s Screen Time Causes a Debate
Leonardo DiCaprio and Lily Gladstone were co-leads in Killer of the Flower Moon which was nominated in ten Oscar categories. Unfortunately, the film could not win a single award, leaving the fans utterly disappointed. Many were convinced that Gladstone would definitely win the award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, making her the first Native American to do so. However, Gladstone’s dreams were crushed when Emma Stone was announced as the winner.
Now, according to Variety, the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) believe that Gladstone should have been nominated for the supporting actress category, instead. Why? Well, Gladstone’s screen time in comparison to that of DiCaprio might be to blame here.
Thanks to expert screen timer Matthew Stewart, we know that Gladstone had a total screen time of just 56 minutes out of the 3-hour and 29-minute film. As for DiCaprio, he showed up on the screen for an hour and 49 minutes. Now, as per Variety, the screen time difference makes it “hard to sell as a co-lead situation” especially considering the fact that supporting actor Robert De Niro had a screen time of just nine minutes less than that of Gladstone’s.
Now, the debate states that should Gladstone have been nominated in the Best Actress in a Supporting Role category; her chances of winning may have been much higher.
Anthony Hopkins Oscar Win Defeats the Motion
After Variety’s article was published, fans had their own opinions to share. However, one stood out as the X user pointed out that screen time doesn’t really have anything to do with one winning or losing the Oscar award. In order to support their statement, the user gave an example of legendary actor Anthony Hopkins.
Hopkins played the role of Hannibal Lecter in the 1991 film, Silence of the Lambs. The following year, Hopkins was nominated for Best Actor at the 64th Academy Awards, which he ended up winning. Talking about his screen time in the iconic film, Hopkins was seen on the screen for a total of only 16 minutes in the 1-hour and 58-minute-long film. Clearly, screen time is not much of an issue here.
Take a look at what the X user had to say:
anthony hopkins had 16 minutes of screen time in the silence of the lambs and won best actor so why are we holding lily to a different standard https://t.co/B6tQT64FeQ
— 🗡 (@drivcmycar) March 11, 2024
While Stone rightfully earned her win, Gladstone too deserved every bit of her Best Actress nomination. Even though she didn’t make the winners’ list, her nomination played a crucial part in the representation of the Native American community.
You can stream Killers of the Flower Moon on AppleTV+.
