Movies History Movies

Killers Of The Flower Moon Was Almost The Biggest Loser In Oscar History

Killers of the Flower Moon, Mollie Apple TV+
By Michael Boyle/

It was a rough Oscar night for Martin Scorsese fans: despite "Killers of the Flower Moon" being nominated for 10 Academy Awards this year, it somehow managed to lose every single one of them. Even "Best Actress," which many assumed would be a shoo-in for Lily Gladstone, instead went to Emma Stone for her performance in "Poor Things." Meanwhile, most of the categories "Killers of the Flower Moon" competed in went to "Oppenheimer," which dominated nearly the whole night.

In a strange way, the sheer number of nominations makes the loss sting even more. What are the odds of losing in all 10 categories? When was the last time a movie was nominated so much and won so little? The answer is 2019's "The Irishman," also directed by Scorsese, which similarly lost all 10 categories it was nominated for. At a certain point, you have to wonder: do the Oscars just not like Martin Scorsese anymore? Because this is starting to feel like bullying.

As to which movie has the record for most losses, that honor goes to the 1985 adaptation of "The Color Purple," which was nominated 11 times with no trophies to show for it. Of course, Steven Spielberg's film is still beloved and well-respected decades later, to the point where "The Color Purple" itself has been re-imagined as a musical. Oscar or no Oscar, the reputation of Spielberg's adaptation of Alice Walker's novel remains intact. Likewise, there's no reason to assume that "Killers of the Flower Moon" will lose any of the respect it's already gotten from audiences and critics as a result of these Oscar losses. It's easily one of the most compelling films of 2023, and no awards show can take that away from it.

The night's biggest snub

The Oscars, Lily Gladstone ABC

The film's most controversial loss came near the end of the show when the Academy denied Lily Gladstone an award for her stunning, emotional performance as Mollie, an Osage woman who loses nearly everything she holds dear at the hands of the greedy, cruel William Hale (Robert De Niro) and his cowardly nephew Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gladstone's character might not get the most screen time, but she's very much the heart of the film. She's the one who lingers most in viewers' hearts long after the credits roll. If anyone deserved the win, surely it was her.

  

To be fair to the Oscar voters, Emma Stone's performance as Bella Baxter in "Poor Things" was the clear second best. Stone plays a character who starts off as a child in a grown woman's body, and then shows the subtleties of how the character grows up and matures over the next two and a half hours. Gladstone may have given the most powerful performance of the year, but Emma Stone gave perhaps the most unique and surprising one. Whatever it was Stone was doing in "Poor Things," it was undeniably new and unprecedented. If someone had to get the award over Gladstone, Stone was the best choice.

And of course, it's not like Gladstone's leaving the award season empty-handed. She's won Best Actress at the SAG Awards and the Golden Globes, not to mention at the Satellite Awards and the New York Film Critics Circle. Gladstone might not have gotten to be the first Native American actor to ever win an Oscar but there is no doubt over her talent, or the bright career still ahead of her.

Recommended