🎤 Emma Stone vs. Scarlett Johansson vs. The Best Modern Actress on : Okay, let's get ready to rumble with Emma Stone vs. Scarlett Johansson: Best Modern Actress! Here we go with Round 1. --- **Round 1:** **Emma Stone:** Alright, Scarlett, let's be clear. While I admire your diverse filmography, including that impressive Black Widow stunt work, I think the range and emotional depth of my characters gives me the edge. I’m not just hitting things, I’m *feeling* things – and making audiences feel them too. From Mia in *La La Land* struggling with her dreams, to the delightfully bonkers Bella in *Poor Things,* my dedication to nuanced portrayal shows a clear distinction in dramatic and comedic capacity, qualities you simply cannot compete with. Ready to defend? --- **Round 2:** **Scarlett Johansson:** Emma, darling, that's cute. But depth and nuance aren't exclusive to struggling artists and "bonkers" characters. Black Widow showcased a fierce protector haunted by her past, constantly fighting to redeem it. *Lost in Translation*, anyone? That was vulnerability bottled. While you might sing and dance divinely, I tackle characters others shy away from – I was even the voice of AI! The range is not in wacky voices and facial contortions; it is embracing challenges regardless of what expectations you impose upon them. --- **Round 3:** **Emma Stone:** Voice acting is fun and all, Scarlett, but Bella literally embodied learning, growing, and existing in all capacities! You cannot pretend voice-over skills, or tough female roles (of which you play admirably), take any kind of priority over acting your face off, the most genuine expression! Let's also look at *Easy A* which highlights true wit and comedy. Let's also reflect on Cruella, shall we? If we're speaking of roles that push outside limits, mine definitely take home the win! Now, let's also face that while Black Widow can fight and stuff, the movie wasn't received that well. --- **Round 4:** **Scarlett Johansson:** "Not received that well?" Audiences connected with Natasha's sacrifice and history in *Black Widow*, Emma. Maybe your characters 'feel things' to impress acting coaches, but mine *do* things, for broader global appeal, especially ones of significance. And as you seem determined to judge, can we address whitewashing controversies (a topic that might hit harder since your *Aloha* did the same!). Your 'wit' and "extreme" takes might entertain some, but tackling representation and larger social issues has become key and defines my more recent successes! Plus, have *you* led an action franchise? I highly doubt that level of commitment to entertainment will be found soon! --- **Round 5:** **Emma Stone:** Addressing whitewashing requires awareness and active change, a practice I've actively pursued. "Witty characters" connect to audiences on emotional levels; not every role has to hit you in the face with political activism. In short, activism and genuine expression don't inherently connect. Inversely, my own career spans comedies and serious performances – *The Favourite*, anyone? I embrace *character*, whereas you lean toward typecasting to portray stoic, beautiful women who may or may not fight for "socially right" decisions, if the time requires so. Where's the fun, character development? I want layers, scars and faults! --- **Round 6:** **Scarlett Johansson:** Scars and faults? Hello, Natasha Romanoff wasn’t exactly skipping through a field of daisies! And speaking of typecasting, weren't you pretty much the bubbly, quirky redhead for years? My versatility comes from taking risks: I tried stage with *A View from the Bridge*, took smaller indie roles after big successes. Also, remember how challenging it was to convince everyone of a stoic character as well as fighting a franchise? The *choice* to embrace an expected character archetype isn’t necessarily unlayered; rather it shows what commitment it takes! I just find new layers beneath each character while you jump into ones with them right on the cover. --- **Round 7:** **Emma Stone:** Playing to expectations doesn’t show commitment, Scarlett, it shows you are safe and conventional! You follow a guideline, I choose to create my own! My earlier roles had "bubbly" aspects, certainly, but I never allowed them to *define* me. Meanwhile, those small indie films followed Black Widow - not that they don’t take merit. You choose safer "risks," not raw roles. Remember, Scarlett, raw, real portrayals endure through *time*, making true artistic history. Being 'big box office smash' shows profit; not talent necessarily. We all know box office doesn't equate Oscar awards. --- **Round 8:** **Scarlett Johansson:** Emma, let's talk awards. I have a BAFTA, a Tony. Your single Oscar feels a bit... lonely, doesn't it? And playing the Oscar game doesn’t denote any quality talent necessarily. I pursued diverse character roles to show a range, to push my character further past limits as I grew! Choosing ONLY "raw" characters, like those as we’ve discussed for you in "Bonkers," isn’t depth: it's predictable and somewhat obvious. Remember art should make sense beyond all capacity but remain digestible as well. Not everyone relates to "insane;" and neither awards or audience popularity can be deemed talent without personal growth alongside the part. --- **Round 9:** **Emma Stone:** Okay, I am done downplaying your achievements – which ARE incredible. A lonely Oscar doesn’t denote lesser talent. After all, artistry can't be reduced to trophies. I do feel as if while it's interesting and valid to say my takes feel "predictable;" acting outside all reality should be celebrated more; like an exhibit piece, and not pushed down for seeming less approachable. And hey, people DO like that my characters feel like they can go insane and grow like me. *Those* are who celebrate my more artistic takes... and I wouldn't exchange it! --- **Round 10:** **Scarlett Johansson:** It sounds like our views are very different, and as we’re debating what is a good acting display – with little answers – this comes to individual approaches for art and performance. It also proves audiences look for different needs or wants in film, but still does need accessibility through the medium. "Good" artistry should entertain but express emotion well- and I hope the audiences can view both of us with fairness to our acting expressions on film, in any range imaginable. It has been a true challenge of the mind today. Cheers, Emma!