Back to selection
Considerations
Covering the annual film industry awards races, with sharp commentary on the pictures, the players, the money and the spectacle. by Tyler Coates
How Politics Affects the Oscars, and Vice Versa
One Battle After Another It’s only been five days since the Oscar nominations announcement, and campaigning for Phase 2 hasn’t kicked into gear quite yet. There have been a lot of other things to focus on: the final Park City Sundance Film Festival, where many 2027 Oscar contenders may debut (six features from last year’s festival earned Oscar noms this year, including best picture nominee Train Dreams); a massive snow storm blanketing half of the country from the Midwest to the East Coast; and the ongoing horror in Minneapolis that gets unbearably worse every day.
It feels a little trite, to me at least, to think about real-world events in the context of glitzy and glamorous awards shows. But it’s been nearly impossible to disconnect the Oscars from politics in recent years. I remember in 2017, when the Moonlight–La La Land showdown devolved into the films representing a larger conversation (at least on Twitter!) about race in Trump’s America. And while Moonlight won, which many viewed as a sign that the Academy’s progressive voters came through to celebrate a small indie film about a Black queer man, its successor was 2018 winner Green Book (which bested the likes of Black Panther and BlacKKKlansman)—a studio-backed film about a bigoted white man putting aside his prejudices to befriend a Black pianist that disappointed some advocates for radical change.
Fast-forward to 2024, when Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, and The Zone of Interest were all major contenders at a time when Gaza was practically an unmentionable topic of conversation. Having picked up numerous accolades leading up to Oscar night, Zone of Interest writer-director Jonathan Glazer waited until his win for best international film to connect the themes of his film to the war in the Middle East. “Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,” Glazer said, speaking also on behalf of producer James Wilson. There was applause in the room, but some Academy members denounced the speech as antisemitic in public letters published in the trades. (Other Jewish members published an open letter of their own in support of Glazer.)
This year, the most obviously political film competing for best picture is the awards juggernaut One Battle After Another. There’s been plenty of discourse about the themes in Paul Thomas Anderson’s comic thriller. Does it take its politics seriously? Or is the political revolution simply a background to an entertaining chase film focused primarily on an intergenerational father-daughter relationship? (Maybe both are true?) I’ve already had a (friendly) argument about Anderson’s responsibility not as a filmmaker but as an awards winner. My friend was upset by Anderson’s lack of acknowledgement of ICE and Trump and, well, everything in his three Golden Globes speeches; I argued that the Globes are not really the right venue for political statements, despite being televised (none of the winners acknowledged much beyond their projects and other people in the ballroom at the Beverly Hilton that night). I also pointed to Glazer’s strategic use of his Oscars speech; had he said those things earlier in his campaign, he may not have gotten a chance to speak from the Oscar podium to a worldwide audience.
Whether or not Anderson eventually connects his film to current events—he likely has many more speeches to give before March 15—voters will no doubt see One Battle’s relevance to our current moment. I have to imagine that will work in the film’s favor. But could emotional fatigue set in, swaying voters in other directions? Chloe Zhao’s Hamnet, which won the drama best picture prize at the Globes, is a tearjerker that, while uplifting, still wrecks many of its viewers. If Americans overwhelmed with grief are looking to process that emotion through art, they could do worse than to watch Hamnet.
Meanwhile, Sinners’ history-making 16 nominations is proof that voters across all branches clearly adore it: It was nominated in every category for which it was eligible. And it is no less relevant than One Battle, offering a vision of the Jim Crow era that brushes up uncomfortably against our current political moment. Ryan Coogler, whose Black Panther lost to Green Book, now has an opportunity to avenge that loss and then some. The Academy loves a narrative, and both Anderson and Coogler find themselves in positions to win long-overdue Oscars with their latest films. How those filmmakers could use their possible time onstage at the Dolby Theatre might be the biggest burning question of the season.
