On March 15, the 98th edition of the Academy Awards took place at the Dolby Theatre, bringing the usual spectacle and controversy that define Hollywood’s most anticipated night. This year, two films in particular—Ryan Coogler’s Sinners and Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another (OBAA)—competed closely in the race for Best Picture.
This category is traditionally the final award of the night, cementing its status as the ultimate marker of cinematic prestige. Unlike other categories, this Oscar is unique as it is decided by a preferential ballot system, in which Academy members rank nominees instead of selecting a single choice. This process rewards consensus and broad appeal, but also raises important questions about which films are ultimately deemed worthy of recognition—and why.
It is precisely this tension that has fueled the critique surrounding OBAA’s win. OBAA has received significant attention for its apparent political ambitions, engaging with themes such as racism, immigration and authoritarianism; Yet, Director Paul Thomas Anderson has repeatedly dodged opportunities to relinquish his apolitical stance. Nonetheless, despite—or perhaps because of— this ambition, the film has been widely criticized for its aestheticization of politics. A critique of authoritarian state violence turned into a polished rendering of cinematic action, prioritizing form and effect over depth and meaning.
On the other hand, Sinners has been noted to humanize Black political identity in accordance with history, offering a portrayal that remains grounded and attentive to lived experience. The film has received acclaim for its ability to merge supernatural horror with a meaningful exploration of the dynamics of oppression and Black Southern culture, creating a narrative that feels both creative and relevant.
The contrast between these two films thus extends beyond questions of genre or style, pointing to a broader issue regarding the standards and criteria by which a film’s cinematic value is measured. What does the Academy reward when it recognizes a film as “Best Picture?” OBAA’s win reveals less about the relative quality of the films than the underlying values and preferences that shape the Academy itself. By favouring a stylized portrayal of political struggle over the more grounded and historically attentive approach of Sinners, the Oscars continue to privilege representations of politics that are aesthetically legible and institutionally familiar. In doing so, they reaffirm a particular vision of what “serious” political cinema looks like. Thus, the value of what constitutes a “Best Picture” no longer emerges as an objective measure of distinction, but as a reflection of the outdated and often problematic cultural frameworks through which the film industry operates.
This critique is further compounded by OBAA‘s choice of perspective. Despite the film’s engagement with themes of racism and systemic oppression, OBAA centres its narrative on two white male protagonists—a decision that has sparked additional criticism regarding the film’s representational scope. This results in the political stakes of the film feeling distanced, with racial issues appearing as thematic backdrops rather than lived realities.
The directors’ reputations also shape how audiences and institutions understand the dynamics of these films. Anderson has long established himself as an auteur in American cinema and benefits from a history of critical recognition and prestige. Ryan Coogler, however, while influential and successful, is a director tied to popular cinema. The outcome of the Best Picture award thus appears to reflect not only artistic judgments but also the hierarchies that reign in the film industry.
Despite this year’s Oscars being shockingly predictable, the outcome somehow never fails to polarize the crowd. If anything united viewers, it was the widespread belief that Timothée Chalamet did not stand a chance of receiving his small statuette.