With the 97th Academy Awards set to air on March 2 at 7 p.m. on ABC, the 2025 awards season is coming to a close, and what a season it has been. Any buildup to the Oscars is rife with controversy and debate, but this year’s race in particular has grown tenser and more contentious with each passing awards show, as new scandals arise with the ability to impact or even flip on their head the major races, namely Best Picture, among many of the acting categories as well.
In advance of a decision that will go down in film history and no doubt create some controversy along the way, three A&E writers sit down to discuss each scandal and the impact it could, or should, have on each film’s chances at the ultimate victory — Best Picture.
“Emilia Pérez” — the politics of identity or the identity of politics?
Zach Geller, Senior Associate: While each of the scandals that have circled “Emilia Pérez” in recent weeks are problematic and reflect poor decision-making by members of the cast and crew, the most striking aspect of the controversy surrounding “Emilia Pérez” is the hypocrisy. Ignoring the content of “Emilia Pérez” entirely, the scandals and controversies that surround the film reflect the inauthentic, inconsistent and inconsiderate nature of the production and execution of a film. Based on the film’s performance at the most recent award shows, their odds at taking home hardware on Sunday seem to have faded.
Caroline Lee, Senior Writer: Almost inherent to a Spanish-language film from a French director about a Mexican cartel leader is some sort of conversation or controversy, but “Emilia Pérez” has exceeded all expectations, with its audiences reporting a lack of sensitivity in content and casting, and its cast buckling under the weight of previous actions. Yes, the film should not win Best Picture because of these scandals, but irrespective of politics both global and Academy, “Emilia Pérez” is also just not as good of a film as many of its fellow nominees. That’s really why it shouldn’t win.
Delaney Hammond, Senior Writer: Even though “Emilia Pérez” does not deserve to win, its chances have not been entirely squashed. This would not be the first time the Academy has bestowed “Best Picture” upon a film that seems progressive — looking at you, “Green Book” — but is ideologically problematic. For an awards show that has been heavily criticized for its lack of representation, it is less important that a film actually be progressive and more important that it seems progressive. Giving the night’s biggest prize to “Emilia Pérez,” a film that talks the talk but fails to walk the walk, would be in true Oscars fashion.
“Anora” — how intimate is too intimate?
ZG: The situation with “Anora,” the newest film by independent director Sean Baker, appears more like a human resources oversight than a genuine scandal. The controversy surrounds lead actress Mikey Madison’s decision not to bring in an intimacy coordinator, choosing instead to limit the intimacy of the actors’ relationship to streamline the production process. The actress felt comfortable going through the production process without a mediator, a testament to the maturity and accountability on the “Anora” set. However, because such individuals are not mandated to be on set, and Madison felt comfortable without an external consultant, this situation raises the question of if a scandal truly surrounds “Anora” at all.
CL: The conversation around intimacy coordinators and on-set safety is an important one, and it is a net positive for the industry at large that a Best Picture nominee is bringing awareness to its importance. That said, none of the discourse should be surrounding Mikey Madison –– though it was her choice to not have such a safeguard. Ultimately, the responsibility falls to director Sean Baker. Certainly a larger industry standard needs to be set around the presence, or lack thereof, of intimacy coordinators on sets, but this fact also shouldn’t affect the film’s contention for Best Picture.
DH: While the conversation surrounding intimacy coordinators might be meaningless to general audiences, Madison has received criticism from industry professionals for the choice. Some dissenters have criticized both Madison and Baker for implying that intimacy coordinators are optional when they should be a requirement. The specialists primarily support lead actors, but they also ensure the safety and comfort of everyone on set. Though the conversation around Madison’s decision is nuanced, it is not overwhelmingly negative enough — nor should it be — to squash the film’s chances at Best Picture. In fact, it might have the opposite effect — the controversy has brought attention to an unconventional indie film that could have easily flown under the radar this awards season.
“The Brutalist” — generative AI as a filmmaking blueprint?
ZG: There seems to be very little true wrongdoing in the supposed scandal surrounding “The Brutalist.” Not only was its use of AI a practical decision — as “The Brutalist” was financed independently on a budget of under $10 million — but it reflects the innovative nature of film itself. It is only natural for filmmakers to adopt new technologies as they become available so long as the original artistic vision is maintained. In the case of “The Brutalist,” the changes further enhance the film so that the use of AI should not diminish the performances elicited, the story being told or the film as an award candidate.
CL: It felt like a big deal when the news first broke of a scandal with “The Brutalist.” But it should not be a big deal that the team behind the film used AI technology to supplement its central performances. Yes, AI can detract from art, but when used correctly, it can also enhance it. In this case, “Brutalist” team strove to ensure the authenticity of the characters by making sure that their accents — notoriously difficult, according to Hungarian-born cinematographer David Jancsó — were accurate. Such strides for fidelity should not limit his film’s prospects –– nor, most likely, will they.
DH: It is worth noting that “The Brutalist” is only one of four Best Picture-nominated films whose creators have disclosed their use of AI — “Emilia Pérez,” Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part Two” and James Mangold’s “A Complete Unknown” also used machine learning toolsets in a limited capacity. As of right now, it seems that if AI is a dealbreaker, then almost half of the nominees must be disqualified. However, all of these examples can, and should, ignite a much-needed conversation about what boundaries the Academy should draw regarding AI use. The practice is only going to grow more ubiquitous, and this year’s Oscars offer a crucial opportunity for the Academy to establish some parameters around the technology
Bonus — a double fault for Guadagnino?
ZG: The fact that “Challengers” failed to bring in any nominations is hardly surprising, despite its widespread popularity among an online crowd. Ironically, the film fails to challenge the spectator both technically and narratively in ways that previous Guadagnino films such as “Call Me By Your Name” do so well. Justin Kuritzkes’ script is comically bad, with cringe-inducing lines scattered throughout the glacially slow 132-minute runtime. The score is unremarkable and becomes overbearing by the final sequence. “Challengers” fails to captivate as both a sports film and a romance, so it is not a major lapse on the part of the Academy for snubbing the film.
CL: Not only was “Challengers” entirely overlooked, but Guadagnino entirely overlooked, with “Queer,” an adaptation of the William S. Burroughs novel and the director’s second film of 2024, also getting snubbed. Yes, “Queer” was released to far more mixed opinions than the raving reviews of “Challengers,” but it is also a film that is bold and unapologetic in its storytelling. Why, then, should Guadagnino be punished for taking risks that so few directors these days are willing to take? For him to be entirely shut out by the Academy begs a larger question –– that of who, really, is keeping score here.
DH: While not exactly a scandal, many fans were shocked to find that Luca Guadagnino’s “Challengers,” the three-way romantic sports drama that captivated audiences last April, received zero nominations in any category. It is unsurprising that the amorous athletic thriller missed out on many of the most prominent categories — the film lacks the dramatic pull and overt political commentary possessed by many of this year’s biggest titles. However, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s entrancing score, which was honored at the Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice Awards, seemed bound for Oscars success. The total absence of “Challengers” is yet another sign that the Academy is still out of touch with the tastes of general audiences.
Who will win Best Picture?
ZG: “The Brutalist” is probably going to win, but “Conclave” has an outside shot at the award for many of the same reasons. Both are well-crafted dramatic pieces of Oscar-bait, with strong casts and elements of modern social commentary. And with the scandal surrounding “The Brutalist,” “Conclave” appears to be a safe pick in comparison.
CL: Despite the many rats fleeing this sinking ship, “Emilia Pérez” remains stubbornly afloat, and I fear the tides have not changed enough to steer it off its course. Even with the many issues of the film’s cultural components, it remains significant that “Emilia Pérez” was made by a French director, delivered in Spanish, set in Mexico and filmed in Europe. It would be unwise to overlook the substantial international facet of the Academy voting body.
DH: Going off of the Academy’s recent inclinations, chances are high for “The Brutalist.” An almost-four-hour-long historical drama about a tortured genius and the act of creation, starring an industry darling with a career spanning decades? If the absolute sweep achieved by “Oppenheimer” last year was any indication, this colossal 20th century epic is sure to come away victorious.
Who should win Best Picture?
ZG: While the films nominated in this category were far from my favorites of the year — my Best Picture would go to “Dìdi” or “Nosferatu” — “The Substance” would be my pick among the nominees. With stellar performances, incredible production and messaging that reflects the modern nature of Hollywood and celebrity culture, “The Substance” is a maximalist body horror masterpiece.
CL: The Best Picture of 2024 is unapologetically “Challengers,” but of the ten nominees, my pick would be “Conclave.” Peter Straughan’s script is sharp and sincere, and the film more broadly is a return to a traditional mold of dialogue drama that the Academy loves to recognize. Beyond its surface-level ease and enjoyment, “Conclave” is also an intelligent exploration of the meaning of faith and the role of the church in modern society.
DH: While I am secretly rooting for “Wicked,” I would realistically love to see a win for “Anora.” Though I was initially skeptical about its tone, the story and characters become richer with each rewatch. Madison’s Ani is lovable and so easy to root for, and each supporting actor delivers nuanced and memorable performances across the board. Baker perfectly incorporates difficult themes without verging on pretension or didacticism, a balancing act that Best Picture-level films sometimes struggle to execute.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Vote for transformation in Student Council
By Editorial Board | 1 hours agoThroughout their tenures on the Student Council, these candidates have shown a sincere commitment to external accountability and an ability to critically analyze internal inefficiencies.
Student Council Presidential candidates debate their platforms
By Cecilia Mould | 1 hours agoThe debate had about 40 students in attendance and was live streamed for viewers.
“ACE Vision” focuses on amplifying voices, collective action and efficiency
By Sophie Long | YesterdayWithin the ACE Vision’s campaign, Benefield is running for President, Dorathy is running for Vice President for Administration and Lima is running for Vice President of Organizations.
