Opinion From the Opinions Editor: At a time of narrowing in American politics, Oscars are a reminder that America’s enduring strength lies in its capacity to remain open

But the nominations this year are really interesting for two reasons. The first is the warmth with which two of the most overtly political films to recently come out of mainstream Hollywood have been embraced by the Academy. Both Sinners and Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another — which has scored an impressive 13 nominations — confront one of America’s deepest faultlines, race, from radically different starting points. Sinners, set in Jim Crow Mississippi, packs into its blood-soaked 130 minutes runtime an ode to Black culture and a lament about its appropriation, notably Blues music, by an entertainment industry that has long treated African Americans as mere bodies. It projects pride, joy and defiance.

One Battle After Another too strikes a defiant note, albeit one that throbs with anger. There’s a tender father-daughter story at its heart, but the film is really a speculation about what might happen if America’s ongoing war on immigrants and the re-emergence of White nationalism were taken to their logical conclusion. Some sequences, indeed, could well pass for news footage from the present-day US: Raids by federal agencies on immigrant communities, the dehumanising conditions in which so-called “illegals” are forced to live, protests that turn into scenes of chaos due to the disproportionate use of force by the police.

In a country run by a prickly administration that isn’t shy about wielding the hammer of executive authority, even if it means smashing the First Amendment guarantee of free expression, these are bold films to make — and bold picks to celebrate. Glamour may be the mainstay of the Academy Awards, but politics does put in the occasional memorable appearance; the most notable recent instance was Jonathan Glazer, whose Zone of Interest won the Best International Feature award in 2024, using his acceptance speech to condemn Israeli occupation of Gaza. Based on the nominations alone, though, the upcoming edition of the Awards may be the most overtly political till date.

It will be interesting to see how Trump — who closely follows entertainment industry developments and recently appointed Sylvester Stallone, Jon Voight and Mel Gibson (all conservatives in a largely liberal-leaning business) as his “special ambassadors” to Hollywood — reacts to the Academy Awards this year. He doesn’t exactly take criticism from the industry well, repeatedly describing critics, including Robert De Niro and George Clooney, as “second-rate” and “overrated”; a nadir of sorts was the President’s attempt to link the December 2025 murder of director Rob Reiner, a long-time Trump critic, to what he called “TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” in an official statement following the tragedy. More than once, in the interest of protecting a “dying” Hollywood, Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on films made outside the US.

This brings us to the second reason why the nominations this year are so interesting. There is a distinct “foreign” imprint over the Academy Awards in 2026, with films like The Secret Agent (Brazil), Sentimental Value (Norway), Sirat (Spain), It was Just An Accident (France), in the running for awards outside the Best International Feature Film category. This is a clear intensification of the trend that began with South Korean film Parasite’s five-Oscar win in 2020, with subsequent years recognising films like Anatomy of a Fall (France), Drive My Car (Japan) and Worst Person in the World (Norway). One wonders what Trump, who had criticised the 2020 Best Picture award to Parasite, might have to say about this attempt to internationalise the Academy Awards.

Perhaps the President will characterise this noticeable shift as further evidence of American cinema’s demise — a charge that may not be wholly without merit. It has been evident for a while now that mainstream Hollywood has struggled with a narrowing of imagination. The relentless focus on superhero franchises and IP-based cinema has delivered box-office returns. It has also led to creative fatigue. International cinema, in contrast, has often felt fresher, riskier and more emotionally grounded. The Academy, which has expanded and diversified its membership in recent years, is reflecting these shifts in taste. Its choices increasingly mirror what a globalised, platform-driven audience is already consuming.

This is likely the real reason for the Academy’s growing warmth towards international cinema: The cold logic of the marketplace. Audiences have changed — and Hollywood has had to follow. Streaming platforms, particularly Netflix, have fundamentally altered viewing habits in the United States, with American audiences now routinely exposed to Korean thrillers, Spanish dramas and German sci-fi series.

Hollywood’s soft power has always rested on its ability to absorb, repackage and project global influences. To retreat into cultural protectionism would be to diminish that power. Embracing international cinema allows the American film industry to remain central to global cultural conversation even as its dominance is challenged.

The inclusion of F1, the high-octane car racing drama starring Brad Pitt, among the Best Picture nominees is therefore instructive. It reads almost like a nod to nostalgia — an echo of an older Hollywood that was more confident, more insular, and more certain of its own centrality. Few expect the film to actually win; its presence feels symbolic, a concession to those — such as the US President — who might worry that the Oscars are no longer “American enough”.

That anxiety, however, misunderstands the nature of American cultural power. Hollywood’s global influence has never come from shutting the world out. At a time when American politics seems intent on narrowing the definition of who belongs, the Oscars are a reminder that America’s most enduring strength may still lie in its capacity to remain open — at least on screen.

Until next time,

Pooja Pillai

Recommended Reading:

Four reasons India should say no to Trump’s Board of Peace

Between propaganda and ‘virality’, we must not forget to listen to A R Rahman

India cannot lead if it stays silent on Trump’s bullying

It’s easy to lose hope, but let’s please vote

What Prada doesn’t get about the smell of chai