The Oscars aren’t a meritocracy – there’s a complex formula for winning
- Written by William Simon, Casual Lecturer (Education and English Departments), University of Tasmania
Every January, Hollywood is overtaken by a massive Oscar prediction game, with studios, critics and commentators all playing a role in shaping the debate.
But choosing a winner is more complicated than acknowledging a film’s artistic merit. The Oscars are decided on by a large peer group of some 10,000 Academy members, who confidentially vote for their colleagues in their specialised field. All eligible members, however, can vote on Best Picture.
In an era where nearly every major film is carefully packaged and marketed for profit, predicting an Oscar winner seems like a complex science.
The most crucial way a film positions itself as a contender relates to its status as a “prestige” picture. This is earned through highbrow themes, strategic release timing, critical acclaim, and plenty of lobbying.
What gives a film prestige?
Prestige pictures typically examine subjects that hit a nerve with Academy voters, such as injustice, intense relationships, and the triumph of the human spirit.
This thematic preoccupation is amply demonstrated through previous Best Picture winners including The King’s Speech (2010), 12 Years A Slave (2013), Philadelphia (1993) and Schindler’s List (1993). The only recent winner that seemed to deliberately reject such tropes was No Country for Old Men (2007).
This year’s top contenders also have these recognisable tropes. Hamnet, for instance, focuses on the misfortunes of William Shakespeare’s tragic family life.
Meanwhile, Sinners (which has earned a record 16 nominations) is a thrilling genre-bender, combining supernatural horror with historical injustices endured by African Americans. Its originality places it in pole position for Best Original Screenplay.
Timing, marketing and previous acclaim
The timing of a film’s release remains a key component of its prestige status. Most Oscar-nominated films are released between September and December. This keeps them fresh in voters’ minds during the nomination and voting periods.
Critical recognition also matters enormously. Voters are often fond of following the crowd and, as a result, will favour films that have already triumphed at significant events such as the Cannes Film Festival.
This year’s Best Actor race also illustrates how previous near misses, and commercial success, can build momentum for an actor.
Timothée Chalamet was previously nominated for A Complete Unknown (2024) and Call Me by Your Name (2017), and has been widely praised for his work in the blockbuster Dune franchise. This makes him a top contender for this year’s Best Actor award, even though his character in Marty Supreme is an unlikable parasitic hustler.
Similarly, front-runner Paul Thomas Anderson seems poised to claim the Best Director prize, after 11 previous nominations in various categories. His film, One Battle After Another, also connects with the zeitgeist. The current headlines about ICE raids, immigration detention centres and police crackdowns make it ahead of its time.
Timothée Chalamet is the youngest actor since Marlon Brando in 1954 to receive three Best Actor Oscar nominations.
Jordan Strauss/AP
Oscar-winning potential is also determined by what industry insiders call “positive buzz”. Creating this buzz is a strategic and expensive undertaking, funded by major studios, that propels certain films into awards contention.
Greta Gerwig’s Barbie (2023) was a good example. Warner Bros is reported to have matched the film’s production budget with an equally substantial marketing budget and secured more than 100 brand partnerships (including Airbnb and Burger King). “Pinkification” dominated social media and positioned the film as having significant cultural relevance.
20th Century Studios appear to be adopting a similar strategy for the upcoming The Devil Wears Prada 2.
Networks and lobbying
Professional networks allow certain films to benefit from what American sociologist Robert K. Merton called “cumulative advantage”. Applied here, this principle explains how established talent attracts more prestigious collaborators, producing films that Academy voters are more likely to take seriously, and therefore vote for. As a result, Oscar success becomes increasingly concentrated in the same elite circles.
The Academy’s newly introduced Achievement in Casting category is a good example of how collaborative advantage plays out in films with A-listers.
Consider Leonardo Di Caprio’s commanding presence in One Battle After Another, or the ongoing partnership between director Yorgos Lanthimos and actress Emma Stone. Stone’s cold and calculating character in Bugonia is a departure from her more empathetic roles, while Di Caprio’s fallible anti-hero father is equally far removed from previous “leading man” characters.
When famous actors play against type, they generate conversations that amplify a film’s visibility – creating awards-season talking points.
Yorgos Lanthimos’s Bugonia has earned four Oscar nominations, with Emma Stone already a two-time winner.
Universal Pictures International Australasia
Lobbying also has a role to play. Direct lobbying involves public relations ploys to embed a movie into the audience’s consciousness and, crucially, into the minds of Academy voters. This might look like issuing industry notices, setting up magazine features, screeners, previews, free ticket offers, and special events (such as question and answer sessions).
But there’s also a form of indirect lobbying, that is arguably more effective in planting favourable stories about a film, or denigrating opponents.
Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture win over Saving Private Ryan in 1999 remains the best example of how an aggressive campaign can override merit. In this case the campaign was backed by Harvey Weinstein – then head of Miramax (and not yet a convicted sexual abuser) – who, among other things, resorted to badmouthing Saving Private Ryan to journalists.
Oscar prediction remains a science that combines art, commerce, marketing and – to some extent – merit. It’s a dazzling lottery that rewards not the “best” in Hollywood, but the more “probable”.
Authors: William Simon, Casual Lecturer (Education and English Departments), University of Tasmania
