The awards season is more than just a celebration of the best work in cinema; it's a kaleidoscope of emotions and motivations that can take on unexpected shapes. From social justice (as seen in "Moonlight") to religious atonement (like "Spotlight"), military guilt (as in "The Hurt Locker"), or even sympathy for a struggling actor (like Ben Affleck in "Argo"), voters' decisions are often influenced by sentiments beyond the mere quality of the film.
However, in the past two weeks, a rare sentiment has emerged in the air: the notion of rewarding the company that is about to be devoured. As Netflix and Paramount fight for control of Warner Bros., a new dynamic has emerged, one that could sway voters towards those films that come from WB, even more than before.
"One Battle after Another," directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, was already a frontrunner even before the sale was announced, topping most Oscar prognosticator lists with its wry tale of a revolutionary past his prime. Ryan Coogler's "Sinners" hasn't been far behind, with pundits and industry people drawn to the metaphorical vampire story set in the Jim Crow South. Now, with the added drama of Warner Bros. being gobbled up by a tech giant, these two films have become even greater heavyweights.
The vibe around town is palpable: "Can you believe what Netflix could do to the house that Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack built?" This sentiment has caused many voters to look at these films through new eyes. They are not just powerful works of cinema; they are avatars for everything good and right that is about to disappear. How can a Hollywood pro resist such an argument?
Moreover, Warners isn't just getting gobbled up by any larger company; it's being consumed by a company that to date hasn't believed in theatrical releases. This fact alone has caused a stir in Hollywood, where the Academy Awards are now going full streaming thanks to its YouTube deal. Historically, few studios have had a better year than Warners itself back at the 2004 Oscars ceremony, when it notched 13 wins thanks mostly to "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" and slightly to "Mystic River." This year, the "Sinners-Battle" dynamic duo could approach that number.
It's a strange idea, casting a vote based on a corporate narrative. But welcome to the Oscars in the M&A age: alongside great craftsmanship and stellar storytelling sits the virtue of being targeted by a tech giant. Casts can get punished because of a miscreant director; talented people get shunned because an executive eschews theaters. This is a reverse case: love by association.
The 2026 Oscars would not be the first instance of sales-target sympathy. Eight years ago, a similar Big Bad Wolf merger narrative unfolded in Hollywood during award season when Disney announced it was buying Fox. That year, Guillermo del Toro's "The Shape of Water," from then-Fox Searchlight, took home the top prizes of best picture and best director, in what many critics call one of the weaker winners in modern memory. But the sizable number of voters who felt Searchlight would get scuttled by Disney overlooked its flaws and marked the selection of the studio about to be gobbled up.
This year, del Toro is on the other side of the stick, and his "Frankenstein," which has been garnering some momentum, may have just been slowed in its tracks. If Netflix couldn't win best picture before all this, it's hard to see how snapping up a Hollywood icon will reverse the trend. (Also tough news for "Train Dreams," "A House of Dynamite," "Jay Kelly," and "Nouvelle Vague.")
By the way, if anyone thought "The Shape of Water" groundswell eight years ago was sticking it to Disney, they might want to think again; Bob Iger sat behind the Searchlight team the entire Oscar ceremony and gave them the thumbs up with every award. I'm not sure David Ellison or Ted Sarandos would be doing the same behind Michael de Luca and Pamela Abdy, but they might be quietly cheering just the same.
