There are bad Oscars campaign, and then such campaigns are so frightening that they surprise you whether someone, somewhere, lost a condition. Case of Emilia PerezOnce a shocked 13 enrollment with a shocking pioneer, looks fast as the latter. Music Crime drama of French director Jacques Audiard entered the world with all pace in the world: Glowing Review, A Palme D’Se Wet in Cannes, and a record-breaking 13 Oscar enrollment, with a historical node for Carla Sophia Gaskon Includes, the first open transgender actor to be recognized by the academy. But then, as the tradition in the award cycle, the Internet did what it does – it got the receipts.

Carla Sophia Gakson is in the eyes of the storm, Emilia PerezOnce-rebelted star, whose enrollment made him the first open transgender artist recognized by the academy. For a brief, glowing moment, she was the progressive fairy tale of the season. Soon, someone began digging through his old tweets, only one to be in an all-un-un-eat buffet of Bigotry. Between 2020 and 2021, Gascón clearly considered everything from George Floid to Islam, none of them were good. He said about “a lot of Muslims” in Spain, it lies that Islam should be banned, and the Oscar should be mocked to be a “Ephro-Korian festival”. Naturally, the academy was not thrilled.

For a film that deployed himself as a beacon of progressive storytelling, optics were frightening. The academy, which has tried to modernize the better part of the previous decade for a more generous audience, suddenly found one of his consecration claimants fired by a fresh hell.

Bachalash Swift was, and Netflix, studio behind Emilia PerezFound a PR in a nightmare. Zo Saladana, a pioneer for Gakson’s co-stars and best auxiliary actress, scrambled to remove herself from the scam without throwing Gakson under the bus. As Frenchman shoots a film about Mexican Cartel violence almost completely in Paris, Audiard found himself answering uncomfortable questions about whether Emilia Perez Was any business of “progressive” Oscar Darling, who was pretending to be.

And so, in this way, the film which was considered to be at the forefront has now become completely something else: Hollywood’s institutional memory has grown longer than the same news cycle. The damage is so serious that its once-disadvantage has stopped, and the whispers are increasing that members of the academy can hesitate to vote in it. Any Category, this should not happen that once the confident victory of Rold is now in danger, and even the best picture-those who Emilia Perez It seemed ready to claim – maybefixed) Moved away.

Be able to do Emilia Perez Still wins the best picture if its lead actor is radioactive? Can Gascón still claim victory, or is he in luck to be cautious this year? At least, one thing has become clear: there is no longer ahead of this race, just a handful of contenders and completely chaos.

And this is just the beginning. Emilia Perez May may have exploded the most loud scam of the season, but it is away from the only film that is taking collateral damage. Take CruelistBrady Corbett’s reputation was all hallmarks of the best photo in drama, until Corbate admitted that AI was used to make some of his imagination and Hungarian pronunciation. Given that Hollywood spent on all the 2023 labor rights struggling with AI, the revelation quickly changed that there should have been an arthouse darling in a possible paria.

then there is AnoraWhich faced a different type of controversy when its lead actress, Mickey Madison mentioned carelessly that she chose No To use an intimacy coordinator for many of his graphic sex scenes, who was not really a winning campaign strategy, #MeToo Post. During this time, I’m still hereBrazilian submission for Best International Feature, as well as Best Picture Nominee Emilia Perez Saw her own star, Fernanda Torres, to wear blackfase in the 2004 comedy sketch.

And let’s not forget the allegations of category fraud flying in every direction. Zo saladana In fact A supporting actress? Should Keran Kulkin be pushed as a lead A real painSomeone is Wicked In fact when they sing half songs support? The academy has traditionally been flexible with these definitions (see: Isabella Roselini has a supporting node landing for a average seven -minute screen time of an average of an average grade. conclave ), But in a year where everything is already a mess, it just combines the growing pile of complaints.

One -one, the contenders are falling like flies. Instead of clearing a way for a film for an easy win for a film, destruction has left the race more uncertain than ever. Movies are now judged only on his artistic ability, but on his ability to face an investigation of thousands of cinefiles equipped with unbreakable power to make a complaint for a very long time. Whatever takes home to the top award will be just because they step on the least landmine.

Who is benefited when everyone is in trouble? Traditional knowledge will suggest that like a film A complete unknownJames Mangold’s Bob Dylan can emerge as a safe, scam-free option. But its own campaign has been strangely silent, questioning whether he has enough support to capitalize on the misfortune of his rivals.

then there is conclavePope thriller about the Vatican, which has managed to avoid a completely controversy, unlike most of its competition. it is SafeAnd for a year where one after the other has shot himself in the leg, all this can happen. It has cool reputation, solid performance and lack of accessories – which can make it feel the most comfortable voting for members of the film Academy.

But perhaps the real answer is that there is no answer. Maybe, for the first time in the years, we are going to an Oscar ceremony, where no one really knows what is going to happen. Such unexpectedness feels almost thrilling, at least for those of us who are looking from the edge. This would be a deep irony end of a weather that began as a celebration of progress, to develop in a reminder that Hollywood still gives the prize of stability.

Of course, this principle only works when voters decide that they care about scams. History suggests that they are not – at least not continuously. As much as the Oscars pretend to celebrate “excellence in cinema”, they are a deep political game in their origin. In 1999, scenes behind Harvey Wenstein’s infamous help in the campaign Shakespeare in love The best photo stolen from saving Private RyanIn 2019, despite a parade of controversies, Green book Still won RomaLast year too, the academy ignored Openheimer Several detectors and it was handed over almost every major prize. Scams have results, but only when voters decide that they should do. Voters do not want to reward disputes, but they do not want to see “wrong” as punishing people. So the real question is not what Emilia Perez Very controversial to win; Rather, if voters can explain themselves that they are making a statement by voting for it anyway.

The only safe condition is that there is more chaos. It is still the weeks before the last ballot papers, and if the recent history has taught us anything, it is that no scam is ever present in separation. More shoes will fall. More skeletons will emerge. Will take more whisper campaigns. And by the time the Oscar finally arrives, this year’s race cannot be found that we thought it would happen.

But then, what is it is fun, right? Oscars have never been about rewarding the best film of the year. They have been about rewarding the film that survives for the longest time. With every major contenders leading to the Finnish line, it is estimated that the dust will still stand when the dust sets up. If nothing else, this year’s race is one of the most entertaining people that we have seen in a long, long time.

The Oscar stream lives on 2 March.