Choosing an Oscar winner is more than just acknowledging a film's artistic merit. From January, studios, critics and commentators overtake conversations in Hollywood in shaping the debate.
A peer group of 10,000 Academy members confidentially vote for their colleagues in their respective fields, and all of them vote on Best Picture. But this is not everything it takes to win an Oscar.
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 (injustice, intense relationships, triumph of human spirit, etc.), strategic release timing, critical acclaim, and plenty of lobbying.
The thematic preoccupation can be observed in previous Best Picture winners - The King's Speech (2010), 12 Years A Slave (2013), Philadelphia (1993) and Schindler's List (1993). The only recent exception is No Country for Old Men (2007).
This year's top contenders, like Hamnet, also show these tropes. Ryan Coogler's Sinners, which has earned a record 16 nominations, is a thrilling genre-bender which combines supernatural horror with historical injustices endured by African Americans. Its originality places it in pole position for Best Original Screenplay.
Another key factor is the timing of the film's release. 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, would favour films that have already triumphed at significant events such as the Cannes Film Festival.
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.
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).
Professional networks allow certain films to benefit from what American sociologist Robert K Merton called "cumulative advantage". 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.
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. But there's also an indirect form that is arguably more effective. 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.
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".
The Conversation