Arts & Entertainment
The predictable predictability of the Oscars
Favoring middle-of-the-road prestige over edgier fare
It’s hard to write a reaction piece about the Oscars when you recognize that the Oscars, by their very nature, are essentially a poll – or perhaps, more aptly, a popularity contest – which reflects an aggregate of personal opinions, and therefore have as much to do with internal Hollywood politics as with rewarding artistic excellence.
I’m not saying that the movies and people being celebrated on the stage at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood Sunday night – all of them, winners and nominees alike – didn’t deserve to be there; on the contrary, 2023 was an outstanding year for cinema, and every one of the contenders could be considered worthy of taking the prize. If that’s the case, however, how can any of these outcomes be determined without the influence of personal taste? Making movies is not like playing sports, where a win results from the highest number of points scored and goals blocked; there is no such handily objective criteria to rely on in picking an actor, a screenwriter, or an entire film to proclaim as the “best” in its respective category, and it’s inevitable that Academy voters will be influenced by personal bias when they make their choices on that final ballot.
While Sunday’s 96th annual Oscar ceremony, which offered the usual snubs and oversights and no real surprises, might have disappointed me or even occasionally sparked a glimmer of outrage, I cannot fairly say that any of the final results were “mistakes.” And though it may be oversimplifying things to say that being offended by the Academy’s final choices is akin to being angry that someone else’s favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate when yours is salted caramel praline, it’s still enough to convince me that my “reaction” piece to the Academy Awards can really only ever be an “opinion” piece,
With that in mind, here we go.
The presentation itself was the usual blend of witty repartee (mostly provided with success by veteran Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel, though attempts at it from the various presenters ran the gamut from delightful to disastrous), musical performances (Billie Eilish and brother Finneas O’Connell’s rendition of “What Was I Made For?”, which went on to win the evening’s only award for “Barbie”, was a particular highlight, alongside the more lavish and deliciously amusing dance production number headed by Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling for “I’m Just Ken” from the same film), uplifting moments (a regal Rita Moreno’s benedictory introduction of “Barbie” Supporting Actress nominee America Ferrera brought tears to my eyes, and I suspect I wasn’t alone), and show-stopping surprises (John Cena’s teasingly faux nudity presenting the Best Costume Design award was a memorable stunt, to put it mildly, as was the combination of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito to do the honors in the Visual Effects and Film Editing categories) – yet it also had more than its fair share of embarrassing gaffes, such as upstaging the “In Memoriam” segment with an overblown production number accompanied by father-and-son operatic crooners Andrea and Matteo Bocelli’s duet of “Con tu partirò”, a move that has fueled perhaps more post-Oscars outrage than anything else from this year’s ceremony.
As for the politics, there were the expected barbs making fun of easy conservative targets, but most of the speeches avoided invoking too much progressive fury. The one overtly political moment came with the win of UK director Jonathan Glazer’s “The Zone of Interest” for Best International Feature, when he read, in prayerlike monotone, a pre-prepared statement warning against the dehumanizing hate depicted in his slice-of-Nazi-life historical drama and calling for empathy for the targets of such hate on both sides of the current crisis in Gaza. It was met with backlash, of course, especially after a partial quote in Variety omitted key elements of the speech and led many to believe the Jewish filmmaker was refuting his own religion.
As for the winners of the awards themselves (you can find the full list on the Oscar website) the evening’s choices fell more or less in line with my predictions – though not necessarily my preferences.
The domination of “Oppenheimer” in most of the major categories in which it competed was, for anyone following the pre-ceremony buzz, a foregone conclusion. Few doubted that Cillian Murphy would handily claim the Best Actor prize – thwarting nominee Colman Domingo (“Rustin”) from becoming the first queer actor to win for playing a queer character in the process – or that Christopher Nolan would take the Best Director category, and from there the win for Best Picture felt as inevitable as anything can be at the Oscars.
Equally inevitable was the evening’s most easily predicted “Oppenheimer” win, as veteran Hollywood player Robert Downey, Jr. ebulliently swaggered onstage amid the enthusiastic familial cheers of his peers to claim the Best Supporting Actor prize; his acceptance speech, in which he self-deprecatingly recalled the legal and professional obstacles arising from the substance abuse that nearly derailed his early career, became a testament to overcoming personal setbacks to achieve an even higher success, something that resonated in the words of several other of the evening’s winners.
In the categories where “Oppenheimer” didn’t win, the odds were already in favor of the eventual victors, such as first-time filmmaker Cord Jefferson, whose “American Fiction” earned him the Best Adapted Screenplay Award over fellow front runners like “Barbie” and “Poor Things,” and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, whose winning Supporting Actress turn in “The Holdovers” had been a juggernaut throughout the award season.
Many Oscar fans, though most accepted the predestination of “Oppenheimer” as the year’s big winner, might rather have seen a different candidate come out on top (my own choice, for what it’s worth, would have been “Barbie,” with “Poor Things” and “Zone of Interest” coming up close behind); but even if Nolan’s weighty and technically dazzling biopic was unquestionably a fine film, exploring a deeply disturbing slice of not-too-distant history that still casts a long existential shadow over our world today, it’s impossible for me not to see in its multiple wins an all-too-familiar pattern of “safe” choices.
While “Oppenheimer” might pique ethical discussions over its title character’s choice to build the atomic bomb, few would find controversy in the idea that the destruction unleashed on the world by that choice is a reason for concern. Its most viable competitors, “Barbie” and “Poor Things” – both of which touched on many of the same existential themes, albeit from a markedly different direction and in a more absurdist style – each stirred divisive opinions around (among other things) a perceived feminist agenda; other highly-acclaimed titles in the running, like the non-English language entries “Zone”, “Past Lives”, and “Anatomy of a Fall”, fell outside the comfortable domestic audience mainstream where Oscar’s favorite picks are usually a little too deeply-rooted to allow much opportunity for a dark horse upset. While not many expected Bradley Cooper’s ambitious Bernstein biopic “Maestro” to take home any awards, it was considerably more noteworthy that Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” nominated for 10 Awards and widely lauded as one of the year’s most essential films, failed to score a single one of them – though I can’t help also noting that it deals with one of most shameful threads in our American past, inevitably making it a controversial movie for an era marked by deeply divided ideologies around that subject.
It’s perhaps for that reason that “Flower Moon” was not considered a front runner in most of its categories, but there was one in which it was seen as a heavy favorite. With Lily Gladstone poised to become the first Indigenous performer to win the Best Actress trophy, the odds leading up to Sunday’s presentation seemed to position them as the front runner; in the end, however, it was Emma Stone’s tour-de-force in “Poor Things” – in which she appeared in virtually every scene, in contrast to Gladstone’s relatively limited screen – that took it instead. Though it wasn’t quite a surprise, given the number of wins Stone has garnered already for the film, which also took home the prizes for Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Production Design, it nevertheless felt – to me, at least – like another example of Oscar’s predictable reluctance to court controversy with its choices.
Ironically, but not surprisingly, this conservative approach often just ends up causing a controversy of its own, and this case is no exception. Though I had championed Stone’s brilliant performance as the obvious winner, when her name was announced I found myself feeling disappointment over Goldstone’s loss, even as I was thrilled for Stone’s well-earned victory. After all, in a contest where the outcome is entirely subjective, Academy voters could have chosen to amplify the excellence of someone from within a marginalized community. Stone, who seemed as surprised at her win as anyone else, did remarkable work, but so did Gladstone; though it truly is “an honor just to be nominated,” it was an opportunity for Oscar to take a step toward correcting a long-ignored injustice at a time when doing so could make a demonstrably constructive impact on our culture and our society at a time when doing so would have a tremendous cultural impact, and it didn’t happen. It was a moment that struck me with an odd sense of disappointment even as I cheered for Stone; a bit of the sour within the sweet.
That, aside from a sense of missed opportunity over the evening’s consistent pattern of favoring the middle-of-the-road prestige represented by “Oppenheimer” over the edgier, more confrontational material presented by some of the other titles on the slate, was my biggest takeaway from the Academy Awards. Though I can’t say that any of the winners were unworthy, I can’t help thinking that their victories were somewhat tainted by the virtual shutout of “Barbie”, (which still feels to me like a message for female filmmakers to “stay in their lane”) and relatively low showing for “Poor Things” (which took only 3 of the 11 awards for which it was nominated), and that their underappreciation for such films was for me proof that many of the professionals working within the industry are afraid of material that pushes the medium too far outside its traditional boundaries, that dares to imagine stories and ideas which give voice to “outsider” concerns beyond the level of lip service, or that stretches the accepted limits of narrative entertainment.
More concerning, perhaps, is the minimal change that has come in the wake of the Academy’s much-publicized retooling to promote greater diversity and inclusion among the nominees. While it’s heartening to see people of color and queer people being brought into the mix more consistently than ever before, it’s also all the more painful when we see them passed over or relegated to the status of “also ran” most of the time. As a queer writer working for a queer publication, it’s impossible for me not to be impatient when films with strong LGBTQ content are lauded alongside mainstream titles only to consistently be passed over when it comes to the final victory. While queer subject matter, in varying degrees, was part of movies like “Rustin”, “Nyad”, and even “Barbie,” only two wins in the “major” categories went to films that included significant queer themes – “American Fiction” and “Anatomy of a Fall”, both of which won for their screenplays.
And while it’s now old news, the Academy’s complete omission of Andrew Haigh’s melancholy gay ghost story “All of Us Strangers,” a queer UK film overwhelmingly embraced by other major awards bodies across the world and in America itself and considered a major contender before failing to earn a single Oscar nomination, and female filmmaker Emerald Fennell’s “Saltburn,” which hinged – at least ostensibly – on a queer attraction between stars Barry Keoghan and Jacob Elordi, speaks volumes about the comfort level surrounding queer content within mainstream Hollywood. Even “May December,” a high-profile film directed by queer indie pioneer Todd Haynes but featuring only presumably heterosexual characters, received only a single nod (for Best Original Screenplay) for “May December,” despite being widely considered a front-runner for several acting awards. While inclusivity doesn’t mean considering every queer-relevant movie a shoo-in for the competition, it’s telling when the Academy all but ignores queer titles that have been contenders and even winners at all the other major film award ceremonies, and frankly, it’s extremely annoying. While I can’t speak for women, those in the Black community, or other groups with a history of being dismissed by Oscar, I can only assume that their sentiments must resemble my own.
Yet as I reach the end of my observations about the latest installment of the Academy Awards, I find myself falling short of blaming the Academy itself, at least as an organization. While it has had a problematic history of dragging its feet when it comes to evolving toward a more all-embracing approach to bestowing honors, undeniable progress has been made. That this progress is infuriatingly slow is less a reflection on the awards than it is on Hollywood as a whole; after all, despite Academy efforts to ensure greater diversity among its nominees, it’s the individual choices of its voters that determines the final results – and if those results fail to accomplish more than the occasional token victory for the non-white-heterosexual contenders, it’s a symptom of the fact that those voices are underrepresented within the industry at large.
If we want to see an Academy Awards ceremony that truly accomplishes the kind of all-inclusive spirit for which it has so palpable a potential, we must continue to pressure the Hollywood industry at large to build a more diverse and inclusive creative environment. Otherwise, no matter how much they promise to do better, they will always fall short.
Celebrity News
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Bravolebrities promote expanded PrEP access, HIV/AIDS funding
Real Housewives from across the country took over Capitol Hill on Wednesdayto advocate for expanded PrEP access and to push for continued — if not increased — funding for HIV/AIDS research.
The event brought together Housewives from multiple franchises, including NeNe Leakes and Phaedra Parks from Atlanta; Candiace Dillard Bassett from Potomac; Erika Jayne from Beverly Hills; Luann de Lesseps from New York; Melissa Gorga from New Jersey; and Marysol Patton from Miami, alongside Tristan Schukraft, founder and CEO of MISTR, an online platform that connects people to HIV prevention tools and care.
MISTR, the nation’s largest telehealth platform for sexual health, brought stars from across Bravo’s Real Housewives franchise to Washington for Housewives on the Hill, a day of advocacy focused on expanding access to HIV prevention and treatment. During the event, the Housewives shared personal stories on how HIV has impacted their lives and the ongoing impact of HIV across communities in the U.S.
PrEP, the medication MISTR helps get out to the public, is a medication that can, if taken properly, reduce the risk of contracting HIV through sex by up to 99 percent, according to public health officials. Advocates say wider access to the medication — including through insurance coverage and telehealth services — is critical to reducing new HIV infections across the United States.
The day began with a panel in the ornate Kennedy Caucus Room of the Russell Senate Office Building, where the Housewives shared personal stories about the importance of HIV prevention.
Many of the Housewives offered personal accounts of why HIV prevention matters to them.
Bassett drew on her experience under the Obama-Biden administration in public affairs and spoke about how policy decisions can directly impact marginalized communities.
“Before my career in entertainment, I actually worked in the White House Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and part of my job was to liaise between the White House and communities,” Bassett shared to the crowded room. “And so I got to see firsthand the effect that federal policy could have on those communities and the outcomes that could come out of that work, particularly marginalized communities.”
She then looked toward her fellow Housewives, pointing out that the issue does not affect all communities equally, with minority groups disproportionately impacted by HIV.
“And just what Phaedra said about this disease and HIV and AIDS, and how it disproportionately affects so many, particularly Black people — we make up, as you said, 12 percent of the population, and we are 40 percent of those affected by HIV. Just let that sink in. Let the walls hear that … It’s so important that we have these conversations, not just in forums like this, but around your kitchen tables, in your group chats, on the street — wherever we are. We need to be talking about what we can be doing as communities and as individuals to combat HIV and AIDS.”
After the panel, the group moved to the Lincoln Room, part of the Majority Whip’s office suite, where they continued conversations with lawmakers and staff about access to care, education, and prevention.
Bassett, fresh out of “The Traitors” castle, emphasized the need to humanize heavy topics like HIV.
“While you may not have anyone in your direct family affected by HIV, six degrees of separation — everyone knows someone who has been affected,” Bassett told the Washington Blade. “If you can tie the nature of dealing with illness back to families, they have to hopefully see themselves in it. People want community. Social media has done a good job connecting us in that way.”
Bassett encouraged attendees to be brave, to educate themselves about preventive measures, and to take advantage of telemedicine through platforms like MISTR.
“Step out and have faith that the people who are supposed to bind you are supposed to help you,” she added.
Schukraft said the turnout reflected the public’s strong interest in HIV prevention and awareness.
“Over 400 people attended the panel, and we had to turn people away,” Schukraft told the Blade. “These are real communities across the country, sharing stories and emphasizing the importance of HIV prevention and long-term care. Telemedicine is key — it helps rural and urban communities, reduces stigma, and allows people to consult doctors from home. The more honest you are with the doctor, the better care you get.”
For Leakes, using her iconic voice to educate others was a natural extension of her platform.
“Talking about sex, HIV, those topics can be embarrassing,” she admitted. “Atlanta has a high HIV rate, particularly in the Black and gay communities. Confidence to speak and educate my community feels good. The number of people that came out to support us this morning — some were turned away — was amazing. It’s important to make the conversation fun and approachable for the younger generation.”
“Atlanta has a high HIV rate, particularly in the Black and gay communities,” Leakes added to the Blade. “The South, Miami, Houston — these areas remain high, and ignorance contributes. Confidence to speak and educate my community feels good.”
Parks echoed the sentiment, highlighting both the challenges and the resilience of the LGBTQ community.
“Many people need this incentive and don’t have a voice. Medical care is expensive and inaccessible for some, so MISTR provides resources and telemedicine access to PrEP,” Parks said. “The LGBTQ+ community fights battles daily; sometimes they lose, but they keep going. Housewives show that women can stay the course.”
The lawyer, who also teased some new and upcoming projects, highlighted Atlanta’s return to Bravo on April 5 with “two new peaches in the house,” which she assured would be must-see TV. She also mentioned her upcoming role in “Dancing with the Stars.”
Patton said that the atmosphere on the Hill was very welcoming (more so than Andy Cohen’s couch at reunion time, one might assume.) She also noted that by working with Schukraft and MISTR, she was able to see firsthand how technology and telehealth can remove barriers to care.
“Everyone’s been so friendly, enthusiastic, and encouraging,” said Patton. “I was impressed with MISTR — how they get medication to people who can’t see a doctor or don’t have funds. Telehealth and medication delivery reduce stigma and help prevent the spread of HIV. Access needs to be available for prevention to work.”
Jayne gave the Blade a more personal reflection, particularly touching on how much treatment has changed since the disease began in the 1980s.
“Growing up in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, an HIV diagnosis meant death,” she said. “The stigma was terrible, and I lost many people in the arts community. Now, people live longer, but the disease remains. I think it’s important to use whatever influence I have to educate.”
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly lesbian senator who has long advocated for HIV research and prevention, said the Housewives’ visit underscored the importance of public awareness and celebrity influence in the fight against HIV.
“When I first got involved, AIDS was a death sentence — no treatment, no cure. Now we know so much more due to public education and health research. Advocacy spreads awareness that PrEP exists, prevents transmission, and funds research toward a cure. Bipartisan pressure is needed to keep funding going.”
Baldwin continued, explaining that this is not a one-and-done effort. To end the epidemic, all of Congress must come together to fight a virus that does not recognize political party, class, sexuality, or gender.
“We have the end of this epidemic within our reach, but we have to keep focused on it. We have to keep investing. That’s why what we’re doing today, and why … the Real Housewives coming to Capitol Hill with their celebrity and pressing this topic is so important because we have seen this administration, the Trump administration, propose cuts globally, drastic cuts globally, to the fight against AIDS, but also locally. I’m in a position as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to fight back, to actually fund programs that they’re trying to cut, but that’s not a given, and we need to really keep the pressure up on a bipartisan basis to keep that funding going.”
Movies
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
Thoughtful and scholarly with a celebratory tribute to the character
There was a time, according to queer lore, when gay men referred to themselves as a “Friend of Dorothy” as a coded way of communicating their sexual orientation to each other without fear of “the straights” catching on. The reference, of course, is a winking nod to the love and affinity felt by the community toward the main character of L. Frank Baum’s 1900 novel “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” – especially as personified by Judy Garland in the classic 1939 big screen musical version from MGM.
It may be that the origins of this phrase have been mythologized, exaggerated and/or retro-fitted to convey the underground nature of the queer community – as, indeed, is suggested in “It’s Dorothy!” (the new documentary from filmmaker Jeffrey McHale, now streaming on Peacock), which concerns itself with the enduring cultural legacy of this quintessentially American fictional heroine. But regardless of whether it truly served as a sort of “secret password,” it has come to be embraced as a part of the LGBTQ lexicon. As “campy” as the reference may be, being a “Friend of Dorothy” is now a proudly held communal watchword not just for gay men, but for an entire rainbow community – and McHale’s fizzy-yet-reverential exploration taps into all the reasons how and why this fictional Kansas farm girl has come to be a touchstone for so many by tracking her journey across popular culture over the 125 years since she first sprung to life in the pages of Baum’s timeless literary fantasy.
Calling on the commentary of cultural figures – writers, performers, and other artists whose paths have been, by fate or by personal design, have become associated with Dorothy’s legacy across pop culture, as well as the observations of scholars and historians that provide insight on the appeal that has made her into a sort of avatar for anyone who feels marginalized in a wild and self-contradictory world – and enriched by a plentiful trove of clips from the myriad incarnations through which she has become embedded into the American pop culture imagination, it’s a documentary that leans heavily into the notion that Baum’s timeless heroine remains relevant through her relatability. Given a minimum of descriptors by the author who created her and portrayed in the public imagination through a widely divergent array of social viewpoints, she represents a kind of “blank page” on which we can imprint ourselves; but at the same time, there is something about her – her nebulous status as presumed orphan, raised by an aunt and uncle who don’t quite understand her and thrust without warning into a world of contradictory rules and unfair expectations – that speaks directly to those who feel like outsiders, or who dream of freedom, acceptance, and personal agency beyond the proverbial rainbow.
Naturally, McHale imprints on Dorothy’s most iconic incarnation off the pages of Baum’s books; the cultural legacy of Dorothy cannot be separated from that of her most iconic representative – Garland, of course – and his documentary easily makes the case that, through her association with the character, this beloved actress who was constantly judged and frequently stigmatized throughout a career that took her through the heights of public success to the depths of personal heartbreak, all while living under the constant scrutiny of Hollywood’s publicity-and-propaganda machine. As a result, she somehow merged identities with her most famous role: Judy was Dorothy, but Dorothy was Judy, too. “It’s Dorothy” takes advantage of this almost mystical transfiguration to reflect on the qualities that make this pairing of actress and character so deeply complementary, while also using it to illuminate why the empathy which binds her with the queer community is so tightly connected to the qualities she shared with the non-descript but unforgettable character that would make her into an undisputed icon.
As famous as Garland’s Dorothy is, however, it’s not the end-and-be-all of Baum’s beloved heroine, and much of McHale’s movie turns its attention to the numerous other performers who have taken on the role throughout the decades, in various incarnations of the “Wizard of Oz” mythos – particularly through “The Wiz,” the 1974 Broadway musical that reframes and remolds the story (and Dorothy) through the lens of Black culture and experience, and other iterations that have emerged throughout pop culture as a testament to her enduring appeal. Indeed, the movie brings illumination to the way that Dorothy – and the “Oz” mythos in general – has become a touchstone within Black community culture as well, and how artists (like musician Rufus Wainwright, gay counterculture icon John Waters, comedian/actor Margaret Cho, comedian/writer/director Lena Waithe, and “Wicked” author Gregory Maguire, all of whom participate in the film’s conversation) have found inspiration in the character and her story, which has helped to shape their own creative lives.
Thoughtful and scholarly while also delivering a celebratory tribute to the character (and the outsider qualities which make her beloved by so many who can relate to her sense of longing and the call she feels to journey “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”), “It’s Dorothy” provides a respectful yet candid examination of the lasting impact of Baum’s iconic character and the world he created around her in our popular imagination, not just as queer people but as a larger American community. It’s an entertaining journey into cultural history, which connects the dots to give us insight on why Dorothy and her adventures continue to speak to us with such profound resonance. It’s also entertaining in a way that feels like a “guilty pleasure” but is validated by the reverence it exudes for its subject, and loaded with memorably evocative clips from movies, shows, and performances from across the decades; and while it may begin to feel a bit repetitive, at points, as it examines the various actresses who have played Dorothy over the years (and the meaning they have found in her that connects her to their own lives), it nevertheless maintains a sincerity of feeling that keeps us invested.
And just in case you might feel like the times are too somber for a nostalgic stroll down the “yellow brick road” of cultural memories, be aware that McHale also explores the ominous presence of the Wizard himself in these tales, a phony who pretends at power while hiding behind a benevolent mask to maintain it.
As if the “Wicked” movies didn’t make the point clearly enough, we’re in a world that’s a lot more Oz-like than we would like to imagine, and it’s hard not to wish we had the ability to go “home” simply by tapping our heels together in fabulous footwear. “It’s Dorothy!” conveys that longing in a way that feels light-hearted and joyful, and reminds us why being a “friend of Dorothy” has been and continues to be a resonant way of identifying ourselves in a world full of wizards, witches, and “twisters” that can carry us far away from home.
And if you want to follow it up with an impromptu rewatch of the 1939 classic, we wouldn’t blame you. It’s a movie that feels, to so many of us, like home – and there’s no place like it.
Arts & Entertainment
The very few queer highlights of the Oscars
Streisand’s live performance, a shocking tie, and more
LOS ANGELES — While Sunday’s Academy Awards saw the expected winners “One Battle After Another” and “Sinners” nab a collective 10 Oscars throughout the evening, dominating most of the major categories, there were a few moments for queer film fans to celebrate.
During the ceremony’s prolonged and emotional In Memoriam segment, which paid tribute to Robert Redford, Rob Reiner, and Catherine O’Hara, queer icon Barbra Streisand went on stage and gave a rare live performance of “The Way We Were” as a tribute to Redford, who died last September at the age of 83. Before singing, Streisand said, “Now, Bob had real backbone on and off the screen. He spoke up to defend freedom of the press, protect the environment, and encouraged new voices at his Sundance Institute — some of whom are up for Oscars tonight, which is so great. He was thoughtful and bold.”
Both “I Lied to You” from “Sinners” and “Golden” from “KPop Demon Hunters” were performed live; Alabama Shakes front woman Brittany Howard performed during the evening’s powerful rendition of “Sinners’” “pierce the veil” scene. “Golden” ended up winning the Best Original Song award.
One of the most shocking moments of the night arrived early on when Kumail Nanjiani presented the Best Live Action short category, which was a tie between “The Singers” and “Two People Exchanging Saliva” — only the seventh tie in Oscars history (one of which involved Streisand’s 1969 win for “Funny Girl”). The latter short, which is currently streaming on The New Yorker, is described as “a dystopian version of Paris where kissing is forbidden and purchases are made through small acts of violence” and follows the unexpected connection between two women.
When accepting the award, “Two People Exchanging Saliva” director and producer Natalie Musteata said: “Thank you to the Academy for supporting a film that is weird, and that is queer, and that is made by a majority of women!”
“One Battle After Another’s” editor, Andy Jurgensen (who collaborated with Paul Thomas Anderson on “Licorice Pizza” and “Phantom Thread”), kissed his husband before going on stage to accept his award for film editing. He said, “To my partner, Bill, who brings so much joy to my life every day.”
Overall, the 2026 award season did not feature many queer films or actors in the lineup, and that was reflected in both the Oscar nominees and eventual winners. Smaller award shows like the Gotham Awards and the Film Independent Spirit Awards provided opportunities for indies like “Sorry, Baby,” “Twinless,” and “Lurker” to get proper recognition. “One Battle After Another” won Best Picture and Best Director for Paul Thomas Anderson; “Sinners” star Michael B. Jordan won Best Actor; and “Hamnet’s” Jessie Buckley won Best Actress.
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
Ensuring safer drinking water
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
