In an environment as relentless and competitive as the film industry, where numbers and promotion often prevail over pure art, the golden statuette awarded by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Hollywood has become much more than a recognition of talent. The essence of the Oscar, which in its beginnings represented a validation of art and effort on the big screen, has been gradually displaced by the complex dynamics of the market, economy and positioning. Today, the question that some ask themselves with each awards season is clear: does it really still make sense to win an Oscar?
The truth is that, when we unravel the intricacies of the Oscar race, we find a panorama where money, marketing and power politics play a fundamental role. Today, the Oscar is no longer just a question of talent and exceptional narrative; it is also an economic battle in which millions of dollars are invested in advertising campaigns, public relations and an unparalleled deployment of resources. Despite the symbolic aspect that the statuette represents, the economic power that its achievement and promotion implies cannot be underestimated.
The Price of Prestige
Campaigns to secure an Oscar nomination—and especially to win in the major categories—have reached dimensions that surpass any logical parameter. Gone are the days when a film was promoted in a modest way, through its artistic merits and the reviews of specialists. Today, studios and production companies, aware of the value that an Oscar can add to a film, dedicate colossal budgets to ensure that their works reach the Academy voters. According to some internal reports, the total cost of an awards campaign could range from $100 million to $500 million. And this expenditure is not merely decorative; it is a systematic effort to infiltrate the media ecosystem, to organize exclusive events and to ensure that Academy members receive endless messages, contacts and materials about the film in question.
The simple act of positioning a film in the Oscar race becomes a large-scale strategic investment, where the goal is not only visibility, but also financial return. In many cases, the expectation of a box office boost following a nomination is the primary reason behind these efforts. However, as filmmakers and producers well know, the expected fruit is not always achieved. Many times, the increase in box office receipts following a nomination is insufficient to justify the initial investment. In fact, recent studies have shown that some films that win the Oscar do not experience a significant “bump” at the box office, while others, such as those with a lower budget and lower visibility, achieve greater and longer-lasting successes.
In this game, the Oscar becomes a bargaining chip, a wild card to access a much broader stage, where the benefits are not only economic, but also social and cultural. However, not all the actors involved in the Oscar machinery obtain a tangible victory. Many, as has happened in several editions, see their efforts diluted into oblivion, despite having invested huge amounts of money, energy and resources.
The “Oscar Bump” Strategy: When Marketing Becomes Art
The concept of the “Oscar Bump”—the increase in box office receipts that occurs after a film is nominated or won—has been the subject of studies and speculation for years. Some films, such as The Zone of Interest, The Holdovers or Anatomy of a Fall, have shown that an Oscar nomination can radically transform the commercial fate of a production, especially in an independent film context. The Zone of Interest, for example, experienced a considerable jump in its box office after the nomination, a phenomenon that could be explained by the visibility that the film gained, being exposed to the vast audience of the awards ceremony.
However, not all independent productions are lucky enough to achieve a phenomenon like that of Everything Everywhere All at Once. This title, which became one of the highest-grossing films in the history of independent cinema, managed to gross 140.1 million dollars worldwide. An unprecedented success, which shows that, in certain circumstances, winning an Academy Award can have a real impact on the industry. But this is not the norm. Many films, even those that win the statuette, do not achieve this level of profitability. The box office business therefore remains a risky bet, where the reward is not always proportional to the effort.
A system dominated by economics
It is undeniable that, in contemporary cinema, capital and marketing have taken a central place in the power dynamics within Hollywood. While the Oscar statuette still holds an indisputable symbolic power, it has become just another tool within the great machinery of the film industry. The fame, prestige and recognition that an Oscar offers can be ephemeral. The “Oscar curse” or the dreaded “Oscar Jinx”, that fate that seems to fall upon the winners shortly after receiving the award, is a phenomenon known to all. Despite having reached the top, many winners are quickly overshadowed by new promises or by the passing fads of the industry, which quickly forget their achievements.
Even so, the monetary value and professional opportunities that open up after winning an Oscar are undeniable. The economic impact of victory extends beyond the box office, as winning actors and directors typically see a significant increase in their earnings, averaging between 20% and 60% in their salaries for future projects. For some, victory can mean multimillion-dollar contracts with luxury brands, making them consumer icons and go-to models for high-end products.
Despite all this, the gender gap remains a reality in the film industry. While men continue to dominate the rankings of highest-paid actors, women, even those who win the Oscar, continue to struggle to gain the same economic visibility. This phenomenon underscores that while the Oscar confers prestige, the road to pay equity remains long and fraught with obstacles.
The dark side of the Oscar: politics and manipulation
But if there is something that cannot be ignored, it is the manipulation that takes place in the field of awards campaigns. Marketing tactics, in many cases, are not only about highlighting the virtues of a film or its performance, but are impregnated with power strategies, manipulation of public perception and even professional rivalries. The famous To Leslie campaign, which surprised the industry with the unexpected nomination of Andrea Riseborough, is a clear example of how the rules of the game have changed. What was once a talent competition has now become a battle of maneuvers behind the scenes, in which connections and media power play an essential role.
The story of the film Emilia Pérez, which is caught up in a whirlwind of controversies over racist comments by its protagonist Karla Sofía Gascón, also reveals the existence of a dirty war that could be driven by both competitors and the communication teams of other productions. Social media becomes a battlefield where accusations and leaks are commonplace, and where the reputations of artists and filmmakers are altered by invisible forces that go beyond art.
The Oscar, at its core, remains a symbol of cinematic excellence, an award that has transcended its original function to become an emblem of power, money and strategy. While the glamour and recognition that the statuette offers remain irrefutable, the real question is whether the economic, professional and moral sacrifice that participating in the fight for the golden statuette entails is still worth it. For some, the answer is undoubtedly yes, as the Oscar is a springboard to greater opportunities and unparalleled visibility. But for others, perhaps, the reflection is deeper: in a system that seems to devour everything it touches, does it really make sense to win an Oscar if in the end the price is so high?
Sigue toda la información de HIGHXTAR desde Facebook, Twitter o Instagram