As one of the highest honors in filmmaking, the Oscars have become a defining moment in cultural conversations. The Academy Awards play a pivotal role in shaping both the industry and society’s standards of artistry and excellence. And, each year, the Oscars also highlight the persistent contradictions within Hollywood — issues of representation, equity, and ethics, which remain at the forefront of the entertainment industry’s ongoing reckoning. The 2025 Oscars were no exception, revealing both progress made and the challenges that persist as the Academy grapples with its responsibility to not just honor artistry but also recognize the need for greater accountability.
For me, the Oscars have always been about more than just who wins or loses: it reflects what Hollywood chooses to prioritize, whether it be technical excellence, a filmmaker’s narrative ambition, or industry politics. The 2025 Oscars, in particular, weighed in on questions surrounding AI’s growing influence in filmmaking, the role of diversity in storytelling, and the industry’s struggle with personal and professional accountability. These concerns aren’t just about who takes home the statue, but also about how the Oscars, as an institution, actively shape industry norms through its selections.
One of the most significant issues raised during this year’s ceremony was the intersection of ethics and artistry. This debate has become increasingly complex as the Academy continues to face the challenges of balancing recognition for artistic innovation — such as technological advancements in filmmaking techniques — and ethical concerns like fair labor practices, representation, and authentic performances. The Oscars must consider not only the artistry of a performance, but also the ethical implications of how that performance was achieved. Because of the power it wields, the Academy is responsible for not only honoring technical excellence but also maintaining the integrity of filmmaking.
The nominations and wins of certain films known to have used AI demonstrated the Academy’s failure to uphold ethical responsibility, highlighting that it still has a long way to go if it truly wishes to make positive changes to the industry. Nowhere was this more evident than in the public discourse on the use of AI in filmmaking, which raised questions about what constitutes an authentic portrayal. Adrien Brody’s performance as Lázló Toth in “The Brutalist” was subtly enhanced using a “Respeecher” tool to modify his Hungarian accent. In “Emilia Perez,” Karla Sofía Gascón’s voice was blended with that of French singer Camille using AI.
While I think AI has appropriate applications in visual effects and post-production, its role in an actor’s performance feels like an encroachment on the authenticity that is supposed to be the heart of acting. Acting is deeply human — it is the portrayal of raw emotion, vulnerability, and imperfection. AI, in this context, risks diluting the very essence of what makes a performance compelling. By awarding Brody for his performance, the Academy sets a troubling precedent that could normalize AI’s role in acting, undermining the craft of performance and reducing it to a technological spectacle rather than a human art.
The Academy also bears another responsibility: to recognize and reward talent in a way that truly reflects the evolution of the industry and not based on obligations to award career trajectories. And its decision to award Mikey Madison the best actress Oscar for “Anora,” over veteran actress Demi Moore, who had been favored to win after sweeping the Golden Globes, SAG, and Critics Choice, embraced this ideal for me.
While Madison’s performance as Ani was undeniably impressive, the win sparked a larger conversation about how Hollywood recognizes and values talent. Many had long awaited Moore’s recognition for her years of exceptional work, making her loss feel particularly significant to some. “The Substance,” the film in which Moore delivered her powerful performance, chronicles an actress’s relentless pursuit of youth in the face of a Hollywood that discards older women in favor of younger, shinier alternatives. Some saw Madison’s win as a poetic reflection of the film’s narrative, where the younger actress triumphs over the veteran, and others felt it was an ironic commentary on Hollywood’s ageism.
However, I would argue that focusing the conversation on ageism alone misses the point. The Oscars should reward talent, not just the length of someone’s career in the industry. Madison’s deserved win underscores an important truth: Talent and artistry should take precedence over reputation or tenure. If anything, this moment should push the entertainment industry to recognize that honoring veterans and embracing new talent are not mutually exclusive, and both can — and should — coexist without diminishing the other.
The Academy also has a critical responsibility in not only celebrating talent, but also reflecting on how those individuals shape and influence the larger cultural conversation. It must ensure that its awards process aligns with evolving standards of ethics, integrity and accountability, recognizing that talent cannot exist in a vacuum, disconnected from the actions of the individuals behind them.
This is especially true when examining the nominations of actors like Fernanda Torres, Karla Sofía Gascón, and Zoe Saldaña. Past controversies surrounding their roles, particularly in regard to cultural appropriation, racism, and offensive remarks, added an uncomfortable layer of complication to both viewers and industry members alike. Torres’ past appearance in blackface and Gascón’s offensive tweets about Muslims and the Black Lives Matter movement reignited conversation about Hollywood’s ongoing issues with representation and accountability.
From my perspective, the recognition of these actors made the celebration of their nominations more complex, as it highlighted a dissonance between Hollywood’s public stance on promoting diversity and the harmful behaviors that continue to be overlooked by the industry. These nominations brought into focus the industry’s failure to properly address the issues of appropriation, racism, and offensive remarks — issues that continue to slip through the cracks in Hollywood’s effort to uphold accountability.
While I don’t believe the Oscars should completely disregard these individuals’ work, it’s essential to reconsider nominations and awards in the context of their off-screen actions. If an artist has engaged in harmful behavior, the Academy should weigh in the severity and context of these actions before granting recognition. This isn’t about canceling anyone, but rather ensuring accountability in a way that allows for genuine growth and change. I think it’s crucial to address these actions by considering revoking nominations or awards based on severity, context, and if the individual has taken genuine responsibility. The Academy must be consistent in its values — recognizing not only talent but also holding individuals accountable for their personal and professional actions.
One way the Oscars can award both talent and bring forth a positive cultural direction is by considering whether Hollywood and its films are genuinely committed to elevating marginalized people or whether it is simply using such voices for cultural capital. The recognition of such films must not be tokenistic; it must reflect a genuine desire to address structural injustices through the medium of film.
This year’s Oscars raised important questions about the role of cinema in addressing global political issues. The recognition of “No Other Land,” a documentary about the Palestinian experience under Israeli occupation, sparked both praise and backlash. Some applauded the film for its bold portrayal of a marginalized community, while others accused the Academy of using the film for political purposes, rather than awarding it for purely artistic merits.
I believe the Academy’s decision to honor “No Other Land” serves as a reminder that cinema is an art form that has the power to change societal norms and shed light on underrepresented stories. With this power, however, comes great responsibility.
The 2025 Oscars, like those before it, reveal both the brilliance and discordances of Hollywood. While the Academy may embrace stories of transformation and resistance on-screen, there is still a long way to go in the entertainment world. And as a viewer, I find myself caught between admiration for the art of filmmaking and wavering skepticism toward the institutions that determine its highest honors. Hollywood is, at its core, a collaborative effort — a collective of artists, technicians, and creatives working together to bring stories to life. But this collaboration must be an active effort to challenge, refine, and redefine the standards we apply to those stories, as well as the industry that produces them.
The Oscars represent more than just the recognition of individual achievement; they are also a mirror reflecting the values, contradictions, and challenges of the entertainment industry at large. The Academy has a responsibility not only to honor filmmaking as an art form but also to use its power to shape the industry’s future in a more equitable, ethical, and responsible direction.
However, I also hope that we, as audiences, going forward, do not simply passively accept these awards as a yearly spectacle. We must hold the industry accountable for its practices — from the way it recognizes talent to how it handles the complexities of representation and accountability.
If Hollywood likes to be the cultural force that it claims to be, it must evolve beyond surface-level topics and engage with these deeper issues. It’s time we demand more from the industry at large — a commitment to genuine progress that values artistry and responsibility. That is how we make cinema truly reflective of our society and its diverse narratives.
