Does winning an Oscar still make sense?

Who would have ever thought: winning an Oscar is a matter of money. When wondering what lies behind one of the most lethal campaigns seen in recent years, people always assume there is only a return in terms of image, but there is also an economic aspect involved. Not for journalists who, on their side, dig up old tweets to make news and position themselves as news providers, scoops, or counterproductive scandals—especially if they lash out at the Oscars, which for so long were considered "so white," as was commonly said a few years ago. But certainly for productions that, sometimes but not always, rely on the press to circulate the "right" information, in this case, the fact that Karla Sofía Gascón, the transgender protagonist of Emilia Pérez, made racist statements. The resurfacing of the actress's questionable social media posts could be the result of journalistic work aimed at finding the most shocking news or of communication and production teams doing everything they can to sink their opponents, leaving no prisoners—especially since Emilia Pérez was already facing accusations of a transphobic and caricatured representation of Mexico.

Now, in this specific case, these are merely speculations, and there is no confirmation anywhere that Gascón was set up to prevent her from winning the statuette. Even though she had a strong position in the competition as the first trans woman to be nominated in a Trumpian climate that no longer recognizes the category as people (the passport incident with the letter "M" for "male" for Hunter Schafer is illustrative) and that could have brought her closer to victory precisely to send a message. But the rule "mors tua vita mea" still applies, so the disappointment of not winning for the Emilia Pérez actress (along with a shitstorm) might benefit one of her colleagues. Not to mention Jacques Audiard's film itself, which, from being a frontrunner, will be lucky if the highly favored Zoe Saldana wins Best Supporting Actress. The question then is: is it really worth engaging in such a bloodbath? Apparently, for an entertainment industry that generates billions of dollars each year, the answer is yes.

It is also true that, over the years, the statuette has taken on an increasingly symbolic value, with the idea of an Academy capable of being the image of a nation, an ideal, a conglomerate of voices that, with their influence, can engage and make enthusiasts and audiences reflect. There have been, in fact, victories or directives that have changed the course of the award, especially considering that since 2024, new inclusivity rules have come into effect, which must be met for films to compete for Best Picture. But what remains unchanged is the boost that an Oscar can provide to a film, a crew, or an actor. Something that can turn out to be fleeting and momentary—many names, unfortunately, have faded into oblivion after winning an Oscar—but that can increase the earnings of both the films and those involved.

Let's start with the fact that even just promoting a film or a performer for the Oscars has a cost, and any production would be happy to see an adequate return after so much money invested. The figures are so exorbitant that they even create a certain level of secrecy in Hollywood, not being openly disclosed, but according to some insider sources, they could total anywhere between 100 and 500 million dollars in a single year. Thus, it is not surprising to hear Brady Corbet, in the race with his The Brutalist, confess that he did not earn a single dollar from the creation and distribution of the film. The director and screenwriter explained that taking a film around the world, making it visible, and hoping that all Academy members vote for it requires a constant outflow of money, especially when dealing with productions that, despite appearing monumental, cost "only" 9.6 million dollars (a small amount compared to major Hollywood studio budgets), emphasizing the non-commercial nature of his cinematic endeavor.

Promotion rules that changed after 2023 with the case of the film To Leslie, becoming more restrictive given the unexpected and "forced" nomination of Andrea Riseborough for Best Actress. The film, in fact, being one of those rare true "indie" cases (costing less than $1 million and shot in nineteen days), did not have the adequate budget to support the expenses of an Oscar marketing campaign. Instead, strategic members of the Academy intervened, with word of mouth helping to bring the film to Oscar night. From that moment, directives were introduced, even though public advertising for the film remains allowed, with a "For your consideration" ad in The Hollywood Reporter costing up to $72,000. Over time, specialized figures have been introduced whose job is to promote the Oscar race, with a compensation ranging from $10,000 to $20,000. All of this is because a possible win can boost a film's box office performance. The impact is not always certain, and not all nominated films have seen an effective increase in box office earnings, but at least in 2024, the Oscar Bump seemed to have worked.

Poor Things! by Yorgos Lanthimos, after receiving 11 nominations, entered the top 3 of national rankings, with a 36% increase compared to its initial release. The Holdovers, Anatomy of a Fall, and Past Lives also managed to surpass the $20 million mark in the USA, which is a huge result for non-commercial cinema in the post-COVID era. The two giants of the season, Barbie and Oppenheimer, did not engage in an Oscar promotion campaign in 2024. The latter became the winner with the highest-grossing film of the past two decades since The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (with an additional $2.8 million increase in box office earnings after the nomination). Indie cinema has not always had the same luck—take CODA, Nomadland, and Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight, which became a classic regardless. But not every film can be Everything Everywhere All at Once, which earned $140.1 million worldwide, the highest-grossing independent film in cinema history. Another recent and exemplary case is The Zone of Interest, which earned $1.6 million before the Oscar nomination announcement in just 82 theaters in the USA and soon expanded, earning another $7 million in the following weeks. A surprise for such a serious film, and considering its performance in the US, a foreign-language film (it also achieved the impressive result of €5,383,735 in Italy).

Even actors, just like their films, can benefit from a boost that, on average, raises their salaries for future projects by 20% to 60%. However, actresses still face the gender pay gap, with their male colleagues reaching astronomical figures while their salaries remain relatively unchanged. It is no coincidence that in the ranking of the world's highest-paid actors in 2023, only two out of eight are women (Margot Robbie and Jennifer Aniston), and no female personalities appear among the highest-paid for a career role. Meanwhile, Robert Downey Jr. appears three times for his role as Iron Man. But the impact is not only temporary if one plays their cards right. Oscar winners become highly attractive to brands and top advertisers, leading them to endorse products and establish long and profitable collaborations. Signing multi-million dollar contracts with luxury brands also increases their financial success.

While it is difficult to estimate how long the "bump" lasts for an actor after an Oscar win, it is undeniable that monetary rewards come along with new opportunities for the future—and it is up to them and their agents to seize them, avoiding the "Oscar jinx," the bad luck that follows some winners who never make the right career moves again. And if they don’t win, there is always a consolation. Oscar winners do not receive a cash prize, but all nominees in the major categories receive an annual gift bag worth over $100,000. Its contents? Luxury items, skincare products, liposuction procedures, and vacations—imagining them a bit like a The White Lotus-style resort getaway.