Hollywood’s silence about Trump In the 97th edition of the Oscar awards it contrasts with the activist position that the film industry showed in recent campaigns. In previous years, awards ceremonies served as a platform for political complaints, with speeches against republican administration and open support to Democratic figures such as Kamala Harris. However, After the electoral failure of progressivism in 2024, this year’s gala opted for discretion.
Throughout one of the most extensive editions in the history of the Oscars, Not a single direct mention to Donald Trump was pronounced. This change of tone is significant if compared to other editions where criticism of the then Republican president were constant. Not even the international tension for the war in Gaza and the situation in Ukraine They managed to steal prominence in the gala, who preferred to focus on the forest fires that whipped Los Angeles.
The presenter Conan O’Brien He began the ceremony with a message about the environmental tragedy, praising the technicians and artisans of cinema. Unlike past editions, in which lit speeches dominated the narrative of the night, this time the political comments were scarce. Daryl Hannah briefly mentioned Ukraine, while O’Brien made a reference and ironic to Vladimir Putin. The winner of the Best Actor Award, Adrien Brody, delivered a vague message about inclusion and the need not to let hate spread, but without alluding to any specific conflict.
The contrast is evident if it is considered that the nominated films themselves addressed political themes. Real Pain and The Brutalist treated the holocaust and experiences of immigrants, while Emilia Pérez revolved around the transition of a trans woman. Besides, The Apprentice portrayed the life of a young Trump. Not Other Land, a documentary about the destruction of the Palestinian community in Masafer Yatta, took the prize for best documentary, but its distribution in the USA is still questioned.
The Hollywood attitude change is also reflected in the viewers reaction. In recent years, the film industry has seen how its progressive positions generated polarization among the public. The perception that awards became political forums has contributed to Descent at the television audienceforcing the organizers to rethink their approach. In this sense, the decision to avoid an openly political tone could be interpreted as an attempt to reconnect with a sector of the disenchanted public.
It should be noted that this apparent appease does not mean that Hollywood has completely abandoned its political agenda. In recent years, prominent figures of the industry have supported progressive initiatives on different fronts. However, the electoral failure of 2024 has left a clear lesson: the support for candidates and causes does not guarantee the sympathy of the electorate. In a deeply divided country, the association between the world of entertainment and political progressism could be losing efficacy.
Another factor that could have influenced this change in tone is the growing perception that the cinema of Hollywood is losing its cultural relevance in favor of other forms of entertainment, such as streaming platforms and social networks. In this new panorama, traditional awards have to compete with a media ecosystem where viewer’s attention is fragmented and ephemeral. A political discourse too marked could be counterproductive in terms of audience and reception.
In short, the 2025 Oscars showed Hollywood’s political activism at a time when their progressive speech seems to have lost the favor of the public. The result is a ceremony in which He opted for silence about Trump and other thorny issues, suggesting a change of strategy in the industry after the electoral failure of his ideological current. The question that remains in the air is whether this moderation will be a passing trend or mark a definitive turn in the relationship between Hollywood and politics.
By rn
Image gallery
