Quinnipiac University’s School of Communications’ Diversity Committee presented another installment of “Unfiltered Comm-versations” Tuesday, presenting an open forum to discuss the Academy Awards and the state of modern film and media.
The event, held in the Communications, Computing and Engineering Building, began as a discussion of the 2026 Oscars, held this past Sunday, before becoming an exploration of the reactions of movies.
The conversation began with a brief discussion of some of the Oscar-nominated films, filtered to avoid spoilers. Students and faculty mentioned best picture nominations “Sinners,” “Marty Supreme” and “One Battle After Another,” with silence lingering as the realization set in that the overlap in movies watched was limited.
The variety in films invited individuals to share personal anecdotes about their watching experiences, starting with Oscar films and branching out to other movies that left an impact.
The array of movies watched led to a common thread of political activism within the film industry, which was followed by students questioning the legitimacy of political advocacy in moments like award shows.
Some argued that using an Oscar speech as a place to call out injustice can come off as performative, particularly in cases where actors, directors and crew do not maintain that level of activism beyond the stage.
“You haven’t said anything about this the entire time it’s happening, but once you know everyone is going to be watching, you say it,” first-year film, television and media arts major Cecilia LaSpina said.
Others argued that the art of the film and the inherent political messaging speak for themselves, and there is no obligation for creators to speak out against social injustices.
“Is this the moment to make a political statement?” Associate Professor of Journalism Margarita Diaz asked. “The political statement is the movie. I mean, if you see the movie and you don’t see it as a political statement, then you know, why bother, right?”
A notable example in the discussion was American filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson, whose film “One Battle After Another” won three Academy Awards, including a nod to Anderson for Best Director.
“I would love to tap into (Anderson) and the lack of using the platform, like through that film,” Assistant Professor of Film, Television and Media Arts Mary Schmitt said. “It’s about political activism, and it’s about the next generation doing better than what came before. So I am mad about that, that there was no response from him, really.”
Another comment on the politics that also tied back to Anderson was improper representation, particularly in his representation of black women in “One Battle After Another.”
Students cited Anderson’s relationship with long-term partner, actress and comedian Maya Rudolph. They questioned how there could be a “cognitive dissonance” between the art he creates and the views he shares and how those politics converge.
Furthermore, the conversation veered into how politics are no longer centralized to just the product it’s connected to. As the impact of media grows, so does the political messaging present beyond the product, whether that be film or other forms of media.
“They call it paratexts,” Assistant Professor of Media Studies David Kocik said. “Where it’s like their interviews, movie trailers, right? All that extra stuff that you engage with when it comes to a film. Where does the responsibility of the artist lie?”
Even as talks wound down into the specifics of how the Oscars are presented as an award show, the politicalization remained a central point.
However, just because it is central to films and how they are consumed does not mean politics in art is something to be viewed negatively.
“I don’t want you to think of politics as a bad thing, right?” Kocik said. “There are some people online where it’s like, you’re making it political. That’s kind of like a phrase that’s said online a lot. It’s about how you see the world and how things should be organized and how things should be kind of constructed.”
