Freedom of speeches at the 2025 Oscars

Award shows are always political. The business of acknowledgement always tends to be. Who is recognised and who gets left out and what does that say about the world beyond the film screen? 

The Oscars have long been a stage for these conversations. It’s been ten years since #OscarsSoWhite called out the industry’s lack of diversity and while progress has been made controversy is never far behind. 

This year was no exception. The 2025 Oscars delivered the usual mix of heartfelt thank-yous, pointed political statements and just enough drama to keep the X hive buzzing. But what stood out most wasn’t just what people said, but what they didn’t.

Plenty of talk about oppression, but few named the oppressors. Representation was championed, but its complications went unmentioned. And then there was Elon Musk, who simply had to weigh in on anything DEI related, but he may have a point this to (with caveats of course).

Emilia Perez

In a time when trans rights are under attack across the US, Emilia Pérez made a bold splash at the Oscars. A film about a Mexican cartel boss transitioning was bound to turn heads, both before and after its release. And it certainly did, but for more reasons than anticipated. While debates raged over its portrayal of Mexican and trans communities, lead actress Karla Sofía Gascón found herself embroiled in controversy for making racist and insensitive comments ahead of the film’s debut. Yet, on Oscar night, the discourse surrounding the film; what was said, and more importantly, what wasn’t spoke volumes.

The same mix of celebration and discomfort played out the Oscars stage. Emilia Pérez won Best Original Song, and Zoe Saldaña became the first American of Dominican descent to win an Academy Award, taking home Best Supporting Actress. Her acceptance speech was a powerful moment where she embraced her Latina heritage musing on her win as the first American of Dominican descent to receive an academy reward. 

She told the audience excitedly, “The fact that I’m getting an award for a role where I got to sing and speak in Spanish—my grandmother, if she were here, she would be so delighted.” Given the backdrop of Trump’s executive order making English the official language of the US, a move that immigrant-rights groups warned could marginalize non-English speakers in healthcare, voting, and government services, Saldaña’s words served as a timely reminder of the importance of cultural visibility.

When a journalist remarked that Emilia Pérez was "hurtful for us Mexicans," Saldaña offered a swift apology but dismissed the criticism, stating, 

"For me, the heart of this movie was not Mexico. We were making a film about friendship. We were making a film about four women." She continued, "These women could have been Russian, could have been Dominican, could have been Black from Detroit, could have been from Israel, could have been from Gaza. And these women are still very universal women that are struggling every day, trying to survive systemic oppression and find the most authentic voices."

The irony was hard to miss. A story deeply tied to culture, identity and systemic injustice was suddenly being reframed as a “universal” tale of friendship. This attempt to detach the film from the very communities it aimed to represent was awkward, to say the least. On one hand embracing diverse stories but then skirting around the nuance and specificity of the communities they aim to represent.

The sidestepping of trans experiences, which were central to the film, only deepened the silence surrounding trans rights. Despite the narrative importance of portraying a trans woman, none of the night’s speeches or interviews addressed the growing attacks on trans communities and their rights in the U.S. When given the chance to comment in allyship, director Jacques Audiard instead joked, “Since I didn’t win Best Film or Best Director, I didn’t have the opportunity to speak. But had I had that opportunity, I would have spoken up.” 

He then laughed and walked away from the mic. Yes, you read that right he claimed he would have spoken up, all while speaking into the mic. What should have been moments of solidarity and acknowledgment became instead a demonstration of flattened experiences and careful distancing from the political implications at hand.

The Brutalist & No Other Land

As civil unrest grows globally, with ongoing diplomatic tensions compounded by Donald Trump’s actions in his first days in office, the Oscars became a stage where silence on pressing political issues spoke louder than ever. The victories of The Brutalist and No Other Land, both films pertinent to the ongoing war on Gaza, and the following comments and responses, demonstrated the difficulty and discomfort the film  industry faces when addressing today’s political realities; showing a stark contrast to previous years at the Oscars. 

The Brutalist, directed by Brady Corbet, follows a Hungarian-Jewish Holocaust survivor (played by Adrien Brody) struggling to achieve the American Dream. Accepting the Best Actor award, Brody reflected on the film’s themes and their relevance to today’s world.

“I’m here once again to represent the lingering traumas and the repercussions of war, systemic oppression, antisemitism, racism, and ‘othering,’” he said. “I pray for a healthier, happier, and more inclusive world. And I believe if the past teaches us anything, it is a reminder not to let hate go unchecked.”

A poignant speech, but one that stopped short of direct condemnation. Given Trump’s ongoing presidency and his executive orders rescinding employment discrimination rights and targeting education on systemic racism, including bans on critical race theory, Brody’s remarks could be read as thinly veiled criticism. Yet the contrast to the 2017 Oscars was striking back then, Trump was called out by name throughout the night, particularly by host Jimmy Kimmel. Eight years later, as political divisions have grown deeper, even powerful words like Brody’s felt conspicuously restrained.

The winning of No Other Land, took a more direct approach. Co-directed by Palestinian journalist Basel Adra and Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, the documentary became the first Palestinian-directed film to win an Oscar. Spanning 2019 to 2023 and composed mostly of personal camcorder footage, it captures the Israeli army’s efforts to expel residents from Masafer Yatta, Adra’s hometown in the occupied West Bank. The film has earned international acclaim for its unfiltered portrayal of life under occupation and Palestinian resistance to forced displacement.

On stage, Adra seized the moment to call out Israeli policies and US foreign policy’s role in sustaining the occupation. “There can be no political solution built on ethnic supremacy—true safety for my people can only exist if Basel’s people are truly free and safe,” he said. “There is another way. It’s not too late for life, for the living. There is no other way.”

The night’s conversation extended beyond the stage. Social media users scrutinized audience reactions, noting which celebrities applauded enthusiastically and who remained silent, further fueling debate over Hollywood’s stance on the issue.

Musk’s Meritocracy for Motion Pictures:

Beyond the ceremony itself, the discourse around diversity and inclusion at the Oscars took another turn when the criteria for best motion picture was released. Under current rules, films must meet certain criteria including having an actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group in a lead role or a general ensemble cast in which 30 per cent of members are from at least two underrepresented groups such as women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+, or people with disabilities. 

In an interview with Fox News, Reagan director Dennis Quaid, whose film was one of the 116 cut from the Oscar shortlist, pointed out flaws in the system, stating, "Obviously, there needs to be a conversation about this policy." Aligning with his earlier criticisms of DEI initiatives compromising quality and merit, Elon Musk also weighed in on the matter via X, saying: “This is messed up, It should just be who is best, not best with an asterisks!”

But is Musk right? 

Not entirely. What hasn’t been said by detractors is that these rules were introduced in response to #OscarsSoWhite, aiming to correct Hollywood’s long-standing exclusion of marginalised voices. A film still needs to win on merit, diversity or not. 

That said, as DEI faces increasing political scrutiny, the industry will need to grapple with whether a quota is the best means for increasing representation, particularly when the Republican government is arguing that it is exclusionary to those who aren’t a part of it. 

What the Oscars Revealed This Year

This year, the Oscars mirrored the broader societal uncertainty around DEI and systemic oppression. Much like businesses outside of Hollywood, which tread carefully for fear of backlash, the ceremony revealed a similar hesitation. 

While some took bold stands on stage, others remained silent or moved cautiously. In an era where freedom of speech is a contentious issue, the Oscars highlighted both the power and the limitations of the platform.