The 98th Academy Awards on March 15, 2026, generated a lot of buzz. Between pointed jabs at Timothée Chalamet and the sweeping success of “Sinners,” the night quickly became defined by both controversy and clarity.
“Sinners” emerged as the dominant force, taking home Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Score and Best Cinematography. In the process, Autumn Durald Arkapaw became the first woman to win for cinematography, while Michael B. Jordan became just the sixth Black man to win Best Actor.
For much of the awards season, however, that outcome felt far from certain. Chalamet had built early momentum, with betting markets and industry chatter largely positioning him as the frontrunner. It wasn’t until his now-infamous comments dismissing ballet and opera as art forms no one cares about anymore that the narrative began to shift, at least publicly.
By the time those comments went viral, however, the race had largely already been decided. Nearly 80% of Academy voters had cast their ballots, making it unlikely that a single soundbite, no matter how tone-deaf, could have meaningfully altered the outcome. The backlash didn’t cost Chalamet the Oscar; if anything, it exposed a perception that had been quietly building throughout the season.Â
His campaign, marked by flashes of bravado and unconventional marketing, began to blur with the very character he portrayed in “Marty Supreme,” an entitled underdog whose confidence often bordered on alienating.
In contrast, Jordan’s performance in “Sinners” felt grounded, deliberate and emotionally precise. Playing a dual role, he navigated subtle distinctions in character with a level of control that rewarded close attention rather than demanding it.
More importantly, “Sinners” itself elevated that performance; it wasn’t just a showcase for acting but a fully realized cinematic experience.
Watching both “Sinners” and “Marty Supreme” after the fact, it becomes clear that “Marty Supreme” is a film that plays just as well in the comfort of your home, whereas “Sinners” demands a theater.
The scale of its cinematography, the weight of its score and the immersion of its storytelling all feel diminished on a smaller screen. It’s the kind of movie you can’t just watch — you have to experience. And that distinction is pertinent.
But this distinction goes beyond one awards season.
This isn’t just about two films — it’s about what kind of movies can still draw people out of their homes in the first place. As Ryan Gosling recently put it during a surprise appearance at a screening of “Project Hail Mary,” “It’s not your job to keep theaters open. It’s our job to make things that make it worth you coming out.”
And right now, that’s a harder sell than ever. A trip to the movies isn’t casual anymore; it’s expensive. Between tickets, concessions and the overall effort of going out, audiences are far more selective about what they’re willing to see on the big screen. They’re not paying for something they could just as easily stream a few weeks later.
Films like “Project Hail Mary” are built not just to be watched but to be experienced. They rely on scale, immersion and emotional payoff in a way that demands a larger screen.
It’s not just about spectacle for the sake of it but about creating something expansive enough to justify the cost and effort of going out. In an era dominated by streaming, “event cinema” has taken on a new meaning: it’s not defined by budget alone but by whether a film offers something you can’t replicate at home.
That tension between experience and accessibility is part of what made Chalamet’s ballet and opera comments resonate so strongly in the first place. While those art forms are immersive, they’re also, for many people, out of reach.
Tickets alone can be prohibitively expensive, and the unspoken expectations of formal attire, etiquette and exclusivity create an environment that doesn’t feel open to everyone. The experience may be rich, but it’s also restricted — reserved for those who can afford not just the ticket but everything that comes with it.
Theaters, at their best, offer the opposite: a shared experience that feels accessible, communal and culturally relevant. We’ve seen how powerful that can be when it’s done right, like the phenomenon of “Barbenheimer.”
“Oppenheimer,” being the cinematic film that it was, demanded to be seen on the biggest screen possible with the best speakers. “Barbie” created something different: an experience people wanted to be part of.
Audiences showed up in pink, brought their friends, bought the AMC “Barbie”-themed popcorn bucket and turned a movie night into an event. It wasn’t just about what was on screen — it was about everything surrounding it.
With the latest release of “Project Hail Mary” — a stunning film — and the audience’s excitement surrounding it, one thing is clear: audiences will show up for a movie, but only for films that give them a reason to.