The announcement of major award nominations—the Golden Globes, the Critics Choice Awards, and especially the Oscars—is a unique cultural moment. It’s a day of vindication for some, a morning of quiet disappointment for others, and for the watching public, a spectacle of drama, debate, and immediate historical reckoning. Each year, the lists generate a predictable yet passionate chorus of reactions: jubilant cheers for the deserving, and outraged cries over the “snubbed.“
This award season was no different. In a year brimming with cinematic excellence, from towering blockbusters to intimate indie darlings, the competition was fiercer than ever. Consequently, the omissions and surprises felt more pronounced, sending shockwaves through the industry and fan communities alike. This article delves deep into the most talked-about snubs and the most delightful surprises of the season, analyzing not just the “what,” but the “why,” exploring the complex interplay of campaign strategies, category placements, industry trends, and sheer, unadulterated buzz that dictates who hears their name called on nomination morning.
The Anatomy of a Snub: More Than Just an Omission
Before we dive into the specifics, it’s crucial to understand what constitutes a “snub.” In the high-stakes world of awards, a snub is rarely a simple case of a performance or film being deemed “not good enough.” Instead, it’s often a complex outcome shaped by:
- Category Confusion: Whether a performance is submitted as Lead or Supporting can make or break its chances.
- Campaign Fatigue: Voters can grow weary of perennial favorites, sometimes leading to unexpected omissions.
- The Vote-Split: Two powerhouse performances from the same film can split voter support, causing both to miss out.
- Genre Bias: Comedies, sci-fi, and horror films historically struggle to gain traction in major categories against more traditional dramas.
- The Overlooked Narrative: Sometimes, a film’s behind-the-scenes story or its cultural impact isn’t effectively communicated to voters.
With this framework in mind, let’s dissect the most shocking snubs of the season.
Part 1: The Snubs – The Omissions That Echoed
The Directorial Shut-Out: Greta Gerwig for Barbie
Perhaps the most resonant snub of the season, one that transcended industry chatter and became a mainstream talking point, was Greta Gerwig’s omission from the Best Director lineup at the Oscars.
The Case for Inclusion: Barbie was not just a movie; it was a global cultural tsunami. Gerwig, alongside co-writer and partner Noah Baumbach, took a globally recognized IP and transformed it into a meta-commentary on patriarchy, feminism, and the existential dread of being a woman—all wrapped in a sparkling, pink, and hilarious package. The film was a staggering commercial success, grossing over $1.4 billion worldwide, and a critical darling. Directing Barbie was a Herculean task: balancing tone, managing massive set pieces, delivering nuanced performances from a comedic cast, and ensuring the film’s profound themes landed without feeling didactic. It was a masterclass in commercial-auteur filmmaking.
The Why Behind the Snub: The reasons are multifaceted. Firstly, the Directors Branch of the Academy is notoriously insular and has a long history of overlooking directors of big-budget, commercially successful films, particularly when they are women. The branch often favors a more traditional, auteur-driven vision seen in smaller dramas. Secondly, despite the film’s eight Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, there may have been a perception that Gerwig’s achievement was more in the writing than the directing—a flawed but persistent dichotomy. The outrage that followed her snub highlights a growing frustration with the Academy’s inability to fully recognize visionary direction when it doesn’t fit a narrow, established mold.
The Heartbreaking Omission: Leonardo DiCaprio for Killers of the Flower Moon
In a film filled with powerhouse performances, Leonardo DiCaprio’s work in Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon was a complex, gut-wrenching portrait of weakness, complicity, and feigned ignorance. His snub for Best Actor was a stunner.
The Case for Inclusion: DiCaprio’s Ernest Burkhart is the moral black hole at the center of the Osage murders. He is not a classic villain; he is something far more insidious—a weak, greedy, and lovestruck man who allows, and actively facilitates, the systematic murder of his own wife’s family. DiCaprio masterfully portrays this cognitive dissonance, his face a canvas of flickering guilt, dim-witted avarice, and pathetic self-justification. It was a brave performance, devoid of vanity and full of uncomfortable truths.
The Why Behind the Snub: This snub can largely be attributed to the vote-split phenomenon. DiCaprio and his co-star, Robert De Niro, were both nominated in supporting categories at other awards (like the Golden Globes), but for the Oscars, both were placed in leading categories (Actor and Supporting Actor, respectively). With the monumental presence of Lily Gladstone, and the towering supporting turn from De Niro, the film’s acting power may have been too distributed. Furthermore, the Best Actor category was exceptionally crowded this year. Voters may have found DiCaprio’s character too loathsome and passive compared to the more traditionally “actorly” and transformative performances that made the cut. It’s a reminder that playing a weak-willed accomplice, however brilliantly, can be a tougher sell than playing a charismatic or overtly tragic figure.
The Indie Darling Overlooked: Charles Melton for May December
Todd Haynes’s May December featured one of the most critically acclaimed performances of the year in Charles Melton’s portrayal of Joe Yoo, the stunted husband grappling with the trauma of his childhood grooming. His sweep of the critics’ group awards made him seem like a lock for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. His absence was a profound shock.
The Case for Inclusion: Melton’s performance was a quiet earthquake. As Joe, he used his physicality to stunning effect—a hulking man who often seemed to fold into himself, seeking invisibility. The performance was built on subtle glances, repressed emotions, and a profound sadness that bubbled to the surface in moments of breathtaking vulnerability, such as the famous scene on the roof with his son. It was a career-redefining turn that announced Melton as a serious actor of immense capability.
The Why Behind the Snub: The most likely culprit here is screen time and campaign momentum. May December, while critically adored, is a challenging, nuanced film distributed by Netflix, which had to split its campaign resources across a massive slate. While Melton won over critics, the larger, more generalized Academy membership may not have prioritized viewing the film. Furthermore, in a category often dominated by showy, dialogue-heavy performances, Melton’s internal, physically expressive work may have been too subtle for some voters. It’s a classic case of a performance being “too indie” for the broad Academy electorate, a fate that often befalls critical darlings in the final stretch.
The Box Office Juggernaut Shut Out: The Color Purple
The musical adaptation of The Color Purple arrived with immense momentum: a beloved source material, a storied production history, and a powerhouse cast. Its near-total shutout at the Oscars—earning only one nomination for supporting actress Danielle Brooks—was one of the season’s biggest surprises.
The Case for Inclusion: The film features electrifying musical numbers and several standout performances, particularly from Fantasia Barrino as Celie and Taraji P. Henson as Shug Avery. It was expected to be a major player in categories like Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress (for both Brooks and Henson).
The Why Behind the Snub: The film’s late-December release, while traditionally a prestige slot, may have worked against it. With so many contenders vying for attention, it failed to build the sustained momentum needed to break through. Some critics also noted that the film, while emotionally resonant, perhaps hewed too closely to the stage musical without offering a distinctly new cinematic vision, leaving it in a no-man’s-land between its source material and the iconic 1985 Spielberg film. In a crowded year, it simply failed to make a lasting, unique impression on voters beyond Brooks’s show-stopping performance.
Read more: Hidden Details & Easter Eggs You Missed in the New Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes Trailer
Part 2: The Surprises – The Nominations That Delighted and Defied Expectations
For every shocking omission, there is an equally thrilling surprise—a nomination that defies the pundits, rewards a dark horse, or signals a shift in the Academy’s tastes.
The International Intruder: Sandra Hüller in Best Actress
While Sandra Hüller was rightly celebrated for her supporting role in The Zone of Interest, her nomination for Best Actress for Anatomy of a Fall was a welcome but somewhat surprising inclusion in a fiercely competitive category.
The Significance: Hüller’s performance as Sandra Voyter, a writer on trial for her husband’s mysterious death, is a monumental achievement. She is in nearly every scene, commanding the screen with a fierce, unflinching intelligence. She must be vulnerable, defiant, calculating, and emotionally raw, often within the same scene. Her nomination is a triumph for a non-English language performance in a leading category, a rarity at the Oscars. It signals the Academy’s growing willingness to embrace world cinema at the highest level and recognize a performance that is built on psychological complexity rather than overt melodrama or physical transformation.
The Why Behind the Surprise: The Best Actress category was arguably the strongest of the year. With locks like Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon), Emma Stone (Poor Things), and Carey Mulligan (Maestro), there were only a few spots left for a crowded field. Hüller’s nomination over American stars like Margot Robbie (Barbie) or Greta Lee (Past Lives) suggests that the performance’s sheer power and the film’s masterful writing were simply undeniable. It’s a surprise that feels like a course correction, a reward for pure, unadulterated acting prowess.
The Veteran’s Return: America Ferrera in Best Supporting Actress
The conversation around Barbie’s acting nominations was almost exclusively focused on Margot Robbie and, perhaps, Ryan Gosling. The inclusion of America Ferrera for her now-iconic monologue was a heartwarming and unexpected surprise.
The Significance: Ferrera’s nomination is a testament to the impact of a single, perfectly delivered scene. Her monologue about the impossible contradictions of modern womanhood became an instant cultural touchstone, a moment of catharsis for millions. While some critics dismissed it as on-the-nose, its nomination proves that its emotional resonance with audiences and, crucially, with Academy members, was profound. It’s also a wonderful recognition for a beloved actress who has been a consistent and positive force in Hollywood for two decades.
The Why Behind the Surprise: Ferrera was not a consistent presence in the pre-cursor awards (the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, etc.). Her nomination is a classic example of a passion pick. Voters who loved Barbie likely singled out that specific moment as the emotional core of the film and checked her name. It demonstrates that in a ranked-choice voting system, a strong, memorable moment can sometimes trump a more consistently praised but less “loud” performance.
The Auteur’s Recognition: Justine Triet for Best Director
While Anatomy of a Fall was a critical favorite after winning the Palme d’Or at Cannes, its director, Justine Triet, was firmly on the bubble for a Best Director nomination. Her inclusion, at the expense of heavyweights like Greta Gerwig and Alexander Payne (The Holdovers), was a major surprise and a historic moment.
The Significance: Triet’s nomination makes her only the eighth woman ever nominated for the Best Director Oscar. Her work in Anatomy of a Fall is a masterclass in building tension through dialogue and editing. She crafts a legal thriller, a marital drama, and a philosophical inquiry all at once, maintaining a gripping pace and a morally ambiguous tone for over two hours. Her nomination, alongside Martin Scorsese (Killers of the Flower Moon), Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer), Yorgos Lanthimos (Poor Things), and Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest), creates one of the most internationally-focused and auteur-driven director lineups in recent memory.
The Why Behind the Surprise: The Directors Branch is famously hard to predict. They often use their votes to champion formally daring, director-driven cinema from the international scene. Triet’s razor-sharp script (which she co-wrote) and her complete command of a complex narrative clearly impressed her fellow directors more than the more commercially-oriented (though no less challenging) work of her competitors. It was a surprise that reaffirmed the branch’s specific tastes.
The Underdog’s Triumph: American Fiction in Best Picture
Cord Jefferson’s American Fiction was a film everyone liked, but few pundits had pegged as a surefire Best Picture nominee in such a competitive year. Its nomination was a delightful surprise and a victory for sharp, intelligent satire.
The Significance: American Fiction is a blisteringly funny and poignant satire about race, publishing, and artistic integrity. Its Best Picture nomination proves that the Academy has room for a well-crafted, mid-budget comedy, a genre that has struggled to gain awards traction in recent years. It’s a recognition of Jefferson’s stellar directorial debut and the film’s clever, layered screenplay, which also scored a nomination.
The Why Behind the Surprise: The film’s success is a testament to the power of the adapted screenplay. Often, a brilliantly written film can ride a wave of admiration from the Writers Branch straight into the Best Picture circle. With a beloved lead performance by Jeffrey Wright and a timely, smart premise, American Fiction built steady, word-of-mouth momentum that culminated in a well-deserved place at the top table.
Analysis: What Do These Snubs and Surprises Tell Us About the Current State of the Academy?
The patterns of this nomination season are not random; they are a reflection of an evolving Academy.
- The Internationalization of the Academy: The inclusion of Sandra Hüller, Justine Triet, and Jonathan Glazer in major categories, and the strong showing for films like Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest, is a direct result of the Academy’s concerted effort to diversify its membership globally over the past decade. The electorate is no longer just Hollywood-centric; it is a truly international body with broader tastes.
- The Persistent Power of the Auteur: While a populist film like Barbie can dominate the Best Picture list, the Directors Branch continues to operate as a sanctum for auteur-driven cinema. The snub of Gerwig and the surprise of Triet highlight a clear divergence between what the general Academy membership values in a film and what directors value in direction.
- The Limits of “The Narrative”: For years, awards campaigning has been about building an irresistible “narrative.” While still important, this season shows its limits. The Color Purple had a powerful narrative of legacy and rediscovery but missed out. Conversely, American Fiction had a quieter narrative but broke through on the strength of its craft. The narrative is a booster, not a substitute for a film’s perceived quality.
- The Passion Pick is Alive and Well: In an era of algorithmic predictions, the passion for a single performance or moment can still create a surprise nomination, as seen with America Ferrera. The ranked-choice voting system for Best Picture and the simple “pick one” system in acting categories allow for dark horses to succeed if they inspire a dedicated, if not majority, base of support.
Conclusion: A Season of Recalibration
This year’s award nominations were not a rejection of popular cinema—Barbie and Oppenheimer earned a combined 21 Oscar nominations—but rather a complex recalibration. They reflect an Academy in transition, torn between its traditional inclinations and its new, more diverse global identity. The snubs of Greta Gerwig and Leonardo DiCaprio will be debated for years, just as the surprises of Sandra Hüller and Justine Triet will be celebrated as signs of positive change.
The shock of nomination morning is a vital part of the award season ecosystem. It fuels conversations, challenges our assumptions, and ultimately, makes the final act—the ceremony itself—all the more compelling. In the end, these snubs and surprises are not just about trophies; they are a barometer of the industry’s soul, a snapshot of its evolving priorities, and a reminder that in art, as in life, the outcome is never truly a foregone conclusion.
Read more: Is This The Best Super Bowl Trailer? Breaking Down The New [Movie Title] Spot
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: What is the biggest Oscar snub of all time?
While subjective, several snubs are legendary. Alfred Hitchcock never winning a competitive Oscar for direction is a prime example. In modern times, the snub of Ben Affleck for Best Director for Argo (which still won Best Picture) and the omission of The Dark Knight from the Best Picture lineup in 2009 are often cited as key moments that actually prompted the Academy to change its rules, expanding the Best Picture category.
Q2: Why does the Academy snub popular movies so often?
This is a common misconception. While genre bias exists, popular movies are snubbed less often than it seems. The issue is usually one of category. A film like Avatar or Avengers: Endgame may clean up at the box office and in technical categories (VFX, Sound) but may not be considered a top-tier contender for Best Picture or acting awards based on the Academy’s traditional criteria, which often prioritizes dramatic acting, writing, and directorial vision over pure spectacle or entertainment value.
Q3: Can a snub actually help a filmmaker or actor’s career?
Paradoxically, yes. A high-profile snub can generate significant public sympathy and media attention, often solidifying an artist’s reputation more than a nomination for a lesser work. The “snubbed” narrative can create a powerful underdog story that fuels their next project. For instance, the discourse around Greta Gerwig’s snub has only amplified her status as a vital and important filmmaker.
Q4: How much do “For Your Consideration” campaigns influence the nominations?
They are incredibly influential. Awards campaigns, run by the studios, cost millions of dollars and involve advertising, screenings with Q&As, and sending out screeners. A well-run campaign can introduce a smaller film to voters and keep a performance top-of-mind. A poorly funded or mismanaged campaign can sink a contender’s chances, no matter how deserving. Charles Melton’s snub is widely attributed, in part, to Netflix’s divided campaign resources.
Q5: What’s the difference between a snub and just not being nominated?
It’s a matter of perception and expectation. A “snub” implies that a person or film was widely expected to be nominated based on critical acclaim, pre-cursor awards (Golden Globes, SAG, BAFTA), and industry buzz, but was shockingly omitted. A film or performance that was always considered a longshot not getting nominated is simply an also-ran, not a snub.
Q6: Were there any surprising snubs in the technical categories?
Absolutely. Every year, the technical categories have their own shocks. This year, the stunning cinematography of Rodrigo Prieto for Killers of the Flower Moon was surprisingly left out, as was the acclaimed score for The Zone of Interest. These categories are highly specialized, and the voting branches (e.g., all cinematographers vote for the cinematography nominees) can have very specific tastes that don’t always align with critical consensusachevPoint
![Beyond the Headlines: A Psychological and Practical Deep Dive into the [Celebrity Couple] Split](https://www.starbiopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/beyond-the-headlines-a-psychological-and-practical-deep-dive-into-the-celebrity-couple-split.jpg "Beyond the Headlines: A Psychological and Practical Deep Dive into the [Celebrity Couple] Split")