Sinners never needed the Oscars to be great |
The context you need, when you need it
When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.
We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?
Sinners never needed the Oscars to be great
The movie was treated like it was crashing the very party it nabbed a historic number of invites to.
Heading into the Oscars on Sunday night, the buzz surrounding Sinners and director Ryan Coogler was that they could be Hollywood’s biggest surprise. In the same way that the movie surpassed box office expectations (it’s made more than $369 million worldwide to date), it could perhaps defy the odds and take home the night’s biggest awards.
The Gothic vampire Western ended up winning four Oscars. Coogler scored his first win for Best Original Screenplay, as did star Michael B. Jordan (for acting). Autumn Cheyenne Durald Arkapaw also made history —she’s the first woman to win the Academy Award for cinematography. And composer Ludwig Göransson was also honored for the movie’s score.
What Sinners wasn’t able to do was beat One Battle After Another and director Paul Thomas Anderson in the Best Picture and Best Directing categories. That would’ve been considered a monumental upset. But why? In what world would the most-nominated movie in history be considered an underdog?
Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online.
Why was Sinners ever considered an underdog?
In all, Sinners nabbed 16 Oscar nominations, setting a record for the most of all time. This included most........