How to Bet on Industry Sentiment After Controversial Past Winners

Controversial winners, from divisive Best Picture choices to moments that spark widespread social media outrage, can create a powerful ripple effect, influencing voting patterns for years to come. For the savvy bettor, understanding this “correction narrative” is key to identifying undervalued contenders and predicting how industry sentiment will swing in the wake of a scandal.

The Anatomy of a Backlash

A controversial win isn’t simply a case of the “wrong” film winning. It’s a moment when a voting body’s choice is perceived as being glaringly out of step with cultural progress, artistic merit, or social justice. These controversies often coalesce around specific themes: a lack of diversity, a problematic narrative, or a feeling that the “safest” choice won over a more groundbreaking one.

Two of the most significant examples in recent Oscar history are the #OscarsSoWhite movement and the Best Picture win for Green Book.

#OscarsSoWhite (2015-2016)

The hashtag, created by activist April Reign, went viral after the Academy nominated all-white acting slates for two consecutive years. The backlash was immense, with industry figures boycotting the ceremony and widespread criticism of the Academy’s overwhelmingly white, male, and older voting demographic. The controversy forced the institution into a period of introspection and significant change.

Green Book (2019)

When Green Book won Best Picture, many critics and viewers were dismayed. The film was criticized for employing a “white savior” trope, simplifying complex race relations, and being factually disputed by the family of its Black protagonist, Dr. Don Shirley. Its victory over more critically acclaimed and culturally specific films like Roma and Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman was seen as a regressive choice, a throwback to an older, less discerning Hollywood.

The Pendulum Swing: Identifying the “Correction” Winner

The real betting opportunity lies in what happens next. Awards bodies, particularly the Academy, are sensitive to public perception and industry criticism. Following a major controversy, there is often a palpable, if unspoken, pressure to “make up for it” the following year. This creates a powerful narrative for a film that stands in direct contrast to the previous year’s controversial winner.

The Post-#OscarsSoWhite Correction

After two years of intense criticism over a lack of diversity, the 2017 Best Picture winner was Moonlight. The film, a profound story about a young, gay Black man, was the antithesis of the kind of cinema the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag was protesting. Its victory over the presumed frontrunner, La La Land, was a stunning moment that felt like a direct response to the controversy. This was followed by a period where the Academy made a concerted effort to invite hundreds of new, more diverse members, leading to an increase in nominations for underrepresented groups.

The Post-Green Book Correction

The year after Green Book’s widely criticized win, the top prize went to Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite. A South Korean thriller that made history as the first non-English language film to win Best Picture, Parasite was everything Green Book was not: internationally focused, critically lauded, and socially incisive. Its win was seen as a decisive and progressive statement, a clear pivot away from the safe, traditionalist choice of the year before.

How to Bet on the Backlash: A Strategic Guide

Reading the tea leaves of industry sentiment requires looking beyond the statistics of precursor awards. It’s about understanding the story the voters want to tell about themselves.

Identify the “Atonement” Candidate

In the year following a major controversy, look for the nominee that best serves as an answer to the previous year’s criticism. If the backlash was about a lack of diversity, the film that champions underrepresented voices becomes a stronger contender, even if it’s not the statistical frontrunner. If the controversy was about a “safe” choice, look for the bold, innovative, or international film that allows voters to appear more discerning and forward-thinking.

Listen to the Narrative, Not Just the Pundits

Pay close attention to the discourse throughout awards season. Are journalists and industry insiders framing a certain film as “the movie we need right now”? Is there a growing consensus that a particular win would send a powerful message? This narrative can often be a more potent indicator of momentum than guild awards alone.

Factor in Institutional Change

The Academy’s push to diversify its membership since 2016 is not just a PR move; it has a tangible effect on voting. A younger, more international, and more diverse voting body is less likely to reward films that feel dated or problematic. This structural shift gives an inherent advantage to films that align with a more modern and inclusive worldview.

Betting on industry sentiment is an art, not a science. It requires a deep understanding of Hollywood’s anxieties and aspirations, and by recognizing when the voting body is looking to correct a past mistake, you can position yourself to capitalize on the powerful, and often predictable, swing of the awards season pendulum.