As awards season heats up, the Oscar hopes for Jon Chu’s “Wicked” grow bleak despite its box office dominance as the highest-grossing Broadway musical adaptation to date. Infamously, at this year’s Golden Globes, “Wicked” barely made a ripple, with little to no recognition as other films like “Emilia Pérez,” “The Substance” and “The Brutalist” showed more Oscar promise. This served as a stark reminder for many that, despite the box office triumph and its feel-good, spectacle-driven nature, “Wicked” has yet to convince critics and voters that it has the depth needed to compete in the award’s race. 

So … why does “Wicked” struggle to break through in the awards conversation? 

In my opinion, “Wicked” is more about eliciting cheers than challenging an audience’s perception of what they’re watching — and that is perfectly fine. This is not to sell “Wicked” short or suggest that it lacks substance, but rather to recognize that the film’s strength lies in its ability to entertain and uplift, not necessarily in its capacity to provoke deep, critical reflection. And when it comes to the Oscar conversation, history suggests that the films that receive the most attention are the ones that leave you confronting uncomfortable truths long after the credits roll. “Wicked,” for all its magic and spectacle, doesn’t lean into that territory — it’s a story about empowerment, friendship and prejudice, but it’s wrapped in a world of fantasy where, at the end of the day, everything feels a little more … safe. 

To make myself perfectly clear, I am not trying to critique the film’s heart or message. But it would seem that the Academy tends to favor films that challenge us in ways that “Wicked” doesn’t. For all the talk about “Wicked” as a lesson on “creeping fascism,”  it fails to land that message with the weight it needs, especially when placed side-by-side with other Oscar contenders. Sure, the themes are there, but they feel diluted in comparison to more urgent, raw storytelling we see in other films vying for attention. 

Which brings me to my personal bet for this year’s Best Picture — Brady Corbert’s “The Brutalist.” Following my earlier suppositions, if Best Picture is awarded to a film with cutting themes and sumptuous visuals, “The Brutalist” is the towering example. This film is about so much — immigration, postwar life, barbarism — but the most resonant theme, for me, is the struggle between art and commerce in the perils of modernism. Corbert confronts the disillusionment of commodified creativity. The performances are palpable, the narrative is dense and Corbert doesn’t give any easy resolutions. “The Brutalist” is both uncomfortable and bold, which is exactly the kind of power needed to claim these Oscar spots.

While unlikely, I don’t think it’s entirely impossible for a fun, feel-good movie to win Best Picture. We have seen countless examples of this — “Slumdog Millionaire,” “Gladiator” and “Chicago” are all prime instances of films with mass appeal combining digestible themes with emotional resonance that manage to take home the top prize. 

Specifically, take “Chicago,” another highly spectacled Broadway-adapted musical. This begs the question — why could “Chicago” do what I’m arguing “Wicked” can’t? “Chicago” is just as flashy and it even carries similar themes to “Wicked,” including corruption and media manipulation. 

But the difference is that “Chicago” uses its flash and grandeur to satirize these themes. The musical has a self-aware edge that fails to get lost behind the glitzy surface of song and dance. Instead of just pointing at media corruption, “Chicago” embodies it. The characters are ruthless and morally ambiguous — they are not built to inspire but rather to critique. While “Wicked” demonstrates the inherent goodness in humanity, “Chicago” hits you over the head with the ugliness of society.  

So, while “Wicked” may be a commercial and cultural triumph, it remains to be seen if it wields the critical edge and commentary to resonate with the Academy. Although I loved “Wicked,” it simply lacks the same gravitas as most other lauded contenders. For all its magic, the movie remains a feel-good experience rather than a thought-provoking statement, and until it can balance both, its Oscar hope remains distant.