The Dictatorship
‘F1’ got people to the theaters — its best picture nod won’t get them to watch the Oscars
UPDATE (March 15, 2026, 10:35 p.m. ET):In a crowded field, “One Battle After Another” won best picture of the yearbeating out fan-favorite “Sinners” to take home the night’s biggest award.
“F1” is a perfectly fine, entertaining, disposable, summer, theatrical spectacle, popcorn flick. The blockbuster film, starring Brad Pitt, is the highest-grossing of the 62-year-old Oscar-winning actor’s career, and he plays a character competing at the highest levels of motorsport, where the average age of professional drivers is somewhere between 27 and 29. It is a silly, breezy and wildly successful movie. The kind of flick that puts bottoms in the seats at a time when fewer people are going to see movies in the theater.
It is also an Academy Award nominee for best picture — and that is just ridiculous. The character development is kiddie pool-level deep, the dialogue is as wooden as any “Star Wars” movie and the satisfying conclusion never feels really in doubt. Just as the actual stars of “Top Gun” are fighter jets, racecars do much of the entertainment-lifting of “F1.” It’s standard Hollywood blockbuster fare, executed very well. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a movie geek who appreciates both the high and the lowbrow. I’m as averse to the academy’s historic snobbery against fun as anyone — but come on guys, “F1”?
Just as the actual stars of “Top Gun” are fighter jets, racecars do much of the entertainment-lifting of “F1.”
For much of the Oscars’ history, best picture nominees have been limited to five — as it was and is with pretty much every other Oscar category. From the late 1920s until 1943, the academy nominated between eight and 12 films for best picture. But from 1944-2008, there were just five nominees. A nice, accessible number, one that — if you were a fan of the Oscars — made it fairly easy to remember the nominees even years later.
But after a backlash over “The Dark Knight” and “WALL-E” — two hugely popular 2008 films that were also critical darlings — failing to get best picture nods, the academy expanded the roster, eventually settling on 10. The idea was to generate more broad interest among the masses in the stuffiest of awards shows. And that’s how “F1” ended up a best picture nominee.
It didn’t workbut that’s not really the fault of the academy. The terminal decline of broadcast television has culled the audiences for all awards shows. And watering down the prestige of a best picture nominee by adding to the mix films like “Top Gun: Maverick” (from the director of “F1”) did not spark a renaissance in Oscars ratings or box office draws. While the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon of 2023 — when “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” dominated both the summer box office and critics’ year-end lists — was a boon for Oscar ratings, it doesn’t seem to have sparked a lasting trend, largely because the success of films in the vein of those two movies has yet to be replicated. And it’s hard to believe there’s a substantial number of diehard “F1” fans that are going to make it a point to tune in for Conan O’Brien’s monologue.
But the Oscars do have their diehard fans, and they’re a type. I’d know; somewhere in the archives is a column from my high school newspaper lamenting the academy’s choices at the 1995 Oscars (honoring films released in 1994). The soppy boomer nostalgia of “Forrest Gump” won best picture (and a bunch more), which to my teenage film-obsessive mind was an outrage when pitted against the revolutionary-for-its-time frenetic dark comedy of “Pulp Fiction,” the timelessly rewatchable sentimentality of “Shawshank Redemption,” the charming and sophisticated romantic comedy of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and Robert Redford’s criminally forgotten requiem for a certain kind of 20th century American innocence, “Quiz Show.” (I’ve softened a bit on “Gump” with time, but only a little.)
Five nominees made it easier to even pit certain years against each other in critical conversation. How does 1974’s crop of best picture nominees, including “The Godfather Part II,” “Chinatown” and “The Conversation,” stack up against 1976’s “Taxi Driver,” “All the President’s Men” and “Network”? That’s a debate no one could ever win, but it’d sure be fun to watch.
The Academy Awards are still the gold standard of American show business prizes. The Golden Globes are usually good for a laugh, but hardly anyone remembers who won anything. The Grammys are capable of putting on a good show (the music helps on that front), but like the Emmys, they still don’t quite carry the cultural gravitas of the Oscars.
This is unlikely to last forever, though. “Going to the movies” as a standard pastime enjoyed by the majority of the entertainment-seeking public is just not a thing anymore since the rise of streaming — a trend exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, fewer movies are being made by studios, and the “mid-budget” movie — an adult drama, a sophisticated comedy, a quirky indie with a recognizable star — has practically gone extinct at the cinema.
There’s no rational reason why “top ten” lists of the best films of the year should be perfectly acceptable for film obsessives, but 10 best picture nominees are too many — and yet, that appears to be the case. As John Young wrote for Entertainment Weekly in 2012, “It’s better to be loved by a small and passionate group instead of liked by a much larger group.”
I get that the problems of movie fanatics who like to argue about obscure Oscar trivia don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy worldbut the specialness of the Oscars still remains its greatest asset. And opening up the best picture academy to both the “pretty good” and the “kinda ok” hasn’t done any favors to preserving that specialness.
Anthony L. Fisher is a senior editor and opinion columnist for MS NOW, often covering free speech, civil liberties and extremism. He was previously the senior opinion editor for The Daily Beast and a politics columnist for Business Insider.
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.
If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.
Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.
* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.
* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.
* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.
* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.
* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.
* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls
After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”
Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.
The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.
“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.
Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.
Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.
In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.
But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.
An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.
The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.
“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.
“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.
Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.
“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.
“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.
In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”
In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”
After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.
“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”
Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”
“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.
On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”
Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.
Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.
As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.
But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”
In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:
In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.
“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.
As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”
He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.
“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”
The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”
Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.
In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
- Turek leads Hinson in Iowa Senate poll of likely general election voters
- Turek leads Hinson in Iowa Senate poll of likely general election voters
- Senate passes housing affordability bill
- Mitch McConnell will not vote this week
- China restricts exports to US defense firms
- Democrats want control of Congress, but what will they actually do with it?
- Federal appeals court blocks CFPB job cuts
- Treasury Department issues temporary license for Iranian oil sales
- A flawed Iran deal could give investors second thoughts
- House Republicans slam Trump’s ‘risky and uncoordinated’ military funding strategy
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words