Magazines
ACADEMY AWARDS: THE 2026 OSCARS PREDICTIONS – Newspaper
During our weeks-long binge-watching sessions of nearly 35 titles that led to this year’s predictions, we quickly realised an undeniable fact: unlike the past few disappointing years, the 98th Academy Awards — which air tomorrow — have one of the best nominated line-ups in recent memory.
However, Icon’s latest Oscar predictions may turn out to be the most predictable.
Since the Oscars take place at the tail-end of awards season, we’ve come to the conclusion that, for the betterment of the industry — and the future well-being of the Academy Awards — the ceremony should be pushed ahead of the guild and union awards.
The awards conferred by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (Bafta), the Directors Guild of America (DGA), the Producers Guild of America (PGA), the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the Writers Guild of America (WGA), the American Cinema Editors (ACE Eddie), the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC), the Annie Awards and the Visual Effects Society (VES) are useful barometers. But following them slavishly has turned Oscar night into a lacklustre, predictable conclusion to the awards season.
Given that the ceremony is going global and will be streamed on YouTube from 2029, it should have a mandate to shake up both the industry and its viewers.
The 98th Academy Awards will be televised early Monday morning, Pakistan time. In keeping with our yearly tradition, Icon presents the key contenders for the awards and our knowledgeable film reviewers’ predictions…
Irrespective of the predictability, merit shines brightly this year. Having watched all but three nominated titles at the time of writing — we haven’t been able to see Cutting Through Rocks in Documentary Feature (which isn’t available to screen), Kukuho and The Ugly Stepsister (both nominated in Make-up and Hairstyling) — we can say that the line-up is eclectic and baffling at the same time, especially when one looks at a certain title’s nomination counts and asks: did this film actually merit so many nominations?
FOR THE RECORD
Sinners leads with 16 nominations — surpassing Titanic and All About Eve, both at 14. Despite the industry’s dogged insistence to make the film a spoiler in every category, getting nominations does not guarantee accolades.
All About Eve won six, Ben-Hur had 12 and won 11 — the same number of trophies Titanic took home. The only exception in the entire history of the Oscars was The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King which won all 11 awards it was nominated for.
The supernatural thriller is a fine film, but is it brilliant? Not by a long shot. Does it represent balance and celebrate the black community in Hollywood? Absolutely.
Director Ryan Coogler is blessed to have great PR at his disposal that has a knack for distorting facts in his favour. For example, Black Panther was a box-office phenomenon, but it was not the first black superhero film to make its mark. Blade was, and before that there was Robert Townsend’s The Meteor Man in 1993.
The Vista Vision format, much-touted in Sinners’ campaign, is no longer a novelty — Bugonia, One Battle After Another, The Brutalist and Wuthering Heights were all shot in it. Looking closely at the ‘making of’ videos, one finds that many shots and frames have been extensively retouched, expanded and manipulated in post-production. So where precisely does the cinematography — and the film’s large canvas — end and the visual effects (VFX) begin?
Cross-referencing the guild awards narrows the field considerably. In Original Screenplay, Marty Supreme and Sinners are the only repeated titles across the Baftas and the WGA, effectively cancelling out Blue Moon, Sentimental Value and It Was Just an Accident.
In International Film, the Bafta nominees are largely repeated. The Voice of Hind Rajab — the harrowing re-enactment of a Palestinian child whose final moments were broadcast to the world as she was gunned down by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) — initially felt like the obvious frontrunner. Truthfully, as filmmaking goes, it feels rushed and unpolished.
The win — if it happens — would be more about statement-making than merit. If it doesn’t — Sirāt, It Was Just an Accident and Sentimental Value are stronger contenders — and the winner will tell us exactly where power still tilts in Hollywood.
In Documentary Feature, only Mr Nobody Against Putin and The Perfect Neighbour appeared in both the Baftas and the PGA. Mr Nobody took the Bafta; My Mom Jane — a title not nominated at the Oscars, or anywhere else — took the PGA. The odds automatically favour Mr Nobody, even when a much better film, The Alabama Solution, sits in the line-up.
In an article titled ‘Anonymous Oscar Ballots: Sinners, One Battle After Another, and the Chaos of the Oscar Race’, Variety pulled back the curtain on how certain Oscar voters may think. From this year onwards, the Academy’s screening rooms operate under a new system: members are required to watch all nominated films before voting opens on the digital ballot.
The Academy now has over 10,894 total members, with 9,905 qualified voters. The average voter is a producer, director or actor in their 50s and 60s. Recent diversity initiatives have brought in younger, globally representative members who may already be shifting the vote in International Film, Documentary and acting categories. Whether this shift is enough to upset the old guard’s consensus will be the question of the night.
WHEN THE CURTAINS PART
Considering the above — mirrored by our own analysis and correspondences within Hollywood — the 98th Oscars make for a predictable, perhaps underwhelming night.
The race appears to favour a handful of titles with One Battle After Another, Sinners, Frankenstein — three good, though not great films — and the extraordinary Kpop Demon Hunters sweeping the night. F1, Train Dreams, Sentimental Value, Bugonia, Hamnet and Weapons might win here and there — if they win at all; Bugonia and Train Dreams likely won’t.
So, with these indications, it is hard to muster the enthusiasm to watch the event live. Perhaps by 2029 — with a global broadcast on YouTube and the world’s eyes on the screen — the show will remember that it is supposed to surprise us. In any case, let’s see how many of our predictions hit the target.
BEST PICTURE
Will Win: One Battle After Another
Upset: Sinners
For weeks, the race has been a toss-up between these two. One Battle, about revolution rooted in American counterculture, is exactly the kind of film the industry’s old guard — who once cheered Robert Altman and John Cassavetes — will rally behind. Sinners, pushing for black representation, carries its own cultural momentum. However, One Battle’s PGA, DGA and Bafta wins have all but written the result. The upset, if it comes, will likely be a statement from a new generation of voters.
DIRECTOR
Will Win/Should Win: Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Upset: Ryan Coogler, Sinners
Surprise! Anderson has never won an Oscar. That is an injustice, not a minor oversight. One Battle is a director’s film through and through, and every major directorial award this season has all but locked the win for Anderson. If Coogler wins, it will be from the younger lot’s momentum.
CASTING
Will Win: Sinners
Should Win: Hamnet
Upset: One Battle After Another
Sinners’ casting is arguably its strongest creative achievement. Michael B. Jordan plays twin brothers — Smoke and Stack — two men shaped by the same blood but pulled in opposite directions by ambition and loyalty. The ensemble around him — Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton, Delroy Lindo, Wunmi Mosaku — is equally effective as a whole.
Paul Mescal, Jessie Buckley, Emily Watson and others in Hamnet, in Icon’s opinion, earn the should-win because one might not immediately think of these actors for the film, yet they naturally fit the era and tone of Maggie O’Farrell’s novel. The Casting Society of America’s Artios Award and SAG’s Ensemble are the guild indicators here, and they tilt toward Sinners.
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Will Win: Michael B. Jordan, Sinners
Should Win: Ethan Hawke, Blue Moon
Upset: Leonardo DiCaprio, One Battle After Another
Jordan’s performance is effective, but not the strongest in the line-up. DiCaprio already has an Oscar. In a fair world — and the Oscars are rarely that — Hawke would win. He transforms himself entirely for Blue Moon, playing Lorenz Hart, the lyricist of musical maestro Richard Rodgers, before Rodgers partnered with Hammerstein. Sidelining Hawke has been one of the bigger injustices of this year.
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Will Win: Jessie Buckley, Hamnet
Should Win: Rose Byrne, If I Had Legs I’d Kick You
Buckley has wins to back her extraordinary performance, but Byrne’s film is the one that truly haunts the core. If I Had Legs I’d Kick You tells the story of a mother whose gravely ill daughter is confined to a motel when their house is flooded. In different ways, both are prisoners of debilitating circumstances. The camera is locked on Byrne for most of the film, never straying, as she gives a career-defining, deeply layered performance that deserves far more attention than it has received.
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Will Win: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another
Should Win: Stellan Skarsgård, Sentimental Value
Penn has the campaign’s full weight behind him. It is fine work, but pales beside Skarsgård in Sentimental Value — Joachim Trier’s meticulous and deep exploration of a fractured family. Restrained, precise and heartbreaking, the film does everything quietly… which, in Oscar terms, carries the risk of being overlooked.
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Will Win/Should Win: Amy Madigan, Weapons
Upset: Teyana Taylor, One Battle After Another
Taylor’s Perfidia Beverly Hills is a chaotic, kinetic force that practically propels the film with her own energy. Madigan’s performance in Weapons, where she plays a modern-day witch, is something rarer: unsettling, creepy and controlled — the kind of work that lingers for days, if not weeks.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will Win: Sinners
Should Win: Sentimental Value
Strange as it may be, only Sinners and Marty Supreme carry over from the Baftas to the WGA, making it effectively a two-horse race… with Marty trailing. Marty is an excellently written study of a deeply flawed, entirely self-absorbed, destructive character, but it doesn’t carry the emotional weight of Sentimental Value — a screenplay built on the painful, realistic and fractured lives of a family that is — yet isn’t — broken.
Irrespective of the predictability, merit shines brightly this year. Having watched all but three nominated titles at the time of writing, we can say that the line-up is eclectic and baffling at the same time, especially when one looks at a certain title’s nomination counts and asks: did this film actually merit so many nominations?
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will Win: One Battle After Another
Should Win: Train Dreams, Hamnet, Bugonia
After Bafta, WGA and USC Scripter wins, there is little room for discussion. Our personal preferences lie with the rest: Train Dreams — spare and quietly devastating; Hamnet, stirring and grounded; Bugonia, inventive to the hilt. The Academy will likely disagree.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will Win: One Battle After Another
Should Win: Train Dreams
Upset: Sinners
After Bafta, ASC and SOC (Society of Camera Operators) wins, One Battle is unstoppable. Train Dreams, however, is the film one should be talking about. It is among the best-shot films of the decade. Sinners’ Vista Vision push has been marketed relentlessly but, given the extent of its post-production frame manipulation, the claim to pure cinematography is shakier than what the momentum suggests.
EDITING
Will Win: One Battle After Another or Sinners
Should Win: F1
The editing race mirrors Best Picture — and will likely be a toss-up between the two frontrunners. F1 should have led the race (and maybe it still might). Anyone with film editing experience will tell you that it is a masterclass of emotion and pace balanced down to the split-second cut.
PRODUCTION DESIGN
Will Win/Should Win: Frankenstein
Upset: Sinners
Frankenstein, like all of Guillermo Del Toro’s films, builds a complete gothic world from the ground up — laboratory interiors, the creature’s desolate environments and a richly atmospheric recreation of 19th century Europe. It won the Bafta and the Art Directors Guild (ADG) period category, the most direct predictor for this Oscar. Sinners’ production design — the meticulous recreation of the 1930s Mississippi Delta juke joints and rural landscapes — is accomplished work. The competition is essentially realism versus fantastic world-building. The fantastic usually wins.
COSTUME DESIGN
Will Win: Frankenstein
Should Win: Hamnet
Upset: Sinners
Frankenstein’s Bafta win and CDGA (Costume Designers Guild) period category victory make it the frontrunner; it is also one of our favourites, alongside Hamnet. The latter inches ahead in our books — though that may not be the case when the envelope opens tomorrow.
MAKE-UP AND HAIRSTYLING
Will Win/Should Win: Frankenstein
Upset: Sinners
The Creature is a work of art in Frankenstein. The Make-up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild (MUAHS) and Bafta both confirmed it with their trophies. Historically, the Academy has a long, consistent record of rewarding prosthetic-heavy physical transformations in this category — Vice, Darkest Hour and Dallas Buyers Club. Frankenstein continues that lineage. Sinners, with its period styling, may however upset the race.
VISUAL EFFECTS
Will Win/Should Win: Avatar: Fire and Ash
Upset: Sinners
One of the year’s strongest, most justifiably nominated categories. Avatar: Fire and Ash has won both the VES Photoreal Feature category and a Bafta. Sinners may put a spanner in the works because of its VES Photoreal Supporting win. Like most of Sinners’ “potential upsets”, we doubt it.
SOUND
Will Win: F1
Should Win: Sirāt
Upset: Sinners
The Cinema Audio Society (CAS) and Motion Picture Sound Editors (MPSE) guild awards are the key predictors here, and both tilt toward F1. The film — though an Apple release — was built as a theatrical experience from the ground up. The sound design — engine roars, tyresqueals, the radio crackle of the pit lane — is a chef’s kiss. Sirāt, surprisingly, is an unexpected contender — a film in which sound is literally a character in the narrative. If Sinners wins, we’ll be upset.
ORIGINAL SCORE
Will Win/Should Win: Sinners
The score of Sinners is perhaps the film’s greatest achievement. The Delta blues, gospel and a contemporary mix by executive producer and composer Ludwig Göransson (Oppenheimer, Black Panther — he won for both) is central to the film’s identity. The Bafta confirms the lead — and deservedly so. Remove the music and the film loses its soul.
ORIGINAL SONG
Will Win/Should Win: ‘Golden’, Kpop Demon Hunters
Upset: ‘I Lied to You’, Sinners
There is no mistaking ‘Golden’ as a simple K-pop entry. It is technically complex, genuinely addictive, and engineered to bridge K-pop and American pop in a way that feels native to both. The other contenders — Train Dreams and its namesake song, ‘I Lied to You’ (Sinners), and ‘Sweet Dreams of Joy’ (Viva Verdi!) — make excellent company.
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Will Win: Kpop Demon Hunters
Kpop Demon Hunters is the rare crossover entry that arrives with a globally passionate fanbase extending well beyond the animation circuit. With wins at the Annie Awards — the Oscars of the animation world— does one need to say more? Yes:the film is fantastic, both in its experience and in its technical craft.
INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM
Will Win: Sentimental Value
Should Win: The Voice of Hind Rajab
Upset: Sirāt
Sentimental Value edges ahead by our estimate. Sirāt has earned recognition in guilds where international titles rarely appear; only a fool would dismiss it outright. The Voice of Hind Rajab had genuine traction earlier — the keyword here is had. The film feels unpolished, and its subject matter deserved a firmer directorial hand to refine the pace and land the emotion. A Hind Rajab win would be a statement of the highest order. It would tell us where Hollywood’s conscience truly resides.
DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Will Win: Mr Nobody Against Putin
Should Win: The Alabama Solution
Upset: The Perfect Neighbour
Mr Nobody Against Putin follows the relentless campaign of a lone activist against the full machinery of the Russian state. It won a Bafta. The Perfect Neighbour uses police bodycam footage to tell the story of a two-year dispute in Ocala, Florida, that culminates in white resident Susan Lorincz fatally shooting her black neighbour, Ajike Owens, through a locked door. It is competent and unlike similar documentaries that surface year-round. However, The Alabama Solution is a different ballgame — a searing, haunting account of the politically corrupt, deeply unjust conditions inside Alabama’s prisons, and how the predominantly black inmate community attempts to dismantle the system from within. It should win.
Whatever the case, we’ll find out one way or another in less than a day’s time.
The writers are Icon’s film reviewers goes, it feels rushed and unpolished.
The win — if it happens — would be more about statement-making than merit. If it doesn’t — Sirāt, It Was Just an Accident and Sentimental Value are stronger contenders — and the winner will tell us exactly where power still tilts in Hollywood.
In Documentary Feature, only Mr Nobody Against Putin and The Perfect Neighbour appeared in both the Baftas and the PGA. Mr Nobody took the Bafta; My Mom Jane — a title not nominated at the Oscars, or anywhere else — took the PGA. The odds automatically favour Mr Nobody, even when a much better film, The Alabama Solution, sits in the line-up.
In an article titled ‘Anonymous Oscar Ballots: Sinners, One Battle After Another, and the Chaos of the Oscar Race’, Variety pulled back the curtain on how certain Oscar voters may think. From this year onwards, the Academy’s screening rooms operate under a new system: members are required to watch all nominated films before voting opens on the digital ballot.
The Academy now has over 10,894 total members, with 9,905 qualified voters. The average voter is a producer, director or actor in their 50s and 60s. Recent diversity initiatives have brought in younger, globally representative members who may already be shifting the vote in International Film, Documentary and acting categories. Whether this shift is enough to upset the old guard’s consensus will be the question of the night.
WHEN THE CURTAINS PART
Considering the above — mirrored by our own analysis and correspondences within Hollywood — the 98th Oscars make for a predictable, perhaps underwhelming night.
The race appears to favour a handful of titles with One Battle After Another, Sinners, Frankenstein — three good, though not great films — and the extraordinary Kpop Demon Hunters sweeping the night. F1, Train Dreams, Sentimental Value, Bugonia, Hamnet and Weapons might win here and there — if they win at all; Bugonia and Train Dreams likely won’t.
So, with these indications, it is hard to muster the enthusiasm to watch the event live. Perhaps by 2029 — with a global broadcast on YouTube and the world’s eyes on the screen — the show will remember that it is supposed to surprise us. In any case, let’s see how many of our predictions hit the target.
BEST PICTURE
Will Win: One Battle After Another
Upset: Sinners
For weeks, the race has been a toss-up between these two. One Battle, about revolution rooted in American counterculture, is exactly the kind of film the industry’s old guard — who once cheered Robert Altman and John Cassavetes — will rally behind. Sinners, pushing for black representation, carries its own cultural momentum. However, One Battle’s PGA, DGA and Bafta wins have all but written the result. The upset, if it comes, will likely be a statement from a new generation of voters.
DIRECTOR
Will Win/Should Win: Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Upset: Ryan Coogler, Sinners
Surprise! Anderson has never won an Oscar. That is an injustice, not a minor oversight. One Battle is a director’s film through and through, and every major directorial award this season has all but locked the win for Anderson. If Coogler wins, it will be from the younger lot’s momentum.
CASTING
Will Win: Sinners
Should Win: Hamnet
Upset: One Battle After Another
Sinners’ casting is arguably its strongest creative achievement. Michael B. Jordan plays twin brothers — Smoke and Stack — two men shaped by the same blood but pulled in opposite directions by ambition and loyalty. The ensemble around him — Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton, Delroy Lindo, Wunmi Mosaku — is equally effective as a whole.
Paul Mescal, Jessie Buckley, Emily Watson and others in Hamnet, in Icon’s opinion, earn the should-win because one might not immediately think of these actors for the film, yet they naturally fit the era and tone of Maggie O’Farrell’s novel. The Casting Society of America’s Artios Award and SAG’s Ensemble are the guild indicators here, and they tilt toward Sinners.
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Will Win: Michael B. Jordan, Sinners
Should Win: Ethan Hawke, Blue Moon
Upset: Leonardo DiCaprio, One Battle After Another
Jordan’s performance is effective, but not the strongest in the line-up. DiCaprio already has an Oscar. In a fair world — and the Oscars are rarely that — Hawke would win. He transforms himself entirely for Blue Moon, playing Lorenz Hart, the lyricist of musical maestro Richard Rodgers, before Rodgers partnered with Hammerstein. Sidelining Hawke has been one of the bigger injustices of this year.
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Will Win: Jessie Buckley, Hamnet
Should Win: Rose Byrne, If I Had Legs I’d Kick You
Buckley has wins to back her extraordinary performance, but Byrne’s film is the one that truly haunts the core. If I Had Legs I’d Kick You tells the story of a mother whose gravely ill daughter is confined to a motel when their house is flooded. In different ways, both are prisoners of debilitating circumstances. The camera is locked on Byrne for most of the film, never straying, as she gives a career-defining, deeply layered performance that deserves far more attention than it has received.
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Will Win: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another
Should Win: Stellan Skarsgård, Sentimental Value
Penn has the campaign’s full weight behind him. It is fine work, but pales beside Skarsgård in Sentimental Value — Joachim Trier’s meticulous and deep exploration of a fractured family. Restrained, precise and heartbreaking, the film does everything quietly… which, in Oscar terms, carries the risk of being overlooked.
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Will Win/Should Win: Amy Madigan, Weapons
Upset: Teyana Taylor, One Battle After Another
Taylor’s Perfidia Beverly Hills is a chaotic, kinetic force that practically propels the film with her own energy. Madigan’s performance in Weapons, where she plays a modern-day witch, is something rarer: unsettling, creepy and controlled — the kind of work that lingers for days, if not weeks.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will Win: Sinners
Should Win: Sentimental Value
Strange as it may be, only Sinners and Marty Supreme carry over from the Baftas to the WGA, making it effectively a two-horse race… with Marty trailing. Marty is an excellently written study of a deeply flawed, entirely self-absorbed, destructive character, but it doesn’t carry the emotional weight of Sentimental Value — a screenplay built on the painful, realistic and fractured lives of a family that is — yet isn’t — broken.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will Win: One Battle After Another
Should Win: Train Dreams, Hamnet, Bugonia
After Bafta, WGA and USC Scripter wins, there is little room for discussion. Our personal preferences lie with the rest: Train Dreams — spare and quietly devastating; Hamnet, stirring and grounded; Bugonia, inventive to the hilt. The Academy will likely disagree.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will Win: One Battle After Another
Should Win: Train Dreams
Upset: Sinners
After Bafta, ASC and SOC (Society of Camera Operators) wins, One Battle is unstoppable. Train Dreams, however, is the film one should be talking about. It is among the best-shot films of the decade. Sinners’ Vista Vision push has been marketed relentlessly but, given the extent of its post-production frame manipulation, the claim to pure cinematography is shakier than what the momentum suggests.
EDITING
Will Win: One Battle After Another or Sinners
Should Win: F1
The editing race mirrors Best Picture — and will likely be a toss-up between the two frontrunners. F1 should have led the race (and maybe it still might). Anyone with film editing experience will tell you that it is a masterclass of emotion and pace balanced down to the split-second cut.
PRODUCTION DESIGN
Will Win/Should Win: Frankenstein
Upset: Sinners
Frankenstein, like all of Guillermo Del Toro’s films, builds a complete gothic world from the ground up — laboratory interiors, the creature’s desolate environments and a richly atmospheric recreation of 19th century Europe. It won the Bafta and the Art Directors Guild (ADG) period category, the most direct predictor for this Oscar. Sinners’ production design — the meticulous recreation of the 1930s Mississippi Delta juke joints and rural landscapes — is accomplished work. The competition is essentially realism versus fantastic world-building. The fantastic usually wins.
COSTUME DESIGN
Will Win: Frankenstein
Should Win: Hamnet
Upset: Sinners
Frankenstein’s Bafta win and CDGA (Costume Designers Guild) period category victory make it the frontrunner; it is also one of our favourites, alongside Hamnet. The latter inches ahead in our books — though that may not be the case when the envelope opens tomorrow.
MAKE-UP AND HAIRSTYLING
Will Win/Should Win: Frankenstein
Upset: Sinners
The Creature is a work of art in Frankenstein. The Make-up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild (MUAHS) and Bafta both confirmed it with their trophies. Historically, the Academy has a long, consistent record of rewarding prosthetic-heavy physical transformations in this category — Vice, Darkest Hour and Dallas Buyers Club. Frankenstein continues that lineage. Sinners, with its period styling, may however upset the race.
VISUAL EFFECTS
Will Win/Should Win: Avatar: Fire and Ash
Upset: Sinners
One of the year’s strongest, most justifiably nominated categories. Avatar: Fire and Ash has won both the VES Photoreal Feature category and a Bafta. Sinners may put a spanner in the works because of its VES Photoreal Supporting win. Like most of Sinners’ “potential upsets”, we doubt it.
SOUND
Will Win: F1
Should Win: Sirāt
Upset: Sinners
The Cinema Audio Society (CAS) and Motion Picture Sound Editors (MPSE) guild awards are the key predictors here, and both tilt toward F1. The film — though an Apple release — was built as a theatrical experience from the ground up. The sound design — engine roars, tyresqueals, the radio crackle of the pit lane — is a chef’s kiss. Sirāt, surprisingly, is an unexpected contender — a film in which sound is literally a character in the narrative. If Sinners wins, we’ll be upset.
ORIGINAL SCORE
Will Win/Should Win: Sinners
The score of Sinners is perhaps the film’s greatest achievement. The Delta blues, gospel and a contemporary mix by executive producer and composer Ludwig Göransson (Oppenheimer, Black Panther — he won for both) is central to the film’s identity. The Bafta confirms the lead — and deservedly so. Remove the music and the film loses its soul.
ORIGINAL SONG
Will Win/Should Win: ‘Golden’, Kpop Demon Hunters
Upset: ‘I Lied to You’, Sinners
There is no mistaking ‘Golden’ as a simple K-pop entry. It is technically complex, genuinely addictive, and engineered to bridge K-pop and American pop in a way that feels native to both. The other contenders — Train Dreams and its namesake song, ‘I Lied to You’ (Sinners), and ‘Sweet Dreams of Joy’ (Viva Verdi!) — make excellent company.
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Will Win: Kpop Demon Hunters
Kpop Demon Hunters is the rare crossover entry that arrives with a globally passionate fanbase extending well beyond the animation circuit. With wins at the Annie Awards — the Oscars of the animation world— does one need to say more? Yes: the film is fantastic, both in its experience and in its technical craft.
INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM
Will Win: Sentimental Value
Should Win: The Voice of Hind Rajab
Upset: Sirāt
Sentimental Value edges ahead by our estimate. Sirāt has earned recognition in guilds where international titles rarely appear; only a fool would dismiss it outright. The Voice of Hind Rajab had genuine traction earlier — the keyword here is had. The film feels unpolished, and its subject matter deserved a firmer directorial hand to refine the pace and land the emotion. A Hind Rajab win would be a statement of the highest order. It would tell us where Hollywood’s conscience truly resides.
DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Will Win: Mr Nobody Against Putin
Should Win: The Alabama Solution
Upset: The Perfect Neighbour
Mr Nobody Against Putin follows the relentless campaign of a lone activist against the full machinery of the Russian state. It won a Bafta. The Perfect Neighbour uses police bodycam footage to tell the story of a two-year dispute in Ocala, Florida, that culminates in white resident Susan Lorincz fatally shooting her black neighbour, Ajike Owens, through a locked door. It is competent and unlike similar documentaries that surface year-round. However, The Alabama Solution is a different ballgame — a searing, haunting account of the politically corrupt, deeply unjust conditions inside Alabama’s prisons, and how the predominantly black inmate community attempts to dismantle the system from within. It should win.
Whatever the case, we’ll find out one way or another in less than a day’s time.
The writers are Icon’s film reviewers
Published in Dawn, ICON, March 15th, 2026
Rebel English Academy
By Mohammed Hanif
Maktaba-e-Danyal
ISBN: 978-969-419-131-7
223pp.
Rumour says he is coming back. The coffin was locked. The burial supervised. The paperwork completed. Yet, somewhere in a dusty bazaar, someone swears former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has been seen. A pamphlet circulates. A whisper grows. And suddenly, a military officer, hundreds of miles away, is being screamed at for failing to keep a dead man dead.
In Rebel English Academy, Mohammed Hanif opens up the charged space between fact and rumour, showing how, in Pakistan, political gossip is never just talk. Set in the days following Bhutto’s execution, the novel unfolds in the fictional OK Town, where grief, denial and opportunism mingle in the air, and whispers travel quickly — from tea stalls to offices, from mosque loudspeakers to private bedrooms.
Soldiers, clerics and ordinary citizens alike find themselves unsettled by the slogan “Bhutto Lives”. Hanif understands something we continue to witness today: power may control events, but it rarely controls the story that follows.
It is through people, not slogans, that this tension becomes visible. Hanif explores three lives that reflect different responses to power. The first is Sir Baghi, who embodies the exhaustion of failed rebellion. Once a fiery revolutionary who paid for his rhetoric with torture, he now runs a modest English academy in a mosque’s compound. The academy of the novel’s title is less a school than a scaled-down revolution, a space where rebellion survives in language when it can no longer survive in politics; here, Baghi’s revolution narrows into grammar lessons and small, stubborn principles, a form of survival that may still afford him some dignity.
Mohammed Hanif’s deeply satirical new novel, set in the days following former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s execution, uses three protagonists to explore ways of thinking about power
In contrast, Captain Gul represents a different kind of survival. Young, ambitious and slightly ridiculous, he works for the Field Intelligence Unit and dreams of becoming a legend whispered about in foreign capitals. Instead, he is posted to OK Town, where he must deal with slogans claiming “Bhutto Lives.” He is ordered to “make him go away” again, as if rumour requires a second burial. His bravado masks insecurity. He is loyal to the state but unsettled by how easily a whisper can undermine it.
Between these two men stands Sabiha Bano, who refuses both nostalgia and obedience. Once Baghi’s student and the daughter of a labour union leader, she re-enters his life carrying a pistol and difficult questions. Her essay Our Cow begins as a school exercise and turns into a charged memory of comrades, fire and impending violence. When she confronts Baghi and asks whether he is still the rebel people claim he was, she exposes the gap between his past and present. Sabiha is not content with nostalgia. She is impatient with compromise.
The academy of the novel’s title is less a school than a scaled-down revolution, a space where rebellion survives in language when it can no longer survive in politics.
It is in the friction between these three lives that the novel’s argument takes shape. Hanif does not linger on them merely for colour or subplot; each becomes a way of thinking about power. Through Baghi, we see what happens to rebellion when it survives but does not win. Through Gul, we see how authority performs strength while remaining anxious about legitimacy. Through Sabiha, we see the cost of inheriting both failure and force. Their stories are not digressions from the political moment, but its most intimate expression.
However, as the narrative expands in different directions, its momentum is occasionally unsettled by frequent shifts in perspectives and the sheer sprawl of voices and episodes. The narrative moves from Captain Gul’s cantonment theatrics to Baghi’s bruised introspection, from Sabiha’s essays to the spectacle of the alleged rumour-spreader’s burning.
In a town gripped by rumours and fear after the hanging of an ex-prime minister, stories do not unfold neatly. They collide, overlap and burn out mid-sentence. The fragmentation reflects a society where no life is allowed a single, uninterrupted narrative.
Hanif writes in a brisk, controlled style that carries the sharpness of his journalism. His sentences move quickly, often driven by dialogue that feels lived-in and unfiltered. He has a keen ear for how people in power speak, how rumours sound in a bazaar and how piety and paranoia share the same vocabulary. At times, this journalistic edge turns the novel into something close to public commentary. The satire bites harder than the sentiment lingers, giving the book its urgency and political clarity.
To write about a leader who was executed decades ago is not, in Hanif’s hands, an act of nostalgia. It is a way of asking why that moment still feels unfinished. The novel does not appear stuck in the past so much as alert to how often Pakistan returns to it and how the same tensions between elected power and uniformed authority resurface under new names and new slogans. Bhutto becomes less a historical figure and more a recurring argument.
The strong presence of Captain Gul underscores how deeply institutional power continues to shape civilian life. If there is an allegory here, it is not about one man’s authoritarian streak but about a cycle in which charisma, populism and control blur into one another.
Hanif suggests that, unless the balance between civilian rule and state authority is resolved, history will not simply echo but repeat itself. In that sense, Rebel English Academy reads less like a backwards glance and more like a warning about cycles we have yet to break.
The reviewer is a Teaching Fellow at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at LUMS
Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, March 15th, 2026
The Book of Sheen: A Memoir
By Charlie Sheen
Gallery Books
ISBN: 978-1668075289
368pp.
A human train wreck may be the simplest way to describe Charlie Sheen.
His career began with promise, progressed quickly and crashed often, but somehow kept moving. After five decades in Hollywood, Sheen finally tells his side of the story in his memoir The Book of Sheen, a blunt account of fame, failure and survival.
The title may sound plain, but it is apt as the book allows Sheen to lay everything out. He writes about his early struggles to become an actor, his sudden success and his long fight with addiction. What starts as a story of opportunity slowly turns into one of self-destruction, marked by relapses, rehab stays and missed chances.
Sheen may not have become the superstar many expected, but he remains part of a strong Hollywood lineage. His father, Martin Sheen, paved the way and Charlie followed with memorable roles in Platoon, Wall Street, Major League and Hot Shots. The memoir makes it clear that talent was never the issue. Addiction was.
The book opens dramatically, with Sheen describing his birth, during which he nearly died. His umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, and a priest was called in. His doctor refused to give up, and Sheen survived. It is a powerful beginning and, in many ways, it mirrors the rest of his life: narrow escapes followed by hard falls.
Actor Charlie Sheen may not have become the superstar many expected, but he remains part of a strong Hollywood lineage. His memoir makes it clear that talent was never the issue. Addiction was.
Sheen writes openly about his failures as a husband and father, and his inability to stay sober for long. When he was successful, he was one of the most photographed men in the world and the highest-paid actor on television. Then the tabloid headlines took over. Sex, drugs and reckless behaviour undid much of what he did.
The book’s voice ensures the reader feels as if Sheen is speaking directly to them. The pace is fast and casual, and sometimes lacks structure. He names friends, lovers, wives and one-night stands with little restraint. At times, it seems he forgets this is a book for the public, not a private confession, and these passages feel excessive and distracting.
Still, the memoir has its strengths. It is written in a clear chronological order, with short chapters that keep the pace moving. Sheen describes his childhood, constant changes in schools and friendships with future stars such as Sean Penn, Rob Lowe, Nicholas Cage and Chris Penn. He shares moments from the sets of Apocalypse Now, including meeting Marlon Brando and learning about his father’s heart attack while filming.
There are many entertaining behind-the-scenes stories. Sheen talks about making Super 8mm films with his brothers and friends, his late arrival on the set of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for a cameo, and turning down the lead role in The Karate Kid on his father’s advice. He also reveals that he stuttered as a child, tried weed for the first time during his teens, and was mistaken for a real soldier by the Philippine army during the shooting of Platoon. Sounds unbelievable? Well, it happened!
The book becomes more engaging when Sheen focuses on his career. He describes how easily success came to him and how uncomfortable that made him. His account of losing and then gaining a role in Platoon at his brother Emilio’s expense is especially revealing. The darker chapters cover arrests, domestic disputes, rehab stints and scandals that made him famous for the wrong reasons. He does not shy away from these moments, but he also often blames substances rather than taking full responsibility.
When Sheen discusses Spin City and Two and a Half Men, the tone shifts. There is little gossip and few behind-the-scenes details, which might disappoint those who want to know more. Although he does talk about the insecurity he felt when Michael J. Fox returned to the sets of Spin City, he doesn’t satisfy the readers by reminiscing about his exit from the easiest job in the world — playing a version of himself in Two and a Half Men. What he does talk about freely is the subject of addiction, which seems to be the book’s central theme.
The memoir also features celebrity anecdotes about Bill Clinton, O.J. Simpson and Sophia Loren, playful spelling quirks, and defensive explanations of his past behaviour. These sections are lighter but less gripping than the rest of the book.
Sheen also touches on important moments of his life: his relationship with The Rookie co-star and director Clint Eastwood, working alongside his father, and living with HIV after being diagnosed with the disease in 2011. These parts are handled with more restraint and maturity.
In conclusion, The Book of Sheen is not a story of triumph. It is a story of survival. As Sheen himself writes, “We can live the stories or hear about them later from others. I choose the former.” His life proves that fame, talent and family connections are no guarantee of stability. This memoir is messy, honest and uneven — much like the man who wrote it.
The reviewer is a broadcast journalist who also writes on sports, film, television and popular culture
Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, March 15th, 2026
No Compulsion in Religion — No Exceptions
Edited by Mustafa Akyol
Cato Institute
ISBN: 978-1964524948
184pp.
There are certain subjects that many Muslims cannot discuss casually — or frankly — anywhere in the world among themselves. These include apostasy laws and their implementation, blasphemy prosecutions or anything related to women’s empowerment with a focus on their autonomy.
Bring these topics up in drawing rooms in Lahore or Los Angeles, and you are likely to encounter a kind of strategic silence. There are long pauses, careful language, deflective smiles and layers of sugar-coating. Most of us do not feel comfortable sharing our thoughts, out of fear of being judged and, in some instances, being accused of heresy.
In other instances, there is outright rejection of the very premise of questions about individual freedom and dignity, and it is termed nefarious or veiled Western modernity.
I have had many such interesting conversations with Muslims from diverse backgrounds from across the world. With a few exceptions, the standard response has become predictable: “Come on, what the Taliban in Afghanistan are doing is not Islam”, or “This is not the right way to implement God’s law”, or “This is coercion, and has no place in the real Islamic state.”
A timely collection of essays by prominent Islamic scholars argues that arguments for religious freedom and against coercion exist within Islamic intellectual tradition itself
The striking thing to note is that, in the same breath, while coercion is acknowledged as unacceptable in principle, so too is the “expression or exercise of will.” In other words, although freedom is theoretically and conditionally recognised, in practice, it is often deemed offensive to what many perceive as the core of “true Islam.”
These deflective smiles, long pauses or outright rejection of questions about freedom reveal a deeper anxiety prevailing among Muslims globally. It is a reflection of the widely held assumption that many Muslims hold true even today, that Islam and freedom are inherently two separate, incompatible entities and cannot be reconciled.
As a result, most Muslims have become quite apologetic, unnecessarily defensive and quite uncertain of their ground when the discussion turns to human dignity, freedom, choice and Islam in the same breath. As a Muslim and as a student of Islam and politics in Muslim-majority countries, I find this deeply problematic and challenging.
You cannot beat, jail or threaten someone into genuine faith. This principle extends across all religious domains, ranging from daily prayers to fasting to dressing modestly to theological belief itself.
A new book, No Compulsion in Religion — No Exceptions, edited by Mustafa Akyol, a senior fellow at the Washington DC-based Cato Institute, and with contributions by prominent Islamic scholars from across the Muslim world, including Abdullah Saeed, Husnul Amin, Asma Afsaruddin and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, directly confronts these uncomfortable silences and troubling questions.
The book’s central argument is as simple as it is powerful: the Quranic verse: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) should be understood, interpreted and applied comprehensively — with no exceptions — to all people, irrespective of their religious affiliation and geography. The authors argue that this verse must be used not just to protect non-Muslims from forced conversion, as is common in most conservative interpretations. Instead, it should be used to challenge — and ultimately dismantle — all forms of religious coercion within Muslim societies.
In other words, the book brings the universality of non-coercion — the freedom to choose — to Islam in general and to this verse in particular, and this is precisely what makes it both bold and provocative for many Muslim readers.
At the heart of Islamic theology and politics lie several fundamental questions. To whom is the individual answerable to in matters of religion? To other individuals claiming religious authority? To the state acting in religion’s name? Or directly to God alone? No Compulsion in Religion directly tackles these questions and offers clear, persuasive answers grounded in Islamic tradition.
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, for example, articulates in the concluding chapter: “The Sharia can and should always be practised voluntarily in society, never enforced by the state. Whatever any state does is to enforce its own political will, and not the Sharia as such.” This is the essential point the book tries to make: that Islam recognises individuality, dignity and freedom. Without any qualification or conditions, it essentially presupposes each person’s capacity and responsibility to stand directly before God.
However, these scholars also acknowledge and attempt to counter those dominant interpretations which have historically and increasingly denied these fundamentals by inserting human intermediaries between the believer and the divine.
The other most profound contribution of the book is that coercion is religiously invalid, not just undesirable. This contention is based upon the Islamic principle of niyyah, which means pure and sincere intention. Islam primarily requires genuine intention, but coercion automatically nullifies religious observance. The state enforcement of such values is, therefore, theologically counterproductive. As An-Na’im puts it, “any observance of the Sharia must be completely voluntary to meet the requirement of ‘intent to comply (niyyah in Arabic)’, which is essential for any action or omission to be religiously valid from an Islamic point of view. Conversely, any coercion or compulsion renders conformity null and void from a religious point of view.”
You cannot beat, jail or threaten someone into genuine faith. This principle extends across all religious domains, ranging from daily prayers to fasting to dressing modestly to theological belief itself.
The case of Iran, as discussed in the book, should be eye-opening. The Islamic Republic has enforced religiosity for almost four decades. What did it achieve? The opposite. Iranian society has experienced a dramatic religious decline rather than the anticipated revival. British journalist Nicolas Pelham noted in 2019 that “despite Iran’s pious reputation, Tehran may well be the least religious capital in the Middle East… Unlike most Muslim countries, the call to prayer is almost inaudible.”
Similarly, a 2020 survey also revealed that only approximately 40 percent of Iranians identified as Muslim during confidential polling, compared to over 90 percent according to official statistics. The lesson is unmistakable: coercion produces outward conformity but not inner faith and, over time, generates resentment and, ultimately, religious abandonment. One can also argue that it can lead to rebellion under certain conditions, as seen in women’s struggle for independence and personal autonomy in Iran in 2026.
My conversations on these subjects in Pakistan and the United States suggest that many Muslims, particularly those in comfortable positions within Western societies or in positions of power in Muslim-majority countries, dismiss freedom-centred arguments as “Western-inspired interpretations of Islam.” These arguments portray Islam and its history as if individual rights and religious liberty were foreign impositions, incompatible with authentic Islamic civilisations.
One contribution of this book is that, by drawing on Quranic exegesis, hadith [sayings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH] analysis, classical scholars and historical precedents, it demolishes that excuse. On the contrary, it demonstrates that arguments for religious freedom exist within Islamic intellectual tradition itself, though they have often been marginalised or suppressed in favour of authoritarian interpretations that served the interests of rulers and clerical establishments.
Akyol, in the first chapter, suggests that discussions of rights and freedoms existed in the 17th century Ottoman Empire. When the militant Kadzadeli Movement sought to violently enforce their interpretation of Islam — banning coffee, tobacco and Sufi practices — they were opposed by scholars like Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, making explicitly Quranic arguments for non-coercion.
For instance, Al-Nabulsi wrote in 1682: “As God Almighty said: ‘And say, “Truth is from your Lord. Whoever wants, let him believe and whoever wants, let him disbelieve”’ [18:29]. The meaning of this verse is not to force people to obey the command and avoid the prohibition… And God Almighty said: ‘No compulsion in religion’ [2:256].” This happened three centuries before modern Western human rights discourse, demonstrating that freedom is not a foreign import but is embedded in Islamic tradition itself.
The book’s ultimate argument can be stated simply: it is impossible for a faith system to sustain itself based on fear alone. Genuine religion requires conscience, conviction and voluntary commitment. State coercion can produce outward conformity, but not inner faith. For those who believe that Islam’s future depends on recovering its emphasis on human dignity, moral agency and direct accountability to God rather than to human intermediaries, this book offers both intellectual resources and moral encouragement.
The conversations we have been avoiding must finally happen. No Compulsion in Religion — No Exceptions provides the scholarly foundation to begin them.
The reviewer is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at Boston University, USA
Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, March 15th, 2026
پشاور: متنی کے علاقے میں چوکی حمیدی مشین چوکی پر دہشت گردوں کے حملے کو ناکام بنا دیا گیا
Javeria Saud Continues Staging Bizarre Calls After Criticism
طلاق کے اعلان کے بعد رجب بٹ اور ایمان فاطمہ میں صلح کی کوششیں شروع
Story Time: Culinary Disasters – Newspaper
PRIME TIME: THE RAMAZAN EXCEPTION – Newspaper
Ali Ansari On Falling in Love With More Than One Person
-
Magazines1 week agoStory Time: Culinary Disasters – Newspaper
-
Magazines2 weeks ago
PRIME TIME: THE RAMAZAN EXCEPTION – Newspaper
-
Entertainment2 weeks ago
Ali Ansari On Falling in Love With More Than One Person
-
Sports2 weeks ago
Samson’s 97 puts India into T20 World Cup semi-final against England – Sport
-
Business2 weeks ago
Privatisation Commission board recommends Fauji Fertiliser’s inclusion in consortium that won PIA auction – Pakistan
-
Magazines2 weeks ago
THE ICON INTERVIEW: THE FUTURE’S ALWAYS BRIGHT FOR HIM – Newspaper
-
Sports1 week ago
Bangladesh recall Litton, Afif for Pakistan ODI series – Sport
-
Entertainment1 week ago
Fans React to Nadia Khan’s Wrinkles in Filter-Free Video