The Academy Awards have a long history of taking place at a venue in the greater Los Angeles area on an evening in March or April — but when you’re as old as Oscar, there’s bound to be some breaks with tradition over the years.
Sometimes it’s Academy leaders trying to shake things up — as when they held dual ceremonies in Los Angeles and New York City for a few years in the 1950s — or as is the case this year, sometimes it’s because unexpected events of great magnitude necessitate postponements and/or a different type of tone and presentation.
Before we get into the developments surrounding the 97th Academy Awards, let’s take a look back at some previous deviations from the Oscar norm:
- In 1938, the Oscars were delayed a week because of massive flooding caused by two Pacific storms that raged through Los Angeles.
- Thirty years later, the 40th Academy Awards were postponed from April 8 to April 10 after the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 4.
- During World War II, the ceremonies were toned down, with attendees eschewing formal attire for more modest outfits, and the Oscar statuettes made of plaster because metal was in such demand. (After the war, recipients were able to receive the traditional metal Oscars.)
- In 1981, the Oscars were delayed for 24 hours after the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, who had been scheduled to help open the show.
- Three days before the 2003 Academy Awards, the United States invaded Iraq. There was considerable talk about delaying the Oscars, but the Academy proceeded, albeit without a red carpet parade, and with several notable names bowing out due to security concerns.
- And it was just a few years ago, during the COVID pandemic in 2021, that the ceremony was held at Los Angeles’ Union Station, with a small and socially distanced crowd in attendance, and some remote appearances as well. (Everyone was doing the best they could, but as a television presentation, it was borderline disastrous.)
Then came the fires of 2025.
As the devastating wildfires roared through Los Angeles, the Motion Picture Academy delayed the nomination announcement date twice — from Jan.17 to Jan. 19, and then to Jan. 23. Even then, there was much debate about whether the Oscars should stick to the March 2 date or push the ceremony to late spring or early summer. Was there a way to do this WITHOUT seeming utterly out of touch with the horrific realities of what was taking place all around?
Jean Smart issued a statement asking networks to “seriously consider NOT televising [awards shows] and donating the revenue they would have garnered to the fires and the firefighters.” On the BlueSky app, Rosanna Arquette said, “I’d love to see the SAG Awards and Oscar[s] and Grammys this year turn the shows into telethons to raise money for the community, the city of Los Angeles, for families who’ve lost their homes and pets and life’s memories, and for our beloved firefighters that have saved lives.”
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has donated the $250,000 it had planned to spend on the Oscar Nominees Luncheon, which has been canceled, to the Motion Picture & Television fund to help Los Angeles residents who have been affected by the ongoing wildfires. As of this writing, the Academy has donated a total of $1 million to wildfire relief efforts.
As for the Oscars … it’s game on. In a statement to the Los Angeles Times, Academy Chief Executive Officer Bill Kramer said, “We have made the carefully considered decision to proceed with the 97th Oscars ceremony as planned on March 2nd. This year’s ceremony will include special moments acknowledging those who fought so bravely against the wildfires. We feel that we must go forward to support our film community and to use our global platform to bring attention to these critical moments in our history.”
In a Jan. 11 post on X, I wondered if it might be better to hold the Oscars in the summer, or move it to New York and make it a major fundraiser. Although there was a lot of agreement in the comments, others pointed out that the Academy Awards generate work for a host of union employees, not to mention Oscars-adjacent income for restaurants, hotels, caterers, florists, makeup and hair people, et al.
Scrapping the red carpet parade, as they did in 2003, seems like a good idea. No doubt the awards ceremony will incorporate tributes and a fundraiser element. (If the viewing parties and after-parties proceed, they’ll most likely have a different tone as well. (Some events, such as Elton John’s yearly gala that raises money for his AIDS Foundation, have long had charitable ties.)
We can also expect some big names to opt out of having any connection to the Oscars; just the other day, Stephen King announced that he won’t be voting this year, saying, “IMHO they should cancel [the Oscars]. No glitz with Los Angeles on fire.” (It will also be interesting to see what kind of approach Conan O’Brien takes as host. He’s facing a different challenge than what he signed up for back in November.)
If they had canceled the Oscars altogether, some would have said Hollywood was bailing at a time when people needed escapism and a reminder that the industry hasn’t crumbled. If they go full speed ahead, some critics will say it’s tone-deaf celebrity narcissism.
I’ve come to the belief that the show should go on. Two things can be possible: We can appreciate and celebrate one of the greatest art forms humankind has ever invented, and still show the greatest respect and awareness of the ongoing catastrophes in L.A.