When film awards are bestowed worldwide, red carpets bring the complexities of prestige behind the cameras to light. The glamour is real, but so are the power and politics, as well as the cultural messaging behind the visual. Each camera click, every designer gown, and each carefully curated acceptance speech contributes to the broader narrative of prestige and belonging.

While geography and tradition may separate the Academy Awards and the Cannes Film Festival, there is one undeniably true thread they share: intentional status. The awards are not only markers of creative accomplishments but also systems of control, validation, and visibility. Who isn't nominated, who wins, and who even walks the carpet are, many times, more indicative of the power structures at play within the film industry than they are of art.

These awards are arenas on the world stage of image, politics, and ideology, and the rituals deployed are executed with precision. The red carpet, in particular, has transitioned from being a symbol of glamour to a political platform—a stage where fashion, gesture, and even silence relay statements about gender, race, nationalism, and identity.

What was previously a space for raw celebration has evolved into a platform of struggle for representation, inclusion, and cultural diplomatic relations. Behind the sequins and champagne, these events replicate global hierarchies: Hollywood’s soft-power diplomacy at the Oscars, and Europe's elite cultural diplomacy at Cannes.

This article offers insight into how these award ecosystems perpetuate their enchantment and reflect, and often sustain, more deeply seated social biases. It elaborates how the machinery of recognition intertwines discernibly with geopolitics, capital, and ideology, and how each award carries its own cultural trace. While the aura of the award ceremony may be directed at the winners, ultimately, the real action often takes place in the shadows - in discourses of negotiation, exclusion, and performance that create the meanings of prestige.

The Oscars: The Global Mirror of Hollywood’s Politics

Historical context and the mechanics of prestige
The Oscars, the official Academy Awards ceremony presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), have long been the international standard of prestige in film, for better or worse. As one Medium article says, "And the Oscar Goes to ... Politics!" – acknowledging that the award process of films is deeply entrenched in cultural, industrial, and political incentives.

To win the statuette, a campaign-oriented system is in place: studios can spend a certain amount on promotional campaigns and lobbying their voters, and wait for relevant dates on the Oscar calendar. As one critical article explained, the Oscar campaign system "features nearly identical contours to our political elections," with major studios acting like wealthy donors.

Thus, if a film or actor wins an award, it ultimately involves more than just artistic considerations; it also requires exposure, investment in institutions, cultural alignment, and related political considerations.

Red-Carpet Politics and Cultural Symbolism
The red carpet is often dismissed as a moment of glamour. However, in reality, it has become a highly charged cultural battleground; what a star wears or doesn't, what statement they make with their attire, and what groups or ideologies they are aligned with - is all a message.

For example, YouGov does a survey, and they found that about half of Americans think it's inappropriate for an Oscar winner to discuss a political issue in their acceptance speech. But Hollywood doesn't always hold to these exact boundaries. Furthermore, beyond theorising about civil rights, climate, geopolitics, and other causes, stars have worn pins or ribbons, or otherwise made statements, as an Oscar or other award show, award ceremony, or entertainment event is in progress. The lines between "entertainment" and "political messaging" are at the crux of the hidden agenda behind the Oscars, which is not being publicly acknowledged.

Representation and Global Reach
One ongoing debate is the representation of global cinema and non-Hollywood voices at the Oscars. The #OscarsSoWhite controversy raised awareness for the lack of diversity across key acting categories.

India is the largest film industry by volume, but its films have had difficulty gaining recognition from the Academy, which some argue may be due to cultural or structural bias.

The Academy is now attempting to incorporate more diversity with its new eligibility rules for Best Picture, notably the "Standards A, B, C, D" system; however, critics note that the threshold remains very low, suggesting this may be more symbolic than system-changing.

Winners, Snubs, Geopolitics
The Oscars have also become a platform for geopolitical messaging in recent years. As one commentary observed: “It’s the 95th Academy Awards… we all know that the Oscars often get political. Expect speeches to bring up Russia’s war in Ukraine or U.S. culture-war issues like identity politics.”

Due to the rise of global streaming platforms, international productions, and cross-border collaborations, the Oscars are no longer just an American domestic ritual—they are global. But the institutional structures still favour Western-centric, English-language films, Hollywood studios and star systems.

Critique: Prestige vs Meaningful Recognition
What this means in practice: films with large budgets for production and marketing will usually perform better than smaller, independent or genuinely marginalised-voice films. The campaign's mechanism remains opaque, as the voting body is often unmoored from worldwide audiences, and the concept of "prestige" is associated with something beyond creative merit. As The Atlantic points out, requiring Academy voters to see all the films is "asking too much" in the current system.

To summarise, the Oscars surround culture, industry and politics—and the glamour masks a complicated power structure.

Cannes: The Festival of Prestige and Political Spectacle

Why Cannes matters
The Cannes Film Festival occupies a different space. It is less about conventional Hollywood glamour, though it certainly includes some of that, and more about the high end of the festival circuit: art cinema, auteur filmmakers, international co-productions, and prestige premieres. According to its Wikipedia page, the Cannes Film Festival was created in part to counter the political interference at the Venice Film Festival in the 1930s.

What is notably interesting about Cannes is that it merges film art prestige with luxury, the international market (through the Marché du Film), red-carpet spectacle, laden imagery/diplomatic signals, and geopolitical signals.

The Red Carpet as Political Altar
An article in The Hindu referred to the Cannes red carpet as a "secular altar for cinema, spectacle, and activism" – a place where politics and art intersect.

Another headline in The Hollywood Reporter asks, "Is This The Most Political Cannes Since '68?" – reflecting the extent to which the 2025 festival embraced political content and statements.

Cannes' own history provides evidence of political entanglement: in 1968, it was shut down in solidarity with French student and labour protests. Red carpet moments at Cannes today do more than showcase fashion. They demonstrate national cinemas, highlight social justice themes, challenge discussions and debates about representation, censorship, and the global distribution of film. To walk the Croisette today is to engage in cultural diplomacy.

Cultural Representation and National Cinema
The selections and awards at Cannes often carry national identity significance. Which countries are represented, which voices compete, and how distribution deals are made all matter when watching shows at festivals. Cannes has become a marketplace for negotiating "world cinema".

For instance, the selection of a film made by (or representing) a politically repressed country may carry just as much signalling value as the film itself. Such a platform lends soft power to national film industries that are seeking global recognition. The contemporary festival press often practices cultural imperialism in its festival day-after reports by emphasising "world cinema" and highlighting festival winners as international trophies.

Controversies and the Prestige Economy
Cannes has faced its share of controversy through the years: from policing fashion (remember the "heel-gate" of 2015, when women wearing flats were turned away) to questions of streaming vs theatrical eligibility.

To put it another way, the red carpet serves as a crucial luxury branding opportunity—for designers, sponsors, influencers, etc. The line between high-art-cinema prestige and consumer spectacle becomes murky. Additionally, the festival must consider the tension between art and commerce (high-art selectors vs. brand partnerships vs. marketing value).

The Politics of Selection and Awards
Cannes awards, such as the Palme d'Or, have powerful implications for the culture. Which films are awarded prizes (and which are ignored) reveal the criteria of value in the global "art-cinema" canon. A political movie that fewer people have seen may be welcomed, while prestigious mainstream blockbusters are denied their chance.

It is essential to recognise the prestige of a Cannes win and how it leads to wider distribution, awards chatter, and sound bites in newspapers; this, in turn, leads to widespread attention. However, the selection process is itself opaque, influenced by industry networks, taste cultures, national co-production arrangements, and geopolitical alignments.

The Cannes Film Festival is a pivotal point in the push-pull between cinema as art and cinema as a global commodity, and the red carpet, selections, and awards all serve to mitigate that tension.

Global Award Ecology: Intersections, Overlaps, and Contradictions

The Global Circuits of Prestige
Film awards are not isolated enterprises. A film may screen in Cannes, receive awards, and then be considered for Oscars; a Bollywood film may get global attention and bypass international festivals; stars walk global red carpets, co-promote brand endorsements across borders, etc. The concept of an "ecosystem" is global.

In that vein, the red carpet marks transnational aspiration: for brands, for stars, and for film industries. And that global aspiration often invites tensions between cultural authenticity and marketability, as well as between worldwide visibility and local integrity.

Red Carpets as Global Media Events
Red carpets at the Cannes Film Festival and the Oscars are shared and broadcast, live-tweeted, and Insta-tweeted. They become moments of instantaneous spectacle, dwarfed by the initial reason for the gathering: cinema as an art form. One article documented how the red carpet “transports fans from their own mundane existence into a realm of delicious escapism.”

However, this glitter obscures the more authentic power dynamics: which countries receive visibility, which stars are globalised, and which films become “prestige assets.” The red carpet is both a runway and a political podium.

Cultural Representation and Inclusion Across Awards
Representation is an issue that poses a dilemma everywhere. We have a diversity issue at the Oscars; we have to consider which national cinemas are represented, which filmmakers are selected, and which voices are included. At Cannes and other national awards, we also consider factors such as caste, class, region, language, and gender. All of these issues emerge.

And often, "prestige" is ultimately defined along Western or urban-elite lines: Is it in English? Is it global festival material? Is it star-driven? Films outside these parameters are not recognised. This suggests that awards are not only a reflection of the industry but also a significant contributor to its transformation.

The Flip-Side: Controversy, Backlash and Instrumentalisation
While awards have value and provide recognition, they can also be rife with controversy. In effect, snubs become statements and campaigns become political. Even one article, following the Oscars, referred to the awards ceremony as “a divided America,” with the cultural wars of the moment surfacing in acceptance speeches, nominations, and on the red carpet.

Controversy can arise when the perceived "authentic" voice is sidelined in favour of a more marketable candidate, or when the power of the red-carpet extraordinary takes precedence over the film's substance. Awards ceremonies become surrogate measures of cultural conflict, including representation, the global-local divide, and whose stories matter, etc.

The Economics of Prestige
Finally, we cannot ignore that prestige is often associated with wealth. Awards induce box-office and streaming deals, brand tie-ups, and marketing campaigns. Studios, distributors, and festivals all know that prestige generates money. From campaign budgets to festival strategies to brand partnerships on the red carpet, the business side of the film awards infiltrates everything. This "hidden politics" is both economic and cultural.

Looking Ahead: Emerging Trends and Fault Lines

Influence of Streaming, Globalisation and New Voices
Streaming services have disrupted the old prestige circuits. Netflix and Amazon Studios are significant players in awards campaigns, world premieres and red-carpet presence. This puts pressure on the previous structure of theatrical release, followed by a festival premiere, and then the awards circuit.

Cannes, for example, struggles with competing films for Netflix and the issue of theatrical release before online availability.

For global cinema, the expansion of eligibility for the Oscars as we know them today is a positive development. But in the same breath, it raises questions: will global films try to recreate Hollywood conventions to gain prestige? Or will new cinematic languages emerge?

Red Carpets, Influencers and Brand Culture
The red carpet is changing. Influencers, social media influencers, and brand ambassadors are now part of the equation, alongside film stars and television stars. And the prestige of the award show is as much about Instagram moments for influencers as it is about cinema awards. The politics of prestige are now not only about film industry cultural production but also social media, fashion and branding.

These also raise questions: Does the red carpet privilege fashion over film? Does fashion commentary overshadow a film's commentary? As one article pointed out in reference to the Oscars, the red carpet has the "glamour and the spectacle" with the associated critique of reducing stars to "what they're wearing".

Authenticity vs Spectacle: Fault-Lines
The tension between authenticity in storytelling and spectacle will be more pronounced. Audiences and critics are now savvy about performative activism, token representation, and awards campaigns that subvert the substance of the work for optics. The unspoken politics will not go unnoticed: Which awards actually shift the culture, and which awards republish the cultural status quo?

Awards Fatigue and Generational Shifts
An interesting trend: younger viewers (i.e., Gen Z) have less interest in traditional awards shows. An article noted that the Oscars—if they remain unchanged—have less relevance for Gen Z.

And that's the challenge: prestige circuits can become irrelevant if they do not evolve and become exclusive spaces. The underlying politics of prestige may no longer be obscured by luxury but rather by a backlash.
What does Prestige mean Going Forward?
Finally, prestige is never just given but felt, and the parameters of that feeling seem to be shifting. Awards once functioned as markers of quality; now they also signal identity, visibility, ethics, and global connectedness. The politics of prestige are situated in who gets to tell the story, who gets the platform to be heard, and how cultural capital is manifested.

Case Studies in Prestige, Politics and Representation
The Oscars faced backlash in 2015 and 2016 for nominating no nominees of colour for acting and directing—prompting the #OscarsSoWhite movement.

The Academy responded to the backlash by inviting members from more diverse backgrounds into the organisation. It introduced eligibility requirements for Best Picture, requiring a minimum number of organisational sub-groups to be represented.

Some critics argue that the reforms are cosmetic. For instance, films may qualify the minimum requirements but tell a story about a white male. The challenge persists: Are these reforms changing the culture or just the optics?

Oscars: #OscarsSoWhite and the Diversity Mandate
In 2015 and 2016, the Academy Awards were criticised for a lack of diversity in the acting and directing categories, which led to the #OscarsSoWhite movement.

In response, the Academy has included more diverse members and instituted eligibility standards for Best Picture nominees, whose criteria vary according to the type of diversity.

Critics say the changes are superficial. For example, films may meet the criteria for diversity but still focus on white male stories. The question is whether this change will drive culture change or simply look different.

Cannes 2025: Politics Overtakes the Côte d’Azur
The headline from The Hollywood Reporter, “Is This the Most Political Cannes Festival Since 1968?”, suggests the extent to which the 2025 edition engaged with political themes, as evidenced by opening-night speeches, political documentary films, and multiple red-carpet speeches.

Of course, with the war, the deepening income inequality across the globe, and the politics of which films made it to the festival (e.g., selecting films from oppressed countries or under duress filmmakers), it was hard not to see that Cannes, as an institution, has an intertwined relationship with global geopolitics. The red carpets were not only fashion platforms; they also embodied diplomacy in high heels.

The Hidden Politics: What’s Really Going On

Definition of Worthiness and Gate-Keeping
Awards influence definitions of "worthy" films, "prestigious" stars, and "have global relevance" cinema from a given nation. Those who design the awards (judges, academies, juries) have cultural power.

This form of gatekeeping can privilege specific genres (e.g., prestige dramas versus genre films), styles (arthouse versus popular), and geographies (Western Europe/North America versus the Global South). The "prestige" label itself becomes a vehicle for conveying status.

Cultural Capital, Soft-Power and National Brand
Film awards are not only artistic; they also serve as soft-power tools. A country whose film wins Cannes or the Oscars will garner cultural prestige, creating opportunities for tourism, promotional support for national cinema, global film distribution, and publicity for the local film industry. The appearance of stars in designer gowns at the Cannes or Oscars red carpet becomes an opportunity for national flag-waving.

For emerging film industries, gaining recognition on the global stage is a complex and strategic process. It also means the local industry may alter a story or story types to match this kind of "prestige" aesthetic. This is a subtle form of cultural politics.

Industry Economy, Marketing and Brand Value
All awards are connected to brand agreements, studio marketing efforts, influencer endorsements, and sometimes red-carpet sponsorships. An award is a marketing vehicle. "Oscar-winning" and "Cannes official selection" enhance bargaining power and consumer perception.

Studios spend money on awards campaigns because they see a return on their investments (even if indirectly). Awards also have an economic role. The informal politics reside in the marketing budgets for filmmakers, stars and stars being groomed for international marketplace recognition, and the genre is seen as "award-friendly."

Identity Politics, Representation and Activism
The red carpet and the ceremony have become a platform for activism, featuring films about race, gender, geography, and marginalised voices; stars wearing jewellery as statements; and acceptance speeches with political content. An ambiguity has emerged: is this activism genuine or symbolic?

When representation becomes a badge of prestige, it raises the question: do the awards contribute to real structural change, or just a tokenistic change? The politics of prestige means image counts—sometimes, image supercedes substance.

Global vs Local Tension
Prestige awards generally operate according to a globalised standard. For regional film industries, such as Bollywood, there is a tension between following global prestige cues or staying locally specific. Are the Academy Awards becoming overly global in their approach, or too star-centric?

In the same way, the Oscars and Cannes may value global visibility, while also invisibilising the films that do not fit the standard. The hidden politics of these processes include which films are eligible, seen, advertised, and win.

The Takeaway
Award ceremonies present viewers with a singular image of skin: red carpets, trophies, elegant gowns, happy audience members and winners. Beneath the lights, a much more textured story of prestige unfolds, exploring culture, money, politics, identity, and the aspirations of nations. At award shows like the Oscars or Cannes, it is the covert politics of prestige that shape which films will be seen, whose voices will be heard, and which nation will receive cultural visibility.

The red carpet is no longer just a runway. The statuette is no longer just a sign of craft. It is a sign of institutional favour. The prestigious label on a film is no longer just a statement about artistic excellence. It is also an indication of visible global status, campaign appeal, narratively aligned, and cultural capital.

As the film industry and audiences shift and change, are the best films getting honour or has the value of prestige shifted to represent a precise understanding of what it means to be prestigious? Are the awards genuinely representing the entire range of cinematic voices, or are they reinforcing hierarchy once again? How much of the glitter of the red carpet hides the politics of access, power and representation?

For a content writer who straddles the thin line of entertainment and culture, it is worth knowing the implicit politics of film awards. Who we recognise in the public eye has little to do with what we recognise behind the curtain. And as audiences worldwide become more self-aware, the probing of prestige will continue to evolve.

Because in the end, when the drape lifts, the flashbulbs pop, and the audience yields to applause, we must consider that what is made to linger beyond the gloss is also merely a part of the show.