Is Hollywood still discriminatory towards people of color? One may claim this question is absurd- annoying even, as American society as a whole has grown to the point that any saying or action can be picked apart until seen as problematic. However, despite societal progression, it’s important to look further into the actions of industries and those in power. 

Furthermore, the same ideology should be applied to this years’ newest controversy: The Golden Globes for 2026’s best performance by a male actor in a motion picture, in which, highly acclaimed actor Timothee Chalamet won the award for his role as the protagonist, Marty Mauser, for the 2025 film “Marty Supreme.” 

After the airing of the Golden Globe awards, the event of Chalamet’s achievement has attracted controversy due to viewers’ split opinions on the true winner. A majority argued actor Michael B. Jordan should have taken the title instead for his pairing roles as Smoke and Stack in the 2025 film “Sinners.” 

Supporters of Michael B. Jordan voiced two differing view points as an explanation for their belief. One side claimed Jordan was more deserving of the title because of his two protagonist roles, arguing doubled effort was placed into his craft while Chalamet hadn’t. Whilst the other side further examined the case, diving deeper into the problem and highlighting the discriminatory pattern of the film industry and how it pertained to the unfair win. 

However, can these allegations hold up? The movie “Sinners” success wasn’t ignored, as the motion picture won a box office achievement prize, a best score, and actor Miles Canton, who played Sammy, was awarded best young performer by Critic’s Choice. Nevertheless, I agree with many supporters’ arguments. 

In my own personal opinion, Michael B. Jordan should have won the Golden Globe, and his loss was rooted in a subtle form of racism. a subtle racism historically prominent in black actors and actresses winning awards.  

The best example- though not subtle- is the first ever award granted to an African American: Hattie McDaniel. Hattie McDaniel was an actress during the early 20th century, known for her supporting roles as racist caricatures of Black Americans (the most accessible roles during the time), who was the first Black American to win an Oscar, which she obtained for her role as a house slave in 1939’s “Gone With The Wind.” 

For the time period, it was understandable why this award is considered problematic, as it reinforces hateful ideology. Unfortunately, Hollywood’s tendency to praise and award harmfully stereotypical and degrading roles never ceased.   

Though not all roles of Black Oscar winners fit this criteria, there are many roles that do. The best examples are these four actors: Lupita Nyong’o, Octavia Spencer, Halle Berry. 

Lupita Nyong’o won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Patsey in 2013’s “12 Years a Slave.”  If not understood from the title, the film revolves around slavery and actress Nyong’o is seen brutalized in many ways. 

Octavia Spencer won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in her role as a maid in 2011’s “The Help.” Although the movie is meant to criticize the mammy stereotype that is romanticized in the media, she was awarded for portraying the stereotype nonetheless. 

Halle Berry won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 2001’s “Monster’s Ball,” in which she plays a southern Black woman living a nightmare that includes a dead son, an executed husband, and faces eviction due to her poverty stricken conditions. Had the description of her character not convinced others how problematic it is, the movie is incredibly fetishing towards Black women, which was found to be extremely annoying.

 Halle Berry has a dichotomy of roles, even roles she has put more work into. For example: Dorothy Dandridge, a black actress, singer, and dancer during the early 20th century, famous for being the first African American woman to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress for her role in “Carmen Jones” (1954). 

Halle Berry could have easily won the Oscar for her portrayal of Dorothy Dandridge, as many actors and actresses have won awards for their roles as real people; however, she instead won her award for a stereotypical portrayal of a struggling black woman who needed the help of a white savior. 

Overall, many of these award winners had two things in common: One, their roles stemmed from either stereotypes, abusive backgrounds, or disgusting/brutal depictions of human beings, and two, they had better representative roles to nominate. This is not to say there aren’t Black actors/actresses who’ve been nominated for better representative roles. However, it is unfair to ignore the obvious trend in the roles allowing black stars to take home their trophies. 

In the case of Michael B. Jordan, his characters went against the stereotypical mold. The twin characters he played were complex, and their struggle during the Jim Crow era didn’t define their entire being, allowing the viewer a chance to get to know the characters beyond the obvious complications of the era. Even in the end, both characters go against the expected endings for Black characters in cinema.  

One, their endings aren’t tragic or a result of a white counterpart’s assistance. Stack lives his newfound vampiric immortality with his love interest, and Smoke passes on to be with his wife and child in the afterlife. The endings given to the pair are satisfying and only slightly tragic, unlike most written black characters. 

For Black characters in Cinema, their endings are usually categorized in three separate categories: tragic death, saved by others, or quick and undetailed (otherwise known as tokenism). The best example for a stereotypical Black ending would be Tom Robinson in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” whose story and ending centers around the heroism of his white lawyer. 

Two, Smoke’s obtaining of justice against his oppressors is not peaceful. Before his death, Smoke confronts and slaughters the incoming Ku Klux Klan members that came to attack the owners of the nightclub the film takes place in. 

In most forms of media, Black activists are painted in negative lighting for fighting back against their oppressors instead of partaking in peaceful activism. The film industry is notorious for upstaging oppressed characters to obtain peace in non-violent ways, whilst those who mirror the violence unfairly pushed upon them by their oppressors are made out to be just as villainous. 

A cinematic example of a black character for their violent resistance is Erik Killmonger in “Black Panther” 2018 (also played by Michael B. Jordan). In the movie, Erik is portrayed as a villain due to his mission to overthrow the Wakanda monarchy in order to arm oppressed people of color globally. Though, his act of killing his own allies is seen as more villainous. 

For the cinematic example of the latter troupe, the most popular character is Starr Carter in the film “The Hate You Give” (2018). This character is depicted as disciplined and morally grounded, while her counterparts are seen as wrong and savage for their violent response. 

Even if I were to erase my argument due to “Sinners” winning awards during the Golden Globes, there are some questionable actions during the event. For instance, when “Sinners” won Best Original Score for composer Ludwig Goransson’s work the moment wasn’t televised. 

These comparisons showcase why Michael B. Jordan’s roles and the film “Sinners” are groundbreaking for the film industry, and an explanation for Michael B. Jordan’s ultimate loss. Despite the hard work, historical landmarks for the film history, and complex storytelling, Hollywood will never give “Sinners” genuine recognition for its achievements because the industry favors portrayals of black pain and slave movies. 

Besides historical context, you may wonder how else can Michael B. Jordan’s loss seen as unfair? Easy; timing, fresh portrayals, and overall success. 

For one, “Marty Supreme,” being nominated felt wrong because of how close the airing date of the film was to the event of the Golden Globes. “Marty Supreme,” aired Dec. 25, yet the Golden Globes took place Jan. 11, a mere 17 day gap. Although, many social media users claim nominators see films before their initial release.

Additionally, “Sinners” premiered April 18, 2025 and continued to have reruns throughout October to mid January due to the multiple people paying to see the movie in theaters again and again.  

Furthermore, Timothee’s portrayal as Marty wasn’t anything special or even emotionally moving. In Biopics, the viewer understands what they’re getting into, but there is also an expectation of a moving performance- something that makes you point at the actor in a different film and say “Oh! He’s George Michael in that one movie!” or “Hey, Isn’t that, that one guy from..” or even being called by name of the person the Biopic is based on because in the viewer’s mind the actor embodied the role perfectly, they are that person. When watching “Marty Supreme,” all I felt was, “oh it’s Timothee Chalamet with a mustache.”

I am no hater of Timothe Chalamet, in actuality, I am quite the fan of his works. My favorite role of his being Laurie from “Little Women,” (2019). Unfortunately, Chalamet doesn’t come close to the talent Michael B. Jordan had in “Sinners.” 

Not only did Michael B. Jordan had to study historical contexts, altered directions of his characters, had to change his physical appearance, learn different techniques for filming, but most importantly he learned a nearly nonexistent southern dialect for the setting and time period (otherwise known as a Southern Twang). Chalamet, on the other hand, trained 7 years on Tennis.

I even had personal experience at the theaters for both films. For Sinners, my film experience was transcending. The film’s soundtrack booming through the speakers caused my heart to swell with joy as the music reverberated in my seat, the visuals were amazing and some of the best cinematography I’ve seen, and I felt every intense emotion during the running time. Meanwhile “Marty Supreme’s” movie theater experience was decent to say the least. 

Ultimately, I truly believe Michael B. Jordan should have won the award that night, because his performance was not only groundbreaking but touching for many people, including myself. And although “Sinners,” won some awards, I don’t believe Hollywood saw the film for its message or its impact.

Many acknowledge the unfairness in the decision, grow frustrated and tired of the same old results, but forget how impactful our support really is. Hollywood may gloss over “Sinners” in the future, as another film that formed a large following, and Timothee Chalamet can place his Oscar upon his shelves as a token of success, but for audiences, Michael B. Jordan will always be in our hearts as the true winner.