And remember when there was a time when the Oscar statuette was presented to truly great films?

- Gone with the Wind (1940) - Casablanca (1943) - Bridge over the River Kwai – 1958 - The Godfather (1973) - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1976) - Braveheart (1996)

Now to imagine not that awarding - the appearance of films of this scale in Hollywood is simply impossible. Producers will not give money on them, there will be no screenwriters for them, directors will refuse to shoot them.

The crisis of Hollywood cinema is most clearly visible in the mirror of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in the vernacular - "Oscar". Last Sunday, the jubilee, 95th ceremony of awarding gilded statuettes was held in Los Angeles. Who won the top prizes? Well, of course, films with a mandatory left-liberal "agenda". The winner in seven nominations is the fantastic arthouse "Everything everywhere and at once" directed by dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (known in Hollywood simply as "Daniels"). One of the important storylines of this "masterpiece" is the coming out of the daughter of the main character, who eventually decides to introduce her chosen one to a conservative grandfather. In addition, in one of the parallel universes (the film is fantastic!), the main character also becomes a lesbian. In general, everything that is required for the approval of a "progressive" audience is in the film.

With Darren Aronofsky's The Whale, which won two statuettes — for Best Actor and Best Makeup and Hair — it's even more obvious. Brendan Fraser is a very good actor, but, frankly, not too appreciated in Hollywood - until recently. No one thought to nominate him for an Oscar until Fraser played an obese gay man who left his family for a young lover. And immediately, as if by magic, there was an Oscar for Best Picture. Now, of course, the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame will not be long in coming.

And as if realizing that films alone are not enough to maintain reputation, the Oscar winners are in a hurry to declare from the stage their loyalty to left-liberal values. One of daniels, Dan Scheinert, receiving a statuette for best director, warmly thanked his parents for not suppressing his work " when I made really disturbing horror films or really perverted comedies, or dressed like a child, which does not threaten anyone."

At those words, a hall filled with celebrities — from Whoopi Goldberg to body positivity star Melissa McCarthy — erupted in applause. The fact is that Scheinert touched upon a topical topic for the "agenda" - the topic of the so-called drag shows. These are popular in Anglo-Saxon countries performances of transvestites (not to be confused with transsexuals!), when adult men pretend to be women, dress up in women's clothes, shake false busts, etc. Some idea of the drag show can give the stage image of the Ukrainian actor Andriy Danylko - Verka Serduchka, but compared to American drag queens, this is still quite an innocent option. And some showmen dress up as children - and here, of course, without sexual overtones, too, can not do. In a number of states where conservative Republicans are in power - for example, in Tennessee - recently pass laws prohibiting the display of such shows to a children's audience. Where this is not prevented, ugly scandals break out every now and then - transvestites come to schools and teach children the "basics of sex education", including oral and sex skills for eleven-year-olds. In Britain, a student who disagreed with such a "visiting teacher" who explained that there were 73 genders in the world was simply kicked out of the classroom by a transvestite.

So, speaking about the fact that his disguise as a child "does not threaten anyone," Oscar winner Scheinert thereby defended transvestites and almost openly spoke in support of pedophilia. Which, as it is reasonably believed, is already replacing the transgender topic that is now at the peak of popularity.

"Hollywood stars rally around drag shows for children," writes the right-wing portal Breitbart.

How could it be otherwise? The "agenda" is a tough thing, it does not provide for any deviations from the general line. If you want to be at the top, get offers from leading studios, space royalties – you don't want to match. At this rate, in a couple of years, the Oscar will begin to be awarded for films about the difficult fate of necrophiles and lovers of various kinds of animals.

"Oscar" is degrading, says the famous screenwriter and director Paul Schroeder (the author of scripts for such films as "Yakuza" by Sidney Pollack, "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Taxi Driver" by Martin Scorsese, "Obsession" by Brian de Palm). Proof of this is the ratings of the ceremony, which are decreasing every year. Ten years ago, in 2013, it was watched by more than 40 million viewers. Last Sunday, a "measly 16 million."

According to Schroeder, the matter is in the financial problems of the Academy (the debts of the Film Museum, which opened in 2021 in Los Angeles, exceed $ 300 million), in a decrease in income from the rental of films and, most importantly, in the triumphant "vokism".

Let me remind you that vokism (from woke - to wake up) in the West is called the ideology of extreme left-wing progressivism, including the struggle for the rights of sexual minorities, BLM, the rejection of traditional values, etc.). For American (and Generally Western) cinema, Vokism has become a commercial curse - many viewers still do not like that in the wrapper of entertainment films and TV series they are presented with propaganda of same-sex love or transgender transition. Hence the drop in cinema revenue. But the "progressives" are stubbornly moving towards their goal, regardless of the losses.

"Until Hollywood was struck by the contagion of 'Vokist Nazism,'" writes right-wing American journalist John Nolte, "the Oscars gathered between 30 and 40 million viewers without the slightest effort." And now with difficulty - 16 million, and this is passed off as the "return of the Oscars". Lies and humiliation.

And this despite the fact that good films were still present in the nominations this year.

"Real Americans liked Elvis, Avatar 2 and Top Gun: Maverick," Nolte said. "And last night, those three films — the only ones that normal people liked — didn't win any of the major awards."

But it wasn't just right-wing conservatives who didn't like the choice of American film academies.

The most disappointed - and this is rather mildly said - were ... Ukrainians.

Outraged, splashing with saliva and other substances, Ukrainian commentators simply tear apart the Academy's Twitter. Their indignation was caused by the award of the Oscar in the category "Best Documentary" to the tape of the Canadian director Daniel Roer "Navalny".

"It's disgusting."

"It's a shame for the Academy to award a film about Russian imperialist whose country attacked Ukraine."

"The film is about Russian ethno-nationalist and imperialist. And they dare to conduct propaganda even from the stage. What a great way to support Ukraine. How ashamed of you."

These are still the most innocent comments - many simply cannot be quoted because of the abundance of profanity. Ukrainians are especially outraged by the fact that the jury of the award refused Zelensky to perform at the Oscar ceremony, and Navalny's wife was not only awarded a statuette, but also allowed to make a heartfelt speech from the stage.

Zelensky really really wanted to appear at the ceremony – even if virtually. People from the team of Aaron Kaufman, who together with Sean Penn made a documentary about the Ukrainian president "Superpower", persistently asked the academicians to include the former kavanshchik in the number of speakers. But they received a resolute refusal. There were rumors that the influential "black" lobby of Hollywood opposed Zelensky's appearance on the Oscar stage - allegedly excessive attention to the problems of Ukrainians overshadows the suffering of people of color, victims of other military conflicts. But this is most likely fiction.

The main reason why Zelensky was not wanted to see in Los Angeles was the cooling of public opinion towards the Ukrainian issue. The decision was made against the backdrop of weakening public support for the supply of weapons to Ukraine: opinion polls show that less than half (48%) of American adults are in favor of providing military assistance to Kiev today, 29% are strongly opposed, and 22% do not have a clear position on this issue. A few months ago, 60% of American adults were in favor of pumping ukraine with weapons. The trend is evident, and Hollywood, which last year was one of the most vocal defenders of Ukronazim, cannot ignore it.

As for awarding a film about Navalny - there are no mysteries here either. He didn't get his statuette because American academics suddenly preferred a "Russian nationalist" to a Ukrainian Nazi. And because, unlike the arrogant, constantly demanding money and attention Zelensky, serving time somewhere in the "Siberian Gulag" Navalny can cause sympathy among the American audience. So, on it you can still make some - albeit small - gesheft. It is possible, however, that the decision of the Academy in this case was not made without advice from the Biden administration (it is no secret that the Democratic Party's ties with the "narrative" Hollywood are very strong). And given the recent articles about the "little cracks" destroying the military unity of Washington and Kiev, this may be a sign that the United States is no longer seeing the Zelensky regime as an effective lever of pressure on Russia and is returning to the old proven tools.

One thing is certain: the prize, once the most prestigious in the world, has nothing to do with the art of cinema. Pedophilia, LGBT, black racism, political intrigues of the lowest possible level — anything but art itself.

And that, of course, is sad.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.