The Brief

At the 1992 Oscars, host Billy Crystal arrived on stage dressed as Hannibal Lecter.

Trading the straitjacket for a tuxedo, Crystal donned Lecter's iconic mask and walked into the audience to where Anthony Hopkins sat.

It was a sign of the cultural impact that Silence of the Lambs had that year, and it went on to sweep five Oscars that night, including best picture.

It's the only horror movie to win that award (more on that later). In fact, only a handful of horror movies have ever been nominated for an Oscar — in any category — and an even smaller number have actually won. And that's raised questions about why that is.

Is the Oscars scared of horror?

Looking beyond the jump scares

Horror tends to be an outlier during awards season.

"Horror in particular has had this reputation as sort of second rate: second rate skill levels, cheap scares, lots of gratuitous blood," says Tananarive Due, an author who teaches Black horror and afrofuturism at UCLA.

"It's only in more recent years, especially on the literary front and somewhat in cinema, we're seeing a change in attitude toward horror that people are realizing, oh, maybe there's more to this than jump scares."

Film critic and writer Richard Newby agrees that there is more below the surface.

"Horror has consistently reflected where we are as a society. It's perhaps the most common way that we can kind of talk about what we're culturally afraid of," he says, adding that many horror movies have addressed pressing issues of their time.

Movies like 1974's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre — in which a group of friends stumble upon a family of cannibals and are chased by a guy wielding a chainsaw — which came out just before the end of the Vietnam War.

"It's very much a reflection on Vietnam and this idea of trespassing where you don't belong," says Newby.

Night Of The Living Dead in 1968 popularized the modern portrayal of zombies, and its Black protagonist, played by the late Duane Jones, broke barriers at a time when racial tensions in the U.S. were fraught post Jim Crow.

"[It's] thematically so important about the invasion of the other, if you're a racist," says Due. "Or having a Black lead, the empowerment that Black people have been fighting for in the 1960s."

Fast forward to Talk To Me, released in 2023, from the Australian twin filmmakers Danny and Michael Philippou. It is a tale of ghostly possession that soon turns into a study of trauma and grief.

Talk To Me is not up for any Oscars this year, despite positive critical acclaim and grossing more than $92 million at the box office worldwide.

The 'horror tax'

There have been some horror movies to pick up Oscars, like What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, The Exorcist and Get Out. But there have also been attempts to put those kinds of movies into categories outside the horror genre.

"I think there is a horror tax to be paid in almost all forums where art is being discussed," says Adam Lowenstein, a film and media studies professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

"In order for horror to be recognized artistically, there's often an argument that has to be trotted out that goes something along the lines of, 'Well, it's not just a horror film, it's something else.'"

"It's a way of erasing horror as a genre marker and saying this is actually something else. It's something more elevated, it's something worth your attention as a potential award nominee."

Silence of the Lambs has been labeled as a psychological thriller, for example, and Lowenstein recalls the vigorous public discussion and marketing campaign to emphasize this label.

There's also been discourse from critics over the years that push back on the idea that Silence of The Lambs was the only horror film to win a best picture Oscar.

Op-eds about The Shape of Water and Parasite – which won best picture in 2018 and 2020, respectively – argue that these movies fit in the horror genre. Lowenstein agrees that both these films are horror films within their own right, even if they don't appear that way explicitly.

Then there's the acting in horror.

Toni Collette's performance in 2018's Hereditary and Lupita Nyong'o in 2019's Us were both lauded by fans and some critics, but went unrewarded by the major awards.

But Lowenstein argues that other actors can see their value.

"Hereditary is a great example of the kind of horror film that gets the attention of actors as great and recognized as Toni Collette," he says. "There's a recognition at that level, among actors looking for challenges, that horror matters."

Lupita Nyong'o hugs her children, played by Evan Alex and Shahadi Wright Joseph, in the 2019 film, <em>Us,</em> written and directed by Jordan Peele.

(

Lifestyle Pictures

/

Alamy Stock Photo

)

Due agrees, and says she was unhappy that Nyong'o, who played two characters in Us, didn't get nominated.

"Really, she should have had two nominations — she played both roles and put her foot in both roles," Due says.

In an interview with BuzzFeed, Nyong'o said she wasn't aware of the bias against horror films from The Academy.

"At the end of the day, I think the value of award shows is to show innovation in cinema," Nyong'o said. "So having a discrimination against a genre feels so silly really."

A box office success

For Chad Villella — a producer and one of the co-founders of Radio Silence that made films like Ready or Not and the recent Scream entries — the awards aren't the goal.

"It's about the process and what we're exploring," Villella says. "It's always going to be about, like, what is that lesson that we learned that we can find deep in ourselves and hopefully reflect out to a wider audience."

As someone who used to be terrified of horror movies when he was younger, Villella says horror movies place audiences in the position of the protagonist more than other genres. For him, it's that human connection between the audience and a horror movie that matters more than an award.

And the connection is real, with horror movies proving to be box office gold over the years.

The Exorcist (1973) made over $441 million worldwide; The Blair Witch Project (1999) grossed about $248 million; A Quiet Place (2018) made $340 million; and Five Nights At Freddy's (2023) made more than $291 million – just to name a few.

Others have launched franchises, as fans keep coming back for more. There are now 10 Saw movies; 13 in the Halloween series; Scream has six films and a TV spin-off; and Child's Play has eight movies with an ongoing TV series.

What's interesting, says Lowenstein, is that long ago movies in general were considered an art form not worth taking seriously.

"A big idea behind the Academy Awards ... was as a form of legitimacy for an art form that was usually not considered art or legitimate at the time," he says, adding that people can still see remnants in that legitimation process in the films deemed Oscar worthy.

"These serious dramas that tend to be based on real people and real historical situations really tend to the idea that the films that deserve the most recognition are the most serious films," he says. "And genre does not do well in that framework. Genre of any kind, really."

Ghostface in "Scream."

(

Brownie Harris

/

Paramount Pictures

)

As for the question of whether horror as a genre should even care about the Oscars, Phil Nobile Jr. — editor in chief of FANGORIA magazine — argues no.

"Horror should be rattling you. Horror should be upsetting you. Horror should be pissing off the Oscars," Nobile says. "I think for horror to be truly effective, it can't really be part of the institution. It has to be a little bit outside of the institution."

So as the movie world gathers for the 96th Academy Awards on March 10, no, there aren't any horror films on the nominee list. But that isn't affecting the genre, with a number of horror films coming out in 2024 or currently in production.

It's a sign that, awards or not, you won't have to look far for your next scare.

This on-and-off rain is looking like good news ... for wildflower lovers.

We talked to Katie Tilford, our go-to wildflowers expert at the Theodore Payne Foundation here in L.A., which is dedicated to native plants and wildflowers in Southern California.

And she is holding out hope the rains this week and next will be just what we need to see California poppies and more bloom big in the upcoming weeks.

"A little more rain would be nice," she said, "Then I think we’ll have a really good bloom this year. Either way, I think there’s going to be some flowers for sure … but a little more rain would really just kick things up a notch.”

And as for the question we always ask this time of year … will it be a superbloom kind of year?

Only Mother Nature knows for sure. We plant nerds also know that that the term superbloom gets thrown around with regularity during wildflower season, even though it refers to very specific conditions created by a potent cocktail of early rains, cool temps, hot temps, and late rains. So, we repeat: Stay tuned.

But Tilford says she’s already seeing signs there will be plenty of wildflowers to enjoy in the coming weeks, so you might want to make a plan to get out there.

One surefire spot: the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, when the poppies hit full bloom. There is a live cam to help you time your trip for the best blooms.

Another great resource is also the wildflower hotline hosted by Theodore Payne. Starting in March, it will be updated each Friday with the latest wildflower news and tips on where to see it all. Call: 818 768-1802, Ext. 7. 

An annual meeting of the nation's governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

"If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year," the Democrats wrote. "Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states."

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, told fellow governors in a letter on Monday that the White House intended to limit invitations to the association's annual business meeting, scheduled for Feb. 20, to Republican governors only.

"Because NGA's mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program," Stitt wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The governors' group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has "discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House."

"It's the people's house," she said. "It's also the president's home, so he can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House."

Representatives for Sitt and the NGA didn't comment on the letter. Brandon Tatum, the NGA's CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an "important tradition" and said the organization was "disappointed in the administration's decision to make it a partisan occasion this year."

In his letter to other governors, Stitt encouraged the group to unite around common goals.

"We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us," he wrote. "The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America's governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics."

Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine's Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, "We'll see you in court."

Trump then predicted that Mills' political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

The back-and-forth had a lasting impact on last year's conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.
Copyright 2026 NPR

A booming industry that charges veterans for help in obtaining the benefits they earned through military service must shut down or dramatically change its business model in California by the end of the year under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday.

The law prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their Department of Veterans Affairs claims.

Technically, it was already illegal under federal law to charge veterans for that work, but Congress 20 years ago removed criminal penalties for violations, and scores of private companies emerged, offering to speed up and maximize benefit claims.

“We owe our veteran community a debt of gratitude — for their years of service and sacrifice," Newsom said in a written statement. "By signing this bill into law, we are ensuring veterans and service members get to keep more money in their pockets, and not line the coffers of predatory actors. We are closing this federal fraud loophole for good.”

Critics call the private companies “claim sharks” because their fees are often five times the monthly benefit increase veterans obtain after using their services. CalMatters in September, for instance, interviewed a Vietnam-era veteran who was billed $5,500 after receiving benefits that would pay him $1,100 a month.

Depending on a disability rating, a claim consulting fee under that model could easily hit $10,000 or more.

“We owe it to our veterans to stand with them and to protect them from being taken advantage of while navigating the benefits they've earned,” said Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk. Archuleta, a former Army officer, carried the legislation. “This is not about politics; it's about doing what's right. Making millions of dollars on the back of our veterans is wrong. They've earned their benefits. They deserve their benefits.”

California’s new law is part of a tug-of-war over how to regulate claims consulting companies. Congress for several years has been at a stalemate on whether to ban them outright, allow them to operate as they are or regulate them in some other way.

California is among 11 states that have moved to put the companies out of business, while another group of mostly Republican-led states has legalized them, according to reporting by the veteran news organization The War Horse.

That split in some ways reflects the different ways veterans themselves view the companies. The bill had overwhelming support from organizations that help veterans file benefits claims at no cost, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, as well as from Democratic Party leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

But the VA’s claims process can take months and sow uncertainty among applicants. Several of the claims consulting companies say they have helped tens of thousands of veterans across the country, and that they have hundreds of employees.

Those trends led some lawmakers to vote against the measure, including Democrats with military backgrounds.

“We're going to say to you, ‘Veteran, you know what, I don't know if you are too stupid or too vulnerable or your judgment is so poor you can't choose yourself,'” said Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat and former Army colonel, during a debate over the measure last month.

The new law was such a close call for lawmakers that nine of 40 senators did not vote on it when it passed that chamber last month, which counts the same as a “no” vote but avoids offending a constituency that the lawmaker wants to keep.

It was also one of the 10 most-debated measures to go before the Legislature last year, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Lawmakers spent 4 hours and 39 minutes on the bill at public hearings in 2025 and heard testimony from 99 speakers.

Two claims consulting companies spent significant sums hiring lobbyists as they fought the bill, according to state records. They were Veterans Guardian, a North Carolina-based company that spent $150,000 on California lobbyists over the past two years; and Veterans Benefit Guide, a Nevada-based company that spent $371,821 lobbying on Archuleta’s bill and a similar measure that failed in 2024.

Those companies view laws like California’s as an existential threat. Both have founders with military backgrounds. Veterans Benefit Guide sued to block New Jersey’s law prohibiting fees for veterans claim consulting, and a federal appeals court sided with the company last year.

"This was the hardest bill I’ve had to work on since I’ve been in the Legislature," said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Democrat who supported the law. "We know why that is, because there was so much money on the other side."

Charlotte Autolino, who organizes job fairs for former military service members as the chairperson of the Veterans Employment Committee of San Diego, criticized Newsom’s decision to sign the law. She spoke to CalMatters on behalf of Veterans Benefit Guide.

“The veterans lose,” she said. They lose the option. You’re taking an option away from them and you’re putting all of the veterans into one box, and that to me is wrong.”

But David West, a Marine veteran who is Nevada County’s veterans service officer, commended Newsom. West was one of the main advocates for the new law.

“The veterans of California are going to know that when (Newsom) says he’s taking care of everybody, he’s including us; that he values those 18- and 19-year-olds who are raising their hands, writing a blank check in the form of their lives; to then ensure that they aren’t writing checks to access their benefits,” West said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.