The Brief

This story includes descriptions of sexual abuse.

In 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic began its rampage, a recent law school graduate started a new job in Alaska.

She hoped the coveted post — as law clerk to a federal judge — would jump-start her career. Instead, it was almost derailed by harassment and abuse.

"The judge was the HR department, the judge was my boss, the judge was a colleague," she said. "The judge was everything, he had all the power."

The power imbalance between judges with lifetime tenure and the young law clerks who work alongside them is both vast and unique to the judiciary. People in the federal court system don't have the same kind of job protections enshrined in law that most other Americans do.

The courts largely police themselves. That's because judicial independence – and protecting the balance of power — give judges a tremendous amount of sway over their own workplace rules. At the same time, federal judges have emerged in recent weeks as the lone check on employment abuses elsewhere in the federal government.

A nearly year-long NPR investigation has found problems with the courts' internal system – and a pervasive culture of fear about blowing the whistle. Forty-two current and former federal judicial employees spoke to NPR about their experience working for judges appointed by presidents from both major political parties.

One of them is the former clerk in Alaska. She's not being named because she alleges she's the survivor of sexual assault.

Early in her clerkship, the judge started testing her boundaries, with inappropriate conversations about his personal relationships. She thought it was part of her job to listen and help with anything in his life, she said.

"He had told me that I was a confidante and he had given me the title of career clerk and, you know, he had spoken to me about what an honor that was and… I mean this is ridiculous, but I thought I was doing a public service," she said.

As the judge's marriage came apart, he began to text her constantly, to the point where her phone felt like an "electric leash." In one message, he said she looked like a "f****** Disney princess." In another, he told her he liked her blue pants.

Things got worse by the summer of 2022, so she found a new job, as a federal prosecutor in Alaska.

About a week after she left the judge's chambers, she ran into him at a party. He tried to get her to sit next to him on the couch there. Eventually she left, but she got a text from him saying he needed to talk to her.

It was cold that night, so the judge suggested they chat inside his apartment. Then, he insisted she come to the bedroom. At first, she sat on the corner of the bed, but he wanted her to lay down. Then, she told investigators, he grabbed her breast. She tried to pull his arm off, she says, but he was really strong.

"I just remember thinking like there's nothing I can do about this," she told the investigators. "This is about to happen." The judge later told investigators it was consensual.

He took off her pants and performed oral sex on her.

'No legal recourse'

Law clerks and other judicial employees are vulnerable to mistreatment and have few job protections.

(

Isabel Seliger for NPR

)

A judge's control over the future of a young lawyer in his or her chambers is real—and lasting. With only a phone call, a judge can open doors to a lucrative job at a law firm or shut them permanently.

Unlike people who work for private companies, nonprofit groups or Congress, the 30,000 employees of the federal courts usually cannot sue for mistreatment.

"The federal judiciary is outrageously exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Aliza Shatzman, who launched The Legal Accountability Project to offer clerks a way to share feedback about their experiences on the job. "That means that if you are a law clerk and you are sexually harassed, fired, retaliated against by a federal judge, you have no legal recourse."

Since 2017, when the #MeToo movement swept the country, the federal courts say they've done a lot to make sure workers are treated with dignity and respect.

"We believe that the changes put in place over the past seven years have had a positive impact on the Judiciary workplace, a belief that was validated by two independent studies," a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts told NPR in a written statement. "We continue to make improvements as part of our efforts to foster an exemplary workplace for our employees."

Court administrators said employees now have several ways to report problems. And, when it comes to abusive or hostile behavior, they said federal judiciary workers have more leeway to complain about their bosses than people who work outside.

But the clerk in Alaska never used the judiciary's internal system to report the judge. She didn't know it existed.

And that's not uncommon. A study last year by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academy of Public Administration found many federal courts failed to put required information on reporting misconduct on their websites. About one in 10 court websites have no information about workplace conduct.

People walk toward the James M. Fitzgerald U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in downtown Anchorage, Alaska, on July 10, 2024.

(

Mark Thiessen

/

AP

)

A person who once served as a resource for court employees seeking advice or information about filing complaints told NPR there are a lot of people trying to do the right thing. This person spoke anonymously, afraid of reprisal for talking about the system. They said it was a struggle just to get information updated on the court's website, so clerks could find out whom they can talk to, if they had the courage to speak.

A widespread culture of fear surrounds talking about what happens in a judge's chambers, from cases and decision-making to abuse and misconduct. And there's a good reason for that.

James Baker is a former judge who also worked in the White House and the military.

"The location where I found the power differential the most distinct was when I was serving as a judge with law clerks, and I think that's something worth noting," said Baker, who worked on last year's NAPA judiciary study.

Not only is the relationship between judges and clerks fraught, it often comes with a huge age gap; the average age of a federal judge is in the mid to late 60s, while law clerks tend to be in their mid to late 20s.

Here's the way the system works now.

If a clerk has a problem, their first option is something called informal advice.

"Informal advice could be anything like, you know, talk to the judge, write down your thoughts," said Gabe Roth, who pushes the courts to be more accountable through his group, Fix the Court. "It can be a lot of different sort of basic HR things that we've all spoken to HR people about."

The next step, called an assisted resolution, is a little more serious. The courts say there are about 500 people across the system who are designated to hear about problems and offer advice. Much happens informally through mediation, where a clerk or other court employee can raise concerns and get an apology or even a job transfer.

Then, there's the most serious option: making a formal complaint. Staying anonymous is not guaranteed. That's a big problem for many of the clerks and law students who reach out to Aliza Shatzman. She operates a database where clerks can share honest feedback about judges: the good and the bad.

"I don't take it lightly when I say the federal judiciary is the most dangerous white-collar workplace in America," Shatzman said.

Hard data about misconduct in the court system isn't easy to come by. For example, no one tracks the most commonly used way that clerks and other workers raise an alarm, that option to seek informal advice.

"There's tons of stats; you want to know the birth year of some random judge in Missouri from 1897," said Roth, of Fix the Court. "They have that. But the idea that they … have not successfully captured the most common type of complaint is very frustrating."

The courts unveiled their first annual workplace conduct report last November. That report showed more court employees are using the dispute resolution process. But few of them are law clerks.

There are more than 1,400 federal judges with life tenure – and they each have at least two clerks. Just seven complaints came from law clerks between 2021 and 2023.

"The actual number of complaints that flow out of chambers misconduct is a very small number," Judge Robert Conrad of the Administrative Office told reporters last year. "Wherever misconduct occurs in the judiciary, we need to be ready to address it in a serious way. But the notion that this is primarily a judge problem seems to be dispelled by the findings of the report."

Shatzman, of the Legal Accountability Project, interprets those numbers very differently.

"When you see a low number of harassment and misconduct complaints in a workplace, typically that does not signal that it is a safe workplace," she said. "Typically, it signals that the reporting mechanisms are broken and law clerks do not feel comfortable filing complaints."

Sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination

Over nearly a year, NPR heard the stories of people whose self-confidence was shattered by judges who screamed so loudly others could hear from the hallways, and people who were fired after only a few weeks on the job, for no clear reason.

Some described sexual harassment, like in the case of the Alaska clerk. Many more shared episodes of bullying. Others said they faced discrimination or harsh treatment because they had a disability or were pregnant.

Jessica Horton is one of them.

When she graduated from law school, at age 24, she felt lucky to get a job as a law clerk to a new federal judge.

Horton said she disclosed her pregnancy a couple of months before she started work. And at the time it didn't seem like it would be much of a problem for the judge who was herself a mom.

"She told me that she took off two weeks when she had each of her children," Horton said. "And so she said, 'You can expect the same.' And at the time, I had no context for how little that is."

Inside those chambers, the judge's word is law. And Horton fell in line.

Several clerks shared they faced discrimination or harsh treatment because they had a disability or were pregnant.

(

Isabel Seliger for NPR

)

She worried so much about missing work that she told the doctor she wanted to avoid a C-section, because of the recovery time. She refused an epidural too, because she had read about complications with them.

"My judge at one point asked me how dilated I was," Horton recalled. "And so she's like, well, maybe when you go to your appointment, the doctor should check. I had no idea. Like, I mean, at the time, like I knew that that was wrong. Looking back, that is so incredibly inappropriate."

Horton ended up back at a work event 11 days after her first child was born, still bleeding from birth, leaking milk, and completely miserable. She fought infections and bullying from another clerk.

The clerkship lasted a year — and to leave would be "career suicide," she said. She started counting down the days on the calendar.

Starting out, Horton had been excited about learning from the judge, having a mentor, maybe someday even becoming a judge herself.

"But after this experience, I changed my mind and it, I think, kind of put the nail in the coffin of my legal career pretty early," she said.

Her son is now 9 years old. Sometimes they drive by the courthouse and she reminds him, that's where he slept underneath her desk as a baby.

Horton decided to talk on the record, in part because she's left the legal profession.

Things can get pretty tough for clerks who speak out.

When the Alaska clerk reported the assault, she told a colleague in the U.S. attorney's office who had been assigned to mentor her.

"When I reported to my mentor, she was also the person that had been sending him nude photos and immediately told him that I reported the sexual assault," the clerk said.

The mentor later said in court papers that she also felt pressured to share nude pictures with the judge, given his power and authority, and because he told her he would have sway over a job she wanted.

The former clerk heard from friends that the judge was furious she'd told anyone. When she ran into him, in the hallway at the courthouse, she said he warned her to keep her head down and shut up. (The judge denied that.)

"The actual sexual assault was awful…completely awful and you know I've since sought therapy for that, and help. But what happened next was almost worse," she said.

The court system ultimately launched an investigation into the judge, Joshua Kindred. What followed were multiple rounds of interviews with investigators who cross-examined her and stress-tested her credibility. The court investigation took more than a year, and all the while two other young women clerks in the judge's chambers continued to work by his side.

Alaska lawyer Joshua Kindred speaks during a judicial nomination hearing at the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary in Washington, D.C., in 2019.

(

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

/

via Reuters

)

At first, Kindred told investigators nothing sexual had happened between them. Much later, he said the experience was consensual and that he had no "sinister intent."

Last July, a special committee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the judge had deliberately lied. But the court committee found the judge did not retaliate against the former clerk and did not reach a conclusion about whether the judge sexually assaulted her.

Kindred resigned shortly before the report about his misconduct became public.

He did not respond to phone calls or messages to an email address and a phone number associated with him, or to messages sent to relatives.

A patchwork reporting system

Before the courts started to develop more formal systems for reporting abuse seven years ago, clerks sometimes had to figure out a solution for themselves — something that continues to this day.

That's what happened with a woman we're calling S, who worked for Judge José Antonio Fusté in Puerto Rico, just out of law school.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge José Fusté attends a press conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 2009.

(

Andres Leighton

/

AP

)

"We were working together on a very high-profile, high-stakes death penalty case," she said. "I remember that I was in his chambers and we were sitting next to each other. And I remember that he put his hand on my thigh and I remember moving it off of my thigh and just being shocked."

Things like that happened quite a few times, she said, including an incident when the judge returned from a trip and tried to kiss her on the lips. He also copied down a love poem and left it at her desk, she said.

S said she struggled with her options, including whether to leave the job early. Eventually, a new law clerk arrived, and S said the judge made advances on her too.

"This wasn't about me personally. This was just a pattern and practice of behavior," S said.

Together she and the other clerk developed some strategies for handling the judge, their boss. They never went into his chambers on their own, for starters.

"Kind of just tried to stay away from him as much as we could, which is a very unfortunate situation, because part of the reason one might choose to work for a federal judge is because you want to be able to interact with a federal judge," she said. "So we just…got very cold to him and I guess strength in numbers is how it turned out."

S said she and her fellow clerk — diligent young attorneys just out of law school — dug into legal research about sexual harassment and the ramifications of making a complaint about a federal judge.

Ultimately, they reached out to administrators in the Appeals Court for the First Circuit but S said they were told "there wasn't anything that could be done."

Fusté remained on the bench for years, until 2016, when he resigned after another clerk reported him to administrators.

A widespread culture of fear surrounds talking about what happens in a judge's chambers, from cases and decision-making to abuse and misconduct.

(

Isabel Seliger for NPR

)

NPR attempted to reach Judge Fusté for comment, but he did not respond to phone calls or messages to an email address and a phone number associated with him, or to messages sent to relatives.

S knows Fusté has retired. But she's still afraid of the damage it could cause her career if she identifies herself by name.

"He was able to retire with all of his federal benefits," she said. "So I thought, 'Well, this doesn't really seem fair that all he has to do is kind of, you know, walk away and …he could have been ready to retire in any case.'"

Retirement stops any court investigation in its tracks. Often a judge under scrutiny will keep their benefits and sometimes still show up at the courthouse.

That's how things went down in the most notorious case in recent years.

Sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Alex Kozinski shook the federal courts in 2017, after #MeToo complaints hit Hollywood, the business world, media and politics.

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Alex Kozinski attends a House Judiciary Committee hearing on March 16, 2017 in Washington, D.C.

(

Justin Sullivan

/

Getty Images

)

Kozinski apologized to his former clerks for making them feel uncomfortable. He said he had a "broad sense of humor."

But even after he retired, Kozinski kept working in the law. He's even filed court papers for clients with cases before the 9th Circuit, the same one he left amid a national outcry.

The Administrative Office of the Courts pointed out in a statement to NPR that three judges named in this story — Kozinski, Fusté and Kindred — are off the bench, and that two of them left before the #MeToo scandals erupted, and before the courts created a better reporting system.

A push for accountability 

For most people, the courts are where they turn for accountability when they have problems at work. But for the people who work in those very courts, their rights are not that clear. Protections for them are not set out under law, and a judge's colleagues and friends can be the deciders.

Congresswoman Norma Torres, a Democrat from California, is trying to change that.

Last fall, she convened a group of experts on Capitol Hill to draw attention to the problem.

"I don't need to be a lawyer to know that people in power with no oversight get to sweep people and problems under the rug," she said.

Torres says the majority of judges behave properly, but the ones who don't face little accountability. The courts operate in a patchwork, so no one is in charge of overseeing all the systems that employees use to report misconduct. Torres pushed for Congress to set aside money for two research studies to understand the holes in the system.

Gretta Goodwin led one of those efforts, for the Government Accountability Office. But Goodwin found she didn't have the access to properly do her job.

"This report is about workplace misconduct," Goodwin said at the congressional roundtable. "And we were not really allowed to talk to employees or get perspectives from employees. We were allowed to speak to one current and one former employee."

The federal courts said the study validates the steps they've already taken to improve conditions for workers there.

But Torres said that's not good enough. She's committed to using the power of the purse — the appropriations power — to try to get the judiciary to do more.

California Democratic Rep. Norma Torres speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on June 13, 2024.

(

Anna Rose Layden

/

Getty Images

)

She and Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson also introduced the Judiciary Accountability Act. The bill would make clear that the civil rights laws — the protections against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability and other protected characteristics, as well as against sexual harassment and retaliation — apply to the 30,000 people who work for the federal courts.

"This is just one small step, but a very important step to bring about some accountability," Johnson said.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, helped sponsor a companion bill in the Senate. But neither piece of legislation got a hearing before Congress left town last year. Republicans now control both chambers of Congress and reforms to the judicial branch are not expected to be a priority for them this year.

As for other avenues of accountability, the people who work for federal judges, probation departments and public defenders can't go to the executive branch for help. And it's not clear they can sue in the courts either.

In fact, NPR heard from a dozen current and former employees that it's hard to even find a lawyer to give advice because these systems are so hard to understand, and because the lawyers worry about getting on the bad side of a federal judge who may decide their own cases someday.

Pressure to remain silent

Executives in the federal court system said they're committed to improving the work environment and they've taken concrete steps to demonstrate that.

"This is not the systemic failure that some critics stuck in a six-year time warp have used to describe the judiciary's efforts," Conrad, of the Administrative Office of the Courts, said last year.

But clerks told NPR that people who run into trouble on the job still face tremendous pressure to remain silent. A negative reference from a judge can detonate a clerk's career, while judges serve for life.

Judges who behave badly can be an open secret in a courthouse: NPR heard over and over again that the court security officers know, the longtime clerks know, their colleagues know. But a new batch of clerks, just out of law school, may not have heard those whispers.

"I can handle a tough boss," said a former clerk who spoke anonymously for fear of reprisal. "I can't handle an abusive boss. I just wish more people would talk about it."

Were you harassed or bullied by a federal judge or do you know someone who was? We want to hear about your experience. Your name will not be used without your consent, and you can remain anonymous. Please contact NPR by clicking this link.

Barrie Hardymon, Monika Evstatieva and Krishnadev Calamur edited this story with help from Anna Yukhananov and Robert Little. Research from Barbara Van Woerkom, with art direction and photo editing by Emily Bogle. Production support from Casey Morell and Margaret Luthar.

Copyright 2025 NPR

For 24 years, I've been bringing together audiences here in Southern California ahead of the Oscars so we can review our favorites together.

Last week, we had a packed house at the Alex Theater in Glendale for our annual Film Week Academy Awards Preview.

We gathered nine of our regular FilmWeek critics, whose voices listeners hear on LAist 89.3 on our weekly review of movies. Hundreds of LAist listeners and readers who attended also got to vote for their personal favorites.

If we missed you March 7, we have clips of all 10 of the best picture nominees and the favorite for best animated feature. I have to say, I really loved sharing the experience of the movies with so many people. We'd love to see you in person at next year's event.

Meet the FilmWeek critics

• Tim Cogshell: FilmWeek critic, Alt-Film Guide and CineGods.com
• Christy Lemire: FilmWeek critic, RogerEbert.com and co-host of the Breakfast All Day podcast
• Lael Loewenstein: FilmWeek critic
• Wade Major: FilmWeek critic and CineGods.com 
• Amy Nicholson: FilmWeek critic, film critic for the Los Angeles Times and host of the podcast ‘Unspooled’
• Claudia Puig: FilmWeek critic and program director for the Santa Barbara International Film Festival
• Peter Rainer: FilmWeek critic and the Christian Science Monitor 
• Charles Solomon: FilmWeek critic, Animation Scoop and Animation Magazine 

Watch our full Oscar preview story

Best Picture

Nominees

Bugonia
F1
Frankenstein
Hamnet
Marty Supreme
One Battle After Another
The Secret Agent
Sentimental Value
Sinners
Train Dreams

• Critics consensus: Sinners
• Audience: Sinners

Best Director

Nominees

Chloé Zhao, Hamnet
Josh Safdie, Marty Supreme
Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Joachim Trier, Sentimental Value
Ryan Coogler, Sinners

• Critics' consensus: Paul Thomas Anderson for One Battle After Another

Some other critics said that while they wanted Coogler to win, they thought the Oscar would go to Anderson.

Best Actress

Nominees

Jessie Buckley, Hamnet
Rose Byrne, If I Had Legs I'd Kick You
Kate Hudson, Song Sung Blue
Renate Reinsve, Sentimental Value
Emma Stone, Bugonia

• Critics' consensus: Jessie Buckley for Hamnet
• Audience choice: Emma Stone for Bugonia

Lemire said that while she'd love to see the win go to Rose Byrne, she called Buckley the "only lock of the night"

Best Actor

Nominees:

Timothée Chalamet, Marty Supreme
Leonardo DiCaprio, One Battle After Another
Ethan Hawke, Blue Moon
Michael B. Jordan, Sinners
Wagner Moura, The Secret Agent

• Critics' consensus: Michael B. Jordan for Sinners
• Audience choice: Michael B. Jordan for Sinners

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees:

Elle Fanning, Sentimental Value
Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas, Sentimental Value
Amy Madigan, Weapons
Wunmi Mosaku, Sinners
Teyana Taylor, One Battle After Another

• Critics' consensus: Amy Madigan for Weapons
• Audience choice: Teyana Taylor, One Battle After Another

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees

Benicio del Toro, One Battle After Another
Jacob Elordi, Frankenstein
Delroy Lindo, Sinners
Sean Penn, One Battle After Another
Stellan Skarsgård, Sentimental Value

• Critics' consensus: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another
• Audience choice: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another

Best Original Screenplay

Nominees

Blue Moon, written by Robert Kaplow
It Was Just an Accident, written by Jafar Panahi; script collaborators: Nader Saïvar, Shadmehr Rastin, Mehdi Mahmoudian
Marty Supreme, written by Ronald Bronstein and Josh Safdie
Sentimental Value, written by Eskil Vogt, Joachim Trier
Sinners, written by Ryan Coogler

• Critics' consensus: Sinners, written by Ryan Coogler
• Audience choice: Sinners, written by Ryan Coogler

Best Adapted Screenplay

Nominees

Bugonia, screenplay by Will Tracy
Frankenstein, written for the screen by Guillermo del Toro
Hamnet, screenplay by Chloé Zhao and Maggie O'Farrell
One Battle after Another, written by Paul Thomas Anderson
Train Dreams, screenplay by Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar

• Critics' consensus: None
• Audience choice: Train Dreams, screenplay by Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar

Best Animated Feature

Nominees

Arco
Elio
KPop Demon Hunters
Little Amélie or the Character of Rain
Zootopia 2

• Critics' consensus: Tie, Little Amélie or the Character of Rain and KPop Demon Hunters
• Audience choice: KPop Demon Hunters

Best Documentary

Nominees:

The Alabama Solution
Come See Me in the Good Light
Cutting Through Rocks
Mr. Nobody Against Putin
The Perfect Neighbor

• Critics' consensus: The Perfect Neighbor
• Audience choice: no vote

While the only officially gendered awards for the Oscars are for acting, it’s no secret the Academy historically has favored men when it comes to handing out statuettes. Between 1929 and 2026, women made up less than 18% of all nominees, according to a report by the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative.

If you exclude the acting nominees, women have been nominated for just under 13% of all awards in the nearly century since the awards began, said Stacy L. Smith, who founded the initiative in 2005 to track inequality in entertainment.

Smith said the numbers, while stark, aren’t surprising.

“This industry cannot change itself,” Smith said. “To create change, you really need to work with folks and bring them in.”

To better understand where gender disparity stands today, we analyzed who actually speaks in the 10 films up for what many consider to be the highest honor in film: best picture at this Sunday’s Academy Awards.

Why? Because gender disparity in dialogue tells us something about the kinds of films that get nominated for awards — or made in the first place — and whose stories tend to be institutionally valued.

We went into this analysis knowing that historically, films that contend for best picture have been dominated by stories driven by male characters. We analyzed the 10 nominated films of 2026 and also analyzed the 2025 nominees to determine the most recent patterns.

Our findings: Women characters spoke about a quarter of the words. That’s down from a third of words in last year’s nominated films.

“Whether we look at just who's on screen, and now when we look at how much they speak, your findings reiterate this real lack of inclusion for women and girls on screen,” Smith said.

The details:

Men overwhelmingly dominate dialogue in eight films. In each — save for Bugonia — at least 70% of the words go to men. Bugonia has the narrowest difference at 56% men and 44% women, snagging the third-highest percentage of female dialogue.

Two films stand out for having twice as much dialogue by women than the overall average of 25%. In Sentimental Value, women speak 57% of the words, and in Hamnet, they speak 51%.

One Battle After Another is the only film where an explicitly nonbinary character speaks. However, their number of words spoken — 25 — is so small compared to the rest of the dialogue that it comes out to 0.2% of the film.

Hamnet is the only best picture nominee to be directed by a woman: Chloé Zhao.

How this compares to last year

Last year, women spoke the majority of words in three films: Emilia Perez, Wicked and I’m Still Here. In all three, women spoke at least 60% of the words.

In 2025, like this year, one film directed by a woman, Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance, was nominated for best picture.

Why lead characters matter 

This year, Sentimental Value, Hamnet and Bugonia have the biggest share of dialogue by women among the best picture nominees. They’re also the only films with a lead woman character.

Michelle (Emma Stone), the main character of Bugonia, speaks the most out of the three women in lead roles. Of the leads in nominated films, she ranks fourth overall behind Marty (Timothée Chalamet) in Marty Supreme, Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) in Frankenstein and her own co-lead, Teddy (Jesse Plemons).

Agnes (Jessie Buckley) from Hamnet ranks fifth. Nora (Renate Reinsve) from Sentimental Value ranks eighth behind the male leads from One Battle After Another and Train Dreams.

We should note that what constitutes a “lead” role can be subjective. For the purposes of this analysis, we based it on plot summaries and the prominence of the character in the arc of the film.

In most films, lead characters talk more than people in supporting roles. Sentimental Value and Train Dreams are the exceptions. Stellan Skarsgård is nominated for best supporting actor for his role as Gustav Borg in Sentimental Value. Borg speaks about 2,000 words, while his daughter, Nora, speaks about 1,300 in what’s considered a lead role. And in Train Dreams, a man narrates (Will Patton) and speaks about 1,500 words, while Robert Grainier (Joe Edgerton) speaks about 1,400.

Half of last year’s best picture nominees had a woman as the lead character. Female leads outnumbered male leads seven to six, and they generally spoke a greater share of dialogue than them too — save for Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) from Conclave and Bob Dylan (Chalamet) from A Complete Unknown.

Unlike this year, not all films with a woman in a lead role had majority women’s dialogue overall. In Anora and The Substance, women still spoke less than men.

However, lead characters did speak more words than any other character individually — except for in Wicked, where Glinda (Ariana Grande) speaks about 200 more words than Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo).

To try to measure how interested characters are in themselves compared to others and compare that across genders, the analysis looked at how often characters speak “I” words such as “I,” “me” or “my” (among others) versus “you” words like “you,” “your” or “yours” (among others).

We found that women speak more about themselves in half of the best picture nominees. That includes Sentimental Value, Bugonia, Frankenstein, Marty Supreme and The Secret Agent. Admittedly, this is a limited evaluation. It doesn't include first-person plural words like “we,” it doesn’t include third-person pronouns like “he,” “she” or “they,” and it doesn't include the names of characters if they're used to address others. The bottom line: It shouldn't be taken as definitive, especially not without context from the movie.

What women talk about on screen has been the subject of interest for some time. In 1985, Alison Bechdel, a graphic artist, started talking about her criteria for watching a film. Now commonly called the Bechdel test, she said a film had to 1) feature two women characters who 2) talk to each other about 3) something other than a man. This analysis did not measure whether the best picture nominees passed the Bechdel Test, but it’s nonetheless an alternative way to measure women’s representation.

Looking at this data comprehensively — while taking into account the percent of words spoken by women, which films have a woman lead, the content of women’s dialogue and its relationship to their share of words — one film emerges as a standout.

And the Oscar for Most Woman-Driven Story goes to …

An image from the film "Sentimental Value."

(

MK2 Films

)

Directed by Joachim Trier, the Norwegian film Sentimental Value follows sisters Nora (Reinsve) and Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) as they reunite with their estranged father, filmmaker Gustav Borg (Skarsgård). Elle Fanning also stars in a supporting role as actor Rachel Kemp. Aside from best picture, the film received eight other nominations.

Sentimental Value has the highest percentage of words spoken by women. It’s one of just three films with a woman lead. And women refer to themselves more than they refer to the characters they speak to.

It’s the only film where women speak the majority of words and where their word choice favors themselves.

How we got here

Sexism in Hollywood has been the subject of scholarly research, books and, yes, movies. Women are underrepresented in what’s known as “below-the-line” roles, as well as in top executive positions. While the #MeToo movement that called out powerful men in Hollywood led to some actions, change has been slow.

Carolyn Finger, a former media analyst at Variety and Luminate, said conversations around representation — like the #OscarsSoWhite social media campaign in 2015 — help to bolster change in the industry. But there’s still much work to be done.

“What I’ve observed is that when those conversations happen, there is incremental change, but it’s not often sustained change,” Finger said.

This dialogue analysis, she added, “look[s] at who literally has a voice.”

To be clear, the quantity of words spoken is just one measure. On screen, sometimes silence, an action or a particular facial expression carries a greater message than words could convey. And a male-driven story may still have strong, nuanced and well-written women characters.

What's next

Smith said that to create change, studios need to adopt more equitable hiring practices and ensure the films they produce reflect the people watching them.

“If you’re a shareholder, if you go to the movies and buy tickets. If you support these companies by watching their shows, communicate back at what you’re not seeing and why that’s a problem,” Smith said.

Still, this year could be a potentially historic Oscars ceremony. The Annenberg Inclusion Initiative reported that a record-tying 33% of this year’s Oscar nominees are women. Hamnet director Chloé Zhao is the second woman, and first woman of color, to be nominated for best director twice. And if she wins, she’ll be the first woman to win best director more than once.

The 98th Academy Awards will take place 4 p.m. Sunday.

Wanna watch the Oscars this weekend with other movie lovers, but don’t want to host a watch party yourself? Many Los Angeles bars and restaurants have you covered.

While the fifth annual “Official” Oscars Watch Party held at The Academy Museum is sold out, there are still plenty of places showing the Academy Awards live. Here are a few to check out below:

(And when it comes to your Oscar ballot, LAist has you covered with expert predictions — and heated debates — from FilmWeek’s 24th annual Oscars Preview.)

Brazilian Oscars Watch Party

Sunday, March 15, 3 p.m.
Dusty Vinyl
11326 W Pico Blvd., West L.A.
COST: $50; MORE INFO

LAist events columnist Laura Hertzfeld suggests checking out this unique watch party: “Why not celebrate with the Brazilians and their nomination for (the excellent film) The Secret Agent? Dusty Vinyl is being turned into a 1977 secret-agent-themed hideout for the occasion, with a bespoke menu (food is included) and live music before the show starts; '70s costumes encouraged.”

The Hollywood Roosevelt’s Academy Awards Viewing Gala

Sunday, March 15, 3-10 p.m.
The Hollywood Roosevelt 
7000 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood
COST: $375; MORE INFO

If you’re looking to splurge on a four-course dinner and get as close to the actual Academy Awards (held at the Dolby Theatre) as possible, the gala at The Hollywood Roosevelt is your spot. There’s also the added fun of watching the show in the ballroom where the very first Academy Awards were held in 1929.

Beers, Burgers and Best Picture

Sunday, March 15, 3:30 p.m.
33 Taps, all locations
Culver City, Silver Lake, DTLA, WeHo
COST: Free; MORE INFO

All 33 Taps sports bars will be showing the Oscars live on Sunday.

Oscars Watch Party at The Greyhound

Sunday, March 15, 4 p.m.
The Greyhound Bar & Grill
5570 N Figueroa St., Highland Park
COST: Free; MORE INFO

The Highland Park bar and grill will have an Oscar ballot contest with a $5 buy-in for a chance to win a cash prize.

Rooftop Red Carpet Dinner + Watch Party

Sunday, March 15, 2:30 p.m.
Elevate Lounge
811 Wilshire Blvd., DTLA
COST: $39; MORE INFO

If a “celebrity-style atmosphere” with a red carpet, rooftop views and 360 degree photobooth is what you’re looking for, Elevate Lounge has got you. Your VIP ticket includes complimentary hors d’oeuvres for the first two hours of the event from Takami Sushi & Robata.

Oscars Trivia + Screening Party

Sunday, March 15, 2 to 10 p.m.
2636 Huron St., Cypress Park
COST: Free; MORE INFO

This trivia night, Oscar ballot contest and watch party is free, but formal attire is required. Trivia begins at 3 p.m., before the show starts.

Dinner in WeHo + the Oscars

Sunday, March 15, 4 p.m.
La Boheme
8400 Santa Monica Blvd, WeHo
COST: Free admission; MORE INFO

The West Hollywood Mediterranean restaurant will be showing the Oscars on their projector screen and offering Happy Hour specials all night (which they also offer every Monday-Thursday and Sunday).

It’s hard to look at a restaurant menu without being able to order anything from it, but Tien Nguyen has made it her mission to do exactly that.

Nguyen, a food writer and Los Angeles Public Library creator in residence, has been digging through the library’s archives of restaurant menus, some of which go back to the early 1900’s. She’s specifically focused on the neighborhood we now know as Koreatown, and says tracing the evolution of dishes offered can help us understand its history.

“ L.A.'s Koreatown is a really great example of the ways we can look at menus and see how the neighborhood has changed over time,” she said.

She’s been sharing her research with the public, and will be giving a talk this Saturday at L.A. Central Library’s Taper Auditorium.

How restaurants reflect K-Town’s history

In the early 20th century, Koreatown was mostly known as Wilshire Center. Its Art Deco apartments were freshly built, and landmarks like the Ambassador Hotel were trendy spots for celebrities and dignitaries.

“There's one menu that I remember that is in honor of Albert Einstein and his wife Elsa, and you could see there was a big feast and banquet for them,” Nguyen said. “There were also menus for the king and queen of Greece.”

But soon after, other L.A. neighborhoods became in vogue and Koreatown hit a period of decline, even as high-rise buildings started to go up in the mid-20th century.

Following that, Koreatown started to take shape as into the diverse ethnic enclave it is today. Nguyen ties the changes to the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which removed the United States’ highly restrictive quotas on immigration from certain countries, especially those in Asia.

About the menus

Nguyen told LAist the menu of the Korean restaurant The Prince is one of the best examples of this evolution. The restaurant now offers comfort food favorites like bibim mandu and its signature dakgangjeong. But in the middle of last century, it was known as The Windsor, and offered European continental fare.

The Windsor's food offerings from 1958.

(

Courtesy Los Angeles Public Library

)

“ It looks like they have great cocktails, they have really great fresh fruit alongside steaks and all sorts of different types of pastas,” Nguyen said. “When I look at those menus, you do have a bit of FOMO, but at the same time, I also am a person of color. So there's also this recognition that maybe I wouldn't have been welcome in some of those spaces as well.”

In the 1990s, the space came under new ownership and became The Prince – a Korean restaurant that still preserves its Old Hollywood charm.

“The thing to get there really is the Korean fried chicken, the tteokbokki – the rice cakes – and the Korean pancakes,” Nguyen said.

Another example which shows the emerging Korean influence of the area comes from the restaurant Beverly Soon Tofu, which opened in 1986. The restaurant’s menu was painted onto gourds, one of which is currently on display at Koreatown’s Pio Pico Branch Library until the end of the month.

Nguyen, who co-authored a cookbook with Beverly Soon Tofu’s founder Monica Lee (not to mention two books written with Kogi’s Roy Choi), said the menu was inspired by Korean countryside decor.

Monica Lee of Beverly Soon Tofu, pictured soon after her restaurant's opening in 1986, along with a letter announcing the opening.

(

Kevin Tidmarsh/LAist

)

“ These dried gourds were also used as lanterns, so that was her inspiration for wanting to make it look like a menu, because her restaurant at the time was decorated kind of like a countryside restaurant,” she said.

As Korean-Americans settled in what Monica Lee called a sometimes “hot, busy and bothersome” city when she founded her restaurant in 1986, they shaped the neighborhood into the largest Koreatown in the United States – and also shaped the way Americans far and wide eat.

An translation of Beverly Soon Tofu's opening announcement.

(

Kevin Tidmarsh/LAist

)

“ You go to Trader Joe's, and there's that kimbap that was really popular for so many years,” Nguyen said.

Korean-Americans did this alongside many other immigrant populations that call Koreatown home – many of its strip malls represent cuisines from several different countries.

“What's kind of amazing about that to me is that it is something that feels natural,” Nguyen said. “ Koreatown has a large Oaxacan population, for example. It has a very big Bangladeshi population. And so all these foods, all these cultures, [mingled] together to create a food culture that I think is so distinctly Los Angeles.”

Nguyen also credited Korean restaurants with sourcing fresh ingredients locally – even though they aren’t as celebrated as other Californian restaurants for doing so.

How to attend the talk

Nguyen will give her talk “Menus as Neighborhood Maps: How Los Angeles Restaurant Menus Tell Stories of Community Formation” at 10:30am Saturday, March 14, at the L.A. Central Library’s Taper Auditorium.

You can RSVP here.