How to make a political Oscars speech that doesn’t flop – according to rhetorical theory

So, it’s happened. You’re on stage, Oscar statue in hand, facing Hollywood’s finest and millions of viewers. You could keep it simple – thank your agent, your co-stars, your dog. Or you could use this moment to say something that matters.

That’s exactly what Jane Fonda just did at the 2025 Screen Actors Guild Awards, urging the audience “to resist successfully what is coming at us” as Elon Musk’s Doge holds a chainsaw to the US federal government. From the cold war to civil rights to Trump 2.0, award ceremonies have always been stages for activism.

Some of these political speeches have been electrifying. Some have flopped. Some have been drowned out by the orchestra before they even got started. If you’re going to make a political speech at the Oscars, you’d better do it right.

Thankfully, Kenneth Burke — one of the 20th century’s most influential rhetorical scholars — offers a road map. His theories on identification, dramatism and symbolic action explain why some speeches resonate while others fall flat.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

1. Know your two (very different) audiences

Burke argued in the 1950s that rhetoric isn’t just about persuasion – it’s about identification. A speaker is most persuasive when they convince their audience that they share the same values and concerns. If people feel you’re “one of them”, they’re more likely to listen.

The Oscars create a unique rhetorical challenge. Inside LA’s Dolby Theatre, you might be surrounded by like-minded pampered progressives. But beyond that room, millions of viewers at home may be far less receptive.

Director Michael Moore learned this the hard way in 2003 when, after winning best documentary for his film Bowling for Columbine, he stormed the stage and declared: “Shame on you, Mr Bush! Shame on you!” The result? A mix of cheers and boos. And days of being pilloried on cable news. Instead of drawing people in, Moore’s approach alienated half his audience.

Compare this with Meryl Streep’s speech at the 2017 Golden Globes when collecting her lifetime achievement award. She also criticised her president but framed it differently: “Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

She didn’t need to utter Donald Trump’s name. And because she framed her speech as a universal concern, rather than a partisan attack, it resonated beyond the room.

2. Put yourself in the story

Burke’s second idea is that all communication is “dramatic” – a performance shaped by setting, characters and conflict. In a political speech, the most compelling “character” is often you, the speaker.

Audiences don’t just respond to abstract arguments. They connect with people who embody the very struggle they’re speaking about.

Lily Gladstone’s 2024 Golden Globes speech worked this way. When she won best actress for Killers of the Flower Moon, she didn’t start with industry statistics or broad calls for change. Instead, she spoke in Blackfeet, honouring her Indigenous roots: “I just spoke a bit of Blackfeet language, a beautiful community – the nation that raised me.”

That one sentence transformed her win into a moment of cultural recognition, making her speech as much an act of representation as a speech about representation.

3. Frame your argument wisely

If you want your audience to engage, you must frame your message in a way that pulls them in. Whereas a speech that just states a problem can feel like noise, one that connects the issue to a larger story can be powerful.

This is where Burke’s idea of symbolic action comes in. He defined it as “the making or construction of social reality through symbols that foster identification”. Put another way: words don’t just describe reality, they shape it.

Take Oprah Winfrey’s 2018 Golden Globes speech picking up the Cecil B. DeMille award. Instead of simply condemning sexism in Hollywood, she tied it to a broader historical movement, from civil rights to #MeToo: “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power [of] those men. But their time is up. Their time is up!”

Winfrey wasn’t just talking about change – she was creating it in real time, rallying the room behind a clear, urgent message. That’s the difference between listing a problem and delivering a message that sticks.

4. Turn your speech into an act of protest

While framing helps persuade an audience, some moments go further, becoming acts of defiance themselves. This is when a speech moves beyond words into symbolic action.

Let’s take perhaps the most famous protest in Oscars history. In 1973, Marlon Brando refused to pick up his best actor statue – sending in his place Sacheen Littlefeather, who explained she was there as a protest for Hollywood’s treatment of Native American people.

“He very regretfully cannot accept this very generous award,” she told the audience. “And the reasons for this being are the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry … and on television in movie reruns, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee.”

In under a minute, she transformed what could have been a quiet refusal into a national reckoning. The audience’s reaction – some cheering, some booing – only made it clearer. This wasn’t just a speech, it was a moment.

A speech that merely describes a problem may be forgotten, but one that transforms the moment itself? That’s the stuff of history.

5. Expect a backlash, and decide if you care

No matter how well you craft your speech, someone is going to be angry. Burke’s final idea for helping us understand this is the “scapegoat mechanism”, by which one figure is cast as the discordant element that must be removed to restore unity.

If you make a political speech at the Oscars, it could be you. Vanessa Redgrave learned this in 1978: after winning best supporting actress for her role in Julia, she defended her pro-Palestine activism against attacks from the Jewish Defence League, who she called a “bunch of Zionist hoodlums”. The reaction was instant – cheers mixed with boos.

Later that night, screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky publicly rebuked her, saying: “A simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.” The backlash hurt Redgrave’s career, but she stood by her words.

If you’re going to say something political, be prepared to own it. And make sure you beat the orchestra.

Tom F. Wright does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.