Yesterday I sat down in my local theater to watch Leonardo DiCaprio’s new film, One Battle After Another. DiCaprio has long been known as a social-justice advocate, and over the past decade his film choices increasingly carry political undertones. My first encounter with this was during The Revenant, when he used that film’s publicity to highlight climate change. His latest is no different. In One Battle After Another, the narrative centers on immigration struggles, portraying antagonists as ICE-style paramilitary units and a racist group called the “Christmas
Club.”
Across reviews in recent days, I’ve noticed a clear pattern: glowing praise for the film not just as an artistic work but as a moral statement. Critics celebrate its message of giving voice to immigrants. But this raises an essential question: Does this praise represent objective film criticism, or does it reflect media bias reinforcing a particular political narrative?
What Major Outlets Are Saying
The New York Times recently featured a podcast titled Is ‘One Battle After Another’ the Best Movie of the Year? In that discussion, the hosts frame it as a transformative big-budget film that doesn’t compromise its message for commercial appeal. The implication is that the film’s political content is not just valid, but praiseworthy.
Meanwhile, Variety ran a piece titled ‘One Battle After Another’: With Its Thriller Vision of Authoritarianism, Is the Rare Movie That Could Rule the Cultural Conversation. Variety In that article, Variety describes the film as a rare crossover: both a stylized thriller and a politically resonant piece. They suggest it’s bold enough to shape the cultural conversation around power, governance, and resistance.
These endorsements from influential publications do more than critique the film—they help set
the narrative that it is not only important, but ideologically praiseworthy.
Identifying the Bias
1. Framing & Word Choice
When major outlets call the film “necessary,” “urgent,” or capable of “ruling the cultural conversation,” they adopt moral language that crosses from critique into endorsement.
2. Selection & Omission
The coverage heavily emphasizes immigrant voices and government oppression, but rarely gives counterarguments or questions about whether the film oversimplifies a complex policy issue like immigration enforcement.
3. Partisan Alignment
The celebrated messaging aligns with left-leaning perspectives: demonizing ICE, valorizing immigrant resistance, criticizing Trump-era policies. Criticism rooted in skepticism or defense of law enforcement is largely absent in major reviews.
Why It Matters
Entertainment media often serves as a cultural lens through which political ideas are spread. When critique aligns overwhelmingly with a political ideology, it can blur the line between art and advocacy. The widespread praise for One Battle After Another by major outlets like NYT and Variety does more than reflect its quality—it helps canonize its political narrative. As these stories get amplified, they influence not only filmgoers, but public discourse more broadly.
Given all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if the film becomes a focal point in awards conversations like the 2026 Oscars—where critics and industry voices may echo its political themes in speeches or commentary.
Conclusion
Just as with news media, film criticism can reveal biases. In this case, the line between praising cinematic merit and endorsing political advocacy feels especially thin. The coverage from major outlets like the New York Times and Variety shows how quickly praise can become projection—turning a narrative film into a political rallying cry.
Chris Mangum is a soldier in the U.S. Army National Guard. He has a Center bias.
