The Academy is now “conducting a review” of Andrea Riseborough’s To Leslie nomination
Technically, they didn't cite Riseborough by name, but it's not hard to figure out who this is about
Aux News Andrea Riseborough
The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences released a statement this afternoon, revealing that it was “conducting a review of the campaign procedures around this year’s nominees, to ensure that no guidelines were violated, and to inform us whether changes to the guidelines may be needed in a new era of social media and digital communication.” And while said statement very carefully did not include the words “Riseborough,” “Leslie,” or “Andrea” (“to” did manage to slip its way in), it’s not hard to figure out what this is actually all about.
Which is to say that some people close to the Academy are clearly not happy that Andrea Riseborough managed to score a Best Actress nomination this week for her movie To Leslie, a film that very people appear to have seen (outside of some of Andrea Riseborough’s famous and very vocal supporters.) Despite this, the movie was subject to what’s been described as an “aggressive” social media push that assembled a number of A-list stars (including Edward Norton, Cate Blanchett, Jane Fonda, and others) who all touted Riseborough’s work in Michael Morris’s film.
Obviously, it’s not against Academy rules to campaign for an Oscar—the “For Your Consideration” push is an accepted part of the Hollywood life cycle at this point, built into the advertising budgets of any movie that the studios seem to think has half a chance in hell of catching a statue. But there are rules about how you can go about it—and while nobody’s cited any exact violations yet, it’s also clear that members of the Academy are annoyed enough about Riseborough’s nomination for a very little-seen movie that they’re willing to go looking for some. (Among other things, Variety has already dug up an email from Morris’ wife, actress Mary McCormack, telling various big Hollywood names that “If you’re willing to post [about the film] every day between now and Jan 17th [the last day of Oscar nomination voting], that would be amazing!”)
There’s an open question here, then, of whether there’s anything fundamentally wrong with this kind of grassroots Oscars organizing. Most of the stars praising Riseborough’s performance seem to be doing so genuinely; the issue is that they only did so after being aggressively campaigned to watch the film in the first place, and then were encouraged to be as vocal about their appreciation as possible afterward. It’s worth noting that the Academy has pulled nominations for this kind of thing in the past, although it’s exceedingly rare. (Musician Bruce Broughton had a song nomination yanked in 2014, after it was found that he’d reached out to fellow members of the Academy’s music branch to make them aware of his work.)
No word yet on when the Academy is expected to release the results of its review. Here’s their full statement from today:
It is the Academy’s goal to ensure that the Awards competition is conducted in a fair and ethical manner, and we are committed to ensuring an inclusive awards process,” the statement reads. “We are conducting a review of the campaign procedures around this year’s nominees, to ensure that no guidelines were violated, and to inform us whether changes to the guidelines may be needed in a new era of social media and digital communication. We have confidence in the integrity of our nomination and voting procedures, and support genuine grassroots campaigns for outstanding performances.
58 Comments
If I recall, from the Adam Ruins Everything episode on awards shows, they have some pretty wide lanes with regards to campaigning. Such as (I think) Gwyneth Paltrow giving super high priced watches to a bunch of academy members, people paying neighbors of voters to place support signs on their lawns, etc. It’s nice to think whomever is nominated or wins is truly the best but it’s not even political, it’s just who pays the most.
Academy Awards yard campaign signs scattered across Beverley Hills may be the most Hollywood thing I’ve ever heard.
I don’t see what the big deal is , and why the Academy wouldn’t allow her to do what she did. Other than outright bribing people for votes, I think people should be allowed to campaign for themselves and get their performance seen in whatever way they can. It’s the fucking Oscars. It’s not a federal election. If she had given a shitty performance and gotten nominated, then I’d suspect something was up. This is only getting talked about because a few women of color got snubbed. Maybe they deserved to be nominated over Andrea, maybe they didn’t, art is subjective. I saw The Woman King, and while I definitely think it deserves a best picture nom over than Fabelmans or Avatar, nothing about Viola’s performance bowled me over. That might just be the nature of the role she played. She was very good as she always is, but she’s been better and was recognized for it.
Honestly, even if her performance was crap, I’d still find it difficult to care, considering that the majority of nominations are backed by multi-million dollar campaigns by well-connected studios.Oh wait, I think I just figured out why the Academy is giving a shit about this. Can’t have a studio exec not be able to buy things with their money.
Tom…is it you? You were dope in The Color Of Money.
Especially when he punched at the air and whooped. Oh, wait. he does that in every movie.
but the CAA connection
Pretty much… If she had sucked, it’d be one thing, she didn’t. Don’t agree on Woman King, though that’s a bag of hornets, I simply thought the film wasn’t at all exceptional.Its all about to blow up anyway, for a myriad of reasons…. It reminds me of College Football/NCAA, honestly, though I’m guessing few on here really watch it. It was a completely subjective system for naming a champion for decades, a smokey room full of fat white guys. After half a century the public got fed up with the selection system, so they went to computers, after that failed they went to a committee. In the end it’s a better system, but one that still completely mmarginalize’s smaller schools, and its going to come crashing down in the next decade. Just like this arbitrary award system…
I think smaller schools do a pretty good job of marginalizing themselves, at least as it pertains to football. Everyone loved the TCU story this year, until they ran up against the Georgia monster (who could have put up 100 if they kept their foot on the gas).The NCAA basketball tourney, meanwhile, is about as egalitarian as it gets in sports.On this subject…I have a hard time getting too worked up given the campaigning that goes on every year. If some people broke the rules, invalidate their individual votes but don’t take it out on Riseborough.
This kind of shadow campaigning has gone on for decades now. I’m hoping none of the Rapist Weinstein’s crimes were related to his Oscar campaigning, but they’re probably too numerous to have escaped all entanglement. Not to minimize his crimes, but he had the campaigning/bullying/buying votes down to a science.
But if we’re talking snubs, there’s not many more egregious than the ageist snub of Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit, Best Supporting Actress–despite her being the ONLY female actor in the film.
Yeah she was flat amazing in that movie. Such an improvement over (the 20 year-old) Kim Darby, who annoyed the hell out of me.I hadn’t even considered how Weinstein’s influence may have been “obtained” by actresses he was campaigning for in his movies. Bleah.
I don’t see the reason for this being about a ‘few women of color got snubbed’ at this point. I think that’s a bit of a reach. I think this is more about bucking a well-lubed system that includes using dollars to get attention. If she got a nomination using NO real money, that disturbs the system and that’s got to be addressed (from their POV, not mine.) I sure as shit hope they don’t find a legitimate reason to rescind the nomination!!
I sure as shit hope they don’t find a legitimate reason to rescind the nomination!!They’ve already tainted her chance of winning by questioning the legitimacy of her nomination.
They are clearly looking for a way to retroactively nominate Davis or Deadwyler, per the backlash ever since the nominations were announced. Absolutely ridiculous, and just making matters worse
That’s 100% what this is about. Butthurt losers on twitter can’t accept that every category doesn’t have a designated spot for black people.
There were a lot of people on social media making a stink, citing the women of color who got snubbed this year, in particular Viola Davis and Danielle Deadwyler, that I think influenced the Academy to look into it.
The snubbing of POC is a legitimate issue, but this situation is a lazy misdirect. The industry would rather we not focus on why they are less willing to fund campaigns for and focus attention on POC and instead think this singular, rare example of “grassroots” campaigning is somehow responsible for the entire systemic problem. The Academy has received scrutiny over this for a while, but this year they have an easy scapegoat and an excuse to not own the same problems that the Golden Globes had
Maybe a pressure thing? Like a big time producer pressuring actors to campaign for their project under implied threat that they won’t get cast in their next oscar bait film or franchise. In this case seems like friends helping a friend but I can see how an evil version could turn into a big arms race.
I think the issue is that when you allow people to personally pressure their friends and coworkers to vote for stuff, that can get ugly, fast. And the Academy is, generally, a small group of friends and coworkers.A big splashy ad campaign is one thing, people don’t tend to get hurt feelings over that. But when you can get right down to “I, your friend of 15 years, told you to vote for this movie and then you didn’t” that causes some major rifts.
The AMPAS isn’t that small really. It has 9,579 members, 1,302 in the Actors branch. There’s certainly no indication or claims of “ultimatums” or anything of the sort. Studios and PR firms are just pissed that Riseborough’s performance in a tiny indie got in front of AMPAS voters through an unorthodox manner of friends holding screenings at their own expense.
There are claims that emails and social media posts specifically named other nominees which is against the rules.So it’s fine to say “Vote Andrea Riseborough!” It’s against the rules to say “Viola, Danielle, and Michelle are locks so why don’t 218 of you vote for Andrea Riseborough” which was done publicly by Francis Fisher but may have also been done in emails that were originally written by the producers.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I wasn’t able to find that Francis Fisher has any credit on this film. If I, say, randomly had a yoga class with a voting Academy member and told them “vote for actor X instead of Y,” should that invalidate actor X for consideration? Can any random person disqualify someone like this? It would be one thing if someone with a financial stake in the film was doing this, but I haven’t seen that. Edit: Missed your bit about the producers. I guess I will be proven wrong if it comes out that they sent such an email.
Francis Fisher is a voting member of the academy so she is facing a 1-year suspension according to the Academy.And I mean, under their current rules, if you were in a Yoga class with Francis Fisher and they told you to vote for Andrea Riseborough over Viola Davis (or anyone else) and that was the reason you voted and you told someone about that – yes, it would potentially invalidate the nomination if it was traced back to the movie..The issue here is that Mary McCormack, allegedly, is the one who actually wrote all of those social media posts for the people who posted them. If Francis Fisher just happened to see Andrea Riseborough and posted “Wow, you won’t believe it. This is amazing! Go see it!” That’s fine. But if the producer of the movie wrote a post, sent it to a voting member of the academy explicitly naming other potential nominees, that isn’t okay. The Variety piece does include Fisher’s post as well as the ones that the producers have deleted that named Cate Blachette among others.
Every pagent and award system is based on that? Its literally a part of the game… for whatever reason this ridiculous subjective system is allowed to continue and propagate in the arts….
If we, humans, can’t figure out how to judge the arts, than use metrics, like sports, or get f’n rid of it. Otherwise…no one is happy with losing, and those that win are unfulfilled.
The thing is, even though people probably do it all the time, making it a rule that you can’t pressure people in person means that someone who doesn’t want to get leaned on can just point to the rule and get out of it without having to offend anyone.And I think it’s important to remember that the Oscars aren’t actually intended to be definitive measurement. They’re really no different from the “Best Parade Float” or “Best Local Restaurant” award the local Rotary Club hands out every Fourth of July. Just people in the same industry getting together to give each other awards and pat each other on the back for encouragement.
I’ll admit that when I see a trailer with a cast of Oscar winners/nominees, and a director who’s won or at least been nominated, I perk up a little. I’m sure I’m not the only one, and it must help ticket sales when a movie has multiple decorated people involved.
Yeah, just like how local restaurants and businesses often get a sales boost from being featured in the local paper after winning an award from the local Rotary Club.
Even prizes in more objective subjects like science are pretty arbitrary. Basically a handful of Swedes tell their king who they want to get the Nobel prize. A lot of biologists think Svante Paabo’s recent prize was unwarranted, but as a Swede, he had his fans among the people who make the decision.
Francis Fisher is probably going to be in the most “trouble” if it’s found her social media post discouraged voting for others.
This is only getting talked about because a few women of color got snubbed.You have nothing to back up that race-baiting statement. People of color were well represented with Oscar nominations this year.
I would assume the investigation is trying to figure out whether there were bribes involved or not.
There are some social media posts that may have broken rules that are pre-existing, but there’s some speculation that social media isn’t fully articulated in the rules.Basically, there is some question about whether or not Riseborough’s PR firms were encouraging people to post things that suggested not voting for other nominees which isn’t allowed.
Wow that argument is a stretch. I really wonder whose words they intend to contort to mean “DON’T vote for X, INSTEAD vote for Y” when lobbying for an award with one winner is always inherently doing this. And I really wonder what conclusion they would reach if they applied honest investigative rigor and publicized transparent results that contextualize what actions from Riseborough’s PR were unacceptable compared to the PR of every other nominee. Is it really defensible to say they crossed a line by personally lobbying talent when the standard accepted route is to pay off and cozy up to behind-the-scenes power? If they rescind this nomination, they will either have to revamp the entire nomination process or implicitly acknowledge that the whole game is rigged by design. Like the Golden Globes, I think sheer delusion and ego will be their undoing.
Except that it is stated in the rules that you cannot name any other performer in your FTC promotions and they did.No other FTC explicitly named other performers so that is a difference.
You clearly didn’t see “Till.” And clearly didn’t know it existed, since the only movie you saw with a Black female lead was “Woman King.” And therefore can only come up with one movie with a Black female protagonist.
I’m not gonna write a damn essay about every nominee that got snubbed. I mention Viola because she’s the one most commonly cited and the movie I saw. I knew Till existed and heard Danielle Deadwyler is great in it. I’ll watch it when I watch it. I haven’t seen To Leslie either. I don’t live in a place right now with many close theaters where they show smaller indie fare…And if you’re assuming I’m white, you’d be wrong.
That really wasn’t his point though.
Another way to look at it is that if this works, then there is going to be massive pressure for actors/actresses to campaign for themselves in the the future. Regardless of what you think of the Academy, these awards directly affect the amount of money you’re able to earn.If that’s the case then there’s a ton of incentive for more established actors to outspend and out influence their younger, less connected counterparts. It also leaves the process open to more unscrupulous activity.Studios and pr firms at least have more or less equal means and stakes.
Yeah agreed, this is crap. The circumstances of this nomination were hilariously sketchy, but the “for your consideration” process that the Academy has normalized for financial benefit is no less if not more sketchy. I imagine there are two camps of people with sway here who were angry enough to make a scene about this. 1) Those who see this as an existential threat to the Oscars because it’s proof of concept that somebody can bypass paying off the financial ecosystem and narcissistic personalities that enable its existence (advertisers, managers, agents, studios, etc ) simply with social media and the right connections. And 2) individuals and organizations that had to abide by these practices by paying off said institutions and flattering said narcissistic personalities, who are now resentful that someone else didn’t have to dump the costly resources they did to get a seat at the table. I think it would moronic and shortsighted for them to rescind this nomination because it would only draw attention to unethical practices they are getting away with. Were none of these people paying attention to what happened with the Golden Globes? How do they expect the general public will receive the argument that “director’s wife sends email requesting a plug without offering or even hinting at any compensation” is worse than or somehow unfair to “studio funds multimillion-dollar advertising/bribery campaign in order drum up further publicity to get a better return on their financial investment”?
It’s just the issue that if one person asks all their friends to help them out, it means those without those connections end up not getting the same chance of a nomination. It feeds into the issues of nepotism and “popularity contest” which the academy has been trying to get rid of.
“I don’t see what the big deal is”
Then you should maybe read the Academy’s guidelines?
To the people who have commented along the lines of “this is because women of colour got snubbed”, your frustration is veiled racism. Grow up.
The academy nominates movie no one saw all the time.