Oscar Nominations

[Franz Ferdinand]

This probably belongs elsewhere, but Rihanna has been confirmed as a performer for the ceremony, which should provide a healthy ratings boost for ABC (especially in light of her Super Bowl halftime performance having a higher rating than the game itself). Wish the song was better, but maybe this changes the dynamic in voting; knowing Rihanna is on-hand, it might be tempting to have her win an award and provide some extra star wattage.

[Big Magilla]

Here's the story in a nutshell:

“The Academy has determined the activity in question does not rise to the level that the film’s nomination should be rescinded,” Bill Kramer, academy chief executive, said in a statement. “However, we did discover social media and outreach campaigning tactics that caused concern. These tactics are being addressed with the responsible parties directly.”

Full story here:

https://news.yahoo.com/academy-review-r ... 18299.html

[Jefforey Smith]

Andrea Riseborough's nomination will remain intact. The Academy won't rescind it. Source: Vanity Fair. (Just came through my Facebook feed five minutes ago.)

[Sabin]

The Academy is declining to take action against Andrea Riseborough's campaign.

[Greg]

Although, if people were honest, the main reason they attend, especially if they are nominees, the Golden Globes, Critics Choice Awards, etc., is to campaign for the Oscars. That is why all those shows come before the Oscars.

[OscarGuy]

I thought Broughton was actually serving on the board of governors at the time of the nomination. I thought that was the key determining factor for invalidating his nomination? I may be misremembering, though.

[Sabin]

Apparently, the Academy is looking into whether or not Andrea Riseborough's grassroots campaign violated campaign rules.

https://puck.news/was-the-andrea-risebo ... ustomer.io

Here's the full article:

Was the Andrea Riseborough Oscar Campaign Illegal?
-Matthew Belloni

The shock nom has created a brewing shitshow within the Academy, which is said to be looking at whether the team behind “To Leslie” violated the rules with their aggressive grassroots lobbying.

By now we’re all aware that British star Andrea Riseborough scored a best actress Oscar nomination for To Leslie after her director’s wife and others orchestrated a skilled grassroots political campaign that made Obama 2008 look like Hillary 2016. Mary McCormack and friends emailed and called tons of members of the Academy’s actors branch, begging them to see the little-watched alcoholic drama and post online about Riseborough’s searing performance. The result: dozens of influential stars—Gwyneth, Jen, Howard, Cate, Amy Adams, Ed Norton, and many, many more—sang her praises and helped win her the coveted nomination.

But the shock nom has created a brewing shitstorm within the Academy because Riseborough seemingly pushed out Viola Davis (The Woman King) and Danielle Deadwyler (Till), two actresses of color that were backed by well-funded campaigns by Sony and MGM/Amazon, respectively, and were widely predicted to score honors, yet presumably do not have access to a network of powerful (and, let’s be honest, white) friends in the Academy to campaign for Oscars on their behalf. To some, it was the worst kind of racially-tinged cronyism, where the connections outshined the work. “We live in a world and work in industries that are so aggressively committed to upholding whiteness and perpetuating and unabashed misogyny toward Black women,” the Till director Chinonye Chukwu posted on Instagram.

I’m not sure I agree with that—after all, what gets nominated is always a complex mix of quality, positioning, and politics—but the controversy raises a key question: Did the Riseborough effort violate Oscar campaign rules? I’m told the Academy is looking at this issue, and that it will likely be raised at the board of governors meeting on Tuesday. (The organization declined to comment.)

Thanks to past scandals and sleazy tacticians like Harvey Weinstein, the Academy actually has pretty strict rules for what’s kosher during an Oscar campaign, including specific guidelines for screenings, receptions, and what can be mailed or emailed to members. My favorite is the requirement of “non-excessive food and beverage” at screening events (i.e.; the don’t-get-them-drunk-and-fat rule, which is routinely stretched). But in this case I’m specifically looking at Rule 10, which concerns “Lobbying”:

— Contacting Academy members directly and in a manner outside of the scope of these rules to promote a film or achievement for Academy Award consideration is expressly forbidden.

So, how much contact is “lobbying”? Lots of contenders skirt this rule with casual contacts or invites to screenings and such. But McCormack, the mastermind of the effort along with her and Riseborough’s manager Jason Weinberg, was relentless in soliciting support, and she did so arguably at the direction of the To Leslie campaign. Here’s a quote from an email of hers that’s going around: “If you’re willing to post every day between now and Jan 17th, that would be amazing! But anything is helpful, so please do whatever makes you comfortable. And what’s more comfortable than posting about a movie every day!”

Seems pretty aggressive…but illegal? Remember, the anti-lobbying rule came about in the ’90s in part because Fine Line Pictures went particularly nuts on behalf of the Geoffrey Rush drama Shine, hiring a company to call and otherwise contact voters. That’s a no-no now, and this isn’t that. But the rule has been enforced semi-recently for behavior very similar to the Riseborough push. In 2014, the Academy actually rescinded a nomination for composer Bruce Broughton and his song “Alone Yet Not Alone” from the tiny movie of the same name because he was found to have “improperly lobbied” more than 70 members of the music branch via email. “I indulged in the simplest grassroots campaign and it went against me when the song started getting attention,” Broughton complained to THR at the time. “I got taken down by competition that had months of promotion and advertising behind them. I simply asked people to find the song and consider it.” Sound familiar?

That situation was a little different because Broughton was a former board of governors representative, and the song submissions are supposed to be anonymous to avoid improper influence. But the board’s statement about Broughton might as well apply to Riseborough: “The Academy is dedicated to doing everything it can to ensure a level playing field for all potential Oscar contenders—including those who don’t enjoy the access, knowledge, and influence of a long-standing Academy insider.”

So if emailing 70 members is disqualifying, how many members did McCormack and friends contact with their very specific pleas on behalf of To Leslie? And it was a campaign, of course. Riseborough, in interviews, has emphasized the lack of money because the film’s distributor, Momentum Pictures, didn’t do much to support the film. ”It really has been baffling,” she told EW of the nomination. “The idea that you need endless resources, I don’t think that’s necessarily true,” she added to Variety.

But there were events, screenings and Q&A panels. Two P.R. firms, Narrative and Shelter, worked on the campaign, and Scott Feinberg reported Tuesday that top event planners Andrew Saffir and Colleen Camp were hired for receptions. Those things can cost $50,000 or more a pop. Someone paid for this stuff.

Then there’s the Frances Fisher problem. Rule 11, which concerns “References to Other Nominees” and carries a one-year suspension of membership for first-time offenders:

a. Ads, mailings, websites, social media (including Facebook and Twitter) or any other forms of public communication by anyone directly associated with an eligible film attempting to cast a negative or derogatory light on a competing film or achievement will not be tolerated;

b. In particular, any tactic that singles out “the competition” by name or title is expressly forbidden.

Fisher, a veteran actress who pops up at a lot of Academy events, has been relentlessly promoting Riseborough on her feeds. That’s fine, but she went so far as to post a slick slideshow of a recent Q&A event on Instagram with the caption: “To my fellow #Actors in @TheAcademy…. #AndreaRiseborough can secure an #Oscar nomination if 218 (out of 1,302) actors in the Actors branch nominate her in first position for #BestActress….Seems to be that Viola, Michelle, Danielle & Cate are a lock for their outstanding work.”

Yeah… The clear implication in Fisher invoking Davis, Michelle Yeoh, Deadwyler, and Blanchett, the names of four competitors: They’re all fine, they’re getting nominated anyway, so you don’t need to vote for them… instead, vote for my girl #AndreaRiseborough! Which her fellow actors apparently did.

[Big Magilla]

Article on the real story behind Women Talking.

The victims were Mennonites in Bolivia. Much of what is covered in the film was reported by Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and filmed by her brother for the documentary, Ghost Rapes of Bolivia. Sarah Polley and Miriam Toews have never publicly acknowledged the source material, but Jessie Buckley did on Stephen Colbert's show.

The story:
https://news.yahoo.com/covered-story-in ... 50968.html

The documentary:
https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/ghos ... 667d828cad

[Uri]

And as much as I love Gish (whom I saw in person in 1984!), she was a snob.

Rumours about her hinted at prejudice against jews. In the 1920s, Gish had a long-term relationship with critic George Jean Nathan. The two never married, reportedly for reasons related to Nathan’s Jewish background.

Maybe she wan't a snob. Maybe she just hated jews.

I did see her in Jerusalem, and she was delightfully friendly (alas, not to me personally but) to the - mainly Jewish - crowd, so I'm wouldn't use the term "hate". She was a product of her times and like most Americans (and Europeans) of her generation' she was latently anti-Semitic.

[Reza]

And as much as I love Gish (whom I saw in person in 1984!), she was a snob.

Rumours about her hinted at prejudice against jews. In the 1920s, Gish had a long-term relationship with critic George Jean Nathan. The two never married, reportedly for reasons related to Nathan’s Jewish background.

Maybe she wan't a snob. Maybe she just hated jews.

[Uri]

Sally Kirkland's nomination was due to her self-promotion. Her nomination came at the expense of some highly regarded performances including those of Maggie Smith in The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, Lillian Gish inThe Whales of August, Faye Dunaway in Barfly, and Joanne Woodward in The Glass Menagerie.

Imagine Lillian Gish getting nominated instead of Sally and then losing to Cher. Good thing it didn't happen.

Wouldn't have been half as bad as being nominated and then losing to Anne Baxter.

Cher's win is far, very far, from being one of the worst wins in that category. And as much as I love Gish (whom I saw in person in 1984!), she was a snob.

[Sabin]

To be clear: I am not saying this is Michelle Williams' decision. I am saying her camp made the decision.

[Okri]

I'm fine with Williams in lead and think she was terrific. I think the reveal of the emotional affair (?) is some of the finest acting this year between her and Gabriel LaBelle.

I haven't seen Deadwyler as it never made it to theatres here.

I think Viola Davis a terrific actor and I enjoyed The Woman King, but I think if she has been nominated, we would've been talking about how rote it was.

[Mateo]

That was her motivation.

Based on her interview with the New York Times, it doesn't really sound like Michelle Williams put much thought into the decision in the first place:

"Many pundits thought you were a lock to win the supporting-actress Oscar for this role, but instead, you chose to be campaigned as a lead in a very competitive awards race."

"I think that was a conversation that was happening outside of the core group that made this movie, and I don’t really know why there was a disparity. Although I haven’t seen the movie, the scenes that I read, the scenes that I prepped, the scenes that we shot, the scenes that I’m told are still in the movie, are akin to me with experiences that I have had playing roles considered lead. So for myself, or for anybody involved in the movie, I think we were all in unspoken agreement."

[OscarGuy]

I think this term category fraud is being used too literally. I don't consider category fraud just those situations where the studio insists on splitting up lead performances so as not to compete against one another. Category fraud is any actor, for any reason, competing in a category that does not match their status in the film. If Michelle Williams thought herself the lead in Steven Spielberg's semi-autobiographical story, then she's deluded. If it really is that she wants more lead roles, more power to her, but no one in Hollywood will credibly believe it was a lead role and I sincerely doubt she's going to suddenly get more offers on that basis alone.