Oscars 2023: Andrea Riseborough’s campaign for the nomination could be considered illegal

Last Tuesday, February 24, Riz Ahmed and Jessica Williams read the list of nominees for the next Oscars and although several omissions and surprises stand out among all the names, Andrea Riseborough’s nomination for best actress for ‘To Leslie’ was the one that freaked me out more. Cate Blanchett (“Tár”) and Michelle Yeoh (“All at Once Everywhere”) secured the nomination; The Ana de Armas thing could be seen coming, as critics and audiences defenestrated ‘Blonde’, but always recognized her work; and Michelle Williams (“Los Fabelmans”) didn’t stand out in the pools, but had already been nominated at the Critics Choice Awards, Golden Globes and SAGs. The most curious thing is that even the nomination of Danielle Deadwyler (‘Till – The crime that changed everything’) seemed guaranteed and Viola Davis (‘The King Woman’) had to be the one who gave the surprise, however, both remained outside, leaving a category without a single black woman.

Naturally the lack of diversity (despite the presence of Yeoh) has generated great controversy and much criticism, accusing Riseborough of occupying this space through his many industry contacts and racial nepotism. It is clear that the fact that the biggest film awards do not recognize the work of black actors (in the best actor category they are all white) is wrong, but that would be the responsibility of the Academy and not of the actors and actresses themselves, nor even of who vote blindly, to ensure that the representation and inclusion fostered by the foundations of the Oscars are met. So what did Riseborough do to make his campaign for the nomination illegal under Academy rules? Such pressure that can be considered lobbying.

While Davis and Deadwyler had well-funded campaigns from Sony and MGM/Amazon, the “To Leslie” distributor is much smaller and didn’t have the same budget to fuel their candidacy. So, and according to Puck, the film team came up with the agenda to ask their contacts, firstly, to see the film and secondly, if they liked it, to say so on their social networks, but to say so much. Within the Academy’s rules on what can and cannot be done to promote films eligible for the award, The second rule talks about the number of emails and ordinary emails that can be sent weekly and their content, while the tenth establishes it directly “Contacting Academy members directly and in a manner outside the terms of these rules to promote a motion picture or achievement for Oscar consideration is expressly prohibited.” (In the first, even academics who attend screenings organized by distributors are forbidden to get drunk).

Apparently, and this is something the Academy intends to study, Riseborough, Mary McCormack (wife of Michael Morris, director of ‘To Leslie’) and Jason Weinberg (Riseborough’s agent) They were tireless when it came to asking their friends and acquaintances for support, explicitly asking them to post something about the film every day. And then there’s the matter of Frances Fisher, another actress who ran a massive online campaign for the film and Riseborough, although she apparently has no direct professional relationship with them.

In one of his posts, Fisher included text that directly appealed to academics and said: “Andrea Riseborough can secure her Oscar nomination if 218 (out of 1,302) actors nominate her for Best Actress in first place. It seems that Viola, Michelle, Danielle and Cate are stuck for their excellent work.” According to rule 11 of the regulation, “Ads, mailings, websites, social media (including Facebook and Twitter) or any other form of public communication from anyone directly associated with an eligible film attempting to express a negative or derogatory opinion about a film or a result will not be tolerated by the competition. In particular, any tactic that identifies “competitors” by name or title is expressly prohibited.

If Fisher is proven to have no real involvement with “To Leslie”, the actress would obviously have the right to express her opinions like anyone else, but if someone within the film specifically asked him to do so or gave him material and access to it for his little campaign, it could be argued that the eleventh rule was violated and the nomination could be withdrawn.

Previous

The anti-lobby rule was born in the 1990s, when Fine Line Pictures hired a company to call everyone who could vote at the Oscars for “Shine,” starring Geoffrey Rush, which ultimately won the statuette. This kind of pressure to place his films among award winners was also Harvey Weinstein’s usual tactic, although his methods were a bit different. In 2014, the Academy decided to cancel Bruce Broughton’s nomination for Best Song for the main theme of “A Pioneer Odyssey” because he lobbied more than 70 members via email. For now this is the precedent by which the Riseborough case will be tried.

Put like this, it seems that the Academy believes that it is worse to directly ask someone to evaluate their work than to carry out large advertising campaigns that involve constant bombing and cost a lot of money, even if each nomination comes from a mix of quality, positioning of a work and obviously political issues. And it is also true that it was established that, in addition to the email campaign, screenings, panels and meetings with the “To Leslie” team were arranged for consideration to the value of $50,000. The peculiarity of this case is not in itself the maneuver to attract attention to a film with calls and contacts, it is that normally marketing companies deal with this type of action and the people directly involved in the artistic part prefer to stay at the margins and don’t beg for your visibility. Here, it was directly his leading man who snatched no-blush favors, and as it turns out, it worked, placing the Academy at an interesting crossroads.