Connect with us

Published

on

By the time the Academy Awards rolls out the red carpet each year, most stars in the running have spent months travelling the world, attending premieres and screenings, and schmoozing with industry VIPs to promote their films and themselves.

Oscars campaigning is a multimillion-dollar industry. While the Academy has strict rules to help ensure standout films and performances win fair and square, this year’s unexpected nomination of Andrea Riseborough in the best actress category has sparked debate about how the process works.

In the wake of the controversy, Academy president Janet Yang told Sky News campaigning rules will be revisited again following this year’s ceremony, with the “changing environment” of social media in particular to be looked at. “We are going to buckle down and look very closely at the regulations that have been with us for a while,” she said. “There are a lot of things that weren’t addressed in the current campaign regulations that we feel need to be addressed now.”

How does campaigning work?

A view of the Oscar statuettes backstage before the live ABC Telecast of The 93rd Oscars.. at Union Station in Los Angeles, CA on Sunday, April 25, 2021. Pic: AMPAS
Image:
Pic: AMPAS

Campaigning can include everything from advertising to red carpets to placing actors for the right interviews, all to build the narrative that a film and its stars are Oscar-worthy. Why do film studios do it? Well, there were 301 films eligible for this year’s Oscars – they need to get their films noticed.

The Academy has strict rules around “the annual rite” of campaigning, which include limitations on the number of mailings that studios can send, and also on promotional items, lobbying and parties.

Nominees are, unsurprisingly, banned from making negative or derogatory statements about their rivals in public. Penalties for those who breach the rules can include disqualification and any existing member of the Academy (typically a previous winner) could face suspension or expulsion.

Life on the campaign trail

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Everything Everywhere star on Oscars nod

At a reception for Oscar nominees held in London in February, a few days after an Oscars luncheon in LA, The Banshees Of Inisherin stars Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Kerry Condon rubbed shoulders with fellow acting nominees including Angela Bassett, Michelle Yeoh and Ke Huy Quan, as well as industry bigwigs.

“It’s crazy!” Condon said when asked about the work that goes on in the run-up. “It’s like a whole other skill that you have to be good at, chatting to people and getting your picture taken and all sorts of things you wouldn’t think of as an actor. And you have to get good at them fast.”

For some, this is all good fun. Take Everything Everywhere All At Once star Quan, who has made no secret of his excitement. “The audience embracing the movie the way they did is beyond anything we ever imagined,” he said. “I’m enjoying awards season very much… it’s been a wild ride.”

Read more:
The Oscars luncheon in pictures: Inside the big preview party
Why British star’s nomination has sparked controversy
The full list of Oscar nominees

From left, Emile Sherman, Iain Canning, David Seidler, Tom Hooper and Gareth Unwin pose with the award for best picture for "The King's Speech" at the 83rd Academy Awards on Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011, in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)
Image:
L-R: Filmmakers Emile Sherman, Iain Canning, David Seidler, Tom Hooper and Gareth Ellis-Unwin pose with their Oscars for The King’s Speech in 2011. Pic: AP/Chris Carlson

But it can be hard work. Producer Gareth Ellis-Unwin picked up his best picture Oscar for The King’s Speech in 2011 and is now an Academy Awards (and BAFTAs) voter. “It surprised me,” he says of the campaign for the film, which lasted for more than three months. “It was like running for local office.”

In 2016, former winner Susan Sarandon spoke out against the process, likening it to the race to become US president in terms of the cost and length. Speaking on a panel at that year’s Cannes Film Festival, she called for a reform to campaign finance. “People have to be available for months and someone has to pay for that,” she said.

Twelve years on from his win, Ellis-Unwin, who is now head of film and animation at the charity Screen Skills, says things are changing.

“Now you can bring a focus to a film project or TV show and not have the same marketing spend you had 10 years ago. Our distributors joked that it cost something like $30m to market our film for the award ceremony, which is twice the budget for the film.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Colin Farrell: Oscars ‘icing on the cake’

Why was Riseborough’s nomination a surprise?

The British actress’s nod for her performance in To Leslie – a small indie film in which she plays an alcoholic single mother who wins the lottery – was unexpected because there had been no substantial buzz surrounding her beforehand.

And because black actresses who did have that buzz – Viola Davis, for The Woman King, and Danielle Deadwyler, for Till missed out. While Davis, Deadwyler and others seemingly played the more traditional campaign game, Riseborough’s nomination came in the wake of praise on social media from A-listers including Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston and Edward Norton.

Read more:
Blockbusters, first-timers and snubs – all the Oscars talking points
How to watch all the big films nominated for Oscarsc

Diversity v data: What analysis of 94 years tells us about the Oscars

There is no suggestion Riseborough herself did anything wrong. But the controversy has raised questions over what campaigning looks like in the future, and reignited debates around opportunity and racism in the film industry.

Shortly after this year’s shortlists were announced, the Academy launched a review to ensure no campaign rules were broken. After a short investigation, the organisation said it discovered “social media and outreach campaigning tactics that caused concern” surrounding To Leslie, but not to the level that Riseborough should lose her nod.

Yang told Sky News it was an “unusual situation” but that no rules were broken “based on the existing rules”.

Can voters really be swayed?

Gwyneth Paltrow gives her acceptance speech after winning the Oscar for Best Actress at the 71st Academy Awards March 21. Paltrow won for her role in "Shakespeare in Love," which won for Best Picture. **DIGITAL IMAGE**
Image:
Gwyneth Paltrow was named best actress and Shakespeare In Love won best film, among other awards, at the Oscars in 1999

When it comes to aggressive campaigning, industry insiders say it began with disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein; he reportedly started a whisper campaign against Steven Spielberg‘s Saving Private Ryan in 1999, when it was in the running for best picture alongside his own film Shakespeare In Love – which went on to win. The Academy has since tightened its campaigning rules.

Addressing the Riseborough controversy, Jenelle Riley, features editor for US entertainment publication Variety, says there is a “whole industry devoted to campaigning” but Academy voters will ultimately choose the films and stars they believe are worthy.

“The Academy is going to do what they want to do and they’re going to vote for what they want,” she says. “Nobody can force you to check off her name on a ballot. If people voted for her, it’s because they want to.

“Anyone who has seen To Leslie is not going to argue that she didn’t deserve to be nominated… the truth is, there’s just an embarrassment of riches. Part of me thinks they should increase the number of nominees.”

Can Riseborough win?

There could be a last-minute upset, but it seems unlikely. Not necessarily because of the campaigning investigation, but because the best actress category looked set to be a two-horse race between Cate Blanchett (Tar) and Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All At Once) even before the nominations were announced.

Cate Blanchett accepts the award for best actress for Tar at the 2023 Critics' Choice Awards in Los Angeles. Pic: AP/Chris Pizzello
Image:
Cate Blanchett, who has supported Riseborough, is one of the favourites to win the best actress prize. Pic: AP/Chris Pizzello

“The nomination is the win” for Riseborough, says Matthew Belloni, former editor of The Hollywood Reporter and a founding partner of digital media company Puck.

However, he says he doesn’t believe the investigation harmed her chances. “If anything, I think she picked up some votes because people didn’t like that this campaign was castigated. Members I’ve talked to thought it was ridiculous that they were potentially being punished for this,” he said.

Click to subscribe to Backstage wherever you get your podcasts

Future rule changes?

Belloni describes the To Leslie campaign as innovative, having bypassed the traditional avenues of advertising, throwing parties and putting “the talent on a circuit of interviews and handshaking”.

Without a big budget behind them they instead built up support on social media.

Despite the Academy deciding not to take away Riseborough’s nomination, Belloni says he believes the scandal will lead to further rule changes limiting social media activity.

“I think it’s going to change things. I think we’re going to see new rules and it’s going to update the Academy code of conduct for the social media age,” she said.

You can watch the Academy Awards on Sunday 12 March from 11pm in the UK exclusively on Sky News and Sky Showcase. And for everything you need to know ahead of the ceremony, don’t miss our special Backstage podcast, available now, plus a winners special episode from Monday morning.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Erin Brockovich: ‘My chiropractor saw mud on my stiletto – I said, I’ve been collecting dead frogs’

Published

on

By

Erin Brockovich: 'My chiropractor saw mud on my stiletto - I said, I've been collecting dead frogs'

Erin Brockovich says a chance conversation about a muddy stiletto with her chiropractor led to the making of the award-winning film about her life.

The climate activist, who was played by Julia Roberts in the movie, told Sky News: “My girlfriend, who was a chiropractor, was giving me a chiropractic adjustment and asked me why I had mud on my stilettos.

“I said, ‘Oh, I’ve been collecting dead frogs’. She goes, ‘What is wrong with you?’ So, I started telling her what I was doing.”

Then just a junior paralegal, Brockovich was in fact pulling together evidence that would see her emerge victorious from one of the largest cases of water contamination in US history in Hinkley, California.

Her hard work would see her win a record settlement from Pacific Gas & Electric Company – $333m (£254m) – but that was all still to come.

Little did Brockovich know, but her tale of a muddy stiletto would get back to actor Danny DeVito and his Jersey Films producing partner Michael Schamburg, and through them to the film’s director Steven Soderbergh.

Brockovich says Soderbergh was “wowed” by what he heard.

More on Climate Change

She says he realised her image “was something that Hollywood might be drawn to that I was never thinking of – the short skirt, the attitude, the big bust, the stilettos, the backcombed hair. Somehow, it came together.”

‘I was always going to be misunderstood’

Released in 2000, the powerful story of one woman’s fight for justice made Brockovich a household name, and the film won actress Julia Roberts an Oscar.

Now, 25 years on, Brockovich says she believes her legal victory was helped in part by an unlikely ally – her learning difficulty.

Julia Roberts and Russell Crowe pictured after winning Oscars for best actor and actress during the Oscars in 2001. Pic: AP/Richard Drew
Image:
Julia Roberts and Russell Crowe win best actress and actor at
the 2001 Oscars. Pic: AP/Richard Drew

Brockovich says: “Had I not been dyslexic, I might have missed Hinkley.”

Recently named a global ambassador for charity Made By Dyslexia, she’s been aware of her learning differences since childhood and still struggles today.

She says “moments of low self-esteem” still “creep back in”, and she long ago accepted “I was always going to be misunderstood”.

But for Brockovich, recognising her dyslexic strengths while working in Hinkley proved a pivotal moment: “My observations are wickedly keen. I feel like a human radar some days… Things you might not see as a pattern, I recognise. There are things that intuitively, I absolutely know.

“It will take me some time in my visual patterns of what I’m seeing, how to organise that. And it was in Hinkley that that moment happened for me because it was so omnipresent [and] in my face. Everything that should have been normal was not.”

‘A huge perfect storm’

Brockovich paints a bleak picture of what she saw in the small town: “The trees were secreting poison, the cows were covered in tumours, the chickens had wry neck [a neurological condition that causes the head to tilt abnormally], the people were sick and unbeknown to them, I knew they were all having the exact same health patterns. To the green water, to the two-headed frog, all of that was just I was like on fire, like electricity going, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s going on out here?'”

She describes it as “a huge, perfect storm that came together for me in Hinkley”.

But a side effect of the movie – overnight global fame – wasn’t always easy to deal with.

Pic. Made By Dyslexia
Image:
Pic. Made By Dyslexia

Brockovich calls it “scary,” admitting, “when the film first came out the night of the premiere, I was literally shaking so bad, I was so overwhelmed, that Universal Studios said, ‘If we can’t get you to calm down, I think we need to take you home’. It was a lot”.

Brockovich says she kept grounded by staying focused on her work, her family and her three children.

With Hollywood not always renowned for its faithful adherence to fact, Brockovich says the film didn’t whitewash the facts.

“I think they really did a good job at pointing out our environmental issues. Hollywood can do that, they can tell a good story. And I’m glad it was not about fluff and glamour. I’m glad it was about a subject that oftentimes we don’t want to talk about. Water pollution, environmental damage. People being poisoned.”

‘Defend ourselves against environmental assaults’

While environmental awareness is now part of the daily conversation in a way it wasn’t a quarter of a century ago, the battle to protect the climate is far from over.

Just last month, Donald Trump laid out plans to slash over 30 climate and environmental regulations as part of an ongoing effort to boost US industries from coal to manufacturing and ramp up oil and minerals production.

In response, Brockovich says, “We’re not going to stop it, but we can defend against these environmental assaults.

“We can do better with infrastructure. We can do better on a lot of policy-making. I think there’s a moment here. We have to do that because the old coming into the new isn’t working.

“I’ve recognised the patterns for 30-plus years, we just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over again, expecting a different result.

“For me, sometimes it’s like, ‘Oh my gosh, just get your ego out of the way’. We have to accept that this might be something greater than us, but we can certainly defend ourselves and protect ourselves and prepare ourselves better so we can get through that storm.”

You can listen to Brockovich speaking about her dyslexia with Made By Dyslexia founder Kate Griggs on the first episode of the new season of the podcast Lessons In Dyslexic Thinking, wherever you get your podcasts.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Menendez brothers’ resentencing hearing can go ahead next week, says judge

Published

on

By

Menendez brothers' resentencing hearing can go ahead next week, says judge

The Menendez brothers’ bid for freedom through resentencing can continue with the hearing scheduled for Thursday, a judge has ruled.

Lyle, 57, and Erik, 54, received life sentences without the possibility of parole after being convicted of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989.

Lyle was 21 at the time, Erik was 18.

Last year, Los Angeles district attorney George Gascon asked a judge to change the brothers’ sentence from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life. That would make them immediately eligible for parole because they committed the crime when they were younger than 26.

But Mr Gascon’s successor Nathan Hochman submitted a motion last month to withdraw the resentencing request, saying the brothers must fully acknowledge lies they told about the murder of their parents before he would support their release from prison.

Separately, Governor Gavin Newsom, who has the power to commute their sentences, has asked the parole board to consider whether the brothers would represent a public safety risk if released.

Anamaria Baralt, cousin of Erik and Lyle Menendez, hugs attorney Mark Geragos after a hearing in the brothers' case Friday, April 11, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Image:
Anamaria Baralt, cousin of Erik and Lyle Menendez, hugs attorney Mark Geragos. Pic: AP

In light of Mr Hochman’s opposition, Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Michael Jesic ruled on Friday that the court can move forward with the hearing.

“Everything you argued today is absolutely fair game for the resentencing hearing next Thursday,” he said.

From prison, the brothers watched through a video link and could be seen in court seated next to each other in blue.

Speaking after the hearing, the brothers’ lawyer said: “Today is a good day. Justice won over politics.”

Prosecutors accused the brothers of killing their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance, although their defence team argued they acted out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse by their father.

A preliminary hearing held in Beverly Hills, Calif., for Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez, was postponed Friday as their lawyers fought to keep potentially incriminating evidence out of the case, April 12, 1991. Lyle, 23, and Eric, 20, are charged in the August 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. (APP Photo/Kevork Djansezian)
Image:
The brothers were convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder. Pic: AP

The brothers have maintained their parents abused them since they were first charged with the murders.

A Netflix drama series and subsequent documentary about the brothers thrust them back into the spotlight last year, and led to renewed calls for their release – including from some members of their family.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Ex-Abercrombie & Fitch chief executive Mike Jeffries ‘unfit to stand trial due to dementia’, prosecutors and defence team say

Published

on

By

Ex-Abercrombie & Fitch chief executive Mike Jeffries 'unfit to stand trial due to dementia', prosecutors and defence team say

Abercrombie & Fitch’s former chief executive is not fit to stand trial on sex trafficking charges as he is suffering from dementia, both prosecutors and his lawyers have said.

Mike Jeffries has Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body dementia and the “residual effects of a traumatic brain injury”, his defence attorneys wrote in a letter filed at a federal court in Central Islip, New York.

The 80-year-old needs around-the-clock care, they added, citing evaluations by medical professionals.

Prosecutors and defence lawyers are calling for Jeffries to be placed in the custody of the federal bureau of prisons for up to four months. They say he should be admitted to hospital to have treatment that could allow his criminal case to proceed.

The business tycoon, who led fashion retailer A&F from 1992 to 2014, pleaded not guilty to federal sex trafficking and interstate prostitution charges in October, and was released on a $10m (£7.65m) bond.

A total of 15 men allege they were induced by “force, fraud and coercion” to engage in drug-fuelled sex parties.

Prosecutors have accused Jeffries, his partner Matthew Smith, and the couple’s alleged “recruiter” James Jacobson, of luring men to parties in New York City, the Hamptons and other locations, by dangling the prospect of modelling for A&F advertisements.

Smith and Jacobson have also pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.

‘Progressive and incurable’

In their latest letter on Jeffries’ health, his defence lawyers said at least four medical professionals had concluded his cognitive issues are “progressive and incurable”, and that he will not “regain his competency and cannot be restored to competency in the future”.

These issues “significantly impair” his ability to understand the charges against him, they wrote.

Matthew Smith leaves a federal courthouse in Central Islip, New York., on Tuesday, 3 December. Pic: AP Photo/Seth Wenig
Image:
Jeffries’ partner Matthew Smith, pictured outside the court in December, has also pleaded not guilty. Pic: AP

Read more from Sky News:
Tech executive and family die after helicopter crashes in New York
‘Wolf of Wall Street’ speaks to Sky News about Trump tariffs

“The progressive nature of his neurocognitive disorder ensures continued decline over time, further diminishing his already limited functional capacity,” said Dr Alexander Bardey, a forensic psychiatrist, and Dr Cheryl Paradis, a forensic psychologist, following evaluations made in December.

“It is, therefore, our professional opinion, within a reasonable degree of psychological and psychiatric certainty, that Mr Jeffries is not competent to proceed in the current case and cannot be restored to competency in the future.”

Jeffries left A&F in 2014 after leading the company for more than two decades, taking the retailer from a hunting and outdoor goods store founded in 1892 to a fixture of early 2000s fashion.

His lawyers did not immediately respond to requests by the Associated Press news agency for comment. The US attorney’s office for the eastern district of New York declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Trending