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.
Oscarscampaigning 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?
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
0:37
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.
Advertisement
“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.”
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
0:13
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Seven years after allegations against him first emerged online, Harvey Weinstein is back in court.
When the accusations surfaced in late 2017, the American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”
This gave birth to what we now know as the #MeToo movement and a flood of women – famous and not – sharing stories of gender-based violence and harassment.
Weinstein, 73, was jailed in 2020 and has been held at New York’s notorious Rikers Island prison complex ever since.
On 15 April, jury selection for his retrial got off to a false start, with none of the 12 potential candidates or six alternatives being deemed suitable. One, an actor, described Weinstein as a “really bad guy” and claimed he could not remain impartial. A woman also bowed out after declaring she had been the victim of sexual assault.
Once jurors are selected, the original charges of rape and sexual assault will be heard again, with opening statements and evidence due to start on 21 April.
Here we look at why there’s a retrial, why Weinstein will likely remain behind bars – and what has happened to #MeToo.
Why is there a retrial?
Weinstein is back in court because his first two convictions were overturned last April and are now being retried.
In 2020, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison after being found guilty of sexually assaulting ex-production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and raping former actor Jessica Mann in 2013.
Image: Miriam (Mimi) Haley arrives at court in New York in 2020. Pic: AP
Image: Jessica Mann outside court in Manhattan in July 2024. Pic: AP
But in April 2024, New York’s highest court overturned both convictions due to concerns the judge had made improper rulings, including allowing a woman to testify who was not part of the case.
At a preliminary hearing in January this year, the former Hollywood mogul, who has cancer and heart issues, asked for an earlier date on account of his poor health, but that was denied.
Image: Arriving at court for his original trial in New York in February 2020. Pic: Reuters
When the retrial was decided upon last year, Judge Farber also ruled that a separate charge concerning a third woman should be added to the case.
In September 2024, the unnamed woman filed allegations that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a hotel in Manhattan in 2006.
Defence lawyers tried to get the charge thrown out, claiming prosecutors were only trying to bolster their case, but Judge Farber decided to incorporate it into the current retrial.
Weinstein denies all the allegations against him and claims any sexual contact was consensual.
Speaking outside court on 15 April, his lawyer Arthur Aidala, said he was “cautiously optimistic that when all the evidence is out, the jury will find that all of his relationships were consensual and therefore reach a verdict of not guilty”.
Why won’t he be released?
Even if the retrial ends in not guilty verdicts on all three counts, Weinstein will remain behind bars at Rikers Island.
This is because he was sentenced for a second time in February 2023 after being convicted of raping an actor in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2013.
Image: At a pre-trial hearing in Los Angeles in July 2021. Pic: Reuters
He was also found guilty of forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object in relation to the same woman, named only in court as Jane Doe 1.
The judge ruled that the 16-year sentence should be served after the 23-year one imposed in New York.
Weinstein’s lawyers are appealing this sentence – but for now, the 16 years behind bars still stand.
Has #MeToo made a difference – and what’s changed?
“MeToo was another way of women testifying about sexual violence and harassment,” Dr Jane Meyrick, associate professor in health psychology at the University of West England (UWE), tells Sky News.
“It exposed the frustration around reporting cases and showed the legal system was not built to give women justice – because they just gave up on it and started saying it online instead.
“That was hugely symbolic – because most societies are built around the silencing of sexual violence and harassment.”
Image: Women on a #MeToo protest march in Los Angeles in November 2017. Pic: Reuters
After #MeToo went viral in 2017, the statute of limitation on sexual assault cases was extended in several US states, giving victims more time to come forward, and there has been some reform of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which were regularly used by Weinstein.
This has resulted in more women speaking out and an increased awareness of gender-based violence, particularly among women, who are less inclined to tolerate any form of harassment, according to Professor Alison Phipps, a sociologist specialising in gender at Newcastle University.
“There’s been an increase in capacity to handle reports in some organisations and institutions – and we’ve seen a lot of high-profile men brought down,” she says.
“But the #MeToo movement has focused on individual men and individual cases – rather than the culture that allows the behaviour to continue.
“It’s been about naming and shaming and ‘getting rid’ of these bad men – by firing them from their jobs or creating new crimes to be able to send more of them to prison – not dealing with the problem at its root.”
Image: Actress Alyssa Milano tweeted about #MeToo when the Weinstein accusations surfaced. Pic: AP
Dr Meyrick, who wrote the book #MeToo For Women And Men: Understanding Power Through Sexual Harassment, gives the example of the workplace and the stereotype of “bumping the perp”, or perpetrator.
“HR departments are still not designed to protect workers – they’re built to suppress and make things go away.” As a result, she says, men are often “quietly moved on” with “no real accountability”.
The same is true in schools, Prof Phipps adds, where she believes concerns around the popularity among young boys of self-proclaimed misogynist and influencer Andrew Tate are being dealt with too “punitively”.
“The message is ‘we don’t talk about Andrew Tate here’ and ‘you shouldn’t be engaging with him’,” she says. “But what we should be doing is asking boys and young men: ‘why do you like him?’, ‘what’s going on here?’ – that deeper conversation is missing,” she says.
Image: The former film producer on the red carpet in Los Angeles in 2015. Pic: AP
Have high-profile celebrity cases helped?
Both experts agree they will have inevitably empowered some women to come forward.
But they stress they are often “nothing like” most other cases of sexual violence or harassment, which makes drawing comparisons “dangerous”.
Referencing the Weinstein case in the US and Gisele Pelicot‘s in France, Dr Meyrick says: “They took multiple people over a very long period of time to reach any conviction – a lot of people’s experiences are nothing like that.”
Prof Phipps adds: “They can create an idea that it’s only ‘real’ rape if it’s committed by a serial sex offender – and not every person who perpetrates sexual harm is a serial offender.”
Image: A woman holds a ‘support Gisele Pelicot’ placard at a march in Paris during her husband’s rape case. Pic: AP
Image: Gisele Pelicot outside court. Pic: Reuters
Part of her research has focused on “lad culture” in the UK and associated sexual violence at universities.
She says: “A lot of that kind of violence happens in social spaces, where there are drugs and alcohol and young people thrown together who don’t know where the boundaries are.
“That doesn’t absolve them of any responsibility – but comparing those ‘lads’ to Harvey Weinstein seems inappropriate.”
Dr Meyrick says most victims she has spoken to through her research “wouldn’t go down the legal route” – and prosecution and conviction rates are still extremely low.
“Most don’t try for justice. They just want to be believed and heard – that’s what’s important and restorative,” she says.
But specialist services that can support victims in that way are underfunded – and not enough is being done to change attitudes through sex education and employment policy, she warns.
“Until we liberate men from the masculine roles they’re offered by society – where objectification of women is normalised as banter – they will remain healthy sons of the patriarchy.
“We need transformative, compassionate education for young men – and young women. That’s where the gap still is.”
Body camera footage of Gene Hackman’s home has been released by authorities investigating the deaths of the actor and his wife.
The video captured by Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office shows officers inside and outside the property in northern New Mexico, with a German shepherd barking at some points as they carry out their search.
Image: Hackman and Arakawa pictured in 2003. Pic: AP/ Mark J Terrill
The bodies of Hackman, 95, and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, 65, were found in separate rooms of their home on 26 February.
“He’s guarding her,” a male officer can be heard saying, about the dog found alive at the home. “He seems pretty friendly.”
There is another “10-7 dog” – meaning the pet is dead – “round the corner in the kennel”, the officer says.
Rat nests and dead rodents were also discovered in several outbuildings around the property, an environmental assessment by the New Mexico Department of Health revealed.
The inside of the home was clean and showed no evidence of rodent activity.
In March, a medical investigator concluded Arakawa died from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare infectious disease that can be caused by exposure to rodents.
Image: Law enforcement officials pictured outside the property in Santa Fe the day after Hackman and Arakawa’s bodies were found. Pic: AP/Roberto Rosales
According to the records now released by the county sheriff’s office, Arakawa was researching medical conditions related to COVID-19 and flu between 8 February and the morning of 12 February.
In one email to a masseuse, she said Hackman had woken on 11 February with flu or cold-like symptoms and that she wanted to reschedule an appointment “out of an abundance of caution”.
Search history on the morning of 12 February showed she was looking into a medical concierge service in Santa Fe. Investigators said there was a call to the service which lasted under two minutes, and a follow-up call from them later that afternoon was missed.
The police footage shows officers checking the home and finding no signs of forced entry or other suspicious signs.
Image: Pic: Santa Fe County Sheriff via AP
What is hantavirus?
HPS, commonly known as hantavirus disease, is a respiratory disease caused by hantaviruses – which are carried by several types of rodents.
It is a rare condition in the US, with most cases concentrated in the western states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah. This was the first confirmed case in New Mexico this year.
There has so far been no confirmation about any potential link by authorities between the rodents and the hantavirus disease that claimed Arakawa’s life.
Who was Gene Hackman?
Image: Pic: AP 1993
Hackman was a former Marine whose work on screen began with an uncredited TV role in 1961.
Acting became his career for many years, and he went on to play villains, heroes and antiheroes in more than 80 films spanning a range of genres.
He was best known by many for playing evil genius Lex Luthor in the Superman films in the late 1970s and ’80s, and won Oscars for his performances in The French Connection and Unforgiven.
After roles in The Royal Tenenbaums, Behind Enemy Lines and Runaway Jury in the 2000s, he left acting behind after his final film, Welcome To Mooseport.
He and Arakawa, a pianist, had been together since the mid-1980s.
Rat nests and dead rodents have been discovered on Gene Hackman’s property, after the actor’s wife Betsy Arakawa died of hantavirus – which can be caught from such animals.
The partially mummified remains of Hackman, 95, and Arakawa, 65, were found on 26 February, in separate rooms of their Sante Fe home, along with one of their dogs.
Amid the ongoing investigation, authorities have released a report detailing some of Arakawa’s last emails and internet searches, revealing she was investigating information on flu-like symptoms before she died.
A separate report by the local health department included an environmental assessment that found evidence of the presence of rats throughout many of the buildings on the late actor’s estate.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:06
Bodycam footage released in March
Arakawa died after developing hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) around 11 February, a pathologist said.
This is a disease that can be caught from exposure to rodents and includes flu-like symptoms, headaches, dizziness and severe respiratory distress, according to investigators.
The presence of rodents was found in several outbuildings across the property and a live rodent, a dead rodent and nests were found in three other garages.
Live traps were also said to have been found on the property.
There has so far been no confirmation about any potential link between the rodents and the hantavirus disease that claimed Arakawa’s life.
Image: Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa’s home in Sante Fe. Pic: AP
Last internet searches and emails
Arakawa had open bookmarks on her computer which showed she was actively researching medical conditions linked to COVID and flu-like symptoms.
She also mentioned in an email to her masseuse that Hackman had woken up on 11 February with flu-like symptoms so she would reschedule her appointment for the next day “out of an abundance of caution”.
Authorities are expected to release more information soon, including redacted police body camera footage.
The materials were released as the result of a recent court order after the Hackman estate and family sought to keep the records sealed, citing the family’s right to privacy.
The two-time Oscar winner was in the advanced stages of Alzheimer’s when he died of heart disease.
It was likely he was alone for around a week with the body of his wife after she had died first.
Dr Heather Jarrell, chief medical examiner for New Mexico, told reporters Arakawa was believed to have died around 11 February.
What is HPS?
HPS, commonly known as hantavirus disease, is a respiratory disease caused by hantaviruses – which are carried by several types of rodents.
It is a rare condition in the US, with most cases concentrated in the western states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah.
The New Mexico Department of Health said hantaviruses are spread by the saliva, droppings and urine of infected rodents, which in North America is most likely to be the eastern deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus).
The virus is often transmitted through the air when people sweep out sheds or clean closets where mice have been living, or by eating food contaminated with mouse droppings.
It is not transmissible from person to person, Dr Jarrell said.
The likelihood of death is between 38-50% and there is no cure, treatment or vaccine, but patients have a better chance of survival with an early diagnosis.