Connect with us

Published

on

Awards season is often predictable. Last year, our crystal ball reading ahead of Oscars night was pretty much perfect – Oppenheimer cleaned up at every ceremony going, and it all started to get a bit Groundhog Day.

While it’s true some Oscars this year are all but dead certs, for others – and most excitingly, it’s the big ones – there are fairly large question marks. Which is much more fun.

Here’s the verdict from Sky News entertainment team journalists Katie Spencer, Claire Gregory, Bethany Minelle and Gemma Peplow – who will win, and who they think should win. Inspired by Conclave, we’ve held a secret(ish) ballot.

BEST FILM

Ralph Fiennes stars as Cardinal Lawrence in director Edward Berger's Conclave. Pic: Philippe Antonello/Focus Features 2024
Image:
Ralph Fiennes stars as Cardinal Lawrence in director Edward Berger’s Conclave. Pic: Philippe Antonello/Focus Features 2024

The nominees
Anora, The Brutalist, A Complete Unknown, Conclave, Dune: Part Two, Emilia Perez, I’m Still Here, Nickel Boys, The Substance, Wicked

Who will win: Conclave – II; Anora – II
Who should win: The Brutalist – I; Anora – III

“The best picture is a battle of head v heart for me. Conclave is great, but Anora is so fresh, exciting and unexpected as a best picture nominee I would love to see it take the top prize. I just don’t think it will beat those scheming priests.”
Arts and entertainment editor Claire Gregory

“Conclave is solid, compelling and classy, with a great ensemble cast. I think the Academy may secretly have resented being made to sit through three-and-a-half hours of anything, even if The Brutalist is a cinematic masterpiece. But if it was me voting, The Brutalist should win – a masterful lesson in storytelling.”
Arts and entertainment correspondent Katie Spencer

“Anora is a rags-to-riches indie story with a twist and is worthy of all the plaudits it is getting. I think it will win and should win – it has a cracking cast, skilled direction, a propulsive storyline, and humour to boot. Even excessive Take That playtime didn’t take off the shine.”
Arts and entertainment reporter Bethany Minelle

A few years ago, Conclave, a thriller about the election of a new pope, would have had this in the bag over screwball anti-fairytale Anora, which follows a young sex worker who marries the son of a Russian oligarch. But, the Academy embraced the madcap Everything Everywhere All At Once in 2023 and after the seriousness of Oppenheimer last year, plus the momentum Anora has gained, I reckon voters could be in the mood for something a little less traditional again.”
Culture and entertainment reporter, Gemma Peplow

BEST ACTOR

Pic: Searchlight Pictures
Image:
Timothee Chalamet transformed into Bob Dylan for A Complete Unknown. Pic: Searchlight Pictures

The nominees
Adrien Brody – The Brutalist
Timothee Chalamet – A Complete Unknown
Colman Domingo – Sing Sing
Ralph Fiennes – Conclave
Sebastian Stan – The Apprentice

Who will win: Adrien Brody – II; Timothee Chalamet – II
Who should win: Colman Domingo – III; Adrien Brody – I

“Adrien Brody has put in the work here for his role in The Brutalist, and the fact that after three-and-a-half hours of screentime you are not sick of his face is down to his skill alone. He will win and should win – give the man his second Oscar already.”
BM

“I’ve a hunch Timothee Chalamet’s SAG win reflects who the wider Academy has voted for. If you think back to previous winners it tends to be those who have acted AND done something extra, such as play the piano, endured hours of prosthetics, learned to dance etc. I reckon Timmy’s five years spent mastering the guitar, harmonica and sounding like Bob Dylan for his performance in A Complete Unknown will get him across the line.”
KS

“I’m bored of the Adrien/Timmy debate and would frankly rather see Colman Domingo beat them both. For me, he’s one of the most consistently brilliant actors working today and Sing Sing deserves more attention than it’s got this awards season.”
CG

“I also think Chalamet’s SAG win could be the indicator here. The Academy loves a transformation – see consecutive ‘real-life’ wins for Gary Oldman (Winston Churchill) in 2018, Rami Malek (Freddie Mercury) in 2019, and Renee Zellweger (Judy Garland) in 2020. However, I vote Domingo; not least because his co-star Clarence Maclin, who plays himself in the prison drama Sing Sing, should also have been nominated in the supporting category. Sing Sing is a beautiful story of hope and redemption and Domingo’s is an understated but brilliant performance. He’s also always the best-dressed man at any ceremony, so his outfit will no doubt deserve its moment, too.”
GP

BEST ACTRESS

Pic: Mubi
Image:
Demi Moore as Elisabeth Sparkle in The Substance. Pic: Mubi

The nominees
Cynthia Erivo – Wicked
Karla Sofía Gascon – Emilia Perez
Mikey Madison – Anora
Demi Moore – The Substance
Fernanda Torres – I’m Still Here

Who will win: Demi Moore – IIII
Who should win: Demi Moore – I; Mikey Madison – III

“This one is too close to call. The Academy has traditionally loved a female ingenue – although Sky News research revealed last year that the age gap between male and female acting winners is definitely closing – which would favour Mikey Madison; and yet, Demi Moore’s real-life story arc has also won her a legion of supporters this year. Those arguments are a little reductive and should not take away from the real reasons why both would be worthy winners – for two very different but equally excellent performances – but it would be wrong to say performance is the only thing taken into account when it comes to voting.”
GP

“Like Academy members no doubt, I’m a sucker for the comeback narrative – and Moore winning an Oscar after being written off as a “popcorn” actress is too irresistible a story arc, even if deep down, while she’s excellent in The Substance, I’m not sure she really gives the best performance of the year.”
CG

“Moore has to win for throwing everything she had at this role. Stripping off, grossing us out, donning prosthetics, getting elbows-deep in blood; she was not afraid to go there. Aside from that, I think cinema-goers and her peers are very happy to have her back again. But, Madison, for the last scene of Anora alone – without saying a word we see how damaged her character really is – she would be a worthy winner.”
KS

“Madison was the surprise best actress winner at the BAFTAs, and at just 25 she’s proved herself an actress to be reckoned with. She deserves to follow up with an Oscar – although Moore is a force to be reckoned with.”
BM

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kieran Culkin and Jesse Eisenberg in A Real Pain. Pic: Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures 2024
Image:
Kieran Culkin stars alongside director Jesse Eisenberg in A Real Pain. Pic: Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures 2024

The nominees
Yura Borisov – Anora
Kieran Culkin – A Real Pain
Edward Norton – A Complete Unknown
Guy Pearce – The Brutalist
Jeremy Strong – The Apprentice

Who will win: Kieran Culkin – IIII
Who should win: Kieran Culkin – III; Yura Borisov – I

“Kieran Culkin is funny, charismatic and has picked up so much support this award season because people have enjoyed hearing what he has to say when he wins. That should not detract from the fact that he’s also brilliant in A Real Pain. So much of his character is about what’s going on inside his head and how he manages to bring out that inner turmoil is seriously impressive. For the record, Guy Pearce, Jeremy Strong and Edward Norton would also all be worthy winners for reminding us what brilliant character actors they all are.”
KS

“Hopefully Pearce, Strong, Norton and Borisov have perfected their ‘I’m so happy for you’ faces by now, as Culkin is pretty much a dead cert. This is one of the most impressive shortlists in recent years, with all five actors demonstrating how incredible performances don’t always have to be the ones right in the spotlight.”
GP

“I’ve changed my mind a few times about supporting actor this year but I think ultimately Kieran Culkin deserves the Oscar – and let’s face it, he’s bound to give the best speech.”
CG

“One performance on the best supporting list stands out for me: Yura Borisov’s sensitive and understated portrayal of a henchman with a heart is a true support role and executed to perfection. He may not take the prize, but he deserves to.”
BM

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Zoe Saldaña as Rita Moro Castro in Emilia Pérez. Pic: Shanna Besson/Page 114/Why Not Productions/Pathe Films/France 2 Cinema
Image:
Zoe Saldana as Rita Moro Castro in Emilia Perez. Pic: Shanna Besson/Page 114/Why Not Productions/Pathe Films/France 2 Cinema

The nominees
Monica Barbaro – A Complete Unknown
Ariana Grande – Wicked
Felicity Jones – The Brutalist
Isabella Rossellini – Conclave
Zoe Saldana – Emilia Perez

Who will win: Zoe Saldana – IIII
Who should win: Zoe Saldana – II; Felicity Jones – I; Ariana Grande – I

“Zoe Saldana should have been nominated for best actress and not supporting for her role in Emilia Perez, as she clearly has more screentime than anyone else in that movie. That said, she’s great in it so deserves a win – even if it is in the wrong category.”
CG

Saldana is the best thing in a bit of a ropey film. She’s well respected and I think the Academy will be giving her an Oscar for her career more generally, rather than Emilia Perez. But, I would vote for Felicity Jones, who took on such a physical role in The Brutalist, demonstrating the cost of the Holocaust on her character’s body; you believe the pain of her osteoporosis. Both frail and unbelievably strong at the same time.”
KS

“Saldana is a great actress and gives a great performance in Emilia Perez, and following Karla Sofia Gascon’s fall from grace she’s likely to be the only cast member taking home a prize. One of the highest-grossing female lead actresses in history, and with work spanning an impressive range of genres, she will win and should win.”
BM

“After cleaning up throughout awards season, this is Saldana’s to lose. I’m not a fan of Emilia Perez as a film (controversy aside, musicals are not for me, and this one is particularly jarring), but it would be a shame for Saldana to miss out due to the other noise surrounding it all. Having said that, I think Ariana Grande would be a deserving winner. Wicked was not for me (see above re musicals) but her performance is incredibly charismatic, and anyone who has seen her impeccable celebrity impressions will know she has real comedic chops. She shows them off perfectly in Wicked.”
GP

BEST DIRECTOR

Pic: Neon
Image:
Mark Eydelshteyn and Mikey Madison in Anora. Pic: Neon

The nominees
Sean Baker – Anora
Brady Corbet – The Brutalist
James Mangold – A Complete Unknown
Jacques Audiard – Emilia Pérez
Coralie Fargeat – The Substance

Who will win: Brady Corbet – II; Sean Baker – II
Who should win: James Mangold – I; Coralie Fargeat – III

“Nothing more complicated here than I’m a fan of James Mangold and I would love to see him win. I suspect it will go to Brady Corbet though as he has been doing well elsewhere and pulled off something pretty impressive in getting The Brutalist made – let alone getting audiences to sit for three-and-a-half hours to watch it.”
CG

“Corbet stuck to his guns, making his film his way, refusing to compromise on his vision. It might be long but the pacing is perfect and Corbet is thoroughly deserving. But, not only did Coralie Fargeat refuse to water down her ideas for The Substance, she actually injected herself with a needle full of the fluorescent liquid to get the shots she wanted – and she personally manned a firehose to spray an entire theatre with fake blood. That’s what you call going the extra mile.”
KS

“Sean Baker has been the darling of awards season so far and should follow up his growing pile of wins with his first Oscar for Anora. But, The Substance is a film that takes you to places you never thought you would see, pushing the limits so far you will question your sanity (or Fargeat’s). A fearless director, and the only woman to make it into the category this year, she deserves the win – and to become only the fourth woman in the Oscars’ 97-year history to take home the prize.”
BM

The Substance was not perfect; I felt Moore’s character, Elisabeth Sparkle, was underdeveloped, and the ending was a little too much for me. Having said that, Fargeat’s maximalist, stylised approach, with bold visuals and that pulsating, migraine-inducing score, genuinely made me feel – stress, mainly, and fearful anticipation for what was about to come. You are thinking about it long after it’s finished. For that reason, I would give this one to Fargeat – although I would not be disappointed to see Baker win, either (and he probably will).”
GP

Check the Sky News website from Sunday event to follow the entire event on our Oscars live blog

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Harvey Weinstein is back in court – but what has happened to the #MeToo movement since 2017?

Published

on

By

Harvey Weinstein is back in court - but what has happened to the #MeToo movement since 2017?

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.

Miriam (Mimi) Haley arrives at court in New York in 2020. Pic: AP
Image:
Miriam (Mimi) Haley arrives at court in New York in 2020. Pic: AP

Jessica Mann outside court in Manhattan in July 2024. 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.

Film producer Harvey Weinstein arrives at New York Criminal Court for his sexual assault trial in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., February 5, 2020. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
Image:
Arriving at court for his original trial in New York in February 2020. Pic: Reuters

Related articles
Harvey Weinstein sues his brother Bob
Harvey Weinstein rushed to hospital

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.

Harvey Weinstein, who was extradited from New York to Los Angeles to face sex-related charges, listens in court during a pre-trial hearing, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., July 29, 2021. Etienne Laurent/Pool via REUTERS
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.”

Women on a #MeToo protest march in Los Angeles in November 2017. Pic: Reuters
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.”

Actress Alyssa Milano at the Emmy awards in September 2017. Pic: AP
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.

Weinstein in his heyday, pictured on a red carpet in 2015
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.”

People take part in a gathering in support of 71-year-old Gisele Pelicot who was allegedly drugged by her ex-husband and raped by dozens of men while unconscious, Saturday, Sept. 14, 2024 in Paris. Placard reads, "support for Gisle Pelicot." (AP Photo/Michel Euler)
Image:
A woman holds a ‘support Gisele Pelicot’ placard at a march in Paris during her husband’s rape case. Pic: AP

Gisele Pelicot. Pic: Reuters
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.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Gene Hackman: Bodycam footage of actor’s home released by investigators into his death

Published

on

By

Gene Hackman: Bodycam footage of actor's home released by investigators into his death

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.

Actor Gene Hackman arrives and his wife, Betsy Arakawa pictured in 2003.
File pic: AP/Mark J. Terrill
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.

Authorities also released a report detailing some of Arakawa’s last emails and internet searches, revealing she was investigating information on flu-like symptoms, COVID-19, and breathing techniques before she died.

An image taken Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office during their investigation and search of the home of Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa. Pic: Santa Fe County Sheriff via AP
Image:
Pic: Santa Fe County Sheriff via AP

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.

Hackman had advanced Alzheimer’s and died from heart disease about a week later, with data from his pacemaker last registering on 18 February.

Read more:
What is hantavirus?
The reluctant star who turned his back on Hollywood

Law enforcement officials outside Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa's home the day after they were found dead. Pic: AP/Roberto Rosales
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.

An image taken Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office during their investigation and search of the home of Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa. Pic: Santa Fe County Sheriff via AP
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?

FILE - Actor Gene Hackman, winner of Best Supporting Actor at academy awards in March 1993. Hackman will turn 80 years on Jan. 30, 2010. (AP Photo, File)
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.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Rat nests and dead rodents found on Gene Hackman’s property after wife died from hantavirus

Published

on

By

Rat nests and dead rodents found on Gene Hackman's property after wife died from hantavirus

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

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.

The house owned by actor Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa.
Pic: AP/Roberto E. Rosales
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.

Pic: Ralph Dominguez/MediaPunch /IPX
Image:
Pic: Ralph Dominguez/MediaPunch/IPX

Read more from Sky News:
Man admits murdering women in Xmas attacks
Felling of ancient oak tree reported to police
Murder arrest after house explosion

Couple found dead

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.

Continue Reading

Trending