The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[slowpoked]

There's now a mini-controversy brewing with Andrea Riseborough's surprise nomination:

https://puck.news/was-the-andrea-riseborough-oscar-campaign-illegal/

Edited January 27, 2023 by slowpoked

[libgirl2]

57 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

There's now a mini-controversy brewing with Andrea Riseborough's surprise nomination:

https://puck.news/was-the-andrea-riseborough-oscar-campaign-illegal/

Interesting. I have seen her work before but not this. The questions are, was she good in it? And how many times does this happen? 

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

Interesting. I have seen her work before but not this. The questions are, was she good in it? And how many times does this happen? 

I've seen the movie. She was pretty great in it, great enough for a nomination. I still think it will be Cate vs. Michelle Y. It's a typical Oscar role (alcohol-addicted mother, losing everything, trying to redeem herself, etc.), but I appreciate that her performance was nuanced and restrained enough than what you would normally expect in a role and movie like this.

Do I think it's the greatest performance ever, like Kate Winslet, Ed Norton, etc. think? No. But maybe they're a better judge than I am. 

It's weird though how there's speculation that her campaign might have violated the rules. For one, I didn't think there were any rules, considering the shameless pandering, groveling, lobbying both movie studios and actors have done over the years. I suppose outright bribery is still not allowed. It seems like this stems from the fact that Viola and Danielle didn't make the cut, even though they were huge favorites, while another (white) woman did. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by slowpoked

[yowsah1]

5 hours ago, slowpoked said:

It's weird though how there's speculation that her campaign might have violated the rules. For one, I didn't think there were any rules, considering the shameless pandering, groveling, lobbying both movie studios and actors have done over the years. I suppose outright bribery is still not allowed. It seems like this stems from the fact that Viola and Danielle didn't make the cut, even though they were huge favorites, while another (white) woman did. 

That seems to be a factor in the many bitter complaints I have seen on Twitter and elsewhere.  The argument seems to boil down to (I am paraphrasing here) "Riseborough used her famous buddies to swing herself a nomination at the direct expense of superior Black actresses.  White Privilege in action".  And, yeah, the exclusion of Vioila and Danielle was a bit of a headscratcher.  (In Davis's case, there may be a sense among Oscar voters that she has been nominated and won so much that it's time to start honoring some other talented actresses).

From what I can gather, the rule seems to be that it's okay to lobby the Academy as whole ("For Your Consideration..."), but it's a no-no to lobby members individually.  Ms. Riseborough apparently paid for a campaign that, among other things, exhorted her big name friends to issue rave reviews of her performance.  That apparently was the line that got crossed.  (Not to mention the stinky optics of a well-connected white woman pulling strings to get a nomination while hard-working Black actresses get the door shut in their face).

Edited January 28, 2023 by yowsah1

[NUguy514]

I want to be clear that Andrea did not pay for an Oscar campaign; her manager and the wife of the film’s director (who has the same manager) orchestrated the whole thing, but Andrea herself didn’t pay for it. Also, with all of the campaigning (which Davis at least has been doing plenty of herself) and the tons of money studios put into various campaigns, it feels weird that this situation would be worthy of rebuke, but not the rest of it.

Also, while I haven’t seen To Leslie, I did watch The Woman King last week, and I would not have nominated Davis and think she was only seriously in consideration for a nomination because of her reputation. Her performance doesn’t really merit it, in my opinion; she’s good, but nothing more. I haven’t yet seen Till, but I expect I’ll love Deadwyler and feel like de Armas or Williams will be the one I think “robbed” (sort of a silly verb when this is all so subjective) her of a nomination.

[yowsah1]

21 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

I want to be clear that Andrea did not pay for an Oscar campaign; her manager and the wife of the film’s director (who has the same manager) orchestrated the whole thing, but Andrea herself didn’t pay for it.

According to a DEADLINE article dated January 13, Ms. Riseborough used her own money to pay for the campaign.

The question right now seems to be what did she know about how the campaign was conducted and when did she know it.

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, yowsah1 said:

(In Davis's case, there may be a sense among Oscar voters that she has been nominated and won so much that it's time to start honoring some other talented actresses).

I disagree with this because while she's a popular actress, Viola has only won once and nominated 3 other times. So it's really not a lot, real-world speaking. But I guess in Oscar lore, it may very well be. The greatest actress in history, arguably, Meryl Streep, has been nominated an astounding 21 times, but only won 3x, for a paltry batting average of .143. She's probably one of those actresses where people just assume she's won a gazillion Oscars, but in reality has not. And it took an equally astounding 29 years between her 2nd and 3rd win. So in that vein, I don't think Viola has been feted "so much".

[NUguy514]

18 minutes ago, yowsah1 said:

According to a DEADLINE article dated January 13, Ms. Riseborough used her own money to pay for the campaign.

The question right now seems to be what did she know about how the campaign was conducted and when did she know it.

I stand corrected, but other actors have put up their own money to campaign before.  I will say that Frances Farmer’s actions were pretty shitty, but I don’t think Riseborough should suffer for it.

[Irlandesa]

49 minutes ago, yowsah1 said:

According to a DEADLINE article dated January 13, Ms. Riseborough used her own money to pay for the campaign.

The question right now seems to be what did she know about how the campaign was conducted and when did she know it.

It says she's using her own money to bring awareness to a little known film.  If she's paying for screenings, I can't think think that'd be against the rules.

The same author who wrote the Deadline article from Jan. 13 also wrote an updated article today saying he suspects her team followed the rules but it may lead to some clarification about social media activity from other members because of the strange A-lister push on social media.

[slowpoked]

10 hours ago, yowsah1 said:

According to a DEADLINE article dated January 13, Ms. Riseborough used her own money to pay for the campaign.

The question right now seems to be what did she know about how the campaign was conducted and when did she know it.

This is why this whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. So Andrea may get penalized for spending her own money for a paltry, grassroots campaign for a little known movie, but Harvey Weinstein (during his day) and his similar ilk can spend lavish amounts of money for screenings and dinners and drinks to campaign for JLaw and Gwyneth and it’s all ok? What’s the difference between Andrea spending money to spread awareness for her movie vs. Melissa Leo distributing her own stylized FYC posters and materials? Or vs. Taron Egerton hosting a dinner musical for press and critics to promote himself for Rocketman? That’s why it seems to me this is an issue of the gatekeepers vs. the outsiders. Some members are none too happy an “outsider” got in.

Unless someone has proof that Andrea or anyone in her campaign paid money in explicit exchange for a nomination vote, this all feels like much ado about nothing.

 

[ThatsDarling]

12 hours ago, yowsah1 said:

That seems to be a factor in the many bitter complaints I have seen on Twitter and elsewhere.  The argument seems to boil down to (I am paraphrasing here) "Riseborough used her famous buddies to swing herself a nomination at the direct expense of superior Black actresses.  White Privilege in action".  And, yeah, the exclusion of Vioila and Danielle was a bit of a headscratcher.  (In Davis's case, there may be a sense among Oscar voters that she has been nominated and won so much that it's time to start honoring some other talented actresses).

I don't understand the assertion that Viola Davis, who has won every industry acting award and is likely to become an EGOT next month, is somehow less connected than Riseborough, a low-key character actress who works largely in independent film.

Aggressive awards campaigns are par for the course, unfortunately, but we are conditioned to accept them in the form of paid for magazine covers, roundtable placements, luncheons, and For Your Consideration ads. 

Some of the backlash is undoubtedly from the big studios who spent millions of dollars to position their actresses for Oscar nominations and came up short. They are angry that they lost out to a peer-backed campaign with a shoestring budget. It feels very elitist to me. 

There is also a whole cottage industry that has formed around awards season -- the pundits narrow the projected contenders down to 7-8 by fall and spend the next few months predicting which combination will land Oscar nods. Riseborough, despite her rave reviews for To Leslie, was not part of this conversation until very recently, and even then many of the prognosticators were not taking her seriously due to the smallness of her film and the lack of a big studio push. There is, I think, a bitterness there that she was nominated without their support. 

If Viola Davis and/or Danielle Deadwyler should have been nominated, why could they not have taken the place of Ana de Armas or Michelle Williams? The latter two campaigned heavily as well (with big studio backing); Blonde is not nearly as well received critically as To Leslie, while Michelle Williams did not get Riseborough's level of rave notices and is borderline supporting in her film. The impulse is to push out the least famous of the nominees, which I don't think is right. 

Edited January 28, 2023 by ThatsDarling

[yowsah1]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

That’s why it seems to me this is an issue of the gatekeepers vs. the outsiders.

It definitely is, the question here is who are the gatekeepers and who is the outsider. Many people believe that a well-connected actress who can call on the help of her A-list buddies to get her self on to the Oscar nomination list is the very definition of an insider. 

I myself am conflicted on the whole issue. On the one hand, I think of all the actresses who did sterling work in small independent films, but weren't besties with the likes of Kate Winslet, so their films will never see the light of Academy Awards day. That aspect of Riseborough's campaign really does kind of stink. On the other hand, black people on Twitter aside, the people complaining the most bitterly about Riseborough's nomination seem to be the studios who ran multi-million dollar campaigns for their actresses and got shut out. It really doesn't feel like they are coming to this debate with clean hands.

I frankly think the most likely explanation is that nobody involved in the campaign for Riseborough bothered to acquaint themselves with the rules for Oscar campaigns, so they didn't realize that they may have broken them. I mean,who the hell reads the rules to these things? (And most of the rules ended up getting put in place as a direct result of Harvey Weinstein's shenanigans, so this yet another Oscar clusterf*ck we have him to thank for).

Edited January 28, 2023 by yowsah1

[slowpoked]

2 hours ago, ThatsDarling said:

The impulse is to push out the least famous of the nominees, which I don't think is right

That, also because Andrea was never in the conversation. She didn’t score any of the “precursor” nominations. I don’t know if she was on prominent film critics year-end lists (LA Times, NYT, Post, HR, VF, etc.). Heck, I was even more familiar with Anna Kendrick’s Alice, Darling because that  movie and her performance was mentioned in a couple of year-end articles I read. During her winner’s speech in CC, Cate mentioned Andrea’s as one of the performances that also deserved a nomination (but didn’t get one).

 

24 minutes ago, yowsah1 said:

Many people believe that a well-connected actress who can call on the help of her A-list buddies to get her self on to the Oscar nomination list is the very definition of an insider. 

Is she really that well-connected? Or was it just a matter of fellow actors appreciating other actors’ performances? As far as I know, all Kate did was tweet/post it on IG. I don’t see how it’s any different on Viola/Danielle also calling on their own friends, with the huge studios’ backing. To me, all her actor “friends” (if they’re even friendly with her in real life) said was “hey, there’s this small movie that was barely noticed when it first came out, but there is an amazing performance in there that people should take a look at. Watch it if you can.”
 

I remember back when Emanuelle Riva was nominated for Amour (she lost to JLaw for Silver Linings), Nicole Kidman stumped heavily for her, and even outright said she was voting for Emanuelle on the ballot, “because as a fellow actor, it’s a performance you can appreciate. Fellow actors know good acting when they see one.” Why wasn’t there a backlash then? These actors are human and also have favorites, and I think they are/should be allowed to express that. 

[TakomaSnark]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Is she really that well-connected? Or was it just a matter of fellow actors appreciating other actors’ performances? As far as I know, all Kate did was tweet/post it on IG. I don’t see how it’s any different on Viola/Danielle also calling on their own friends, with the huge studios’ backing. To me, all her actor “friends” (if they’re even friendly with her in real life) said was “hey, there’s this small movie that was barely noticed when it first came out, but there is an amazing performance in there that people should take a look at. Watch it if you can.”
 

I remember back when Emanuelle Riva was nominated for Amour (she lost to JLaw for Silver Linings), Nicole Kidman stumped heavily for her, and even outright said she was voting for Emanuelle on the ballot, “because as a fellow actor, it’s a performance you can appreciate. Fellow actors know good acting when they see one.” Why wasn’t there a backlash then? These actors are human and also have favorites, and I think they are/should be allowed to express that. 

I don't think it's so much that she's *that* connected but the director of To Leslie is married to actress Mary McCormack, who *is* well connected and she is the one who reached out to A-listers to promote the film.

I honestly don't have any problem with it, awards season always has storylines - why else would people suggest 'it's time' for Brendan Fraser to win an Oscar when his Oscar-caliber performances are scarce? They're just saying 'it's time to give this nice guy who has struggled our hightest honor' which... Is a pretty weird bar.

Seems to me the industry powers-that-be don't like that Mary McCormack outhustled them with some phone calls versus writing a blank check.

As for Davis, she's an EGOT winner, so I don't feel so bad she missed but Deadwyler had little-to-none support from the studio for Till.

I would put either of them in the slot taken by the execrable performance of Ana de Armas. Is anyone complaining about the money Netflix pumped out to promote that garbage? Because that's far more worthy of scorn and side-eye.

Edited January 28, 2023 by TakomaSnark

[yowsah1]

Quote

Is she really that well-connected? Or was it just a matter of fellow actors appreciating other actors’ performances? As far as I know, all Kate did was tweet/post it on IG. I don’t see how it’s any different on Viola/Danielle also calling on their own friends

To me the tell that all those breathless paens of praise the A-listers were gushing for Ms. Riseborough was an orchestrated campaign rather than a spontaneous grassroots wave of appreciation was that NO OTHER ACTRESS (or actor, for that matter) had fellow actors giving them shoutouts, which logic suggests should have happened if it was just a matter of industry peers being impressed by a performance.  Where were the tweets, the IGs, the interviews, the podium shoutouts for Michelle Yeoh, for Danielle Deadwyler, for Viola Davis?  If this was just a case of actors appreciating another actors work, there should have at least been some.

To me, the best analogue to Andrea Riseborough this year was Danielle Deadwyler.  Both ladies appeared and did superb work in films that were critically praised but little seen.  But Danielle Deadwyler did not have anyone in her camp who had the likes of Charlize Theron and Gwyneth Paltrow on speed dial, so she was shut out.

Quote

I would put either of them in the slot taken by the execrable performance of Ana de Armas.

Can't argue with you there.  I rather expect that Netflix, having seen the success of the Riseborough method of garnering Academy voters, have fleets of employees cold-calling every member of the Academy to pitch her as the Best Actress winner.

Edited January 28, 2023 by yowsah1

[slowpoked]

47 minutes ago, TakomaSnark said:

but Deadwyler had little-to-none support from the studio for Till.

Deadwyler was nominated for Lead Actress for Critics’ Choice, BAFTA and SAG. You don’t get in in those huge precursor awards shows unless you have substantial backing from the movie studio. Not to mention she’s already won Gotham and is on multiple year-end critics lists for Best Lead Actress performances. To me it’s just a matter of her being close enough but ultimately didn’t make the cut. After all, there’s only 5 slots but multiple deserving performances.

Surprise nominations always happen each year. The Oscars live for that. It gets people talking, both good and bad. I remember being disappointed when JLo missed the Oscar nomination for Hustlers, who IMO turned in a fascinating performance in a much more interesting role over Kathy Bates, who most people thought took her spot. But Kathy Bates hustled (heh!) her butt off on the campaign circuit, and she got her nomination.

[yowsah1]

1 hour ago, slowpoked said:

Kathy Bates hustled (heh!) her butt off on the campaign circuit, and she got her nomination.

I don't know how they would do it, but if I were the Academy I'd just write the bylaws or whatever to get rid of the whole campaign circuit, period.  It really does look squalid when newspapers report after somebody wins an Oscar how they got it because they were so affable and nice and showed up at the right parties and shook the right hands.  I know no institution is perfect, but geeze, Academy, make it so potential and actual nominees are judged by the work alone as much as possible, not how well-connected they are or who they suck up to!

Edited January 28, 2023 by yowsah1

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, TakomaSnark said:

I would put either of them in the slot taken by the execrable performance of Ana de Armas.

Can’t speak for Ana as I have not seen Blonde yet. But I have seen The Fabelmans and while I love, love Michelle W. (IMO, she should have already won for Blue Valentine, but Natalie Portman had the narrative  locked down that year), her role is really more supporting than lead. So if I had a vote, I would have voted Deadwyler over Michelle W.

And also, personally, I would rather Michelle W. save her campaign and goodwill when she has the narrative locked down and a much larger chance of winning, rather than on movies where she is a token nominee but zero chance of winning. Glenn Close and Amy Adams are suffering enough as it is, no need to add Michelle to that group.

[NUguy514]

7 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I remember being disappointed when JLo missed the Oscar nomination for Hustlers, who IMO turned in a fascinating performance in a much more interesting role over Kathy Bates, who most people thought took her spot. But Kathy Bates hustled (heh!) her butt off on the campaign circuit, and she got her nomination.

To be fair, JLo is loooooooooathed in Hollywood because she has treated people like garbage over the years. Since this is a peer award, I honestly think that’s the reason she wasn’t nominated.

[Irlandesa]

9 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Surprise nominations always happen each year. The Oscars live for that.

Surprise nominations do happen but there's usually some hint that it might happen and they're on people's radars.  But another reason it typically happens is that the surprise nomination comes from a movie released very late in the year and doesn't do festivals or doesn't do them until very late in the year. 

This movie premiered at a conference earlier in the 2022 and came out for good in Oct. 

[Milburn Stone]

Until last night, I wanted Michelle Williams to win Best Actress for The Fabelmans. But then I saw Cate Blanchett in Tár.

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

Another favorite of mine is Jamie Foxx's nomination as Best Supporting Actor for Collateral when he was clearly a co-lead of Tom Cruise - Jesus, he drove him around for 90% of the movie! But obviously, he wasn't submitted for Best Actor because that would conflict with Ray, where he was (and indeed) a surefire winner. 

Also, and I may be wrong, but I think there is a rule about an actor not being allowed to be nominated twice in the same category. They can be nominated in different categories but not the same one. So Jamie would have likely not been nominated at all for Collateral, if they'd submitted him for Lead. 

 

Quote

From what I can gather, the rule seems to be that it's okay to lobby the Academy as whole ("For Your Consideration..."), but it's a no-no to lobby members individually.

I also saw a screenshot I think from Frances Fisher, who was a big player in the campaign for Riseborough that seemed to outline the specific number of votes Riseborough would need to get in.

And not only that, in said tweet, she essentially said Viola and Danielle (interesting that she chose to name the two black actresses) were locks and so it would be a waste for the voters to put them at #1 on their ballot.

Because in case some aren't aware, the voting is actually done through a ranking system. So someone can get it never being #1  but if they're solidly #2 or #3 on everyone's ballot versus someone who may be #1 on one or two ballots but is #5 or #6. 

Fisher really was doing the absolute most, as they say. She also had an Instagram post where she used a quote from a film critic who referenced Riseborough's performance, calling it one of his favorites of the year, though still insisting Cate Blanchett's performance in Tar was his favorite.

She used this quote, which some say may be seen as making a comparison to another performance/performer, which apparently is against the rules of campaigning. In other words, keep it solely to the performer's performance and not how you think they were better than x or y.

In that IG post, Fisher tagged many of her fellow actors and Academy voters, rallying them to place Andrea on their ballot. 

I do see both sides of the  argument from the ones saying some of the big studios complaining are just pissed that all their big budget campaigning didn't work. And let's face it, Hollywood is filled with hypocrites in love with themselves.

That said, I think the Andrea situation bothered some because of how public-facing it was. It's essentially the equivalent of we know the ass kissing happens but we're uncomfortable to watch it upfront and right in our faces.

But more than that, the bottom line is yes, there will be some ickyness if you will at the idea that "white Hollywood" rallied to get their latest white fave a nomination in favor of the black actresses. Whether or not that was certainly not the intention of many of the actors who rallied behind Riseborough.

But let's keep it 100, there is a reason intersectionality is a big issue. Because for a long time, for many women of color, feminism for example, was really about white feminism. That when it's all said and done, white women will rally behind other white women. And again, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I am not accusing Kate Winslet and company of this or begrudging Andrea Riseborough her nomination, just stating some of the nuances of this situation. 

 

Quote

If Viola Davis and/or Danielle Deadwyler should have been nominated, why could they not have taken the place of Ana de Armas or Michelle Williams? The latter two campaigned heavily as well (with big studio backing); Blonde is not nearly as well received critically as To Leslie, while Michelle Williams did not get Riseborough's level of rave notices and is borderline supporting in her film. The impulse is to push out the least famous of the nominees, which I don't think is right. 

Actually I saw many reactions along the vein that essentially the Academy booted Viola and Danielle for Ana de Armas and Andrea Riseborough. There have been many negative reactions to Ana's nomination.

The difference though between Ana's nomination and Andrea's is that no matter how much some loathed the film, Ana's been present throughout Awards season.

The only major one she didn't get in, unsurprisingly, was The Critics Choice, because the critics really hate Blonde. Based on the precursors, Ana was more of a lock than Michelle Williams who missed out on SAG and BAFTA. 

 

Quote

As for Davis, she's an EGOT winner

Not yet. She doesn't have a Grammy. Although many expect that to change come this year's Grammy Awards where she's nominated for the audio version of her memoir. 

 

Quote

To be fair, JLo is loooooooooathed in Hollywood because she has treated people like garbage over the years. Since this is a peer award, I honestly think that’s the reason she wasn’t nominated.

Yeah I wasn't surprised J Lo didn't get nominated that year because I remember telling my friend there are a number of common narratives that helps an actor secure a nomination, and J Lo didn't fit any of them. 

• You have the young, fresh-faced ingenue (a la when Lupita Nyong'o won or even Jennifer Lawrence being nominated for Winter's Bone).
• The legendary, well-respected industry actor that for reasons had yet to get their due at the Oscars (see Sam Elliot being nominated for A Star is Born and well Viola eventually winning).
• The performer that Hollywood just loves (Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks for example)
• And finally, the film itself is huge, so the performer rides on the film's success (I think that was part of Gaga's nomination because I still don't think she was that amazing in A Star Is Born).

J Lo had none of that. Hustlers was a critically okay film, where she was the only semi-interesting thing about it. No one was thinking J Lo was long due for Oscar glory based on her filmography and yes, as you noted, she was certainly not a performer that Hollywood just absolutely loved. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[TakomaSnark]

1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

That and also I may be wrong, but I do think there is a rule about an actor not being allowed to be nominated twice in the same category. They can be nominated in different categories but not the same one. So if Jamie would have likely not been nominated at all if they'd submitted him for Lead for Collateral. 

 

Correct. If an actor has received nominating votes for two performances in the same category, the nomination will be for whichever performance got the greater of the votes.

In addition, unlike the Emmys, there is no formal 'submission' process. Studios and performers campaign *for* a category and it is up to the voters to align their votes with that, and usually it does, without controversy. An example of an exception to this is when Kate Winslet was campaigned for as supporting for The Reader but Academy voters disagreed and nominated her as the lead (for which she ultimately won). 

If voters are split as to if a performance is lead or supporting, they will be credited for the total votes tallied but the nomination will fall on whichever side had a majority of votes.

[slowpoked]

12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Surprise nominations do happen but there's usually some hint that it might happen and they're on people's radars.  But another reason it typically happens is that the surprise nomination comes from a movie released very late in the year and doesn't do festivals or doesn't do them until very late in the year. 

This movie premiered at a conference earlier in the 2022 and came out for good in Oct. 

I meant “surprise nomination” in the vein that Andrea wasn’t nominated at all for any precursor awards show. No GG, CC, SAG and BAFTA.
 

Same as Brian Tyree Henry, although maybe because it’s a supporting category, there’s much less uproar (and who did he “kick out” instead anyway?). Although he was nominated for CC. But no SAG and BAFTA as well, which are more determinative of Oscar chances.

3 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

I also saw a screenshot I think from Frances Fisher, who was a big player in the campaign for Riseborough that seemed to outline the specific number of votes Riseborough would need to get in. And not only that, in said tweet, essentially said Viola and Danielle (interesting that she chose to name the two black actresses) were locks and so it would be a waste for the voters to put them at #1 on their ballot.

Fisher really was doing the absolute most, as they say. She also had an Instagram post where she used a quote from a film critic who referenced Riseborough's performance, calling it one of his favorite though still insisting Cate Blanchett's performance in Tar was his favorite.

She used this quote, which some say may be seen as making a comparison to another performance/performer which apparently is against the rules of campaigning. In other words, keep it solely to the performer's performance and not how you think they were better than x or y. In that IG post, Fisher tagged many of her fellow actors and Academy voters, rallying them to place Andrea on their ballot.

If that’s the case, it sounds really fishy and shady. And I’m a little saddened on Andrea’s part (assuming she’s totally innocent on all of this), that a sudden feel-good nomination is going to be tainted with some controversy. It’s a great performance, worthy of a nomination (but maybe not a win). 
 

Then again, the Oscar campaigning is shady all around, and it depends I guess on which lines crossed are acceptable and what’s not. I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but IMO it still feels like industry insiders are ganging up on a small movie of an actress who’s not that much of a celebrity anyway because she/the movie upset the order, so to speak.

Edited January 29, 2023 by slowpoked

[TakomaSnark]

Just now, slowpoked said:

Then again, the Oscar campaigning is shady all around, and it depends I guess on which lines crossed are acceptable and what’s not. I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but IMO it still feels like industry insiders are ganging up on a small movie of an actress who’s not that much of a celebrity anyway because she/the movie upset the order, so to speak.

Gwyneth Paltrow's win - along with Shakespeare In Love's - has been derided since that awards night for Harvey having 'bought' the wins. The Academy wasn't concerned then about appearances but yeah, they're concerned now that someone scored a nom without a truckload of money and gifts showered upon voters.

[FilmTVGeek80]

The Riseborough situation does seem to be mostly much ado about nothing. I mean, aside from the Frances Fisher aspect, which does seem problematic ( but is Fisher and A-Lister anyway?) Sure, AR had a lot of famous people championing her, but as has been stated, that’s not unusual and is their right to do so. And, it’s not like being an A-Lister, or being connected to one, guarantees someone a nom. There are a lot of A-Listers this year who couldn’t even get themselves a nomination (and I’m including Viola Davis.) Also, unlike the Best Actor category (not that I have an issue with any of those nominees) it’s not like the Actress category is lily white, given Yeoh and De Armas’ noms.

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Same as Brian Tyree Henry, although maybe because it’s a supporting category, there’s much less uproar (and who did he “kick out” instead anyway?). Although he was nominated for CC. But no SAG and BAFTA as well, which are more determinative of Oscar chances.

Brian Tyree Henry didn't hit SAG or BAFTA but he was nominated for 14 of the regional/journalist critics' awards.  Andrea only hit one of those other than TCA.  So his was a mild surprise but you could see the performance getting its accolades. it wasn't out-of-left-field surprising like Andrea's.



 

[slowpoked]

VF has an article out on the Riseborough campaign controversy, so you know it’s really hitting the mainstream now:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/andrea-riseborough-to-leslie-campaign-break-rules-awards-insider/amp

This part stood out to me:

Quote

“Even if it’s not expressly written in the rules, it’s not really in the spirit of how this should be done,” one awards strategist tells VF.

See, now this really sounds more like sourgrapes from “strategists” to me. What “should be done?” Lavish hosted dinners and gifts to voters? Fancy FYC posters and mailings? 

Like the article concludes, I also highly doubt her nomination is going to be rescinded, but there’s definitely zero chance of Andrea winning now. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by slowpoked

[blackwing]

On 1/27/2023 at 3:48 PM, slowpoked said:

It's weird though how there's speculation that her campaign might have violated the rules. For one, I didn't think there were any rules, considering the shameless pandering, groveling, lobbying both movie studios and actors have done over the years. I suppose outright bribery is still not allowed. It seems like this stems from the fact that Viola and Danielle didn't make the cut, even though they were huge favorites, while another (white) woman did. 

On 1/27/2023 at 9:26 PM, yowsah1 said:

That seems to be a factor in the many bitter complaints I have seen on Twitter and elsewhere.  The argument seems to boil down to (I am paraphrasing here) "Riseborough used her famous buddies to swing herself a nomination at the direct expense of superior Black actresses.  White Privilege in action".  And, yeah, the exclusion of Vioila and Danielle was a bit of a headscratcher.  (In Davis's case, there may be a sense among Oscar voters that she has been nominated and won so much that it's time to start honoring some other talented actresses).

22 hours ago, TakomaSnark said:

Gwyneth Paltrow's win - along with Shakespeare In Love's - has been derided since that awards night for Harvey having 'bought' the wins. The Academy wasn't concerned then about appearances but yeah, they're concerned now that someone scored a nom without a truckload of money and gifts showered upon voters.

I'm a little puzzled at the questioning of Riseborough's nomination, because my initial thought was, haven't the Oscars always been like this?  Many have long derided the Best Actress wins of both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Lawrence as having been bought and paid for by Harvey Weinstein.  How is this any different?

I do think some of it has to do with her nomination having seemingly come at the expense of either Viola Davis or Danielle Deadwyler, and that both are black, so that's why the complaints.  I think that's a disservice to both Davis and Deadwyler.  Even though they aren't presumably the ones even remotely connected with "the investigation", their names are being tossed around in social media like "oh there it is again, there goes those black women complaining that they got treated poorly".  I don't think they have done anything of the sort, and they don't deserve this.

I think many people expected both Davis and Deadwyler to get nominated, which is why it was shocking that both were passed over in favour of Riseborough who hadn't even been in consideration at all during any of the awards season.

As for the assertion that Davis has been nominated so many times before and has already won... I would disagree.  She has four nominations and one win.  If there was a "she's been awarded enough" then Meryl Streep wouldn't have 20+ nominations and 3 wins.  Or Frances McDormand.  6 nominations, 3 wins, wins are all for Best Actress.  She has more Best Actress wins than La Streep.  Her last win came at the expense of Viola Davis who I believe was viewed as something of the frontrunner for "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom", especially after she won the SAG Award.

[slowpoked]

4 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Her last win came at the expense of Viola Davis who I believe was viewed as something of the frontrunner for "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom", especially after she won the SAG Award.

Meryl’s last win, ironically, also came at the “expense” of Viola herself, when she won for The Iron Lady over Viola’s The Help. It was also another instance where Viola was widely expected to win, winning all precursor awards (except for BAFTA, which Streep won), and topping almost all of critics’ list. It was supposed to be Viola’s big coming out party, but big bad La Streep took it away from her. There was even talk that Meryl should give the award to Viola as the rightful winner of the award, which was frankly ridiculous. Meryl 100% deserved that award. 

[libgirl2]

23 hours ago, TakomaSnark said:

Gwyneth Paltrow's win - along with Shakespeare In Love's - has been derided since that awards night for Harvey having 'bought' the wins. The Academy wasn't concerned then about appearances but yeah, they're concerned now that someone scored a nom without a truckload of money and gifts showered upon voters.

Ugh! That year! Cate Blanchett should have won for Elizabeth. And time has shown what a much better actress she is. As for Shakespeare in Love. Cute movie, interesting but it was not even close to best picture which should have been Saving Private Ryan. You want to talk about Oscars being "bought". 

Edited January 30, 2023 by libgirl2

[yowsah1]

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I'm a little puzzled at the questioning of Riseborough's nomination, because my initial thought was, haven't the Oscars always been like this?  Many have long derided the Best Actress wins of both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Lawrence as having been bought and paid for by Harvey Weinstein.  How is this any different?

It's different because in the interim the Academy put rules in place specifically to prevent Weinstein-type shenanigans. But apparently the Academy must never be allowed to fix problems or shut down abuses.

[ThatsDarling]

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I'm a little puzzled at the questioning of Riseborough's nomination, because my initial thought was, haven't the Oscars always been like this?  Many have long derided the Best Actress wins of both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Lawrence as having been bought and paid for by Harvey Weinstein.  How is this any different?

As for the assertion that Davis has been nominated so many times before and has already won... I would disagree.  She has four nominations and one win.  If there was a "she's been awarded enough" then Meryl Streep wouldn't have 20+ nominations and 3 wins.  Or Frances McDormand.  6 nominations, 3 wins, wins are all for Best Actress.  She has more Best Actress wins than La Streep.  Her last win came at the expense of Viola Davis who I believe was viewed as something of the frontrunner for "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom", especially after she won the SAG Award.

Ugh, Jennifer Lawrence's win for Silver Linings Playbook is one of my least favorites in the history of the category. Emmanuelle Riva was so much better in Amour; that Oscar was all about celebrating the It Girl of the moment instead of the work. Lawrence was obnoxious on the campaign trail, too, joking about Riva, an 85-year-old woman, being no match for her and saying that fellow nominee Quvenzhané Wallis should "give the alphabet its letters back." 

As for Viola Davis, I don't think she is perceived as over-awarded by the Academy, but nomination voting favors passion over consensus, and there was much speculation on the awards forums that she would miss out as her type of role was unlikely to generate #1 votes on ballots. Other Oscar favorites like Amy Adams, Emma Thompson, Nicole Kidman, and Cate Blanchett (who missed last year for Nightmare Alley) still sometimes miss out, even after scoring big precursor nominations. 

[slowpoked]

24 minutes ago, yowsah1 said:

It's different because in the interim the Academy put rules in place specifically to prevent Weinstein-type shenanigans. But apparently the Academy must never be allowed to fix problems or shut down abuses.

Oh, I appreciate the Academy trying to fix what was wrong in their industry. I don't begrudge them for that. And like I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. It still just seems, I dunno, like bullying on a small film because it's a film that can be bullied and PTB certainly can. It just feels like there are bigger fish to fry out there. Especially if you have strategists saying, "well, it's not really against the rules, but it just left a bad taste in my mouth because that's not how we do it and how it's supposed to be done..."

And the rules as they are, even after the changes post-Weinstein, seem weird still - fancy, shiny events are still allowed, because you know, why would people change their asses being kissed? If the playing field is really to be even, these people would want the Oscars to be more organic, remove campaigning altogether.

They're investigating the issue, so if there was really any wrongdoing, people should be punished. It sucks for Andrea, it sucks for Danielle (who I really think ended up as #6) if she really got shafted of a nomination, because someone actually did something wrong, not just because someone outhustled her team. 

On 1/29/2023 at 8:14 AM, truthaboutluv said:

Yeah I wasn't surprised J Lo didn't get nominated that year because I remember telling my friend there are a number of common narratives that helps an actor secure a nomination, and J Lo didn't fit any of them. 

• You have the young, fresh-faced ingenue (a la when Lupita Nyong'o won or even Jennifer Lawrence being nominated for Winter's Bone).
• The legendary, well-respected industry actor that for reasons had yet to get their due at the Oscars (see Sam Elliot being nominated for A Star is Born and well Viola eventually winning).
• The performer that Hollywood just loves (Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks for example)
• And finally, the film itself is huge, so the performer rides on the film's success (I think that was part of Gaga's nomination because I still don't think she was that amazing in A Star Is Born).

J Lo had none of that. Hustlers was a critically okay film, where she was the only semi-interesting thing about it. No one was thinking J Lo was long due for Oscar glory based on her filmography and yes, as you noted, she was certainly not a performer that Hollywood just absolutely loved. 

I disagree. While not having the filmography of a Tom Hanks or Denzel, JLo has some pretty good aces in her pocket before Hustlers - Selena and Out of Sight. I mean, even her romcoms for me, are well-acted. I enjoyed MiM and Second Act very much, the latter I think was a victim of incorrect marketing.

But you're right, she's not exactly well-loved and respected among her peers, and that counts for a lot. I still remember her nasty comments against Cameron Diaz, who IMO is an excellent actress, and deserved a couple of Oscar nominations, or three. Too bad that ship has sailed already.

[truthaboutluv]

5 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I disagree.

I'm not sure what part you disagreed with. I didn't say I necessarily believed these things about J Lo, but more how the industry perceives her. And yes, while she did great in Selena and Out of Sight, these performances were a long time ago, when she WAS the young ingenue back then. 

But in the more than 20+ years since, by the time she did Hustlers, she hadn't exactly built up a filmography of critically acclaimed performances, critically acclaimed films, etc. J Lo herself has admitted that she's long felt that she's not really taken seriously in the industry and in many ways is dismissed as an actress. 

And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I've always felt that her chasing the music thing, may have actually derailed her acting trajectory. Because again, she did have some very strong buzz, post Selena and especially after Out of Sight. Out of Sight was one of those films that while it didn't get any Oscar glory, the critics LOVED it and backed it heavily.

And I do think if she'd used that momentum to work with some more interesting directors, taken a few risks with some unconventional scripts, small, indie films, etc. who knows. But it was right around that time she went full speed ahead with her music career and I just feel like in the next few years the narrative about her shifted. 

It also didn't help that let's face it, J Lo's "singing" is questionable. Like I know she had dreams of being a Barbara Streisand type triple threat but come on, Babs vs J Lo. Not to mention that Barbara started on Broadway, so singing and acting was always synonymous for her. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[slowpoked]

23 minutes ago, ThatsDarling said:

Lawrence was obnoxious on the campaign trail, too, joking about Riva, an 85-year-old woman, being no match for her and saying that fellow nominee Quvenzhané Wallis should "give the alphabet its letters back." 

See, this is the value of having a high-powered machinery behind her. She can be obnoxious (I do remember those comments) and still be the huge favorite. I remember rooting for an Emanuelle Riva upset that year, even though I was resigned to the fact that JLaw will win. 

Imagine Andrea Riseborough in an alternate universe, where she is still nominated but WITHOUT her current controversy, making similar obnoxious comments against Michelle Y. and Ana. There's no way she would survive that.

[NUguy514]

3 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Meryl’s last win, ironically, also came at the “expense” of Viola herself, when she won for The Iron Lady over Viola’s The Help. It was also another instance where Viola was widely expected to win, winning all precursor awards (except for BAFTA, which Streep won), and topping almost all of critics’ list. It was supposed to be Viola’s big coming out party, but big bad La Streep took it away from her. There was even talk that Meryl should give the award to Viola as the rightful winner of the award, which was frankly ridiculous. Meryl 100% deserved that award. 

The only main precursors Viola won that year were SAG and Critics’ Choice. That was a really weak year for Best Actress (at least the actual nominees were weak, in my opinion), and the precursor awards were totally spread out. Viola was really only expected to win the Oscar because of her SAG win, and I think she would’ve deserved it a lot more than Streep, who was the favorite before SAG. Of the nominees, though, I’d probably have gone with Michelle Williams or Rooney Mara; really, I would’ve gone with Charlize Theron with Kristen Wiig second.

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, NUguy514 said:

The only main precursors Viola won that year were SAG and Critics’ Choice. That was a really weak year for Best Actress (at least the actual nominees were weak, in my opinion), and the precursor awards were totally spread out. Viola was really only expected to win the Oscar because of her SAG win, and I think she would’ve deserved it a lot more than Streep, who was the favorite before SAG. Of the nominees, though, I’d probably have gone with Michelle Williams or Rooney Mara; really, I would’ve gone with Charlize Theron with Kristen Wiig second.

I stand corrected in my previous post. Meryl did win GG Best Actress Drama over Viola. So they were two each in the Big 4 precursors. But you're right. After SAG Viola had the momentum. I think no one probably thought of Streep's win at BAFTA as foreboding of an "upset."

My personal favorite among the 5 nominees that year was Michelle W. too. I guess there's something in playing Marilyn that Oscars just love to reward actresses for it. 

3 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

I'm not sure what part you disagreed with. I didn't say I necessarily believed these things about J Lo, but more how the industry perceives her. And yes, while she did great in Selena and Out of Sight, these performances were a long time ago, when she WAS the young ingenue back then. 

But in the more than 20+ years since, by the time she did Hustlers, she hadn't exactly built up a filmography of critically acclaimed performances, critically acclaimed films, etc. J Lo herself has admitted that she's long felt that she's not really taken seriously in the industry and in many ways is dismissed as an actress. 

And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I've always felt that her chasing the music thing, may have actually been part of what derailed her acting trajectory. Because again, she did have some very strong buzz, post Selena and especially after Out of Sight. Out of Sight was one of those films that while it didn't get any Oscar glory, the critics LOVED it and backed it heavily.

And I do think if she'd used that momentum to work with some more interesting directors, take a few risks with some unconventional scripts, small, indie films, etc. who knows. But it was right around that time she went full speed ahead with her music career and I just feel like in the next few years the narrative about her shifted. 

It also didn't help that let's face it, J Lo's singing is "questionable." Like I know she had dreams of being a Barbara Streisand type triple threat but come on, Babs vs J Lo. Not to mention that Barbara started on Broadway, so singing and acting was always synonymous for her. 

I misunderstood your post then. I meant to say that JLo did have some memorable acting performances in her filmography, but like you said it wasn't consistent enough to get the "due for an Oscar" narrative. I agree with your assessment on the acting vs. singing trajectory of her career. 

 

[BetterButter]

Anonymous Oscar Voters Discuss Andrea Riseborough Controversy: ‘If Disqualified, It Would Be a Decimation of the Actors’ Choice’

[MicheleinPhilly]

1 minute ago, BetterButter said:

Anonymous Oscar Voters Discuss Andrea Riseborough Controversy: ‘If Disqualified, It Would Be a Decimation of the Actors’ Choice’

This is all so ridiculous. The Oscars are a subjective contest - she didn't dope and then go on to win the Tour de France. 

As others have noted, the major studios and their strategists are pissed that they played the game the way they have always played it and something that did not follow that script broke through. 

I know Will Smith hosted several screenings of Emancipation for his close friends, many of whom are Academy voters. Setting aside the fact that he is persona non grata with the Academy and it didn't move the needle at all, should he be "reprimanded" too? 

[slowpoked]

24 minutes ago, MicheleinPhilly said:

As others have noted, the major studios and their strategists are pissed that they played the game the way they have always played it and something that did not follow that script broke through. 

My favorite of the article:

Quote

It sounds to me that Andrea’s team accomplished something that angered many people because we know how much money goes into trying to get an Oscar. Her team got her there without 30 billboards on Sunset. Without an installation on Hollywood Blvd. So, no, they shouldn’t take her nomination away. If that happens, a lot more will have to be taken away.”

Of course, different people will have different viewpoints on it. Like one member interviewed, he/she thought race had a lot to do with it - "white is always right."

I think it will be more of a mess if the Academy decides to rescind her nomination than just leaving things be. I would think that IF violations were to be found, people involved would probably get away with a warning, fine or suspension. 

[MicheleinPhilly]

Just now, slowpoked said:

I think it will be more of a mess if the Academy decides to rescind her nomination than just leaving things be. I would think that IF violations were to be found, people involved would probably get away with a warning, fine or suspension. 

I really can't see them rescinding her nomination and don't think they should at all. If Will Smith can bitch slap Chris Rock and then win and keep his Oscar, Andrea's nomination should be allowed to stand. 

Also who knew Frances Fisher was a member of the Academy and an apparently influential one at that? 🤷‍♀️

[ProudMary]

In my opinion, it's particularly galling that this controversy is occurring in THIS category where it's been TWENTY-ONE YEARS since Halle Berry won the Best Actress Oscar and she's STILL the only Black woman ever to have done so. Meanwhile, two Black actresses, each of whom was considered a top tier contender for a Best Actress nomination this year for their outstanding lead performances, are sitting on the bench, with the top prize once again out of reach. 

Riseborough's surprising nomination may or may not have come at the "expense" of a nomination for either Danielle Deadwyler or Viola Davis, but this still is not a good look for the Academy.

[blackwing]

4 hours ago, MicheleinPhilly said:

I know Will Smith hosted several screenings of Emancipation for his close friends, many of whom are Academy voters. Setting aside the fact that he is persona non grata with the Academy and it didn't move the needle at all, should he be "reprimanded" too? 

Will Smith also gifted anyone and everyone who wanted it a two-month free subscription to Apple TV+.  No doubt in an effort to get everyone to watch "Emancipation" as a thank you to him.  I know my parents got the free offer and did indeed watch his movie and thought he was great.  I was wondering how many voting Academy members also took Smith up on the free offer.  If studios can send voters free stuff, I guess there's no restriction against what Smith did?  Or is there?

43 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

In my opinion, it's particularly galling that this controversy is occurring in THIS category where it's been TWENTY-ONE YEARS since Halle Berry won the Best Actress Oscar and she's STILL the only Black woman ever to have done so. Meanwhile, two Black actresses, each of whom was considered a top tier contender for a Best Actress nomination this year for their outstanding lead performances, are sitting on the bench, with the top prize once again out of reach. 

Riseborough's surprising nomination may or may not have come at the "expense" of a nomination for either Danielle Deadwyler or Viola Davis, but this still is not a good look for the Academy.

I don't necessarily think there was anything racist about Frances Fisher telling people not to "waste their vote" on Davis and Deadwyler, or Gwyneth Paltrow and all her white friends pushing Riseborough.  Has this kind of thing happened in recent years?  Where movie stars stump for their friends or other actors?  I guess I don't recall hearing about any of these "grassroots campaigns" in recent years that weren't initiated by studios and were initiated by other actors.

I agree with you that regardless of how or why this all happened, it's not a good look that two black actresses who everyone said were pretty much locks for nominations ended up getting squeezed out.  Especially Deadwyler, who seems relatively unknown and who was a revelation.

The Best Actress category is the whitest category of all the acting categories.  Not only is Halle Berry the only black actress to ever win Best Actress, I think she is the only non-white actress to ever win.  That's one reason I'm really rooting for the luminescent Michelle Yeoh.  She gave a fantastic performance playing multiple versions of her character, she's well respected, and she's had a long and storied career both in Asia and the U.S.

I'm also heavily rooting for Angela Bassett.  I still think she was robbed for "What's Love Got to Do With It".  It will kind of seem like a make-up award to me, but I think her performance in "BP Wakanda Forever" is award-worthy.  It is interesting to me however, that for as white as the Best Actress winners have been, it does seem like black actresses have had decent success in the Supporting Actress category within the past 15 or so years.  Monique, Octavia Spencer, Lupita Nyong'o, Viola Davis, Regina King, Ariana DeBose.

[truthaboutluv]

15 minutes ago, blackwing said:

It is interesting to me however, that for as white as the Best Actress winners have been, it does seem like black actresses have had decent success in the Supporting Actress category within the past 15 or so years.  Monique, Octavia Spencer, Lupita Nyong'o, Viola Davis, Regina King, Ariana DeBose.

Probably because they are far more often cast in the "supporting role" as the friend, sidekick, etc. than the lead. 

[slowpoked]

11 minutes ago, blackwing said:

  That's one reason I'm really rooting for the luminescent Michelle Yeoh.  She gave a fantastic performance playing multiple versions of her character, she's well respected, and she's had a long and storied career both in Asia and the U.S.

Objectively, Cate probably gave THE best performance among the five. But my heart is also rooting for Michelle Yeoh. I have loved her work for a long time. I really think this should have been her 2nd nomination already, the first one being Best Actress for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon back in 2002. For some reason, CRA decided to abort a campaign for her for Best Supporting Actress back in 2018. I dont think she would have been nominated, but she would have had a fighting chance.

I think the one thing that’s helping Michelle is Cate has been awarded 2 out of 7 times already, a pretty good record, closer to Frances M. than La Streep. Although of course that shouldn’t prevent voters for voting for Cate if they really think her performance was the best.

[TakomaSnark]

5 hours ago, MicheleinPhilly said:

I really can't see them rescinding her nomination and don't think they should at all. If Will Smith can bitch slap Chris Rock and then win and keep his Oscar, Andrea's nomination should be allowed to stand. 

Also who knew Frances Fisher was a member of the Academy and an apparently influential one at that? 🤷‍♀️

Not sure when Fisher was invited to join but in recent years, they've expanded the membership to a ridiculous extreme.

[ThatsDarling]

20 hours ago, ProudMary said:

In my opinion, it's particularly galling that this controversy is occurring in THIS category where it's been TWENTY-ONE YEARS since Halle Berry won the Best Actress Oscar and she's STILL the only Black woman ever to have done so. Meanwhile, two Black actresses, each of whom was considered a top tier contender for a Best Actress nomination this year for their outstanding lead performances, are sitting on the bench, with the top prize once again out of reach.

One of the first Oscar races I followed closely was the year Gabourey Sidibe was nominated for Precious. I thought she was handily the best in her category, but she was never seriously discussed as a potential winner (the Oscar eventually went to Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side). Young actresses win Oscars regularly, but they usually have an It Girl narrative (not many black actresses are given that treatment by the industry/media to begin with, let alone those who are dark-skinned and plus size). The way she and Carey Mulligan were discussed by the press during that season was night and day. 

More recently, I would argue that Alfre Woodard should have been nominated and won for Clemency (a small, brilliant film that deserved a passion push like To Leslie received this year) and that both Tessa Thompson and Ruth Negga were overlooked for Passing. 

[Bruinsfan]

On 1/30/2023 at 11:38 AM, ThatsDarling said:

Ugh, Jennifer Lawrence's win for Silver Linings Playbook is one of my least favorites in the history of the category. Emmanuelle Riva was so much better in Amour; that Oscar was all about celebrating the It Girl of the moment instead of the work. Lawrence was obnoxious on the campaign trail, too, joking about Riva, an 85-year-old woman, being no match for her and saying that fellow nominee Quvenzhané Wallis should "give the alphabet its letters back."

I haven't ever seen any of Lawrence's award-winning performances, but her acting has been questionable enough in the movies I have seen that I'm skeptical she could have ever won anything except a Razzie without Weinstein's backing.

[MicheleinPhilly]

40 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

I haven't ever seen any of Lawrence's award-winning performances, but her acting has been questionable enough in the movies I have seen that I'm skeptical she could have ever won anything except a Razzie without Weinstein's backing.

I liked her in Winter's Bone and that's about it.