The Andrea Riseborough nomination "controversy"

Tools    





It's very strange and troubling that Hollywood is pushing inclusivity agenda outwardly but internally they are going after the smallest of small films. So what do you people think about this situation?
I agree that perhaps To Leslie isn’t the smallest of small films, but I still feel the gist of the above is accurate on a psychological level. I had a diffeeent bit entirely jump out at me. From the Times:

In a comment piece in the LA Times, Robert Daniels, a film critic, wrote: “Although it’s easy to point a finger at Riseborough for taking a slot from black women, broken systems persist when we focus our ire on individuals . . . what does it say that the black women who did everything the institution asks of them — luxury dinners, private Academy screenings, meet-and-greets, splashy television spots and magazine profiles — are ignored when someone who did everything outside of the system is rewarded?”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...rama-pjz7vkmxq

That feels very much like arselicking Academy bullshit versus perhaps introverted people who’d rather not have the Oscar than do a ‘meet and greet’ (yes, there are plenty introverted people in entertainment; incidentally, I read an account of an interview with Eva Green today, also the Times, I think, where the journalist remarked Green would rather ‘lick the floor’ than be interviewed). That particular part is familiar to most of us in corporate environments, and I shudder at the idea that doing ‘what the institution’ asks of you means one deserves any award. My instinctive reaction is almost the opposite of what’s being alleged, i.e. it’s looking like, ‘If you’ve been a good girl and went to all the dinners and smiled at all the people, then you get an award.’ I would love for this to spread the message that you can deliver a knockout performance, stay in bed all the way until the ceremony with your phone off, and still win. That’s what ‘fair’ looks like.

Utterly ridiculous, and of course if someone who is not white didn’t win something, we must call it racism.



Genuinely still a little surprised that, it feels like, every year there's some kind of Oscars 'scandal' and intelligent, well versed cinephiles (who know and understand the system and that the Academy doesn't rate talent as the #1 reason for anything) get caught up in it every year, rather than just nodding sagely and thinking/saying, 'Yup, that's what I'd expect.'

Just to be clear, the Oscars are a promotion tool, that's why it was set up, that's what it's been from day 1. Ditto every other national movie awards show/prize. Talent isn't unimportant, you do need the cloak of respectability/contest, but it can be, and usually is, beaten by almost everything else every other promotion/popularity contest is subject to.

In conclusion, people have different opinions; judging talent is largely subjective; money and politics rule.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Genuinely still a little surprised that, it feels like, every year there's some kind of Oscars 'scandal' and intelligent, well versed cinephiles (who know and understand the system and that the Academy doesn't rate talent as the #1 reason for anything) get caught up in it every year, rather than just nodding sagely and thinking/saying, 'Yup, that's what I'd expect.'

Just to be clear, the Oscars are a promotion tool, that's why it was set up, that's what it's been from day 1. Ditto every other national movie awards show/prize. Talent isn't unimportant, you do need the cloak of respectability/contest, but it can be, and usually is, beaten by almost everything else every other promotion/popularity contest is subject to.

In conclusion, people have different opinions; judging talent is largely subjective; money and politics rule.
I think that’s a sober and reasonable perspective. I guess on my end, inasmuch as I engage in these conversations, I don’t think it’s so much about ‘raw talent’ vs ‘prize’ or anything like that, but I do become irritated essentially every time when black actresses, or the LGBT community, or whoever it happens to be during a particular year’s ceremony, kick up a storm over not being ‘included’ enough, things not being full of ‘equity and inclusion’ or whatever it may be, and people not getting an award because ‘there aren’t enough people like them getting an award’, which is not the same as saying, ‘I think Crash is a lame film and its win is entirely without merit’. I believe it’s a completely separate issue, however, to feel, like I do, that all these sociological factors (supposedly) at play are detrimental to the film industry and the very idea of recognition of skill via awards.

If someone completely random who’d put in a lame-ish performance that year won an Oscar and no one complained that this was to do with ‘racism’ or ‘systemic inequality and oppression’ or judges’ ‘unconscious biases’, I would certainly find it much less worthy of discussion and to me it’d very much be a shrug, whatever, kind of response. But that’s not what happens — these ’unexpected’/strange/unwarranted nominations/wins are consistently portrayed as an inherently political matter, which is the angle that I, for one, come at discussing this from.



I always try to be objective, so I'm still trying to figure out whether there's any merit to this or not. I absolutely have my inclination to believe that no major wrongdoing likely occurred here outside of possibly Frances Fisher's tweet, and potentially other similar tweets from others, but that may be inconsistent with the full facts, and in that case, I'd be willing to re-evaluate my conclusion. Does anyone here think there IS MERIT to this, or, is there general agreement on the board that, while these tweets may have been against policy, there is no larger problem here to examine and no reason to withdraw Andrea's nomination?

From what has been said here so far, and based on my review of articles on this, it seems like people are objecting to celebrities talking about Andrea's performance and encouraging Academy members to watch it, during the nominations period. But, what is the qualitative difference between celebrities banding together to do this on their own, or on urging from Andrea's industry friends or admirers, and celebrities seeing the movie at an Academy screening unprompted, liking the performance, and then talking to their friends about it and encouraging them to watch her performance and potentially nominate her, if they feel she is worthy, on that basis? The latter happens all the time, does it not? And, no one has a problem with it, so why is doing the former an issue to be investigated?



My feeling is that this is an old rule, made to maintain (or at least give the appearance of) an extremely civilized process, even if the reality is highly competitive, and that it's selectively enforced now and then around the margins not to stop it entirely, but just to make sure it doesn't go too far.



I'm more upset about Tomei winning for My Cousin Vinny. What the hell?



But, what is the qualitative difference between celebrities banding together to do this on their own, or on urging from Andrea's industry friends or admirers, and celebrities seeing the movie at an Academy screening unprompted, liking the performance, and then talking to their friends about it and encouraging them to watch her performance and potentially nominate her, if they feel she is worthy, on that basis? The latter happens all the time, does it not? And, no one has a problem with it, so why is doing the former an issue to be investigated?
Exactly. The difference is purely formal.



No, the initial "outrage" and "controversy" over Riseborough's nomination has been somewhat lost in this thread. The very vocal initial disappointment from some quarters was that two perceived front-runners who were women of color - namely Viola Davis (The Woman King) and Danielle Deadwyler (Till) - had their spot taken by a white actress "nobody" had heard of in a movie "nobody" saw and all because her powerful white friends banded together to make it happen. The Frances Fisher Instagram post was highlighted because those who opposed the nomination and were crying foul were looking for some rule that was broken that might somehow overturn this supposed injustice.

And that is why I pointed to the Brian Tyree Henry nomination. If a white actress from a small film gets a nomination over Viola Davis there must be a conspiracy afoot but if a black actor from a small film gets a nomination over Tom Hanks that isn't suspect that is progress? If it was Meryl Streep and Michelle Pfeiffer who were the front-runners and Riseborough came seemingly out of nowhere to beat them out for a nomination I think there is no "controversy" and it is a story of a little movie triumphing over bigger ones via grassroots support.

As I said, it is a silly conspiracy that shouldn't be given this much time and attention. But here we are.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



No, the initial "outrage" and "controversy" over Riseborough's nomination has been somewhat lost in this thread. The very vocal initial disappointment from some quarters was that two perceived front-runners who were women of color - namely Viola Davis (The Woman King) and Danielle Deadwyler (Till) - had their spot taken by a white actress "nobody" had heard of in a movie "nobody" saw and all because her powerful white friends banded together to make it happen. The Frances Fisher Instagram post was highlighted because those who opposed the nomination and were crying foul were looking for some rule that was broken that might somehow overturn this supposed injustice.

And that is why I pointed to the Brian Tyree Henry nomination. If a white actress from a small film gets a nomination over Viola Davis there must be a conspiracy afoot but if a black actor from a small film gets a nomination over Tom Hanks that isn't suspect that is progress? If it was Meryl Streep and Michelle Pfeiffer who were the front-runners and Riseborough came seemingly out of nowhere to beat them out for a nomination I think there is no "controversy" and it is a story of a little movie triumphing over bigger ones via grassroots support.

As I said, it is a silly conspiracy that shouldn't be given this much time and attention. But here we are.
I know nothing of this controversy but your post explains it pretty well. I guess this means you agree with Siddon's 1st post?



For what it’s worth, I feel like another criticism is that this is a ‘legacy’/‘long overdue’/‘lifetime achievement’-ish kind of nomination (as arguably some of Riseborough’s other performances were far more deserving than the acting in To Leslie), which may well be true, but again, back in the old-ish semi-normal days when DiCaprio got a similar ‘legacy’ Oscar for The Revenant, no one had a problem with that (though it was widely understood that this was a ‘finally’ kind of thing). All of which confirms Riseborough is just very unlucky to have been nominated in this climate of nonsense.



British actress Andrea Riseborough will not be stripped of her Oscar nomination

A star-studded grassroots campaign for the To Leslie star had prompted scepticism from some academy voters and caused a stir in Hollywood

The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has ruled that Andrea Riseborough will remain in the running for an Oscar, following an investigation into the legitimacy of the nomination of the star of indie drama To Leslie.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/20...ar-nomination/



Great posts Holden and Yoda. Holden's response was consistent with what my conclusion was about this, that this was kind of a rationalization made after the fact for why Viola Davis and Danielle were not nominated this year. I wondered if this controversy would have happened if it were not minority candidates who had been omitted, but I didn't want to cause controversy on the board, so I wanted to confirm there wasn't another legitimate reason for this controversy emerging before engaging in that kind of conversation. I also agree that updating the standards for the social media era and setting out specific policies for electronic communications would have likely helped to prevent these breaches of the standards.

It sounds like with the Academy response, they have confirmed that their investigation didn't find major wrongdoing here on the part of Andrea, or her campaign, and that her nomination is secure. I do find it a bit lacking in self-awareness to suggest that the Oscars are entirely based on technical merit and upholding the highest standards of ethics, as the Academy did in their statement. In my opinion, the Oscars have never been entirely about merit, and campaigning for Oscars has often been underhanded and not entirely ethical. Many cite the Weinstein era as an example. As Honeykid stated, they are often most valuable as a promotional tool or a boost to someone's career rather than as a recognition of unqualified excellence.

Arguably, I don't think any award that is awarded by a popular vote can ever be entirely about merit, since that is in some sense subjective when it comes to art. Additionally, other factors, such as the personal favorability of the nominee, their industry relationships, their past work that may not have to do with the specific film or performance being evaluated, the cultural climate, the narrative surrounding the nomination ("this person is due. It's time for X race to be represented) etc. usually factor in to who is nominated and awarded, and I think that's likely unavoidable.



A system of cells interlinked
I think we should get used to the idea of a tarnished organization that presents an awards event that has been a ratings disaster for the past few years using controversy before, during and after the event to generate whatever interest it can muster.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Everyone will be watching this year hoping for another slap-like incident.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



Everyone will be watching this year hoping for another slap-like incident.
I predict that Colin Farrell will present an award, he'll say something about reconciling with Brendan Gleeson, who will come on stage, slap him and say something like "I said I don't like you no more!" At least I hope so.



I predict that Colin Farrell will present an award, he'll say something about reconciling with Brendan Gleeson, who will come on stage, slap him and say something like "I said I don't like you no more!" At least I hope so.
If only!



A system of cells interlinked
Everyone will be watching this year hoping for another slap-like incident.
I missed it last year, as I was busy gouging my own eyes out with a grapefruit spoon to help ease the pain of watching the Oscars.