How Andrea Riseborough pulled off that shocking Oscar nomination

January 26, 2023 10:42 AM

But a funny thing happened on the way to obscurity. Riseborough, a gifted English actress who has worked with everyone from Mike Leigh to Alejandro G. Iñárritu and won many admirers and allies in the process, somehow entered the awards season conversation.
posted by Etrigan (45 comments total)

Oops, forgot the archive.today link.
posted by Etrigan at 10:42 AM on January 26, 2023

I keep wanting to enjoy this as a heartwarming underdog story, but something about it keeps giving me the hinks. I guess I'm suspicious of famous people working together or something. It looks like To Leslie is streaming: anyone seen it?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:52 AM on January 26, 2023 [5 favorites]

I did not know that Hollywood stars hosted such screenings in their homes (and elsewhere). Good for Riseborough - it's often nice to cheer for an underdog who flew under the radar of so many people.
posted by davidmsc at 10:56 AM on January 26, 2023

I keep wanting to enjoy this as a heartwarming underdog story, but something about it keeps giving me the hinks. I guess I'm suspicious of famous people working together or something.

You may want to watch this video from the Youtube Channel "Be Kind, Rewind" - Harvey Weinstein and the Oscars . It's an analysis about how Harvey Weinstein (who as we know was already a heinous dickbag behind closed doors) was throwing his weight around when it came to campaigning for Oscar Awards, and not necessarily in a good way. What he did really changed up how the Academy voting and campaigning worked.

Seeing what he did, and comparing it to what happened with Riseborough, may set your mind at ease.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:17 AM on January 26, 2023 [4 favorites]

I think this is a pretty cool story. I would like to see the film.
And maybe it's not fair having not seen all the performances... but Michelle Yeoh better win!
posted by Glinn at 11:23 AM on January 26, 2023 [1 favorite]

The link in the OP is largely keeping to the narrative promoted by the directors/powers that be. This piece conveniently elides the role played by the PR firms that they hired, Narrative PR and Shelter PR, instead focusing on what actors did in response. The Variety article, though also scant, provides a little bit more detail: link

Of note, McCormack, the director's wife, sent her friends what's essentially a social media press kit: "including images and suggested hashtags and accounts to tag in social media posts. “If you’re willing to post every day between now and Jan 17th [the last day of Oscar nomination voting], that would be amazing!” she wrote in one email obtained by Variety. “But anything is helpful, so please do whatever makes you comfortable. And what’s more comfortable than posting about a movie every day!”"

This is why many of the tweets promoting the film from actors use the exact same wording, and why it's leaving a bad taste in many people's mouths: this isn't the organic word of mouth they're claiming it to be, and it's not clear that everyone who tweeted even saw the film.

The other part that's rubbing people the wrong way is that, before the announcement, speculation was that we'd get a half POC slate with Viola Davis and Danielle Deadwyler (as well as Michelle Yeoh.) This LA Times piece points this out and then simply rejustifies Risenbourgh's nomination with a bit more praise: "...Riseborough didn’t replace either woman. She earned her nomination by delivering an astonishing, uncompromising performance..."

This piece fails to examine basically anything about this-- not this PR campaign, not Hollywood's poor track record on race, not even the performance in question. It's not a great piece.

I never saw "To Leslie" but I hope Michelle Yeoh takes the Oscar in the end. This seems unlikely to me, though.
posted by Pitachu at 11:28 AM on January 26, 2023 [18 favorites]

Missed the edit window, apologies! I wanted to follow up by citing some of those identical tweets sent in support of "To Leslie":

- Dulé Hill
- Joe Mantega
- Meredith Vieira

This is not a grassroots campaign out of love for a performance.
posted by Pitachu at 11:39 AM on January 26, 2023 [3 favorites]

you didn't see the movie tho
posted by gwint at 11:41 AM on January 26, 2023

In the old days, if you wanted to slide into the Oscar nominations, you went and buttered up Shelley Winters, who would start working the phones with all her friends in the Academy who got ballots but didn't manage to get out to screenings. This sounds like an updated, amped-up version of that.
posted by jscalzi at 11:44 AM on January 26, 2023 [6 favorites]

astroturfing
posted by lalochezia at 11:47 AM on January 26, 2023

you didn't see the movie tho

Has anybody? Everything I've heard about it has come from an insider with a connection to the cast and/or crew. What do actual people and critics think?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:48 AM on January 26, 2023 [3 favorites]

I loved Riseborough in Bloodline and am prepared to be impressed by her in this movie. But I call bullshit on the LA Times saying she didn't replace anyone. Sure she did; there are only so many slots and that sounds like a weird kind of special pleading specifically to avoid accusations of, well, you know.
posted by BibiRose at 11:52 AM on January 26, 2023 [4 favorites]

Answering my own question: the critical reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are all pretty positive. Feel like they only get really gushy after this campaign started.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:52 AM on January 26, 2023

98% on RT based on 57 reviews

I don't get either side of this "debate"-- haven't Oscar noms always been about rustled up votes by pestering your peers however you can?

Anyway, best performance last year was by Frankie Corio in Aftersun, and she wasn't nominated.
posted by gwint at 11:54 AM on January 26, 2023 [1 favorite]

I’ve been following this a bit over the last couple of weeks when it went from a “what if…” to an actual nomination. I haven’t seen the film yet but I’m eager to see it. But I agree that this feels a bit off to me. I’m hoping it’s genuine appreciation of artists for another artist’s performance, and not a literal cause célèbre. Why this artist and this performance when every Oscar year there are genuine travesty decisions (especially affecting minority actors)?

I’m interested to see how this plays out. This year in particular has a lot of incredibly strong women’s performances. I hope Michelle Yeoh wins, I think her work in EEAAO was unmatchable. But in any other year, what Michelle Williams did in The Fabelmans would deserve every award I could think of. And Blanchett was amazing too.

I wonder how this will affect the Oscars moving forward. They’re already seeming less and less relevant every year. I think this can’t help.
posted by Mchelly at 11:55 AM on January 26, 2023

Yeah, this isn't a feel good moment -- this is a new type of Oscars campaign and the article gravely overlooks it. Danielle Deadwyler and/or Viola Davis got pushed out because of this last minute nomination campaign and that is terrible.
posted by yueliang at 12:01 PM on January 26, 2023 [11 favorites]

I just remembered the first time I ever heard about Andrea Riseborough. The Guardian published a hilariously overwrought article about her, and it completely tainted her in my eyes. No matter how good she is in a film, I mouth to myself "(she) does not so much walk into a room as float through it; a fragrant, other-worldly presence who seems to appear out of nowhere like a shimmering will-o'-the-wisp."

I'm also fond of "..deep thoughts trailing behind her like exhaust fumes as the car turns out of the road."
posted by peacesign at 12:13 PM on January 26, 2023 [9 favorites]

I did not know that Hollywood stars hosted such screenings in their homes (and elsewhere).

I don't know if he counts as a star but Phil Rosenthal (Everybody Loves Raymond, Somebody Feed Phil) has spoken of his joy at having a home theater and being able to invite friends (celebrities and non-celebrities) over to watch movies and feed them homemade pizza. Including Rita Moreno who spoke about "West Side Story" before they watched it. He likens it to when he was a teenager watching movies on TV with his friends and eating takeout pizza, but on a bigger scale.

This he does because he loves movies and getting people together, so not a direct comparison.
posted by beowulf573 at 12:20 PM on January 26, 2023

Viola might have been robbed, but she'll be fine--she's an acting legend. If I was Danielle Deadwyler I'd be furious, though.

What I want to know is why Cate Blanchett gave Riseborough a shout out--truly out of the goodness of her heart? I will be nice and believe it is that they are coming together to support a friend's artistic achievement...
posted by kingdead at 12:23 PM on January 26, 2023 [1 favorite]

My favorite movie of 2022 was "Nope," so really have no pony in this race (if only there was an award for Keke Palmer's Jesus Lizard t-shirt!) But I paid to watch "To Leslie" as this story broke. It's fine. It's a predictably dramatic addict-falling-apart-and-trying-to rebuild story with a predictably large performance by a British actress doing her best loud, messy "unglamorous" West Texas alcoholic. Her performance is the best part of the film, which is otherwise forgettable. But for my two cents it's not on par with what Michelle Yeoh did or what Cate Blanchett did (both of whom were tremendous and riveting and surprising) or, for that matter, with what Viola Davis did. I'm neither an Academy voter nor a friend of Gwyneth Paltrow's though.
posted by thivaia at 12:31 PM on January 26, 2023 [5 favorites]

> you didn't see the movie tho

Was this in response to me? I'm genuinely confused-- I was criticizing the article, not the film or her performance. Can you clarify what you objected to?
posted by Pitachu at 1:54 PM on January 26, 2023 [2 favorites]

METAFILTER: a predictably dramatic addict-falling-apart-and-trying-to rebuild story with a predictably large performance by a British actress doing her best loud, messy "unglamorous" West Texas alcoholic
posted by philip-random at 3:01 PM on January 26, 2023 [2 favorites]

I loved her in THE LONG ROAD TO FINCHLEY, which I do recommend.
posted by Comfy Shoes at 12:38 AM on January 27, 2023

I like Andrea Riseborough fine, but I’m disappointed Danielle Deadwyller didn’t get nominated for Till, apparently because she couldn’t get Jennifer Aniston or 🙄 Gwynnie to stump for her. It sucks that you had two awards-worthy performances by Black actresses this year, and they were both shut out for a slim British actress with a lot of popular friends.
posted by pxe2000 at 7:21 AM on January 27, 2023 [3 favorites]

Okay: I also think Viola King was robbed and this kind of campaign push was hinky.

In addition, however, I'm also a bit taken aback that most of the ire over that in this thread is singling out "Jennifer Aniston or Gwynnie" as being the ringleaders, when TFA says that it was the film's director and press team who spearheaded the campaign:

But she did have connections. “To Leslie” director Michael Morris knows plenty of actors and celebrities from his long career, as does his wife, actor Mary McCormack, and they contacted nearly every one of them, requesting their friends watch the movie and, if they liked it, spread the word.
--
Shortly after that, Riseborough met with Shelter PR, who agreed to run a campaign alongside her team at Narrative PR. Outside of what Riseborough and Morris were willing to spend, there wasn’t any money. Riseborough and the publicists drew up a list of actors they could possibly enlist and, bolstered by McCormack’s and Morris’ contacts, started working the phones. Over the holidays while the rest of Hollywood was laying low and trying to navigate the film academy’s streaming platform, they built a foundation of support that was unleashed when the calendar turned to 2023.

And yes, the article does mention that Jennifer Aniston hosted a screening, but in the very same sentence it also mentions that so did Edward Norton. It also says that months ago, Marc Maron - who was in the film as well - was complaining about how the distributor mis-handled the film's release "And now this movie with a 100% Rotten Tomatoes score that everyone should see [has] been hobbled by the people responsible for putting it out there.”

So...can someone clarify why we've chosen to target just Jennifer Aniston and Gwyneth Paltrow, but are giving Michael Morris, Marc Maron, and Edward Norton a pass?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:32 AM on January 27, 2023 [3 favorites]

Because Jenny and Gwinnie are avatars of Girlboss feminism, which uplifts cis het white women at the expense of Black women, women of color, and trans women. Plus, Gwynnie has made a platform out of harmful pseudoscience but is still taken seriously by the Hollywood establishment. Both of them placed their dainty little thumbs on the scale to privilege a white woman at the expense of two Black women who deserved the nomination more.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:46 AM on January 27, 2023 [2 favorites]

PXE: Not clear from your response the justification for giving Edward Norton et. al. the pass?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:17 PM on January 27, 2023 [5 favorites]

Oscars: Film Academy “Conducting a Review” Amid Questions About Andrea Riseborough’s Campaign (The Hollywood Reporter, Jan. 27, 2023) The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences statement in full:

It is the Academy’s goal to ensure that the Awards competition is conducted in a fair and ethical manner, and we are committed to ensuring an inclusive awards process.

We are conducting a review of the campaign procedures around this year’s nominees, to ensure that no guidelines were violated, and to inform us whether changes to the guidelines may be needed in a new era of social media and digital communication.

We have confidence in the integrity of our nomination and voting procedures, and support genuine grassroots campaigns for outstanding performances.

posted by Iris Gambol at 4:35 PM on January 27, 2023 [2 favorites]

“Danielle Deadwyler and/or Viola Davis got pushed out because of this last minute nomination campaign and that is terrible.”

Why is there the assumption that the spot would’ve gone to a black woman, as opposed to could’ve?
posted by Selena777 at 9:41 PM on January 27, 2023

Why is there the assumption that the spot would’ve gone to a black woman, as opposed to could’ve?

There's could've, there's would've and then there's should've. Up for debate, certainly, but I think for a lot of people it is the third.
posted by BibiRose at 7:22 AM on January 28, 2023

To people who have been following the nominations race the whole year, both of them were very likely if not clear shoe-ins based on previous awards and nominations, but this recent campaign blew up literally a week or two before the Oscar nominations, and people on the /r/oscarsrace have been keeping close tabs on this. This isn't a case about whether a Black women "should" have been nominated, they both gave incredible performances and at least one of them was going to be nominated based on previous predictions. It is important to note the white supremacy in the Academy and how it would make it possible for such a last minute snub to happen.
posted by yueliang at 11:42 AM on January 28, 2023 [2 favorites]

I have seen To Leslie. I don't think Riseborough's performance exactly demanded a nomination, but it's not ridiculous that it got one. The Oscars are a dirty process that often produces silly results, idk if it pays to take a selective look inside the sausage factory.
posted by fleacircus at 5:21 PM on January 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

The Oscars are a dirty process that often produces silly results, idk if it pays to take a selective look inside the sausage factory.

So I'm going to repeat my recommendation of this video, which gets into this particular sausage factory and how Harvey Weinstein changed expectations for Oscar campaigning back in the 90s; although, if you don't want to risk looking at that choad's face for a single second (and honestly, I don't blame you), the things Harv pulled in his campaigns were things like:

* set up screenings of Miramax films in retirement homes where older stars lived, even going so far as to screen them in rooms where people were on life support, because they were still Oscar voters.

* obsessively tracking where various voters were taking their vacations and hosting splashy "screening events" in those cities during their vacations.

* Hosting lots of "meet-and-greet" events with Miramax talent to get their stars and filmmakers in front of Academy voters (he apparently convinced Irish director Neil Jordan to move to Los Angeles so he could more easily attend such events).

* using politics as a publicity opportunity (Daniel Day Lewis was in My Left Foot at a time when the Disability Act as being debated in Congress, and Harv got Lewis on the docket to testify before Congress as a sort of movie-tie-in).

* calling Academy voters frequently to first urge them to see a movie, and then after to campaign about "boy, wasn't that great? gee, it'd be great if it got nominated, wouldn't it?"

* throwing lots of glitzy parties on the slimmest of excuses ("welcome to America" parties for foreign actors and directors).

* talking notable people into praising films, however unlikely the connection (he got Jesse Jackson to come out in favor of the film Chocolat, for one).

* subtly encouraging journalists to trash-talk other opposing-studio films that seemed to be favorites (when A Beautiful Mind was an early favorite against Miramax's In The Bedroom, he started tipping off a bunch of L.A. Times reporters about this Matt Drudge report about how the film glossed over some of the more unsavory parts of John Nash's life story).

* getting older-established Academy members to allow his publicists to ghostwrite Op-Ed letters praising Miramax films. (This was something that prompted the Academy to actually pass a new rule putting a stop to ads using quotes from Academy members.)

More at this article, actually.

Miramax spent MILLIONS on stunts like that; and it worked. And it is STILL working; other publicists have adopted similar tactics - including Riseborough's publicist. However, not everyone has Weinstein's war chest, so they have had to pick and choose what tactics to use; and in Riseborough's case, the tactic they chose seems to have been "get some high-vis people to see the film and then tweet about it." Which, compared to what Miramax did, isn't that crazy. It isn't even that crazy that the publicist courted "Jennifer Anniston and Gwynnie" - they're actresses, and are thus eligible to vote for the Best Actress awards. Only actresses can participate in that vote and the vote for Best Supporting Actress; actors are not able to, nor are directors, producers, etc. Just like actresses are not able to cast votes for Best Visual Effects or Best Costume Design or what have you.

So it strikes me that this isn't so much about Riseborough's publicist doing anything hinkier than usual - this is about Riseborough's publicist trying to do things on a shoe string, which leads to the rest of us getting a bigger peek behind the curtain than usual, combined with Viola Davis' publicist and the publicist for The Woman King dropping the ball on their campaigns. (Consider: the campaign for Viola Davis and The Woman King likely had more money to work with, so they could have easily out-shouted the buzz around Andrea Riseborough. But....they didn't. Hmm.)

Christina Ricci made a point to ponder as well - if we spank Riseborough's publicist for simply doing what everyone else is doing, but leave the other guys alone, then we are effectively saying that rich publicists can get away with this kind of stuff - which in turn sets up a financial double standard.

So: it's really not great that Viola Davis lost out on a nomination. But it's also not great that we're calling out what's become absolutely routine Oscar campaigning as "girlboss feminism", and turning a blind eye to the handful of rich jagoffs who do way messier stuff.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:44 AM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]

It isn't even that crazy that the publicist courted "Jennifer Anniston and Gwynnie" - they're actresses, and are thus eligible to vote for the Best Actress awards. Only actresses can participate in that vote and the vote for Best Supporting Actress; actors are not able to, nor are directors, producers, etc.

Nominations for all four of the Acting awards are made and voted on by all members of the Actors branch.

A Reminder List including up to ten eligible actresses and up to ten eligible actors for each eligible
motion picture shall be made available along with nominations ballots to all active members of the
Actors Branch, who shall vote in the order of their preference for not more than five acting
achievements in each category: Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role, Performance by an
Actor in a Supporting Role, Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role, Performance by an Actress
in a Supporting Role. (38-page PDF, rule 6.1, page 7)

posted by Etrigan at 7:52 AM on January 31, 2023

I stand corrected; thank you, Etrigan.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:57 AM on January 31, 2023

Andrea Riseborough Will Retain Oscar Nomination, but Social Media Offenders Will be Addressed by Film Academy (Variety, Jan. 31, 2023)
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:57 PM on January 31, 2023

But it's also not great that we're calling out what's become absolutely routine Oscar campaigning as "girlboss feminism", and turning a blind eye to the handful of rich jagoffs who do way messier stuff.

This is what I meant.
posted by fleacircus at 2:24 AM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]

It is now being claimed that the Academy investigated this campaign because the To Leslie Instagram account posted (and has since deleted) an excerpt from a review that says Riseborough's performance was better than Cate Blanchett's in Tár, and the rules say you can't specifically mention other potential nominees.
posted by Etrigan at 4:48 AM on February 1, 2023

I'm also squinting a bit at how repetitive the tweets praising Riseborough were, but I'm also not sure a) if that's actually a rule that's been broken, b) anything you can monitor on a practical level, or c) how you'd figure out if that's actually A Thing or just coincidence.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:17 AM on February 1, 2023

The Youtube channel "Be Kind, Rewind" has done their own analysis of The Nomination Incident, and makes some good points in their video. Some good points that deserve notice:

The Academy has lots of rules about how Oscar Campaigns are supposed to "work"; but most of them cost money, and as a result, rule out indie films. For instance:

* Submitting your film for consideration for an Oscar costs $20K just as an entry fee.

* They also have an "official e-blast" program they set up to curb people getting too aggressive with their own email campaigns, but it costs $2K each time you use it.

Other rules are pretty vague - like, they have a rule that you aren't supposed to serve full-on meals at your screenings - but there's a clause in that rule that says "non-excessive food" is okay. But they don't define "non-excessive in any way - and lots of other big-budget studios have had full-on buffets at their screenings, with a person on standby ready to give any Academy bigwig an innocent look and tell them "Hmm, this doesn't look that excessive to me, actually."

This film, To Leslie, made about $27K from its brief theater run. So they barely had enough to go in with the "submission fee". However - the director, Michael Morris, has an extensive rolodex (he's directed episodes of House of Cards, Halt And Catch Fire, Preacher, Shameless, and Better Call Saul), and so does his wife, actress Mary McCormack (she had a recurring role on The West Wing, starred in the TV series Murder One and In Plain Sight, and had roles in the films Private Parts, Deep Impact, True Crime, K-PAX, and 1408). And - they'd already worked their rolodexes once (McCormack's sister Bridget was running for election as a judge in Michigan, and Mary got several of her West Wing colleagues to do a campaign video for her).

So on the one hand they didn't have enough money to go through the usual Academy-sanctioned channels (the e-blast program, print ads, billboards) like studio films did, but on the other hand they had a lot of friends who'd done favors for them in the past. So....they used all their money for the submission fee, and worked their connections for the other publicity, staying within the rules insofar as that goes (there were a couple of their buddies who called out the other potential nominees by name and saying "watch out" or something, but naming names like that isn't allowed and the Academy has spanked those individuals accordingly).

So basically all they did was to turn to other resources they did have in lieu of having money. And....if you outlaw that, then the only people who are able to campaign for Oscars are the big studios with money, and....is that really a good alternative?

....Another good point they made addresses the notion that Riseborough "stole" the nomination from Viola Davis or Danielle Deadwyler. They just ask: why are we accusing Riseborough of "stealing" the nomination, but not accusing Ana de Armas, Michelle Williams, Cate Blanchett or Michelle Yeoh? (They do say that it sucks that Yeoh is the only nominee of color, nevertheless - they just think that laying the blame on Riseborough for that is misplaced.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:00 AM on February 8, 2023 [4 favorites]

They just ask: why are we accusing Riseborough of "stealing" the nomination, but not accusing Ana de Armas, Michelle Williams, Cate Blanchett or Michelle Yeoh?

Because they weren't using the same methods? Most of them were pretty widely acclaimed and seen roles.
posted by tavella at 7:32 PM on February 8, 2023

> why are we accusing Riseborough of "stealing" the nomination, but not accusing Ana de Armas, Michelle Williams, Cate Blanchett or Michelle Yeoh?

Because they weren't using the same methods?

How do you figure that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:58 AM on February 9, 2023

And more importantly, what makes you think no one else was using those methods?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:59 AM on February 9, 2023

TBQH, I wasn't sure what I felt when I wrote my original response, but now I realize: I feel like I've been gaslit by Andrea Riseborough's Oscars campaign:

1. I never thought a "grassroots" campaign could be backed by two different PR agencies.
2. This is both a low-budget grassroots initiative and also business as usual that every other studio is doing for their campaigns.
3. This campaign is supposed to be a win for the underdog, but it's an underdog supported by a lot of A-List celebrities.
4. This Oscar campaign is described as low budget since it was entirely self-funded by Riseborough and Morris, but nobody's ever actually looked into how much they actually spent. For all we know, they might be able to personally afford the same amount or more than any other Oscars campaign.
5. Or perhaps this movie is low budget because it only grossed $27k at the box office. But this doesn't include streaming sales or any other revenue channels. (FWIW, this is also the take from being shown for the literal minimum amount of time to qualify for an Oscar.)

I genuinely feel like I'm making up a conspiracy theory. I didn't even get into how all the articles about Christina Ricci defending Riseborough fail to mention that she shares the same manager-- who likely helped organize the campaign. Am I going crazy? They're not doing this on purpose to drive me crazy right? It's 2am. I need to go bed.
posted by Pitachu at 10:47 PM on February 9, 2023

Kyle Buchanan's explainer (NYT, gift link).

A lot of this, to me, is about the story Hollywood is telling everyone about what the Oscars mean.

I loved it when Charlize Theron won the Oscar for Monster. It seemed like someone playing the role they were born to play. It was strange to see that glamorous an actor looking so-- maybe not relatable, because her background is so extraordinary, but definitely real. I think everyone's always looking for some kind of sincere pumpkin patch in the landscape of the entertainment industry and right now the Riseborough one seems appealing in that kind of way? But, for me, it does beg the question of how many other stories there are like that and whose stories they might be.
posted by BibiRose at 4:31 AM on February 10, 2023