The Academy is the governing body for the Oscars ceremony and for many years has maintained a strong stance on activities and promotional tactics that studios and distributors can engage in. Parties of any kind are forbidden, lest they be seen as an avenue towards ‘buying’ votes, for example. There are also differing rules before and after nominations, for example prior to nominations, stars who weren’t involved directly with a film can’t express their fondness of it, but this rule evaporates once nominations have been announced and star power is actually influential at this stage. Updates to these regulations are made intermittently, and most recently in 2023 the Academy announced a significant overhaul in regulations. This included eliminating all kinds of physical print communications such as leaflets and postcards in pursuit of their sustainability initiatives.
While admirable, the reduction in print media was not the headline change, but the fact that the Academy allowed an unlimited number of Q&A screenings which was originally capped at four previously. This recent update included a reminder to its voting body to make their voting decisions based on ‘the artistic and technical merits of all eligible motion pictures, performances, and achievements.’ This of course, while a sensible statement from the governor of the voting body, is seen as naive in practice as studios, distributors and PR agencies continue to seek to influence voting decisions that is both the movie and beyond the movie and is essential to the art of Oscar campaigning. It is this rulebook set out by the Academy where Oscar strategists have for many years observed and stayed close to, and Miramax in particular initiated the practice of playing very close to the edge of these rules, which will be subsequently demonstrated.
There exists a rulebook with 21 pages of various rules in order to put manners on proceedings and to ensure that potential films are considered on as level a playing field as possible. Like politics, the Oscars are subject to the rules of the game being played, which makes it a unique practice to examine within its boundaries. However, it is at these very boundaries which the Academy sets out which film publicists, studios and distributors play at. The idea of fairness is in good faith. But needs to move with the times. A good campaign therefore is not one that games the system, but one that plays at the edges.
Rules and a ‘level playing field’
In its infancy, the Academy Awards operated initially with a jury. Silent star Mary Pickford was vying for an award in her first ‘talky’ with Coquette and had the five-strong jury over for tea to her lavish and sprawling estate, Pickfair Mansions where she lived with her filmmaker husband Douglas Fairbanks – unsurprisingly she won that year. To avoid such blatant politicking and wining and dining, Oscar strategists of today must abide by the contents of a rulebook, 21 pages in length in order to put manners on proceedings and to ensure that potential films are ‘considered on as level a playing field as possible’.
Without a jury (such that still exists at other awards ceremonies such as BAFTA where an unoptimised winner can emerge as a result of a compromise vote), today Oscar strategists must sway individual voters of a 10,000 strong body. These individuals from all walks of life are not subject to any rubrics in their assessment of the nominees and as such ‘Oscar voters are free to use any criteria they wish,’ which strategists must contend with. An expanded and diverse voting base and an embrace of the international voter is the scene that is now set for the future and makes for an unprecedented dynamic that is brand new in the history of the Academy. In addition, the way in which they reach these voters within the defined framework is evidently constantly changing according to findings.
The idea of fairness is set out in good faith by members of the Academy, but as the findings suggest, a level playing field for the nuanced nature of Oscar campaigning is difficult to maintain in practice, and even more difficult to reign in as the benefits and perils of social media impinge on its strict guidelines. Like politics, the Oscars are subject to the rules of the game being played, which makes it a unique practice to examine within its boundaries. However, it is at these very boundaries which the Academy sets out which film publicists, studios and distributors play at, and arguably are where the opportunities lie.
For the Academy Awards, fairness is absolutely the default. A good campaign therefore is measured not by those who follow the rules strictly but those who play at the highest level and are cognisant of culture and the environment. As an awards publicity expert stated, you must observe the rules that are set out ‘or at least be seen to be observing them, but there’s always a way round it.’
Andrea Riseborough and the clandestine influencer campaign
There are outliers however that stand out, because they illustrate the line that is towed between a strategic awards campaign and one that covertly violates the Academy guidelines. For example in 2023, a controversy gradually unfolded surrounding actress Andrea Riseborough in the small independent film To Leslie which made just $1 million at the box office and didn’t light many critics’ on fire. The furore that erupted over Riseborough’s nomination was twofold; she had not been present on prediction lists by awards pundits, and the tactics used in her Best Actress Oscar campaign on reflection were questionable at best. On examination, Riseborough had been promoted by high profile actresses on social media, each of them using the same wording, (“small film with a big heart”) which indicated a strategic campaign was behind this push.
There are complexities inherent in modern Oscar campaigning when the ever-changing nature of social media is involved, which can distort what appears to be fair and genuine proceedings. The case of Andrea Riseborough, looks on the outside like it’s grassroots, but actually has gone through multiple rounds of edits, and then muddied further by social media. This controversy was enough to give the Academy enough evidence to investigate the campaign and subsequently update its guidelines necessary for the ‘new era of social media and digital communication,’ but crucially – it was not enough to rescind Riseborough’s nomination. The line is so fine however in what might be a general consensus which people tend to repeat similar statements because they identify with it, or if it in fact was deliberately planted. With Brady Corbet’s The Brutalist, which is being lauded by the majority, they are saying many of the same things, ‘monumental’ ‘an epic,’ – but largely that’s because the narrative reflects what the film actually is.
Academy rules of course exist to maintain the integrity of the awards process and the idea of fairness, but fairness from what vantage point? Drawing on previous findings regarding the availability of financial resources to an awards campaign, it’s not all about money but it may be a little bit. What the Academy does not regulate on is the level of spending in campaigning, and it is clear that connection between spending and nominations is pretty high. Filmmaker Alex Jovy found the practice of self-campaigning for votes for his debut film Sorted was indirectly thwarted by a lack of financial resources and information. The Academy refused to provide Jovy with membership details and therefore was unable to send out DVDs to voters “It just doesn’t seem fair. Why do the studios have a chance to send out tapes, and I don’t have a chance?’ It’s clear from findings that barriers to entry exist to even be considered in the first instance, and moreover, it’s clear that those with financial resources can afford to play close to the boundaries set out by the rules.
FILM FOR THOUGHT 