Nah, John is always way too quick to dismiss any kind of shady stuff in Hollywood, he never wants to hear about any kind of "conspiracy" no matter the topic. I read a few articles and you can see tweets from celebrities talking about the movie and her performance, using the exact same words like programmed robots. Obviously there is something going on with this movie and the attention it got for the Oscars, it's a well organized marketing campaign using celebrities, and that most likely broke a few rules.
Agree the generic cut and paste is a major red flag. If the celebrities actually had watched the film, they would have reviewed it with their own words.
@@eb2681 I don't even know what you're referring to mentioning Disney, I just looked this thing up to see what's actually going on and it's shady af. I don't really care who gets nominated :)
The issue with Andrea Riseborough is not so much her performance but they campaign behind it. 1. Her film premiered at South bu South West and no studio bought it or wanted it. 2. Andrea had not (Spirit awards aside) been nominated for any major precursor award Michelle Yeoh, Cate Blanchett, Viola Davis, Danielle, Ana De Amis, Michelle Williams had all been nominated for major awards in the lead up to the Oscar Campaign so John is wrong to say "Why are we saying she bumped someone else off the list" also apparently the film did have screening events before the precursor awards came out but it was not nominated. 3. Nobody saw to Leslie until Gywenth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Amy Adams, Ed Norton Frances Fisher and others started beating the drum for the movie. 4. Studios do campaign but there was something rather high school and cliqueshis about the way many of these A-listers used their platform and in some cases awards speech to campaign for her and people like Frances Fisher who went hard in for Andrea made direct references to other actresses like Cate, Michelle Yeoh and Viola being locks for a nomination. 5. The Oscars is filled with little films who made a big noise they did not have or need A-listers to beat the drum for it. 6. Rob is totally wrong to try to suggest that Andrea Riseborough got nominated over Viola and Danielle because she was the central focus of the movie and they were great in their movies but their movies had problems. Great performances in terrible movies win awards all the time. Meryl Streep won for Iron lady, Renee Zelwegger won for Judy, Hallie Berry for Monsters Ball. I really found what John and Rob said so disingenuous in this segment. Andrea Riseborough performance is a She's All that moment. The popularity of others was used to elevate her.
@@johncampea yeah but why did people start seeing it? This not some grassroots campaign. It’s an A-list money back connection campaign that broke the rules
That question was so misinformed. She didn't 'cut corners' to get a nomination. Almost every actor campaigns during to awards season to get nominated. If anything Riseborough didn't do anything at all for the nomination except act in a movie....her celebrity friends acting on her behalf through Twitter exposure. This is like the most grassroots nomination I've ever seen.
That’s the thing it’s not grassroots. Was backed by money. They held events for 50,000 a pop. Come on you think that’s grassroots. What? Her campaign director is the wife of the director of the film. That’s not grassroots. Them emailing famous people everyday, thus breaking the rules of one email a week, putting social pressure on them to put on social media with the same wording. Is not grassroots. Them name checking other people in those emails and social media post as locks so Andrea really needing the votes is not grassroots. Grassroots would be me telling you about a film because I loved it that much. Not someone emailing me everyday backed by events that cost 50,000 a pop asking me to post on social media. Learn what grassroots mean.
@@ikexbankai Hey to be fair I didn't know about these events if that's true (there's a lot of misinformation about this out there) but still compared to most actors awards campaigns this one was quite small and last minute.
I think the problem is not she didn't deserve the nomination plenty of actors get unrecognized for their amazing performances every year. The problem is how her friends and other people with influence were able to work their magic hands to get this actor the nomination. In turn they really hurt her in the process. I agree I did think she was behind it all but now we know it was her famous friends. Those with connections who screwed her over with this drama and tarnishing her great performance.
I think all of you guys are missing the core issue. Absolutely NO ONE is questioning AR's performance and merits; spending so much time talking about the quality of her work is irrelevant. The issue has ever only been about the campaign / lobbying that got her a nomination when she's been literally unheralded all year long except for a single indie award. It's the business practice (definitely not grassroot with 2 PR firms and 60 A-listers behind it), the ethics (the aggression of that campaign puts telemarketers to shame), and the optics of public vote whipping (is that even allowed) that are questionable. Critics say AR bumps out Danielle and Viola because of Frances Fisher's own words. She kept publicly telling voters to vote AR #1 because Cate, Yeoh, Danille, and Viola are locks - that is a clear infringement of Academy rules. So what does she mean? that she doesn't think Ana and M Williams are worthy, so let's bump *them* out? What do you think comments like that did to *their* camps? they doubled down of course to make sure they are in. Cate and Yeoh are a class on their own so they got in. Left behind are Danielle, Viola and AR and since AR's camp whipped votes for her, she got in.
No, there wasn't any infringement of Academy rules. NONE. I guess you heard some other person or channel say otherwise somewhere, and you believed [or want to believe] their spin of it all. But again, no rules were broken. Oscar campaigns are usually run by the studio/distributor to attract support, for the nominations of their films. But individual actors ARE allowed to campaign too if they so choose, and it's 100% legal (under current Academy rules).
It's common for studios to spend a lot of money running ads and much, much more to whip votes. Miramax in their heyday comes to mind. There's nothing new or illegal going on here. Have you ever heard about some of the behind-the-scenes awfulness actors do to steal parts from other actors BEFORE the film is even made? Self-promotion for awards is only the beginning. It's show business, not show friends.
@@janechoy2073 Variety isn't the Academy. The Academy knows best about their own rules, and they never said there was any wrong doing here. They DID say they are reviewing their own rules, but that's all. Nothing more.
Is not about if her performance is good or bad, is about breaking the rules to get the nomination. If the Academy doesn't do anything about it then in the future anyone can get a nomination or even win whether they deserve it or not as long as they get their friends to vote for them. A lot of actors campaigned for her, not because they wanted to but because they felt forced to do it and wanted to avoid repercussions.
Another thing people that are railing against Riseborough's nomination aren't bringing up is that even if the Academy did open an investigation and ultimately rescinded her nomination, this still does nothing for Viola Davis or Danielle Deadwyler 'cause no replacement would be made. The rules state that it would just be the four remaining nominations for that particular race.
@@chazharris if they don't take any action on this, it's 'cause they don't have to. I don't see any evidence of rules being broken. And, seriously... Tr**p? You really have to censor the name?
@@benjaminmarlatt6111 Yes. A lot of people of marginalised identities censor that person's name, people be crazy. If there is proof of wrongdoing connected with this campaign presented and they don't take action, it makes all their rules null and void.
So the studios can push a movie or an actor for a nomination with tons of money and promotions and that's fine, but if several female actors try to do the same on their own then there has to be an investigation? Sounds like once again, if someone threatens the existing power structure, then the powers that be lash out
I would agree if To Leslie was ever even in the conversation. NO ONE knew about this film. All her friends campaigning now about her role is suspicious. You had the whole year to boost the film and now you do it? Come on. It’s fishy at best. No one even heard of this film. No studio bought the film so the only reason you’re talking about it now is because of the controversy and her crony friends tweeting about it.
It's not threatening a power structure when A-listers with power use their cache to push for her nomination. This was a gatekeeping behaviour. People with Star status used their platform and influence to push the person they want forward when she was never part of the conversation
@@timothy8425 this is the same people who said they have been controlled by “white men” in the industry. Cate Blanchett, Christina Ricci, etc. all complain about this and yet they used there power to control voters views. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. I will never watch a Cate Blanchett or any other actor/actress that used there influence (to boost To Leslie for an award) film in the same light ever again
Oscars have always been based on talent as well as popularity amongst their peers. That’s why Glen Close has been nominated so many times but never has won because she got the talent but not the popularity amongst her peers.
I don't care about the Andrea get nominated or not but for me Danielle snub is slap on the face remove Ana de armas which movie most people hate or Michelle William since she was in supporting actress anyway
It bothers me more when studios sink millions of dollars in “for your consideration” campaigns which also basically ensures that voters watch the movies they’re suggesting but essentially means that money prevails over talent.
Like you said you are one of the VERY few. Far more people watched Woman King and Till. Also, we are not talking about her performance. We are talking about the way it was promoted. Back door channels and using nepotism to garner a nomination is the problem. Any chance of me watching this film is thrown out the window. All these actresses who pushed for people to watch this film sickened me. They didn’t promote the film before the awards season, and to do it now just seems tacky and undeserving
No one is saying she didn’t deserve a nomination. Many damn Actors DESERVE nominations but unfortunately only 5 get them every year. And it’s the five that follow the damn rules. Period. She can be the most deserving EVER EVER EVER. BUT if the campaign didn’t follow the rules and cheated you don’t get a nomination. That’s it
@@ianw0ng that’s the thing they didn’t just decide to push the movie after magically seeing the movie. The campaign director is the wife of the movie director. She them connected all of her and her husband famous friends to come on board and help push the movie. At that point they are involved with the campaign. The film then started hosting events for 50,000 a pop. Emailing all the famous not already involved with the campaign pressuring them to post about it on social media and to email people everyday. They sent those emails everyday which break the rules of one email a week. Which is a rule so that people don’t feel social pressure. They then name checked other actors as locks so people should vote for her because she needs the votes more than the “locks.” That breaks rules of not name checking others in the race. Like many rules were broken. And that doesn’t mean she isn’t deserving or didn’t give the best performance. It just means campaign rules were broke and thus her campaign cheated. Many many ppl are deserving of nominations but only 5 get them. That’s why there’s rules to begin with. Because. Only 5 can get nominations
Yea see this isn’t a problem with the actress or anything like that. It’s a larger systematic issue with how Oscar voting is done. This just proves it. John is so blind in his faith with the Oscar voters all the time
" And it’s the five that follow the damn rules. Period.... BUT if the campaign didn’t follow the rules and cheated you don’t get a nomination. That’s it" Wtf you talking about? John just gave an elongated explanation on it being above board. No rules were broken. And Kris said the specific accusations seemed to be "grasping at straws". Which part of his in-depth clarification of the matter was difficult to understand? Edward Norton & Gwyneth Paltrow imploring their friends to watch "To Leslie" IS NOT breaking the rules. There looks to be only ONE journalist that didn't jump to conclusions. All the other publications should be ashamed. This controversy seems to be baseless. I've heard countless times over the years, of hard campaigning for actors. Leo DiCaprio (who wields hundred times more power in Hollywood) for Lead in The Revenant comes to mind. Yet, no outrage there....
Strange for someone to be nominated solely on how powerful of a performance it was, and not them wining and dining the academy to buy a nomination. Would be real nice if the academy members had to actually watch all of the movies and nominate solely on the acting. But that's too easy and they don't get to have dinner with a celebrity...........
Take the clear rules broken by some of the people who campaigned for her, there are grounds there. People mentioned other performances while promoting this one. It's not lost on me that none of them in this panel see the privilege.
This was a targeted campaign that happened at a very critical time!! If it was such a great performance where were these people campaigning for her months ago?? It’s Super sketch, and also the directors wife using her connections to do this!! I hope they go after the ring leaders of this
It's not Riseborough's fault the film's backers didn't campaign, for her. That's up to them. But there's nothing wrong with actors doing a campaign. That's ALLOWED under the Academy's current rules.
So she chose a perfect time for campaigning?? Isn't that great?? Why would she do it 5 months before??? People are hypocrites, studios put a lot of money into campaigning for their movies, private screenings, gift baskets, promotional stuff... she just asked for online support.
Regardless of if she didn’t break any rules, it’s still a white actress leveraging her privilege to get her other famous white peers to promote her work. There would never be this much support within the industry to help out a “fellow friend” if they were people of color (Davis, Detweiler, etc)
Also, calling this an ELITIST problem is so funny. SHE is part of the elite. She IS a famous and rich actress. She HAS rich and famous friends. She knows exacly how she got that nom
Completely missed the point on this one. It’s not so much who she took the nomination from, but how she used her privilege to score an Oscar nomination despite being ignored during the entire lead up this awards season (unlike the other nominees and those being mentioned in this conversation). Unfortunately most actors of colour don’t have the luxury of getting all of their rich, well-connected white friends to rally around them to knock another deserving nominee out of the race.
People that say “nobody watched it, I didn’t watch it, nobody has seen it.” So ignorant. I heard about To Leslie before it even came out because Marc Maron raved about her for months on his podcast about how amazing she was to work with on this film and how great she is in it. And I don’t know why you guys act like you don’t know who she is. She crushes it in everything she’s in: Oblivion, Birdman, Mandy, the Prime series ZeroZeroZero, the Netflix series Bloodline and a bunch of other movies… she’s brilliant. She killed in To Leslie.
I live in Western Australia, we don’t see any of these films until after the Oscar’s so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I have seen the woman king and that was incredible and viola is incredible.
The issue with Andrea Riseborough is not so much her performance but they campaign behind it. 1. Her film premiered at South bu South West and no studio bought it or wanted it. 2. Andrea had not (Spirit awards aside) been nominated for any major precursor award Michelle Yeoh, Cate Blanchett, Viola Davis, Danielle, Ana De Amis, Michelle Williams had all been nominated for major awards in the lead up to the Oscar Campaign so John is wrong to say "Why are we saying she bumped someone else off the list" also apparently the film did have screening events before the precursor awards came out but it was not nominated. 3. Nobody saw to Leslie until Gywenth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Amy Adams, Ed Norton Frances Fisher and others started beating the drum for the movie. 4. Studios do campaign but there was something rather high school and cliqueshis about the way many of these A-listers used their platform and in some cases awards speech to campaign for her and people like Frances Fisher who went hard in for Andrea made direct references to other actresses like Cate, Michelle Yeoh and Viola being locks for a nomination. 5. The Oscars is filled with little films who made a big noise they did not have or need A-listers to beat the drum for it. 6. Rob is totally wrong to try to suggest that Andrea Riseborough got nominated over Viola and Danielle because she was the central focus of the movie and they were great in their movies but their movies had problems. Great performances in terrible movies win awards all the time. Meryl Streep won for Iron lady, Renee Zelwegger won for Judy, Hallie Berry for Monsters Ball. I really found what John and Rob said so disingenuous in this segment. Andrea Riseborough performance is a She's All that moment. The popularity of others was used to elevate her.
1. There are clear rules for how movies obtain eligibility for Oscar nominations. This one clearly went by them, otherwise it wouldn't have been eligible. 2. Performances are judged on a case by case basis. Pedigree and award history doesn't come into play. And by the way, Riseborough does have a history in that regard, not Oscar-related but still. Haley Joel Osment didn't have the 10th of Andrea's history before his nomination. Remember him? 3. Not uncommon. Campaigns fall within the rules of the nominating process, as even the quote in the article alluded to it that John read. 4. And why would they "go that hard" in favour of a performance, do you think? 5. I don't really see a point in there. 6. Rob's speculation is just that, a speculation. Whether it's true or not doesn't change the facts.
"Cliquish"... really? Studios will spend millions campaigning and going after this lady is really the hill you want to die on. Reading some of these comments seems like the twighlight zone. There are voters who the academy picks to watch(or not watch)movies that are up for the award. They then watch said movie and vote for the best. It doesn't matter one bit how many people saw your movie or what how many awards it won beforehand, nor should it.
Seem to be deliberately missing the point here. Which is the "privilege" thing. Also people , mostly, ain't blaming the actress or shutting on her performance. It's about the way the campaigners have been pushing and using friends that actresses if colour might not have. Again, ain't saying that's they whole thing, but it's a systemic issue that leads to these questions. Oh and PLENTY of people have been talking about Michelle Williams being in the wrong vatwrg6. And a fair few about Ana being the "weakest" performance of them "7". It's sad all around, whichever way you look at it
They’re all successful actresses and it’s just a Hollywood awards show. I personally think Ana De Armas should’ve been replaced with Deadwyler and then it would’ve been a great top 5 actresses. If you wanna be upset be upset at the academy, not the actress.
@@TypeLproductions That's mostly what I said again. Except it's both the Academy AND those who were, porltentially, shading the rules that are the issue. "White privilege" is what people who are upset are upset about, not the actress. Also who is "you*, I assume you mean the general "everyone" you, not me?
This guy totally doesn’t get it! NO ONE ever said her performance wasn’t worthy.. the concern was the seemingly unethical way in which her nomination was achieved. People were informed that Cate, Michelle, Viola and Danielle were LOCKED IN already so don’t worry to vote for them as your top pick.. that was categorically false and skewed the nomination process. Moreover, it is against the Oscars own policy to campaign with fellow academy members outside of the academy’s mailing framework and also to campaign artificially and aggressively on a daily basis, which was done on Andrea’s behalf. What I think this “scandal” has demonstrated though is that 1. It really isn’t solely about merit but how many industry friends you know that can tip the scales in your favour. 2. The Oscar’s is a dying institution and this may be one of the early nails in its coffin!
I like this channel, but John always walks this line of excusing shitty behavior because of his time in the industry. I think sometimes the need for sponsors and connections blinds him from some situations. I understand the argument, but I cannot agree. Just another reason to continue not watching the Oscars!
You make it sound like John was referencing some unique knowledge you think he has. That's not what he did. He was referencing someone else with professional experience, plus the Academy's own statement. No "shitty" behavior happened here. No Academy rules were broken. NONE. Period.
She and her privellage friends broke the rules. They manipulated people to get the nom and told people to vote for andrea on social media which is against Academy rules
I think why it became an issue because the 2 black actresses got dropped from the nomination list, of which at least one was considered a mortal lock. The optics for that is obviously not good that a bunch of white actresses campaigned for a white actress, leading to two black actresses getting bumped, as compared to say Michelle Williams, who really felt like a supporting performance. The controversy is that I believe there was some people who was seen discouraging people from nominating some of the of the other performances, with them being mortal locks, and supporting Andrea. That is clearly against ethical practices.
I feel sorry for her. Do people really think she's tight buddies with Edward Norton, Gwyneth Paltrow & Kate Winslet enough to ask them to go out & campaign hard for her? They did it on their own volition (all above board) after seeing her performance, which IS stellar btw. If the performance is nomination worthy, I don't see what the box-office takings have to do with it. That train of thinking shows what's fundamentally wrong with the Oscars. Academy voters SHOULD be watching ALL of the contenders, not just the ones with clout. The fact that an Oscar-worthy turn can lay totally dormant & needs to rely on Hollywood lobbying (as if it's the first time campaigning has happened), tells us everything about the fact that only those films with big-money marketing & more prominent actors are seen as relevant & deserving. Smfh. Thank you John Campea for setting the record straight & actually WATCHING THE FILM, which is more than certain other youtubers, screeching in anger about Riseborough's nom, not having seen it.
No the wife of the director of the film is buddy of them all and personally asked them to do that. I bet most of them didn't even watch the movie before tweeting those things just because their friend asked them to.
@@sekharraja9679 WTF??!! Having a watch -along party & asking fellow friends to actually see a film they haven't seen yet (something ALL voting members SHOULD be doing anyway) is NOT against the rules at all. Nothing was breached. Going by decades of hard campaigning, with similar tactics, the outrage here is...peculiar. One of many past examples of it was Leo DiCaprio, whose friends lobbied for his Oscar Lead nomination for 'The Revenant. Considering he wields the power of an A-list Hollywood star, I'm perplexed someone with his cachet warranted the extra push. Yet no offence taken there.... OK / :
Every year, there are nominations for films and/or actors that few people have seen. Screener discs are sent out to the academy's voters for review. Sometimes the voters watch them. Sometimes. Meanwhile, the vast majority of average filmgoers (non-industry folks) haven't seen the films, which are often small, independent, barely-released products. Still, nominations are made and votes are tallied. So when people are piling on the Andrea Riseborough non-scandal and saying that something is wrong here because "nobody saw the film", it is extremely disingenuous. This is not an unusual situation in the slightest. The detail that seems to have upset people the most is that her industry friends went a little bit beyond the norm in the way they took to social media to sing the praises, and it seems to have rubbed people the wrong way. The whole thing is much ado about nothing. Side note: a few days ago when this story first broke, people in the media were saying this was going to be the end of Andrea Riseborough's career, that her self-promotion tactics were beyond the pale. But the more I learn about what's really going on, the more I believe this is going to be a huge boost to her career. Her acting is getting long overdue attention.
Honestly i wish there were people of color in his shows that are well versed in Movies, he is just so scared when it comes to diving into this type of topic discussion when we all know it's privilege's no matter if she acted her butt off. It's her connections that she was able to get the film in the right eyes to give her the nom.
She’s not racebaiting. The movie was not picked up by any studio or streaming service. It had a one week run and made $27,000. That means no one saw it or gave enough word of mouth. They cheated. Period.
Don’t think it’s racebaiting to ask for more diverse people in coversations, she didn’t say that it’s not valid or they’re completely wrong. Just wishing that there was more layers to the conversation. Not every disagreement or pointing out the obvious is a huge crime
I really like Riseborough’s performance in To Leslie, and most deserving of an Oscar nomination, but I was over sold a bit when celebrities like Kate Winslet calling it the best performance of all time. Although Riseborough’s performance is very good, it doesn’t really bring anything new for that particular role (someone struggling with addiction) that we’ve already seen so many times before. It felt very similar to Anne Hathaway’s performance in Rachael Getting Married. I think any well accomplished actress would have given a very similar performance in comparison to Riseborough’s. Amy Adams would have brought out either the same or a very similar performance from the same role, just saying.
Everyone just discovering Andrea now...but those of us who saw "Mandy" have had our eye on her for at least a few years now. Her getting a nomination isn't surprising in the least.
And she totally knocked it out of the park as the hairdresser in Battle of the Sexes. I walked out of that movie and was bowled over by her supporting performance there. I’m looking forward to finally seeing To Leslie very soon. She’s such a great actress!
I don't know how intentionally Frances Fisher made the mistake of naming two specific actresses, but what the director wrote is just stupid and pathetic. And why can someone spend millions but you can't ask friends to help. And what about strange campaign for Brendan Fraser, who somehow became "forgotten great thespian"(I always loved him for what he was)
At this point, it's not about whether she deserves the nomination or not. That's not the point. It's about were rules broken to get her nominated? That's what the academy has to decide.
@@johncampea According to Steven McIntosh, a Entertainment reporter for the BBC news: "The issue of whether Academy rules were broken by some of those advocating for Riseborough comes down to a few specific posts which not only championed her, but also made reference to her competitors - something which is strictly forbidden by the academy". She may not be punished for it's but it's clear as day the people supporting her may have broken some guidelines to get her nominated 🤷.
@@c.b.5487 But they were not made by official reps of the movie. Any actor can write and tweet whatever they want. This is why the official statement by the acadmey and Deadline speicifically point out that the Academy is looking at if they need to CHANGE their rules.
Side note: this film takes place in West Texas but due to the pandemic it had to be shot in the LA area. As someone born & raised in West Texas… damn they nailed the look, vibe, the people.
@@AdamPaulStone What do you think about Andrea's accent? She's a british lady and it was remarkable to see her fake an accent of West Texas. Then again i'm interest in seeing what West Texas people like you have to say about her accent
@@Fl0k5ser to be honest she was more doing a “basic Texas” accent. West Texans have a different sound/vocabulary. But I haven’t really heard anyone nail it in a film other. Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water and Tommy Lee Jones in No Country (he’s a Texan) But a film like Vengeance those actors aren’t even doing a Texas accent but more of a generic southern accent. It’s sorta been my mission as a writer/Director myself to bring west Texas stories to life… so I kinda get nerdy about it all lol
I really like Riseborough’s performance in To Leslie, and most deserving of an Oscar nomination, but I was over sold a bit when celebrities like Kate Winslet calling it the best performance of all time. Although Riseborough’s performance is very good, it doesn’t really bring anything new for that particular role (someone struggling with addiction) that we’ve already seen so many times before. It felt very similar to Anne Hathaway’s performance in Rachael Getting Married. I think any well accomplished actress would have given a very similar performance in comparison to Riseborough’s. Amy Adams would have brought out either the same or very similar performance for the same role, just saying.
Bro what is this take by John?? Does he not realize Michelle Yeoh is THE front runner with cate Blanchette rn?? Bro is so lost when he talks about award season. I’m a huge John campea show fan I watch it everyday. But I gotta call him out when he’s wrong. Also everyone is mad that Ana de armas got nominated, that was a huge upset with people who follow awards season
@@joshendley bro mentioned how everyone but cate blanchett (who he thinks should win, which is hypocritical to his own point) could be seen as “taking a spot from someone” because if he’s gunna say that everyone else’s performance could be seen as that at least 1. Say that about all the actresses not just the ones he doesn’t think can win (which again his hypocritical to his own point) and 2. Learn that Michelle yeoh is in the top two win the award and very well might
The stupid thing about all this is that the whole Oscar campaign system does need looking at - studios spend a lot taking out ads, getting those names out there, etc. this one has just been a grassroots campaign. If anything, everyone should be annoyed at the other candidates.
Let's just say what I'm pretty sure we're all really thinking about this--and I hate to say it cause I'm a fan and she's talented--but HOW did Ana de Armas get a nomination based on that performance in 'Blonde'????🤔I mean, the actress from 'Till' definitely brought in a stronger performance than THAT. Seriously, HOW??🤔
The actress herself didnt do anything, yes. But OTHER people did, including the wife of the director of the movie. They broke rules like mentioning other actresses while telling people to vote for her. Like yes, small movies dont always get recognized by awards seasons, that happens a lot. But the solution isnt to get your big hollywood friends to tell everyone to vote for you. Especially bc her performance wasnt anything new. A mom with a drug problem, seen in many movies before.
Oh really? If you think Andrea shouldn't have been nominated because it's the same character we've seen before, may I remind you that this is the same award show who gave the character Vito Corleone, Joker and West Side Story's Anita for two actors with different portrayals of the character?? 😂
I think Rodolfo meant that de Armas getting into those precursor awards was a sign that she was likely getting one of the those five Oscar slots. Riseborough did not get into those aforementioned awards nor at Critics’ Choice either, so that is part of why her Oscar nom was a surprise.
You weren’t even talking about this film until now. She doesn’t deserve it because no one heard about this film. It grossed $27,000, that’s barely a drop in the bucket.
@@rivaxbcz9227 the fact you want to say the acting is amazing is secondary to the fact that people have to watch said movie to even consider it. And while if all her friends promoted prior to award nomination season I would completely agree with you. But they didn’t and instead campaigned for her from either the director or the directors wife or the actresses request. You’re an idiot. And seriously just have a hard on for the actress or maybe just maybe you’re one of those three people I just mentioned in this comment
@@stoplying7505 The popularity of a movie is obviously completely irrelevant to whether an actor in it gets nominated. If it wasn't then the MCU would have nominees each year. The movie doesn't even have to be good overall for an actor performance to stand out either. The obscurity of a film also means nothing for the voting since they send out screeners. Your argument just made no sense.
One of production companies of this movie is is named Shaken Not Stirred. I am one first people who like to see Andrea Riseborough as Bond girl for a lot of years. I hope for example The Searchers will release ''To Leslie'' in The Netherlands & Belgium on BD (& DVD).
Idk I think John had a couple sketchy opinions but at the end of the day I see a bunch of people with opinions about a movie they haven't seen. If the story was that she got this nomination and her role was average that'd be one thing but supposedly she's great. Couldn't imagine shouting white privilege and racism without seeing the movie. Probably not a popular opinion but I think Angela Bassett mostly just got her nomination because of optics. I thought she was great but at the end of the day marvel movie writing is only so great. However many friends this lady I never heard of with the movie that sold no tickets may have can't compare to the type of campaigning marvel can do. Lastly if we're judging books by their covers woman king seems really generic and it's awkward to think about the scandal with the way they changed a true story.
But the important part of your argument is you need to watch there performance. Angela Davis’s performance was watched by millions of people. You can’t garner a nomination if no one watched your film. You haven’t even heard of her film until now. I completely disagree with Angela Davis got the nom out of optics. Her performance saved that film.
If people would stop complaining and actually see ‘To Leslie’ people will realize this is an amazing performance and she deserves to be nominated for best actress. Great video, John. I agree with you 100 percent
I really like Riseborough’s performance in To Leslie, and most deserving of an Oscar nomination, but I was over sold a bit when celebrities like Kate Winslet calling it the best performance of all time. Although Riseborough’s performance is very good, it doesn’t really bring anything new for that particular role (someone struggling with addiction) that we’ve already seen so many times before. It felt very similar to Anne Hathaway’s performance in Rachael Getting Married. I think any well accomplished actress would have given a very similar performance in comparison to Riseborough’s. Amy Adams would have brought out either the same or a very similar performance from the same role, just saying.
@@44r0n-9 Nah, that's not what he means. He means that if you're of the opinion that she did not deserve the nomination it's because your opinion is wrong. Saying that all film is subjective is a way to minimize other's arguments.
I not saying you cant like Ander Risborough performance but I wonder if anyone who complaining actually watch all 5 movies the actress where in if not then rather the saying it is a conspiracy or agenda please shut up
Before this comment section becomes toxic, You all need to know one thing. Andrea got her team to campaign for her nomination the same way Harvey Weinstein used to do it. Her film wasn't screened periodically over the last few months for the academy members to get a chance to watch and actually decide if she deserved one based on merit, like they would in a regular Oscar campaign. She got her VERY famous & well-connected friends (Mary Mccormack & Cate Blanchett) to use peer pressure on the academy members to secure nomination at the expense of two actresses who happen to be of color, which is an extra slap in the face... Furthermore, publications have been reporting that actors who were campaigning for Andrea had private screenings in their homes at the last minute for the Academy Members, But there are over 9,000 members in total. It is highly unlikely that the vast majority of eligible voters actually got to see her performance and determined if she actually deserved one based on merit. Let's just be real here, peer pressure from those VERY well-connected actors did the majority of the campaigning.
Mia Goth's performance in Pearl is 10X MORE deserving of an Oscar Nomination than Andrea Riseborough. She was incredible in that character. It sounds like the Academy has been doing some shady backroom deals again.
Oh God, 10X???? How did the academy didnt realice it was 10X??? This is so strange, the precise math that determines the ones nominated never failed before.
@@williamwhite3774 irrelevant to my point. I don't care whether its her or anyone else. I do care about the rules and cheating even if she deserves it. And im not saying she doesn't.
The truth is a movie or an actor's performance, should not be judged by the amount of money it made or didn't made. If it was good or great, it should be nominated. That's what awards are for.
While that sounds very innocent and honest at it’s core. You’re talking about a film NO ONE knew about. It’s grossed $27,000 no matter how good a persons role is, people need to watch that performance. I haven’t and I know millions of other people haven’t, and the fact this publicity JUST started around the Oscar race just further proves the suspiciousness. No one promoted the film until now. And that’s the problem
It's considered because box office means that people saw it and people who didnt have to be influenced and saw it fr their own free will. Not "you have to watch To Leslie". You shoved it to my face.
@@stoplying7505 How could it gross more when it wasn't picked up by studios so it wasn't released in theaters in US? Box office also depends on marketing. Shall we look for example at Till?? Over 2000 theaters, a very powerful story, it made under 10 million. The budget is over 20 million, so a total bomb. Should that disqualify the performances in it??
@@Bayard1503 it was released in theaters limited and only grossed 25,000. You are lauding a movie NO ONE watched. Just because you like it doesn’t mean it deserves the nomination. I don’t care if you’re telling me Till bombed. More people watched that film than To Leslie by a landslide. You want to say performance should stand on its own. But if no one watched it then how can you be nominated for it? Make it make sense idiot
I have not seen TO LESLIE so I make no comment re: Andrea Riseborough. All I will say is that the people crying foul that Viola Davis should've been nominated for Best Actress probably didn't even watch THE WOMAN KING. People want to drum up controversy where there really isn't any. 🤨
No.. The fact that viola and Danielle were practically nominated everywhere else, which is an indication of where the nominations for Oscar’s were likely to go.. but they were somehow excluded in this instance when a bunch of A List influencers pushed their gal instead.. is the issue!
@@SeanHosein Optics are suspect, not going to argue that. I'm just one person, but as a regular moviegoer, I felt Viola Davis' performance in THE WOMAN KING was adequate, not really worth Oscar consideration. Again, have not seen Andrea's nor Danielle's performances so can't comment on who deserved the slot more, but the rallying cry for Viola Davis' omission...I don't get it. I just didn't see it as a contender for Best Actress. 😕
@@CzarsSalad And yet again, another person that has yet to actually read the official rules. They violated 4+ different rules that all who they weight of a year suspension or more. Anyways, I hope the Last of Us viewership ruins them. They let it slide knowing yet are giving them all slaps of the risk. Andrea kinda innocent though, as much as we do actually know and have been told.
@Chester Bullock I read that the only real violation they looked into was her friend mentioning the competition by name. That was an infraction but I heard it wasn't likely to get her in trouble because it wasn't her. Haven't really followed up much but I know the investigation didn't find any thing. What's these other infractions you heard she committed?
I haven’t seen this movie yet either (but that’s only because it’s not available in my country yet), but if her performance really is as good as John says it is I’m gonna see it ASAP (also, I feel like To Leslie & last night’s terrific The Last Of Us episode sounds like a very sad double-feature lol)
It will effect her career because nepotism is a huge issue right now. And the fact Andrea and her director used there influence to take a nomination away from other actors that were more visible and garnered far more viewership of there film is going to create issue further for her. This is unwanted spotlight. I wouldn’t be surprised if the director and his actress wife ever get a job in Hollywood again.
The only people complaining about this kinda stuff are the “film fans” who actually only care about comic book movies and other pop culture based films and get upset if anyone says anything negative about them.
He can't even get her name right. And this is the same dude who said Black Adam was good and that according to his assessments the sequel will do much more at the box office. 🤪
Hello- Kris' comment about the Benedict Cumberbatch film The Electrical Life of Wain doesn't quite work. the film about Wain played the Angelika Film Center in Manhattan for several weeks. in other words if you read say the N Y Times everyday you knew of the film's existence. but in the case of To Leslie its first the film mentioned amongst the 20 acting noms that i had never heard of. so even if nothing illegal per se went on I have a feeling something quasi unethical did.
Move Michelle to SUPPORTING and bump Ana, there was definitely room for Danielle and Viola, or if not Viola someone else. Danielle should have been an ABSOLUTE LOCK. Period.
It drives me crazy how you keep mispronouncing her name as Andrea "RISEN-brow". It is RISE-burrow. And to think you raved about her performance! It's almost enough to persuade me that you calling Viola "Olivia" and referencing Octavia Spencer (who isn't even in the running for any performance this year) is just a case of senility, and not a racial micro aggression.
@@daytoy agreed. And the way they brush over there microgressions shows they aren’t trying to correct there ways. It shows because it still continues to happen.
@@johncampea what John? Her campaign sent emails everyday. That’s breaking the rules of one a week. People connected to her campaign name checked others. Thus breaking the rules. You really think she wasn’t connected to her campaign at all. Like she was just so nonchalant that she just didn’t realize the wife of her director was running her awards campaign. Come on bro. All the nominations are gotten by campaigning. You really think she’s the only one that didn’t know about her own campaign
While Till is a very important story it’s not a very good movie and it feels like a lot of opinions on Danielle Deadwyler’s performance are getting conflated with the actual story. She’s good but not particularly wonderful in a not so good movie about a serious and important story and it just feels like nobody wants to say that from fear of being labeled as racist or worse. Haven’t seen woman king…I find Viola Davis to be insufferable.
@@ikexbankai it felt like I could see her acting…just my opinion and how I saw it…here’s a sad scene so I’m going to cry…just how I saw it. I could see acting.
@@OurQuietDesperation well to be fair her character’s son was killed. Idk if you ever close a really close family member but I can say from experience it would not have been overacting for her to just have been walking around crying. No one watched the show but last year, as in 2021, there was a show about Till on ABC. I watched that show and thought the woman that played the mom should have won every Emmy possible. So I was thinking Danielle killing but not better than the tv show. UNTIL the movie got to the court room scene and she’s on the stand. What she did on there damn near beats every Cate did in Tar to me.
@@ikexbankai My father died when I was 9 and my mother passed 6 years ago. Grief isn't a competition. I'm simply saying I think I saw her acting a lot in the movie. It's a role that screams "look at me" due to the weight of the subject matter and IMO she took full advantage of it in her performance. IMO Cate Blanchett should win and that's unfortunate for Michelle Yeoh(EEAAO was the best movie of the year) because another year and this award would be her's.
I hope if the Academy does revoke Andrea Riseborough’s nomination that every other nominee boycotts the ceremony; and that every other past winner grinds their OSCARs into finite power because that is all they will be worth at that point!
@@da96103 What makes you think she will never be nominated? If she can give an award worthy performance, then that's fine. After all, Harvey Weinstein has cheated a lot at the Oscars and yet he can still be nominated anyways until he was expelled
This Oscar nomination over Danielle Deadwyler and Viola Davis is like the Grammy’s nominating a SoundCloud artist with a decent song to Record of the Year over a Beyonce or Taylor Swift “like” artist.
@@tamilselvam Yes actually I did but admittedly I only watched it initially because of my love for the director Michael Morris (Preacher, Better Call Saul) To Leslie is actually not bad, it’s a quaint beautifully pieced together emotional roller coaster of a film, with many cliches over used plot devices and tropes but overall Andrea’s performance is what sells the movie for me. Which is why I compared “To Leslie”and her performance to an SoundCloud artist with a DECENT song to record of the year because it’s quite rare to see someone “seemingly” with no machine behind the movie and box office appeal best out Two performances that were talked about all year despite the Controversy and heaviness of the movies both actresses starred in.
