Harvey Weinstein’s legacy of Oscar manipulation tactics didn’t die with his downfall.
Instead, it’s been amplified by the rise of streaming platforms.
Academy Awards are seemingly awarded based on marketing budget, not merit. While this has long been the case, streaming platforms, more specifically Netflix, have greatly exacerbated this issue. The Oscars have become even more vulnerable to manipulation and aggressive marketing tactics.
Entertainment Weekly published an article revealing four anonymous voters’ choices. All four abstained from voting for “Dune: Part Two” for Best Picture. One voter admitted, “The first ‘Dune’, I couldn’t get through; I’m not rushing for another three hours of ‘Dune.’”
Another voter said they were abstaining from ranking “Dune: Part Two” and “Nickel Boys” because they “know nothing about ‘Nickel Boys’ at all, so it seems unfair to me, and ‘Dune,’ I haven’t seen either one.”
Variety reported that two voters refused to vote for Ralph Fiennes because “he had won before.”
Fiennes has never won an Oscar.
Instead, they voted for Adrien Brody, who actually has.
“Emilia Pérez” earned 13 nominations, making it one of the second-most nominated films in Oscar history, a distinction shared by only 11 films. Yet, among them, it stands out with the lowest Rotten Tomatoes audience score at 16%, the fewest wins among films with that many nominations — and for simply not being very good.
How was Netflix able to get this film so many nominations?
By using guerrilla marketing straight out of Harvey Weinstein’s playbook. Or rather, by hiring the person who helped write his playbook.
If there’s one person who knows how to secure an Oscar, it’s Lisa Taback. Netflix hired Taback, Weinstein’s former star strategist to lead its awards team in 2018.
Taback is best known for spearheading the famous — and crazy — “Shakespeare in Love” Best Picture win over “Saving Private Ryan.” Among many other achievements, she played a key role in campaigns for “La La Land,” “Moonlight” and Greta Gerwig’s historic Best Director nomination — the fifth woman ever recognized in the category.
Now, with a team of 60 strategists and a seemingly blank check from Netflix, Taback’s team has helped Netflix dominate the Oscars, tying for the most nominations of any studio every year since 2020.
Streaming platforms have reshaped the entertainment industry as a whole, and now they are coming for the Oscars to solidify their place.
Netflix reportedly spent between $40 million and $60 million on “Roma’s” 2019 campaign, the most expensive reported campaign in history. Typically, Oscar campaign budgets range from $3 million to $15 million.
An anonymous Academy member admitted that some peers ended up ranking “Roma” low on their ballots simply because they didn’t want Netflix to win, fearing streaming’s impact on movie distribution and “the message that was going to send to the industry.”
That was in 2019. Now streaming’s takeover seems to be becoming more inevitable every year, with more streaming services developing their own content and setting their sights on winning awards.
Though “Roma” lost Best Picture in 2019, Apple TV+ made history in 2022 with “CODA” as the first streaming film to win Best Picture. This year, Netflix poured an estimated $32 million into “Emilia Pérez”, almost twice Neon’s “Anora” campaign budget, which still secured the win.
Despite 10 Best Picture nominations, Netflix has yet to claim the prize, but this fear of streaming blockade won’t hold forever.
Netflix’s past controversies, like the Golden Globes scandal surrounding “Emily in Paris,” where they sent a quarter of the voters to luxury hotels and meals in Paris paid for by the company, highlight how easily money and influence can sway awards.
If Netflix could influence the 87-member Hollywood Foreign Press Association, it’s only a matter of time before it cracks the Academy’s over 9,000-voter body. They have clearly mastered the nomination part, so it’s just a matter of time before the Oscars fully surrender to streaming.
Awards aren’t about quality, and they never have been.
The question isn’t what’s the best film, but which film spreads the best marketing narratives.
Other questions about the movies’ cultural significance and whether the actor deserves the award also arise. Isabella Rossellini’s nomination for a six-minute Conclave role, which was clearly more about legacy than performance, proves this.
Ultimately, “Emilia Pérez” failed to secure Best Picture, likely due to well-timed exposés on its actor and director’s past controversies, which was almost certainly the work of rival campaigners. But who’s to say it wouldn’t have won without the scandal?
Netflix and Lisa Taback have cracked nominations, and a Best Picture win is only a matter of time.
With streaming services rapidly following their lead, the shift in balance of power away from traditional studios isn’t just changing Oscar races — it’s redefining the entire future of film. If this continues, will cinemas be able to hold onto their place in the future of film?
