Academy hands new Oscars rules to Leslie and everybody else

As we all know, the small, character-actor-populated drama, To Leslie broke the Oscars last year. Reportedly costing less than $1 million to produce, the movie follows an alcoholic single mother who wins the lottery and blows it all before finding a second chance by running a motel. But the film’s content wasn’t the issue. A little character drama starring a respected actor like Andrea Riseborough won’t be the first to get some Oscar love. Unfortunately, her friends were the problem, raising the obvious question: If all your friends nominated To Leslie, would you nominate To Leslie, too? Campaigning on the film’s behalf, celebrities and Oscar winners Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Winslet puffed up the film, hosting screenings and plugging it on the red carpet. It raised To Leslie’s profile enough to earn Riseborough a last-minute Best Actress nomination, causing everyone who spent millions on billboards, screeners, and all the other Oscar pollution that comes with awards season to lose their collective minds.

So the Oscars intervened. Earlier today, the Academy pulled a Bill Maher and released new rules for next year’s ceremonies to prevent another To Leslie from spoiling a slot meant for Mia Goth’s performance in Pearl. The main issues were social media and screenings. While the Academy reviewed To Leslie’s online campaign, they ultimately decided it was above board. Still, the Academy laid out more explicit rules about campaigning on behalf of films. Now, voters cannot “encourage” or “lobby” other members “outside of the scope of these promotion regulations to advance a motion picture, performance, or achievement,” putting even more weight on the words “for your consideration.”

Screenings received more concrete regulations, too. Celebrities like Paltrow can throw a maximum of four screenings in a film’s honor before nominations and zero after. These For Your Consideration (FYC) screenings “may not be paid for or promoted as being affiliated with third parties, brands, or sponsors—this includes third party, brand, or sponsor mentions on invitations.” However, “private events” not branded as functions are totally kosher. As long as the host isn’t sending them out through the Academy’s mailing houses and no movie company is sponsoring the event, Paltrow can throw as many To Leslie parties as she damn well pleases.

Panels and Q&As were also up for a refresh. Rather than hammering home the banishment of the phrase as “this is more of a comment than a question,” the new rules forbid Academy members not “directly associated” with the film from moderating panels after nominations. The rules continue, “At no time during the awards process may Academy Governors host screenings or moderate a Q&A or panel discussion unless directly associated with the motion picture or the Q&A or panel discussion is produced or hosted by the Academy.”

The new rules also seemingly end the yearly cycle of interviews with anonymous voters where they say mean things about the nominees, which, to be fair, is our job. “You may not share your voting decisions at any point. You may not discuss your voting preferences and other members’ voting preferences in a public forum,” the rules state. “This includes comparing or ranking motion pictures, performances, or achievements in relation to voting. This also includes speaking with press anonymously.”

So ends To Leslie’s reign of terror. It’s a scary thing when voting members of the Academy band together to champion a movie that cost less than a million dollars. That’s enough of that, then.