How Harvey Weinstein screwed up the Oscars
Miramax, under Weinstein's leadership, turned Oscar season into a year-round endeavor. Long before the official campaigns began, they would strategically release films at film festivals. They would generate early buzz. They would create a sense of inevitability. This early momentum was crucial. It set the stage for the months of campaigning to follow.
Weinstein's "For Your Consideration" campaigns were not simply advertisements. They were carefully crafted narratives. He understood the power of storytelling. He would highlight specific scenes that tugged at the heartstrings. He would emphasize the social relevance of his films. He would create a sense of urgency. Voters felt they were not just choosing a film. They were making a statement.
His personal lobbying was legendary. He would host intimate dinners. He would attend countless screenings. He would engage in one-on-one conversations with Academy members. He was charming. He was persuasive. He knew how to make people feel important. He understood that personal connections mattered. He made sure Academy members felt a connection to his films.
The sheer volume of his campaigning was also a key factor. He saturated the market with his message. He made it impossible to ignore his films. This relentless approach created a sense of momentum. It made his films seem like the obvious choices.
The success of films like "Shakespeare in Love" and "The English Patient" validated his methods. These victories created a ripple effect. Other studios began to emulate his tactics. Oscar campaigns became a battle of attrition. The studio with the deepest pockets and the most aggressive strategy often prevailed.
The accusations against Weinstein exposed the dark side of his power. They revealed a culture of abuse and manipulation. They showed how his influence extended beyond the realm of filmmaking. His actions cast a shadow over the Oscars. They forced the Academy to confront its own complicity.
The Academy's decision to expel Weinstein was a symbolic act. It signaled a shift in the industry. It represented a rejection of his methods. It opened the door for change. The Oscars began to grapple with issues of diversity, inclusion, and ethical conduct.
The aftermath of the Weinstein scandal led to a broader conversation about the role of money and influence in the Oscars. There was a push for greater transparency in the voting process. There was a desire to create a more level playing field. The Oscars began to evolve.
The impact of Weinstein's actions will continue to be felt for years to come. He changed the way movies are campaigned for. He exposed the vulnerabilities of the awards system. He forced the industry to confront its own demons. The Oscars are now trying to be more reflective of artistic merit and less beholden to powerful individuals.
Brooks Barnes, “The Weinstein Legacy: How One Man Changed Hollywood,” The New York Times, October 11, 2017. Nicole Sperling, “How Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar Machine Changed the Game,” Entertainment Weekly, October 10, 2017. “Academy Expels Harvey Weinstein,” AP News, October 14, 2017. Ben Fritz, “Weinstein’s Oscar Tactics: How He Won and What Changed,” The Wall Street Journal, October 10, 2017. Jill Serjeant, “Harvey Weinstein expelled from Oscars Academy,” Reuters, October 14, 2017. Gabriel Rossman, “The Oscar Complex: How Hollywood’s Biggest Award Really Works,” Princeton University Press, 2016. Anne Thompson, “Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar Impact Still Felt in a Changed Academy,” IndieWire, October 5, 2022. Manohla Dargis, “The Weinstein Effect: A Reckoning in Hollywood,” The New York Times, December 27, 2017.
