Why Didn’t Netflix Check Karla Sofía Gascón’s Twitter History?

by

The Internet never forgets.

Apparently, Oscar strategists do.

Six years following the resurfacing of controversial tweets by “Green Book” writer-producer Nick Vallelonga, which criticized Muslims, the star of “Emilia Pérez,” Karla Sofía Gascón, is facing backlash for her own social media posts. These posts targeted various topics, including Islam, George Floyd, and Oscars diversity. In a surprising turn, it appears that Netflix did not check Gascón’s social media history beforehand — neither did anyone else involved in the film or the actor’s team. This lack of vetting, as eight awards veterans and communications experts told EbMaster anonymously, is a significant oversight for a major Oscar campaign.

Even though everyone makes errors, it’s crucial to stay vigilant when dealing with someone unpredictable like her, as a single misstep by anyone in such a position can potentially bring down the entire campaign.

Gascón, whose contentious social media posts from approximately four years ago, written in Spanish, are well-known, has a reputation for being vocal and has faced issues during this year’s intense competition by accusing the social media team of fellow best actress nominee Fernanda Torres (“I’m Still Here”) of attempting to undermine her work and “Emilia Pérez.” Some professionals who aim to keep potential scandals hidden so that films and performances are evaluated based on their merit instead of a questionable past, are taken aback by Netflix, which chose not to respond, for not investing a minimal amount to keep “Emilia Pérez,” this year’s most nominated film, from veering off course.

It’s far less expensive to check a nominee’s social media history and remove any offensive content than it is to win over Oscar voters through exclusive screenings, advertisements, and extravagant events – which can total $30 million or more, according to those in the know about campaign expenses. The cost of vetting varies from $5,000 to $20,000, depending on how active a candidate is online.

The debate underscores how unstable social media can be during award seasons, affecting both potential nominees and studios spending vast sums to get them to the Dolby Theater. Gascón isn’t the only one who has had their Oscar aspirations tarnished by inappropriate social media content. As far back as December 2018, Kevin Hart relinquished his role as Oscars host due to resurfaced tweets that disparaged the LGBTQ+ community, causing a stir.

In recent years, both Hollywood celebrities and media personalities have faced consequences due to controversial comments made on their old social media posts. A notable example is James Gunn, who was dismissed from directing “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” by Disney in 2018 after his past jokes about sensitive topics like the Holocaust and pedophilia resurfaced online. He was eventually reinstated following support from colleagues, but the incident left a lasting impact on him. Similarly, ABC fired Roseanne Barr and canceled her sitcom that year due to a tweet where she likened Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett to an ape; Barr later apologized, but her character was written off the show, and it continued without her as “The Connors.” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was also compelled to issue an apology in 2018 after offensive tweets she made about homosexuality in 2011 were brought to light by the Log Cabin Republicans.

In this setting, numerous media firms strive to anticipate potential issues with their talent collaborations, adopting a “no hidden surprises” policy. As illustrated by one awards strategist, prior to initiating a campaign, they discuss any possible controversies with potential nominees, focusing on whether there are skeletons in their closet that could surface during the season. This approach was emphasized for Gascón, who, being the first openly trans person nominated for an acting Oscar, found herself under increased scrutiny and essentially wearing a bullseye.

The strategist pointed out that if you’re a ‘first’, you’ll face increased scrutiny, which is basic PR knowledge. This means checking someone’s social media for potential issues, and in this case, the problems could have been addressed months earlier.

However, some individuals, who operate discreetly to aid studios in achieving their Academy Award aspirations, contend that Gascón might not have been considered a candidate requiring close scrutiny.

As a cinephile, I’d rephrase that statement as follows: “I’ve learned from my insights into Hollywood’s selection processes that individuals who often post harmful comments typically don’t belong to the LGBTQ+ community. This person, however, does, which sets her apart from the usual stereotype since she’s part of a group that is legally protected.

However, this line of thought reveals an inherent bias within Hollywood, a bias that underscores the ongoing presence of racism, nepotism, and elitism in the industry. In this instance, the idea that nominating Gascón would foster progress instead resulted in oversights, or blindspots.

Another industry expert in awarding veterans acknowledged that they had never conducted any type of background checks on the actors and filmmakers they collaborate with. However, they harbored suspicions that this might need to be adjusted following the Gascón controversy, suggesting a potential shift in their practices.

Occasionally, someone might share something controversial about another candidate or make statements that upset people during the campaign, and you need to handle such situations. However, this seems different. Yet, is it our responsibility to conduct a background check? Our role is to aid a film in gaining nominations, not to scrutinize past social media posts.

Some experts argued that Netflix could have conducted a more thorough investigation before purchasing “Emilia Pérez” at the Cannes Film Festival, while others contended it was up to the film’s producers to uncover any potential problems with Gascón or her fellow actors that might negatively impact the movie’s debut and marketing. It appears that according to one report, the creators of “Emilia Pérez” were not active on social media and hadn’t even considered the possibility that Gascón was expressing hateful views on such platforms.

In a similar fashion to Fox Searchlight’s predicament following their acquisition of “The Birth of a Nation” at Sundance in 2016, the circumstances surrounding “Emilia Pérez” have been compared to a situation that proved challenging. Initially, plans for a significant Oscar campaign were underway, but these fell apart when it was revealed that the film’s director and lead actor, Nate Parker, had been accused of rape in 1999. The woman who made the accusations tragically took her own life in 2012. Despite Parker being found not guilty and the conviction of the movie’s co-writer Jean McGianni Celestin being overturned, the scandal significantly impacted the film, which ultimately flopped at the box office.

Following the event, there were many comments about needing to exercise greater caution in these acquisitions, one strategist noted. However, I’m not entirely convinced that things have actually changed in this regard. (It’s important to mention that after the star of “Magazine Dreams,” Jonathan Majors, was arrested and convicted for harassment and assault of his ex-girlfriend, Searchlight decided not to proceed with the film.)

It’s possible that personal publicists who specialize in mitigating PR risks for their clients might share some accountability, as others argue they should have been aware of their client’s social media presence. In this case, Gascón is represented by Lede and UTA, neither of whom responded to requests for comment.

The personal publicists who handle PR risks for their clients might bear some responsibility, as some argue they should have been informed about their client’s social media activity. Gascón is represented by both Lede and UTA, neither of whom chose to comment on the matter.

On Thursday, Gascón deactivated her X account and expressed remorse, stating, “I sincerely apologize to those I’ve hurt.” However, some awards strategists and PR experts question whether this apology alone will suffice to mitigate the fallout. They advise the rest of the “Emilia Pérez” cast and crew to publicly distance themselves from the star and make it clear that they disavow her views.

It remains uncertain if the online blunders committed by Gascón will jeopardize her chances of winning an Oscar or negatively impact the film’s prospects for receiving the coveted Best Picture award, which has so far eluded Netflix despite its significant financial investments. However, she is still slated to receive the Virtuosos Award from the Santa Barbara Film Festival and is also a nominee for the Critics Choice and SAG Awards. Previous instances of social media scandals have sparked their own backlash; for instance, Vallelonga won two Oscars for “Green Book,” as both a screenwriter and a producer, despite posting a single offensive tweet.

Over the past week, Netflix has been joyfully announcing that “Emilia Pérez” earned 13 nominations, including a groundbreaking recognition for Gascón. However, now Netflix is in crisis management, striving to repair the movie’s campaign and preserve its potential to create history.

One strategist expressed concern, saying, ‘They can only cross their fingers and pray that Karla didn’t inadvertently provide the Oscar voters with a compelling reason to vote against their film.’ The aim is for people to be thrilled with their decision, not embarrassed.

Elsa Keslassy contributed to this report.

Read More

2025-01-31 22:49