Connect with us

Business

Beyond 'Emilia Pérez': Inside 7 of the nastiest Oscar campaigns in history

Published

on

Beyond 'Emilia Pérez': Inside 7 of the nastiest Oscar campaigns in history

By the time “Emilia Pérez” had garnered 13 Oscar nominations, including for best picture, Netflix’s Spanish-language musical about a transgender drug lord had already been mired in controversy. Critics skewered the film’s portrayal of trans issues and Mexican culture.

Then Karla Sofía Gascón’s old social media posts resurfaced in which the first out trans performer to receive a lead actress nod maligned Muslims, George Floyd and diversity and seemed to body-shame the singer Adele.

Gascón apologized, deactivated her X account and then went on the defensive, sometimes tearfully, in an interview with CNN en Español, on her Instagram account and in a letter to the Hollywood Reporter in which she denounced “this campaign of hate.”

After the social media storm erupted, during a talk on podcast “The Town,” Netflix chief content officer Bela Bajaria called the controversy “a bummer” that distracted from the film and its accolades. Gascón has largely been sidelined from the movie’s awards drive.

Yes, it’s Oscar season, where the road to the red carpet is often littered with unforced errors, smear campaigns, opposition research and sometimes dirty tricks in efforts to undermine if not outright torpedo the front-runners’ chances.

Advertisement

The Academy Awards are not just an evening of self-congratulation. In addition to prestige, an Oscar is a huge publicity generator that can translate into box office grosses, home video sales and streaming viewership.

While in years past such campaigns usually were fueled by awards consultants and frequently aimed at a single movie or actor, this season has seen controversies served upon multiple contenders.

It’s not just the professional consultants and studio marketers involved in these so-called whisper campaigns. Now small armies of amateur Internet sleuths and movie fans have joined the fray, turning gripes and teapot tempests into social media scandals.

“The big difference in the last 10 years is social media fanning the flames,” said Jason E. Squire, host of “The Movie Business Podcast” and professor emeritus at USC‘s School of Cinematic Arts. “The real question is whether it impacts Oscar voters.”

In addition to the travails of Gascón, best picture nominee “The Brutalist” has been slammed for admittedly using an AI speech tool to aid stars Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones’s Hungarian language skills. Fernanda Torres, the lead actress nominee for “I’m Still Here,” came under fire for appearing in blackface on a Brazilian television show in 2008. Torres apologized.

Advertisement

Then there’s “Anora,” another best picture nominee, which was lambasted for not hiring an intimacy coordinator on set. At a London screening, Sean Baker, the film’s director, said that he had offered one to the lead actors.

With this year’s Academy Awards just weeks away, we take a look at notable controversies of the past, some of which perhaps deserve their own statuettes for spite and nastiness: putting the tin in Tinseltown.

Gwyneth Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes in “Shakespeare in Love.”

(Miramax Films)

Advertisement

“Shakespeare in Love”

Oscar year: 1999

Backstory: Steven Spielberg’s World War II epic “Saving Private Ryan” was considered the favorite, but Miramax co-founder Harvey Weinstein, known for turning awards campaigns into a blood sport, had other plans.

Controversy: “Shakespeare in Love’s” best picture win is widely seen as the capstone to one of the most controversial award campaigns in Oscar history.

Mark Gill, then Miramax‘s L.A. president, told the Hollywood Reporter, “We used the playbook for ‘The English Patient’ — turbocharged, on steroids. It was just absolutely murderous the whole way through.”

Miramax staffers called voters to make sure they had received a VHS copy of “Shakespeare in Love.” Weinstein enlisted First Lady Hillary Clinton to host the film’s world premiere in New York, unleashed a blizzard of ads, hosted parties with the film’s stars and set up screenings and private dinners with Oscar voters.

Advertisement

Weinstein also was accused of badmouthing the Spielberg film, a DreamWorks release.

Terry Press, DreamWorks’ marketing chief at the time, later said that she received calls from reporters telling her that Miramax publicists were “trying to get us to write stories saying that the only thing amazing about ‘Ryan’ is the first 20 minutes, and then after that it’s just a regular genre movie.”

And the Oscar goes to: “Shakespeare in Love” won seven Academy Awards including best picture and lead actress (Gwyneth Paltrow). “Saving Private Ryan” won five, including director (Spielberg).

A man stands, looking intense, next to a board filled with numbers

Russell Crowe played mathematical genius John Nash in “A Beautiful Mind.”

(Universal Studios)

Advertisement

“A Beautiful Mind”

Oscar year: 2002

Backstory: The life of mathematician John Nash, a Nobel laureate who triumphed over schizophrenia, was chronicled in this acclaimed Ron Howard-directed biopic, earning eight Oscar nominations, including best picture.

Controversy: A narrative caught fire with critics who began charging that the more negative parts of Nash’s life were omitted from the film. Accusations that Nash was an antisemite, adulterer and homophobe began to appear in reviews, gossip sites and news articles, prompting him to appear on “60 Minutes” to refute the claims.

Angered by the reports, Sylvia Nasar, the author of the book on which the movie was based, wrote an op-ed for The Times, rebuking journalists and saying they had “distorted” material from her book and “invented ‘facts.’”

And the Oscar goes to: “A Beautiful Mind” won four Oscars including best picture, supporting actress (Jennifer Connelly) and director (Howard).

Advertisement
Whoopi Goldberg, wearing a hat and wire-rimmed glasses, looks up from the Bible she's holding

Whoopi Goldberg in “The Color Purple.”

(Michael Ochs Archives / Getty Images)

“The Color Purple”

Oscar year: 1986

Backstory: Spielberg’s adaptation of Alice Walker’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel earned 11 nominations, including best picture, director and adapted screenplay, and was Oprah Winfrey’s film debut, garnering her a supporting actress nomination.

Controversy: When the film was released in 1985, it immediately sparked a backlash, coming under fire for its depiction of rape and stereotypical representations of Black men, a portrayal that Spike Lee decried as “one-dimensional animals.” It also faced criticism for having been directed by a white man. During a special screening in Los Angeles, the Coalition Against Black Exploitation staged a protest.

Advertisement

And the Oscar goes to: “Out of Africa” took home the best picture trophy. “The Color Purple” was shut out, vying with 1977’s “The Turning Point,” which also earned 11 nods, for the most nominated film to take home zero awards.

A man in military uniform walks with his arms around the shoulders of a woman in civilian dress.

Jessica Chastain starred in “Zero Dark Thirty.”

(Jonathan Olley / Sony Pictures Releasing)

“Zero Dark Thirty”

Oscar year: 2013

Backstory: Kathryn Bigelow directed this thriller about the decades-long manhunt for 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. military raid on his Pakistani compound where he was killed. The film received five Oscar nominations including best picture and original screenplay.

Advertisement

Controversy: When it was released, the film earned plenty of critical huzzahs, with The Times calling it “cinematic storytelling at its most effective.”

But it also drew opprobrium, with detractors taking aim at the movie’s depiction of torture and questioning its veracity. The film became a flash point for partisan bickering when critics of the Obama administration claimed that the film’s planned October release was timed to boost his reelection campaign — it was later moved to December.

There also were claims by some conservative activists that the CIA provided classified information to Bigelow and her team as they researched the film, charges that were denied by the filmmakers. A Senate inquiry into the matter was later dropped, Reuters reported.

And the Oscar goes to: “Zero Dark Thirty” took home the award for sound editing. Ben Affleck’s “Argo” won the top prize.

A white man in the driver's seat and a Black man in the back seat of a vintage car.

Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali in “Green Book.”

(Patti Perret / Universal Pictures)

Advertisement

“Green Book”

Oscar year: 2019

Backstory: The film chronicles the real-life friendship between a Black classical pianist, Donald Shirley, and Tony “Lip” Vallelonga, his Italian American driver, as they travel across the segregated South during Shirley’s concert tour in the 1960s. Directed by Peter Farrelly, it starred Mahershala Ali as Shirley and Viggo Mortensen as Vallelonga and earned five Oscar nominations including best picture.

Controversy: A swirl of charges surrounded the film, with many involving racial politics. Shirley’s family castigated the filmmakers for excluding them, saying the movie’s portrayal of Shirley as estranged from his family and the Black community was “hurtful.” They also called into question the depiction of his friendship with Vallelonga. Dr. Maurice Shirley, Donald’s brother, described the movie as a “symphony of lies.”

And the Oscar goes to: “Green Book” took best picture as well as statuettes for original screenplay and supporting actor (Ali).

Advertisement
A black-and-white movie still of a standing woman yelling at a seated woman in a bedroom.

Joan Crawford as Blanche Hudson, left, and Bette Davis as Baby Jane Hudson in ‘Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”

(Silver Screen Collection / Getty Images)

“Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”

Oscar year: 1963

Backstory: The bitter rivalry between screen legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford helped propel this film about an aging onetime child star who torments her sister, a paraplegic former actor.

Controversy: The actresses’ discord played out offscreen as Crawford actively campaigned against Davis, who earned a nomination for lead actress — her 10th and final nod.

Advertisement

Crawford, who was snubbed, ended up onstage and accepted on behalf of Anne Bancroft, who won for “The Miracle Worker,” beating Davis. Bancroft was appearing on Broadway and was unable to attend the ceremony.

And the Oscar goes to: “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane” won one Oscar, for costume design.

Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane in "Citizen Kane."

Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane in “Citizen Kane.”

(Warner Bros.)

“Citizen Kane”

Oscar year: 1942

Advertisement

Backstory: Often cited as the greatest film ever made, “Citizen Kane” tells the story of Charles Foster Kane (played by Orson Welles, who co-wrote and directed), a wealthy newspaper publisher whose death becomes a global sensation. It earned nine Oscar nominations including best picture and director.

Controversy: The movie was considered a thinly veiled swipe at real-life newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, who did not take kindly to the celluloid portrait. He attempted to blacklist it through negative press in his Hearst newspaper chain and, along with his defenders, pressured theaters not to show it.

And the Oscar goes to: “Citizen Kane” won a single Oscar, for original screenplay. “How Green Was My Valley” won best picture.

Advertisement

Business

How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers

Published

on

How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers

Welcome to the age of AI hacking, in which the right prompts make amateurs into master hackers.

A group of cybercriminals recently used off-the-shelf artificial intelligence chatbots to steal data on nearly 200 million taxpayers. The bots provided the code and ready-to-execute plans to bypass firewalls.

Although they were explicitly programmed to refuse to help hackers, the bots were duped into abetting the cybercrime.

According to a recent report from Israeli cybersecurity firm Gambit Security, hackers last month used Claude, the chatbot from Anthropic, to steal 150 gigabytes of data from Mexican government agencies.

Claude initially refused to cooperate with the hacking attempts and even denied requests to cover the hackers’ digital tracks, the experts who discovered the breach said. The group pummelled the bot with more than 1,000 prompts to bypass the safeguards and convince Claude they were allowed to test the system for vulnerabilities.

Advertisement

AI companies have been trying to create unbreakable chains on their AI models to restrain them from helping do things such as generating child sexual content or aiding in sourcing and creating weapons. They hire entire teams to try to break their own chatbots before someone else does.

But in this case, hackers continuously prompted Claude in creative ways and were able to “jailbreak” the chatbot to assist them. When they encountered problems with Claude, the hackers used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for data analysis and to learn which credentials were required to move through the system undetected.

The group used AI to find and exploit vulnerabilities, bypass defences, create backdoors and analyze data along the way to gain control of the systems before they stole 195 million identities from nine Mexican government systems, including tax records, vehicle registration as well as birth and property details.

AI “doesn’t sleep,” Curtis Simpson, chief executive of Gambit Security, said in a blog post. “It collapses the cost of sophistication to near zero.”

“No amount of prevention investment would have made this attack impossible,” he said.

Advertisement

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment. It told Bloomberg that it had banned the accounts involved and disrupted their activity after an investigation.

OpenAI said it is aware of the attack campaign carried out using Anthropic’s models against the Mexican government agencies.

“We also identified other attempts by the adversary to use our models for activities that violate our usage policies; our models refused to comply with these attempts,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement. “We have banned the accounts used by this adversary and value the outreach from Gambit Security.”

Instances of generative AI-assisted hacking are on the rise, and the threat of cyberattacks from bots acting on their own is no longer science fiction. With AI doing their bidding, novices can cause damage in moments, while experienced hackers can launch many more sophisticated attacks with much less effort.

Earlier this year, Amazon discovered that a low-skilled hacker used commercially available AI to breach 600 firewalls. Another took control of thousands of DJI robot vacuums with help from Claude, and was able to access live video feed, audio and floor plans of strangers.

Advertisement

“The kinds of things we’re seeing today are only the early signs of the kinds of things that AIs will be able to do in a few years,” said Nikola Jurkovic, an expert working on reducing risks from advanced AI. “So we need to urgently prepare.”

Late last year, Anthropic warned that society has reached an “inflection point” in AI use in cybersecurity after disrupting what the company said was a Chinese state-sponsored espionage campaign that used Claude to infiltrate 30 global targets, including financial institutions and government agencies.

Generative AI also has been used to extort companies, create realistic online profiles by North Korean operatives to secure jobs in U.S. Fortune 500 companies, run romance scams and operate a network of Russian propaganda accounts.

Over the last few years, AI models have gone from being able to manage tasks lasting only a few seconds to today’s AI agents working autonomously for many hours. AI’s capability to complete long tasks is doubling every seven months.

“We just don’t actually know what is the upper limit of AI’s capability, because no one’s made benchmarks that are difficult enough so the AI can’t do them,” said Jurkovic, who works at METR, a nonprofit that measures AI system capabilities to cause catastrophic harm to society.

Advertisement

So far, the most common use of AI for hacking has been social engineering. Large language models are used to write convincing emails to dupe people out of their money, causing an eight-fold increase in complaints from older Americans as they lost $4.9 billion in online fraud in 2025.

“The messages used to elicit a click from the target can now be generated on a per-user basis more efficiently and with fewer tell-tale signs of phishing,” such as grammatical and spelling errors, said Cliff Neuman, an associate professor of computer science at USC.

AI companies have been responding using AI to detect attacks, audit code and patch vulnerabilities.

“Ultimately, the big imbalance stems from the need of the good-actors to be secure all the time, and of the bad-actors to be right only once,” Neuman said.

The stakes around AI are rising as it infiltrates every aspect of the economy. Many are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of how to ensure it cannot be misused by bad actors or nudged to go rogue.

Advertisement

Even those at the top of the industry have warned users about the potential misuse of AI.

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has long advocated that the AI systems being built are unpredictable and difficult to control. These AIs have shown behaviors as varied as deception and blackmail, to scheming and cheating by hacking software.

Still, major AI companies — OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Google — signed contracts with the U.S. government to use their AIs in military operations.

This last week, the Pentagon directed federal agencies to phase out Claude after the company refused to back down on its demand that it wouldn’t allow its AI to be used for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.

“The AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make fully autonomous weapons,” Amodei told CBS News.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy

Published

on

iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy

The iPic dine-in movie theater chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and intends to pursue a sale of its assets, citing the difficult post-pandemic theatrical market.

The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company has 13 locations across the U.S., including in Pasadena and Westwood, according to a Feb. 25 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.

As part of the bankruptcy process, the Pasadena and Westwood theaters will be permanently closed, according to WARN Act notices filed with the state of California’s Employment Development Department.

The company came to its conclusion after “exploring a range of possible alternatives,” iPic Chief Executive Patrick Quinn said in a statement.

“We are committed to continuing our business operations with minimal impact throughout the process and will endeavor to serve our customers with the high standard of care they have come to expect from us,” he said.

Advertisement

The company will keep its current management to maintain day-to-day operations while it goes through the bankruptcy process, iPic said in the statement. The last day of employment for workers in its Pasadena and Westwood locations is April 28, according to a state WARN Act notice. The chain has 1,300 full- and part-time employees, with 193 workers in California.

The theatrical business, including the exhibition industry, still has not recovered from the pandemic’s effect on consumer behavior. Last year, overall box office revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.8 billion, up just 1.6% compared with 2024. Even more troubling is that industry revenue in 2025 was down 22.1% compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s totals.

IPic noted those trends in its bankruptcy filing, describing the changes in consumer behavior as “lasting” and blaming the rise of streaming for “fundamentally” altering the movie theater business.

“These industry shifts have directly reduced box office revenues and related ancillary revenues, including food and beverage sales,” the company stated in its bankruptcy filing.

IPic also attributed its decision to rising rents and labor costs.

Advertisement

The company estimated it owed about $141,000 in taxes and about $2.7 million in total unsecured claims. The company’s assets were valued at about $155.3 million, the majority of which coming from theater equipment and furniture. Its liabilities totaled $113.9 million.

The chain had previously filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.

Continue Reading

Business

Startup Varda Space Industries snags former Mattel plant in El Segundo

Published

on

Startup Varda Space Industries snags former Mattel plant in El Segundo

In an expansion of its business of processing pharmaceuticals in Earth’s orbit, Varda Space Industries is renting a large El Segundo plant where toy manufacturer Mattel used to design Hot Wheels and Barbie dolls.

The plant in El Segundo’s aerospace corridor will be an extension of Varda Space Industries’ headquarters in a much smaller building on nearby Aviation Boulevard.

Varda will occupy a 205,443-square-foot industrial and office campus at 2031 E. Mariposa Ave., which will give it additional capacity to manufacture spacecraft at scale, the company said.

Originally built in the 1940s as an aircraft facility, the complex has a history as part of aerospace and defense industries that have long shaped the South Bay and is near a host of major defense and space contractors. It is also close to Los Angeles Air Force Base, headquarters to the Space Systems Command.

Workers test AstroForge’s Odin asteroid probe, which was lost in space after launch this year.

Advertisement

(Varda Space Industries)

Varda is one of a new generation of aerospace startups that have flourished in Southern California and the South Bay over the last several years, particularly in El Segundo, often with ties to SpaceX.

Elon Musk’s company, founded in 2002 in El Segundo, has revolutionized the industry with reusable rockets that have radically lowered the cost of lifting payloads into space. Though it has moved its headquarters to Texas, SpaceX retains large-scale operations in Hawthorne.

Varda co-founder and Chief Executive Will Bruey is a former SpaceX avionics engineer, and the company’s spacecraft are launched on SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rockets from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

Advertisement

Varda makes automated labs that look like cylindrical desktop speakers, which it sends into orbit in capsules and satellite platforms it also builds. There, in microgravity, the miniature labs grow molecular crystals that are purer than those produced in Earth’s gravity for use in pharmaceuticals.

It has contracts with drug companies and also the military, which tests technology at hypersonic speeds as the capsules return to Earth.

Its fifth capsule was launched in November and returned to Earth in late January; its next mission is set in the coming weeks. Varda has more than 10 missions scheduled on Falcon 9s through 2028.

For the last several decades, the Mariposa Avenue property served as the research and development center for Mattel Toys. El Segundo has also long been a center for the toy industry as companies like to set up shop in the shadow of Mattel.

The Mattel facility “has always been an exceptional property with a legacy tied to aerospace innovation, and leasing to Varda Space Industries feels like a natural continuation of that story,” said Michael Woods, a partner at GPI Cos., which owns the property.

Advertisement

“We are proud to support a company that is genuinely pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, and are excited to watch Varda grow and thrive here in El Segundo,” Woods said.

As one of the country’s most active hubs of aerospace and defense innovation, El Segundo has seen its industrial property vacancy fall to 3.4% on demand from space companies, government contractors and technology startups, real estate brokerage CBRE said.

Successful startups often have to leave the neighborhood when they want to expand, real estate broker Bob Haley of CBRE said. The 9-acre Mattel facility was big enough to keep Varda in the city.

Last year, Varda subleased about 55,000 square feet of lab space from alternative protein company Beyond Meat at 888 Douglas St. in El Segundo, which it started moving into in June.

Varda will get the keys to its new building in December and spend four to eight months building production and assembly facilities as it ramps up operations. By the end of next year, it expects to have constructed 10 more spacecraft.

Advertisement

In the future, Varda could consolidate offices there, given its size. Currently, though, the plan is to retain all properties, creating a campus of three buildings within a mile of one another that are served by the company’s transportation services, Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Barr said.

“We already have Varda-branded shuttles running up and down Aviation Boulevard,” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending