Every year, Hollywood pours millions of dollars into the pursuit of Oscar glory – a months-long blitz of screenings, interviews, and strategic advertising aimed at securing every possible vote. But despite this meticulous planning, studios remain puzzlingly blind to the biggest liability they face: a scandal lurking within their own talent.
We see the cycle time and again. Just as a movie reaches the peak of critical acclaim, the spotlight cuts through the carefully crafted PR patina and exposes a dirty secret of one of its A-listers, sending studios scrambling to respond. The truth is that many of these scandals can be identified in advance by treating reputations the same way a real estate investor treats a valuable property: with unflinching, thorough due diligence that exposes any flaws that might undermine the investment later.
Hollywood’s failure to adopt this approach is already – and yet again – on full display this awards season.
Shortly after the blockbuster Marty Supreme earned nine Oscar nominations, director Josh Safdie and the studio behind it, A24, were forced to confront allegations of on-set misconduct during the 2017 production of another Safdie film, Good Time. An actress, who was 17 at the time, claims an actor exposed himself to her during shooting. Just as damaging, reports allege that Safdie knew about the incident but remained silent, even keeping his brother and creative partner, Benny, in the dark for years. The recent revelations make you wonder: How much digging did the studio do into the matter, and was there ever a research-informed strategy to contain the fallout?
For Hollywood and elsewhere in the culture, social media has also become a minefield – though one that can be largely avoided given the proliferation of digital forensics tools and specialists whose work can make the difference between a successful campaign and a total collapse. Just last year, as Academy voters prepared to cast their ballots, another studio found itself in a similar tailspin. The film Emilia Pérez dominated the awards circuit, earning four Golden Globes and 13 Oscar nominations. The film’s success drew widespread attention in part because its star, Karla Sofía Gascón, was the first openly transgender actor nominated for an Academy Award.
But the movie’s momentum stalled when screenshots of Gascón’s past tweets resurfaced. The posts contained Islamophobic, racist, and offensive commentary regarding the murder of George Floyd and diversity at the Oscars. To many observers, Netflix appeared caught off guard, quickly removing Gascón – who had issued a public apology – from its primary awards campaign materials and shifting its promotional focus to co-stars Selena Gomez and Zoe Saldaña.
The lessons from these episodes are clear: High-profile awards campaigns place extraordinary scrutiny on everyone involved, from the stars to the producers, directors, and writers. The difference between campaigns that succeed and those that falter often comes down to solid intelligence and detailed preparation.
Finding potential landmines in advance enables studios to anticipate and plan for scrutiny rather than merely react to it. Without that preparation, revelations surface at exactly the moment when attention is at its peak. With it, producers can shape messaging, position talent thoughtfully – and if necessary, reconsider whether certain individuals should be the face of a project at all.
Time will tell whether the allegations against Safdie will affect Marty Supreme’s chances on Oscar night. But the fact that Hollywood continues to be caught flat-footed by controversies hiding in plain sight shows the industry still hasn’t learned the simplest lesson: sooner or later, the spotlight reveals everything. The only way to ensure the show goes on is to see it coming.
Phil Singer is the founder and CEO of Marathon Strategies.
Copyright © 2026 California Business Journal. All Rights Reserved.
For California Business Journal Disclaimers, go to https://calbizjournal.com/terms-conditions/.
