How will AI change Oscar smear campaigns?

Smear campaigns have long played a role in Oscar season, as studios seek to undermine competitors through negative press, strategic leaks and specialized Oscar publicists. These smear campaigns are usually just a small part of even more expansive — and expensive — Oscar campaigns. At stake are awards that can prove key in drawing top talent, winning investor support and boosting revenue. 

One of the most infamous smear campaigns happened in 2002, when allegations surfaced that John Nash, the subject of “A Beautiful Mind,” had made antisemitic remarks. Although those claims were later debunked, they cast a shadow over the film’s awards run and led to John Nash making a press appearance to defend himself. A similar case occurred in 1999 when Harvey Weinstein campaigned against “Saving Private Ryan,” reportedly pushing the narrative that Steven Spielberg’s war epic was only great in its opening D-Day sequence. Weinstein did this to help ensure a win for “Shakespeare In Love,” produced by Weinstein in his role as the head of Miramax, making it one of many similar campaigns he conducted throughout the 90s.

The most recent awards season proved no different, with multiple Best Picture nominees facing harsh public criticism. “Anora” drew controversy over its decision not to use an intimacy coordinator despite dealing with sex work, though “Anora” star Mikey Madison defended the film for this choice. “Emilia Pérez,” meanwhile, faced backlash over its inaccurate depiction of Mexican culture — especially because it was a European production — as well as its portrayal of trans people and past racist social media posts by main actress Karla Sofía Gascón. Some have suggested these controversies stem from smear campaigns targeting rival Oscar contenders.

However, awards night offered little evidence that such campaigns, if they existed, managed to take down all the films they targeted. Adrien Brody won Best Actor for his portrayal of László Tóth in “The Brutalist” despite campaigns against the film. While Brody is already a well-awarded actor, he and “The Brutalist” production team faced scrutiny for using AI to enhance Tóth’s Hungarian accent. Critics argued the technology could undermine authentic linguistic performance, replace dialect coaches and disadvantage actors who naturally speak with the desired accent, as studios might prioritize well-known names and “fix” their voices later.

Concerns over AI replacing skilled labor in the film industry have grown as technology continues to advance. The 2023 SAG-AFTRA strikes were partially driven by fears that studios could use AI to replicate actors’ likenesses without proper compensation, threatening countless livelihoods. The Writers Guild of America also went on strike, demanding protections against artificial intelligence in scriptwriting. Despite these strikes, AI-driven tools have already reshaped scriptwriting, visual effects and film editing, sparking debates over creative control and job security.

Some, however, argue AI could benefit smaller indie studios that lack the massive budgets of Paramount or Disney. Automating aspects of production like script editing, visual effects and voice overs could cut costs and make filmmaking more accessible. AI-powered tools could also streamline tasks such as storyboarding and scheduling, allowing independent creators to focus on storytelling. While concerns persist over AI’s impact on human jobs, some believe the technology could democratize filmmaking and amplify diverse voices.

Artificial intelligence’s role in movies remains uncertain. The Academy is considering requiring AI-usage disclosures for the 2026 awards to increase transparency and give voters more information to guide their decisions. This move could pave the way for future smear campaigns centered on films relying on AI, whether these allegations arise from organic discourse or corporate maneuvering.