Fact check: The Academy awards nominated Emilia Perez for 13 Oscars. This really shouldn't come as any surprise as this is the same body that gave a standing ovation to a convicted child rapist in Roman Polanski, who fled the country to avoid punishment.

1. Summary of the results

The statement contains two main claims that can be verified separately:

• The claim about "Emilia Pérez" receiving 13 Oscar nominations is confirmed by multiple sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This is particularly notable as it's just one nomination shy of the all-time record and sets a new record for a non-English language film ^[4].
• The claim about Roman Polanski receiving a standing ovation despite being a convicted child rapist is also accurate. He received the Best Director Oscar in 2003 for "The Pianist," accompanied by a standing ovation from prominent Hollywood figures including Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep, and Jack Nicholson ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• "Emilia Pérez" has made history by featuring Karla Sofía Gascón, the first openly trans actor nominated for an Oscar ^[5].
• The film has faced significant criticism from Mexican audiences and LGBTQ groups ^[6].
• Recent controversy has emerged regarding Gascón's offensive past social media posts ^{[1] [6]}.
• Regarding Polanski, the statement omits that he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor in 1977 and fled the US before sentencing ^[7].
• Multiple other women have since accused Polanski of sexual assault when they were minors ^[7].
• Hollywood's support for Polanski extended beyond the standing ovation - many celebrities later signed a petition calling for his release when he was detained in Switzerland ^[8].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the factual claims are accurate, the statement presents potential bias in several ways:

• It attempts to delegitimize the Academy's current nominations by connecting them to a controversial decision from 2003, without acknowledging that the Academy's demographics and values have evolved ^[4].
• It oversimplifies a complex situation by not mentioning the film's artistic merits or historical significance in terms of representation ^[5].
• The statement implies the Academy's judgment should be dismissed entirely based on one past incident, while ignoring both positive developments and other valid criticisms of the institution.