New Oscars Rules for Representation / Inclusion
Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 11:59PM 
AMPAS has been busy these past ten years or so dealing with rapid cultural changes and political pressure as well as, let's be honest, fallout from their own various blindspots. Though I know I pissed off many people back in the day when I argued that the Academy was taking more of the blame for #OscarsSoWhite than they perhaps deserved (in that they can only vote on the movies that are made), people who pushed back had a solid point: the Academy is the face and reputation of the American film industry. So even though the Academy isn't an organization that makes movies, their success as the symbolic representation of THE MOVIE INDUSTRY means they are culpable. Starting with the smart diversity initiatives set in place by Cheryl Boone Isaacs's terms as AMPAS president, they've made significant strides at being more inclusive. Today the Academy took a much more specific step forward. They've set up rules of representation and inclusion in order to be Oscar eligible in the first place starting with the 96th Oscars (2023 film year / 2024 ceremony).
You can read the whole press release at their official site but it boils down to this...
Basically you need to pass two of the four following standards to be deemed eligible for Best Picture consideration. To simplify the following summary, please note that "underrepresented group" does not only refer to racial diversity though there is some fine print that focuses specifically on that within these standards. The term can refer to any of the following four groups: women, the LGBTQ community, disabled people, and people of color. Basically the Academy is asking Hollywood to hire more than just straight white abled men. That's a reasonable request!
✅ ONSCREEN REPRESENTATION
Your onscreen ensemble has to be diverse. They Academy is asking that 30% of the ensemble -- "ensemble" refers to everyone onscreen basically, not just the stars, so it's a much wider thing than SAG's idea of an ensemble -- be from at least two underrepresented groups. You can also pass this one if the storyline is about an underrepresented group so if your story is about women or disabled people or LGBTQ community, it qualifies here even if there isn't racial diversity. (The 30% number is likely inspired by census statistics )
✅ CREATIVE LEADERSHIP
A couple of department heads (all those crafts we love to obsess over!) or creative leadership positions (Director/Producers/Writers) have to go to a member of an underrepresented group. The entire crew itself has to be diverse in basically the same percentage way that the cast has to be (see above).
✅ INDUSTRY ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES
This one is very low profile i.e. we probably won't hear about it at all (unless people aren't happy) as it involves paid internships and crew training that focus on underrepresented groups
✅ AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
This involves the marketing and publicity and distribution teams. The studio or film company has to have multiple in-house senior executives from an underrepresented group.
We haven't yet read any online reactions before typing this but we assume that people on both sides of the fence (racists and woke alike) will complain about this for opposite reasons (too strict! / not strict enough!) because it's very hard to please anyone let alone everyone. But The Film Experience applauds the Academy for making the effort and for specific goals. It's hard to reach vague goals!
And these groupings above are really not asking for too much. It will probably make people in positions of power at studios as well as filmmakers themselves think a little more carefully about how they operate at work and who they work with which is not a bad thing.
It's not restrictive at all, really, even for storytellers who prize their creative freedom (and which storytellers don't?). Consider that even if you wanted to make a chamber piece masterpiece like a Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? or an all-male period war picture about soldiers or POWs like a Grand Illusion or a white family drama, like say, August Osage County. Would you suddenly not be eligible for Best Picture? No, you still would probably be eligible! Because you only have to meet half of the requirements above.
Most movies won't have trouble meeting these criteria (as long as they're hiring smartly) and it only applies to Best Picture. For Best International Feature, for example, it's not required so it won't be an unfair standard for countries with less diversity than the US (and that's a lot of European, Scandinavian, and Slavic countries). Croatia, for example, is 99% white (no, really!) and they're still going to be able to submit their contender each year for Best International Film.
Again, it's really not asking for too much. And it's a smart move on the Academy's part to demand it since, as we've already long since learned, they will always be blamed for what individual filmmakers and large studios are doing, so why not be a lobbyist for positive change which is essentially what this amounts to?
Reader Comments (88)
People need to actually read an article before posting knee-jerk reactions, sheesh.
Wow, some of the hilariously reactionary comments here make me wonder... these rules are a bare minimum requirement that we should all be automatically celebrating...
“Best Person For The Job” in an artistic field especially (but any field really) is such a dated and meaningless phrase that gets wheeled out - newsflash, there are many multiple candidates for every job who can do it to a very high standard. When left up to the discretion of rich, white straight men, those people generally hire people who look like them and in many cases those selections aren’t even in the pool of “candidates who can do the job to a very high standard” - but apparently encouraging/forcing those people in power to look past the straight white maleness of their “ideal candidate” vision is... preventing great art?
No, it really isn’t.
@ Dave
The Full Monty gets in easily. Thirty per cent of the cast/characters are women and LGBTQ, and several department heads (including casting, music and costume design) were women.
Very intelligent and I support these new rules.
I somewhat dread having to watch a future $200 million Netflix Oscar-bound movie like The Irishman that now must include a ‘Denzel Washington main character’ when he makes no sense to the story. Will Amour be the same story with Cicely Tyson in it? Phantom Thread with DDLewis and his sister. Viola Davis? Marriage Story now with Michael B Jordan and ScarJo? A recast Star is Born with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Hudson? A ‘new’ band member in Queen/Bohemian Rhapsody? Little Women with Cardi B as a Marsh sister?
Did Clauido put away his thesaurus and once in a generation expressiveness to do Nathaniel drag for this article? If not, Covid's soften your edges Nathaniel. One upside of this whole mess I guess.
It is possible to check these new standards without hiring a single non-white person on a movie. Won't hust big studios.
@Tim did you read the requirements ? All of those movies would already qualify . Nothing would change.
The idea that "99% of films qualify for this anyway" and "studios are moving in this direction anyway" only underscores how unnecessary this declaration is. Why enforce an exclusive policy—the effect of this policy is to exclude films that don't meet the criteria. If those films are vanishing anyway, who is threatened by them? And if they're great, why shouldn't they be considered for Best Picture?
I'm 100% agree with diversity but when the inclusion is forced most times I think that causes a contrary effect resulting in an homogenization.
For example: in 2018 Yalitza Aparicio was a cultural phenomenon for the representation of indigen women in films, today eberybody knows her but most people don't know other indigen mexican actresses even when most of them have been decades working before Yalitza were famous.
What my ingenuos heart really hopes that happened is that the new rules helps to include more indie films which most times already has diversity representation (and are more interesting that big hit movies, in my opinion) instead of the big distribuitors seems themselves "obligated" to make films with conditionated rules that help them to win awards as final objetive.
And this gonna be probably an unpopular opinion but I would prefer Oscars recognize JUST films made in USA. If the institution is from the US I don't see the need for include foreign films in most of possible categories, that's why the foreign film category was created and most countries already has her own prizes to recognize the movies made in their own country.
Worst thing the Oscars have done since the idea of the Best Popular Film award that never came out as that was just fucking stupid. Now we're going to get really awful films nominated for Best Picture. So fucking lame.
I'm sure filmmakers will find ways to get around these rules/do the bare minimum. Everybody who enjoys their films lily white are freaking out for nothing.
That being said, I'm glad to see the Academy taking some initiative, but only time will tell how this all works out.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions- so if someone makes an all black film would they have to include a token white character now- or this only counts if it's the other way around. A
After seeing the comment sections for this article I am all in for only paid comments for this site. Or even no comments at all.
Ok, maybe only Claudio should be able to comment. This kid is amazing
beyaccount, you're what my (black) mama would call a verticle boob, because even when it's apt and coming from another black person she tries to avoid using uppity. (or Up-titty as my lil sis used to say).
The non cry-babies I meant. Sorry I thought that was clearly implied Nathaniel. Also what you say doesn't really stand up. A change is a change and will get written up for maximum clicks. You know this and are in that business, so the disingenuous condescension is weird. I hope you've been resting and eating well. I worry when you act mean and unlike yourself (or your best self we see here).
This is real easily achievable positive change. Most pictures already reach the requirements, but I do understand the urge to push back on a requirement like this. Really puts into perspective all those losers and selfish idiots who got so heated on the debate on the number of Best Picture nominees. At least everyone in this thread is mature and above that, talking on a topic that truly matters.
Agreed with Alguem. I was ready for some sort of log-in for comments, but the comments have been dire here for a decade, and now with one or two people trolling under 8000 Drag Race names or "Peggy Sue" rhymes, and the constant insults to the wonderful person who runs the site, it's worse than ever. Disgraceful.
Keep the awesome posts by the whole team, burn the comments section to the ground. Enough is enough.
dave in hollywood and anon do raise some points. I worry since apparantly the majority of films already tick the requirements, that maybe some very small indie where budget and favors called in meant that maybe they didn't have the means to get the right heads of departments might miss out. They'd almost never get in anyway, but if the buzz built only to be cut down would be tragic.
Also don't worry about letting one mean comment slip through. You doing a great moderating job and when you implement that extremely smart suggestion from another thread of granting editor priveldges to the spread of timezones your writers are in you won't feel overwhelmed enough to let it slip. Although you haven't given us our every month or two update of you being sick or having a cold. Ironically you've been your healthiest during Covid 19! LOL
I wonder how much of an impact it will actually have. Most large studios have at least nominal diversity initiatives (satisfying criteria C) and some female, POC, or LGBT executives (even if not enough of the female/POC, they could probably satisfy criteria D). So does this really require that much of a change?
And for all those who are bringing up international films, it quite clearly states that, "Films in the specialty feature categories (Animated Feature Film, Documentary Feature, International Feature Film) submitted for Best Picture/General Entry consideration will be addressed separately." So I think they'll make sure to keep the door open.
You always know whenever the word "diversity"' comes up, it'll bring racist white people out of the woodwork. Poor oppressed, straight white mennnn! Save that noise for someone else! Small steps that some will cynically call window-dressing and placating, but change has to occur somewhere! The Academy has 3 years to perfect this, so give them the time to do so! I applaud these initiatives and hope for more. They should have standards like these in place for ALL categories, not just BP. Make ALL 4 criteria mandatory!
The major studios won't have any trouble meeting these requirements; put a gay guy in the marketing department and create an internship program and you're all set! It's smaller/independent films, that don't have marketing departments and such, that will be hardest hit by the new rules. If you're making a movie on a shoestring budget and hiring your friends to do all of the jobs, it might take more effort to meet these diversity requirements.
To be sure, the Academy rarely gives such movies serious consideration for Best Picture, anyway, so the practical effect is minimal.
The goal is admirable, and the standards are low enough that they aren't going to actually change much. But I still think it's a bad look for the Academy, which can no longer even pretend that it's making its decisions solely on the merits of the films.
.... sigh.
Honestly, I'm pro this move in general but the shitshow of a response (in general) has me mildly despondent.
J Fletcher -- I have my faults but "disingenuous" is not one of them, sorry. Your personality radar is on the fritz. This is not a corporate site. We don't write about every change that occurs. If we were in it for clicks we'd have been a completely different site (and probably a more sucessful if more generic one) many years ago. But we are who we are.
Pierre and others -- I cannot ask my writers to also be moderators. They already do PLENTY by contributing articles. Why on earth would i inflict the pain of babysitting all of you on them? And furthermore if you like them why would you want them to have to do that instead of writing?
Dorian --Regarding "MAKE ALL 4 MANDATORY" now *that* would be artistic censorship unlike what the Academy has done. You are suddenly saying people can't make small movies about white families (which are by their nature non-diverse)? Or period dramas about soldiers (which by their nature only rarely have female characters)? Or movies set in non-diverse places -- so no movies about Amish people or what have you?) That's silly.
JJ -- thank you. I appreciate the support and I'm also sad about the comments.
Everyone -- Unfortunately i have realized that squarespace (which hosts the site) does not have a registering system that you can all do for yourself manually (as so many sites do) so I would have to manually invite each of you to register by email which would be way too much cumbersome and required many MANY hours of administrative work on my end when all my free time currently goes to actually running the site and writing and editing. I am still looking at upgrading to a different software if i can carve out the time and find the money but not sure what that comment system is like. It's a real shame it's come to this but i am considering just doing away with comments altogether or making commenting only available to patrons (that would be doable and slightly less time consuming since i have all those email addresses already.)
So many mean-spirited readers. In the past i've approved almost everything (except for really vile things language wise or obvious impostership or spam like comments that are the same and appear on every post.) Because i believe in open conversation so I was initially approving comments that were insulting to me and to other commenters. But that wasn't enough for people and now they're regularly insulting the other writers and insulting each othr. So from this post forward i will not be approving any comments that in any way insult or belittle our team or readers (even if they are housed in larger comments that have something worthwhile to contribute or otherwise filled with compliments). Enough is enough. We run this site out of movie love and cinematic joy and we will not let mean-spirited people ruin it for us. By trying to be kind and open to conversation and criticism (everyone makes mistakes) we have allowed ourselves to become a target. Lesson sufficiently learned. Only people who want to talk about movies and are respectful are welcome to comment.
Nathaniel, thank you!
My issue is that for 85 years, Best Picture nominations had a certain fixed meaning that didn’t change for anything—anything! That was the source of the prestige, and no matter what was going on in the industry/world, you could count on (only) five finalists from a given film year. Ten years ago they started rewriting what it meant to make the cut. Last year (?) they floated the absurd Popular Film category. Now they’re setting this new qualification rubric. It’s one New Coke after another.
I’d be more into this if they hadn’t spent a decade retooling a perfectly fine (if brutal and frustrating five-nominee) system. And if they’d held the line back in ‘09 (?) they could easily justify holding it now. But they didn’t! They’ve already decided that nothing is sacred, so why not add this new criteria to the mix? It’s just further proof that Best Picture doesn’t mean what it once did, it’s the caretakers of this institution’s fault, and we just have to roll with it.
I support your iniciative and really wish you well and that this blog only gives you joy, as It gives me!
And i also think the Idea of only patrons commenting a great Idea. The comments section would be better and maybe you would receive more money!
Best regards from Brazil
JF -- While I get what you're saying, I think it's important to say that the Best Picture category wasn't a constant for 85 years.
The idea of five nominees only became a long-lasting thing from 1944/5 onwards, with the 17th Academy Awards being the first ceremony of that five-wide field that lasted until the 21st century. This was after nearly two decades when Best Picture went from two different categories to one category with no official nominees, then five nominees, then ten, then five again...
Moreover, the eligibility rules have been constantly changing throughout the decades. If you go read up on the rulebook of each ceremony, they have changes very regularly. It's just that they weren't as publicised as they are now. Even the voting systems change quite radically at some points in the history of Oscar. The Academy Awards have never been this sacred immutable institution some think they are. In fact, as the world and the movie industry change so have they changed.
For instance, there was a time when films nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in one year could then compete years later in Best Picture when they were distributed in the US - that doesn't happen anymore. That's just one example and if you look outside the Best Picture category, then the constant mutability of regulation becomes even more evident.
I'm seeing a lot of comments about how Best Picture doesn't usually represent the best in film of a particular year. I will gently remind folks of the recent winners:
2013--12 Years a Slave
2014--Bird Man
2015--Spotlight
2016--Moonlight
2017--The Shape of Water
2019--Parasite
Not too shabby, I'd say. In fact, pretty goddamn great.
I think a patron-only commenting system would be fine, but if you wanted to run a fundraising drive specific to acquiring new software, some of us would definitely contribute.
Re: the changes...what Arkaan said.
I do worry a little about the movies made on shoestring budgets, but as Keith C points out, they're unlikely to be in contention for Best Pic anyway (unless they're picked up by a studio who can probably fulfill at least categories 3 and 4).
Re: the comments...do what ya gotta do, Nathaniel. I, too, am sorry it's come to this. I feel like what's happened to this comments section is mirroring what's been happening to public discourse generally.
I like these rules. They are a good starting point. And I am very thankful that no mention has been made of eliminating the distinction between Actors and Actresses in the acting categories. That would be a disgrace!
I’m for these reforms. I fully appreciate the concerns that art shouldn’t have to obey rules, but film is also an industry. The new regulations won’t stop anybody from telling any kind of story they want (to the extent that people have previously been able to anyway - let’s not pretend there have never been other restrictions both overt and covert affecting whether a film gets made or who stars in it) as long as they have diverse representation elsewhere in production choices. I really don’t think it’s asking too much - even with these rules in place a film with an entirely straight white male cast, director and writer with majority SWM heads of department could qualify for best picture on other counts. I really don’t understand why anybody would find this threatening or punitive.
Regarding small films, most will use a publicity firm and they are often predominantly women and gay men. They're also much more likely to have editors, costumers, writers, directors and the like who are women, LGBTIQ, POC...
This is idiotic on a number of levels. Can't wait for a quality clear best picture film to miss out due to some idiotic technicality.
Best picture should go to Best Picture, that should be the ONLY criteria. Well intentioned but stupid. Whomever decided this should be fired
This is a stupid decision.If 1917 is not elegible because they are white and 5 da bloods is elegible because they are black, it is a racist decision. I understand that in the usa there are problems but from an european point of view, this is STUPID.
Enrique - you know that there is no such thing as racism against white ppl right?
I baffled by the comments oh but the ART... Awards have 0 value for the art. Is titanic a better film because it won 11 oscars? Is the color purple a worse film because it lost 11 oscars? No and no. The art will be the same, the change will be in the business. But oh, what if Croatia makes the next parasite? U know that Croatia has female, LGBT and disabled people as well so they still will be able to achieve any of that criteria. Many of comments sound a lot with conservatives crying "don't you wish it was back to the cotton picking days?". Honestly, get a grip.
And it's hilarious that people are claiming that masterpieces of the past wouldn't fit these rules today. HAHA. Did they forget that in the good old days we used to have something called the Hays code? Which forbade interracial couples or homosexuality to be displayed onscreen. MAYBE that's why these movies don't fit the rules. So you see, rules like that have existed for many years, and that didn't stop Hollywood to make the movies you cherish so much. But unlike the Oscar's rules, they were mandatory and existed in order to perpetuate inequality. Inequality in this industry is a historical problem, that's why it's important new rules to adjust errors of the past.
Although the pursuit of diversity when hiring qualified people is an admirable one, AMPAS's new decisions to this end are not the way to do it. No doubt AMPAS's collective heart is in the right place, but the hiring processes and employee demographics of a film simply do not guarantee a film's caliber or lack thereof. To determine a film's merits--and its suitability for a Best Picture nomination--one must look at what's on the screen, not at what's behind it.
Some people have asked, "What's the big deal? It's only the one category" or "Who cares? Most of these rules are easy to follow and are followed by most production companies already." But both these responses miss the principle of the thing: that attaching quotas (which is what essentially these rules constitute) to the evaluation of art are at best, wrongheaded; on average, inappropriately political; and, at worst, pernicious.
When it comes to evaluating movies (and other forms of art), we must make sure that we're using appropriate criteria.
Perhaps a more productive route would be to green-light more films with diverse subject matters and cultures. Everyone profits from a diversity of films. The more varied the stories become, the richer our cinema becomes. Focusing on the film--and not on a check-list--is the way to go.