This just in... Academy's New Diversity Plans Announced
Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:30PM 
After the emergency meeting of the Oscar's governing board (51 players strong) to discuss what to do about their sorry track record of diversity these past few years -- #OscarsSoWhite had become the only story out of the Oscar nominations -- they've announced plans for changes to take effect immediately following this Oscar season.
It boils down to a plan to significantly expand & speed up the initiatives President Cheryl Boone Isaac had already put in place with one very significant change.
- New Members*
Though they've been adding more members annually already, between now and 2020 they vow to double the number of female and diverse voters. The Academy currently has about 6,261 voting members with estimates of women and nonwhite members making up about 1400 of that number so expect a couple those more members. - Three New Board Members
The 51 seats will increase to 54 with the new members chosen by the President. (All eyes will be on who she selects I'm sure. Is it too much to ask that we get an LGBT person in there somewhere? Because the Academy's track record) - Membership Terms
This one is the major change. It's no longer a lifetime appointment (unless you are an actual nominee or winner so yes Roberto Benigni gets to stay) but a ten year appointment. Members must be active in film during the decade to renew their membership when it's up. If they don't meet the criteria they will become "Members Emeritus". This will apply retroactively after the Oscars this year. Voters who do not qualify will not lose any privileges except voting. So they still get all the screenings and perks and such.
* One more change involving the new members to be invited (which usually happens in the summer) was announced but it's a bit vague. Variety describes it like so:
The Academy will supplement the traditional process in which current members sponsor new members by launching an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.
Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the Academy's current President
Cheryl Boone Isaacs states:
The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up. These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.”
This is all very promising but we'll still need the industry to catch up to insure that different types of stories are told and heard each year. And audiences will still need to support stories that aren't about superheroes or men to get more of these films made. But that's another struggle.
For now hear hear on Ms. Isaac's swift actions!
Reader Comments (85)
@Paul Outlaw Just read it. o well.
Unfortunately, this conversation has brought out some of the uglier voices in the industry (and the internet, if some of these comments are any indication).
Luckily, Isaacs is steering the ship bravely, and in the right direction. Hopefully a more diverse membership will be more willing to award actors of color, in addition to smaller films, films about women, foreign films, etc.
I loved Mark Harris' remarks on Twitter, saying something to the effect of "the Academy either had to deal with this, or risk becoming obsolete." Here's hoping they realize that their relevance is on the line.
A near perfect analysis. Nat is the most cogent when divisive issues arise. Thank God (or Santa, Trump, Buddha, Tooth Fairy, Jerry Farewell, Goddess, Easter Bunny, Zeus, Sally Struthers, and Leatherface). Keep it real TFM. It's what makes you ONE the best!
P.S. You may have not seen my previous question (which encompasses the current nominee exclusion scenario), but I see no harm in asking again. Here it is because I am genuinely interested in your response: How is it that the Canadian Producers of Room (David Gross) and Brooklyn (Pierre Even, Marie-Claude Poulin) get nominated at the Canadian Screen Awards but not at the Oscars? Much thanks for your reply, if you deem my question valid. As always, you remain the best in a lot of Torontonians eyes. . So cheers and good health to you!
Silly me, I almost forget my reason for posting which is this: If there are not exceptional performances by African Americans in a given year, then that should be reflected in the nominations. But when there are two absolutely astonishing examples of acting at the highest level (Idris Elba & Abraham Attah) in a film that is better than almost all of the Best Picture nominees (Beasts of No Nation), then something is very wrong. In fact, I would drop any of the five Supporting Actor nominees (with the exception of Mark Rylance and Jacob
Trembley, had he been nominated) to make room for Elba. And if I had a vote, I would vote for the best performance: Idris Elba for Beasts of no Nation!
In other words, this is not a problem of racism; its a problem of talent-less (supposed actors) people with their heads stuck up their ass, who are considered actors, and are thus allowed to vote when in reality they are, for the most part, star-droolers who have no right or expertise to be judging the craft of acting! They vote for their imaginary boy/girlfriends. In other words, mystery voters without a job, Nevertheless, Tom Hardy and Rachel McAdams thank you for making their future awards worthy performances tarnished.
Just kidding of course. Sorry, I'm Canadian.
Have I said sorry yet? Sorry if I didn't. :(
Rampling's clarification:
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/charlotte-rampling-oscars-racist-1201686690/#respond
Even if her words were misinterpreted, the damage has been done. Most will think she's a white privileged racist now. I still think she gives as good of a performance as Blanchett in "Carol", but now everyone will just remember what she said instead. Worst of all, they will probably decide to skip "45 Years" *sigh*
They dragged Charlotte Rampling for filth on Twitter! Oh well. She deserved it. Very tired of foreigners feeling the need to lecture Americans on race relations when they're clearing coming from a place of ignorance about our situation and history. Are we doing the same thing to them? No we're not. And I also applaud CBI's proactive steps to addressing the Academy's longstanding and pervasive racism. It's a genuine start. Hope it works!
Wow, so disappointed by Rampling and Delpy's comments - the fact that they are British and French respectively makes no difference at all, by the way. Our own industries are equally problematic in providing roles for PoC (we just have more voters for BAFTA and Cesar that actively seek new talent, faces and voices when selecting their nominees instead of starf*cking the same people year after year, which I am proud of).
Let's look at British/Irish female acting nominees at the Oscars since 1990 (films of 1989 onwards) -
Pauline Collins
Brenda Fricker
Emma Thompson (x4)
Joan Plowright
Vanessa Redgrave
Miranda Richardson (x2)
Rosemary Harris
Helen Mirren (x4)
Kate Winslet (x7)
Brenda Blethyn (x2)
Kristin Scott Thomas
Emily Watson (x2)
Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Helena Bonham Carter (x2)
Julie Christie (x2)
Judi Dench (x7)
Minnie Driver
Lynn Redgrave
Janet McTeer (x2)
Samantha Morton (x2)
Julie Walters
Maggie Smith
Catherine Zeta-Jones
Imelda Staunton
Sophie Okonedo
Keira Knightley (x2)
Rachel Weisz
Tilda Swinton
Saoirse Ronan (x2)
Carey Mulligan
Sally Hawkins
Felicity Jones
Charlotte Rampling
A long list of actors ranging from very good to great - of those still with us, almost all of them find regular work (and "baity" parts) in UK film, television and on the stage. Most TV channels would gladly building entire series around any. Except for two glaring exceptions. Who might they be?
Not Oscar nominated, but if an actress with the popularity and range of Archie Panjabi can only come home to find 5 minute supporting roles on UK television? What is the hope for everyone else?
I rest my case.
Jacob - She was not lecturing anybody, but just expressing an opinion. If people on Twitter want to abuse her for that, then they have a lot to learn about Freedom Of Speech which is everything, especially in France where she lives.
Anyone saying people should be abused for expressing an opinion is at best, misguided, and at worst, dangerous.
Re Rampling and Delpy I may not agree with their views (and in the case of Rampling not many outlets noted she was speaking in French but quotes the translation as if that is the exact words she used) but this is a complicated issue and I would like to hear all opinions. The problem these days that everyone wants to react in such extreme ways if someone says something that does not match their own world view without debating or looking at nuance. It happened on the other side too when people reduced Jada Pinkett Smith's comments to 'but she's just mad her husband was snubbed'. I weep!
Rami -- i agree with you in terms of the extremes of people's reactions. People say dumb shit ALL THE TIME. I've said dumb shit in my life. Probably this week. Definitely when i was younger. Social Media is not good at open 'let's try to understand each other or teach each other so that people are less ignorant' dialogue. It's much better at broad strokes emotions like YAS QUEEN or DESTROY!
whenever a celebrity does or says anything ignorant or crappy people immediately disown them on twitter and wish the worst upon them as if anything they've contributed to the world is useless because of one misstep or ignorant opinion. People are already starting to reevaluate their opinions of Charlotte Rampling's performance in 45 YEARS which to me is the height of stupidity. It's a brilliant performance. End of story. You don't get to retroactively pretend she's not a great actress because she said something stupid.
If we threw away every artists work because they had offensive or ignorant feelings about someone or something we would have no art left. Because very few people are perfect. Oh right, not very few: NONE.
I always end up thinking "it's a good thing this is all virtual!" because it always reminds me of those movie scenes with the mobs with torches chasing frankenstein or what have you. The only way for frankenstein to escape is if some other frankenstein says something awful and then everyone gets distracted and starts chasing him instead. No wonder Trump is so popular.
I've decided in 2016 i'm going to do my best to avoid anything that feels toxic to me. that's probably going to be hard because an election is coming up (yikes) and i love social media but i'll figure out ways to stay positive or at least take the right sort of breaks. I need it!
The frankestirn analogy is so apt. But at least your site offers nuance and context so keep up the good work :)
Rampling is soooooooooooo NOT winning that Oscar!!! lol & any chance of a 2nd nom in future is totally destroyed by her comments (not tt she needs it, but.........)
However, I believe many white actors/actresses THINK like her, just that they din voice it out.
That's exactly what Rampling did: lecture. "Maybe the blackies just weren't good enough." Oh fuck off. Done with racist white people.
Rampling was never going to win. Her ignorant (I'm being generous) remarks are going to be detrimental to the chances of the nominees who will be tainted by her in the minds of some ignorant voters. I would say at the moment the race looks like this:
1. Brie Larson
2. Jennifer Lawrence
3. Saiorse Ronan
4. Cate Blanchett
5. Charlotte Rampling
Charlotte Rampling is brilliant in 45 Years. It's a great performance that I love and alongside Blanchett and Mara forms the trinity of best performances of 2015 male or female.
However I do not want to see Rampling triumph on Feb 28, which I was hoping for a few days ago. Her triumph now means that the voters approve of her tone deaf, stupid remarks that prove she's clueless about the world she lives in. And I do not want to see someone with those views - views exclusionary to minorities - be rewarded. Yes the reward will be for a worthy performance and not for what she said but it will still sting.
It may be a European thing but her use of blacks was grating. She could have just said maybe these actors, including Will and JLaw, did not deserve to be nominated.
Don't worry Nathaniel. Charlotte Rampling was never going to win anyway.
@Nathaniel,
I totally get where you're coming from and I certainly don't think Rampling/Delpy are awful people nor do I think it says anything about their work as actors. That said, I think it's difficult for many people of color to just ignore these kinds of racist comments (and they are racist, let's call things what they are) or to chalk it up to "well, that was dumb of her to say." Firstly, yes people say dumb things when they're young but NONE of these people quality for youthful stupidity. Secondly, I'm not black but I am a person of color and I can tell you that every time a white person (celebrity or otherwise) says something like this, it produces a visceral reaction in me. I can't explain it and it's probably not always fair or rational but it just does. Every time a white person says something negative about Obama (even if it's not overtly racist), my antenna pricks up. Every time a straight white male (it's always straight white men) comedian complains about not being able to make jokes because audiences now are too politically correct, I cringe. It's just one of those things that many people of color "hear" in a different way and it cuts deeply in some very vulnerable place that I'm not sure I could fully explain to even the biggest-hearted white person.
For me it's even more so because I live in Europe now and I can tell you, white Europeans are even worse on race and racism than Americans. At least in America there are people of color in major symbolic positions and artists, academics and activists speak openly about these issues but in Europe, white progressives in those groups are dismissive of anything that resembles identity politics. The reason these three actors don't know how to talk about race and racism is because they DON'T talk about race and racism in Europe. So I wasn't shocked at all that the three white actors to speak the most insensitively on this subject came from Europe. But that didn't make it hurt any less.
BTW as a gay man, I feel the same way when people make homophobic or transphobic comments. Matt Damon's appalling comments on race and sexuality last year (he went for the twofer!) did not prevent me from enjoying The Martian but it did hurt and it did make me look at him differently. I don't think these actors should be shunned but I'd like to suggest that these are not just "stupid things people said." THIS IS WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. This is how they really feel. They're showing it to us. And we have every right to be appalled by that.
I'd also like to point out that none of these people apologized sincerely for their comments or tried to grapple with why it was racist/homophobic. In Damon's case there was some doubling down on his privilege and in Rampling's case, she did the old, "taken out of context" bit though how one could take "should we have minorities everywhere?" out of context, I do not know.
If there is an overreaction on Twitter, it's not coming out of nowhere. It's the venting of repressed rage that people of color walk around with all the time. Anyway, you've been a great friend to people of color and you promote artists of color far more on your site than another white person covering films and awards so none of this isa knock on you. I just wanted to explain why I think some people of color are reacting this way and to argue that these comments are not nothing.
And Brie Larson was winning the Oscar anyway. :)
^^^This.
The lesson this week in American Social Justice Warrior Nonsense, children, is that when accusing someone or a group of being racist, it is totally fine to be completely ageist.
Also, kudos to Charlotte Rampling for managing to go from the silver lining and best surprise of nominations morning to grand wizard of the KKK in the span of one week. When the Hollywood reboot craze finally hits Birth of a Nation, I hope she gets the Lilian Gish part. If she's not burnt at the stake before that, of course.
I love how selective this bigotry bullshit argument always is.
Mr Paul Outlaw, Why is Lawrence in the number two spot for potential Best Actress winners?
It doesn't matter who the #2 vote-getter on the Best Actress list is. It's not going to be a close vote. Brie Larson had this locked up when her film not only scored a Best Picture nomination but also BEST DIRECTOR. Come on now people.
I don't understand why Larson's film getting a best director nomination is seen as a big giant step to her being locked. It means the director's branch like the movie more than, say, Brooklyn, sure, but who knows how the actors branch or the costume branch or the make up and hair branches think? I'd be predicting Larson for the win right now, too, but I don't think its necessarily as locked up as people seem to think.
"Perfect, then it's just MTV Movie Awards."
I've seen this argument raised before and it makes zero sense. You think suddenly allowing a parity rate of women industry members as well as minorities will suddenly start an avalanche of Zac Efron nominations? So completely baffling.
Glenn Dunks, it's the fact that Room got in for both Best Director (which yes only the directing branch votes on) AND Best Picture (which everyone votes on). When The Reader got those same nominations, many of us called it for Winslet right away and we were right. Rampling is the sole nominee from her film and a "surprise" nominee. She was never going to win.
/3rtful: because she's a) young, b) American, and c) Jennifer Lawrence.
Steph - your logic doesn't add up. Brooklyn is also nominated for Best Picture, and best adapted screenplay so Saoirse Ronan most would agree is in second place.
Rampling was the sole nominee and most agree that she is not in a position to win now especially after that interview.
But to write off Ronan's chances as well is nonsense.
SAG and BAFTA are much more of an indicator than a best director nomination for the picture.
There are still 5 weeks to go.
Paul, Lawrence's second Oscar is inevitable. But I want to believe voters know they can hold off until she reaches 30! Although Foster and Swank prove it doesn't matter if you're not 30 when they're ready to give you another one.
You have to go back to 2004 (Million Dollar Baby) to find a Best Actress winner whose film won any other Oscars, and the nomination tally has been all over the place, from zero to eight (Silver Linings Playbook) additional nods.
Of this year's nominees—Rampling and Lawrence are the sole representatives from their films—who would be most likely to be the sole winner from her film?
Any of them, actually.
Steph, I don't believe nor didni ever believe Rampling was a contender to win. Like LadyEdith suggested (and mentioned in my reply), it's more Ronan I'm looking at. Technically, as far as we're aware, only a few hundred director branch members prefer Room given Brooklyn also got picture and screenplay. Like I suggested, fall all we know the costumes, make up branch, visual effects people and so on don't care as much for Room. Ronan is very much still in the hunt, I think. If Larson steamrolls then so be it, but I don't think we should write Ronan (a previous nominee, too) off.
I'll be one to admit I haven't seen 45 Years and won't now. Maybe one day, but right now I can't bear to look at Charlotte Rampling's face, no matter how good her performance might be. I'm really disappointed at Julie Delpy as well - I'm not really familiar with Rampling but I've been a fan of Delpy for years and didn't expect this from her. Not watching her new project either, I can always stay home and put Tangerine on Netflix.
Honestly you guys, CHARLOTTE RAMPLING just doesn't give a fuck anymore.
I'll be surprised if she even attends the Oscar, still holding on for her to pull off a miracle win though."
I've seen this sentiment a lot with regard to Rampling, and it's simply not true. If she didn't care, she never would have been nominated for such a tiny film. Rampling campaigned as hard as anyone for that nomination; she did a ton of press and umpteen screenings. (She campaigned a heck of a lot harder than both Lawrence and Blanchett. Lawrence was practically nowhere this year... and Blanchett only did the obligatory appearances.) And mark my words, she will absolutely attend the Oscar ceremony this year.
Don't forget Jennifer Lawrence is also white, so she has that going for her.
I feel your sarcasm, Drew.
(Unless by "white" you meant "blonde." Then again, four of the five Best Actress nominees are currently sporting golden tresses, so that wouldn't give her any advantage either. Looking forward to that nominee luncheon photo.)
Talk about acting for this year's nominees at events. Smile! Good job! Awkward. If it takes 4 years, I assume Jada will be okay with Meryl, Cate, Julianne and Kate still being nominated? Or is there to be a Facebook protest every year now?
Steph -- agreed. ishe's way out front. I thought Saoirse could challenge her for awhile but the general mood seems to be that Saoirse's reward is graduating to full leading lady from child star.
Akash -- thanks that helps me to understand
Carmen -- i understand this frustration as well. i think one of the issues i have as one kind of minority but not another is that there does seem to be a hierarchy or a selectivity to what kinds of discrimination or prejudices people will be upset about and/or indulge in themselves. It does help me to understand women of color's issues with the feminism a little better at any rate. Intersectionality would be nice.
Nathaniel, I couldn't agree with you more. YES to intersectionality. And it's certainly true that when we talk about "diversity" we usually only think in terms of race. And in many conversations about diversity, women get the shaft, which I think is the point Julie Delpy was trying to make (which is why I don't think her comments were as bad as Caine's or Rampling's) but obviously she should have phrased/framed it differently. You only have to look at the fact that women are treated as minorities even though they are half the population, and in some places the slight majority (!) to see that the gender conversation often suffers.