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)
Sorry, but I don't like when they put so many rules, when they forget something basic: Art doesn't follow rules, you can like it or not, that's a complete different thing, but freedom is the most important of all arts.
Is it stipulated if the requirement would still not apply for international feature films once they apply for Best Picture too?
I think it's all pretty good and makes sense. Definitely not drastic and I think most nominees for BP over the last few years would pass (there's so much more going on behind the scenes that just what we see on screen). For instance, when a lot of international productions film in australia, they often have internships and attached local directors to observe.
Juan Carlos -- they would not be eligible for Best Picture if they didn't meet these rules (and the other BP rules that dont apply to foreign films like the theatrical release part, etc). You can be eligible for some categories and not others.
Oscars sliding into irrelevance.
What I love about the rules is that it will encourage studios who chase awards to just have a more diverse group of people in those back end or technical roles so that there's never a risk they can't make the easy 2 sections. It will also encourage everyone to have a diverse internship program (that's another easy win). And all this could have a real lasting impact on people starting and holding onto careers in the industry. In other words I like that people will have to start THINKING and ACTING about this in a really positive way. God there are so many flexibilities in this standard, if any film, can't make it they really are being scandalously white/male.
Cafg, since when the Oscars are about art? It's an organization that deemed Green Book as best picture, so it's clearly not about that. The Oscar's means business and these new rules are a small step in updating this industry in a modern world.
I agree with Nathaniel here, it's really not asking for too much. No one is saying that films that don't meet these standards can't get made or released, this is just a private organization saying if you don't meet these standards, we won't give you this one award. That's their prerogative. And most of the point of this type of move is to make a stir and get studios to look at their projects again, which I believe is good.
This is great - good clear rules that cover a lot of circumstances and require some effort, I think. Hopefully it leads to a more general thoughtfulness when it comes to hiring and not just on Oscar-bait films, though I guess with the Best Picture nominees, they cast a pretty wide net these days.
Will be interesting to see how it might divide Best Picture from other categories, in so much as it will be possible for a film to get nominated for lots of other awards but be disqualified from Best Picture.
But imagine how hard will it be for a Croatian film to pull up 'an Amour or Parasite best picture treatment'. So no, this is not very inclusive in my book. Best picture should be given to the actual best picture. And considering the fact that the past winners in that category (Parasite, Green Book, The Shape of Water, Moonlight, Twelve Years a Slave, etc.) have been inclusive enough, this rule seems like an utter nonsense.
Not hard to follow at all! I wonder which previous Best Picture nominees of late would pass this criteria? I’m sure more than half.
What will be most interesting to see is *who* follows these rules? If they do ... they really want that Oscar!
I’m sorry but I don’t like these new rules at all. They do not promote diversity, instead, punish the lack of it (according to the Academy’s own criteria of what diversity means). It will create a scenario of politically-correct self-imposed censorship for artists.
And this is without even addressing all the inconsistencies these rules will bring. For example, the movie 1917 (liked it, but not a fan) would not be elegible because of it’s all white, all male cast, but Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods (haven’t seen it yet) all African-American, all-male cast could? And what would be the criteria for International Films? Is Parasites’ all-Korean cast diverse enough to qualify, but the Norwegian film Kon-Tiki isn’t? Luckily for all of us, Almodóvar films will still be eligible since they usually feature female and LGTBQ characters, plus, Spanish actors would probably be deemed “ethnic” by the Academy.
Come to think of it, perhaps the Academy’s decision will bring a new reverse Hays Code era to Hollywood, in which films will include disposable minority characters or storylines to become eligible for awards. Apologies if I’m being too pessimistic, but I prefer to live in a world in which both Sam Mendes and Spike Lee can make whatever movie they want, and one in which The Favourite and Parasites can win Best Picture because they are the absolute best films of their years and not just because they’re diverse enough.
PS: the worst part is that, even under this new restrictive criteria, films like Crash and Green Book would still win Best Picture.
Pretty stupid, as all rules that favor politics over art.
Art is subjective, that's true, but its value is not based on the representation of minorities. Coen brother's movie about white heterosexual men might be more artistic (and worthy of Oscars) than Ava DuVernay's movie about black lesbians with disabilities.
Just saying.
Oscars are very white, but as a side issue I think we need to resign ourselves to the fact that despite the prestige Oscar voters just lack taste in general.
After your tantrum over the number of nominees in the Best Picture category (a no biggie issue) I thought this would have you incensed. Growth? Fatigue? Indifference? I guess the readership will just have to speculate on this very un-Nathaniel response.
The rules are so lax and at the same thing so patronizing. It's a PR victory.
I'm all for diversity both on-screen and in the film crew, but surely this Academy rule solves nothing. Take movies like The Help, The Force Awakens and Justice League. All three would be easily eligible under the new rules, even though stars of those films have been very vocal about tokenism and racial stereotyping in those movies recently.
On the other hand a film like Ford v Ferrari, a film that was in my personal top ten last year, might struggle to be eligible. And even if it would be, it'll probably only scrape by on casting or hairstyling, areas that have a long-standing tradition in female department heads anyway.
It'll also make it A LOT harder for smaller independent films and international features to be eligible for the big prize, since the industry access and audience development criteria would be a lot harder to achieve for them.
Wouldn't it be better if you solve this on the studio level? For example: films would only be eligible if the studio distributing it has released a certain amount of movies directed by women and minorities in the given year and if the overall employment of minority groups by that studio (in key areas of underrepresentation like editors, writers, cinematographers, ...) has reached a certain treshold?
@Cafg
Totally agree!!
We can forget Oscar... I'm really sorry, but that's all!!
So this excludes Amour, Call Me By Your Name, Phantom Thread and so many other great films from the race. The Oscars always know how to make awful decisions.
@Cafg No one is stopping anyone from anything, they just wouldn't be eligible for BP. If you are only making art to get Oscars, then you are doing it wrong anyway.
I think these terms are pretty loose and people are being over the top for no reason as Nat said most pictures would qualify.
So if Croatia makes their own "Parasite", they cannot be nominated for best picture?
One thing is to motivate movies and companies to give opportunity to everyone, regardless of their race and gender.
Another thing is to blacklist productions from just white straight people. I don't understand why would a movie like The Irishman be blacklisted (maybe; would it be valid?).
Bottom line, now the best movie of the year can be disqualified because of politics.
Thanks for this well written article Nathaniel - I'm torn ... but I draw my hat - and yes it's bold in these times where everyone has an immediate opinion or reaction !!! The world at the moment mirrors perfectly that obviously we need more rules or let's rather call them guidelines to BE or DO BETTER
Cafg - this doesn't affect the art. The film-makers can still make the movie with whoever they want. It just won;t be eligible for an award. The "Best" in Best Picture hasn't meant the best artistic achievement for a very long time (it occasionally does, but you just have to look at the last two winners to understand the divergence).
Here in Australia, we have sporting medals for the "best and fairest" of a season, and if a player gets a fine/suspension for playing dangerously, they are no longer eligible, even if they are the most talented player in the competition. I see this as similar: "best" must mean best at improving the state of the world as well. (I mean, the award goes to the least artistic, the producers, anyway.)
Compare the quality of Goodfellas vs. Dances With Wolves (the 1990 race). Did the ‘Best Picture’ really win? Had Goodfellas been released in 2025, would they now have to substitute the race of one of the principals just to satisfy the voters? As it stands, they’d be disqualified for Best Picture. Would their ‘For Your Consideration’ ads now have to list all of the behind the scenes inclusive craftspeople they hired instead of the quality of the finished product?
“racists and woke alike”
??? so now “woke” people (just say people of color next time LMAO) are just as bad/unreasonable as racist people? Ok.
Art is freedom not dictats,what happened to earning your place on merit.
I'm afraid that the new rules are borderline racist. So the directors will have to cast their films based on how the actors look and not by their talent. The same for behind the cameras crew.
This rule is exactly like the ones BAFTA put in place for their awards last year. The Brits also have these exact same rules to be eligible for public funding, and you can usually feel it on screen in small ways - especially in big parts on screen. For actors trying to build a profile or just keep their SAG insurance, that will matter.
I will say, the one problem with these rules is that if everyone is already doing it, then it’s not really doing much to make things more progressive. Once this starts, it will be interesting to see if these standards are readjusted every few years (e.g. 40 or 50% from an underrepresented group). If that happens, I think it would matter a lot.
The academy has a stake in diversity and it’s great to see them embrace that.
My first reaction was horror. While I embrace diversity (17 years later I'm still a huge "Grey's Anatomy" fan because of their purposely diverse cast), I don't like the idea of it forced into a storyline just to prove a point, however noble that point might be.
But if you look at the actual requirements, only one of the four applies to actors. And I think it's long past time crews were more inclusive and open to new creative talents who aren't the cookie cutter white man.
In the end, I think this is a good thing.
My initial reaction was that I generally don't agree with rules that may restrict artistic integrity in any way, but then I remembered, Best Picture is not an artistic award. There's a reason why Best Picture and the best reviewed movie or even the most popular movie of the year rarely align with one another. It's about the Academy's ideal of what best represents them as an industry. It's interesting how that decision can be influenced from year to year, but there is definitely a type of film that is more likely to win the award versus others. If it ultimately isn't about pure artistry, you may as well try to set some perimeters for what those ideals are. That's why ultimately the award goes to producers. Not to say that producers can't drive the artistry of film making, but at the end of the day, they're the money, not the primary drivers of the art.
I'm not sure about putting a porcentage on onscreen representation. I think that if there's no representation onscreen it's because there's none on the creative staff, where there should be a %. Asking for a porcentage oncreen is likely they are interfiring with the creative vision of the artist. Representation onscreen should be a natural consequence of a diverse creative staff.
It's important to note that you can meet the "onscreen representation" criterion if the main storyline or theme of your film focuses on underrepresented groups, including women and LBGTQ+. So plenty of films that have been well-loved here, like Carol, Little Women, CMBYN, Can You Ever Forgive Me?, etc., would have easily passed this requirement.
wow, if telling someone to "please die" passes through comment moderation, then I'd hate to see what this site was like when it wasn't moderated.
Looking over the comments I think some folks are being a bit alarmist. To be a bit cynical, studios can just create some more programs (they already have diversity programs for writing so makes sense they would have other ones for crafts) and diversify their marketing teams and they’re all set. That’s really easy to do and won’t cost them very much if they’re deafest in hiring white/cis/male/able bodied cast and crafts people.
This is very easy, will create real change in some ways in the industry, and shows that the major org in the industry cares about diversity.
Also the comments about “will a Norwegian film qualify for Best Picture” ignore the fact that places like Norway, the UK, and Sweden have established these sorts of rules for awards and funding. They’re ahead of us here.
People seem to be missing the point that movies don't need to check ALL of these boxes, just two. 1917 can still be best picture as long as there's some representation behind the scenes. The hypothetical Croatian Amour could still get in. The main character is a woman with disabilities. That counts! This really is a ludicrously low bar to clear. I'll bet most of the best picture winners already met these goals. It's just a way to get the movie industry to actively make sure they're doing the bare minimum. In short, this is good!
Seriously? I would rather have the studios finance more minority theme movies . This just reeks of tokenism
Good grief, none of this will matter if there is no accountability. More than half of these new "guidelines" involve behind-the-scenes work, which is where most manipulation and corruption occurs.
I don't really see long-term changes in the awards due to these new shifts, especially because I have almost zero confidence in Hollywood as an entity to ensure or even mildly enforce any of these.
There will always be someone to pay off or pay out. There will always be lies and a red curtain to sweep it all under.
I'll be more than happy to be surprised, of course! But for now...
Um, sure, Academy, way to go.
I think A LOT of people are jumping to (wrong) conclusions. It is 100% possible for an all-white, all-male film to still be eligible for Best Picture as long as BTS stuff is diverse, etc.
It is quite predictable though all of the hot takes I've seen after this announcement. Some are calling these changes as tantamount to censorship while others roll their eyes at their ineffectiveness and not going far enough.
In the end, I think the best thing about this whole thing is it will continue the dialogue that the Academy, the film industry, and all of us SHOULD be having. There's NEVER going to be a perfect solution to this, but doing nothing is worse so I applaud the Academy for doing SOMETHING.
I'm not as articulate as some of these other people, but there is something about the way this is set up that doesn't feel right to me. It has the potential to knock great movies out of consideration. One thing I like about Best Picture is that at least theoretically, every movie made, no matter the provenance, really has a shot at being considered for Best Picture. But these rules set up a limitation for certain movies, through no fault of their own. So the finished product is punished for the process that got it there.
It just feels off. If these were goals? Maybe. If these were standards for blue ribbon judging? Maybe. If this was a separate category like the humanitarian award? Maybe. Didn't they used to give awards for vague things like "Picture Most Promoting International Understanding" or something like that?
Can't they just give a diversity rating or something to a movie and let the voters decide? Something like these particular movies were made under these standards and we think they are worthy of your extra consideration? A sort of "extra credit" bonus?
Besides in practical terms it seems like a diversity accounting nightmare, plus it seems like an easy way for a Weinstein kind of company to kneecap a worthy competitor.
beyaccount -- i never made the equation that they were "just as bad". you can say that people having opposite reactions to a thing are having a reaction that is similar in spirit ("these rules suck") without making a qualitative judgment. Obviously woke people are better people than racists! It doesn't make the other statement untrue. And I hope you're not disagreeing that it's hard to please everyone because that assertion is as factual as the earth being round.
fernando -- re: kon-tiki. I imagine that the academy will eventually have to adjust these rules so that they're not restrictive to true stories that are not all that diverse (especially from countries that are not diverse) but that's such a tiny fraction of the movies that are eligible each year and only very rarely do foreign language films compete for best picture and even then most of the ones that have made it woudl still qualify under these rules, like CRIES AND WHISPERS, PARASITE, ROMA, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, CROUCHING TIGER would all easily pass these new criteria.
jfletcher -- if expanding the Best Picture lineup was a "no biggie" why were there literally thousands of articles and conversations about it (outside of TFE) starting in 2009 that are *still* going on today, 11 years later? It was a very big change switching up standards that had been in place for about 70 years. Much bigger change than this one.
Everyone thinking this is hard to pass -- I urge you to actually read the article (or the Oscar's press release). This is not hard to pass because you only have to meet two of those four requirements. And Hollywood still has three years to prepare for this (i.e. diversifying their hiring practices offscreen - which is not a bad thing). You can still make a mostly white cast picture which seems to be what people are complaining about and why i listed those examples like August Osage County (which is a bad movie but appropriate to be cast nearly all white given its subject matter). You only have to pass two of the four requirements. So let's say you want to make a PHANTOM THREAD (a small cast of white people). You are still fine as long as you're doing two other things like maybe your production company has diversity or you provide paid internship and access opportunities to underrepresented groups or you have some diversity within your crew or creative team.
As for "it should always be about art only"... it should be more about the art yes. But there have always been rules and there will always be rules. And in fact the Oscars would be meaningless if they DIDN'T have criteria (think about it. You need a certain length of running time to qualify as a movie as well as meeting a one week theatrical requirement within an alloted amount of time). We always wish they would think more carefully about the art itself but we've never wished that they didn't have any rules. You have to have perimeters and rules in competitions.
But who is to submit and review the identity report? Can one even ask or investigate?
This is hilariously self-sabotaging. "First as tragedy, then as farce." All this does is diminish the power of a Best Picture win (and the Oscars in general). Hollywood has already lost half the country. Now they're losing left-of-center people who aren't extremely online activists, who have a gut sense of fairness and free expression.
I have to admit I laughed. I love the Oscars but maybe some institutions aren't meant to survive a century with all their prestige intact. The list of great films that would be ineligible for Best Picture under this new system speaks for itself.
Fernando -- 1917 would still be eligible according to these rules.
DI -- All the films you mention would also still be eligible.
In fact, I've been checking and couldn't find a single Best Picture nominee from the past 20 years that clearly violates these rules. They are so relatively lax that a studio movie would have to actively try to be ineligible.
Also, the Oscar aren't about Art even though we'd like them to be - This isn't me saying they are irrelevant, btw. I obviously love the Oscars and wish them to be better - In the context of cinema as a worldwide art form, these rules are no more arbitrary/restricting than the current ones that define eligibility.
Cafg -- i apologize. I didn't see that part of the comment when I approved and have now deleted it (it's hard to explain but it's hard to look at the entire body of text behind the scenes and i'm clicking buttons fast and i wish i didn't have to do this at all but why we're doing it is well -documented. People have been behaving increasingly badly all year in multiple ways in the comments section)
Sam -- i dont think they've explained that yet, who is doing the reviewing, but AMPAS employs lots of people so I'm sure it'll just be part of their administrative work. As for asking, you can't legally require people to divulge their race, sexuality, or disabled status when hiring but i think in this day and age most people are happy to stand up and be counted as whatever underrepresented group they're part of.
Anon -- but what great films are you talking about? You have to go back a couple of decades to start finding films that would be ineligible (and they're not reversing past Oscars) and Hollywood (and the US in general) has statistically become more diverse since then so these rules should be easy to meet.
I don’t think people are reading the requirements . Most films would meet the requirements, it would be difficult to find a film that does not.
The following films would no longer be eligible for a Best Picture nomination, yet alone a win:
Anything ‘English’ - Chariots Of Fire, The Kings Speech, Oliver!, Rebecca, How Green Was My Valley, Hamlet. Mrs. Miniver, My Fair Lady.
‘Waspy’Productions: Ordinary People, All About Eve, Marty, The Apartment, The Sting, A Beautiful Mind, Gigi, The Sound Of Music, It Happened One Night, Going My Way, Terms Of Endearment, Schindler’s List, Shakespeare In Love, The Departed, Annie Hall, Kramer Vs Kramer
Guess the picture, good, mediocre or bad that checks off the most boxes wlll be their best.’
@Tim, all of those films, if made today, would have been fine. For example, the King's Speech was funded by the UK film council, which means it met some version of these requirements. Additionally, do you really think any major production company (of which all of those films belong to) wouldn't make the below the line changes to ensure their films are eligible?
Also, some of the other films, like All About Eve are about women, and far and away meet the 30% qualification (I suspect something like Kramer vs Kramer does too). But, even if some of the old winners don't qualify, that doesn't really matter. That's an America of the past, not now.
Winning an Oscar is a game for studios. They'll check off these boxes, studio wide, just like they make screeners.
Tim - but it doesn't make sense to compare 20th century productions (especially pre 1970s) with now. The US was a lot whiter and less women went into the workforce and gays weren't out, etcetera.... and some of those pictures you named would still pass the test.
everyone -- what Nikki said. i added a line into the "onscreen representation" because a lot of people obviously didn't read the whole press release. There are multiple ways to pass onscreen reputation and ALL "women's pictures" or gay films would, for example. They'd still have to pass one more of the fields but if you have more than one woman in a creative leadership position you'd totally pass (so films with costume designers and editors or screenwriters that were women would pass from early cinemas -- and those were fields where women did work in Hollywood prior to the sexual revolution.
I've worked for a movie studio for years and even if the "larger" studio is trying to more or less to follow these kinds of guidelines, there are still a lot of outside films that are purchased and promoted by the main studio. What happens when something like The Full Monty comes along out of nowhere and can't be nominated because when it was filmed it didn't follow these guidelines?
If they are applying these rules to big Hollywood studios in a general way, then I can sort of understand it. It's a backhanded way to get studios to diversify, but punishing individual movies or smaller production companies for missing out on a criterion seems just wrong to me.
As I said, I'd prefer for general FYC ads saying that "this movie was made following general diversity guidelines" to be better. So someone who wants to score vague "woke" points (to quote Nathaniel) can do it, but other movies can't.