Academy set to revamp rules for doc Oscar eligibility

January 9, 2012 by Adam Benzine

Oscars / Academy Awards. Credit: Richard Harbaugh / © A.M.P.A.S.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is reportedly poised to revamp the criteria for films vying for the best documentary feature Oscar, adding a rule that to qualify, docs must be reviewed by either the Los Angeles Times or The New York Times.

The changes, due to be officially unveiled by the Academy later this week, could significantly reduce the number of docs submitted annually for Oscar consideration, and will apply to films qualifying for the 2013 ceremony.

The Academy’s documentaries branch considered 124 films this year, a 23% increase from 101 films the prior year.

In addition to the newspaper review criteria, other changes to the process will see the full Academy voting for best documentary feature; and the Academy documentary shortlist, and later the five nominees, being determined by a vote from the full documentary branch.

According to The New York Times, the new rules could diminish the prospects of those who make smaller and less prominent docs. Particularly hard hit, the paper said, would be DocuWeeks, the International Documentary Association’s program which helps filmmakers set up a brief theatrical run in New York or LA to qualify for the Oscars.

It added that one of this year’s shortlisted docs, Tony Hardmon and Rachel Libert’s Semper Fi: Always Faithful, might not have qualified under the new system.

“This will be a disappointment to a certain number of filmmakers,” Toronto International Film Festival documentary programmer Thom Powers told the paper.

Meanwhile, in an interview with film news site Indiewire (which has a lengthy analysis of the new rules), director Michael Moore – a member of the Academy’s 43-strong board of governors and one of three people that represents the documentary branch – spoke out to defend the changes.

He described the existing system as “byzantine” and in dire need of an overhaul, and said that the new system of rules would ensure that “two people can’t torpedo your opportunity to get an Oscar,” adding: “That’s over.”

The change to the rules comes after this year’s shortlist for the best documentary feature category once again caused controversy, with snubs for Senna and The Interrupters, two of the year’s most critically successful films.

Past years have seen acclaimed films such as Hoop Dreams, Grizzly Man, Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Waiting for “Superman” missing out.

Tags: Academy Award, Academy Awards, Hoop Dreams, Los Angeles Times, Michael Moore, New York Times, Oscar, Oscars, Steve James, The Interrupters

MWBlock

The NEW DOC RULES are
really terrible for independent filmmakers:

1. Under current rules small committees actually screen films for short list.
Under new rules the entire documentary branch of 140 plus members will
“screen” 100 plus films.

–Moore says this will
allow more people to participate. But how will busy filmmakers find time to
screen 100 plus films even over the course of a year?

2. Under current rules
over 60 people participate in screening the films for nomination. That means
the films are really seen. How will this happen under “1″ above?

3. Under the proposed
rules ALL Academy members will get to vote for the films once they are
nominated. There is no requirement to SEE the films. Under the current rules
Academy members can’t vote unless they see ALL five of the nominees projected
in a theater.

This system will make it
possible for big budget films to be nominated and win since the little
independent films won’t have the press, ads, screeners to compete with the
studio films. Think Bob and Harvey and the campaign this year for THE ARTIST.

Write the Documentary
Branch Executive Committee in care of the Academy and tell them what you think
of these new rules…

Ask Michael Moore who is
a Governor to support independent documentaries and not just studio docs. Let’s
have a level playing field.
Linda Ellman

Yikes. This is scary. What qualifies the LA Times and NY Times editorial boards to decide what docs should quality to compete for an award from the Academy??? Since when are those nice print journalists a jury of our piers? Their mandate is to sell papers. Thus they tend to include articles in their papers about subject matter relevant to their readers. Have those editors committed to reviewing hundreds and hundreds of docs to determine which are worthy of mention on a scale of quality, not local public interest? What if somebody’s doc examines a subject that is a conflict of interest for one of the papers?

Let’s say I produce an exceptional doc that isn’t a national story, or that is of little interest to people who live on the coasts. Perhaps it touches a real chord with those who live in the “fly over states.” If I don’t have the money to hire a publicist with connections to the NY or LA times, my film won’t even be on their radar–and because of that, it now won’t be eligible for recognition.

I worry this rule promotes regional bias and discrimination. There is a problem with the current system, but I don’t think this is the fix!

This is not sour grapes. I am very proud. My first doc made the short list (“On Native Soil: The Documentary of the 911 Commission Report.” ) Unfortunately we didn’t get a nomination. (Was that because we were unknowns and didn’t know how to play the game? I’d love to know.) Nevertheless, my team’s excellent work was recognized.

I worry that making a review in the NY or LA times a qualifying requirement, will limit access to “club members only.” What’s up? Are the insiders feeling threatened by the new guys on the block? Or is this just putting in writing a practice that’s been happening all along?

Photos

Realscreen Summit 2013 - CNN Worldwide\'s Vinnie Malhotra and USA Networks\' Heather Olander

Academy set to revamp rules for doc Oscar eligibility

Photos

More in FILM (772 of 2023 articles)