At the time of year where we would ordinarily be gearing up for the awards race, the COVID19 pandemic has shut cinemas across the world indefinitely, forcing hundreds of films to be released via online streaming services instead. Films released in this way would typically be barred from being eligible for the Academy Awards. Previously, films had to be screened in a Los Angeles cinema for at least seven consecutive days to be eligible. However, in light of the pandemic, the Academy has temporarily lifted this rule, but in doing so, it has also exposed the flaws in its present eligibility rules, which have long fuelled the dearth of diversity at the annual Academy Awards ceremony.
Even pre-pandemic, there had been extensive debates over eligibility rule reforms. Despite the awards successes of a growing number of films released through platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime, highlighted by Netflix films like “Roma”, “Marriage Story” and “The Irishman”, many Academy voters remain resistant to working with online streaming sites. In a notable example, Christopher Nolan is so fanatical about theatrical releases that he is still insisted that Warner Bros stick the forecast July 17th release date for his latest film “Tenet”, although this was later pushed back to August 12th by Warner Bros since it has become apparent that it is still unsafe to re-open cinemas.
The Academy’s unprecedented decision directly opposes the stances of filmmakers like Nolan regarding theatrical releases. Given the present situation, it is also somewhat unsurprising. Although the Academy Awards is annually controversial, whether for its overwhelming whiteness (#OscarsSoWhite), its host (Seth McFarlane…) or its snubs, the Academy has occasionally perceived the need for reform. In an attempt to increase membership diversity in 2016, the Academy announced “AA2020”, a revision of its famously inflexible membership rules, whereby they committed to doubling numbers of women and “diverse” members by 2020. If the Academy’s invitees for 2020 are anything to go by, this has paid dividends: if all 819 invitees accept the invitations sent to them by the Academy earlier this week, then 45% of the new members will be women whilst 36% will be from underrepresented ethnic/racial backgrounds.
Although “AA2020” demonstrates the power of progressive reforms, a more diverse body of members is only truly effective if there are an increasing number of films made by marginalised filmmakers and viewed by Academy voters. The recent change to the eligibility rules- even if it is only temporary- merely highlights that they are archaic and serve only to perpetuate the elitist, exclusive image of the Academy Awards. Often, it is smaller budget independent films made by BIPOC, LGBT+ or female filmmakers which are left excluded. These groups remain seriously underrepresented in the world of studio films, less likely to receive funding and much more likely to have insufficient budgets to lead draining “for your consideration” campaigns or be released in LA cinemas. Academy Award winning studio films made by minority filmmakers, such as Ryan Coogler’s “Black Panther”, remain exceptions in an industry where 91% of studio heads are white and 82% are male.
Meanwhile, whilst the majority of independent filmmakers struggle to platform their work to awards bodies- at least partly due to the archaic Academy eligibility rules- “diverse” studio films do occasionally win Academy Awards. However, they have typically been made by filmmakers who do not belong to the communities being depicted. Most recently, the prominence of white saviour narratives such as 2019 Best Picture winner “Green Book” and 2012 Best Picture nominee “The Help” have highlighted the hypocrisy of the Academy’s previous approaches to diversity. Both films were directed and written by white people, despite the film’s claims to be stories about African Americans and were voted for by largely white membership bodies. At the time, they were heralded as progressive decisions from the Academy. This was not progress, but because both of these films were large-budget studio films, they enjoyed substantial success, even though they essentially palliated black suffering to make white audiences feel better about their own inherent racism. Meanwhile, films made by black filmmakers such as Ryan Coogler’s excellent “Fruitvale Station” remained under the radar, purportedly because it’s July release date essentially prevented it from gaining the attention necessary to qualify for the Academy Awards. In accordance with the Academy eligibility rules, films seeking to be considered for competition should aim to be released during the autumn and winter months. And yet that had never stopped Christopher Nolan’s (all-white…) “Dunkirk”, also released in July, from gaining eight nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director.
It is therefore apparent that these rules need a serious overhaul. If films released through VOD services were to be considered eligible for competing in the Academy Awards, perhaps this would also end the objectively unfair practice of limited theatrical releases. All too often, marginalised filmmakers find their films categorised as “special interest”, simply because they tackle “minority” experiences and are thus perceived as more “niche” by diverging from the overwhelmingly white, cis-het narratives which cinemagoers have become so accustomed to seeing on screens. Therefore, these films receive a limited theatrical release, being released in only a few cinemas nationwide. Ultimately, this marketing strategy alienates “special interest” films from the mainstream. It also implies that these stories are only worth being told to a specific demographic, which is patently untrue, as the mainstream successes of “special interest” films like “Moonlight” and “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” highlight. It becomes an unfair playing field, but enabling all films released via VOD to be eligible could ensure greater fairness. Films which would usually receive a limited theatrical release could be streamed via streaming giants like Netflix- without fear of being disqualified from competing for Academy Awards- and find wider audiences and gain much greater exposure.
So, what would happen if the Academy were to change its eligibility rules to promote this greater flexibility? Many critics have already predicted that, because of this year’s changes, the 2021 Academy Awards will offer more diverse films than usual, including a larger number of independent films which would previously have only seen limited theatrical releases. Films which would have otherwise been theatrically released, such as Lee Isaac Chung’s “Minari” and Emerald Fennel’s “Promising Young Woman”, have already generated substantial awards buzz and are now all but confirmed to be released via VOD services, although their success may be due to the absence of many studio films. However, the studio films which repeatedly push back release dates risk substantial financial losses and much less exposure if cinemas don’t reopen anytime soon.
In an ideal world, the Academy would see the benefits of permanently reforming the existing rules surrounding where, when and how films are released. As self-congratulatory and sycophantic as the Academy Awards ceremony itself can be, the films that win awards influence the films that we all consume, as well our attitudes towards the industry. Additionally, an Academy Award win- or nomination- often provides the A-List status that enables individuals to wield enough power to incite change and be listened to. The more winners and nominees who are BIPOC, LGBT+, disabled and in categories such as Best Director, female, the more the industry power dynamics will start to shift tangibly.
We can only hope that – like so many other institutions worldwide- the Academy will take this unprecedented opportunity to implement meaningful reforms. If it doesn’t, it risks becoming irrelevant. To survive, it must accept that our viewing experiences as an audience, like so many elements of our lives, are moving online.
A Northern Girl in a Southern World 