The criteria are enumerated on the Academy's site. They unequivocally state that eligibility for Best Picture is no longer simply a matter of being a feature-length movie released within the calendar year in Los Angeles or New York. It must now meet a lengthy set of "inclusion standards" which have nothing to do with the arts. The reason…
The criteria are enumerated on the Academy's site. They unequivocally state that eligibility for Best Picture is no longer simply a matter of being a feature-length movie released within the calendar year in Los Angeles or New York. It must now meet a lengthy set of "inclusion standards" which have nothing to do with the arts. The reason? As I stated in the piece, even if a massive majority of Academy members elect to nominate a film that does not meet those standards, that film will be disqualified, and not because it's not a good film. It will be disqualified because it does not adhere to an arbitrary set of social values. So the Academy openly now takes the position that if you run afoul of an arbitrary set of social values, no matter how good your film is or how beloved it is, they will now allow it to be nominated.
You can argue that the rules have no teeth, in which case you'd need to justify why they should even exist. You can also argue that the inclusion standards address very real historic harms, in which case you would have to explain why that should be the purview of the Academy.
My depiction of the criteria was that they prioritize ethnicity, sexuality and ability/disability. By the Academy's own published materials, that is accurate.
The criteria are enumerated on the Academy's site. They unequivocally state that eligibility for Best Picture is no longer simply a matter of being a feature-length movie released within the calendar year in Los Angeles or New York. It must now meet a lengthy set of "inclusion standards" which have nothing to do with the arts. The reason? As I stated in the piece, even if a massive majority of Academy members elect to nominate a film that does not meet those standards, that film will be disqualified, and not because it's not a good film. It will be disqualified because it does not adhere to an arbitrary set of social values. So the Academy openly now takes the position that if you run afoul of an arbitrary set of social values, no matter how good your film is or how beloved it is, they will now allow it to be nominated.
You can argue that the rules have no teeth, in which case you'd need to justify why they should even exist. You can also argue that the inclusion standards address very real historic harms, in which case you would have to explain why that should be the purview of the Academy.
My depiction of the criteria was that they prioritize ethnicity, sexuality and ability/disability. By the Academy's own published materials, that is accurate.