The Academy’s New Rules: Is It Going to Change Anything?
So, it’s only been a little while for the news bomb from The Academy that they’re taking dramatic steps to alter the membership rules, governors seats and committee structure but what, if anything, is it going to do in the short term? Is the Academy asking us to “be patient” like Michael Caine said about black actors today? Or are the changes being made (that will go into effect after this year’s Oscars) the real deal?
Part of the confusion is in the wording of the press release. I know I’m not the sharpest tack in the box but I hope I’m not the dullest either. But it’s the “retroactive” element that is a cause for concern. In talking about the restructuring of the memberships, the Academy announced that:
[box type=”shadow” align=”aligncenter” class=”” width=””]Beginning later this year, each new member’s voting status will last 10 years, and will be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade. In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award. We will apply these same standards retroactively to current members. In other words, if a current member has not been active in the last 10 years they can still qualify by meeting the other criteria. Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status. Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting. This will not affect voting for this year’s Oscars.[/box]
Sounds good, right? Well, maybe. The purging of existing members due to inactivity is definitely what the Academy needs and was one of many things called for right after the Oscar nominations were announced, including myself. So, based on that quote from the press release we know that: New members will receive a 10-year membership that can be renewed if they’ve been active in that decade. Ok, good so far. Anyone who has ever been nominated or won an Academy Award and is a member is a member for life, no changes to those folks. Now, for existing members that have not been active in ten years and have not been nominated or won an Academy Award…what about that “other criteria”? Is that how the three ten-year terms come into play? Is that the “retroactive” element? Because if it is and we’re looking at keeping members as far back as 1986 to be grandfathered in, then we have a problem. It would seem that this would be to keep any class action lawsuits from happening from longtime members who don’t want to see their memberships and perks changed in any way. That doesn’t seem like it would change much at all. It wouldn’t be enough. Unless that three ten-year term element is moving forward and working backwards.
If that’s the case, then there is cause to celebrate. Those older, non-working members would still get to keep their memberships, just not voting rights, and that’s the core issue; bringing new voices in for diversity and creating a broader landscape of nominees. But, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, what does this mean for someone like Ken Rudolph? He’s been retired for some time and has never been nominated. It would be a shame if he can no longer vote, because, unlike some very vocal members of the Academy past and present, the man watches everything. He’s the kind of person that the Academy needs more of, the kind who makes the best judgement possible with the widest scope. Hopefully more clarification will come from the Academy on this but for now, it seems like a solid step forward.
What is a bit overshadowed by all the membership hoopla though are what are probably the real changes that turn the Academy on its ear and those are the doubling the number of women and minorities, the establishing of “three new governor seats that will be nominated by the President [Cheryl Boone Isaacs] for three-year terms and confirmed by the Board” and the “adding new members who are not Governors to its executive and board committees where key decisions about membership and governance are made.” These are not small steps, they’re huge. They’re what the Academy has needed for a long time. It’s great to infuse diversity within a voting body but that voting body is near 7,000 people now and change there won’t be swift. But for the Board of Governors and committees whose numbers are in the double digits, that’s where we’ll see change.
Until then, this is obviously a good thing, there’s no question. There will be a contingent of people screaming that it’s affirmative action or some such nonsense but you know what, who cares, it’s a start. You can’t have equality without opportunity. It just took 88 years to happen.
He is a Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic, accredited by the Cannes Film Festival, Telluride Film Festival, Toronto International Film Festival and more, is a member of the International Cinephile Society (ICS), The Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics (GALECA), Hollywood Critics Association (HCA) and the International Press Academy. Among his many achieved goals with AwardsWatch, he has given a platform to underrepresented writers and critics and supplied them with access to film festivals and the industry and calls the Bay Area his home where he lives with his husband and son.
- 2025 Oscar Predictions: SUPPORTING ACTOR (November) - November 21, 2024
- 2025 Oscars: Eligibility Lists for Animated Feature, Documentary Feature and International Feature Film for the 97th Academy Awards - November 21, 2024
- Nava Mau, Sean Wang Among 2024 BAFTA Breakthroughs Championing New ‘Must-Watch’ Creatives - November 21, 2024
2025 Oscar Predictions: SUPPORTING ACTOR (November) 
Director Watch Podcast Ep. 72 – ‘Three Colours: Blue’ (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1993) 
2025 Oscars: Eligibility Lists for Animated Feature, Documentary Feature and International Feature Film for the 97th Academy Awards 
Nava Mau, Sean Wang Among 2024 BAFTA Breakthroughs Championing New ‘Must-Watch’ Creatives