The Academy Awards have always been simultaneously controversial and respected. For actors and actresses, the Oscars offer a medium to launch or uphold careers, but can also act as a public form of disappointment or embarrassment. For directors and writers, the Oscars hold a more prestigious significance, validated their craft, and displaying their worth to the world. And while all of this is happening, people continue to criticize the structure of the Academy Awards. In 2015, the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite started trending after all 20 acting nominations were given to white actors and actresses. Coming off the heels of Black Lives Matter movements and talks of gender inequality, the public expressed their tiredness with the perpetual shutting-out of people of color and other marginalized groups.
Fast forward five years later, and the Academy has announced their new “diversity” guidelines for qualifying for Best Picture as part of their Academy Aperture 2025 initiative. The guidelines have four “standards,” and the film must meet at least two of these standards to qualify for Best Picture (each standard is a list of criteria and at least one of these criteria must be met for the overall standard to be met). Standard A is the most significant (and most talked about) of these standards, and it goes about as follows:
At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors are from an underrepresented minority group (Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander)
At least 30% of general cast/more minor roles must be in at least two of these underrepresented groups: Women, racial or ethnic group, LGBTQ+, disabled peoples
The storyline follows an underrepresented group.
Other standards cover topics like diversity in the creative team (director, writers, etc), paid apprenticeships and opportunities that the film gave to people in margainlized communities, and diversity on the publicity/senior executive teams.
Okay, that’s a lot to unpack. What is the point of all this mumbo-jumbo and what does it even mean?
Many people have come out and criticized the Academy for attempting to “force” diversity onto films, pointing out that a movie like 1917 (2019) would not have qualified for Best Picture. Others continue to bring up the meritocracy argument (“Just hire the best actor for the job; don’t focus so much on race!). Of course, that argument is slowly starting to lose its relevancy. Most people at least understand the small semblance of importance for having diversity onscreen. And when perfectly qualified women and people of color barely get nominated for anything, that meritocracy line of thinking clearly falls apart.
The truth is, these rules are the absolute bare minimum. They look like a lot on paper, but with so much flexibility on each qualification and a very broad definition of who qualifies as a marginalized group, most films will have absolutely nothing to worry about. If you’re having trouble picturing that, just think about it like this: A film with all white actors could still be nominated if their director was a woman and their executive teams had people of color in them. These rules mean well, but it’s hard to say if they’re really pushing the barrier.
Conversations about diversity are never comfortable to have. At the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: good films to be made with good actors and good stories to tell. But when not every group has the same starting point, not every group is going to get to the finish line as easily. That’s the real intention of rules like these. Not to diminish meritocracy, but to encourage the bare minimum--the equity for people of color.