The Academy blew the minds of pretty much everyone following the film business by doubling the Best Picture nominees starting this year. So instead of five best picture nominees there will be ten.
The news was greeted with mixed emotions (as expected) but I am interested in thinking about whether having more films slots could help pictures about women and women filmmakers.
I emailed some people in the film business and here are their answers. Hopefully I will get some more responses and I will add them to the post.
More importantly, what do you think about this big, big change?
Gale Anne Hurd, producer of The Terminator, The Abyss and Punisher: War Zone
I’m delighted the Academy has made this decision – now lesser known indie films, strong dramas or musicals, and even powerful commercial films (like this year’s STAR TREK) will receive the recognition they deserve with a nomination.
Thelma Adams, Film critic, US Weekly
This change clearly seems to be to the advantage of big films that have been overlooked of late — The Dark Knight, etc. So I don’t think it’s a victory for women in film, but a triumph for big Hollywood over quality indies. Will this help Kathryn Bigelow’s pummeling “The Hurt Locker?” I think not.
Martha Coolidge, director, Rambling Rose, Introducing Dorothy Dandridge (disclaimer: she is on the Board of Governors of the Academy)
So my answer to you is “yes” this certainly increases the chances of films by and about women being nominated in the Best Picture category. The number of Directors to be nominated has not been increased so I don’t think it effects that at all, except that any achievement by a woman helps every other woman. So a woman’s movie nominated for Best Picture one year could increase the attention to another good one the next year getting more attention for both categories.
Sasha Stone, editor, Awards Daily
I think for the first time in decades there is a chance for more than one woman to get a film into the Big Ten. Best Director, though, is still where all of the power lies and in that category no woman has won. Can this change that? It’s possible. It looks likely that Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker is headed for one of the ten slots – she may get a Best Director nod but I don’t think you’d find anyone who would say she is the frontrunner, or even has a chance, to win. That’s because most of us accept the bitter truth that these awards are still voted on by a majority of male voters. So in that way, ten nominees isn’t going to change things. On the other hand, perhaps the wider opening for Best Picture contenders at all could open previously closed doors for women and other minorities.
What it mainly does is free up the Academy voter from having to make hard decisions. For instance, last year it was The Reader vs. The Dark Knight. Previously it was Dreamgirls versus Letters from Iwo Jima. Since voters put down their pics in order of preference from 1 to 5, their top two, or maybe three are the only films that get attention. They know this, which makes their decisions so difficult, so predictable and so boring. With more choices, smaller films or foreign films or even animated films that voters love could pop up on the list whether it’s been marketed as an Oscar movie or not.
Robin Swicord, Screenwriter (Little Women, Memoirs of a Geisha) and Director (Jane Austen Book Club)
I’m not sure what the effect will be on women. What I hope is that the onslaught of expensive Oscar campaigning may be somewhat reduced, since it should be fairly impossible for a studio to mount mega-million-dollar Oscar campaigns for every film that would be in possible contention in a wider field of nominees. Reduced competitive “noise” may make it easier for a film without the support of a huge and costly Oscar campaign to come to the attention of voters. (And yes, some of those may be films written by or directed by or starring women in lead roles.) I also hope that a broader field of possible nominees will allow more action films and comedies to get the attention that some in these genres deserve. And it may even change the Weinstein/Miramax-originated model of releasing “Oscar contenders” only in the fall and then doing a full-court press to position a handful of pictures as being Award-worthy. It won’t be possible for schedulers to fit every Oscar-worthy film into a fall release in theatres if the field has widened to ten Best Picture nominees. Personally I’d like to be able to go to the movies year-round and expect to see films of high quality. We’ve driven audiences away from the habit of going to the movies regularly, by creating these weird little release windows for “summer movies” and “fall movies” and the February dumping ground for movies that distributors aren’t sure how to sell. These release patterns make it difficult for studios and marketers to think in other terms, and I believe that has limited the development of movies that are truly original. Here’s hoping the Academy’s Board of Governors did something brilliant. I think it is possible that they have.
I think this is mostly a ploy to increase ratings for the TV broadcast. Ratings have been declining, especially as many of the nominations have been for films/performances that the majority of the regular movie-going public have seen.
I guess the Academy is figuring tons of fans will tune in if a couple of the BigExplosionBroMance blockbusters are included among the nominees.
When I heard about the change, I assumed it was done to improve the diversity situation – I mean, will they be able to find TEN films full of white men to nominate? We’ll see, LOL.
But then a friend pointed out that a best picture nomination = profits, and this is likely to be true even when there’s ten and that’s probably the main reason for the change.
But whatever, I believe it will increase the diversity, and I think that’s great. It will also be really interesting to see what happens when there’s ten best pic noms, but only five best directing noms. That’s gonna be kinda strange.