Take a good long look at that sign. Those proportions are correct.
But things are looking up.
The LA Times’ Nicole Sperling breaks the news that the Academy might “relax” its cap on membership in hopes of adding a more diverse slate to their membership.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is aiming to expand and diversify its ranks by relaxing a cap on membership that has restricted new admittances since 2004.
The academy has about 5,800 voting members; in recent years, fewer than 200 people have been invited to join annually. The number of openings is essentially determined by how many members have retired, resigned or died. In the last decade, the overall ranks have not grown by more than 30 members a year.
Academy leaders say they are not loosening the qualifications for membership. Rules state that there are three ways to become eligible for admittance: an Oscar nomination, a recommendation from two members of the applicant’s branch, or an endorsement by the branch’s membership committee and staff.
It is unclear just how many new members the academy will invite this year, and when and how the policy change was arrived at. An academy spokeswoman said Friday that the change was recommended last fall to the Board of Governors by the general membership committee.
But the problem will be finding works they deem “deserving” of admiration by this very white, very male, very old group. What they consider “works of value” will be those projects they approve of, as we’ve seen by their nominations and winners for almost all of the last 85 years:
“I suspect we will be pretty self-limiting in terms of who we take in, in large part because the people on our membership committee have produced a lot of movies and want to keep the academy a merit-based organization,” he said. He added that in order to be eligible for admission to the producers branch, a prospective member must have two full producing credits on “works of a particular value.”
In other words, in order to see change within the Academy, we have to change within the boomer generation – an evolution of taste and perspective. I see their tastes devolving, with traditional films that reflect the world they knew and still want to associate with, not the world that has dramatically changed in eight decades.
Membership is an honor if the Academy is honorable, which an old white guys club is not. It’s creepy.
Why isn’t it? You mean by the definition? If that’s what you honestly think you’re the creep.
I don’t know what you mean, Bryce. What definition?
Ruby Dee and see how she was denied membership throughout most of her 60-year career
I mean this right here is truly fucked. I don’t know enough AMPAS history, but I’m sure there are more examples similar to Ruby Dee. I’m just saying no human democratic institution is perfect mostly they just make shit up as they go along. I mean I don’t know the demographics of the National Academy of Sciences but I bet they look a lot like AMPAS’. Of course I assuming all members vote on eligibility/induction rules at The Academy. That’s probably my mistake.
The definition I was talking about is “old white guys club = creepy”
ok, I understand what you’re saying. You’re asking Bob Burns why he feels an old white guy’s club isn’t honorable?
The way I see it, a club of old white men behaves dishonorably when it rigs membership invitations to exclude people they don’t associate with. When the exceptions to homogenized membership represent such thin slivers we see on those pie charts, then the exceptions look like nothing but tokenism.
it rig[s] membership invitations to exclude people they don’t associate with
I hear ya. Looking at the LA Times data, that’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. They sure look like numbers from a 1950’s Rotary Club.
Ryan
I quickly sampled three years of invitation lists and only a few craft divisions (acting, directing, etc.). Many of the individuals are unknown to me.
The Academy is a private organization receiving no public funds. It can choose its members as it likes. Membership is an honor, not a right.
Pete,
Bryce made some smart reasonable suggestions. You replied with a comment that essentially implied, “but dude, they’re ALREADY doing ALL that!”
You shot Bryce down to the extent that he backed off, gave up.
I just wanted to point out it’s a mistake to say all it takes to be invited to join the Academy is to get nominated. That is false.
And anyway, what sort of bullshit standard for eligibility is a nomination? Ruby Dee didn’t get an Oscar nomination in 1962 for Raisin in the Sun. Of course she didn’t! Because it was more important to nominate Una Merkel and Lotte Lenya in 1962 (?) But maybe Ruby Dee didn’t feel too bad. After all, Sidney Poitier wasn’t nominated for Raisin in the Sun either.
So because she wasn’t nominated, the Academy was unaware of Ruby Dee’s existence or place in film history until 2009? After a career spanning 60 years, the Academy finally thought she has earned an invitation because she had 10 lines of dialogue in American Gangster? Welcome to the club, Ms. Dee! You finally earned the right to get an Oscar ballot! At age 86.
That kind of membership policy is fucked up by any measure.
Please don’t preach to me about how the Academy receives no public funds and therefore they can do whatever they want.
That’s the point, Pete. They DO WHAT THEY WANT. With no regard for anything but their own insular attitudes.
We don’t publish articles like this because we think the Academy should be prosecuted for violating public funding regulations. No, we discuss charts and stats about the Academy’s embarrassing membership policies to make sure people realize who the bulk of the members really are and why they make so many dull choices.
You’re right. “Many of the individuals are unknown to me…” But that’s not the face of the Academy they show the public on Oscar night, is it? They show us the famous faces of the 20% of the Academy members who are recognizable –so then the public is left wondering how come Sean Penn and Tilda Swinton and Sacha Baron Cohen can’t do a better job selecting Oscar winners.
We thought they were cool! So how come all these famous industry people are always disappointing us?
Because the cool famous people we see on the red carpet are outnumbered 3 to 1 by the timid middlebrow unknown members of the AMPAS who slip in the side door for the past half a century, that’s why.
Bob Burns, you’re right. An old white guy’s club is just creepy. And it’s even creepier when we take an example like Ruby Dee and see how she was denied membership throughout most of her 60-year career.
Oh word? Then I’m out of ideas
Bryce
The Academy has many international members. Virtually all nominees (and others) are invited to join. In the last few years, the following overseas artists have received invitations:
Susanne Bier
Vincent Cassel
Natassja Kinski
Sylvain Chomet
Yojiro Takita
Claudio Miranda
Rachid Bouchareb
A.R. Rahman
Berenice Bejo
Diego Luna
Joseph Cedar
Dardennes Brothers
Philippe Falardeau
Asghar Farhadi
Michael Roskam
Wong Kar Wai
Ludovic Bouce
Jean Dujardin
Michel Hazavicinius
Alberto Iglesias
They represent France, Spain, Mexico, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, Morocco, Israel, Iran, Hong Kong, etc.
The Academy seems to bend over backwards to broaden its membership to include notable film artists from other countries.
Virtually all nominees (and others) are invited to join.
I don’t think that’s true. Nominees become eligible to be invited but many are not.
For example, Grant Heslov was finally invited to join in 2012. He was nominated for two Oscars in 2005. Why the 7 year delay?
That’s a list of 20 people who are not American who were invited over the last few years? Say, the last 4 years? 20 new international members out of 750 new invitees in the last 4 years? That’s 2%. I’m not saying an American awards group necessarily needs to try to have global diversity in direct proportion to the actual number of worldwide filmmakers. But 98% native English-speaking membership is not a formula for international diversity.
Visualize this. What would the US Congress look like if the only way to become a Congressmen was to be invited by somebody who’s already a Congressman?
Yes, the Academy has been talking about diversifying membership since the 1970s. Look how far they’ve come in 40 years. If they wanted diversity, they’d be trying harder.
12 new studio executives were invited to join the Academy last year. 12 of those 12 were men.
And don’t forget producer Jon Landau, who had to wait more than a decade following his win for Titanic, to be invited to join
From the diagram:
“Mostly White”: It’s the way of the world (in US); to me *though a non-American viewer*, there’s nothing too uncommon with that.
“Mostly Male” & “Mostly Older”: The male-dominant segment is absurd; there should be more female members in, in my opinion, BUT the age factor is more or less natural a cause; people live lives and stay on until passing through nature to eternity. In the latter case it’s not the elderly members’ faults.
—
The bottom line, in my humble opinion, re AGE […] only, is that younger people should strive and prove themselves worthy of recognition. (You just can’t diss the elderly in general and in this case the older members whom, thanks to their own Gods or UFO-Gods, in my view, are fortunate to live life for as long […]; it’s not their faults, to begin with. Different gens have their own ways of thinking; as far as age factor goes, it’s the duty of hopeful candidates, most being the younger ones, to prove it to the Industry.)
Whether or not we like it, that’s another story (that we have to deal with). . . .
‘“Mostly White”: It’s the way of the world (in US); to me *though a non-American viewer*, there’s nothing too uncommon with that.’
I’ve said this because I believe most members are American, or at least US-based, and that I believe, we must deal with it if it’s true, […] most movies/films, many being from US, or more specifically from the Studios, most likely cater to (catch-all) White demographics *again, it’s the way of the world to an extent (if you can change that, well, be my guest)*.
I think it is great that they are expanding the numbers, but it all depends upon the actual people they let in, and being consistent with those diversification efforts over many, many years.
I remember reading a quote from the 1970’s by one of the past presidents talking about how they were working hard to get younger people into the Academy. He was emphasizing how people like Dustin Hoffman and Jeff Bridges were joining and that they were making real progress towards that goal. Of course, that was the 70’s, and he was referencing Hoffman as the Graduate, not as Grandpa Focker. It’s a never-ending uphill battle, and with lifetime memberships they do have to be careful because the young folks of today inevitably turn into the old folks of tomorrow.
That “age” problem is obviously a little different than the race and gender problems that the Academy faces (and which I find much more troublesome). And, at the same time, there are some correlations. If they were really forward-looking, they would be thinking not only about the current failure in terms of African American and Latino representation, but also looking at the emerging (and in many cases, already fully realized) cinematic prospects for Arab and Asian film as well. (For the record, I’m not talking just about demographics of the general population, but specifically about the actual revolutions in cinema that are already coming into being.)
AMPAS has no reason to be defensive. It should reflect the industry not broader demographics. The crafts should take efforts to broaden their ranks so that more minorities become eligible for Academy membership.
It should reflect the industry not broader demographics
I agree with this statement, but changes need to be made. I’d go only with those changes that would increase the profiles/merits of the membership. Increase the membership numbers probably isn’t a bad idea. let’s say a 1/3 increase? I’m not familiar with AMPAS internal rules but do all members have to be American or work in the English language universe? Why not go global? Total overhaul of the Best Foreign Language Film category: Set the number of nominees to 10 (set Best Pic to 10 too so there’s a mice symmetry) and improve the hell out of the submission structure. Just give the category a higher profile/reputation and increase the fairness of the process. In addition give memberships to the most revered people of world cinema.
As, I said I’m no expert but are Michael Haneke, Lars von Trier, Takashi Miike, Pedro Almodovar, Fernando Meirelles, Bong Joon-ho members of the Academy? If no, why the hell not? Same goes for worthy international actors, and technicians. Make the Oscars THE film awards.
Given that the entire Academy selects the BP nominees (and not just the producers), does it really matter who’s in the producers’ branch? Focus on diversifying the tech fields, writing, editing, directing and cinematography, and the BP noms should diversy themselves. (I assume acting and music branches are already the most diverse.)
The figure is widely known but seriously, 54% of the academy is over 60 years old? That’s just overkill. Someone said a while ago that membership should NOT be for life and that it should end once the person retired from making movies (or has not worked for an X number of years).
the people on our membership committee have produced a lot of movies
or a lot of shit
I see their tastes devolving, with traditional films that reflect the world they knew and still want to associate with, not the world that has dramatically changed in eight decades.
It’s the world they think they knew. Nostalgia has clouded their memory. These old fogies were making movies in the 60s and 70s, when their tastes were far more adventurous. They’ve aged and their tastes have aged with them.
I propose a cull.