Yesterday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) announced what changes are being made for the upcoming 99th Academy Awards in a lengthy news update and press release. These are significant rule changes in certain categories that, in one case, frankly, needed an update. There are also more technical adjustments to be found in the press release, as well as an attempt to rule out the influence of artificial intelligence on what is considered award-worthy. Do note that while a Best Stunt Design category has previously been announced, this new category will not be a part of the Oscars until the 100th ceremony in 2028; these rule changes do not take into account said category. So, today, I’m going to go through the most significant changes and answer whether these award rule changes make sense, so that you can better understand their reasoning for changing things and be better prepared for the upcoming 99th Academy Awards, which will take place on March 14th, 2027.
AMPAS specifies that Artificial Intelligence is unacceptable
It was only a matter of time before AMPAS took further steps to prevent the explosive development of artificial intelligence from tarnishing the Oscars. Now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Whether you’d like it or not, the Oscars aren’t technically banning AI here. In the official rules for the 99th Academy Awards, they state that “[AI] tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.” So, they aren’t actually wholesale rejecting artificial intelligence, despite creatives, performers, critics, moviegoers, and many others largely fearing the influence of artificial intelligence on creativity, jobs, and the like.
What they are doing, however, is banning the use of AI in certain categories. For the acting categories, AMPAS has specified that performances are only eligible for nominations if they are 1) performed by humans, 2) are “credited in the film’s legal billing,” and 3) if the human actors have given their consent as to their performances being included in the film. So, for example, if a film were to include an AI-generated performance from Clark Gable, who presumably never consented to his likeness being used for films and performances beyond his lifetime, then said AI-generated performance would be ineligible. Finally, concerning the writing categories, AMPAS specified that only human-authored screenplays are eligible for nomination consideration.
One actor can take up multiple spots in the same category now
While the AI adjustments more feel like they’re trying to safeguard the future of the ceremony, its credibility, and the industry, this change, however, feels like it should’ve been here much, much sooner. Now, stick with me here, back in the day, for the 73rd Oscars, filmmaker Steven Soderbergh incredibly took up two of the five spots for Best Director (for Traffic and Erin Brockovich) on his way to winning Best Director for Traffic. However, it just so happens that the same could not have happened in the acting categories. The Academy is changing this. From now on, actors may, in fact, be nominated for multiple different films and performances in the very same category, if, of course, those performances got enough votes to all be in the top 5 in that category.
Now, you may be asking yourself if this is even relevant or likely to happen. To answer that, I want to highlight two specific ceremonies. The latest of these was the 88th Academy Awards, when Alicia Vikander won Best Supporting Actress for The Danish Girl. That very same year, she was also in Ex_Machina, and her performance in that film earned her Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations for Best Supporting Actress. She was therefore likely to have two performances to get the votes required to be nominated. However, that would not be possible until this new rule change. Now, there’s always more to the story, such as campaigning. Vikander’s performance in The Danish Girl was listed in Best Actress at the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs. But it is very likely that the reason for them campaigning for nominations in a strange way, as was the case back then, was to get around both vote splitting and the fact that she couldn’t get two performances nominated in the same category. For what it’s worth, her performance in Ex_Machina is the better of the two, but I digress.
Another similar example that explains why this rule change was necessary is the case of Leonardo DiCaprio at the 79th Academy Awards. Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor for Blood Diamond, while he wasn’t nominated for his much more memorable performance in The Departed, which, of course, won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing that night. Warner Bros. campaigned him in Best Supporting Actor to avoid vote splitting and, presumably, to get around the fact that he couldn’t be nominated in the same category for both. However, his performance was not nominated at all, and it was not a supporting performance. For what it’s worth, he was, in fact, nominated for both performances in Best Actor at the Golden Globes.
This rule change is a good call. It feels very much like a rule change designed specifically for these Vikander and DiCaprio examples. It’ll be interesting to see if we see a double (or triple?!) nomination in the same category in the next few years because of this change. Maybe it even stops certain award campaigns from doing category fraud.
Fixing the International Feature category (or trying to)
One of the more strange categories at the Oscars is the International Feature category, which is a personal favorite of mine. While the Oscar is accepted by the director, the winner is, technically, the country that submitted the film for a nomination. That’s right, for years and years, to even be considered for a nomination, you had to be specifically chosen by your country of production as their pick. There are film juries all over the world that, each year, have to decide whether Film X or Film Y should be made eligible for an Oscar nomination in this category. This can be fun if you’re the kind of person who likes to follow what films are on the shortlist for each country, but it is also an archaic concept that doesn’t take into account favoritism (or the like) or the idea that maybe, just maybe, two films from, for example, Iceland could be deserving of nominations in that category.
This is a problem, and it has been a problem for a long time. Let’s look at two French examples, which, I think, are the reasons why a change is being made. For the 92nd Academy Awards, the French jury selected Les Misérables as their film, even though Céline Sciamma’s Queer Palm-winning Portrait of a Lady on Fire was, arguably, the more popular film outside of France. You could argue that both films would’ve been nominated if the rules allowed it. Then there’s the case of Justine Triet’s Anatomy of a Fall, which, at the 96th Academy Awards, won Best Original Screenplay. However, despite Triet’s film having won the Palme d’Or, the French jury selected The Taste of Things as the French submission. Although that film is also well-regarded, the fact that Triet’s film wasn’t selected made many theorize that she was being punished for political comments she had made. This all meant that even though Anatomy of a Fall was nominated for five Oscars (and won one), it was not possible to nominate it in the International Feature category.
So, now, AMPAS is changing things. Let’s look at the two things they’re actually doing. First, from now on, the film will be the nominee/award winner rather than solely the country that submitted the film, and the director’s name will be on the Oscar statuette alongside the name of the country that submitted the film. This is a much-requested change, as it made no sense that, for example, apparently, Thomas Vinterberg’s name isn’t on the Oscar for Another Round. The second, and most significant, change to the International Feature category is that now films don’t have to be submitted by a country to be able to be nominated. Now, stick with me here, this does NOT mean that countries won’t still submit a film, but they’ve created a secondary pathway to category eligibility. That secondary pathway is winning a ‘qualifying award’ at a major film festival. This means that if you win the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival, the Best Film Award at the Busan International Film Festival, the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, the World Cinema Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, the Platform Award at the Toronto International Film Festival, or the Golden Lion at the Venice International Film Festival, then you are eligible for a nomination, even if your country doesn’t pick you.
This means that if these rules had always been in place, then Anatomy of a Fall would be eligible for a nomination despite it not being picked by France because it had won the Palme d’Or. However, Portrait of a Lady on Fire would not be eligible because it didn’t win one of the specified qualifying awards. Some will likely still have an issue with the fact that the main pathway is still decided by national juries, but that they’ve created a secondary pathway to ensure that they don’t miss out on the opportunity to celebrate films that certain countries may, for example, ignore for political reasons is a step in the right direction. However, there is one issue with this. Given the fact that three of the six qualifying film festivals are European, you could argue that European films are more likely to earn eligibility through that secondary pathway to a nomination. For example, the Golden Lion has, in the 2020s, mostly gone to North American or European filmmakers. So that could be an issue. However, Iran’s It Was Just An Accident won Cannes’ Palme d’Or last year, so it isn’t like these festivals solely look to European films. But more film festivals absolutely do need to be added to the qualifying list so that film festivals in other parts of the world can be a part of the secondary pathway, so that multiple films can be eligible for the secondary pathway.
Remaining adjustments
I’ve already gone over the main rules changes that AMPAS has announced, but I should mention that they are not the only changes here. AMPAS also adjusted the number of films on the Best Cinematography nomination shortlist, increased the maximum number of statuettes that may be awarded in the Best Casting category every year, and upped requirements for members of the Make-Up and Hairstyling and Visual Effects branches. I will mention one more thing, though, which is that the adjustment to the Original Song category is worded awkwardly. They specify that: “For songs submitted as the first new music cue once the end credits begin, the video clip must include the last 15 seconds of the film before the credits begin.” At first, I thought they meant that music during the end credits is only eligible for a Best Original Song nomination if the music plays for at least 15 seconds at the end of the film. But, having read it multiple times now, I think what they’re actually saying is that end credits music is still eligible, you just have to submit 15 seconds of video from the end of the film, to make clear to voters what visuals precede the music during the end credits.
– Article written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
