Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A scene from "Senna," one of the overlooked documentaries not in the running for an Oscar this year.

An apparently bizarre decision to have newspapers determine what documentary films qualify for Oscars is, in fact, only one small aspect of sweeping changes in the Oscars documentary film nomination process designed to better reflect voters' consensus.

On Sunday, The New York Times broke the story that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will implement a new policy for the 2013 ceremony under which it will only consider documentaries for Oscar contention after they have been reviewed by The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times.

But the review policy is only one minor element in changes, pushed by filmmaker and Academy board of governors member Michael Moore, designed to make the documentary race more credible and representative of popular appeal.

Story continues below advertisement

The problem of mainstream and celebrated documentaries being left off the list has been chronic and reflects a flaw in the existing system. This year, for example, successful documentaries including Senna, Into the Abyss, The Interrupters and The Arbor were all left off the documentary feature long list. In the past, such prominent films as Capitalism: A Love Story, Hoop Dreams and The Thin Blue Line were ignored by the Academy.

This was not strictly a matter of the taste of voters in the documentary branch, but a process that was open to error. In the current system, volunteers form multiple committees to watch dozens of qualifying documentaries (124 this year) and then offer their top choices for the 15-film short list, which is then whittled down to five nominees. Not everyone sees the same films, and a few negative votes can keep a critically lauded and popular film out of contention.

That's why prominent filmmakers such as Steve James ( Hoop Dreams), Morgan Spurlock ( Super Size Me) and Moore support the new system, in which the entire 157 members of the documentary branch will be able to see all the films, delivered either by DVD or online in quarterly instalments, before choosing the nominated films.

After that, the more than 6,000 members of the Academy will vote on the best documentary, after seeing the top five choices on DVDs.

As Moore explained to the film site Indiewire, the new system will cut the number of qualifying films in half (to about 60) but will benefit documentary filmmakers by focusing on theatrical documentaries and allowing the entire Academy to be involved in the final decision. And as Moore told another website, Awards Daily: "The Academy says it's decided what the best documentary of the year is. But if only 5 per cent of the Academy are deciding that, we're not telling the truth. Wouldn't it be more honest," he said, "if we let the whole Academy vote?"

The motive for the reviewing rule is to avoid producers of made-for-television documentaries holding under-the-radar screenings of documentaries in order to technically qualify for the Academy Awards. The Academy has not yet specified whether reviews need be in print, or whether capsule or online reviews would apply, but reviews by television critics are specifically ruled out.

The review policy also has some flexibility. If The New York Times changes its policy of reviewing every documentary with a one-week run in Manhattan, then the Academy will also change its policy. If, for some reason, a film is not reviewed, the filmmaker can appeal to the Academy.

Story continues below advertisement

One potential casualty of the new process is DocuWeeks, an annual event in New York and Los Angeles, in which filmmakers pay money to submit their documentaries specifically for a one-week Oscar-qualifying run. One film that went through the DocuWeeks process was Lucy Walker's Waste Land, an Oscar nominee last year.

In the Academy Awards, the documentary branch and the foreign-language films are perennially among the most controversial categories. The documentaries branch has made a series of voting changes, especially in the last decade when the market for theatrical documentary film has boomed. The best foreign-language film category – in which a committee in each country gets to nominate one film for the long list, which is then narrowed down by an Academy nominating committee – has not made any significant improvements in the same period.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies