On Sept. 8, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts announced new representation and inclusion standards for Oscars eligibility in the best picture category.

Set to be in full effect by the 96th Oscars (airing in 2024), these standards are meant to prepare the film industry for a fast-changing landscape in diversity. 

Out of the four “standards” set by the Academy, only two have to be met by a film in order to qualify for the best picture category. This leaves more than enough room for films to meet the qualifications. They are not demanding in the slightest. A push for inclusiveness goes a long way—but if the bar is set so low, does it actually make a difference in the Hollywood scene? 

Standard A focuses on the representation of marginalized groups on-screen as well as in the themes and narratives of the film. The film only needs to meet one of the three criteria: 

1. At least one actor in a significant role has to be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
2. The generable ensemble cast must be at least 30% from two of the four groups: women, racial or ethnic, LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities. 
3. The story or theme of the film has to focus on an underrepresented group. 

This first standard looks almost too easy to satisfy. It is meant to boost the number of films featuring diversity and encourage more unique narratives in a white-dominated industry. However, it does not seem difficult to bypass considering films only have to meet two out of the four total standards. Movies like “The Irishman” or “1917” may be targeted by this standard, but if they pass any of the other requirements, their lack of on-screen representation does not matter. 

Standard B asks that the crew and teams behind the screen are also practicing diversity and representation. The film needs to meet one out of the three criteria:

1. Creative leadership positions and department heads (casting director, editor, producer, etc.) have at least two people who identify out of the underrepresented groups. 
2. In crew and technical positions, six people must identify within underrepresented groups.
3. 30% of the film’s crew needs to be from underrepresented groups. 

The criteria for standard B is also dreadfully easy to hit. According to film producer Stephen Follows, “The average number of crew credits in films in the top 1,000 films from 1994 to 2013 was 588.”  With so many people needed on a film crew, it will not be hard to find people to fill in these requirements.

Standard C asks for the films to have a program investing in learning opportunities. The film needs to meet both criteria:

1. The distributing or financing company for the film must have paid apprenticeships or internships inclusive of underrepresented groups. 
2. There also has to be training opportunities and skill development for people of underrepresented groups. 

This standard might be the most poignant change when talking about an increase in diversity. Unpaid internships in the industry are a colossal risk to marginalized groups as they do not have as many privileges to pursue this opportunity. Their white counterparts are often well off, and they have access to resources and educational opportunities that will make them seem like more qualified candidates. 

In this regard, change is paramount to paving a more diverse road in Hollywood. By making it a film standard, people who are not as privileged are able to take their first steps into an industry that has been predominantly white for so long. 

Finally, Standard D addresses the publicity and marketing of the film. The film must meet this criterion:

1. Marketing, publicity and distributing teams must have several people from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups.  

In headlines, these standards make the Academy seem like they are finally trying to combat the lack of diversity within the industry. Hollywood has a long history of race problems in Hollywood, and the #OscarsSoWhite movement was just a couple of years ago. It is time they finally address this issue. In a dynamic world that is diverse in its demographics, cultures and experiences, films should reflect that. 

But at the same time, the bar is set so low. It would be ignominious if a film couldn’t achieve the standards fixed by the Academy. A film only needs to hit two out of the four standards, so the industry can still get away with telling narratives about straight, rich and white men. A film only needs interns who identify within marginalized groups and a crew that is 30% diverse. They can qualify their film as “diverse” without ever putting underrepresented faces on-screen. 

This move poses as a positive and fundamental change within the regulations for the best picture; in reality, it is all about the public’s perception of the Academy. If nothing really changes, then what’s the point of it all? These standards serve as a civic promise to promote inclusiveness. But films can still get away with meeting the bare requirements, and this may do little to make a fundamental difference.

The standards also introduce another problem: tokenism. It is a strategy used by large companies, career industries, schools and workforces. In this instance, underrepresented groups are hired to show that a film does, indeed, “support” these groups. A film may have a person of color on the screen, but they may only have a small or inconsequential role. They are just present for an orchestrated act that looks good for the company publicly but does little for unrecognized groups. This performative allyship is a disgraceful approach, but one that can satisfy the Academy standards. 

The Academy is doing better than it has in the past. Recently, the Academy has been diversifying the people on its board to reflect the demographics of a diverse America. On top of this, the film “Parasite” won the Oscars last year, being the first international film to do so. But its organizers have a long way to go if they hope to shed light on different backgrounds and cultures and give opportunities to historically-disenfranchised people.