The Academy’s Doc Branch Knows Its Oscar Nomination Process Needs to Change. It Can’t Agree on How

This year, the five nominees include foreign and U.S. filmmakers as well as docs with limited and major distribution. They are: David Borenstein and Pavel Talankin’s “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” (Kino Lorber), Geeta Gandbhir’s “The Perfect Neighbor” (Netflix), Andrew Jarecki and Charlotte Kaufman’s “The Alabama Solution” (HBO), Sara Khaki and Mohammadreza Eyni’s “Cutting Through Rocks” (self-distributed), and Ryan White’s “Come See Me in the Good Light” (Apple).

It’s a balanced list, but veteran members of the AMPAS documentary branch still would like to see the category become, in their minds, more democratic. But how?

The consensus is yes, change is needed… but the group can’t agree on what that means.

To qualify for Oscar consideration, feature documentaries must have a seven-day run in a theater in one of six U.S. cities, with at least three daily screenings. Docs that win specific top juried prizes at festivals accredited by AMPAS — like Sundance, Berlin, IDFA, Cannes, etc. — are automatically eligible. Last year, a record-breaking 201 feature documentaries qualified (up 32 from last year and 77 from a decade ago).

“It’s ridiculous,” said a producer who has worked in the doc industry for over two decades and is behind several Oscar-winning films. “People are spending large sums of money to qualify films that have no chance of ever being nominated.”

To narrow the number of qualifying films, an Emmy-winning doc producer said only docs with “proper U.S. distribution” should qualify. “If the film doesn’t have that and was made in another country, then the film should be in the foreign language category, not the doc category.”

A veteran Oscar-nominated doc filmmaker agreed. “Every film that qualifies needs to have a legitimate theatrical experience, excluding four-walled self-distribution,” the director said.

Other branch members thought that was unfair given how hard it is for many docs to find distribution. Last year’s winner, “No Other Land,” was released independently and outgrossed the other four nominees.

“The onus of distribution is now placed on filmmakers,” said a producer who previously worked for a streamer. “We are raising money to get films seen.”

“It’s just so unrealistic,” added Oscar-nominated and Emmy award-winning producer.

As for which films should qualify, a director in the branch said that the Academy’s explicit efforts to diversify its membership and embrace the global filmmaking community made the feature doc category an international one.

“In 2016, AMPAS said, this Academy is not for American movies,” the director said. “The Academy is for human cinema, and so we should have Chinese filmmakers, and we should have Zimbabwean filmmakers, and we should have Brazilian filmmakers, etc. You can argue whether that was right or wrong, but it was a decision that led to huge growth in the doc branch. So, no one should be surprised when a movie about an American celebrity doesn’t get nominated.”

From 2016 through 2021, the documentary branch more than doubled its membership. Currently, approximately 30 percent of its 750 voters are based outside the U.S. “There is always grousing about the international [films],” a Peabody award-winning producer said. “But three of the nominated films this year were made by U.S. filmmakers who made films in the U.S. about Americans and U.S. issues.”

“The people who have gotten awards in the past or have a commercial career or who make money, God forbid, are shunted aside,” said an Emmy-winning director.

One Oscar-nominated director cited Mstyslav Chernov, who won an Oscar in 2024 for “20 Days in Mariupol.” He was shortlisted this year for his film “2000 Meters to Andriivka” but fell short of nomination. “If he hadn’t won two years ago, I think that [film] definitely would’ve been nominated this year,” the director said.

The documentary category is one of the few Oscar categories in which voters consider a film’s potential impact as one of its merits.

“We happen to be a branch of people from all walks of life, all regions of life with very different views as to what is the purpose of documentary,” said an Oscar-nominated director. “The people on the feature side, I don’t think, have very different views on what the role of a scripted movie should be.

“Some documentarians see docs purely as journalism,” they said. “Some documentarians see it purely as advocacy. Some documentarians are in it for the aesthetics of storytelling, and some are in it for all three. But it’s a group of very different people of very different means. You are going to have issues, no matter what, as to determining what the quality is.”

One branch member said 10 perceent of his vote goes toward the film’s issue, with the other 90 percent based on how powerful, surprising, and well-made the movie is. “That’s just me,” he said. “I know people who base 70 percent of their vote on the cause they care about, 30 percent on merit.”

Others argue that, year after year, the five nominated films are selected based purely on merit. “Whether film is about a social issue or not, it received a nomination because it was expertly crafted,” said a Emmy-nominated producer. “If it weren’t, it wouldn’t make it to the final five.”

The 15 films on the documentary shortlist are narrowed to five by the doc branch members’ ranked-choice voting. This means that if a movie is the top choice for about 10 percent of voters, it will be nominated.

Some feel that the voting system could be more fair if it operated like the international film branch, which allows all Academy members to opt in and vote for the shortlist and eventual nominees.

“It would make it less of a popularity contest,” a doc editor said. “Big-budget films or films that streamers paid a lot of money for [the films] wouldn’t be punished.”

An Oscar-winning director said opening the shortlist to the entire voting body would likely mean nominations for “sexier, splashier, commercial titles that might not have the artistic merit that the documentary branch cares so deeply about.”

Other branch members believe opening voting to the entire Academy would mean only celebrity-driven streamer films receiving nominations. “I know that there are people who have an incredible amount of success making celebrity and true crime, and they want to hold onto their power and keep the streamers happy,” said an Emmy-winning director. “But what about the undistributed films?”

The Peabody-winning producer added, “That’s why it’s so perfect this year. The streamers are freaking happy, and there are still undistributed films or films that are like looking desperately for distribution.”