It’s easy to celebrate change. And God knows, the Doc nominating process at The Academy needed it. But let’s not lose the forest for the trees. Here are the problems that no one else seems to want to talk about in public.

1. The new system effectively disallows docs from effectively using Academy nominations and/or wins to slingshot a doc commercially without spending a lot more money. A significant percentage of docs have done this, including winners like Born Into Brothels and Taxi To The Dark Side.

2. The new rules purport to be, in great part, about keeping docs that are really “tv docs” trawling for awards from getting in the way of “real” theatrical docs. Of course, the committee system has had no problem “protecting” the nominations from such films.

As best I can tell, you have to go back to 2004 to find a movie funded by HBO – the largest US funder of docs, along with PBS – that’s been nominated. Born Into Brothels also happened to win that year.

Man On Wire, which also won, was funded by Discovery Channel, though like Brothels, it got a theatrical run after it drew intense attention at Sundance. Brothels, however, didn’t have a “real” release until after it was Oscar nominated. Before that, ThinkFilm did 7 weeks on a single screen.

So were these “real” theatrical docs?

Is a film like If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, another strong film by Marshall Curry, “real” because Oscilloscope bought rights and put it on between 2 and 5 screens for 9 weeks, grossing $61,794 and got reviewed by the Timeses of NY and LA?

Is a film like Public Speaking, another doc by Martin Scorsese, “fake” because Rialto released it (output deal?) and squeezed $62,173 in single screen engagements over more than a dozen weeks, and not getting reviewed by movie critics at the Timeses because it was a movie funded by American Express and played first on HBO?

I’m not making an argument for either one here. But how many arguments are there for or against these films? Did Martin Scorsese make a faux documentary? Is it more theatrical to make the same amount of money in theaters before TV than after?

The Academy Doc Committee certainly has a right to set their own standards. But as you examine each movie and get past the platitudes, the differentiations get more complex and less easy to dismiss.

3. Film festivals are now to be a non-issue for doc qualification. So, if 10,000 people pay to see a documentary projected in movie theaters at film festivals over the course of the year, but the film doesn’t get good theatrical distribution and feels compelled, for financial reasons, to make a TV deal, it becomes faux?

4. If the idea is to open up the process, why would the documentary committee put more blocks on films being considered than are put on regular feature films? OR for that matter on Documentaries that would choose to submit for Best Picture and other category consideration? Not every film that plays in NY and LA for a week or more submits to The Academy.

Is it really in the best interest of film to make the field smaller by creating additional barriers to entry?

5. If the concern is that branch members can’t manage to watch 10 films a year, why would anyone assume that branch members would watch as many as 40 films over 4 quarters of the year?

So let’s assume that branch members watch 25 docs a year. Which ones will they watch?

Box Office Mojo lists 93 docs last year that appeared on 2 or more screens. 39 docs made over $100,000 in domestic release. So what percentage of docs that the branch watches, on their own, will be from the majority of docs that have theatricals but do not make much money? 10 docs grossed over $1m domestic. Are those 10 likely to be on the most-likely-to-be-viewed list of branch members?

6. Why is there any need for a short list?

What’s the point? If opening up the branch vote to nominate is a good idea, why not trust it to nominate without a short list?

If the idea is to narrow focus at some point, why not multiple layers of such focus. If 5 branch members nominate the film as their top choice, it goes on a list. Is that list 15 or 25 or 40? No idea. But if 5 or more members feel it’s the best of the year, isn’t it worth considering?

Then take it down to 15 a month later, with each film needing at least 10 votes.

And then, another month later, down to the 5.

Os some such system.

In Conclusion – I am truly thrilled by the idea of opening things up and allowing docs to compete more like the regular movies compete. But the rules that are proposed are both more open and less open. The entire academy should vote on docs and DVDs should be distributed to all members.

So why the restrictions? Do you trust an open system or don’t you? If you don’t, fine. But don’t add a moral component to the business of distributing documentaries. Because as soon as you explain what a “real documentary” is to someone, someone else, who is not just being facile, will disagree. With due respect, if The Academy Awards were mean tot reflect Michael Moore’s personal position on docs, it would be the Michaels, not the Oscars. “I want it to be open and I want to be a policeman too” just doesn’t make sense.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•