Academy President Defends Disqualifying "Alone Yet Not Alone" for Best Song
Cheryl Boones Isaacs, President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is responding to critics who have accused the Academy of anti-Christian bigotry in its decision to disqualify the song "Alone Yet Not Alone" (from the Christian/Biblical drama of the same name).
Credit: Enthuse Entertainment
Isaacs justified her decision to rescind the song's nomination after songwriter Bruce Broughton, a former representative of the music branch on the Academy's board of governors, lobbied other Academy members via email during the nomination voting period. Isaacs clarified, "This is not about the film. This is about the voting process in one category. That's all there is. We are adamant about keeping the integrity of our voting process."
For Isaacs, the disqualification was necessary to maintain a level playing field in the competition.
"This was about the appearance of undue influence," said the Academy president. "A former governor and member of the executive committee of the music branch made a specific request for voting members in that branch to look up, view and hear the song he wrote."
This is, according to Isaacs, a violation of Rule 5.3 of Oscar campaigning for Best Original Song: When voters are given the list of qualifying songs, the tracks are listed by title and film, but not by the names of their respective composers and lyricists.
"The Academy gives out an official reminder list to the music branch -- an original song reminder list -- and on that list is only [listed] a film title and a song title, specifically so that there are no names for the composer or the lyricist,' Isaacs added. In essence, by emailing Academy voters in order to draw attention to his song, contacting roughly 70 of the music branch's 240 voting members, he broke the rules of anonymity intended to keep favoritism out of the voting process.
"Our purpose is to keep a level playing field and to keep it anonymous," Isaacs stated, "so when one person -- in this case, Mr. Broughton -- sends out an email driving the voting members to a specific song that's his, it does break the rules." The president added, "And, certainly, a member of the executive committee of the music branch should know this."
Isaacs also responded to critics who claimed that what Broughton did is no different from what major studios do when they shell out tons of advertising money to secure nominations for their films. According to the Academy president, while the studios are drawing attention to their films with their ad dollars, they haven't actually broken any rules. However, Broughton's actions have.
"[In that scenario] the people in the audience are comprised of a whole number and range of people; the audience is full of many different folks. This was a direct communique to voting members who are given an official list that specifically kept the names of the composers and the lyricists off to avoid undue influence. This was a very targeted, specific approach. That's very different. And no one else, other than people in the music branch, would have this reminder list with the number, the eligible song and the title," she said.
Isaacs also confirmed that the sixth highest vote-getter in the Best Original Song category will not be filling the empty spot, pointing to the Academy rule book.
"In our Oscar official rules book for distinguished achievements during 2013, our official book, Rule 5, number 7 [reads]: 'In the event a nominated achievement is declared ineligible by the Academy, it shall not be replaced, and the category will remain with one less nomination.'"
Of course, while this has been an unpleasant situation all-around on a professional level, Isaacs' decision has had a personal effect as well. She served alongside Broughton for several years on the Academy's board of governors, making this all the more difficult.
"It's not one of the most pleasant things, of course. It's not easy."
This is obviously a tough situation. Some would argue that this disqualification never would have happened if a major studio, with the money for a full Oscar campaign, had been backing the film. In essence, low-budget films or films from independent studios have to work harder to be nominated, as those films don't have the budget to put out ads and host awards screenings. With that said, I'm not sure the film would have gotten the nomination at all without Broughton's lobbying, and if that's the case, then Isaacs was right to disqualify the song, in my opinion, even if it is unfair that the film didn't really have the visibility of some of the other nominees.
However, that never stopped unseen films from getting nominated here before. Look no further than 2004, where "Vois sur ton chemin (Look to Your Path)" from French film The Chorus was nominated, alongside eventual winner "Al Otro Lado Del Rio" from another foreign-language film, The Motorcycle Diaries. Meanwhile, 2009 featured a nomination for "Loin de Paname" from Paris 36, a film I'm still not sure anyone has actually watched in the five years since its release (although, seeing a trailer, I kind of want to see it right now).
So what do you think? Was Isaacs justified in rescinding Broughton's nomination? Or do you think what Broughton did wasn't different from what major studios have done to earn nominations? Sound off in the comments!