How many members make up the Academy and where do they come from?
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, known as AMPAS, keeps its full member roster largely private. The question of its size has long intrigued observers, and estimates place the total somewhere around ten thousand people. About three quarters live in the United States, with the rest scattered across other countries; precise numbers remain undisclosed.
Voting participation for the Best International Feature Film category is also not fully published. In theory, thousands of qualified Academy members could be eligible to vote, yet the exact turnout is not publicly released. This lack of transparency has fed ongoing debates about how the category operates within the broader Oscar process, especially as global cinema grows more interconnected and diverse in its storytelling.
How does the voting process actually work?
Under AMPAS rules, candidates from more than one country may be submitted for the Best International Feature Film prize, with the caveat that each submitted work must have a substantial portion of dialogue in a language other than English. This rule opens the door for a wide range of national cinemas to be represented on the ballot.
A dedicated committee guides the selection of the final five nominees. The process is open to all volunteer Academy members and unfolds in three stages. In the first stage, committee members confirm they have watched a significant portion of the eligible films from various regions. Broad global participation helps ensure reflection of a wide array of cinematic voices. In the second stage, those who have viewed all semi-finalists choose the final five. In the third stage, any academic who has seen all the nominees may cast a vote to determine the winner.
Critiques of the method
Critics of the current approach raise several points. Some argue that limiting the field to one film per country reduces the category to a kind of international cinematic contest where national borders shape choices more than artistic merit. Others contend that the process of selecting films from their country of origin can reflect political influences or censorship pressures, rather than a purely artistic evaluation. The debate touches on the broader question of how global markets influence film production and distribution, and how collaboration across borders shapes a director’s work and a nation’s cinematic identity.
Another point of contention is that the national selection process itself can entrench a particular national lens, especially in environments where artistic freedom faces constraints. Critics argue that this can hinder a truly representative snapshot of world cinema, which now thrives through international co-productions and cross-border storytelling.
European influence and regional trends
Over recent years the Hollywood Academy has pursued greater diversity among its members to better mirror the global film community. This ongoing effort brings more women and professionals from racial and ethnic backgrounds into the fold, along with workers from outside the United States. One visible outcome is a growing presence of non-English speaking films among the nominees, including substantial works in languages such as French, German, and Korean.
Despite these shifts, the Best International Feature Film category has often highlighted European cinema. In recent editions, several nominees have come from across the continent, demonstrating strong continental influence in this sector. At the same time, Japan has supported a film that was directed by a European filmmaker, illustrating the international nature of contemporary production. The category has a long track record of European victories since its inception, with a smaller number of wins for other regions.
If the current slate honors a European production next year, it would reinforce the status of European cinema within this category. Yet the ceremony also reflects how global collaboration can blur national lines, as production teams cross borders and talent from multiple countries contribute to a single project. The overall pattern shows that the award recognizes a mix of origins, while the ballot and the winning decision remain anchored in the country that submitted the film.
Ultimately, the way the Best International Feature Film prize is awarded invites ongoing discussion about representation, openness, and the balance between national submission rules and universal artistic merit. The system prizes global storytelling, but it also preserves a particular procedural legacy inside the Academy.