Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Oscars: Only diverse films will be considered for best picture

  • 09-09-2020 6:19am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,714 ✭✭✭ El Rifle


    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54082567

    "Films hoping to compete for the best picture Oscar will have to meet certain criteria over diversity, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says.
    The Academy set out four "standards" which it hopes will boost representation and inclusion both in front of and behind the camera"




    Hurrah for Hollywood!


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ ThunbergsAreGo


    El Rifle wrote: »
    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54082567

    "Films hoping to compete for the best picture Oscar will have to meet certain criteria over diversity, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says.
    The Academy set out four "standards" which it hopes will boost representation and inclusion both in front of and behind the camera"




    Hurrah for Hollywood!

    We will celebrate inclusion by exclusion


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,351 ✭✭✭✭ gimli2112


    I think the Oscars have become a lot more irrelevant, maybe diluted a little by the plethora of awards. I don't see this as a good thing but am unsure if this makes me a racist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny


    So films like The Revenant wouldn't get a look in?
    Is excluding things and telling them they can't be here not a bit "get to the back of the bus"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,212 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    Won't that rule out a lot of foreign movies, especially historical stories? Would the Wind that Shakes the Barley be disallowed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,946 ✭✭✭✭ alchemist33


    McGaggs wrote: »
    Won't that rule out a lot of foreign movies, especially historical stories? Would the Wind that Shakes the Barley be disallowed?

    My first thought too. This will also mean having to survey the race of everyone involved in the film too. I can see why there should be diversity in a film set in e.g. modern day USA, but it doesn't make sense for many films, unless there's some exclusion clauses somewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,714 ✭✭✭ El Rifle


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    I think the Oscars have become a lot more irrelevant, maybe diluted a little by the plethora of awards. I don't see this as a good thing but am unsure if this makes me a racist.

    Yes you might as well be in the Klan with this kind of loose talk.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭ weldoninhio


    McGaggs wrote: »
    Won't that rule out a lot of foreign movies, especially historical stories? Would the Wind that Shakes the Barley be disallowed?

    No, sure that has plenty of Black and Tans.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭ RocketRaccoon


    So an all black cast/production team won't be eligible?

    Slumdog Millionaire etc would have to hand back their Oscars.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,822 ✭✭✭ Mr Crispy


    Read the article before getting your knickers in a twist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,351 ✭✭✭✭ gimli2112


    Mr Crispy wrote: »
    Read the article before getting your knickers in a twist.

    I reread it after this and you're right it's actually not that bad. Somewhat ironically if you have enough diversity in
    - Paid apprenticeships, internships and training
    you qualify. So basically if the lowly paid and downtrodden are comprised of under represented groups you're 50% of the way there


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,822 ✭✭✭ Mr Crispy


    This is taken from the Guardian's article on the matter;
    The film academy has established four broad representation categories: on screen; among the crew; at the studio; and in opportunities for training and advancement in other aspects of the film’s development and release. To be considered for best picture, films will have to meet two of the four new standards, the Academy said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,052 ✭✭✭ blue note


    You have to meet 2 of 4 criteria to qualify, one being paid internships. I don't think it'll have a significant impact on getting more people into film from underrepresented groups, but I think it'll have a small impact in the right way. If the intern is good they'll be asked back. It'll be a few extra black kids involved in making movies. That sounds good to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ ThunbergsAreGo


    Does this mean a movie in Japan needs to hire some white kids to be considered?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,351 ✭✭✭✭ gimli2112


    Does this mean a movie in Japan needs to hire some white kids to be considered?

    It lists in detail the underrepresented groups - which include women, racial and ethnic groups, LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities.

    Unfortunately it's not going to lead to increased opportunities in the film industry for the likes of me. Every year my dream of winning an Oscar slips further from my grasp.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Dades


    Merchant Ivory period drama sets are going to have a very diverse crew of runners.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭ FortuneChip


    I know it's an attempt to make a positive step towards something, but it's going to be awfully difficult to implement.


    Trying to find the perfect Oscar winner:


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,344 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    I'm sure this will make a bunch of huffy white men freak out online, but the truth is this change is fairly minimal when you read the full details.

    It will be extremely easy for studios to meet standards B, C, and D in that list without placing weird constraints on the visible cast of movies. Especially considering including women in any of the buckets is enough to satisfy their requirements!

    It'll be harder for smaller indie movies to meet these standards, but then how many of those would have aimed for Best Picture anyway?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'm sure this will make a bunch of huffy white men freak out online,

    Isn’t that the internet in a nut shell? :pac:

    All fairly mild and insignificant tbh. Three out of four of the criteria the average audience member will never, ever notice... they probably won’t even notice the fourth, actually. The word ‘diversity’ always sets off the hyperbole regardless, but the Oscars have been so ridiculously narrow-minded to date these seem like unobtrusive ways of getting things somewhat on track.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55,604 ✭✭✭✭ Agent Coulson


    Just cancel the Oscars.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭ weldoninhio


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    It lists in detail the underrepresented groups - which include women, racial and ethnic groups, LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities.

    Unfortunately it's not going to lead to increased opportunities in the film industry for the likes of me. Every year my dream of winning an Oscar slips further from my grasp.

    LGBTQ people are under represented?? I find that very hard to believe. There’s a token gay in absolutely everything now. They are massively over-represented compared to their numbers in reality.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,522 ✭✭✭✭ titan18


    Tbf makeup, costume etc will likely cover it a lot as I'll take an assumption there's more women in that than men


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,344 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    LGBTQ people are under represented?? I find that very hard to believe. There’s a token gay in absolutely everything now. They are massively over-represented compared to their numbers in reality.

    It's funny that you would even use the words "token gay" as proof of representation—the very term contradicts what you're claiming!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,467 ✭✭✭ FunLover18


    LGBTQ people are under represented?? I find that very hard to believe. There’s a token gay in absolutely everything now. They are massively over-represented compared to their numbers in reality.

    Yeh that's not how representation works ... You're basically saying minorities don't need as much representation because they're a minority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,212 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    Yeh that's not how representation works ... You're basically saying minorities don't need as much representation because they're a minority.

    Isn't that how representation, rather than diversity, works?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,344 ✭✭✭✭ MJohnston


    McGaggs wrote: »
    Isn't that how representation, rather than diversity, works?

    The problem with both measures is it tends to be temporal—what percentage of what is being produced right now provides representation or diversity, etc.

    Even if movies were supposed to reflect the demographics of real society (I have no idea why that should be true by the way—a tonne of movies don't take place in our reality), that requires an acceptance of the fact that the vast majority of the film canon since the inception of cinema has been neither representative or diverse.

    In other words—we're playing catch up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,467 ✭✭✭ FunLover18


    McGaggs wrote: »
    Isn't that how representation, rather than diversity, works?

    Hmmmm it's an interesting question and I think MJohnston did a better job of answering than I will but I don't think it's fair to represent minorities in accordance with what percentage of society they actually make up, that is in a sense discriminating against them because there's less of them. I think as someone pointed out earlier it's about actually representing them and not just throwing them a token cameo. Both diversity and representation are hard things to quantify but either way these measures are a step in the right direction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭ hayoc


    So only certain art will be deemed suitable for inclusion - regardless of artistic merit.

    Sounds a bit like the Degenerate Art Exhibition in Munich in 1937.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,230 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Ding ding. The thread has been Godwin'ed. Better close it down now :rolleyes:

    It's the Oscars. They've always been in their own little bubble & about 2 steps offset from reality. It's the one aspect of popular culture & Hollywood that deserves the "who cares?" response.

    The winners are almost ALWAYS vanilla, perfunctory, manipulative at best, and not anywhere near the "Best" of that particular year. If they want to include some inclusion elements in the qualification - then go for it. It's not like the standard before now has been stellar.

    To put in the most snobbish way I can: the Oscars are the awards ceremony for people who watch 3 films a year, and don't know or care for the medium in general. Useful for clickbait headlines and TMZ adjacent blather, but not remotely a barometer of American Cinema :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭ hayoc


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Ding ding. The thread has been Godwin'ed. Better close it down now :rolleyes:

    Mission accomplished. Surprised I was first in with the Godwin tbh!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,212 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    hayoc wrote: »
    So only certain art will be deemed suitable for inclusion - regardless of artistic merit.

    Sounds a bit like the Degenerate Art Exhibition in Munich in 1937.

    Meh, let their club have their rules.


Advertisement