Oscars: Only diverse films will be considered for best picture

09-09-2020 7:19am #1

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!

ThunbergsAreGo · 09-09-2020 7:24am

[Deleted User] 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

gimli2112 · 09-09-2020 7:27am

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.

Littlehorny · 09-09-2020 7:39am

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"?

The J Stands for Jay · 09-09-2020 7:47am

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

alchemist33 · 09-09-2020 7:54am

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.

09-09-2020 7:57am

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.

weldoninhio · 09-09-2020 7:58am

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.

RocketRaccoon · 09-09-2020 8:05am

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

Slumdog Millionaire etc would have to hand back their Oscars.

Mr Crispy · 09-09-2020 8:21am

Read the article before getting your knickers in a twist.

gimli2112 · 09-09-2020 8:27am

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

Mr Crispy · 09-09-2020 8:31am

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.

blue note · 09-09-2020 8:32am

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.

ThunbergsAreGo · 09-09-2020 9:07am

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

gimli2112 · 09-09-2020 9:11am

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

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.

Dades · 09-09-2020 9:38am

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

FortuneChip · 09-09-2020 9:46am

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:

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 10:05am

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?

johnny_ultimate · 09-09-2020 10:39am

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.

Agent Coulson · 09-09-2020 10:53am

Just cancel the Oscars.

weldoninhio · 09-09-2020 10:59am

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.

titan18 · 09-09-2020 11:06am

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

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 11:23am

weldoninhio wrote: »

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!

FunLover18 · 09-09-2020 1:29pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

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.

The J Stands for Jay · 09-09-2020 1:45pm

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?

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 2:05pm

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.

FunLover18 · 09-09-2020 2:26pm

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.

hayoc · 09-09-2020 2:35pm

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.

pixelburp · 09-09-2020 2:44pm

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

hayoc · 09-09-2020 2:50pm

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!

The J Stands for Jay · 09-09-2020 2:54pm

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.

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 3:01pm

pixelburp wrote: »

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

I mostly agree with you, but I do think that the Oscars tend to have a big effect on the movement of the industry. They influence the execs at the top of studios, they influence the mid-level stuff that broader audiences become aware of (and thus, profitability), and they somewhat influence the people who make movies.

kerplun k · 09-09-2020 3:34pm

Well, at least its better than the Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film award.

eirmail · 09-09-2020 3:41pm

There is no Oscar for the best picture anymore , only an Oscar for the best diverse picture

FunLover18 · 09-09-2020 4:18pm

eirmail wrote: »

There is no Oscar for the best picture anymore , only an Oscar for the best diverse picture

Did you even read the article?

silverharp · 09-09-2020 4:25pm

This is the same Hollywood that Bill Maher commented on “The dirty little secret is most movies are made now with an eye to the foreign market, and Asians really are racist.”

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 4:38pm

silverharp wrote: »

This is the same Hollywood that Bill Maher commented on “The dirty little secret is most movies are made now with an eye to the foreign market, and Asians really are racist.”

What's that got to do with anything?

eirmail · 09-09-2020 4:52pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Did you even read the article?

I read it , the best picture award is to no longer be for the best picture. It will only be for the best picture that also satisfies their diversity criteria. In other words it will be the best diverse picture.

pixelburp · 09-09-2020 4:59pm

How often is the Best Picture ever given to the best picture?

Leaving aside the inherent subjectivity of film, the Oscars are often the blandest, safest choice. Nothing of value is lost here, except the energy to rage about it.

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 5:22pm

eirmail wrote: »

I read it , the best picture award is to no longer be for the best picture. It will only be for the best picture that also satisfies their diversity criteria. In other words it will be the best diverse picture.

K

FunLover18 · 09-09-2020 5:30pm

eirmail wrote: »

I read it , the best picture award is to no longer be for the best picture. It will only be for the best picture that also satisfies their diversity criteria. In other words it will be the best diverse picture.

Do you not think a diverse picture can be the best?

These criteria will not hinder filmmaking or stop filmmakers telling non-diverse stories.

eirmail · 09-09-2020 8:13pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Do you not think a diverse picture can be the best?

These criteria will not hinder filmmaking or stop filmmakers telling non-diverse stories.

Of course a diverse picture could be best, that is why they should leave the criteria as they are now. If a diverse picture wins the best picture award now it would have genuinely have won the best picture award.

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 8:30pm

eirmail wrote: »

Of course a diverse picture could be best, that is why they should leave the criteria as they are now. If a diverse picture wins the best picture award now it would have genuinely have won the best picture award.

And it will have genuinely won after this change. We get it, you hate diversity!

eirmail · 09-09-2020 8:34pm

MJohnston wrote: »

And it will have genuinely won after this change. We get it, you hate diversity!

The really sad thing is that after the change there will be no best picture oscar. Instead we will have a best diversity picture award.

It is because I love diversity that I can see this

S.M.B. · 09-09-2020 8:37pm

FunLover18 · 09-09-2020 8:39pm

eirmail wrote: »

Of course a diverse picture could be best, that is why they should leave the criteria as they are now. If a diverse picture wins the best picture award now it would have genuinely have won the best picture award.

What kind of diverse films are you talking about? The diversity doesn't have to be on the screen, the categories are quite wide and the films only had to pass two of them so something like The Revenent (to use an example from earlier) could still qualify provided that it meets the criteria behind the camera. I really don't see the problem with that unless you think it would be impossible to make a best picture winning film with a more diverse crew?

MJohnston · 09-09-2020 8:50pm

eirmail wrote: »

The really sad thing is that after the change there will be no best picture oscar. Instead we will have a best diversity picture award.

It is because I love diversity that I can see this

Yes, yes, a person who loves diversity would really get so annoyed by such a minor, ineffectual change. :rolleyes:

eirmail · 09-09-2020 8:59pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes, yes, a person who loves diversity would really get so annoyed by such a minor, ineffectual change. :rolleyes:

There is going to be less diversity now. With all white made movies out, how will a country like Iceland or the Farie Islands ever be able to make a movie that can win the best picture oscar

S.M.B. · 09-09-2020 9:07pm

eirmail wrote: »

There is going to be less diversity now. With all white made movies out, how will a country like Iceland or the Farie Islands ever be able to make a movie that can win the best picture oscar

First of all, the Faroe Island film industry has far bigger f*cking hurdles to clear when it comes to winning a best picture Oscar. Secondly, to be in with their 0.0001% chance they just ensure the production crew or creative team includes a few people who are traditionally under represented in the US movie industry.

santana75 · 09-09-2020 9:08pm

This is a worry. Its about control and money. Hollywood and the academy do not give a damn about minority groups, they care about $$$$$$$. And if theres money in these groups then Hollywood will push that agenda. If hitler and the nazi's were "in" at the moment and there was money to be made off them then you can bet the academy would be pushing for Adolf and his cronies.

titan18 · 09-09-2020 9:11pm

I think the one 'likely' hole is what about films like Parasite. Sure Koreans are a minority in the US but they're not in Korea. Is that film 100% diverse or would it fall foul of these rules (they might have enough women to satisfy it, I don't know)

Also, the problematic part is are they going to start asking everyone their sexual preferences in interviews to find gay people to hire?

Oscars: Only diverse films will be considered for best picture

Comments