nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Oscars: Only diverse films will be considered for best picture

[Deleted User]

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!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

is_that_so

Here's an analysis from the NY Times on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/movies/oscars-best-picture-diversity.html

speedboatchase

is_that_so wrote: »

Here's an analysis from the NY Times on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/movies/oscars-best-picture-diversity.html

They seem upset the new rules aren't strict enough

is_that_so

speedboatchase wrote: »

They seem upset the new rules aren't strict enough

A bit but at least it has it all spelt out clearly.

MisterAnarchy

speedboatchase wrote: »

They seem upset the new rules aren't strict enough

Thats no surprise

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/09/a-woke-coup-at-the-new-york-times/

[Deleted User]

so any Jordan Peele over-rated muck is guaranteed a nomination in some category for the foreseeable future,

great.

BlitzKrieg

MJohnston wrote: »

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.

I think thats in reverse. The Oscars have always been the representation of the reactionary side of Hollywood. The industry tends to be on a wider scale running ahead of the Oscars, something being accepted into the oscars is usually more a sign that the old men at the top have finally caught up and less them setting the standard.

Which is in keeping with why the oscars exist in the first place. They were a reaction to the public's opinion of hollywood and they continue to be a reaction to public opinion.

MisterAnarchy

Douglas Murray has a good article on the matter today

https://unherd.com/2020/09/hollywoods-diversity-contortions/

MJohnston

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think thats in reverse. The Oscars have always been the representation of the reactionary side of Hollywood. The industry tends to be on a wider scale running ahead of the Oscars, something being accepted into the oscars is usually more a sign that the old men at the top have finally caught up and less them setting the standard.

Which is in keeping with why the oscars exist in the first place. They were a reaction to the public's opinion of hollywood and they continue to be a reaction to public opinion.

I guess I sort of both agree and disagree with you here. It's true that the industry as a whole is more progressive than the Oscars, but I think the studio system is still somewhat lagging, and the blockbuster tier certainly so. The indie/low budget world drags the rest of the industry along.

Biafranlivemat

Hollywood is making a big deal about ‘Diversity’
But the people that they bow down to like the Chinese Communist Party.
Is actual very anti Diversity, notice the different in the posters.

star-wars-china-poster-controversy.jpg?w=600

Aside from giving BB-8 more prominence, the biggest discrepancy between the two posters is the shrinking of Boyega’s Finn and the positioning of his body. Boyega, who plays a lead role, is lowered down from the original poster — where he’s the third largest character after Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren and Daisy Ridley’s Rey — and tucked under Harrison Ford’s gun-toting Han Solo and Carrie Fisher’s Leia, and behind a much lager BB-8.

Meanwhile, other non-white characters, including Oscar Isaac, who plays rebel pilot Poe Dameron, Lupita Nyong’o, who plays alien pirate Maz Kanata, and Chewbacca have been cut out altogether. They’re replaced by X-wings, TIE fighters and rows of Stormtroopers.

https://variety.com/2015/film/news/star-wars-china-poster-controversy-john-boyega-1201653494/

FunLover18

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

Hollywood is making a big deal about ‘Diversity’
But the people that they bow down to like the Chinese Communist Party.
Is actual very anti Diversity, notice the different in the posters.

Aside from giving BB-8 more prominence, the biggest discrepancy between the two posters is the shrinking of Boyega’s Finn and the positioning of his body. Boyega, who plays a lead role, is lowered down from the original poster — where he’s the third largest character after Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren and Daisy Ridley’s Rey — and tucked under Harrison Ford’s gun-toting Han Solo and Carrie Fisher’s Leia, and behind a much lager BB-8.

Meanwhile, other non-white characters, including Oscar Isaac, who plays rebel pilot Poe Dameron, Lupita Nyong’o, who plays alien pirate Maz Kanata, and Chewbacca have been cut out altogether. They’re replaced by X-wings, TIE fighters and rows of Stormtroopers.

https://variety.com/2015/film/news/star-wars-china-poster-controversy-john-boyega-1201653494/

No one here is championing Hollywood or Disney for their diversity though so I don't see your point or how it relates to this thread. The new SW trilogy was heavily criticised for its treatment of its minority characters; John Boyega was reduced to a supporting character with no arc of his own and Kelly Marie Tran's character was completely sidelined in RoS, did she even get a minute of screentime?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

titan18 wrote: »

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?

Yeah, that would be a really inappropriate question to ask in a job interview. Can you imagine?

santana75

titan18 wrote: »

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

I was thinking this myself. How on earth would that ever come up in a job interview?

Biafranlivemat

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has stripped Schindler's List of its Best Motion Picture award

https://babylonbee.com/news/academy-strips-schindlers-list-of-best-picture-award-for-not-having-more-lgbtq-characters

Biafranlivemat

There was talk of a lesbian character in Rise of Skywalker, but she must have been cut out of the movie.
https://babylonbee.com/news/rise-of-skywalker-to-introduce-first-lesbian-at-at

petronius

This is nonsense - only good films should be considered
oh that godfather film has too many italian amercians and does not have the quota of transvestite kazak and samoans lesbians
That fiddler on the roof, has too many russian jews needs more korean bakers.

MJohnston

petronius wrote: »

This is nonsense - only good films should be considered
oh that godfather film has too many italian amercians and does not have the quota of transvestite kazak and samoans lesbians
That fiddler on the roof, has too many russian jews needs more korean bakers.

There's no point in comparing movies made in the early 70s, when women, black people, and LGBT people would have only been starting to make in-roads to the industry (beyond acting).

That said, still 100% believe both of those films would have made it into current day criteria due to crew diversity and studio diversity. You're really underestimating just how easy these criteria are to meet.

Fiddler on the Roof is a bad example to pick though - 2 out of 4 top-billed actors are women, and lots of women in the listed crew.

silverharp

Parasite had zero diversity, no minorities LGBT etc, would it be excluded?

S.M.B.

No, no it wouldn't.

MJohnston

silverharp wrote: »

Parasite had zero diversity, no minorities LGBT etc, would it be excluded?

I'm amazed at how few people giving off about this change have taken 2 minutes to actually read about it.

Parasite is an all-Asian production, essentially. That means that it would qualify several times over under the Oscars diversity rules.

Below is a simplified summary of those rules.

What they specify as diversity is either:

1. Under-represented racial or ethnic groups (they include Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander)
2. Under-represented identity groups (women, LBGTQ+ people, and people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing)

To qualify for Best Picture (and Best Picture only) a film must only meet minimum diversity standards (which does NOT mean 50/50) on two out of the four following categories:

Category A is the only one to refer to onscreen diversity:
- At least ONE 'lead or significant supporting actor' from the under-represented groups above.
- OR at least 30% of minor roles from two under-represented groups above.
- OR the storyline or subject centres on any of the groups above (ie. even films where cis people are playing trans people would qualify)

Category B is about creative and production teams:
- At least 2 heads of major departments from an under-represented group
- OR at least 6 people in the crew from an under-represented group
- OR at least 30% of the crew from an under-represented group

Category C is about interns and apprentices:
- Must offer paid internships or apprenticeships to people from under-represented groups (numbers vary according to company size)
- AND must offer training and work opportunities in low-level positions to people from under-represented groups

Category D is about the distribution, marketing, and promotion of a film:
- "Multiple" senior execs from an under-represented group on distribution, marketing, and publicity teams

----

So - can we put an end to this misguided idea that it only applies to on-screen diversity?

If a film made in 2020 cannot satisfy just TWO of these categories when one of the under-represented groups is WOMEN, then it's the film doing something extraordinarily wrong.

To go back to Parasite, even if the fact that every single role on-screen (aside from the Westerners at the end I suppose) is an Asian didn't cause it to qualify for category A already (it does), then there's the fact that 1 lead is a woman, and 4 significant supporting roles are women. Category A - check.

Then 3 out of 6 producers on the film are women too. Category B - check.

Categories C and D we're never going to be able to ascertain for ourselves, but there's zero chance Parasite isn't meeting those categories (even if being Asian didn't count).

[Deleted User]

MJohnston wrote: »

If a film made in 2020 cannot satisfy just TWO of these categories when one of the under-represented groups is WOMEN, then it's the film doing something extraordinarily wrong.

Or it's just a movie about men, like Shawshank Redemption.

It just seems unnecessary when seemingly every movie people say "Well what about ___?" falls within the new rules. Is there a list of recent movies that fall foul of them so people could have some context, because on the face of it, a Korean movie like Parasite is just not diverse whatsoever.

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

Or it's just a movie about men, like Shawshank Redemption.

It just seems unnecessary when seemingly every movie people say "Well what about ___?" falls within the new rules. Is there a list of recent movies that fall foul of them so people could have some context, because on the face of it, a Korean movie like Parasite is just not diverse whatsoever.

Hi, you appear to not have read the rest of my post, here let me help you:

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm amazed at how few people giving off about this change have taken 2 minutes to actually read about it.

Parasite is an all-Asian production, essentially. That means that it would qualify several times over under the Oscars diversity rules.

Below is a simplified summary of those rules.

What they specify as diversity is either:

1. Under-represented racial or ethnic groups (they include Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander)
2. Under-represented identity groups (women, LBGTQ+ people, and people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing)

To qualify for Best Picture (and Best Picture only) a film must only meet minimum diversity standards (which does NOT mean 50/50) on two out of the four following categories:

Category A is the only one to refer to onscreen diversity:
- At least ONE 'lead or significant supporting actor' from the under-represented groups above.
- OR at least 30% of minor roles from two under-represented groups above.
- OR the storyline or subject centres on any of the groups above (ie. even films where cis people are playing trans people would qualify)

Category B is about creative and production teams:
- At least 2 heads of major departments from an under-represented group
- OR at least 6 people in the crew from an under-represented group
- OR at least 30% of the crew from an under-represented group

Category C is about interns and apprentices:
- Must offer paid internships or apprenticeships to people from under-represented groups (numbers vary according to company size)
- AND must offer training and work opportunities in low-level positions to people from under-represented groups

Category D is about the distribution, marketing, and promotion of a film:
- "Multiple" senior execs from an under-represented group on distribution, marketing, and publicity teams

----

So - can we put an end to this misguided idea that it only applies to on-screen diversity?

If a film made in 2020 cannot satisfy just TWO of these categories when one of the under-represented groups is WOMEN, then it's the film doing something extraordinarily wrong.

To go back to Parasite, even if the fact that every single role on-screen (aside from the Westerners at the end I suppose) is an Asian didn't cause it to qualify for category A already (it does), then there's the fact that 1 lead is a woman, and 4 significant supporting roles are women. Category A - check.

Then 3 out of 6 producers on the film are women too. Category B - check.

Categories C and D we're never going to be able to ascertain for ourselves, but there's zero chance Parasite isn't meeting those categories (even if being Asian didn't count).

[Deleted User]

MJohnston wrote: »

Hi, you appear to not have read the rest of my post, here let me help you:

Wtf.

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

Wtf.

Again, I very clearly pointed out that only 1 of the 4 applicable diversity categories applies to what you see on-screen.

Dunkirk is a perfect example. There's no way that film passes Category A at all, barely a glimpse of a non-white male onscreen.

But Emma Thomas is co-producer, head of makeup is a woman, head of 'hair' is a woman (and there are many more crew who are women). Category B? PASS.

Category C? No idea, very likely to be a PASS though as this a supremely easy category to meet the qualifications for.

Category D? It was distributed by Warner Bros Pictures — female COO, female CTO, female president of marketing — PASS.

[Deleted User]

The creation of art should never have to pass a category. Whatever form it comes in. It becomes a product then as opposed to an art.
But film has steadily been moving away from an artistic pursuit so this was always coming. There are of course plenty of artistic films out there but the mainstream is moving towards garbage and it will never turn back. Music has already completed the cycle ahead of film.
We have had our golden ages of music and of film in mainstream culture, and now to consume such things we look to the 'alternative' as opposed to popular culture. It's sad but reality. The good thing is there was so much amazing stuff made during the golden age its enough to keep revisiting for a lifetime.

FunLover18

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The creation of art should never have to pass a category. Whatever form it comes in. It becomes a product then as opposed to an art.
But film has steadily been moving away from an artistic pursuit so this was always coming. There are of course plenty of artistic films out there but the mainstream is moving towards garbage and it will never turn back. Music has already completed the cycle ahead of film.
We have had our golden ages of music and of film in mainstream culture, and now to consume such things we look to the 'alternative' as opposed to popular culture. It's sad but reality. The good thing is there was so much amazing stuff made during the golden age its enough to keep revisiting for a lifetime.

What are you talking about? Movies are products made by massive companies to make money. That doesn't mean they're not also art. If you can't make a decent film under these categories then I'd have to question your artistic ability.

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

The creation of art should never have to pass a category. Whatever form it comes in. It becomes a product then as opposed to an art.
But film has steadily been moving away from an artistic pursuit so this was always coming. There are of course plenty of artistic films out there but the mainstream is moving towards garbage and it will never turn back. Music has already completed the cycle ahead of film.
We have had our golden ages of music and of film in mainstream culture, and now to consume such things we look to the 'alternative' as opposed to popular culture. It's sad but reality. The good thing is there was so much amazing stuff made during the golden age its enough to keep revisiting for a lifetime.

I think this is kind of defeatist! First off, the creative process is not compromised by these diversity requirements. Categories C and D can be entirely satisfied in the post-production stage, and in many cases may not even directly intersect with the production of a film (For example, category C relates to interns at distribution or financing companies associated with a film, but they might never actually work on the film itself).

Second, I can't agree with any opinion that says that spurring an increase in diversity will lead to worse art. I think it's the opposite. My goodness, I mean just in the last few years alone most of my favourite indie and blockbuster movies have been made by women or under-represented ethnic groups.

S.M.B.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The creation of art should never have to pass a category. Whatever form it comes in.

....

And it won't have to after these rules come into effect. This change does not stop anyone from creating any movie they see worth making. This is merely a change of criteria to an award from an independent body whose sole purpose is to advance the art and science of movie making.

The rest of your post comes across as a rant against modern mainstream movies and has little to do with the recent announcement. I've genuinely no idea what era you are referring to when you talk of a golden age? The 10s - late 60s? Because that's what I think of when I hear anyone talk of the golden age of movie making.

Mic 1972

silverharp wrote: »

Parasite had zero diversity, no minorities LGBT etc, would it be excluded?

excellent point.
There are so many reasons why a film may not need to be diverse.

Anyway, The Academy Awards have been losing their relevance for years now

santana75

MJohnston wrote: »

Second, I can't agree with any opinion that says that spurring an increase in diversity will lead to worse art. I think it's the opposite. My goodness, I mean just in the last few years alone most of my favourite indie and blockbuster movies have been made by women or under-represented ethnic groups.

Last few years have been particularly bad. That's not just me who loves cinema, but its friends saying this who dont know a cinematographer from an editor. Even they have commented on the distinct decline in quality in recent years.
Art shouldn't be categorized, it should be spontaneous. The best person should get the job whether that be male, female or whatever. This idea of films having to satisfy certain criteria in order to be considered for awards is absolute madness.

FunLover18

santana75 wrote: »

Last few years have been particularly bad. That's not just me who loves cinema, but its friends saying this who dont know a cinematographer from an editor. Even they have commented on the distinct decline in quality in recent years.
Art shouldn't be categorized, it should be spontaneous. The best person should get the job whether that be male, female or whatever. This idea of films having to satisfy certain criteria in order to be considered for awards is absolute madness.

In the 90-year-plus history of the Academy Awards, just five female filmmakers have been nominated for best director and one has won. Only 14 actors of colour have won Academy Awards.

Those are staggering statistics that represent a massive lack of diversity in Hollywood, not just the Oscars.

No one wants the categories, just like no one wants genders quotas in politics but they're a stepping stone to a point where like you say the best person is getting the job regardless of race or gender.

Also the idea that art *should* be spontaneous is just pretentious twaddle. What does that even mean?