Oscars: Only diverse films will be considered for best picture

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

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

speedboatchase wrote: »

They seem upset the new rules aren't strict enough

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

Douglas Murray has a good article on the matter today

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

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.

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

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 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 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] 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.

[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.

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.