It is not the author’s responsibility, ultimately, what you feel when you’re exposed to art.
No, but creators don't live in a bubble.
One of the points I was trying to make when I came into this thread originally was that if you think like that, i.e., Oh, God, I’m showing kids how to do heroin, you will never disengage enough to produce anything of abstract value.
I agree that fixating on creating art that won't ruffle any feathers is not conducive to creativity. But I think there is a huge difference between thinking "A grandma might watch this, better not have any naked people in my story!" and taking a second to think critically about why you are throwing a stereotypical Black thug character into your movie.
I agree! But the answer is to make more complex films representing this demographic in the most nuanced ways possible, not infringing on anything any other demographic might want to great about itself, or flying bobcats on Mars, for that matter.
That's just what I said. There should be a balance of aspirational and "realistic" films portraying people of all kinds. Who is being infringed upon?
No, I would not think that. I would think it was pathetic and disgraceful. But I think this is a far cry from what we are discussing and, frankly, a bit of a hyperbole.
It's not though! Something that was considered appropriate entertainment two generations ago (and borderline one generation ago and sort-of borderline . . . now) is something that you now say you'd find "pathetic and disgraceful". And you don't even consider yourself particularly progressive.
So it's not all that surprising that 18 year olds now look at entertainment that was created 40 years ago and find elements of it . . . pathetic and disgraceful. Frankly, those words sum up how I felt about the transphobic content of
Soapdish.
if I’m an Asian woman wanting to write a novel where a white man falls in love with his white male best friend, that’s my business, why the hell wouldn’t I do that and, more importantly, who on Earth is to decide whether I’m qualified enough to try?
You said that writers were being forced to write characters out of their comfort zone (ie people who know zero about gay people writing a gay character). And I was saying that if you know zero about a topic you should probably (1) not write about it or (2) change the part where you know zero about it.
But such representation standards are being implemented or demanded by activists across all mediums, including TV series, live TV and whatnot. People are forced to forego their preferences in content, recruitment, who they feel comfortable collaborating with (with TV presenters working together, chemistry is crucial) — where do we draw the line?
Who are these poor creators being forced to work with *GASP* non-white people or *GASP* gay people or *GASP*
women? Are there actual examples here, or just hypotheticals?
And these steps wouldn't be necessary if hiring practices were fair and unbiased, but they aren't. There was a study done a few years ago where people were given resumes and asked to rate them in terms of how fit for the job the person was, if they'd be willing to collaborate with them, and what they'd offer as an opening salary. The same resume, when paired with a female name and photo, was given a lower fitness rating, less willingness to collaborate, and a lower salary offer. So the person's qualifications miraculously changed based on what the viewer thought the applicant's gender was.
Hollywood is also notoriously full of nepotism, and people tend to hire friends and family. So it's not surprising that white people hire other white people and also their white children. And people often say "Well, people from those groups should just create their own narratives/shows/movies!". But it takes a foot in the door to do that.
Sure, great book, know it well. And I would say rigorous research is what filmmakers and all creators should aim for at any rate. I will be sure to watch the video, thanks for flagging. Likely tomorrow, though, or, rather, after I wake up, as it’s 3.22 am chez moi.
Yikes! The most relevant part of the video starts around 8 minutes in. And one of the things I like about Khadija is that she admits that this is a complicated topic and there are not easy answers.
Yes, it is, as I feel they are quite helpful in paring discussions down to their core. I’m sorry if you find that simplistic.
I just think that using the word "discrimination" to talk about people having to have a diverse crew on their movie is a questionable word to use when considering the relatively poor treatment of minority creators/actors/artists and characters historically in film.
I would rather not get political, either. But I believe that, whatever we may think of these people’s choices, that is ultimately up to them.
Except that in a workplace, it's not appropriate. That cute little story about how during one of
The Simpsons writers going through a divorce he didn't want women around isn't okay.
Certain types of observant Muslims feel women are prohibited by their religion to mix with men and vice versa (yes, I am and they are interpreting the Shari'ah loosely, and I have a theology degree, so for the purposes of this discussion, let’s just call it ‘gender segregation’). Hence, such ‘standards’ do indeed put Muslim men at a disadvantage and make it harder for a Muslim man to make a film in peace, as the standards would require him to have females in the crew.
But that isn't true. There are many, MANY ways to meet those standards. They are written so (maybe too!) generously. Anyone falls under the "underrepresented" umbrella if they are female, POC, LGBTQ+, or a person with a disability. You could have an all-male crew and meet the diversity requirement. You could make an all-white movie with an all-white crew and still meet the requirement.
with all these standards, someone will end up at a disadvantage because this is inherently artificial
I would argue that there's also something inherently artificial about having only white writers, characters, and actors in films. We can pretend that the best people for the job get the job, but I would point to Sofia Coppola in
The Godfather Part 3. It's already artificial.
It is just not natural to my mind to consider external stakes like this before you’ve even made the film.
The weight of the requirements doesn't fall on the creator alone. And, again, you don't have to think about any of this stuff when writing the film! Write a movie about 3 straight white best friends! But when you make the film, you make it at a studio that has ANY of those under-represented groups OR include those groups in your crew OR involve those groups in any other aspect of making/marketing the film.
Nolan hasn’t said this, no, but it had been a common criticism of his films pre-
Tenet that his characters were usually straight white men with dead wives, and many interpreted
Tenet as an attempt to rectify that. I believe someone here discussed this in the thread on feminism where you and I have spent many an evening.
P.S. Found one example among a few. Here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...h=3e6054d4287d Scott Mendelson is saying
Tenet is Nolan’s version of a ‘comparatively diverse cast.’
So the main criticism in the review seems to be this: "Tenet is more concerned with staging comparatively generic action sequences than about making sure that those sequences matter in terms of story or character."
I'm not seeing the connection between the flaws of the film and the more diverse cast.