Oscars 24 Best Picture DEI rules

I had not realized until I stumbled across it that the Academy has instituted rigid rules for DEI in the Best Picture award category starting this year.
https://variety.com/2020/film/awards...ed-1234763473/

It's shocking that no mention of excellence in film making is aspired to, but only that their list of DEI regulations must be followed.

It's quite an admission that the Academy is no longer interested in citing the best picture, but in awarding only the one that features DEI qualifications.

I'm wondering how much of the public is aware of this?

While I find the entire concept inherently objectionable and, frankly, anathema to the entire concept of offering awards for art...I think you might be overestimating how onerous the requirements actually are. They can be satisfied by the demographic composition of groups that don't have any direct hand in making the films.

For example, it appears the requirements can be met by merely having "multiple senior executives from underrepresented groups on its marketing, publicity or distribution teams" and if the "film’s production, distribution or financing companies offer paid internship or apprenticeships and training opportunities for people from underrepresented groups." Or, if one of these is not met, simply having a half dozen people on the crew from the same groups. I believe those groups also include women, which is a pretty big swing in terms of feasability.

My biggest objection, then, is the way this might hamstring independent films relative to big studio ones, many of which likely won't have to change a thing to meet these requirements, and wouldn't find it difficult to do so without much altering anything else.
---

The Oscars passed several crucial dumbness thresholds some time ago, beyond which an eyeroll is probably the most I can muster for any further dumbness.

The reason there are underrepresented groups in movie making...is because those underrepresented groups make up a fraction of the overall population. It's simple math.

What the Oscar's Best Picture DEI rules do is to convince more people that there's some type of horrible problem which then creates said people to push back which then creates division and discord in society.

This is the cancer of wokism...First the academy purged the voting roles, then they packed them with "diverse" people, now they are setting a series of guidelines. The whole premise of this is to give jobs and money to special interest groups. Remember the GG's got cancelled because they didn't have enough POC in it's body of judges. Most films already seem to have a checklist of cliche's and befuddling budgets that don't appear on screen.


Gatekeeping basically killed the comic book industry...where the price of books went up but the quality dropped drastically. Good writers and artists were pushed out and replaced with diversity hires who wrote books and created characters that nobody liked. The system then trickled down and caused comic shops to go under, the distribution system failed but hey you had "diverse" books.



The film industry is heading in the same direction needing IP work to function as tentpoles while "diverse" films are released every week to satisfy the special interests not the customers. The customers on the other hand move on...or on the flip side the special interest groups fleece failing avenues (cable channels, movie theaters, stock investors) and everything dies.

Talk about knee jerk reactions. I doubt many even read the whole article, other than Yoda perhaps.
A few quotes from it:

To qualify for best picture in 2025, all you have to do is check two out of the four standards.
Easy enough.

So now the Academy is telling me how to make my movies?
No, they aren’t. In fact, they’re not telling you how to do anything. They are, in essence, redefining the term “best picture” and what it means.

The Academy’s decision does not infringe upon your process. It only asks that if you have a team you trust, you offer that expertise to the next generation and underrepresented groups. And when your process has ended, and it’s time to distribute your film, ensure that they also reflect the same values of inclusion and look at the cinematic world as a melting pot of different consumers, and not just the one-week qualifying theaters in New York and L.A.

Once the dust settles and it’s clear that no one is infringing on the creative process

Is this going to make a difference?
A: We honestly do not know. The intentions are good and if the goal that was shared by*Academy CEO Dawn Hudson*is embraced that this is about “moving forward” and “looking ahead,” it will make a world of difference. Looking at the glass half-full, the Academy is ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to have a seat at the table. Too many people have related this to just race. But it’s so much deeper.

Let’s see how it shakes out before any “the sky is falling!” Proclamations

In short; The Academy will now be awarding + promoting.

The MoFo Film Awards > Academy Awards.

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

That made me laugh out loud.

If I already didn't have a deep dislike for the Oscars, I would probably be surprised or annoyed more than I am. As much as I adore film, I strongly dislike celebrity culture and for the most part, celebrities. I understand I am in a minority with this stance, but I really just can't stand most of these people.

I only watch the Oscars to participate in the MoFo chat, and would never watch the show otherwise. In the past, I would try to catch all the nominated pictures so I could discuss etc., but I find my taste runs in quite a different direction than when compared to the folks nominating and awarding the various films these days, so I tend to keep us less, seeking out the films I want to spend my time watching on my own.

__________________

I couldn’t agree with this post more. The only personal thing I will add is that I usually enjoy “Oscar bait”. That is becoming more rare though. I will be over here watching what interests me till they stop making it. When they stop I will just keep rewatching the 100s of movies I already love.

__________________
Letterboxd

This is one of those arguments that seem to ignite rage for nothing. If you read closely, you would realize it should be pretty easy for studios and filmmakers to comply with these new standards, and it shouldn't compromise any integrity at all.

Like Wyldesyde said, there are FOUR standards and BP wannabe's should only meet TWO of those. In addition, each of those standards are divided into numerous areas and criteria from which they only need to meet ONE per standard.

So basically you can have a film about whatever you want, let's say an all-white cast about white people living in White-Land... and as long as you have six "minority" gaffers, script supervisors, first assistant directors, etc. (Standard B) and a couple of "minority" paid interns (Standard C), you're good to go.

Or you can have a film about whatever white kids in white school with one notable Token Black Guy (Standard A)... and a couple of "minority" executives in the marketing department (Standard D), you're good to go.

Bottom line is that studios can play Tetris with these standards to assemble them as they see convenient for each film production. So I really don't see how these standards are going to impact the creativity, integrity, or overall process of studios and filmmakers. Again, it's a rage-point of nothing.

__________________

God bless diversity eh. I hate wading into these waters because most discourse doesn’t allow for grey areas that make for fruitful conversation. But if culture can’t see that this kind of forced diversity virtue signaling BS is why we are having such an issue, I don’t even know what to say about it. “You don’t have to change your behavior, just hire a couple of black gaffers and you can be one of the good guys.” What nonsense.

When has diversity never had to be forced to give them a fair shake in this world, in its history?

I think if we were to talk about how change initially happens I would probably agree with you more than disagree, but we are way past hiring minority gaffers as being an agent of change in this country. I have live in a very red state for twenty years now and have never had a job where I haven’t worked around all of the diversity that we talk about every day. Pretty hard for me to swallow that Hollywood is white washing their sets in 2024.

I was thinking the same thing...Hollywood is constantly being described as having a very liberal/progressive mindset, the last place discrimination would be a major issue. Back in the early and mid 20th century Hollywood was just about the only place a gay or lesbian person could get a job with their employers knowing they were gay, that's how open minded Hollywood was. Hollywood was so liberal in it's views that right wing conservatives in the1950s like McCarthy and the House UN-American Activities Committee hearings went after numerous writers, directors, producers and actors to 'weed out' those Hollywood types who were of a liberal mind...But now we're being told Hollywood is whitewashing everything? Nah not so. Just watch a few new films there's very diversified casting, there's all black film productions. There's not a problem but by acting like there's a problem it creates the mindset that turns people against each other.

Reading the article points out it isn’t just about people of color or ethnicity but makes a detailed defense of it for women and disabled people as well.
This specifically:
Women are criminally underrepresented in the industry. There have been 278 films nominated for best picture since the first woman was nominated, and won in 1973 (Julia Phillips for “The Sting”). There have been 116 up until the 2020 ceremony. Eleven women have won best picture over 10 separate films.
An uninformed follower looks at those numbers and might say, “a 41% women representation is great, so there’s no problem.” As the tagline of the 1999 best picture winner “American Beauty” reads on its poster, “look closer…”

When a film is nominated for Oscars’ top prize, all the producers deemed eligible by the studio and Academy are nominated. Since 1973, there have been 638 total credited female*producers that been nominated alongside their male counterparts. That once impressive 41% percent for woman representation has plummeted to a dismal 18%.

But “look closer…”

Of that 116 women, two are Black women (Oprah Winfrey for “Selma” and Kimberly Steward for “Manchester by the Sea”), one is Latina (Gabriela Rodríguez for “Roma”), and zero were Asian. Ninety-two years of rich, wonderful films but the industry’s inclusion of women has been grossly exclusionary and abundantly apparent.

We have to believe and hope this makes a difference. The Academy sees it and wants to do it. Writer Mark Harris said it best when he tweeted, “It’s good they have 2 yrs to work out the kinks, because…there are issues.”

On the LGBTQ front, it’s no better. The first known LGBTQ+ producer nominated was Tony Richardson for 1963’s “Tom Jones,” where it won best picture. Another nominee wouldn’t represent until “Airport” in 1970 and a winner wouldn’t emerge until Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks for “American Beauty” in 1999. Only two other winners round out the list including Scott Rudin for “No Country for Old Men” and Iain Canning for “The King’s Speech.” As noticed, that list only included men. Megan Ellison is the only woman to be nominated as a producer and she’s done it on four films (“Zero Dark Thirty,” “American Hustle,” “Her,” and “Phantom Thread”). No identifying bisexual, transgender, queer, or gender-neutral producers have found recognition.

For the disabled community, their voice has been mostly unheard until the Academy’s announcement. Just two disabled actors have been recognized by the Academy. Harold Russell won best supporting actor when he portrayed a veteran who loses both hands in war in the best picture winner “The Best Years of Our Lives” in 1947. It would be exactly 40 years later when deaf actress Marlee Matlin took home her Oscar for best actress for “Children of a Lesser God.” This is disheartening when you consider there have been over 50 actors and actresses who have been nominated for Oscars for playing characters with disabilities (i.e. Daniel Day-Lewis for “My Left Foot” or Patty Duke for “The Miracle Worker”). This initiative only asks that we open the door to include more.

I’m sorry to have such a short response to a long thought out post, but you and Thief’s answer to the op was that this really isn’t forcing people to change their art. In fact Thief said just tetris together a couple of these initiatives with background folk and you are good to go. So how exactly does that change the problems you mention above, and how is this initiative not virtue signaling? Because it screams it to me.

For the record, I was on board when they introduced a more diverse voting body. I think that’s how you get the change in nominees we have seen the last few years. The art is being made.

I didn’t argue it wasn’t VS,
Does this change what I quoted above? How wouldn’t it? Allowing more people in the pool or at the front of the bus, even if forced and cynical, is always a good thing if it in fact gets the under represented women/poc/disabled/LGBTQ more job opportunities.
The issue seems that everyone is focused on the word “forced”, rather than the acknowledgment that these people, as supported by the numbers above I quoted, having a very real opportunity to be more involved.
Let’s see how it works out before we shake our fists and howl at the wind.

We might be talking about different things here. If five male directors are nominated this year, but they all say “we had women producers”, would this satisfy you? Is this the change you are looking for? Because for me that is the type of change these rules are”forcing “.

That’s actually a part of what they’re trying to get more inclusive in. The article specifically mentions producers, does it not? And that’s just one part of the filming process that it hopes to get people not involved.
You’re missing the “a movie is sum of its parts” comment in the article.
They aren’t looking to remove make directors, here, after all. This isn’t some nefarious plot.
It’s much more simpler, as pointed out in the article, than anyone seems to realize but are chafing at the thought of it being “forced”.

I will let you have the last word after this because I don’t think this conversation is bearing any fruit. I will just end with saying that you used the term fist waving in two of your responses to me, which I don’t think I was doing. I have never said this is a nefarious plot, which you stated above. I said it’s virtue signaling, which you have said you aren’t arguing that it’s not. I don’t think virtue signaling is a productive means of change. Apparently you do, and you will get to find out in this case.