Academy Awards are changing the rules again....

Tools    





I knew when I saw this announced last night people would be up in arms about this. A few knee jerk reactions.
True, but I think we've reached the really unfortunate point in these cultural debates where thoughtlessness and predictability of the kneejerk opposition to it incentivizes people to defend even fairly bad ideas, simply to try to counterbalance that (or because people are inherently disgusted by seeing a predictable reaction to anything, let alone a predictable overreaction).



The trick is not minding
True, but I think we've reached the really unfortunate point in these cultural debates where thoughtlessness and predictability of the kneejerk opposition to it incentivizes people to defend even fairly bad ideas, simply to try to counterbalance that (or because people are inherently disgusted by seeing a predictable reaction to anything, let alone a predictable overreaction).
Agreed, and it is indeed an overreaction on the Oscars part, But my comment was mostly towards the reactions to the casting part. It seemed like some missed the line where they only have to fulfill 2 of the criteria. They can still cast as they wish, especially where it makes sense.
I understand no one here is actually against more representation and career opportunities for minority and/or women. Especially behind the camera, which is where I feel more efforts should really go towards. The issue most will take is it being forced rather then allowing it to happen on its own.



As I said before...we don't need black tom hanks or black brad pitt or black christian bale or black leo dicaprio or black matt damon or black johnny depp...we need black tarantino, black nolan, black scorsese or black spielberg....and we need those directors to risk the profile of their career by making movies with less famous black actors and make them famous in the process all while not giving up on their artistic merit. Ryan Coogler is a great example although he is not as talented as them.



Agreed, and it is indeed an overreaction on the Oscars part, But my comment was mostly towards the reactions to the casting part. It seemed like some missed the line where they only have to fulfill 2 of the criteria. They can still cast as they wish, especially where it makes sense.
I understand no one here is actually against more representation and career opportunities for minority and/or women. Especially behind the camera, which is where I feel more efforts should really go towards. The issue most will take is it being forced rather then allowing it to happen on its own.

I'm annoyed by the casting part, and I agree that we need women and minorities in behind the scene work. But it needs to be either those two things or the other two which sounds like Production and Distribution but it's very vague.



Having a system where a film has to be financed and approved but a cabal of people is basically creating a state sponsored art program.



You are also creating something quantitative are films going to be judged based not on the art but the percentages of representations from the artists.



Will we end up with a homogenization of ideas because only one line of thinking is acceptable.



The trick is not minding
I'm annoyed by the casting part, and I agree that we need women and minorities in behind the scene work. But it needs to be either those two things or the other two which sounds like Production and Distribution but it's very vague.



Having a system where a film has to be financed and approved but a cabal of people is basically creating a state sponsored art program.



You are also creating something quantitative are films going to be judged based not on the art but the percentages of representations from the artists.



Will we end up with a homogenization of ideas because only one line of thinking is acceptable.
Again, they don’t have to fulfill the casting if they fulfill 2 of the other criteria. Personally, I can see most working on diversity behind the scenes and fulfilling the casting only when it’s necessary or makes sense.
I like the idea of apprenticeships they proposed, if it’s handled correctly. *
I think this will open up more opportunities for cinematographers and the like for them.
Should it have been forced? Well, I guess the question I’m asking myself is when has change never been forced? Equal opportunity has seldom been given without someone demanding it to begin with.
And if it’s being forced, its because inclusion has not been accurately handled. We wouldn’t be here if it was.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Hell, Green Book and Crash - Two of the most racist and bizarre Best Picture Winners

Excuse me, what? How on earth is Green Book racist? I found it a wonderful and uplifting movie.



Excuse me, what? How on earth is Green Book racist? I found it a wonderful and uplifting movie.
A movie can be wonderful and uplifting while being racist at the same time . See most 20s and 30s blackface comedies.

For further reading, since this has been talked about a lot:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...-golden-globes

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna938886



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
The reason I questioned your statement is because it makes no sense to me. Will you please elaborate what you mean instead?
__________________



If the thought counts, then it will change Hollywood, though. It either helps in some important way or it doesn't.

It's possible to think it will help in a purely symbolic way but not place burdens on most major productions (though, again, I emphasize "major"), but I think it's impossible for it to be a step in the right direction but also not change Hollywood.
If you want to play black and white, then no, it doesn’t help Hollywood in any important way.



The reason I questioned your statement is because it makes no sense to me. Will you please elaborate what you mean instead?
I sent two article links explaining the problem. I could elaborate myself, but they are the exact reasons in the article.



The reason I questioned your statement is because it makes no sense to me. Will you please elaborate what you mean instead?
I expect the disconnect stems from the fact that "racist" has been expanded to include things that don't actually exhibit prejudice themselves, but which some person or another feels does not confront the issue of racism in the way they would prefer (or as directly as they would prefer). Therefore, even a film about racial reconciliation can be "racist" because it's not sufficiently outraged about race relations or does not encompass the entire struggle.

No, I don't think that's reasonable, but that's usually what's going on with claims like these.

EDIT: yup, I started reading the article (which I hadn't done before writing the above), and sure enough that's one of the complaints: "I worried that the screenplay ... might have glossed over the reality experienced by black Americans like Shirley."



If you want to play black and white, then no, it doesn’t help Hollywood in any important way.
I have no idea why my noting the obvious mutual exclusivity of those two statements means I want to "play black and white," and to be honest I'm not even entirely sure what that means.

I guess the issue here is that these responses feel reflexive, to me: it feels like people are often worried about not seeming like they're on the right side, so they need to express support for an idea that, when pressed, they actually agree is toothless or largely meaningless.



The trick is not minding
I liked Crash. I never considered it “racist”.
This reminds me of the recent criticism aimed at The Help, which, while I agree could have delved more into thee background of said “help”, was a very fine movie as well.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I think a better way to describe it would be "mishandling of racial subjects" rather than "racist" if the person feels the movie doesn’t delve into racism in a poignant enough manner. There is a very big difference between that and a movie preaching racial hatred.

@Wyldesyde19 Yeah, I loved The Help. Sure, it could have done an even better job at getting into the backstory of the maids, but they still managed to make me feel a great deal of sympathy for them. Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis were fantastic. And Cicely Tyson has one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the movie. Her complete look of despair as she gets fired really sticks with you.



I welcome these new rules. Anything to limit the power and influence of the patriarchy is fine by me. Those straight white men have had it coming for a while, I mean what have they ever done for cinema?


Seriously though WTF is this nonsense... Pure racism and sexism to say that 30% of the cast and crew cannot be white men. There is no way on earth any other group would get treated in this manner. It exposes the hypocrisy of the progressive left that they employ the very same methods that they claim to be fighting against. Identity politics is a poison infecting the soul of the West.


Awards shows should be a meritocracy. The most talented individuals should be recognized, regardless of what they look like, who they love or how they vote. Who cares what race the visual effects artist is or who the costume designer is sleeping with? You shouldn't hire or fire someone based upon their skin colour, gender or any other personal characteristic. I mean what's next; quotas for people based on their height or eye colour? Nothing would surprise me anymore.



I have no idea why my noting the obvious mutual exclusivity of those two statements means I want to "play black and white," and to be honest I'm not even entirely sure what that means.

I guess the issue here is that these responses feel reflexive, to me: it feels like people are often worried about not seeming like they're on the right side, so they need to express support for an idea that, when pressed, they actually agree is toothless or largely meaningless.
I just don't think they're obviously mutual exclusive. That's all.
__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd



I think a better way to describe it would be "mishandling of racial subjects" rather than "racist" if the person feels the movie doesn’t delve into racism in a poignant enough manner. There is a very big difference between that and a movie preaching racial hatred.

@Wyldesyde19 Yeah, I loved The Help. Sure, it could have done an even better job at getting into the backstory of the maids, but they still managed to make me feel a great deal of sympathy for them. Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis were fantastic. And Cicely Tyson has one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the movie. Her complete look of despair as she gets fired really sticks with you.
I mean, that's fine, but it's nitpicking with words. Of the black people I know who've seen the movie, they all call it racist; I'm going to listen to their experiences first and foremost... and yes, racism can mean a lot of things, including un-intentionally harming anti-racism agendas.



I welcome these new rules. Anything to limit the power and influence of the patriarchy is fine by me. Those straight white men have had it coming for a while, I mean what have they ever done for cinema?


Seriously though WTF is this nonsense... Pure racism and sexism to say that 30% of the cast and crew cannot be white men. There is no way on earth any other group would get treated in this manner. It exposes the hypocrisy of the progressive left that they employ the very same methods that they claim to be fighting against. Identity politics is a poison infecting the soul of the West.


Awards shows should be a meritocracy. The most talented individuals should be recognized, regardless of what they look like, who they love or how they vote. Who cares what race the visual effects artist is or who the costume designer is sleeping with? You shouldn't hire or fire someone based upon their skin colour, gender or any other personal characteristic. I mean what's next; quotas for people based on their height or eye colour? Nothing would surprise me anymore.
Again, I don't welcome the new rules... but of the three paragraphs you wrote I agree the most with the first one



I just don't think they're obviously mutual exclusive. That's all.
Can you expound on that a bit? Saying something is an "important step" but that it "won't change anything" sure seems mutually exclusive, to me.

Could you also just expound more in general? This seems to be following the same path as saying Green Book is "racist," in that you're saying very stark things without explaining your thought process, even though some explanation would obviously help (and in some cases is clearly necessary).



I mean, that's fine, but it's nitpicking with words.
I really, really don't think it is.

Of the black people I know who've seen the movie, they all call it racist; I'm going to listen to their experiences first and foremost... and yes, racism can mean a lot of things, including un-intentionally harming anti-racism agendas.
Perhaps you should lead with your definition of "racist," then, if you at all desire to be understood?