Oscars: And the best diverse movie is...

[Mladen]

So, Academy has done this...

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/08/entertainment/oscars-rules-changes/index.html

Any opinions on the inclusion standards?

[Heartofice]

I'd say if the Oscars was a meritocratic celebration of the best movies of the year, and every year the most deserving movie won Best Picture and decisions were based purely on filmic quality and artistry.. then this would be a heavy handed, clumsy move.

As it is, the Oscars is what it is, does anybody take it seriously any more?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The inclusion standards are PR, and the Oscars are just a popularity contest. If they want to fix the issue, due as the article says after the introduction and expand the voting pool with a hard push to include more women and people of color. That would do more than creating arbitrary standards. 

[Heartofice]

Also, could Parasite win given its lack of diversity 

[Ran]

I can't think of a film that would not satisfy the inclusion requirements. Pretty sure the Standards C and D are things that studios and production companies can very easily sort out if they don't already meet them (most do), and women are heavily represented in makeup, costuming, and sometimes casting, so Standard B isn't that rough either. Which means Standard A, the only one that has anything to do with the actual film you see in terms of the story it tells and the performers acting it out, can be safely ignored.

 

This is just a publicity move and has no real impact on anything. The only thing that could be really hurt are really small indie films with limited resources (aka limited cast and crew) with a small-time distributor (few resources for internship programs) and they were never going to be an Oscar contender. 

[Fez]

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

This is just a publicity move and has no real impact on anything. The only thing that could be really hurt are really small indie films with limited resources (aka limited cast and crew) with a small-time distributor (few resources for internship programs) and they were never going to be an Oscar contender. 

I don't know about that. Moonlight only had a budget of $1.5 million and was distributed by A24; which, per wikipedia, only has 124 employees. Now I assume A24 is still successful enough that it wouldn't be a burden for them to have paid internship programs; but it's not impossible to imagine an even smaller distributor that isn't able to. And with the internet the way it is now, a film with extremely limited distribution can still got a lot of buzz going. Probably not enough to win anything, but enough to get nominated.

[Ran]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't know about that. Moonlight only had a budget of $1.5 million and was distributed by A24; which, per wikipedia, only has 124 employees.

Obviously, Moonlight is a slam dunk for Standard A and B. Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere complained that Call Me By Your Name wouldn't pass, but it definitely meets Standard A given its theme, and a quick Google of the above the line crew shows it meets Standard B (Asian cinematographer, gay writer, numerous women in leading creative roles) as well. Manchester by the Sea is dodgier, because there's no obvious ethnic people in lead creative roles, but most of them I can't find pictures of so... who knows?

 

Quote

 

And with the internet the way it is now, a film with extremely limited distribution can still got a lot of buzz going. Probably not enough to win anything, but enough to get nominated.

Maybe. I don't know. Most indie studios have interns. And indie studios just need to have two interns, not even dedicated diversity programs as such. The practical effect of this is that studios will give internship and training opportunities to slightly more minorities than they do presently, and may make a little extra effort to get ethnic minorities into senior exec positions. The overall impact, especially on the creative side, will be minimal.

So, I'm fine with it. It'll do a little bit of good back where the sausage is made without dictating what sort of art can be made.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

Obviously, Moonlight is a slam dunk for Standard A and B. Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere complained that Call Me By Your Name wouldn't pass, but it definitely meets Standard A given its theme, and a quick Google of the above the line crew shows it meets Standard B (Asian cinematographer, gay writer, numerous women in leading creative roles) as well. Manchester by the Sea is dodgier, because there's no obvious ethnic people in lead creative roles, but most of them I can't find pictures of so... who knows?

 

Maybe. I don't know. Most indie studios have interns. And indie studios just need to have two interns, not even dedicated diversity programs as such. The practical effect of this is that studios will give internship and training opportunities to slightly more minorities than they do presently, and may make a little extra effort to get ethnic minorities into senior exec positions. The overall impact, especially on the creative side, will be minimal.

So, I'm fine with it. It'll do a little bit of good back where the sausage is made without dictating what sort of art can be made.

I agree that Moonlight hits Standards A & B. But what about a similar scoped film from some college filmmaker in Pennsylvania about a family falling apart amid the backdrop of economic stagnation in Wilkes-Barre. And everyone involved with the film is white because everyone the filmmaker knows closely is white and they had to rely on friends and family to get the movie done.

This is an extreme edge-case, but I don't think a hypothetical movie like that should get punished because the Academy wanted some cheap PR.

[Mladen]

Now, I finally have time to comment... And, honestly, I don't know from which side this is worse.

We can see this as a publicity stunt. It would not be the first one in Hollywood. They want to show us how morally superior they are (now that they have finally managed to put Weinstein behind bars) that honestly, it is laughable. And naturally, Academy had to give in. There was no way that their most honest barometer would actually, year after year show what the real problem is - the lack of tru representation in motion picture and not the lack of nominees. But we preferred to talk more about Oscars so white, forgetting  that the real story is actually filmmakers are so white (something Whoopi Goldberg and Chris Rock have astutely addressed)

On the other side, let's say they mean it. I am sorry, bit I don't understand how "inclusiveness" can be considered as a measurement for quality. And out of 93 previous winners and almost 500 nominated movies, how many would be actually accepted today? Can you imagine someone saying to Scorsese "sorry for not meeting Standard A or B, better luck next time". If they really mean it, how long will it pass to the point where we say, IDK, "Lord of the rings" gets discarded. Will we be making movies like "Godfather" or "Social Network" or IDK, "The King's Speech"?

Hollywood needs to be more inclusive, there is no doubt about that. But either they are more concerned with PR here or they really don't see what the real problem is? Are they obtuse or idiotic? Or perhaps both?

[Ran]

53 minutes ago, Fez said:

I agree that Moonlight hits Standards A & B. But what about a similar scoped film from some college filmmaker in Pennsylvania about a family falling apart amid the backdrop of economic stagnation in Wilkes-Barre. And everyone involved with the film is white because everyone the filmmaker knows closely is white and they had to rely on friends and family to get the movie done.

The distributor who picks it up will almost certainly be able to meet Standards C and D, if not now than they will by 2024 when this comes into effect.

Any distributor too small to afford a couple of interns is too small to get a film out nationally and hence the film simply would never be under consideration.

Quote

This is an extreme edge-case, but I don't think a hypothetical movie like that should get punished because the Academy wanted some cheap PR.

Taking the edge case to include studio or distributor who doesn't meet criteria C and D really does mean that the film would never be considered for an award at the Oscars anyways.

36 minutes ago, Mladen said:

I don't understand how "inclusiveness" can be considered as a measurement for quality.

To be fair, it's not being presented as a measurement of quality. It's part of the minimum criteria before the Academy will even consider measuring for quality, much as the other eligibility requirements (such as screeing in theatres for a certain minimum time) a film needs before it can be considered.

Quote

And out of 93 previous winners and almost 500 nominated movies, how many would be actually accepted today?

This is a moot point, since this is a standard being applied to films from 2024 and forward. It is not retroactive and is not intended to be used to judge films of the past. They were what they were. It will be interesting if people with more time go through the past decade or two of nominees and sees which would not meet that standard, just to give a sense of how much of a real issue it may be.

 

[Mladen]

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

To be fair, it's not being presented as a measurement of quality. It's part of the minimum criteria before the Academy will even consider measuring for quality, much as the other eligibility requirements (such as screeing in theatres for a certain minimum time) a film needs before it can be considered.

Yes, but it becomes a requirement in terms of a lot of different aspects of that movie. Screening requirement doesn't affect the product, this will.

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

This is a moot point, since this is a standard being applied to films from 2024 and forward. It is not retroactive and is not intended to be used to judge films of the past. They were what they were. It will be interesting if people with more time go through the past decade or two of nominees and sees which would not meet that standard, just to give a sense of how much of a real issue it may be.

Well, it will be interesting. Honestly, I think there is an issue. I just disagree with their solution. 

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Mladen said:

Yes, but it becomes a requirement in terms of a lot of different aspects of that movie. Screening requirement doesn't affect the product, this will.

The studio or distributor having a diversity program for interns and apprentices means nothing for the product. The marketing team having an ethic senior VP means nothing for the product. People are ignoring standards C and D which are standards easily met by any studio or distributor with enough clout to get a film into Best Picture consideration.