[ad_1]
The same minorities must also be involved in a prominent production or marketing assignment in order for the film to compete for the best picture award. However, this remains low: the employment of women, LGBTQ, actors with mental or physical disabilities, deaf or hard of hearing in 30% of the supporting actors, writing a script for these groups, offering at least 30 % of total staff, offering them paid internships, and even quite a few similar conditions must be met.
Therefore, Hollywood is trying to respond to criticism of “too white.” Some analysts said the time would have been a long time ago, while others expressed concern that these stipulations would not win the best films, but those in which a “sufficient minority” participated. The question arises: is politics really more important to the PC than to a successful, high-quality cinema? It depends on where we look …
The way so far
Many would not have thought of their crazier dreams than the hashtag, which spread like wildfire in 2015, the #OscarsSoWhite movement, or “Oscar is so white,” though nine years later it would force the entire film industry to change.
On January 15, 2015, the year of the 87th Oscar Gala, the twenty actor nominations were awarded to white people. According to the film’s review body, the Academy at the time, 92 percent of the members were white and 75 percent were male. Seeing these staggering numbers, April Reign, a black lawyer / writer / editor, launched her campaign, but despite the #OscarsSoWhite running out of the tap, the 2016 nominations were eerily similar.
Reign then believed that this could only be intentional. By January 2020, the situation had improved, with 84 percent of academic members being white and 68 percent male, but it was still far from what the actual proportions of humanity show.
Until Tuesday, when the new evaluation criteria were announced, which will take effect in a few years. Changes to the previous scheme, the film industry, which is made up mainly of white men, have been secured by many, but many see it as an essential reform, almost a revolution. According to Reign, there is still a long way to go to achieve equitable representation, but it is also a step towards the goal.
Let’s see the innovations in detail
The new provisions of the Academy in relation to the category of Best Film are as follows:
Category A is specifically for actors and must address at least one point
- At least one actor who plays a prominent or prominent role must be a member of a racial / ethnic minority
- At least 30% of additional participants must be of color, female, physically or mentally disabled, or LGBTQ members
- The story of the person playing the lead or prominent role should also focus on one of these minorities.
Category B is for creative leaders and the project team, one point needs to be addressed
- At least two of the following positions must be of color, female, disabled, or LGBTQ-oriented: casting director, cinematographer, composer, costume designer, director, editor, hairstylist, makeup artist, producer, visual designer, decorator, engineer sound, visual effects designer, author / writer
- At least 6 other staff members (excluding recruitment trainees) must belong to an underrepresented group
- At least 30 percent of staff must be from an underrepresented group
Category C applies to facility access, both points need to be addressed
- Paid apprentice status for members of the underrepresented minority
- Interns in large studios as producer, director of production, post-production, music and visual effects, financial and business sector, advertising and marketing positions.
- In small studios, at least two minority apprentices fill these positions
- Provide more training and skills development opportunities for minority workers.
Category D applies to audience development
- Representation in marketing, advertising and distribution
- The studio and / or film company must have several internal managers from the following underrepresented groups (marketing and advertising sector)
Well, that would be the new rule. It may seem strong at first and many times a second time. Of these four main categories, at least two must be marked by the feature film that awaits nominations and even awards.
Based on data dating back 90 years, the first category is the most difficult, but also the easiest to implement. There’s the 2017 winner, Moonlight, for example. Aside from the first all-black cast, a movie that brought homosexuality to the screen would easily pass the new filter. Like this year’s favorite, South Korean Parasites became the first non-English speaking winner in the Best Picture category.
So the question arises: if these movies were able to win even before the regulations, what is the need for the new rules? Well, the representation. It may be difficult, if not impossible, for a healthy white person to imagine the life of a wheelchair or an Indian, but members of the affected minority cannot very much relate to the “sample layer” they love in Hollywood. Maybe a little humanity needs viewers after that.
Would the provision concerning the third point of the first category, the point dealing with the minority aspect of history, invalidate, for example, the episode in the 1915 historical film The Birth of a Nation? It is true that there was no Oscar gala at that time, but for today’s eyes, horribly strange scenes were filmed that would make the work of those who judged decisions from 2024 very difficult. For example, the part that represents the blacks in the film is played by “blackface”, that is, white people painted in color.
And then there is the second category, which is off-screen workers. There are two positions, like the hairdresser and the makeup artist (which is still almost exclusively a girl power these days), and the imaginary cube is already marked, even though the movie is full of white characters and creators. So where is the equal representation? Well, almost nowhere.
Nor do we lack the opinion of those who work in the film industry. Star Trek 2, or the talking Nichak star, actress Kristie Alley, for example, has already protested:
“I have worked in film for forty years and have been a human rights activist for 50 years. Rules like this and others that exclude some films and creators from the competition are worthy of dictators, not artists. It is as if Picasso is determined to what I could paint.
You are not alone in your opinion. Oscar-nominated James Woods, 73, previously nominated twice for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, was not so eloquent. Twitter has responded to the new rules:
However, Dawn Hudson, president of the Academy, defended the new rules: we believe this will help the much-needed changes in the film industry.
[ad_2]
