Academy Awards Best Picture - Know These New Rules Before You Start Production

ahalpert said:
I waa principally interested in Disney's political stance not as a business move. I mean, by your logic we should have done nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. We're blowing tons of money on it, damaging our trade relationships, and weighing on the global economy with sanctions, etc.
Click to expand...

As I have mentioned before, Russia was aided and abetted for 20 years by Germany. Merkel still doesn't admit to choosing a "deal with the devil". (Scholz and von der Layen, each of whom worked in Merkel's administration, have reversed the German politics with regard to the energy, Russia and the military). The US role in the war is marginal, only to the extent that it teaches China a valuable lesson and hopefully prevents similar events in the near future.

As to Disney's numbers, it supports my other point about you being diligent in finding statistics and opinions that support your point of view. Disney is doing better than in the Covid years. I am shocked.
 
DLD said:
As I have mentioned before, Russia was aided and abetted for 20 years by Germany. Merkel still doesn't admit to choosing a "deal with the devil". (Scholz and von der Layen, each of whom worked in Merkel's administration, have reversed the German politics with regard to the energy, Russia and the military). The US role in the war is marginal, only to the extent that it teaches China a valuable lesson and hopefully prevents similar events in the near future.

As to Disney's numbers, it supports my other point about you being diligent in finding statistics and opinions that support your point of view. Disney is doing better than in the Covid years. I am shocked.
Click to expand...

Disney and Disney parks are doing better than they were pre-covid, which you would know if you ever bothered to look anything up

Screenshot_20230521_195231_Chrome.jpg
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/revenue

Screenshot_20230521_195415_Chrome.jpg
https://disneynews.us/disney-revenue-statistics/

What you said about US in Ukraine completely dodges my point about sacrificing profits for principles, but that's par for the course.
 
Just a heads up racism against white people is still in fact racism. I'm guessing some will probably argue that white people deserve it, or that in this one case, it's helpful to some lofty goal... but it is still by definition racism no matter how it is justified or framed.
 
epsom salt said:
Just a heads up racism against white people is still in fact racism. I'm guessing some will probably argue that white people deserve it, or that in this one case, it's helpful to some lofty goal... but it is still by definition racism no matter how it is justified or framed.
Click to expand...

This seems like saying you're not allowed to exclude non-white people. Rather than you must exclude white people. A production with 70% white people is still pretty white. (And it will probably be whiter than that since white women and white gay people count towards the 30% minority representation.) I think it's hard to argue that this policy is exclusionary towards white people.
 
The Academy can make its own rules for awards eligibility, but you can't argue they are not exclusionary. You have said it is hard to argue that such policies are exclusionary but it is very easy to see, particularly self evident to every person singled out because of it.
 
Tom Roper said:
The Academy can make its own rules for awards eligibility, but you can't argue they are not exclusionary. You have said it is hard to argue that such policies are exclusionary but it is very easy to see, particularly self evident to every person singled out because of it.
Click to expand...

Nobody is singled out by a policy like this because nobody is forbidden from working on the production by this rule. They just didn't make the cut. You might as well say that a company that refuses to hire me is singling me out for exclusion.

In the absence of a policy like this, an exclusively straight while male production is permitted. If you're running a large production and it's staffed by 100% straight white men, I think that's a much stronger indication that you're excluding people. There are plenty of female, gay, and non-white people with talent working in the industry. That's what this is all about. It's not that complicated and I expect it will have little if any actual bearing on staffing changes because most of the relevant film productions already meet these criteria. They're not that hard to meet.
 
ahalpert said:
This seems like saying you're not allowed to exclude non-white people. Rather than you must exclude white people. A production with 70% white people is still pretty white. (And it will probably be whiter than that since white women and white gay people count towards the 30% minority representation.) I think it's hard to argue that this policy is exclusionary towards white people.
Click to expand...

Hah, "This seems like"? You're working extra hard to translate what is being demanded by the academy. They are literally now required to exclude white straight men. I don't understand how you can deny this explicitly stated fact just because it's directed at people you obviously think deserve it. It sets a very real precedent that producers not just can, but *must, hire based on race/sexual preference to even have their work considered. There are currently civil rights laws that say you're not allowed to hire or exclude anyone based on the color of skin and this does exactly that. You have no leg to stand on to argue otherwise.

Beyond that, I see you making claims, that "the requirements are not hard to meet", to which I'd say it's safe to assume you have very little experience in actually staffing a film. "Nobody is singled out by a policy like this because nobody is forbidden from working on the production by this rule", Wait what? They're literally required to exclude any straight white male, at a certain point, even when they make up the vast majority of the applicants for a position. Do you dispute this?
 
epsom salt said:
They're literally required to exclude any straight white male
Click to expand...

Or

If you want your film to qualify to be considered for an academy award, you need to meet a threshold that more closely reflects the true diversity of the world we live in.

No one is excluding anyone from doing anything. You're making that leap.

I'm pretty sure most films being made today already meet these low bar requirements already anyway.
 
Last edited:
epsom salt said:
? They're literally required to exclude any straight white male, at a certain point, even when they make up the vast majority of the applicants for a position. Do you dispute this?
Click to expand...

In practice, they're probably crewing most of their positions around the same time. So, they might look at the group they chose and decide they need to diversify. At that point some straight white guys would get cut and they would be the least qualified or specialized of that group.

In general, white women are probably the greatest beneficiaries of diversity policies. At least that's been my observation.
 
I've been looking, but I haven't been able to find the answers. Are foreign films required to follow the guidelines and are the guidelines specific for regional demographics? For example, would "Parasite" have met the requirements for racial and ethnic representation? Also, are the producers supposed to assume racial, gender, and disability status or will they need to survey the cast and crew as part of employment?

Also, just as a general note, it seems a bit disingenuous to include women as casting director, costume designer, hair stylist, and makeup artist as being part of the criteria for an underrepresented group. At least the Annenberg study on inclusion managed to leave women out as a criteria for those positions. https://www.inclusionlist.org/. They didn't replace it with men, though.

Obviously, it would be almost impossible to produce a fully staffed film without meeting these criteria, so it would seem obvious that the Academy is more interested in signaling than in actually making any changes. The only films that might be barred from competing are extremely low budget America films with small crews and certain foreign films. Maybe that is the point, to just relegate smaller American and foreign films out of consideration.
 
There's lots of ways to measure these issues. Of the 2023 best film nominees, only 1/3 passed the Bechdel test. This is a very simple test that a majority of films fail.

What is the bechdel test?

There has to be a scene with two women talking to each other about something other than a man.

And you know something? Parasite passed, along with JoJo Rabbit and Little women. The rest of the best picture nominees didn't or only marginally.

I mean so far only two women have ever been nominated for Cinematography. In 100 years of photography DP's that are diverse and / or female are amongst the lowest participation rate.

The Australian cinematographers guild also did a very involved study and published a report that's a pretty interesting read. I just think the whatabout-ism here doesn't sit well when there is clearly large differences in the participation rates (and pay) of all these jobs when you're not a white male. Why do women not lurk here? Why are they not involved in a discussion here? What about the other diverse segments?

https://cinematographer.org.au/wp-co...port-final.pdf
 
cpreston said:
I've been looking, but I haven't been able to find the answers. Are foreign films required to follow the guidelines and are the guidelines specific for regional demographics? For example, would "Parasite" have met the requirements for racial and ethnic representation? Also, are the producers supposed to assume racial, gender, and disability status or will they need to survey the cast and crew as part of employment?
Click to expand...

The Academy rules for Best Picture are the same for all films. There are no exceptions or regional considerations. Now, that's an opinion having read the rules for Best Picture. But, I have not been able to read the form that is required to be submitted that provides the information showing the film met the criteria. The web site for the form does not work for me.
 
cpreston said:
I've been looking, but I haven't been able to find the answers. Are foreign films required to follow the guidelines and are the guidelines specific for regional demographics? For example, would "Parasite" have met the requirements for racial and ethnic representation?
Click to expand...

If it's a foreign film entered in the foreign film category, then I believe the submitting country would choose it's entry. Different countries have different ways of choosing their film. Sometimes its whatever wins their local best film, sometimes it's a committee that chooses the entry. I'm not sure that they would apply these requirements. Parasite though wasn't entered as a foreign film.
 
Run&Gun said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about a little sports shoot or a gaggle of owner-ops with ACs and a producer. These are big productions with dozens or hundreds of employees.

You're telling me that if every single one of those hires was a straight, white guy -- including all the HMUs, costume people, and PAs -- that wouldn't strike you as strange?
 
cpreston said:
I've been looking, but I haven't been able to find the answers. Are foreign films required to follow the guidelines and are the guidelines specific for regional demographics? For example, would "Parasite" have met the requirements for racial and ethnic representation? Also, are the producers supposed to assume racial, gender, and disability status or will they need to survey the cast and crew as part of employment?
Click to expand...

Re-commenting for clarification: An international film can be submitted in the Best Picture and in the Best International Film Feature awards. The latter award has no requirements in regards to diversity and inclusion. When submitted for Best Picture it needs to follow the same rules as any other picture.
 
cpreston said:
Also, are the producers supposed to assume racial, gender, and disability status or will they need to survey the cast and crew as part of employment?
Click to expand...

Oh, that is a thoughtful question. Good one.

Producer to the crew: "Now I gotta fill out this form to win Best Picture, which if I win, will mean millions of dollars in additional profit for me, so please be patient."

"A show of hands.....Women... Women, please raise your hands......One, two, four.... Ok now, Blacks, er... African Americans, er...People of Color, please raise your hands.......Ok, thanks. Now a show of hands. I'm looking for LGBTQIA2S2+ crew. Show of hands please.... Thank you. Now if you are LGBTQIA2S+ and haven't come out, please fill out this anonymous form. Ok, then, how about ..... any Native Americans..... I mean Indigenous people? ...... Anybody? No? Ok, How about .... do we have any other misrepresented ethnicities???"

Crew "Boo......boo! You suck man!"

Producer: "Oh c'mon folks..... I gotta fill out this form to grab more money!"

Crew "Give us 10% of the gross and we will cooperate. Otherwise, we will deny the claims you make regarding diversity."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top