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

[CharlesPapert]

Back to the original discussion for a sec...this was my camera department on the HBO series A Black Lady Sketch Show a couple of years ago. It took weeks to assemble, requiring plenty of emails and texts and referrals, including several people who initially took the job and then ended up taking another one before we began (that's happening more and more and seems to be considered acceptable by the younger generation, but that's another subject). If I had wanted to go the easy route and end up with a more homogenous crew, I could have done so in a fraction of the time. I do know other department heads who have been told in no uncertain terms that they are to hire diverse; for me that has been voiced as more of a suggestion than a demand, but I have been pushing that direction for years now anyway.

In the process of hiring primarily through referral (and this applies to all hires, diverse or not), sometimes it doesn't work out and I do tend to go back to the source who recommended them to give them feedback and talk it through. A couple of times I've found that when pushed, the person who referred them reverses their position and admits that "yeah, OK, they weren't great", but didn't want to give them a negative review because...I don't know, perhaps they were afraid to? Unfortunately this has really complicated my process, but I see this as a philosophical difference in how one hires. I need my crew to be good at their jobs and preferably, lovely humans, but I prioritize the first over the second. I've come to see that a lot of my colleagues place more emphasis on everyone on their crew being their buddies than the actual work skills demonstrated, which is a little surprising. I consider my work to be only as good as the sum of my crew, so I don't really have room to carry someone who gets in the way of that, no matter how much fun they are to go out to drinks with.

So, yeah, I just consider it part of my job to spend that time in prep building a team slowly and with care. Unfortunately, the best crewpeople that happen to be diverse tend to be in high demand, so I often can't bring them from job to job as they get snatched by bigger shows.

 

[epsom salt]

I am very grateful for the sake of my employment that I am a straight white man. Even with whatever diversity initiatives are now in place, I have no doubt it would be much harder for me to attain my current position if I were anything other. I've especially witnessed sexism in the film industry where female cameramen aren't taken as seriously and have to work harder to prove themselves. It's like the Seinfeld joke about how he'd rather fly with a woman pilot because he knows she has to be better than the men to get there.
[/B]

Lovely anecdote but it's just that. I can also provide several personal examples of friends here in LA who were hired just because they were female and then they turned around and hired me because they didn't understand the technical side of things.

Where do you think white men are already disadvantaged and at scale?
[/B]

I'm confused by this question so are you trolling? Uhhhh, how about the thing we are discussing currently? Working here in LA & West Coast right now there is no other people group who are being, from the top down, openly and publicly regulated in the workforce for their race/gender/sexual preference. Not one single other people group is being told loudly and publicly that their "time is up" that they are, "male pale and stale", "if you are a white straight male don't even apply" and that it is a "femitist's job to remove straight white men from positions of power". These phrases are being shouted from the rooftops and celebrated out here, and I have heard every one of those mantras on set more times than I can count. This very popular undeniably pervasive sentiment combined with this new rule are the definition of "discrimination at scale", and yet people like yourself openly advocate for it. Because why? "Sometimes the harm from inaction outweighs the harm from an imperfect solution". That's a laughably weak defense, as you try to wiggle past this... I don't have a problem if a producer wants to hire an all female crew, all gay crew, or all black crew, so why would there be a problem with someone hiring a 71% white straight male crew if that group makes up the vast majority of applicants for that job? PS I've never been on a set like that anyway. I shot 3 projects for BET last year, and when our producer was openly questioned in front of us about letting "this many white boys on set", he honestly replied, "because look at our track record, we've promoted every single poc/marginalized local out of each department. Everyone wants to be a director, and now they are".

 

[Paul F]

In Japan, they don't have these problems.

 

[ahalpert]

Lovely anecdote but it's just that. I can also provide several personal examples of friends here in LA who were hired just because they were female and then they turned around and hired me because they didn't understand the technical side of things.

"women comprised just 7% of cinematographers working on the top 250 grossing films of 2022. That’s up only three percent from 1998 when Lauzen started collecting data. The number of female editors hasn’t improved much either, increasing from 20% in 1998 to 21% in 2022. Women didn’t fare much better in other roles, comprising only 19% of writers, 25% of executive producers, and 31% of producers in 2022. For the top 100 grossing films, the numbers were similar, with women faring best as producers (28%), editors (18%), writers (17%), directors (11%), and cinematographers (8%). Only 9% of composers of the top 100 films were women."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimels...-2022-according-to-new-study/?sh=15c9b9cd58f4

And my personal experience is that men-- especially white men-- especially tall, white men-- receive more deference than other people and a greater assumption of skill and professionalism even when it's sorely undeserved.

I'm confused by this question so are you trolling? Uhhhh, how about the thing we are discussing currently? Working here in LA & West Coast right now there is no other people group who are being, from the top down, openly and publicly regulated in the workforce for their race/gender/sexual preference. Not one single other people group is being told loudly and publicly that their "time is up" that they are, "male pale and stale", "if you are a white straight male don't even apply" and that it is a "femitist's job to remove straight white men from positions of power". These phrases are being shouted from the rooftops and celebrated out here, and I have heard every one of those mantras on set more times than I can count. This very popular undeniably pervasive sentiment combined with this new rule are the definition of "discrimination at scale", and yet people like yourself openly advocate for it. Because why? "Sometimes the harm from inaction outweighs the harm from an imperfect solution". That's a laughably weak defense, as you try to wiggle past this... I don't have a problem if a producer wants to hire an all female crew, all gay crew, or all black crew, so why would there be a problem with someone hiring a 71% white straight male crew if that group makes up the vast majority of applicants for that job? PS I've never been on a set like that anyway. I shot 3 projects for BET last year, and when our producer was openly questioned in front of us about letting "this many white boys on set", he honestly replied, "because look at our track record, we've promoted every single poc/marginalized local out of each department. Everyone wants to be a director, and now they are".

I work in NYC and I've never heard anyone say any of the stuff you're saying. There's a massive informal advantage for white men in our economy. Diversity initiatives don't fully counteract it, let alone leave white men at a disadvantage.

 

[epsom salt]

"women comprised just 7% of cinematographers working on the top 250 grossing films of 2022. That’s up only three percent from 1998 when Lauzen started collecting data. The number of female editors hasn’t improved much either, increasing from 20% in 1998 to 21% in 2022. Women didn’t fare much better in other roles, comprising only 19% of writers, 25% of executive producers, and 31% of producers in 2022. For the top 100 grossing films, the numbers were similar, with women faring best as producers (28%), editors (18%), writers (17%), directors (11%), and cinematographers (8%). Only 9% of composers of the top 100 films were women."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimels...-2022-according-to-new-study/?sh=15c9b9cd58f4

And my personal experience is that men-- especially white men-- especially tall, white men-- receive more deference than other people and a greater assumption of skill and professionalism even when it's sorely undeserved.

Great, I'm not arguing any of those numbers because none of them say people are succeeding due to racism. It just says these people are succeeding.... Nobody looks at the NBA and cries racism because there aren't any policies that support that. Most just go, "welp, those fellas must be good at that activity".You on the other hand, make the leap that the industry is evil without providing evidence of crooked policies. And worse still take it a step further and endorse and promote crooked and racist policies(that we have clear civil rights laws against) to get rid of the problem that you can not prove.

I work in NYC and I've never heard anyone say any of the stuff you're saying. There's a massive informal advantage for white men in our economy. Diversity initiatives don't fully counteract it, let alone leave white men at a disadvantage.

Good to here that you aren't dealing with that over there, but we are definitely dealing with it over here. So you're now making the argument, that dei initiatives that specifically target white straight men... won't negatively affect straight white men?

 

[ahalpert]

Great, I'm not arguing any of those numbers because none of them say people are succeeding due to racism. It just says these people are succeeding.... Nobody looks at the NBA and cries racism because there aren't any policies that support that. Most just go, "welp, those fellas must be good at that activity".You on the other hand, make the leap that the industry is evil without providing evidence of crooked policies. And worse still take it a step further and endorse and promote crooked and racist policies(that we have clear civil rights laws against) to get rid of the problem that you can not prove.


Good to here that you aren't dealing with that over there, but we are definitely dealing with it over here. So you're now making the argument, that dei initiatives that specifically target white straight men... won't negatively affect straight white men?

The point of the numbers is that they prove that white men are succeeding. You had claimed that white men were being broadly discriminated against. The evidence does not show that at all. Success is still very much attainable for white guys in the industry.

Yes, DEI will negatively affect straight white men. I'm making the argument that straight white men will still come out on top because they're at such an advantage to begin with. I gave evidence in another post to show that white people with identical resumes are more likely to get an interview and a job than black people. So there is evidence. I don't know if there is evidence specific to the film industry. But as I said, the majority of AFI students are women and about 1/3 of its cinematography grads are women. Do you think that men are just better at cinematography?

As I also said, I've seen women and people of color on set be disrespected and undermined in ways that the perpetrators did not do to white men. But you seem to just gloss over everything I say that doesn't fit your victimhood narrative.

Whites are 58% of the US population. So, white men about 29%. Straight white men something less than that. So, straight white men can be overrepresented on these film shoots by 2.5x or 3x. Doesn't seem crazily unfair to me. If you have a problem with quotas generally, then fine. This is not a stringent quota by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ahalpert]

Your whole case rests on plausible deniability. I can't prove that there's discrimination at play because there are no explicit or written policies to that effect.

But I know that bias exists. There is ample scientific evidence of it in hiring, in wages, in lending. And I have observed my own bias.

I'd be happy to hear alternative solutions for ensuring that everyone can get an equal shot at their piece of the pie. I'm all about egalitarian meritocracy. It's the right thing to do and it's better for the economy, too.

Also, i dont agree that black people are fundamentally better at basketball, or Dominicans at baseball, or Jews at accounting. In each case, there's a vibrant cultural practice supporting each group's participation in that activity. But there are plenty of women feeding into the film industry, developing skills and acquiring certification and experience, but not rising through the ranks.

 

[ahalpert]

By the way, it's worth noting that you could win Best Picture even if your entire crew was straight white guys. I'm not sure if any of its detractors bothered to read the Academy's statement, but it outlines 4 areas of production to evaluate for diversity. The film only has to qualify in 2 areas.

STANDARD A: ON-SCREEN REPRESENTATION, THEMES AND NARRATIVES (either 1 of your leads needs to be a minority OR 30% of secondary characters are from underrepresented groups OR the story itself is about an underrepresented group)

STANDARD B: CREATIVE LEADERSHIP AND PROJECT TEAM (either 2 department heads are from underrepresented groups OR 6 other non-PAs are OR 30% of your whole crew is)

STANDARD C: INDUSTRY ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES (The film’s production, distribution and/or financing company offers paid internships and training and/or work opportunities to underrepresented groups)

STANDARD D: AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT (Representation in marketing, publicity, and distribution: The studio and/or film company has multiple in-house senior executives from among the following underrepresented groups...)

The statement adds: "All categories other than Best Picture will be held to their current eligibility requirements. Films in the specialty feature categories (Animated Feature Film, Documentary Feature, International Feature Film) submitted for Best Picture/General Entry consideration will be addressed separately."

So basically, they're saying they won't give you Best Picture if your movie is about straight white guys, the whole cast is white, the whole crew is white, and the financing/marketing/distribution team is all white. But you could have an entirely straight white male crew and still win Best Picture.

 

[Paul F]

Did it take 8 pages for somebody to read the document?

 

[epsom salt]

The point of the numbers is that they prove that white men are succeeding. You had claimed that white men were being broadly discriminated against. The evidence does not show that at all. Success is still very much attainable for white guys in the industry.

Seems like you're talking around my point which is that, if a vast majority of the people applying for these positions are white straight males then the numbers you've provided would not dispute my point. And the crux of it all for me is clear and simple, this new rule about how many white straight men can or can not be on set is by definition racist. That's it. If there is a rule or policy that is racist, against any people group, folks should speak up and push back. Even if you obviously dislike those people or think that their #timesup .

Yes, DEI will negatively affect straight white men. I'm making the argument that straight white men will still come out on top because they're at such an advantage to begin with. I gave evidence in another post to show that white people with identical resumes are more likely to get an interview and a job than black people. So there is evidence. I don't know if there is evidence specific to the film industry. But as I said, the majority of AFI students are women and about 1/3 of its cinematography grads are women. Do you think that men are just better at cinematography?

Thank you for admitting that, and for all of the qualifiers that basically do the same. Surely you're aware that a class of film school graduates vs the number of actual cinematographers applying for jobs are two vastly different numbers? More diversity is coming down the pipe? Awesome. I've never made or heard an argument for the opposite. A lot of my first string technicians are in those categories but, I tell production to hire them, not because they fit a quota or because I'll score points on social media. I care if this technison is good at their job, has a decent attitude, and won't slow us down on the day. But that's all besides the point, would you disagree with my 100% anecdotal claim, that there are waaaaaay more straight white male cinematographers in US? Because if that is true, clearly the metric we should measure by are those applying for the job. Not the sexual preferences of all the gardeners in garden grove, as those numbers all seem a bit unimportant to this discussion, wouldn't you agree?

As I also said, I've seen women and people of color on set be disrespected and undermined in ways that the perpetrators did not do to white men. But you seem to just gloss over everything I say that doesn't fit your victimhood narrative.

t
Hah, swing and a miss. I have no interest in either crediting or discrediting your personal experiences. But even if I did, this still, is not, a valid justification for a racist hiring practice. Full stop. I only bring up my own experiences to state my vested interest in removing it from the workplace.

Whites are 58% of the US population. So, white men about 29%. Straight white men something less than that. So, straight white men can be overrepresented on these film shoots by 2.5x or 3x. Doesn't seem crazily unfair to me. If you have a problem with quotas generally, then fine. This is not a stringent quota by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, no we all heard your stats the first time but maybe you're not hearing me or the other reasonable posts in opposition. You've yet to prove that having the US population reflected in an industry makes it any better. Furthermore, I'd wager you don't even actually think that because you aren't asking for same absurd race regulation, in any other industry. Even if you work hard to downplay it, justify it, or talk around it, this quota is clearly by definition racist. Do you agree or not? Because you've already in a roundabout way admitted you know it is. Yet you keep advocating for it...

 

[DLD]

https://exprealty.com/guides/15-reasons-people-are-moving-to-florida-what-you-need-to-know/

There are various reasons why people are moving to Florida. The most common ones include warm weather, affordable cost of living, and job opportunities. Additionally, many people are reevaluating their living situations and considering moving to areas with more space and outdoor activities.Apr 14, 2023

 

[ahalpert]

Seems like you're talking around my point which is that, if a vast majority of the people applying for these positions are white straight males then the numbers you've provided would not dispute my point. And the crux of it all for me is clear and simple, this new rule about how many white straight men can or can not be on set is by definition racist. That's it. If there is a rule or policy that is racist, against any people group, folks should speak up and push back. Even if you obviously dislike those people or think that their #timesup .

There is racist policy in favor of whites. Employment in the US is racially biased. This has been proven scientifically. Would you rather be a black person for the sake of your employment? Do you think, honestly, that it would be easier for you to get work?

? Because if that is true, clearly the metric we should measure by are those applying for the job.

Exactly. Nobody is suggesting that white men should get a proportional number of jobs to their share of the population (29%) or an even 50%. But "Of the 54 students who earned a master's degree in Film, Video & Photographic Arts from NYU in 2020-2021, 26% were men and 74% were women." If the demographics of job seekers were similar to the demographics of people who got hired, i would not be crying foul. If the system were even close to fair, i wouldn't support a quota. But way more women have entered the industry in the last 20 years and their employment numbers have barely budged.

https://www.collegefactual.com/coll... Arts Master's Program,men and 74% were women.

. Furthermore, I'd wager you don't even actually think that because you aren't asking for same absurd race regulation, in any other industry. Even if you work hard to downplay it, justify it, or talk around it, this quota is clearly by definition racist. Do you agree or not? Because you've already in a roundabout way admitted you know it is. Yet you keep advocating for it...

I support affirmative action in education and employment. I also believe that a person's talent and potential should be evaluated relative to the scale of resources that brought them to where they are today. I've seen how rich people pamper their children with intensive tutoring, doctors who give them ADD and various diagnoses so they can have extra test-taking time (which has a much higher incidence in Manhattan than the other boroughs), and college preppers who ghost-write their applications. I think that statistically on average the demographics of an industry roughly reflect the demographics of the participation pool absent the influence of racial bias or financial advantage.

This quota is race-based. It isn't racist. The system as it stands is racist. The quota is an attempt to rectify that problem. And I don't think it's anywhere near stringent enough to actually infringe upon the rights of white men.

 

[ahalpert]

https://exprealty.com/guides/15-reasons-people-are-moving-to-florida-what-you-need-to-know/

After Doug said he moved to Florida because of the weather, I looked up the average daily high temperature in Miami in July. I had always assumed the summers were crazy hot. But they're only 3 or 4 degrees hotter than where I live in the Hudson Valley. But in January, Miami is 40 degrees hotter. I think that's all you need to know.

New York and California have a real problem with housing development. Governor Hochul in NY just put through a bill so the state could tailor local regulations to allow more residential construction. But it was immediately challenged in court by rich NIMBYs who are trying to bolster their home values and filter out the type of people who can move to their towns and neighborhoods.

In contrast, Florida just changed their regulations to ease the development of apartment complexes in response to the spike in housing costs there. There are downsides to the loose approach, like how that condo building collapsed or how Hurricane Harvey was exacerbated by poor land use planning or how coastal properties soon won't be able to buy flood insurance. But on the whole, it's a boon for residents.

In short, the reasons people are moving have nothing to do with wokeism.

And NY is way safer than Florida.

"Homicides are 44 percent lower in New York (2.9 per 100,000) than in Florida (5.2), whose homicide rate is slightly above the national average rate of 5 per 100,000. "
Property crime rate (per 100k residents)
FL 2,145.7
NY 1,373.3

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publicat..., which rarely go unreported,York (FBI, 2019 ).

 

[DLD]

After Doug said he moved to Florida because of the weather, I looked up the average daily high temperature in Miami in July. I had always assumed the summers were crazy hot. But they're only 3 or 4 degrees hotter than where I live in the Hudson Valley. But in January, Miami is 40 degrees hotter. I think that's all you need to know.

Summers are crazy hot but people do get used to it, especially if they live close to the coast.

And crime in the US is divided by a zip code.

 

[Tom Roper]

In short, the reasons people are moving have nothing to do with wokeism.

New York and California have a real problem with housing development. Governor Hochul in NY just put through a bill so the state could tailor local regulations to allow more residential construction. But it was immediately challenged in court by rich NIMBYs who are trying to bolster their home values and filter out the type of people who can move to their towns and neighborhoods.

It was a factor for me. It wasn't the only factor but escaping the city jungle of squealing tires, boom cars, domestic screams and yells, gunshots, drug abuse, trash, panhandlers, homeless tents; I accept the rich NIMBY criticism and owe it to the wokies for hastening my exit.

 

[Paul F]

This is not a stringent quota by any stretch of the imagination.

No, it's absurd and you were the first one to bring the document forward and observe the silliness of the requirements. If I find myself short in requirements for Best Picture, I can borrow $10 from my landscaper, who happens to be Latino, call him my one of my financers, and boom, I'm qualified for Best Picture.

I like how the first standard is worthy of the goal while the others have enough holes in them to make any picture qualify. Those people sure are clever when they write requirements to satisfy the lemmings.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Summers are crazy hot but people do get used to it, especially if they live close to the coast.

We live close to the coast, and it is still too hot in the summers. So we spend summers in New England. The best of both worlds.
Actually, I just got home a couple of days ago from our NAB trip out west (8 weeks), and I'll be gone again in about a week for the rest of the summer.

 

[DLD]

We live close to the coast, and it is still too hot in the summers. So we spend summers in New England.... .

It took me several years. And I try not to walk outside at around noon.

 

[Doug Jensen]

It took me several years. And I try not to walk outside at around noon.

Ya gotta love the afternoon thunderstorms, though. The summer skies and cloud formations in Florida are beautiful.

 

[epsom salt]

There is racist policy in favor of whites. Employment in the US is racially biased. This has been proven scientifically. Would you rather be a black person for the sake of your employment? Do you think, honestly, that it would be easier for you to get work?

"Proven scientifically"? Can you show me these current racist policies please? Let's fight them together. But didn't you earlier qualify a similar claim and say that you can not prove it's happening in the Film industry? In light of these new policies, of course it's favorable to be anything other than white straight male. This highly competitive market is oversaturated with highly competitive straight white guys as your stats point out, and now there's an actual quota to hire anything but. Do you disagree? Anecdotally my black production friends are absolutely killing it out here and I'm happy for them. But I'm not happy when overtly racist quotas appear and everyone seems to just go along with it. Last year, after a producer told me I was "on the team" only to be told two weeks later, "sorry, we've changed our minds and we're going with an all female crew on this project. Can you recommend a good female gaffer and dp?" 72hrs before call time. Which is a great life lesson on why you should always charge for prepro. I shot 4 commercial projects last year and one this year as a "tech" (in practice the DP) because the all female camera crew wasn't experienced enough to competently operate the camera or the lights in the scene. But whatever, my rate was paid and I got rentals so I'm happy to be on set. That said, being the only straight white dude on those sets, I got to hear some very interesting things.

Exactly. Nobody is suggesting that white men should get a proportional number of jobs to their share of the population (29%) or an even 50%.

Uh did you already forget what you wrote...? If not then why suggest the US population as a metric for your argument? You suggested whites are "over-represented 2-3x on film sets in relation to the population". Did I misunderstand you? Doug Bee, said the same in another post and then laughably used "whiteman" as a negative and disqualifier of a totally logical & factual definition. These are painfully obvious non-starters when the population isn't even reflected in the job applicants, let alone those who actually have the experience and or tools to execute the job on the day.

I support affirmative action in education and employment.

And yet you do not support affirmative action in the, equally & more homogeneous sports examples mentioned earlier? Or other industries where one group seems to excel or populate the majority over another? You've still yet to provide any evidence this problem currently exists in film, other than the fact that white dudes are excelling. And instead of providing evidence of bad policies, you then turn around support bad racist hiring practices... to fight racism? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

This quota is race-based. It isn't racist.The system as it stands is racist. The quota is an attempt to rectify that problem.

Hah race-based, not racist? Man, I gotta get that printed on a t-shirt or something. You uh, you sure that's not the same **** in a different toilet? But hey, maybe you and doug bee are right. Maybe we should just sit down and shut up, because maaaaybe this time, this new "race based"(totally NOT racist) quota is finally going to solve racism...