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

[cpreston]

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.

I'm really wondering if a Korean film featuring all Koreans would count as an under represented minority for the purposes of the Academy awards for something like "Parasite". Or would they be expected to fill out the roles with Japanese and Chinese actors in order to fulfill the regional obligation for inclusion. Or would they all just count as Asian for the purposes of Hollywood's understanding of diversity. Most likely it just gets a pass for the purposes of the Academy. But would something like "All Quiet on the Western Front" get a pass for casting mostly Eastern European actors? I would guess not. It doesn't really matter though since I am sure that both of these had large enough crews and budgets to employ enough women to meet the requirement. And if they accidentally screw it up on the above the line positions, all they need to do is get some minimum wage interns and replace a couple of people in the marketing team. Easy-peasy. Which is why the whole thing feels so cynical.

One thing that won't be easy is putting together the form asking for things like mental disabilities as part of your employment agreement. Seeing as how most of the requirements are for above the line roles, it's not going to be easy to remain anonymous. Also, does something like ADHD count?

Obviously, none of these considerations are important because the odds are very small that any film being made is not going to obviously meet the Academy requirements. I'm sure the academy isn't actually expecting forms to be filled out. They are just expecting to see the check marks next to the casting director and the costuming head as well as an obviously not white lead or supporting actor. It's the thought that counts, and the thought is that they never want to see the #oscarssowhite or #timesup ever again.

 

[Paul F]

Rules are rules........... until inconsiderate people like you ask annoying questions and then the Board of Governors has to sweat bullets trying to figure out what the right answer to your questions are without enraging the rest of the movie making industry.

 

[epsom salt]

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.

Nope, not a single leap in anything I've said. Please elaborate on your false claim.

 

[ahalpert]

I'm really wondering if a Korean film featuring all Koreans would count as an under represented minority for the purposes of the Academy awards for something like "Parasite". Or would they be expected to fill out the roles with Japanese and Chinese actors in order to fulfill the regional obligation for inclusion. Or would they all just count as Asian for the purposes of Hollywood's understanding of diversity. Most likely it just gets a pass for the purposes of the Academy. But would something like "All Quiet on the Western Front" get a pass for casting mostly Eastern European actors? I would guess not. It doesn't really matter though since I am sure that both of these had large enough crews and budgets to employ enough women to meet the requirement. And if they accidentally screw it up on the above the line positions, all they need to do is get some minimum wage interns and replace a couple of people in the marketing team. Easy-peasy. Which is why the whole thing feels so cynical.

One thing that won't be easy is putting together the form asking for things like mental disabilities as part of your employment agreement. Seeing as how most of the requirements are for above the line roles, it's not going to be easy to remain anonymous. Also, does something like ADHD count?

Obviously, none of these considerations are important because the odds are very small that any film being made is not going to obviously meet the Academy requirements. I'm sure the academy isn't actually expecting forms to be filled out. They are just expecting to see the check marks next to the casting director and the costuming head as well as an obviously not white lead or supporting actor. It's the thought that counts, and the thought is that they never want to see the #oscarssowhite or #timesup ever again.

I think that if you make a movie in another part of the world, the rules will not apply. I'm guessing that this is an American-focused set of rules. And I bet they will be loosely enforced. I think that your production would have to stand out as being especially white for anyone to take a closer look.

This move seems more about messaging to the public and maybe also causing producers and casting directors to keep diversity in the back of their minds.

 

[ahalpert]

Show us pictures of your crew Abe.

I don't do a lot of hiring. My go-to assistant/2nd-shooter is Hispanic. Before him it was a white woman until she came into an inheritance and started producing her own projects. Before her it was a black guy before he moved down south. I hired each of them just because they were the best I could afford.

When I have to call in another cameraman to replace me, most of the people in my rolodex are white guys, a few asians, a couple hispanics, a woman here or there.

At Christie's, where I'm permalance editing and gimbal-shooting, the senior in-house editor is gay, the junior is black. The main freelance editors are me (white) and a Hispanic guy. All the producers are women, mostly white. Most of the cameramen and ACs they hire are guys, mostly white. PA's are more mixed in gender and race.

When I shoot weddings, my second shooter is always assigned by the studio. Most are white guys but there are a number of Asians, some Hispanics, a couple black guys and women.

Almost all wedding videographers I meet are men but probably at least half of the wedding photographers I meet are women and a large percentage, maybe 25%, are gay men. So I think there's clearly some self-selection going on that sorts people into different jobs. We had a baby last year and interacted with over a dozen doctors and nurses and secretaries. The only man we saw working in the labor and delivery wing was the janitor.

But I think that if you have a large production like a major film with lots of different roles, you should expect some degree of diversity. I work in metro NYC so maybe there's a broader range of ethnic groups here than in some places. But there are women everywhere, at least.

 

[cpreston]

I think that if you make a movie in another part of the world, the rules will not apply. I'm guessing that this is an American-focused set of rules. And I bet they will be loosely enforced. I think that your production would have to stand out as being especially white for anyone to take a closer look.

This move seems more about messaging to the public and maybe also causing producers and casting directors to keep diversity in the back of their minds.

I think that is what I find most annoying about the rules. Both the intent and outcome are only about messaging about diversity. It won't have any effect on how Hollywood operates or who makes movies.

It does not affect me. I almost only do corporate work, and almost all of my corporate work is with non-profits messaging about diversity. But most marketing clients that I work with would balk at messaging like this that seems both divisive, and pandering. It is also toothless and seems geared to not actually disturb the power structure in Hollywood. It just seems both cynical and hypocritical and I'm guessing that it will ultimately cause more problems that it solves.

 

[Paul F]

I don't do a lot of hiring. My go-to assistant/2nd-shooter is Hispanic. Before him it was a white woman until she came into an inheritance and started producing her own projects. Before her it was a black guy before he moved down south. I hired each of them just because they were the best I could afford.

When I have to call in another cameraman to replace me, most of the people in my rolodex are white guys, a few asians, a couple hispanics, a woman here or there.

At Christie's, where I'm permalance editing and gimbal-shooting, the senior in-house editor is gay, the junior is black. The main freelance editors are me (white) and a Hispanic guy. All the producers are women, mostly white. Most of the cameramen and ACs they hire are guys, mostly white. PA's are more mixed in gender and race.

When I shoot weddings, my second shooter is always assigned by the studio. Most are white guys but there are a number of Asians, some Hispanics, a couple black guys and women.

Almost all wedding videographers I meet are men but probably at least half of the wedding photographers I meet are women and a large percentage, maybe 25%, are gay men. So I think there's clearly some self-selection going on that sorts people into different jobs. We had a baby last year and interacted with over a dozen doctors and nurses and secretaries. The only man we saw working in the labor and delivery wing was the janitor.

But I think that if you have a large production like a major film with lots of different roles, you should expect some degree of diversity. I work in metro NYC so maybe there's a broader range of ethnic groups here than in some places. But there are women everywhere, at least.

You have the same situation I do. It's virtually impossible not to meet the criteria of the Academy if you live in a metropolitan area.

 

[Paul F]

I think you guys have it right. The Academy has an image issue as does the Foreign Press Association and this is their way of appeasing the lemmings even though it has no real teeth to it. The FPA got scorched by NBC not broadcasting their awards show. That cost them big money. The Academy can't afford to lose the same sort of money by having it's show not broadcast. The awards show brings in $137 million in revenue or 80% of their total revenue. They have $464 million of debt. (June 2022 statement)

 

[Doug Bee]

Nope, not a single leap in anything I've said. Please elaborate on your false claim.

You did say....literally right?

They are literally now required to exclude white straight men.

And you are not "literally" required to exclude straight white men. It doesn't say no white guys does it? You might think it does. You might infer it does. You might want to cry on the internet that it's somehow egregious to dare to talk of inclusion at the cost of your exclusion.

But that's not what it literally says.

It does not say anywhere that straight white men are LITERALLY excluded from being involved with an oscars compliant movie.

Your word was LITERALLY my white man.....

I think you're trying a bit hard. Threatened much?

I'm assuming you don't make Oscar contending films so I'm sure you're fine. Don't worry though, you can still stack it with way more than 50% white guys overall so don't worry too much.

 

[Doug Bee]

I think you guys have it right. The Academy has an image issue as does the Foreign Press Association and this is their way of appeasing the lemmings.

Agreed. It's really just lip service.

 

[Run&Gun]

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?

You didn’t say how big of a crew.

 

[epsom salt]

You did say....literally right?




And you are not "literally" required to exclude straight white men. It doesn't say no white guys does it? You might think it does. You might infer it does. You might want to cry on the internet that it's somehow egregious to dare to talk of inclusion at the cost of your exclusion.

But that's not what it literally says.

It does not say anywhere that straight white men are LITERALLY excluded from being involved with an oscars compliant movie.

Your word was LITERALLY my white man.....

I think you're trying a bit hard. Threatened much?

I'm assuming you don't make Oscar contending films so I'm sure you're fine. Don't worry though, you can still stack it with way more than 50% white guys overall so don't worry too much.

Haha oh man, captain gaslight has entered the chat. Oh Dougie, you're working so hard to defend an illogical position and literally anyone reading your comment can clearly see, that by your own reply, you very much agree with me. If not, why say "inclusion at the cost of my exclusion", & "threatened much" if my statements about these new racist rules are simply just "white man, leaps"? Guess I'll have to restate the rules for ya, but as it reads.... "At least 30% of the film’s crew is from the following underrepresented groups", which means... drum roll..... if 71% of the cast and crew are straight white men, some straight white men are gettin fired, for no other reason than being straight, white, men. How good the film is, how much people love/react to it, or how much money it makes all mean nothing and the film can not even be submitted to the academy. So if 2+2 still equals 4, where's the lie Doug? Do you argue this fact or do you just not understand the math? Still cloudy? Ok, let's do a little thought exercise to help you put it together in the practical. For argument's sake, 4 straight white friends get together to make a movie in a town where they don't have a film scene and their race and orientation are the overwhelming norm. Yes, there are female, gay lesbian and black folks but they just aren't into film making in this town. So these 4 nerds scrape together every dime, favor, and tool they can to make an amazing feature length doc about, let's just say, how evil and racist all white people are. But the academy won't even look at it unless they fire one of their buddies who made this amazing film and replace him with someone that falls into these underrepresented categories, who don't even want to work on this film. And even then, that's still a 75% straight white man production so they'll have to axe two fellas who made this masterpiece just to be safe. And please, spare us the, "you need to meet a threshold that more closely reflects the true diversity" speech. Haha come on... you don't even believe that because it does not apply to any other very homogeneous groups of black filmmakers, or female filmmakers, or even foreign filmmakers because you wouldn't dare intervene unless it's "stacked" with those evil straight white guys. Which we obviously should not intervene because everyone should be able to make whatever movie they want, with whoever they want, about whatever they want. And the week personal attacks are just a thinly veiled distraction as this isn't about you or me, but these obviously racist quotas that none of us should support. Because let's be honest, you probably aren't even really racist, you're just virtue signalling because you think you're helping out the little guy. But really nothing will actually change other than people hating the academy. Besides, what's that age old adage about 'the first one to use personal insults in a debate, just lost that debate'?

 

[epsom salt]

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.

Wait back up for a sec, some assumptions here where you are wearing rose colored glasses. Unless I misunderstood, these rules do not only apply to large productions, but any film being submitted for an Oscar. So smaller crewed, docs, indie features, and short films would all be subject to these rules. And there are waaay more small under budgeted productions trying to get noticed then there are giant block buster films being made. So, every different sized shoot has different common practices and if you've worked on a film you know schedules (hah)are constantly changing, so these statements seem like bit of a nonstarter. But even if that were true, on bigger shows there would definitely be situations where "rule qualifying" talent or crew members pull out mid production and are replaced by an a readily available white male, and because of this rule, they'd have to fire another white guy for being white. Wouldn't you agree?

I do infinitely appreciate you walking back your earlier "Nobody is singled out by a policy like this" statement and admitting that straight white guys will, as the new rules clearly state, get very much singled out and either not hired at all, or actually fired for no other reason than being straight white men. But I would love to hear how I might be have misrepresenting your point.

 

[Doug Jensen]

It's my understanding that people are now allowed to self-identify as anything they want.. So, if a production needs me to identify as a black lesbian to meet a quota, then so be it. Maybe I am. Only I can say that I'm not, right?

 

[Paul F]

IATSE should set gross-profit participation percentages for people identifying as a qualifying person and those people get the profit participation if the movie wins 'Best Picture".

 

[Tom Roper]

The Academy has the right to make their own rules. But quotas are not evidence of discrimination. Using them as such is a metaphor for circumstantial evidence. A person can be imprisoned a lifetime because he had motive while there was no direct evidence. Innocent people falsely convicted. Hollywood itself has dramatized this many times. The Fugitive starring David Janssen, Harrison Ford. You would think the Academy could make the linkage, but as Epsom Salt has aptly coined, the rule seems more about signaling than fairness.

Taking the example of the production dominated by race singularity, the quota is the tool for policing thought, using clues about what is thought to be in the heart with no knowledge of the fact. Innocent people casualties of discrimination, or reverse discrimination from a flawed process.

 

[Doug Jensen]

What the Academy needs to come out with is the "ParaOscars" (kind of like the Paralympics) for those people who feel they can't compete on a level playing field. So, if you want to assemble the best production team you can muster, without regard to social demographics, then you'll compete for a regular Oscar. But if you want to assemble a disverse group of crew that meets certain requirements, then you could compete for a ParaOscar. If it works for sports, why not the arts?

 

[Paul F]

It's my understanding that people are now allowed to self-identify as anything they want.. So, if a production needs me to identify as a black lesbian to meet a quota, then so be it. Maybe I am. Only I can say that I'm not, right?

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold on Doug. Now let me see if I follow this. I don't think I like where this is going. A prestigious award, Best Picture, which when won, can garner tens of millions of dollars in additional profits..... You're not saying people might cheat? Cheat for this honored award? This symbol of excellence in an industry known for .... well, ....... every vice known to man.......er woman.... humans... no.... huwomans?..... People, .... that's it.... every vice known to people. Say it isn't so! Oh, I'm afraid you've tarnished the Oscars for me just a little bit. I'll be watching anyway. Well, no, I'll record it and watch any of the heart-warming moments like last year, when an under-represented Black man (net worth, $350 million) won Best Actor after hitting another under-represented Black man (net worth $60 million) on stage.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Cheating!! Who said anything about cheatng? It is my right to self-identify as anything I want, and if you tell me I am not what I choose to identify as, then you're nothing but a bigot. Shame on you. It's white men like you who are keeping former white men like me down just because I choose to self-identify as something that you might not agree with. You disgust me.

 

[DLD]

What you said about US in Ukraine completely dodges my point about sacrificing profits for principles, but that's par for the course.

What principles?

Oh, and I assume you read the news that Disney is in the process of laying off 7,500 employees, as it has missed its earning estimates. That's because their returns on investments are not there. Their resorts portfolio is constantly changing too and, the soon to be shut down "Star Wars Hotel" didn't exist prior to Covid.

The next thing you'll do is to repeat Putin's line about Anheuser-Busch that "everything is going according to plan".