ahalpert
Major Contributor
Um, the sort of crew that works on best picture nominees. That's what this whole discussion is about. There's some variability there, but definitely a large minimum.
Academy Awards Best Picture - Know These New Rules Before You Start Production
- Thread starter Paul F
- Start date
Um, the sort of crew that works on best picture nominees. That's what this whole discussion is about. There's some variability there, but definitely a large minimum.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
It's only for the best picture category
"Today, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced new representation and inclusion standards for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category,"
If I lost out on a job because i was white, that would really frustrate me. But the idea is that there are already people losing out on jobs because they aren't straight white men, just probably not because of an explicit policy. This is intended to counterbalance that pressure.
White men are 31% of the US population. I don't see how you can say that a workforce that is 70% straight white men is excluding them.
And if they're bringing on additional hires mid-production, then probably some of those will be not white. I really doubt they're gonna fire someone they already have to meet their quota.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
If you came out of the closet, I'm sure that would help your employer's diversity numbers. Nobody is allowed to get away with identifying as the wrong race. And when the story breaks that your production chose to misidentify numerous crew members rather than meet the diversity guidelines, that's not going to go so well for your awards chances on this picture or any films your producers have in contention in the future. All it takes is a disgruntled employee to spill the beans. Competing films would be glad to hear of it.
It's true that it would be difficult or impossible to verify your crew. But if it comes out that you had a total bro crew, it's not going to bode well.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
What are you suggesting here? That woke productions are struggling to compete, so they engineered these rules to bring everyone else down to their level?
Let's look at recent winners.
Everything everywhere all at once - mostly Asian cast, Asian co-director
CODA - female director and star. Deaf costars
Nomadland - female star, Asian female director
Parasite - south Korean
ahalpert
Major Contributor
"the cuts are estimated to affect more than 2,500 jobs across the board at the company, we’re now told. While Parks and Resorts remains mainly untouched, the employee pink-slipping this week isn’t aimed at any particular division"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2023/05/disney-layoffs-third-round-1235375920/amp/
You said Disney shouldn't battle DeSantis over Don't Say Gay because it would hurt business because Disneyworld is in Florida. There is no indication that that's true. The Parks division is showing healthy growth. Their problems relate to linear TV, which is a dying industry; and streaming, where they are struggling to compete with Netflix.
Disney joined this fight because of activist employee pressure. Not because they thought it would goose profits. Just like the US is defending Ukraine not because it's good for the economy.
"Disney joined the debate at the urging of its employees, who staged a public protest."
https://www.nytimes.com/article/disney-florida-desantis.html
epsom salt
Well-known member
I hate to break it to you but this is already happening and at scale, otherwise they wouldn't have the balls to make this new rule without fear of repercussion. In the former case, when discrimination happened, 1. it was in fact against the law so legal action could be taken and victims got paid out 2. there were no policies that went a step further and actually incentivised discrimination. The great thing is, you don't have to wait til it happens to you to be pissed or lawyer up.
Ugh, this is like the gender wage gap argument and even if you don't mean to, you're cherry picking out of context data a bit here. A far more crucial/important "straight white dude number", wouldn't be US population, but number of those working in film. I'd wager it's the highest populated group in the biz, and if true, that would also make said group the most saturated & competitive to make a living in, compared to others. Do you have those numbers by any chance?
What's really funny is that this discussion is happening on a forum that is likely 90+% straight white male. Now, what are we going to do to to bring diversity to the forum?
As to film crews:
As to film crews:
- 48.2% of all film crews are women, while 51.8% are men. (statistically dead even)
- The average age of an employed film crew is 39 years old.
- The most common ethnicity of film crews is White (51.9%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (21.7%), Black or African American (14.4%) and Unknown (5.5%).
- In 2021, women earned 95% of what men earned.
- 5% of all film crews are LGBT.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Hmm, seems like you are making the case that the Academy has come up with a great solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.
It doesn't matter if it exists or not. It's all optics to make the Academy look proactive. "Look at us! We came up with these rules for Best Picture. See? We're the good guys, just like all of you." .They pretty much have gotten the Weinstein stink off of them. Remember Me Too? A little more work and then the hoard will move on to another agenda.
It's so much hypocrisy. "Oh those awful people at the Foreign Press Association and the Academy. Why they are a bunch of old white men. How awful. We have to do something about it......... Oh, I've been nominated? Oh, never mind, I've got to get a gown and jewelry and oh, I need a stylist. ....."
It's so much hypocrisy. "Oh those awful people at the Foreign Press Association and the Academy. Why they are a bunch of old white men. How awful. We have to do something about it......... Oh, I've been nominated? Oh, never mind, I've got to get a gown and jewelry and oh, I need a stylist. ....."
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
Where do you think white men are already disadvantaged and at scale?
The US population demographics are relevant because it's safe to assume that there are people who want to enter the industry but don't get a chance. If you try to maintain the demographics of the status quo, then you're just perpetuating whatever power dynamics historically came before.
It's hard for me to find racial demographics of film crews, but on average they are 22.6% female. So, you would almost get to the requirement with women alone. You just need 7.4% of your crew to be non-white or gay.
"On average, women make up 22.6% of a film crew"
https://stephenfollows.com/gender-of-film-crews/
ahalpert
Major Contributor
yeah that's kind of what I've been saying all along. I don't see this changing anything. Ergo I assume that it's mostly about messaging to the public -- specifically, Gen Z.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I can't abide any organization that requires quotas and mandates that are based on race, gender, religion, or creed. I hope the writers strike goes on for many months and the whole "Hollywood" system burns to the ground.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So, you never take work from corporations with diversity initiatives?
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
If some of my clients have initiatives, then I am unaware of those initiatives and nobody is putting them in my face or telling me how to do my job or whom I should work with. So, like many polices and practices a company may have for all aspects of their business, it is all irrelevant to me. I'll let you know if/when it ever becomes an issue. But I would argue that anyone who works as a cog in the feature film business or scripted television production (not me) feels the effect of the Academy mandates every day, whether they realize it or not.
And before you ask, yes I have taken a stand and refused to work for certain organizations because I disagree with their practices or politics. For the last 8-10 years I have turned down all work for Fox News and also for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), just to name a couple. How's that for opposite ends of the spectrum? And there are even more companies I choose not to do business with as a consumer because I don't like their product or way of doing business. Vote with your wallet.
And before you ask, yes I have taken a stand and refused to work for certain organizations because I disagree with their practices or politics. For the last 8-10 years I have turned down all work for Fox News and also for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), just to name a couple. How's that for opposite ends of the spectrum? And there are even more companies I choose not to do business with as a consumer because I don't like their product or way of doing business. Vote with your wallet.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
What would you propose as an alternative? All too often, critiques like these end up supporting the status quo even though they have merit. Sometimes the harm from inaction outweighs the harm from an imperfect solution.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Nothing at all.
As you posted yourself, there really is no problem here that needs to be solved, and even if there is, I have no standing or special insight. In fact, I barely care enough to post on this thread. But with that said, my advice is to just get out of the way and let the market run it's natural course. Talent, hard work, and brains will rise to the top if you let it. And when it comes to hiring, no consideration whatsoever should be given to race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else that tends to divide people and pit them against each other. As an audience member, I just want to be entertained. I don't really care WHO produced the material as long as it was done well.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
In practice, hiring does not work out that way. There are some fields that are closer to true meritocracies (such as sports). But more often, social capital and bias play a role in advantaging/disadvantaging different groups. The loose quota applied by the academy here won't change anything because it's basically already being met. But if you're opposed to quotas generally and you don't have an alternative proposal to change industries where women or black people, for example, face bias -- then it basically sounds like you're happy to keep things as they are.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I don't accept your premise that there is wide-spread systemic bias that actually keeps genuinely-qualified candidates from being hired.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
In the film business or in general? In general, it is super well-documented.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...heckout-banner
https://www.google.com/search?client...h=702&dpr=2.81
It's also documented that black people are less likely to receive a loan approval than white people with the same qualifications. And that Black homeowners will receive a higher appraisal value for their home if they remove all their family photos before the appraiser comes.
But is any of this really a surprise? As Americans, do we really need scientific evidence to validate what is basically common knowledge?
I would add that in the film business, I have personally witnessed sexist and racist bias. This was against people who were already hired and on the job. I just witnessed people doubt their abilities and disrespect them.
Last edited:
I don't accept that you get to say if there is or isn't a bias when you're in the majority that get hired.
Women in the camera department overall is something like 18-20% (per guild numbers and if you were to look at the HOD, then it's even less. Something like less than 5%.
If you think 5% female participation rate of DP's is not a problem, then you're part of the problem.
There are no voices from women participating in this thread. It would go very differently if there were.