|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2019 13:48:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 12, 2019 3:27:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 12, 2019 3:37:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 15, 2019 17:19:48 GMT
I have seen a few articles about it but I wasn't sure how they will enforce this. It seems they aren't sure neither. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lights-camera-action-and-diversity-for-bafta-hopefuls-lz730wdzcTBH I don't think it is a good idea. Diversity is good but I don't think awards committees should be responsible of implementing it. They just will lost the trust of people when it became clear that quality is not their main objective. It's becoming very obvious with some American and British critics. Now it's being institulized! I don't know maybe they should create a diversity award but not to censure quality stuff just because it doesn't have the right quota. At the same time, it's not surprising that BAFTA TV is the first award to do it (in all its categories). Sure, I imagine decades ago it was much more common for white male posh actors to win but in recent times it seems to me they try to not exactly being more inclusive but to castigate posh white drama and especially actors (no award for Claire Foy or Tom Hiddleston, for example). I have always thought they weren't so interested to give the award to BC because he is kind the poster boy of poshness in the UK! Sure they nominated him almost every year but the award tended to go if not necesarily racial minority actors, to working class actors or dramas or at least someone who kind of seemed less posh doing some sordid drama (Dominic West). I remember when he lost to the great Adeel Akhtar, some people on Twitter were celebrating that this time it didn't went to posh BC! They believed he always win because he is posh even when that wasn't true! Anyway, he probably won it just right on time! On the other hand, I can't imagine Movies BAFTA doing something like this. They love to "predict" the Oscars even if that means to ignore British talent! So the Oscars need to doing it first!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Oct 15, 2019 18:22:15 GMT
Unless someone is making a documentary, I see no reason for movies to be historically accurate. That’s often used as an excuse to leave out women or visible minorities from casts. I’m all for diversity in movies.
I remember many years ago when affirmative action was big. A co-worker was complaining one day that her son was having a hard time finding a job. He had just graduated from university, she said, but he was at a disadvantage because he was white. She said that all his black classmates had been hired before him, and it just wasn’t fair! It was reverse discrimination! We all looked at each other, wondering how to respond. Finally another co-worker assured her that her blond, blue-eyed son would be just fine.
I also remember my first bosses - males - whining that they had been overlooked for promotions because our employer was forced to promote women because of affirmative action. What idiots! It seems like a lifetime ago, but affirmative action was absolutely necessary.
My father was even telling me recently that the local labourer’s union is under pressure to hire more women. He said there are lots of jobs at construction sites that girls can do and aren’t too physically demanding - like that person holding up the “SLOW” sign when you drive past road repair workers. He was serious!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 15, 2019 20:42:08 GMT
I think it depends of the kind of production. What if the director is interested in doing a realistic and naturalistic movie about a specific historical event? For example Steve McQueen's Hunger;Or if the theme is specifically about white maleness? For example Claire Denis' Beau Travail; Or if it's about a close community in which it's vital to the plot to show they don't have too much contact with minorities? Foe example Spike Lee's Son of Sam.
Now I guess all those examples would be admitted because if you noticed the artists behind them are two black men and a woman but what if a white man do exactly the same critical film? Too much white male faces! Will just not be valid?
The rules aren't clear but most Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc. should be ruled out! Even if their films tend to be about the fails of white masculinity!
Also what we will have instead? A whitewashed fiction in which there isn't conflict between races or classes. Cool! But not all stories should be like that! There should be space for reality, too. From all kind of points of views! The challenge should be to have more diverse point of views tellinf stories with total liberty, not to limit the ones a random censor think aren't not necessarily because politics!
Awards should be about quality. The ones who should work in better representation are the studios and they should always respect the artist's vision.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Oct 15, 2019 23:30:38 GMT
Sorry, but that’s the classic excuse for avoiding diversity. A good director wouldn’t have a problem with it. And if a movie is about specific gender or race issues, then surely it would include other races and genders.
I used to have a friend whose parents were authors of history textbooks used in our high schools. She told me that when one of their books was being updated, new editing regulations forced her parents to make lots of changes. They could no longer refer to soldiers as “men”, but rather as “men and women”, and had to say “he or she” when referring to one soldier. My friend said that her parents thought that was ridiculous because it wasn’t historically accurate to imply that there might have been women fighting in many of those battles. But they made the required changes nonetheless. That was in the early 80’s. And that was non-fiction.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 16, 2019 0:12:09 GMT
Sorry but what that textbook did wasn't promoting diversity, it was misrepresenting history.
"During World War One, there was virtually NO female presence in the Canadian armed forces, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 3141 NURSES serving both overseas and on the home front." (Excerpt from a book about women in WWI from Dundurn Press)
I don't think that does women, or anyone else for that matter, any good. It cheapens the real struggle for equality that women lived through and gives a false impression of what those times were like.
And if I saw a movie that included female frontline fighters in the WWI trenches I just couldn't take it seriously.
I'm absolutely ALL for colourblind casting in something like The Hollow Crown with the inclusion of Sophie Okonedo as Margaret (I thought she was perfect in the role) but if I go to see a movie that is about von Richthofen and Roy Brown (which I think is something akin to a "specific historical event" that Sgev was talking about) I DON'T want to see "diversity" casting in the lead roles. Maybe in 400 years, but not until then.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 16, 2019 0:25:52 GMT
Sorry, but that’s the classic excuse for avoiding diversity. A good director wouldn’t have a problem with it. And if a movie is about specific gender or race issues, then surely it would include other races and genders. But those movies I mentioned above that are about race and gender but doesn't include a diverse cast even when they are directed by two black men and one woman. Hunger is about a real life person, Bobby Sands. The film is about the Troubles in Norther Ireland, a historical event, and it's centered in white people even when the director is black. Beau Travail is about genre, masculinity and repressed desire. There aren't women in it. Not even one! Just men, all white if I remember well but it was directed by a woman. Son of Sam is about a group of Italian Americans that become paranoid after the David Berkowitz crimes. They don't have contact with blacks because, you know, America! but at certain moment they are sure the criminal should be a black man. Most that anything it's about masculinity and homophobia. The guys have to show they are real men and anyone who is different must be the psychopath and has to pay for his "crimes"! I don't remember a black actor in it and I'm sure there aren't any black actor playing a relevant role but it's directed by SPIKE LEE!!! Sure if the plot couldn't be affected go for it! But the dynamics of those films I mentioned above would be very different if they impose a minority just because it's the law also, and more important, the message and history would be neutralized, oversimplified and whitewashed. How Claire Denis could criticize masculinity if she would had included a female soldier in her movie? The dynamics would be very different! ;Or imagine Spike Lee inserting a sub-plot of a black family in his film about ignorant Italian-Americans who doesn't see beyond their neighborhood. He does have other films about the clash of cultures between blacks and Italians but this movie isn't about it. It's about a little closed group being paranoid about those who doesn't look or behave like them. Sadly, I don't think good intentions equals quality nor that good directors are the ones with the more diverse cast and crew. Remember the row with the Coean brothers when they were accused of not having too many minority actors in their films. I remember a few but they tend to not! And they aren't exactly great with minorities when they do! Probably the best sequence in their last film has scary looking Indians attacking whites as in those old western films and the Mexicans in No Country for Old Men are just extras playing criminals and.. a Mariachi band! But hey, I still think they are brilliant! I think the issue is much more complex and some enforced rules wouldn't work in art. I think if they really implement them the award would become obsolete, in the same way moralistic mostly American critics are becoming obsolete. The change should be to open the doors for diverse artists not to censor and castigate the ones who doesn't follow some random rules.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 16, 2019 0:47:48 GMT
Sorry but what that textbook did wasn't promoting diversity, it was misrepresenting history. "During World War One, there was virtually NO female presence in the Canadian armed forces, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 3141 NURSES serving both overseas and on the home front." (Excerpt from a book about women in WWI from Dundurn Press) I don't think that does women, or anyone else for that matter, any good. It cheapens the real struggle for equality that women lived through and gives a false impression of what those times were like. And if I saw a movie that included female frontline fighters in the WWI trenches I just couldn't take it seriously. I'm absolutely ALL for colourblind casting in something like The Hollow Crown with the inclusion of Sophie Okonedo as Margaret (I thought she was perfect in the role) but if I go to see a movie that is about von Richthofen and Roy Brown (which I think is something akin to a "specific historical event" that Sgev was talking about) I DON'T want to see "diversity" casting in the lead roles. Maybe in 400 years, but not until then. It's also whitewashing history! The new Armando Iannucci's David Copperfield with Dev Patel in the main role looks great but if the film pretended to be about realistic race relationship in XIX Century England then it would be offensive and, yes, kind of racist! Things were not like that! The nature of the film and the director style (his latest film has Cockney accented actor playing Stalin!) makes it credible! I wouldn't even try to write rules for artists. I could say fiction is fair game but not real events but then I don't have a problem with color blind casting historical figures if it works for the plot. It's about the artist intention and it shouldn't be decided by some rules beforehand. We can judge the final product but not writing rules about what's right and wrong beforehand.
|
|