My point was that having such standards at all, whether they have teeth or whether they're toothless phony posturing for the sake of optics, is odious. It presumes that there can be a cause so righteous that it justifies infringing artistic freedom, even if just gently. My argument is there is never a cause so righteous that it justifies…
My point was that having such standards at all, whether they have teeth or whether they're toothless phony posturing for the sake of optics, is odious. It presumes that there can be a cause so righteous that it justifies infringing artistic freedom, even if just gently. My argument is there is never a cause so righteous that it justifies any infringement of absolute artistic freedom. Whether or not there have been centuries of "societal privilege based on identity" is a valid debate to have, but it has nothing to do with Hollywood. You say "we're in a transitional phase." And what does that mean, exactly? What industry practices are we questioning? Change is essential? According to whom? Audiences don't want change. Artists don't want change. They want great movies. "We" should fine tune policies? Who is "we"? The arts aren't fair. Excellence prevails. No one knowingly buys tickets to a mediocre movie and suffers through it for the sake of social justice. Audiences demand excellence. Artists strive for excellence. If diversity is a part of that equation, so much the better. But if a pyrrhic quest for fake diversity infringes the very thing that compels audiences and artists, then it serves no good purpose at all. And if you're arguing for change, then you need to articulate precisely what change you want, why it's desirable, why it's more important than artistic freedom, how we achieve it and what benchmark signals the end of the experiment.
Once more, I concur with your overall argument; however, I believe your depiction of the criteria was not only exaggerated, but wrong. A film featuring an all-white-male cast can still be considered for Oscars under the prevailing identity standards. While our goal is to move towards a society that transcends the need for such standards, it's essential to recognize that this transitional phase (like it is the case in terms of reparations to victims of historical atrocities) act, in a sense, as a form of divine justice for the wrongs committed against minorities throughout millennia. In my opinion, it's a reasonable price to pay.
Many would argue that "reparations to victims of historical atrocities" become a form of injustice when those reparations are extracted involuntarily from those who bear no responsibility for those atrocities. And yet, that is precisely what "reparations" means in current political vernacular. The same is true here. There is no justice in making such "standards" a requirement in a business where artistic freedom has always been sacrosanct. As a voluntary matter? That would be vastly more acceptable or, at a minimum, less objectionable. But to compel all filmmakers, all producers, all production companies to be party to "solving" a "problem" which they either don't recognize as a problem, or to which they were not contributing parties, is categorically unjustifiable. And you've underlined precisely why. You say "In my opinion, it's a reasonable price to pay." Indeed, you are then welcome to pay that price yourself, voluntarily. Because it's your opinion. It's reasonable to you. But your opinion of what's reasonable, or Dawn Hudson's or anyone else's, is insufficient justification to tell artists how they should conduct their business. It's every bit as autocratic as the justly reviled Hollywood Blacklist.
It is essential to acknowledge the systemic impact of historical injustices. Reparations are not necessarily about assigning blame to specific individuals but rather addressing the enduring consequences of past atrocities that have shaped present-day disparities. It's a universally observed human inclination to seek inheritance, not only in material possessions but also in the legacies and achievements of one's predecessors when these are positive. They eagerly inherit possesions, reputation or titles without deserving them, just because it's their legacy, others have produced them. People often take pride in the positive aspects of their cultural, historical, or familial heritage, cherishing the accomplishments that contribute to their identity. However, when it comes to addressing the wrongs committed by ancestors, there tends to be reluctance or resistance. Many individuals may prefer to distance themselves from the negative aspects of their historical heritage, and not "inherit" them, especially if it involves acknowledging or rectifying past injustices. This reluctance is a widespread phenomenon observed across different cultures and societies.
"It is essential to acknowledge the systemic impact of historical injustices."
Lots to unpack there. Essential why? According to whom? "Systemic"? According to whom? What if I disagree that there are historical injustices, or that there was a systemic impact, or that it's essential? This is your opinion. In an industry predicated on freedom of conscience, you are entitled to that belief, but no one is entitled to use it as a predicate for the imposition of policy on anyone else. Those who disagree wholesale with that statement should feel free voice that disagreement without suffering any consequences.
The problem with your outline of reparations is that you cannot "address the enduring consequences" without burdening those who had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Unless you can "show the receipts" that connect cause and effect and outline specifically the actions to the consequences and who and what is to blame, the entire concept is hopelessly flawed. Most of humanity has in some way offended some other part of humanity. Disentangling that is impossible. It's why most of us prefer to simply let the past be the past and focus on the future. "Reparations" is a recipe for making everything worse and nothing better.
Your observations about human nature are not incorrect, but who is to be the blameless moral authority who sorts out what is owed by whom to whom? It's an impossible task. You simply cannot correct the harms of the past. It's not possible. Everyone who has ever tried has made things worse. Look forward. Not backward.
In regard with Blacks, the explanation lies in 400 years of vicious repression and violence and the bitter legacy it has left. That is what I call systemic. Unless you believe that the crime and poverty rate is a genetic characteristic.
Obviously deviated from the main point I made in my first comment: You oversimplified the criteria in your article for the candidate movies. Your depiction of the criteria was wrong.
The criteria are enumerated on the Academy's site. They unequivocally state that eligibility for Best Picture is no longer simply a matter of being a feature-length movie released within the calendar year in Los Angeles or New York. It must now meet a lengthy set of "inclusion standards" which have nothing to do with the arts. The reason? As I stated in the piece, even if a massive majority of Academy members elect to nominate a film that does not meet those standards, that film will be disqualified, and not because it's not a good film. It will be disqualified because it does not adhere to an arbitrary set of social values. So the Academy openly now takes the position that if you run afoul of an arbitrary set of social values, no matter how good your film is or how beloved it is, they will now allow it to be nominated.
You can argue that the rules have no teeth, in which case you'd need to justify why they should even exist. You can also argue that the inclusion standards address very real historic harms, in which case you would have to explain why that should be the purview of the Academy.
My depiction of the criteria was that they prioritize ethnicity, sexuality and ability/disability. By the Academy's own published materials, that is accurate.
My point was that having such standards at all, whether they have teeth or whether they're toothless phony posturing for the sake of optics, is odious. It presumes that there can be a cause so righteous that it justifies infringing artistic freedom, even if just gently. My argument is there is never a cause so righteous that it justifies any infringement of absolute artistic freedom. Whether or not there have been centuries of "societal privilege based on identity" is a valid debate to have, but it has nothing to do with Hollywood. You say "we're in a transitional phase." And what does that mean, exactly? What industry practices are we questioning? Change is essential? According to whom? Audiences don't want change. Artists don't want change. They want great movies. "We" should fine tune policies? Who is "we"? The arts aren't fair. Excellence prevails. No one knowingly buys tickets to a mediocre movie and suffers through it for the sake of social justice. Audiences demand excellence. Artists strive for excellence. If diversity is a part of that equation, so much the better. But if a pyrrhic quest for fake diversity infringes the very thing that compels audiences and artists, then it serves no good purpose at all. And if you're arguing for change, then you need to articulate precisely what change you want, why it's desirable, why it's more important than artistic freedom, how we achieve it and what benchmark signals the end of the experiment.
Once more, I concur with your overall argument; however, I believe your depiction of the criteria was not only exaggerated, but wrong. A film featuring an all-white-male cast can still be considered for Oscars under the prevailing identity standards. While our goal is to move towards a society that transcends the need for such standards, it's essential to recognize that this transitional phase (like it is the case in terms of reparations to victims of historical atrocities) act, in a sense, as a form of divine justice for the wrongs committed against minorities throughout millennia. In my opinion, it's a reasonable price to pay.
Many would argue that "reparations to victims of historical atrocities" become a form of injustice when those reparations are extracted involuntarily from those who bear no responsibility for those atrocities. And yet, that is precisely what "reparations" means in current political vernacular. The same is true here. There is no justice in making such "standards" a requirement in a business where artistic freedom has always been sacrosanct. As a voluntary matter? That would be vastly more acceptable or, at a minimum, less objectionable. But to compel all filmmakers, all producers, all production companies to be party to "solving" a "problem" which they either don't recognize as a problem, or to which they were not contributing parties, is categorically unjustifiable. And you've underlined precisely why. You say "In my opinion, it's a reasonable price to pay." Indeed, you are then welcome to pay that price yourself, voluntarily. Because it's your opinion. It's reasonable to you. But your opinion of what's reasonable, or Dawn Hudson's or anyone else's, is insufficient justification to tell artists how they should conduct their business. It's every bit as autocratic as the justly reviled Hollywood Blacklist.
It is essential to acknowledge the systemic impact of historical injustices. Reparations are not necessarily about assigning blame to specific individuals but rather addressing the enduring consequences of past atrocities that have shaped present-day disparities. It's a universally observed human inclination to seek inheritance, not only in material possessions but also in the legacies and achievements of one's predecessors when these are positive. They eagerly inherit possesions, reputation or titles without deserving them, just because it's their legacy, others have produced them. People often take pride in the positive aspects of their cultural, historical, or familial heritage, cherishing the accomplishments that contribute to their identity. However, when it comes to addressing the wrongs committed by ancestors, there tends to be reluctance or resistance. Many individuals may prefer to distance themselves from the negative aspects of their historical heritage, and not "inherit" them, especially if it involves acknowledging or rectifying past injustices. This reluctance is a widespread phenomenon observed across different cultures and societies.
"It is essential to acknowledge the systemic impact of historical injustices."
Lots to unpack there. Essential why? According to whom? "Systemic"? According to whom? What if I disagree that there are historical injustices, or that there was a systemic impact, or that it's essential? This is your opinion. In an industry predicated on freedom of conscience, you are entitled to that belief, but no one is entitled to use it as a predicate for the imposition of policy on anyone else. Those who disagree wholesale with that statement should feel free voice that disagreement without suffering any consequences.
The problem with your outline of reparations is that you cannot "address the enduring consequences" without burdening those who had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Unless you can "show the receipts" that connect cause and effect and outline specifically the actions to the consequences and who and what is to blame, the entire concept is hopelessly flawed. Most of humanity has in some way offended some other part of humanity. Disentangling that is impossible. It's why most of us prefer to simply let the past be the past and focus on the future. "Reparations" is a recipe for making everything worse and nothing better.
Your observations about human nature are not incorrect, but who is to be the blameless moral authority who sorts out what is owed by whom to whom? It's an impossible task. You simply cannot correct the harms of the past. It's not possible. Everyone who has ever tried has made things worse. Look forward. Not backward.
In regard with Blacks, the explanation lies in 400 years of vicious repression and violence and the bitter legacy it has left. That is what I call systemic. Unless you believe that the crime and poverty rate is a genetic characteristic.
And that has what, precisely, to do with movies and the arts and what films should be eligible for "Best Picture"?
Obviously deviated from the main point I made in my first comment: You oversimplified the criteria in your article for the candidate movies. Your depiction of the criteria was wrong.
The criteria are enumerated on the Academy's site. They unequivocally state that eligibility for Best Picture is no longer simply a matter of being a feature-length movie released within the calendar year in Los Angeles or New York. It must now meet a lengthy set of "inclusion standards" which have nothing to do with the arts. The reason? As I stated in the piece, even if a massive majority of Academy members elect to nominate a film that does not meet those standards, that film will be disqualified, and not because it's not a good film. It will be disqualified because it does not adhere to an arbitrary set of social values. So the Academy openly now takes the position that if you run afoul of an arbitrary set of social values, no matter how good your film is or how beloved it is, they will now allow it to be nominated.
You can argue that the rules have no teeth, in which case you'd need to justify why they should even exist. You can also argue that the inclusion standards address very real historic harms, in which case you would have to explain why that should be the purview of the Academy.
My depiction of the criteria was that they prioritize ethnicity, sexuality and ability/disability. By the Academy's own published materials, that is accurate.