Fantastic article. We are indeed many who are tired of being lectured in the social justice hall. And that's whether we are talking about the movies we watch, the toothpaste we use or the beer we buy.
Wow, reading the Oscar "inclusivity" criteria was just mind-boggling. Loathsome. How has this not been challenged in court? I can't watch 99% of Hollywood anything since 2020. Same with museums and most of art.
It’s currently being speculated that it was the fault of middle class white liberal women who made the poor decisions (trans and obese women on the cover) that lead to the close of Sports Illustrated magazine.
They’re also copping flack for their own undoing with the Self ID for children debate- they’ve made “pets” out of their trans friends and weaponised their own empathy.
I’m loathe to witch hunt ALL women here, but it’s not looking good for these ones.
This Dawn Hudson appears to be another one who’s chin denting thoughtfulness has ruined yet another great legacy.
Let’s hope that Kramer can get it together before the 100th Anniversary.
Great article! From a nation of racist bigots to a nation of anti racist bigots so the pendulum swings. Thank you Hamas supporters in our midst for helping people to see how insidious the entire DEI project had become. MLK's dream that we judge each other by our character, not by the characteristics of our ethnicity is possibly within reach.
"Had the Museum celebrated them at the outset for their achievements, as opposed to their ethnicity"
Doing so would require dismantling the entire DEI superstructure grafted onto the Academy. DEI is based entirely on celebrating individuals for their ethnicity, not their achievements (an almost exact statement was made by the Vice-Principal of Thomas Jefferson High School, Loudon County, VA as the reason for not disclosing the students that had won the National Merit Award)
I do like this piece but what would make it outstanding is if the author didn’t hide behind anonymity and put his/her name behind it to add to it’s value, and sincerity.
Wow. Very good article. Hollywood needs to either stop trying to indoctrinate us or slash ticket prices. No one should be able to become ultra wealthy by preaching through a movie or TV screen.
I think your pseudonym is wonderfully clever, and apropos of the topic of this article. There is no libertas conscientiae among the DEI crowd.
I haven't seen American Fiction, but I definitely will!!
Thank you for exposing some of the harm DEI can do in the entertainment industry. Most folks don't know how the sausage is made, so they don't understand how DEI can ruin the recipe. Regardless of the industry that applies DEI, there is an immediate harm done to blacks working in it because it creates a bubble where they don't have to compete with their white peers. This artificial "un-leveling" of the playing field can (and does) easily create a false sense of security around mediocrity which is being perceived (and often promoted) as excellence. Its a house of cards.
The focus on trying to favor members of groups that are "under-represented" is remarkable. Why would anyone expect all "groups" to be equally "represented" in any field? That has never happened in the history of humanity. Thank you to the great Thomas Sowell to help me realize that (and many other things)!
«If a film as white and male and utterly lacking in any ethnic diversity as Oppenheimer can meet the new inclusion standards, then the standards are exposed as a meaningless».
I recommend reviewing the inclusion standards initially (https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards). To comply, at least two out of the four standards need to be satisfied. For instance, this might involve having 30% of the crew composed of women, and e.g., the marketing team including at least one woman (or a member of an underrepresented group) regardless of the total number. This means that these standards don't impact the key roles of the movie; you can still have all the main actors be white while meeting these criteria.
Since you brought up the crew requirements, it also bears mentioning that crewing a movie is already hard enough without having the Academy dictating composition. This is precisely the kind of stunt you would expect from people who have never made a movie. The crew you hire is dictated by your production schedule, the availability of department heads and cast, locations, regional tax incentives and dozens of other factors. The last thing any producer wants to add to their headaches is having to tabulate which hires fall into which identity groups for the purpose of getting a Best Picture nomination. The only thing a producer should have to worry about is making the best picture they possibly can.
Precisely. In other words, the entire initiative is a farce designed purely for public relations purposes. The Academy wants to have it both ways. It wants social credit for appearing to fight for "inclusion" while furnishing no transparency on the process and no enforcement mechanism. It's all on the honor system. The Academy has neither the staff nor the will to verify what a production claims on the submitted form, nor will it make those forms public. Like everyone in Hollywood, the Academy eschews criticism. This way, the next time they end up with a field of Best Picture nominees which risks triggering the diversity police, they simply plead the "inclusion standards" and deflect by claiming that the films submitted the required form and met the criteria. Yes, it's a toothless stunt, but it's also a dishonest stunt. Just like the "loyalty oaths" of the Blacklist era. It may be weak blackmail, but it's still blackmail. Academy members who were previously classified only by craft and branch will now be sub-divided into racial, sexual and ability categories guaranteed to incite whispers as to whether they were hired for their talent or help meet the "inclusion standards."
I agree with many points you've made, but there seems to be a misunderstanding in how you've interpreted and oversimplified the criteria in your article. My intention was to emphasize the need for qualification in your text, as the implications seemed to suggest that a movie could never meet the standards if the actors were white-male.-heteroseuxal, not diverse, in short, which is absolutely not accurate. After centuries of societal privilege based on identity, we're in a transitional phase. While solutions aren't perfect, questioning industry practices is crucial. The current approach may not be the most effective, but change is essential. We should continually fine-tune policies without misrepresenting them, as doing so does no favors to the cause of fairness for all.
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.
Great Article. However, I really do feel that you should have written under your own name.
"The message should transcend the messenger" is a worthy goal, but I fervently believe that if we are going to make Freedom of Speech work for this modern world, ESPECIALLY on the Internet, that Freedom should only apply to those individuals who are prepared to correctly identify themselves. If the courage of your convictions does not induce you to identify yourself, then I believe you forfeit your right to Freedom of Speech. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay first published The Federalist Papers under the name Publius. Effective messaging takes many forms, and pseudonymous writing is a time-honored tool.
Indeed they did. In fact I am currently reading a fictionalized version of the Zulu wars in circa 1870 South Africa. The main character laments that one of his main critics in a newspaper is only prepared to criticize from behind a pseudonym. I believe the Internet has changed the game, and we have to adjust our culture to reflect this change. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA, Zambia
I generally dismiss anything with an anonymous author. As well, I have a certain amount of contempt for the idiotic idea of one winner when it is impossible to compare such wonderful apples and oranges as Michelle Yeoh (winner of last year’s Best Actress award) and Cate Blanchett (who was just as fine as Yeoh in her brilliant performance of TÁR, but who was only recognized with a nomination). And George C. Scott became my hero when he refused to accept his Oscar for PATTON and in so doing called the Oscars a meat parade.
That said, the anonymous author of this piece is right on the mark in his analysis of the egregious DEI “reforms” that have further contaminated an already flawed institution. Whoever you are, please take credit for your brilliant condemnation of inanity that has contaminated this as well as so many other artistic organizations. DEI has NOTHING to do with art.
When you say you're looking for a variety of opinions on the matter, what do you mean? I have my own thoughts but I'm not sure how different it might be.
Fantastic article. We are indeed many who are tired of being lectured in the social justice hall. And that's whether we are talking about the movies we watch, the toothpaste we use or the beer we buy.
Wow, reading the Oscar "inclusivity" criteria was just mind-boggling. Loathsome. How has this not been challenged in court? I can't watch 99% of Hollywood anything since 2020. Same with museums and most of art.
It’s currently being speculated that it was the fault of middle class white liberal women who made the poor decisions (trans and obese women on the cover) that lead to the close of Sports Illustrated magazine.
They’re also copping flack for their own undoing with the Self ID for children debate- they’ve made “pets” out of their trans friends and weaponised their own empathy.
I’m loathe to witch hunt ALL women here, but it’s not looking good for these ones.
This Dawn Hudson appears to be another one who’s chin denting thoughtfulness has ruined yet another great legacy.
Let’s hope that Kramer can get it together before the 100th Anniversary.
Thanks for the article.
*led
Great article! From a nation of racist bigots to a nation of anti racist bigots so the pendulum swings. Thank you Hamas supporters in our midst for helping people to see how insidious the entire DEI project had become. MLK's dream that we judge each other by our character, not by the characteristics of our ethnicity is possibly within reach.
"Had the Museum celebrated them at the outset for their achievements, as opposed to their ethnicity"
Doing so would require dismantling the entire DEI superstructure grafted onto the Academy. DEI is based entirely on celebrating individuals for their ethnicity, not their achievements (an almost exact statement was made by the Vice-Principal of Thomas Jefferson High School, Loudon County, VA as the reason for not disclosing the students that had won the National Merit Award)
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-war-on-merit-takes-a-bizarre-turn
I do like this piece but what would make it outstanding is if the author didn’t hide behind anonymity and put his/her name behind it to add to it’s value, and sincerity.
Signing your name can end your career.
Wow. Very good article. Hollywood needs to either stop trying to indoctrinate us or slash ticket prices. No one should be able to become ultra wealthy by preaching through a movie or TV screen.
I think your pseudonym is wonderfully clever, and apropos of the topic of this article. There is no libertas conscientiae among the DEI crowd.
I haven't seen American Fiction, but I definitely will!!
Thank you for exposing some of the harm DEI can do in the entertainment industry. Most folks don't know how the sausage is made, so they don't understand how DEI can ruin the recipe. Regardless of the industry that applies DEI, there is an immediate harm done to blacks working in it because it creates a bubble where they don't have to compete with their white peers. This artificial "un-leveling" of the playing field can (and does) easily create a false sense of security around mediocrity which is being perceived (and often promoted) as excellence. Its a house of cards.
The focus on trying to favor members of groups that are "under-represented" is remarkable. Why would anyone expect all "groups" to be equally "represented" in any field? That has never happened in the history of humanity. Thank you to the great Thomas Sowell to help me realize that (and many other things)!
Great article! The reasoned discussion here applies equally to many of the other once-revered institutions!
«If a film as white and male and utterly lacking in any ethnic diversity as Oppenheimer can meet the new inclusion standards, then the standards are exposed as a meaningless».
I recommend reviewing the inclusion standards initially (https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards). To comply, at least two out of the four standards need to be satisfied. For instance, this might involve having 30% of the crew composed of women, and e.g., the marketing team including at least one woman (or a member of an underrepresented group) regardless of the total number. This means that these standards don't impact the key roles of the movie; you can still have all the main actors be white while meeting these criteria.
Since you brought up the crew requirements, it also bears mentioning that crewing a movie is already hard enough without having the Academy dictating composition. This is precisely the kind of stunt you would expect from people who have never made a movie. The crew you hire is dictated by your production schedule, the availability of department heads and cast, locations, regional tax incentives and dozens of other factors. The last thing any producer wants to add to their headaches is having to tabulate which hires fall into which identity groups for the purpose of getting a Best Picture nomination. The only thing a producer should have to worry about is making the best picture they possibly can.
Precisely. In other words, the entire initiative is a farce designed purely for public relations purposes. The Academy wants to have it both ways. It wants social credit for appearing to fight for "inclusion" while furnishing no transparency on the process and no enforcement mechanism. It's all on the honor system. The Academy has neither the staff nor the will to verify what a production claims on the submitted form, nor will it make those forms public. Like everyone in Hollywood, the Academy eschews criticism. This way, the next time they end up with a field of Best Picture nominees which risks triggering the diversity police, they simply plead the "inclusion standards" and deflect by claiming that the films submitted the required form and met the criteria. Yes, it's a toothless stunt, but it's also a dishonest stunt. Just like the "loyalty oaths" of the Blacklist era. It may be weak blackmail, but it's still blackmail. Academy members who were previously classified only by craft and branch will now be sub-divided into racial, sexual and ability categories guaranteed to incite whispers as to whether they were hired for their talent or help meet the "inclusion standards."
I agree with many points you've made, but there seems to be a misunderstanding in how you've interpreted and oversimplified the criteria in your article. My intention was to emphasize the need for qualification in your text, as the implications seemed to suggest that a movie could never meet the standards if the actors were white-male.-heteroseuxal, not diverse, in short, which is absolutely not accurate. After centuries of societal privilege based on identity, we're in a transitional phase. While solutions aren't perfect, questioning industry practices is crucial. The current approach may not be the most effective, but change is essential. We should continually fine-tune policies without misrepresenting them, as doing so does no favors to the cause of fairness for all.
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.
Great Article. However, I really do feel that you should have written under your own name.
"The message should transcend the messenger" is a worthy goal, but I fervently believe that if we are going to make Freedom of Speech work for this modern world, ESPECIALLY on the Internet, that Freedom should only apply to those individuals who are prepared to correctly identify themselves. If the courage of your convictions does not induce you to identify yourself, then I believe you forfeit your right to Freedom of Speech. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay first published The Federalist Papers under the name Publius. Effective messaging takes many forms, and pseudonymous writing is a time-honored tool.
Indeed they did. In fact I am currently reading a fictionalized version of the Zulu wars in circa 1870 South Africa. The main character laments that one of his main critics in a newspaper is only prepared to criticize from behind a pseudonym. I believe the Internet has changed the game, and we have to adjust our culture to reflect this change. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA, Zambia
Fair observation. Others would argue that it's time to change the game back, and to resist cultural adjustments which offer no inherent benefit.
I generally dismiss anything with an anonymous author. As well, I have a certain amount of contempt for the idiotic idea of one winner when it is impossible to compare such wonderful apples and oranges as Michelle Yeoh (winner of last year’s Best Actress award) and Cate Blanchett (who was just as fine as Yeoh in her brilliant performance of TÁR, but who was only recognized with a nomination). And George C. Scott became my hero when he refused to accept his Oscar for PATTON and in so doing called the Oscars a meat parade.
That said, the anonymous author of this piece is right on the mark in his analysis of the egregious DEI “reforms” that have further contaminated an already flawed institution. Whoever you are, please take credit for your brilliant condemnation of inanity that has contaminated this as well as so many other artistic organizations. DEI has NOTHING to do with art.
I wholeheartedly agree. The attempts to give underrepresented groups a fair shake has been horribly bungled.
Excellent! Thank you
When you say you're looking for a variety of opinions on the matter, what do you mean? I have my own thoughts but I'm not sure how different it might be.