A few months ago I suspected that there were many Academy voters who disliked the Oscars’ new diversity rules, but that they just couldn’t say it out loud.
In case you missed it, starting next year, to qualify for the Best Picture race, a film would have to check a fair number of diversity quotas to become eligible. That could mean telling an “inclusive” story or featuring enough people of color in the movie’s cast and/or crew.
Actor Richard Dreyfuss went viral on May 6th of this year when he admitted that these new rules made him “want to vomit”. Social media hounds went after him at every direction. I’m pretty sure he expected that to happen.
Now the New York Post has a piece up where a bunch of Oscar voters, being quoted under anonymity, sound off and unleash their wrath on these new rules.
One of Hollywood’s biggest producers told The Post that “very few people in the industry favor the new rules — but, unlike Dreyfuss, they don’t speak out for fear of cancel culture”.
Here’s a sampling of the anonymous voters:
Director #1: “It’s completely ridiculous. I’m for diversity, but to make you cast certain types of people if you want to get nominated? That makes the whole process contrived. The person who is right for the part should get the part. Why should you be limited in your choices? But it’s the world we’re in. This is crazy.”
Director #2: “Going further back, think about ‘Schindler’s List.’ Should that not have been nominated since there were no non-white people in the primary roles?” I’m wondering if Jewish people would count for ‘underrepresented racial or ethnic group,’ but it would be up to the Academy to figure that out.”
Director #3: “Imagine if great films were not made because of studio or corporate mandates that every film has to conform to the [inclusionary] standard for a Best Picture nomination? I’ve never witnessed such a thing happening in the world of the arts. I’ve never seen restrictions out on what you can do if you want to receive a certain recognition [for one’s art].”
Film Critic: “If a truly outstanding film comes along that does not meet those requirements for a best picture nomination, then the producers will have accepted that.”
Studio Executive: “You have to make the best movie. I want to be inclusive, but I don’t want to put in a person from a certain ethnic group who doesn’t belong there because of the story being told. And I don’t want to make a movie with an LGBT character who does not make sense with the narrative. You can’t do this without hurting the movie. It’s ridiculous to be told what to do at the expense of getting people into movie theaters. I knew this was coming, obviously,” he said of the 2024 rules. But they’ve been going overboard on this in my opinion for quite some time. Casting is getting less organic and more about checking [the diversity] boxes. It’s hurting the product, not helping, and I don’t think it’ll be good for anyone in the long run. I think the Academy got itself into a corner with inclusivity and now it can’t get out.”
Screenwriter: “Everyone should be inclusive for good reason. But everyone should also have reasons for believing in meritocracy.”
These new rules are actually going into full-effect for next year’s 96th Academy Awards.
According to Newsweek, past nominees “Ford v Ferrari,” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” “American Hustle” and “Joker” would have not cleared these new Best Picture eligibility rules.
What if you’re a director and you found the absolute perfect crew of creatives, but they were all white? The Academy would be infringing your creative process to coerce you to cast an actor or actress or tech worker that might not really gel with your story, just as long as they have the right skin color.
Art is art. When art has to conform its content, talent, and message it is propaganda, not art.
Still no distributor for "Bucking Fastard," "Alpha Gang," "The Last Photograph," "Closing Night," and "The Life and Deaths of Wilson Shedd." The issue seems to be quality more than a lack of willingness to buy.