The industry known for superficiality is about to get a lot more superficial. And minority groups will suffer for it.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced this week that films submitted for Best Picture consideration must also eventually meet two of four new inclusivity standards, including that casts and production and distribution teams employ women, racial or ethnic groups, gay and transgender persons, or individuals with “cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.” The academy says this will “encourage equitable representation on and off screen.” It will also “better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience,” the group adds.
These standards will have the exact opposite of the desired effect. The academy’s artificial inclusivity standards will not open more avenues to minority groups. They will lead only to institutionalized tokenism. Expect nothing less from an industry that has always prioritized profits and prestige.
The Academy Aperture 2025 (an organization-wide scheme designed to make movies more inclusive) “must widen to reflect our diverse global population in both the creation of motion pictures and in the audiences who connect with them,” academy President David Rubin and CEO Dawn Hudson said in a statement.
Oh, thank goodness. After the back-to-back Best Picture wins for Parasite, Green Book, The Shape of Water, and Moonlight, it looked as if minority groups would never get proper representation in a Best Picture-winning film.
Hudson added, “The Academy is committed to playing a vital role in helping make this a reality. We believe these inclusion standards will be a catalyst for long-lasting, essential change in our industry.”
Starting in 2022, films submitted for Best Picture consideration must also submit a “confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form” detailing the ways in which said film attempts to represent minority groups or causes. By 2024, Best Picture candidates must also meet two standards out of four different categories. To provide, an example, this is the detailed description of Standard A:
To achieve Standard A, the film must meet ONE of the following criteria:
A1. Lead or significant supporting actors
At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
· Asian
· Hispanic/Latinx
· Black/African American
· Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native
· Middle Eastern/North African
· Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
· Other underrepresented race or ethnicity
A2. General ensemble cast
At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups:
· Women
· Racial or ethnic group
· LGBTQ+
· People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
A3. Main storyline/subject matter
The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).
· Women
· Racial or ethnic group
· LGBTQ+
· People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
Standard “B” (which deals with “creative leadership and project team”), standard “C” (which concerns “industry access and opportunities”), and standard “D” (which deals with “audience development”), all call for the same thing as standard “A,” which is that women, minorities, gay and transgender people, or persons with disabilities must have a place at the table.
Art by quota. What a bold experiment.
Based on the standards laid out in the above, several major films that cleaned up at the Oscars, including winning Best Picture, would not make it past the academy’s new vetting process. The Return of the King, Titanic, and even Ben–Hur, for example, fail to meet the group’s detailed inclusivity criteria.
But far worse than the likelihood that great films will be passed over in the name of “inclusivity” is the likelihood that the academy’s new standards will lead to the further ghettoization of Hollywood. These rules will not encourage true equitability. They are artificial. True inclusivity is a slow and arduous process, and it must come organically. Attempts to mandate equitability often inspire workarounds from those who are unready, indifferent, or even opposed.
That is, these new Best Picture standards will undoubtedly lead to a trend of studios hiring minority staffers based entirely on the demands of an imposed set of quotas and not for any merit or talent. It will lead to the creation of a subgenre of minority actors who are not seen as actors, but as checkmarks on a list. It will be Hollywood tokenism at its worst, and it will be institutionalized.
Also, while we are on the topic, keep an eye on how Hollywood plans to square these new inclusivity standards with the film industry’s eagerness to answer China’s demand for more light-skinned actors in starring roles.
Hollywood’s hair-brained high-mindedness often clashes with its real-world pursuit of mountains of cash. The two have managed to coexist for this long. But at this rate, with the academy imposing a ponderously “woke” list of Best Picture criteria even as studios appease China’s demand for more light-skinned actors, it seems as if the film industry is headed for a breaking point. What that looks like is anyone’s guess. The thing that seems clear now is that a truly “woke” Hollywood cannot peaceably coexist with the same Hollywood that patronizes the colorism of communist China.
Then again, if there is one group that knows how to preach one thing while practicing another, it is the denizens of Hollywood. They don’t call it Tinseltown for nothing.
