Richard Dreyfus has been red-pilled and is speaking out anywhere people will have him. That makes him, to my mind, a hero. He will be vilified, of course, written off by the social justice police as an “angry white man” because, of course, he will be.
But we don’t live in a time of heroes. We live in a time of cowards. It’s understandable. No one wants to lose their job or their status or their friends or their platforms. So they go along to get along.
https://youtu.be/yP0nGuK_CJM
The problem for the Academy is that these standards are being put in place at a time when the entire industry, soup to nuts, has utterly and completely transformed itself by way of “woke” mandates. But not altogether. Where they still could use these standards is not with writing or casting but within the tech categories. This is still where women falter. It is just that no one sees it, so no one talks about it.
You can find the report Marshall Flores and I do every year at Women’s Media Center here if you’d like to see the stats. They’re grim for the non-acting categories. There is no reason not to have inclusion riders, or inclusivity mandates below the line.
The problem, of course, is that equity cheats merit. Thelma Schoonmaker or Dede Allen never needed any mandate to prove they were two of the best editors who ever lived. If your goal is to make great art or even great entertainment, you have to respect merit. Alas, this goal no longer exists in Hollywood because — and it’s a hard reality to say out loud — the status in the “Royal Court” (i.e., progrerssive circles) matters more than what the rabble outside the castle walls wants or needs.
It’s a distressing state of affairs to see all of this vanish in a few short years, but here we are. I have to conclude having lived through it and now seeing the results of the last 20 years, that when Hollywood fused with politics during the Obama era that meant it had to mirror the directive of the politicians on the Left, which means they have to do their due dilligence to push their platforms and ideologies.
This is similar to Hollywood in the 1950s when it fused with the Eisenhower administration –because of the fear of McCarthyism and the post-war utopian America, togehter they imposed an ideology in a similar fashion. The counter-culture, then, broke free from it. What we don’t see is much critical examination of our lives right now that is, in any way, honest. Because it can’t be. It would have to speak truth to power but right now, Hollywood IS the power. So they’re left with the endless tinkering with their utopian ideal.
Most people “out there” will tell you that Hollywood movies have become unwatchable. I support the WGA strike but I also wonder why there isn’t more soul-searching about the job of writers. If they really are going to be micro-managed and policed, stripped of any kind of potential controversy, and becoming more dogmatic by the day – why wouldn’t they be replaced by AI, which can do a much more efficient job of providing that?
Nothing can replace the human mind as long as it’s free. If it’s put in a cage and defined only by gender or skin color and forced into a dogmatic crouch, well then, what use is it?
The Academy is in a no-win situation. When they put the inclusivity mandate in place it was in 2020, during the “Great George Floyd Awakening,” which was a revolutionary force driven by the college kids who came of age amid Critical Race and Gender Theory, and Tumblr that wanted a more equitable country. “Make everything fair” was all they wanted to see, especially for the non–white, non-cis-gendered-hetero-normative majority.
Poor BAFTA turned themselves inside out to meet the moment, firing the voting privileges of their members and bringing in a committee of right-thinking activists to do the nominating for them. The message was: you can’t possibly know your own minds because your white bias is in the way.
Although, by now, we’ve also added in all manner of the LGBTQIA+ because what in the world are we going to do with an industry and a country full of white people? The non-binary label allows them to be part of the mandate as well, to be considered marginalized, and thus prioritized and protected.
This past year, the BAFTA voters revolted and simply picked the actors and the movie they liked the best. That led to all white winners and rising hysteria on Twitter in reaction to it. Those who cover film in this country right now do not understand the concept of seeing film and performances outside the strident rules of social justice.
“Good” to them has been redefined as being worthy of an award. That has made the awards useful in pushing the activist cause. It feels good to be virtuous, to feel as though your vote “matters.” You aren’t a useless aristocrat – you are, instead, a good citizen doing your part to make the world a better place.
Trust me, I’ve been there. I know that feeling well. I did it for years as a way to justify what amounts to something trivial and frivolous. Make it mean something, is what I believed. And while I do think it was necessary to shake the tree — Hollywood was too white and too male for too long — by now, it has gone too far in the other direction. Hollywood has a problem with audiences. They’ve lost their trust.
I’ll give you two examples of movies I watched recently that would never be made today in the same way.
Damage – in this film, directed by Louis Malle, less is more. Malle and screenwriter David Hare succinctly tell a story about messed up characters, trimming nearly all of the fat that would “explain” why they do what they do. They give us, the audience, information about these characters and it’s then our job to take them home with us and ruminate on it. As a young woman watching this movie in the 90s I was perplexed by it. Why would a powerful politician throw it all away for one woman? What was it about her? Or him? But every thread takes us back to the title of the movie, Damage. And the quote in the film that references it, “Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.”
What did that mean, I wondered? The more I thought about that line, the title, and the choices the characters make, the deeper it took me into the story. It easily could have been told in any country with any kind of people in the world because the story itself is universal. Remaking it into the mini-series called Obsession destroyed everything good about the original. They filled in all the grey areas, did the thinking for us, and rendered it mildly entertaining but ultimately not something that can deepen your understanding of the human experience.
When I watch Damage now I think of all of the ways Hollywood and activists would tamper with it to perfect it for the judgmental Greek chorus of Twitter. Cast is too white, guy is too misogynistic, sex is too exploitative, the male case is too pronounced. You can’t possibly be inclusive of everyone in every film. What you owe your audience is authentic storytelling that’s true to the writers, the directors and the characters.
About Schmidt – I wasn’t much of a fan when this movie came out but I’ve come to appreciate filmmaker Alexander Payne now more than I did then because of his inclination toward complex, extremely flawed characters and there is no one more flawed than Warren Schmidt. Again, like Damage, we are given a set of characters whose actions take them to an end-point. Here, Schmidt is pouring out his heart to a young African boy he’s “adopted” in embarrassing and increasingly hilarious ways. By the end, he finally gets a letter back, and it includes a drawing by the young boy, which devastates Schmidt and us, the audience. We’ve gone through this messy story with this nobody in American life and come out the other end with catharsis.
I have never enjoyed About Schmidt more than I did recently and was reminded of the power of storytelling if artists are allowed to tell the truth about the characters and about their world. About Schmidt, like every movie made in the pre-“woke” era, is riddled with thought crimes. Kathy Bates is hilarious as the older woman who can’t stop talking about her hysterectomy, which she throws into casual conversation, “when I had my hysterectomy…”
Schmidt hits on a married woman, which would be seen as assault now and thus, render his character unsympathetic. There would be lots of stuff relating to the subject matter and its lack of diversity, even though this is Omaha, Nebraska we’re talking about. But there is a scene in this movie where Kathy Bates is screaming at her ex-husband during a dinner scene and in the middle of it, the camera cuts to her son who is completely ignoring the fight and just tucking into his meal. It is such a funny moment I am still laughing about it days later.
Minute: 2:50
So that’s what we’re missing now in our ongoing efforts to make everything air and equitable. We’re missing this. Good storytelling takes us, the viewer, into the lives of people who behave as people do behave, and that takes us deeper into the experience of what it means to be a human being.
So many writers now, across all industries from film to television to comedy, have become cut off from the lives of ordinary Americans. They just don’t know them anymore because our society is so polarized. What they do know is what everyone inside of our bubble knows: the hierarchy of identity politics. And that seems to drive everything “inside” but doesn’t really move the needle much “outside.”
I think Richard Dreyfuss speaking out, as he is doing now, is good for the film industry. I know he will be ignored at best and demonized at worst but so what. His words will echo through time and stand out as a rare bit of courage in a climate of fear.
107 Comments
That you can call the left “McCarthy era tactics” when it’s Republicans banning books, taking away women and civil rights and ready to bankrupt the country just to make Biden look bad, as well as giving a second chance for a man who tried to overthrow democracy to become President is amazing.
It’s sad to see Sasha transforming into a person who has to see a “woke monster” everywhere and thinking folks in Midwest diners represent all America.
Speaking of diners, the SNL Waffle House sketch with Jenna Ortega is a documentary.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16cc93c6b1568834bec5ae3c9bcb1d7836c0c55ac8fcc057377db61cb8dfce92.jpg
Where I am with Sasha is her call for better writing in popular movies. Barring a major shift in cinematic trends, that simply isn’t going to happen, but the thought is nice.
I can agree with her there but she can tone down the “Hollywood lost the way of true Americans’ line you hear on Fox News so much.
True Americans don’t try and overthrow democracy.
Also as people have been pointing out, the rules are written so they seem to have teeth but really so broad that no film can truly hope to “qualify” for them, giving the Academy an easy way out while looking like they’re setting some sort of bar for everyone to follow. So this entire freakout over it is ridiculous.
I’m a POC and really sick of everything being black or white. Like Morgan Freeman said, “stop talking about it.” Almost everytime I turn on the news, a podcast, an opinion piece, it’s about racism. California is going to pass a reparations bill and give every black person $1-2Million – they haven’t got the # down yet. However, black people have made tremendous strides these past few years. More millionaires and billionaires, even in tech!
The bellyaching and the constant drum of “racism” is deafening and I think a lot of people are turning away. Esp. when you see how many black people have “prospered.” Go to Atlanta, the black mecca, and you’ll see more wealth among black people than anywhere.
As for this drive to be inclusive….I’m team Richard. To demand that a movie in order to be nominated have “inclusives” is assinine. If the Academy wants to demand that streaming services show their movies in theaters in order to qualify, that’s sensible. But basically what inclusivity is is a return to “quotas”. Call it what it is. QUOTAS. Now back in the 1960s and 1970s it made sense because minorities and women were shut out of industries. There had to be a push.
Now we’re in 2023 and do we really need an “inclusivity” clause in order for a movie to qualify for a nomination? I call B.S. I see black actors in movies making what amounts to cameos. They have very few speaking lines. I know they were hired because some producer said, “get me a black actor.” And btw, the BLM lead activists have all left the room, so Hollywood can take a breath.
fewer Black people (by percentage) own homes today than in 1960.
Racism needn’t be anecdotal.
To demand that a movie in order to be nominated have “inclusives” is assinine.
Asinine has only one S.
Nobody is “demanding” that a movie’s cast or characters be inclusive.
I’m tired of trying to explain this to a bunch of hardheaded blockheads who believe whatever bug-eyed bullshit a bunch of hothead shitheads tell them.
One of this year’s most highly anticipated movies is The Bikeriders, directed by Jeff Nichols.
There are 13 primary cast members. All 13 of them are lily white.
That’s not going to prevent The Bikeriders from being a Best Picture contender.
So please try to fucking relax and quit panicking that you might have to glimpse a black person onscreen.
You’re showing your ignorance, your showing your bigotry, and you’re showing your ass.
Can you send me the source from the Academy that explains the qualifications for being considered? If I’m ignorant, so is Dreyfuss?
Here’s a link: https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
It’s still quotas. 30% of this, 20% of that, representation from these groups…..QUOTAS.
Or one significant supporting actor, two department heads, 6 technical positions, some internship positions or more than one executive at the studio (or at least a combination of two of these). Of course quotas are not ideal (not even necessarily from the point of view that Sasha complains about concerning “merit” but because forced quotas can lead to people within the quota still not being treated fairly because the perception is that they are there only because of quotas, no matter how worthy there are of being there) but in this case they are useful for two reasons: first, if you’re attempting to keep this fair, you need to be able to measure these things so that eligibility is not based on a feeling of diversity or lack thereof but actual hard evidence. This leads very easily to numerical limits. And second, if you have very clearly defined limits (again such as numerical ones), this should give context of what is sufficient for eligibility to people reading the standards and thus give a better understanding of what is the actual extent of the standards being implemented.
Or one significant supporting actor, two department heads, 6 technical positions, some internship positions or more than one executive at the studio (or at least a combination of two of these). Of course quotas are not ideal (not even necessarily from the point of view that Sasha complains about concerning “merit” but because forced quotas can lead to people within the quota still not being treated fairly because the perception is that they are there only because of quotas, no matter how worthy there are of being there) but in this case they are useful for two reasons: first, if you’re attempting to keep this fair, you need to be able to measure these things so that eligibility is not based on a feeling of diversity or lack thereof but actual hard evidence. This leads very easily to numerical limits. And second, if you have very clearly defined limits (again such as numerical ones), this should give context of what is sufficient for eligibility to people reading the standards and thus give a better understanding of what is the actual extent of the standards being implemented.
if you don’t have easy to meet quotas how do things change?
It takes very little talent to do basic entry level jobs in Hollywood (or any field for that matter). In the past these jobs would go to “connected” people. I’m sure most still do. But maybe 1 or 2 of 20 could be hired simply because they are Black or Gay or Female or Hispanic or Navajo.
Quotas wouldn’t be required if people actually hired (or admitted into college) based on actual merit.
Wah wah
Hissy-fit addicted people like you never get sick of whining. Especially when you finally feel safe to whine about black people.
I hope this whole situation bugs you so much that it ruins your enjoyment of movies altogether.
Because your incessant ALL CAPS whining and screeching about “woke” nonsense is ruining this site for the rest of us.
2 of 4 metrics are all that’s needed, there literally wasn’t a SINGLE Best Picture nominee that would have been ineligble. Even the all-white All Quiet On the Western Front
The person who should be vilified is the reporter for misrepresenting the “requirements”
There are no requirements that a movie needs to meet if the studio releasing it meets the studio-level requirements which are embarrassingly easy to meet.
This whole thread kerfuffle is unnecessary.
So I will take this opportunity to urge people to see “Of an Age” and “Chokehold” – two amazing films that seem to be severely underseen.
Funny. Damage WAS remade. Like really really recently! It’s a four part miniseries on Netflix. It’s called Obsession. It’s like a pretty faithful remake (except we don’t get Jeremy Iron’s ‘flopping’ while running to his son in the pivotal scene.)
Sasha writes, “This past year, the BAFTA voters revolted and simply picked the actors and the movie they liked the best. That led to all white winners and rising hysteria on Twitter in reaction to it. Those who cover film in this country right now do not understand the concept of seeing film and performances outside the strident rules of social justice.”
Or maybe the voters discounted all the Black people. Maybe they believe Black people should be limited to the pitch or the dancefloor. Maybe this is subconscious. Any way you look at it, it’s kinda curious. I’m not going to say something stupid like “the KKK is not a racist organization even if all of its members are” because that would be reactionary.
We would never want anything around here to be reactionary, would we?
He’s right.
After reviewing the standards that the Academy put out, I don’t know why a studio wouldn’t be doing Standards C and D (Internships, Training, and Representation in Marketing, Publicity, and Distribution). That seems to be the logical choices.
“That seems to be the logical choices.”
Yes, you’re right, Rob. Especially since studios almost certainly already fulfill the criteria in Sections C and D — or can easily do so with minimal cost and effort.
Too many people seem to be panicking about Section A, as if screenwriters are now being forced to rewrite entire scripts in order to shoehorn non-white and non-straight characters in their stories.
That’s an absurd interpretation of how Section A standards are meant to be met.
I’ll try to explain as if I’m talking to a 7th grader, since that seems to be the highest reading comprehension level that people like Richard Dreyfus can grasp.
Here are some real-world examples of how Section A has been easily met in recent years — and it’s a simple panic-free template for how Section A will always be met going forward:
AMPAS Eligibility Committee: Whacha got for us?
Studio: It’s a movie about Aretha Franklin and—
AMPAS: Excellent! Section A is fulfilled.
AMPAS Eligibility Committee: Whacha got for us?
Studio: What if we told the real-life story about a kidnapped slave who—
AMPAS: ‘Nuff said! Section A is fulfilled.
AMPAS Eligibility Committee: Whacha got for us?
Studio: Okay, hear me out. It’s West Side Story again, but this time we get an actual Latina actress to play Maria…?
AMPAS: Wow! Bold move. Sounds cool af. Section A is fulfilled.
AMPAS: Whatcha got for us?
Studio: It’s going to be an elegantly intense story about two superhot Americans in 1980s Italy having a passionate summer affair.
AMPAS: Okay…
Studio: Oh, and the two American lovers are gay. Because that’s how it was in the acclaimed novel.
AMPAS: Sounds terrific! As long as there’s nothing too provocative!
Studio: …
AMPAS: …
Studio: … well… did we mention it’s gonna star Timothée Chalamet and he’s—
AMPAS: Say no more! No spoilers please! And now Section A is cock-teasingly fulfilled!
Studio: [exhales, and slinks away with a wicked twinkle in its eye]
See how absolutely Not Frightening and Absolutely Fucking Fun it can be to fulfill Section A?
See how those movies fulfilled Section A without Destroying Hollywood — and it resulted in immensely satisfyingly films that we’re all happy to see exist?
That’s how Section A works.
If a movie organically has a story or characters or actors that naturally fit the description in Section A, then the criteria in Section A are met with grace and charm and hardly anyone—except Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh—will shit their pants.
(But, in fact, whiny creeps like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh make a living publicly shitting their pants. So they should all be happy for another reason to flip-the-fuck-out over nothing.)
====
I can’t understand how people can’t understand that the Representation and Inclusion Standards are not “demands” or “mandates” or “dictates” or “rules.”
In my world, words still have meaning.
Standards and guidelines are not edicts and laws.
The AMPAS pays big money to have these things written up by careful wordsmiths who are pros at balancing the nuances of language.
These new standards are not prescriptive, they’re simply descriptive.
Nothing in Section A requires any casting be adjusted to distort reality or disrupt natural and genuine storytelling.
People like Dreyfus who tell you otherwise are either functionally illiterate or else they just enjoy bitching about nonsense.
Dreyfus is not being brave. He’s being a crank.
Heck, it’s me who’s being brave by standing up to an Oscar winner and laying the actual facts on the line.
Because I’m one of those Democrats who’s not a coward. Me and 80 million others of us.
Oh, I don’t know Ryan, I think you got it all wrong.
I think a 3rd Grader understands “Pick 2 of 4”
Just pick C & D and you can have your film be a typical Woody Allen movie, for God’s sake. (Just don’t count on distribution)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3c455f126d59aab362b11376cf733948f93d4717d44993022a21cce3827886b.gif
Louis Malle’s “Damage” is one of the most underrated films of the 90’s. I didn’t know another adaptation was made, but for anyone who wants a good summer read I highly recommend the novel DAMAGE by Josephine Hart. Also, I absolutely LOVE “About Schmidt”.
As for Richard Dreyfuss, I believe his comments here will strike a meaningful cord in Hollywood, however secretly or not. He has power and freedom because he doesn’t care who might judge him for expressing his (very reasonable in my opinion) thoughts. He has demonstrated integrity by speaking his mind honestly, and that will make his statement resonate more than any carefully planned PR “statement” the Academy might muster in response.
I like Dreyfuss just fine, but it was a bit much hearing him complain about some hypothetical lost opportunity to “play a black man”. If he wants to don blackface, just like his hero Olivier, then he can certainly do that. And he can do it in a production that resolutely refuses to adhere to any Academy guidelines. And the Academy is perfectly within its rights to preclude it from any of their awards consideration.
“We live in a time of cowards.” AMEN. Starting with the biggest one of them all.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/946efd115061c9c7fc215e66d582c689a276c03d8d4d995a348f4d9816e90bbf.jpg
I don’t understand Dreyfuss’ (a man who has already won an academy award, lest we forget) complaints: he can still make whatever art he wants, in the manner of performance and the production that he chooses. If he doesn’t comply with the new rules, the film simply won’t be eligible for consideration for an Academy Award. But if it’s truly about the art for him, then why would he care?
It’s the Academy’s game and it’s their rules. Sasha should complain directly to them.
you missed his point.
I’d say you missed David’s point.
Richard is not complaning about the art. I would say deep down, Richard is really complaining about the manner of getting awards.
If I were a cynical person, I’d say this would be the logical jumping off point for a Birdman sequel called Blackman or The Unexepected Ignorance of Dreyfuss
Old Man Yells at Cloud.
It sounds like Dreyfuss didn’t bother to learn what the DEI rules actually are and just wanted to complain.
Clayton Davis pointed out that last night that under the actual rules as written, Olivier’s blackface Othello would in fact be eligible because the story was about a black man (meeting metric B).
That being said I wonder how the “muh Olivier blackface” would react if they were shown Spike Lee’s Bamboozled.
I simply don’t get how some people can’t see that when they are complaining, they are defending PRIVILEGE, not any kind of Freedom or Justice…
You can’t fix a broken system without working on it.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db20b71b78dcddd3aea01535af238928cec4f7caa103811886564f5bad2d04ca.png
You can’t fix that system by trying to make up for past mistakes.
why not?
Just because you wrote a short declarative statement doesn’t mean it’s representative of any sort of wisdom.
By his logic, there was no point in “fixing” slavery and Jim Crow via multiple constitutional amendments and the Civil Rights Act. Why, it would have just fixed itself no muss no fuss
Because most today have nothing to do with the past practices. It’s not rocket science.
hmm
You make up for past mistakes by creating laws that ensure the inequities won’t continue well into the future.
Rocket Science is pretty simple. We’ve been putting rockets into space since the 1950’s yet we still haven’t “solved” racism.
I’m not referring to the institutions as much as the people. Just because something didn’t happen in the past, doesn’t mean we are at fault for that. Progression takes years. If you look at today compared to 50 years ago, there’s been progress.
You’re never going to solve “racism”. People are always going to hate.
We might not be able to solve racism, but certainly we can correct for some of the inequities it has caused. And I am not talking about laws that use a person’s race as a corrective.
There was a brilliant rule by many state colleges that you qualify for admission if you finish in the top X percent of your class. Brilliant!
We have been with affirmative action. But it’s funny because Hollywood is supposed to be liberal and they are the worse when it comes to hiring women. It has been getting better with actress leading movies, but there are still issues behind the scenes.
I just don’t think people understand the representation and inclusion standards that are being implemented (which I think is very weird simply because it’s not a long piece of text and it does not express its ideas in a way that is difficult to read). In the Dreyfus clip, the host misrepresents the rules. Then Dreyfus continues and expresses complete ignorance of the content of the rules again (if he were to act in blackface in a movie, it would probably still meet the representation and inclusion standards, it might even meet standard A, which is what this panic seems to be over). And in writing about it, Sasha mentions this :
This is called representation and inclusion standard B and thus people do see it, they do talk about it. All of this type of discussion simply feels like people who are anxious about wokeness reading a headline that goes something along the lines of “Academy limits eligibility requirements to increase diversity in the industry” and use it as an opportunity to vent their anxieties.
As for the movies being made, I would note a few things: first, films like Damage were never the American mainstream (in fact Damage is not an American film, it is set in the UK and is by a French director), they were niche at best, so representing it as the lost capability of American mainstream cinema feels odd to me. Second, if a film considered as transgressive as Sasha describes Damage being was made today in the US, the only reason the American right wing would not be outraged by it is that they would not be aware of its existence. Third, the shift away from films like About Schmidt being successful and widely seen has little to do with “wokeness” and more about there being less mainstream interest in a character-based dramedy like that.
And most importantly, fourth: the reason why I emphasized the words, “mainstream” despite Sasha not overly leaning on that phrase is that these kinds of shocking, transgressive and thought-provoking films are still being made, in the US and other places. The question is whether people see them. Obiously I probably haven’t seen hundreds of such films made during recent years but even of the ones I’ve seen, did people see for example (just from the last five years and ignoring any and all Oscar nominees such as The Banshees of Inisherin, TÁR and Licorice Pizza which all also fit) Crimes of the Future; We’re All Going to the World’s Fair; Benediction; Armageddon Time; Happening; Saint Omer; Cow; Resurrection; Murina; Both Sides of the Blade; No Bears; Return to Seoul; Onoda: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle; Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy; Annette; The Card Counter; Titane; Vitalina Varela; Shirley; Ham on Rye; Martin Eden; Sibyl; Zombi Child; I’m Thinking of Ending Things; The Traitor; She Dies Tomorrow; The Souvenir (parts 1 and 2); An Elephant Sitting Still; Little Joe; Her Smell; Asako I & II; Matthias & Maxime; High Life; Synonyms; The Image Book; 3 Faces; The Beach Bum; Monos; Burning; Madeline’s Madeline; Minding the Gap; You Were Never Really Here; Zama; Private Life; Western; Damsel and Wildlife. Of course you can always find an easy comparison to say: “the state of the cinema is terrible right now” but those are not representative of the whole film landscape. I feel like as people’s interest in film hits a kind of plateau point, they often stop searching for films at the edges of their field of vision, and then they’re mad that they’re not finding anything new. This is understandable (that kind of searching is a very time-consuming activity) but the solution to anxiety caused by not searching is not helped by turning inward towards nostalgia, it is helped by starting to search again.
Also, concerning the Damage remake miniseries, which (though I haven’t seen either version of Damage and am simply discussing this in the abstract based on what Sasha is arguing and a general understanding of Louis Malle) just sounds a lot like what the current state of television is about to me (although I must admit that I don’t search in terms of TV in the way I talk about searching in movies so maybe I just don’t understand anything about the topic): they have more time which means that they feel like need to fill it and this task is mainly achieved by slowing things down and building backstory, which they think increases moral ambiguity (because no one is a villain if they’re given enough reason) but in the case of genuinely morally ambiguous characters usually just leads to removing the mystery around the characters and making something that is ambiguous merely into something that muddled (for another Jeremy Irons project, I watched the first episode of the Dead Ringers TV version and this at least seemed to be the case with that imagining of the work of an idiosyncratic director whose work doesn’t really fit the American mainstream).
A complete “disconnection” did happen between the Oscars and the BAFTA this past season – for the first time in history.
BAFTA made the better choices overall.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb2a77aa79dca159b2e43eb9ae504b200baa41e6dd386f1da19101d35cf2dfc8.png
Your objection is duly noted.
Other people below have eloqently spelled out why people need to read the actual rules before getting angry, so I won’t pile on there.
However, it is disheartening to see some people deliberately misrepresenting the letter of the rules because they hate the spirit of them.
I just don’t think people understand the representation and inclusion standards that are being implemented (which I think is very weird simply because it’s not a long piece of text and it does not express its ideas in a way that is difficult to read). In the Dreyfuss clip, the host misrepresents the rules. Then Dreyfuss continues and expresses complete ignorance of the content of the rules again (if he were to act in blackface in a movie, it would probably still meet the representation and inclusion standards, it might even meet standard A, which is what this panic seems to be over). And in writing about it, Sasha mentions this :
This is called representation and inclusion standard B and thus people do see it, they do talk about it. All of this type of discussion simply feels like people who are anxious about wokeness reading a headline that goes something along the lines of “Academy limits eligibility requirements to increase diversity in the industry” and use it as an opportunity to vent their anxieties.
As for the movies being made, I would note a few things: first, films like Damage were never the American mainstream (in fact Damage is not an American film, it is set in the UK and is by a French director), they were niche at best, so representing it as the lost capability of American mainstream cinema feels odd to me. Second, if a film considered as transgressive as Sasha describes Damage being was made today in the US, the only reason the American right wing would not be outraged by it is that they would not be aware of its existence. Third, the shift away from films like About Schmidt being successful and widely seen has little to do with “wokeness” and more about there being less mainstream interest in a character-based dramedy like that.
And most importantly, fourth: the reason why I emphasized the words, “mainstream” despite Sasha not overly leaning on that phrase is that these kinds of shocking, transgressive and thought-provoking films are still being made, in the US and other places. The question is whether people see them. Obiously I probably haven’t seen hundreds of such films made during recent years but even of the ones I’ve seen, did people see for example (just from the last five years and ignoring any and all Oscar nominees such as The Banshees of Inisherin, TÁR and Licorice Pizza which all also fit) Crimes of the Future; We’re All Going to the World’s Fair; Benediction; Armageddon Time; Happening; Saint Omer; Cow; Resurrection; Murina; Both Sides of the Blade; No Bears; Return to Seoul; Onoda: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle; Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy; Annette; The Card Counter; Titane; Vitalina Varela; Shirley; Ham on Rye; Martin Eden; Sibyl; Zombi Child; I’m Thinking of Ending Things; The Traitor; She Dies Tomorrow; The Souvenir (parts 1 and 2); An Elephant Sitting Still; Little Joe; Her Smell; Asako I & II; Matthias & Maxime; High Life; Synonyms; The Image Book; 3 Faces; The Beach Bum; Monos; Burning; Madeline’s Madeline; Minding the Gap; You Were Never Really Here; Zama; Private Life; Western; Damsel and Wildlife. Of course you can always find an easy comparison to say: “the state of the cinema is terrible right now” but those are not representative of the whole film landscape. I feel like as people’s interest in film hits a kind of plateau point, they often stop searching for films at the edges of their field of vision, and then they’re mad that they’re not finding anything new. This is understandable (that kind of searching is a very time-consuming activity) but the solution to anxiety caused by not searching is not helped by turning inward towards nostalgia, it is helped by starting to search again.
Also, concerning the Damage remake miniseries, which (though I haven’t seen either version of Damage and am simply discussing this in the abstract based on what Sasha is arguing and a general understanding of Louis Malle) just sounds a lot like what the current state of television is about to me (although I must admit that I don’t search in terms of TV in the way I talk about searching in movies so maybe I just don’t understand anything about the topic): they have more time which means that they feel like need to fill it and this task is mainly achieved by slowing things down and building backstory, which they think increases moral ambiguity (because no one is a villain if they’re given enough reason) but in the case of genuinely morally ambiguous characters usually just leads to removing the mystery around the characters and making something that is ambiguous merely into something that is muddled (for another Jeremy Irons project, I watched the first episode of the Dead Ringers TV version and this at least seemed to be the case with that imagining of the work of an idiosyncratic director whose work doesn’t really fit the American mainstream).
Excellent post. But I feel the need to point out searching for films that are beyond your peripheral vision is very easy these days. Criticstop10.com has a list of 100 critic approved films from last year, listed IN PREFERANCE! There are other sites too, like Metacritic.com which pretty much do the same thing.
Sorry if this is obvious. It’s a pet peeve of mind when people say “There’s nothing good out there.” I watch a lot of stuff and am very picky and I am overwhelmed.
At the risk of seeming to fawn on you, Ferdinand, I’m going to fawn on you again, and express my gratitude that you are part of the AD community.
Yours is a brilliant comment, my dude.
I’ll also express my awe that someone as young as you can be so smart.
(Although, as Richard Dreyfuss demonstrates, getting old does not confer wisdom. Because in his case, it certainly appears that getting older has made him stupider.)
Further to your excellent point about Damage not being an American film and never making a dent in mainstream American moviegoer consciousness.
Not only is Damage 1992 directed by a French director, and set in the UK, very significantly it is written by the legendary David Hare who is of course British.
Damage raked in $7.5 million in America which is still only $16 million in today’s dollar. Damage made less than 1/4th of it’s worldwide box-office total in America.
All the major tech talent on Damage (Cinematographer, Editor, etc) were all British.
The production companies for Damage were these French and Brit entities:
Nouvelles Éditions de Films
Skreba Films
Le Studio Canal+
The European Co-Production Fund
Channel Four Films
Canal+
For further Damage context and how it was discussed in the American media, today’s episode of You Must Remember This is actually also partially about the film
If Oscars went to comments, this is winning best actor, actress, screenplay, director, editing, supporting actor, cinematography and picture. A SWEEP! This should be the pinned tweet.
MTV Movie/TV Awards winners last night:
MOVIE: Scream 6
TV SHOW: The Last of Us
MOVIE BEST PERFORMANCE: Tom Cruise, Top Gun: Maverick
TV BEST PERFORMANCE: Jenna Ortega, Wednesday
HERO: Pedro Pascal, The Last Of Us
VILLAIN: Elizabeth Olsen, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
KISS: Madison Bailey/Rudy Pankow, Outer Banks
COMEDIC PERFORMANCE: Adam Sandler, Murder Mystery 2
BREAKTHROUGH: Joseph Quinn, Stranger Things
FIGHT: Courteney Cox vs. Ghostface, Scream VI
MOST FRIGHTENED: Jennifer Coolidge, The White Lotus
DUO: Pedro Pascal/Bella Ramsey, The Last Of Us
KICK-ASS CAST: Stranger Things
SONG: Taylor Swift, Carolina (Where The Crawdads Sing)
DOCU-REALITY SERIES: The Kardashians
REALITY COMPETITION: RuPaul’s Drag Race: All-Stars
TALK SHOW HOST: Drew Barrymore
MUSIC DOCUMENTARY: Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me
Here is where I am confused. Which movies in the past would have failed the 2/4 diversity requirements? The problem with these mandates is how difficult it would be to NOT qualify.
“Which movies in the past would have failed the 2/4 diversity requirements?”
This..? 🙂
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a52ada7c13e9e51c974f7297162dd06ac9a70c5c46855f8a3520eaa32aaa2435.png
Gay screewriter and gay themes (Metric B passed)
The majority of the supporting ensemble are women, and there are five Indian/Asians in that supporting cast (Metric A passed)
Set decorator was a woman
Casting Director was a woman
Costume Designer was a woman
Ten out of Eleven members of the makeup department were women
Script and Continuity deparment were entirely women
Six members of the art department were women
Multiple women in the editorial and music departments
Haven’t even gone into the studio and marketing department having internship programs
Seriously, modern film production already meets these standards.
This.
No one as far as I know has cited a single example of a modern film that would have failed these standards. Diversity internship programs have been kind of a part of the industry since the 90’s, and those alone would make literally every studio film eligible.
It appears the rules have been set to ensure that movies like “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, “The Men” (Brando film), or “1917” can still be eligible for Oscars. So I do agree with Dreyfuss, but for different reasons: The standard was set for PR reasons. People are still free to make whatever movie they want and hire whoever they please. It is simply there to encourage diversity or appear to encourage.
Since it’s more or less understood that the AMPAS diversity rules are kind of toothless, what is Dreyfuss’ actual argument?
If he wants to play blackface Othello, nothing is actually stopping him any more than any financial obstacle a production faces before hitting the stage.
Blackface Othello isn’t going to fly with modern audiences because blackface doesn’t fly with modern audiences (and no one should bring up Tropic Thunder which was fairly clearly mocking the practice).
Unless Dreyfuss clarifies what his argument is, he appears to have misunderstood what the diversity standards were and how they were actually applied. His problem, not mine.
“Blackface Othello isn’t going to fly with modern audiences”
especially 90-year-old Blackface Othello
I think he misunderstood the rules too. But regardless, his overall point seems to be that quotas are bad and the rules are idiotic.
I think we should certainly acknowledge that Tropic Thunder was made in an era where we didn’t care about Blackface. The “ban blackface movement” came around in the 2010s. Otherwise there’s no way that SNL would have allowed it with Fred Armisen as President Obama or NBC would have allowed Jimmy Fallon to do it a number of times.
The movement where a bunch of late night hosts apologized for doing black face missed the point. It really was a different era.
You can think that black face was always wrong but you can’t penalize people who did because, you were very very likely not voicing this stuff very loudly before 2015.
I live in the state of Virginia where they almost ran a governor out of office for doing black face and he did more for the Black community than his last 4 or 5 predecessors so fighting some symbolic battle was monumentally stupid.
Um…there were more than a few people who had issues with blackface LONG before Jimmy Fallon, Sunny Jim.
Greg agree that people are free to make whatever movie they want. If it’s made with an all white cast with non-inclusives, they can’t campaign for an Oscar.
In the NFL (American National Football League), there is something called the “Rooney Rule”. It basically says that teams have to interview a black coach. They are not requiring teams to hire a black one, but simply consider. This is what we’re seeing here in the Hollywood Film Industry. These “rules” are simply there to encourage diversity, even though no film can logically miss the requirements. Just look at their wording and what they consider “diverse”.
Yeah, but what kind of person would want a job simply because they’re a diversity hire. Isn’t that term an insult?
If we mandated that there has to be a certain number of people of color as nominees like the BAFTAs did, I certainly associate their nominations with an asterisk and I know at least a few stars who have read it as an insult.
If I make a top 5 actors who deserve a nomination in each category, my list carries more weight because I do it on merit.
In the NFL, head coaching jobs aren’t given to “diversity hires”.
Why don’t you run out to LA and ask around.
See how many non-straight, non-male, non-white people have turned down a job in the industry because they worry they’re being hired because they’re not a straight white male.
Or if that sounds like too much trouble (to get actual facts instead of just weird speculation) you can do the easier thing and just pause to think about how ignorant you’re going to sound before you type such a crude remark.
With the new guidelines, “if I see people of color as nominees, I certainly associate their nominations with an asterisk”
That’s so fucking gross.
Creepy as hell that you’re proud to announce such a smug hateful attitude.
“If we mandated that there has to be a certain number of people of color as nominees like the BAFTAs did”
Not actually what BAFTA said or did, but you do you
I might stand corrected there.
That’s not what the rules actually say, as multiple people in this thread have repeatedly pointed out.
Maybe Sleuth?
Well… Lawrence Olivier was bisexual… and then there’s the scene in Sleuth where Michael is down to his skivvies and Larry fucks Michael with his eyes. That part fulfilled a Section A guideline as far as I’m concerned.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1dffc3e0be05a184ad858aba1d3e142ae795115a5e81db923b22ce70b3ef530e.png
I didn’t know that about Olivier
I heard that renowned biographer Donald Spoto wrote about it in a book that I never read.
I realize it’s a pretty rickety assertion I’m making, so it fits right in on this page.
that’s funny, whenever I hear Kate Bush’s “Wuthering Heights” I somehow picture Olivier giving Meryl Oberon a rickety insertion.
I think LO was the original pass around party bottom
(upvote is just an acknowledgement, not an endorsement!) 🙂
I mean, asking people to define their sexuality (particularly for bonus points) is probably going to get sticky. My mom was a double minority and she didn’t love identifying as either in a very successful career in the world of biotech. I know there was a lesbian writer I listened to recently who even made it to SNL and didn’t like announcing that she was lesbian because she didn’t want to lean into it. In the interim, there are some comediennes who are announcing out of the blue that they’re queer now and I kind of wonder if they’re doing so because it’s advantageous to their brand. I’ve listened to the acts of a couple of these people for years and they never mentioned any gay relationships until very recently.
Isn’t bisexuality a gray area and not everyone would admit to it or identify as it.
reportedly, Sir L. Olivier had a long secret relationship with Danny Kaye, even thought Kaye’s legacy actually denied it…
If Spielberg’s 1975 masterpiece, Jaws, was released in modern times, it looks like it would be disqualified from receiving a BP nomination. Can’t have three White males-one character Must be black, Chinese, Spanish, Mexican, gay, trans, disabled (does being a senior citizen merit ‘under-represented?’) & the the rusty vet (Robert Shaw) must be an accomplished female. I feel sorry for movie audiences today who have never seen Jaws (or any classic/upcoming film), but will only, immediately focus on the DEI quota of the film and not its ground-breaking score, editing or cultural effect.
People who constantly play the “what if” game always remind me of how the marching band in Animal House wound up. It’s a fool’s errand. Yes, by the extension of your logic, Jaws would be DQ’d. AND???? On the other hand, how’s that Mickey Rooney performance in Breakfast at Tiffany’s looking?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c5fa4a13a4097418995e3c55bc470e7b1eb5fd81052ccc775006ad6fcd275e70.gif
Mickey Rooney performance looks terrible. The rest of the film looks great as always.
Congrats TOM,
You win the piss-filled trophy for the stupidest, sickest, most bigoted shithead string of words on this whole depressingly chaotic page.
“I feel sorry for movie audiences today who have never seen Jaws, but will only, immediately focus on the DEI quota”
Know who I feel sorry for? Whiny-ass bitches like you who can’t enjoy any movie of the past 5 years because you’re too busy sniffing everyone’s crotch for the scent of imaginary “wokeness.”
I would also like to very gently point out that none of this is Obama’s fault.
There has never been a time in American history when Hollywood was not acutely bonded to politics.
The same goes for the various revered film waves in every country on the planet that are all naturally bound to their respective nation’s unique political landscape.
And thank god for that. The very best movies of all time have politics as overt context or subtle subtext.
One of my most treasured books from all my college film courses is “Politics and Cinema” by Andrew Sarris, published in 1978. Predating the anti-woke hysteria by 40 years.
At the very pinnacle of Hollywood masterpieces of the past 100 years are movies inextricably wrapped up in dramatizing the politics of their era.
Dozens of PhD theses have been written about how Casablanca is virtually a diagram for explaining to audiences why it was important for America (personified by Rick) to stop isolating and get directly involved in WWII.
I look at my own top 20 favorite movies of all time and almost all of them take a dynamic and bold political stance.
Movies that have no interest in politics or wry social commentary are fkn boring to me.
You don’t still fuck with Sasha, right?
If the Oscars really want to be inclusive then they should nominate more anime movies for Best Animated Feature. Suzume better be there.
This is garbage. Hollywood has ALWAYS been political — pre-Hays Code, Hays Code, Blacklisting, segregation, New Hollywood, Jane Fonda/Brando . . . what in hell is this piece about?! Cary Grant, as president of the AMPAS in the late 60s, addressed diversity as well. This is another right-wing, crazy article by Sasha, who clearly does not understand film history. I’m pretty much done here.
For more info, see Ryan Adams’s post below. He gets it.
Oh: And Dreyfuss won an Oscar for playing straight man who acts gay — he “checked” the diversity box.
I just realized two of the opening sentences read, “But we don’t live in a time of heroes. We live in a time of cowards.”
Is it heroic or cowardly to misrepresent facts? Asking for a friend.
But…but…HER EMAILS!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f406b4f20015c953235f8af6178dc78fab95b470e2daaab36bd690eeaf7a842.gif
Richard Dreyfuss is a loser and so is his batshit insane son. Fuck them both to hell. I’ll be rooting for the shark next time.
Taji ponders…
“Imagine a world where winning an Oscar is not the reason why moviemakers make movies… in other words: imagine the real world.”
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/654c764f9400bf404db4cb4721c2d48fb15f00880093e585c3a813050a8cff21.jpg
On a positive note the Pulitzers were announced today. A surprise tie in fiction (can’t recall it happening before, but don’t quote me) but the expected winner Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver was one of them.
It’s an astounding read. But if that’s not your thing, you can wait for it to be a limited series one day. Surely someone must want to adapt it.
Oh and a special surprise for music lovers – Rhiannon Giddens!
RiRi finally won a Pulitzer!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37e9b16f409f2fb2b9b03b6de90502bfd769fdda6890233c3c5aa13ec0b6b864.gif
Giddens is an unusally good music scholar, although her solo records aren’t nearly as fun as the stuff she did with Carolina Chocolate Drops
Right wing extremists only operate through fear via misinformation.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62c829027f50d1d90f8cd17857379710b2fe57df6c9c4578c154b2655419191f.gif
The titular leader of the Republican party was just found liable of sexual battery. Oh well done, conservatives! Be proud of your standard bearer!
You can expect the “He was only liable for sexual battery, not rape!” takes to fly hot and heavy. They might put it on a t-shirt.
I’m pretty sure that “Only liable for sexual battery” is not a positive.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/810d9f9eaf1dc44a3fbeb7dd7076edb9708c073445a6ffde252d81dc83aa4ed7.gif
You’d think, wouldn’t you?
Be careful. Trump is a hero around here.
You can hate Trump and hate inclusivity mandates. It’s not hard
Your comment is 100% not relevant to mine. HTF did you even attempt to piece that together. Also, maybe you should actually READ the mandates. It is virtually impossible for any film to not make it through. And don’t ever come for me again, you’ll lose. Every time.
Haha, I generally know Richard Dreyfuss as my 2nd cousin once removed, so it’s kind of funny that he shares the same views as me.
The idea of because something has been historically used as racist is causing racism now is ridiculous. There are so many stop signs at the start of the argument (is blackface forbidden)
I don’t mind the inclusivity mandates as long as they allow the entertainment media to shut the hell up about which film’s more woke than which other film. Will it happen? Probably not. They’ll still consider films made by white people and starring mostly white people, not reflective of modern culture.
the only “entertainment media” that talk about “which film is more woke than the other film” are the right wing sites that routinely cite demographic statistics to complain that there are too many black people in a movie.
I cannot believe what I am reading. Wow! I am at loss for words. Just wow!