And an effective way to assure good films continue to be made is to encourage diverse perspectives in the industry. Which is what this program aims to achieve. So, if all you care about is whether or not a film is good then what exactly is your problem with an initiative meant to develop new talent? Please be specific.
I have a feeling there won’t be a lot of intellectual diversity or perspectives, but I also don’t give a shit what people do with their money. Let people try whatever they think will work for either their goals or their wallet. Win or lose, everything we try is data.
Effectively, why does the talent search need to targets a small section of society? If these people have a great idea, it should be brought to light on its own merits like all other ideas.
If there is a stigma associated within the industry that needs to be broken - different story. But don’t make a film just because of how the director or producer identifies.
The issue is that this is a push for inclusivitiy for the sake of a push for inclusivitity - trying to create a demand where none or little currently exists.
Maybe creative workplaces should be diverse and inclusive on principle and not because we can only do things that improve sales.
In an ideal world, yes. Practically speaking effective groups grow and develop based on shared goals and values. You can’t just put a LGBT person in a group for the sake of putting one there, especially if it costs a better performing person their job. Would you walk away from you job to give it to a non straight person, and how would the team feel knowing that how you identify is more important than what you can do? How about being handed over crap by a person and you can say or do nothing about it because they were hired on inclusivity principles and any issues with their work are just called bigotry and seismic?
If you hire based on inclusion, that is why that person is there.
Hiring entirely cis male teams to work on projects doesn’t result in a better product. It is a fallacy to act like there’s something about being a cis man that makes them better at the job than any woman or trans worker at a similar skill level. And there are women and trans people at a similar skill level you can hire, no matter what the job is.
It’s completely ridiculous to act like women and trans people are somehow able to perform at a lower level than cis men and keep their jobs/keep getting hired. It’s more like the opposite, women and trans people have to work twice as hard to be viewed as competent.
Frankly this all sounds like situations you are imagining and not how anything actually plays out in a workplace IRL, much less a creative workplace. With movie and show production it’s totally normal for people to have to sit and listen to criticisms and suggested changes to their work at least a couple of times a week, if not daily, because of the way production schedules work and how quickly things need to be revised. Anyone who started hollering racism over that would be blacklisted.
First point - if your entire team are cis white males your hiring manager or recruiter should be fired as (unless 95% of surround pop are cis white male) they are already hiring based on race and gender, or not casting a wide net to identify the best applicants. Nearly 50% of my team were born overseas and not a single one was hired based on race or identity.
I suppose my argument boils down to one key question - is it acceptable to hire someone based on sexual orientation/ identity or race… likewise should this be a part of the advertising and hiring process.
They know what they want to pay for and its the job of an industry to provide this.
As someone working in IT, this could not be more wrong.
Don’t promote an idea because of who made it, promote the idea because its a great idea.
Welcome to movies and filmmaking. You might not have experienced any of it yet and not seen movies or movie-fans yet in your life, but take some notes when you do, they sadly won’t at all align with your idealistic ideas how it ought to work.
I fully agree, so why don’t we target that. Pushing select groups opens the divide between different parts of society rather than considering us as one.
opens the divide between different parts of society
If you or others feel “divided” because of this that’s your problem. Normal people who have empathy see this and feel happy for the marginalized groups it will benefit.
Target it how? Tell people in the industry to please be nice to people they don’t like based on how they present?
Humans have biases, those small groups will inherently be the subject of bias. This is the most effective way to counter those biases, especially because having those people’s voices heard will help combat those biases.
The thing I hear the most from people who used to be transphobic, homophobic, etc. is that they got over it when they were exposed to a person of that identity. This would make that more of a possibility
How about you, James Woods, Kevin Sorbo, and Jim Caviezel get started on that and Cate Blanchett will go do her thing helping women, trans & nonbinary people.
“We’re missing an enormous creative opportunity by not diversifying. We deplore creative laziness, we deplore financial laziness, and so we should therefore deplore a lack of inclusivity,” she said of the industry. “Homogeneity in any industry is the death of progress and innovation. That’s certainly the case for the creative industries. When you walk onto a set that is homogenous, you can sort of taste the outcome. The things that break through that are fresh, that have influence for the next decade, always start because someone took a risk on them.”
The other perspective of this is those rich white men got that way by making something that wanted to be seen. If the demand existed for alternate perspectives those movies would be what Hollywood was, instead of small indie productions.
…maybe? But considering how insular and closed-minded American culture is, I highly disagree. These are highly conservative companies only going for the safe money.
I mean, how else do you want it explained? It’s spelled out in the article why it’s the same type of problem.
As for homogeneity, that didn’t stop the Wachowski sisters from a poorly made rehashed cash grab of a Matrix movie.
Yes, and they’re in a very unique situation, and importantly, were famous before they came out. Good luck doing it the other way around. Hence Ms Blanchett doing this, it’s about giving equal chances.
Removed by mod
And an effective way to assure good films continue to be made is to encourage diverse perspectives in the industry. Which is what this program aims to achieve. So, if all you care about is whether or not a film is good then what exactly is your problem with an initiative meant to develop new talent? Please be specific.
I have a feeling there won’t be a lot of intellectual diversity or perspectives, but I also don’t give a shit what people do with their money. Let people try whatever they think will work for either their goals or their wallet. Win or lose, everything we try is data.
Effectively, why does the talent search need to targets a small section of society? If these people have a great idea, it should be brought to light on its own merits like all other ideas.
If there is a stigma associated within the industry that needs to be broken - different story. But don’t make a film just because of how the director or producer identifies.
You should read the article. This is explained quite clearly.
Removed by mod
Maybe creative workplaces should be diverse and inclusive on principle and not because we can only do things that improve sales.
In an ideal world, yes. Practically speaking effective groups grow and develop based on shared goals and values. You can’t just put a LGBT person in a group for the sake of putting one there, especially if it costs a better performing person their job. Would you walk away from you job to give it to a non straight person, and how would the team feel knowing that how you identify is more important than what you can do? How about being handed over crap by a person and you can say or do nothing about it because they were hired on inclusivity principles and any issues with their work are just called bigotry and seismic?
If you hire based on inclusion, that is why that person is there.
Hiring entirely cis male teams to work on projects doesn’t result in a better product. It is a fallacy to act like there’s something about being a cis man that makes them better at the job than any woman or trans worker at a similar skill level. And there are women and trans people at a similar skill level you can hire, no matter what the job is. It’s completely ridiculous to act like women and trans people are somehow able to perform at a lower level than cis men and keep their jobs/keep getting hired. It’s more like the opposite, women and trans people have to work twice as hard to be viewed as competent.
Frankly this all sounds like situations you are imagining and not how anything actually plays out in a workplace IRL, much less a creative workplace. With movie and show production it’s totally normal for people to have to sit and listen to criticisms and suggested changes to their work at least a couple of times a week, if not daily, because of the way production schedules work and how quickly things need to be revised. Anyone who started hollering racism over that would be blacklisted.
Ok, got a few minutes.
First point - if your entire team are cis white males your hiring manager or recruiter should be fired as (unless 95% of surround pop are cis white male) they are already hiring based on race and gender, or not casting a wide net to identify the best applicants. Nearly 50% of my team were born overseas and not a single one was hired based on race or identity.
I suppose my argument boils down to one key question - is it acceptable to hire someone based on sexual orientation/ identity or race… likewise should this be a part of the advertising and hiring process.
Responding because I want to come back to this chat after work - believe this is discussions that need to be had.
As someone working in IT, this could not be more wrong.
Welcome to movies and filmmaking. You might not have experienced any of it yet and not seen movies or movie-fans yet in your life, but take some notes when you do, they sadly won’t at all align with your idealistic ideas how it ought to work.
We don’t live in a world where you become a successful film maker purely based on merit though
The same part stood out to me and gave a real boomer pull yourself up by your bootstraps vibe.
I fully agree, so why don’t we target that. Pushing select groups opens the divide between different parts of society rather than considering us as one.
If you or others feel “divided” because of this that’s your problem. Normal people who have empathy see this and feel happy for the marginalized groups it will benefit.
Target it how? Tell people in the industry to please be nice to people they don’t like based on how they present?
Humans have biases, those small groups will inherently be the subject of bias. This is the most effective way to counter those biases, especially because having those people’s voices heard will help combat those biases.
The thing I hear the most from people who used to be transphobic, homophobic, etc. is that they got over it when they were exposed to a person of that identity. This would make that more of a possibility
How about you, James Woods, Kevin Sorbo, and Jim Caviezel get started on that and Cate Blanchett will go do her thing helping women, trans & nonbinary people.
It doesn’t.
It targets a small portion of the talent search at a small section of society. As in, ensure equal chance and access.
Your first paragraph very nearly gets the point.
There is a bias in filmaking, we need to correct for this.
Who gives a shit? It’s something she’s into for her own personal reasons. Get rich and do your own thing hiring competent people.
Maybe everything isn’t about the majority of people.
deleted by creator
Actually, no:
That makes no sense.
Creative laziness and financial laziness have a direct impact on the quality of a movie.
Being trans or nb is completely different to those two things.
It’s like saying we deplore stealing and murder, so we should embrace string cheese.
As for homogeneity, that didn’t stop the Wachowski sisters from a poorly made rehashed cash grab of a Matrix movie.
If you want thoughtful unique movies, go watch something indie. If you want Hollywood cash grabs, go watch Hollywood.
I think it’s more that if everything is made by boring, rich, white men we get less of a range of perspectives.
Everyone knows creativity is driven by adversity, so having less privileged people telling stories is a no brained.
You’re right about indie, I completely agree on that
The other perspective of this is those rich white men got that way by making something that wanted to be seen. If the demand existed for alternate perspectives those movies would be what Hollywood was, instead of small indie productions.
…maybe? But considering how insular and closed-minded American culture is, I highly disagree. These are highly conservative companies only going for the safe money.
I mean, how else do you want it explained? It’s spelled out in the article why it’s the same type of problem.
Yes, and they’re in a very unique situation, and importantly, were famous before they came out. Good luck doing it the other way around. Hence Ms Blanchett doing this, it’s about giving equal chances.