I clearly stated I had no intention of reading it all
So instead you just make up your own criteria and complain about it?
I donât think the fiction you are laying down is going to be winning an Oscar either.
Depends on what period and what part of the world weâre looking at.
A Civil War piece could easily have lots of minority casting and as I was reading the criteria I was wondering if Gone With The Wind would have met criteria A2. Probably not, but probably close. It probably wouldnât have been too hard to alter it to get to 30%. (The film certainly met standard A1 and A3 so it would have met standard A in spades⌠I was just wondering if it also met A2.)
But for many/most period films taking place in Europe pre WWII, an all-white cast would be appropriate. Elizabeth, Shakespeare In Love, Amadeus, Dr Zhivago are a few best-picture nominees (no, not all of them won) with all-white casts in what I would argue is a historically accurate way.
Now maybe Dr Zhivago gets a pass from the Academy because Omar Sharif is Egyptian. (Which in my mind misses the spirit of the guideline if it counts, but maybe it does count - hmm⌠interesting question.) But point being, itâs a cast most would consider to be all white, playing characters who are certainly all white in a time and place where the people really were all white.
Heck itâs not a movie but That 70s Show is accurately representing podunk Wisconsin with its all white cast. (Until they venture into Milwaukee in like Season 6 or so, anyway.)
As others have mentioned, itâs not like standard A is the only way to get a film nominated and there will likely be a paper chase to get other standards met for films that donât meet standard A.
And Elizabeth obviously meets standard A3⌠was just using it as an example of an accurate portrayal of all white people. A major film about her father might have an all white cast and NOT meet criteria A3.
3 Likes
Fair enough⌠all white except for the foreign exchange student, I guess he meets the âsignificant supporting actorâ criteria.
Hmm, âtoken black guyâ is going to literally be a thing.
It would not be historically accurate, so notvsure why you would say it would be appropriate.
England was not as exclusively white in that Era as our art has led us to believe.
That is why i referred to it as a âwhite washing of history,â as it is a myth that many still believe.
This article was a simple Google query about elizabethian England being âall white.â Europe in that Era was even more diverse
It would be historically inaccurate for a character to say âthere are zero black people in your kingdom your majestyâ.
It would also be historically inaccurate to have a cast made up of 30% black people or even having one in a âsignificant supporting roleâ.
You are focusing just on black people
There are other aspects of the diversity, which were present in that Era.
Just saying that you have to try to make movies as exclusionary as they have been for most of the past century.
I donât think they were common in Mary I or Elizabeth Iâs courts, or among the churchâs bishops, which is essentially the entire cast.
Reading this thread the only obvious thing is that there will need to be a beuracracy of experts to review the films for compliance. Thatâs a job creator in my opinion!!!
1 Like
For me, I love to see diversity in casting. Even if not always historically accurate, providing roles to minority actors is so important.
I think itâs different when we head the other way from the whitewashing Whiskey is describing and write storylines that whitewash the oppression that minorities really face and faced, at our (speaking as a white person) hands.
Think about if Bridgerton were written and presented as a period piece rather than fantasy. Acting like white people have always allowed for minorities to have equal power and rights is really whitewashing the role we have played and not taking responsibility for it. I think itâs a really fine line - itâs important to cast minorities in all types of roles, because representation matters and opportunities matter. Itâs also really important to not ignore what we did, and make sure that is not forgotten or glossed over.
I love it up to a point. I love Denzel Washington, but I thought it was distracting when he and Keanu Reeves were cast as brothers in Much Ado About Nothing. It didnât fit IMO.
On the other hand, Baz Luhrmanâs Romeo + Juliet was so far removed from an Elizabethan backdrop that I didnât find it at all distracting that Mercutio was played by Harold Perrineau. And I believe he got some acclaim for the role as well.
So I think sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnât. 
I loved Hamilton.
I love just about every movie Sidney Poitier was an actor in. Generally enjoyed the movies that he was âbehind the cameraâ for as well.
Does anyone care about the Oscars? It was already stupid and now more so.
The ones that have a trophy.
3 Likes
Yeah, about 16.6 million people.
No one cares if you donât care to watch it. Itâs still the largest award show in the world.
1 Like
As a Shakespeare fan boy back then, my bigger issue was Keanu in the role of Don John. 
Also, they are half brothers so the casting works from the family angle without any need for suspension of belief.
On a side note, I often see one or both of those roles cast as non-white in a lot(mostly Britishy) productions I see.
1 Like
I was hoping this was an article from The Onion. No, itâs not.
If The Academy wanted to make its awards even more irrelevant, this is a fantastic way to do it. Bad enough that thereâs the stupid provision that you can release a movie the last week of the year in incredibly limited release and get it nominated for awards and a bunch of movies land on the Best Picture list as a result where virtually no one has seen them, but this is ⌠I would go remake a bunch of movies with obviously mistyped casts just to say âsee, Iâm meeting all the diversity criteria!â and mock the hell out of it.
1 Like