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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.