Wednesday, May 8All That Matters

German movie Critic (the Film analysis) picks apart Amazon studios diversity rules

by alrun


German movie Critic (the Film analysis) picks apart Amazon studios diversity rules




View Reddit by alrun – View Source

19 Comments

  • ConsciousLiterature

    He was a bit insufferable so stopped after about ten minutes but the irony of somebody who is so visibly offended and triggered telling other people they should have no right to be offended and triggered was quite amusing.

    I also like how he kept referring to television shows and movies as art.

    Oh and I liked how he pretended studios made no demands on “art” today and let the “artists” make whatever kind of movies and television shows they want.

    If it was delivered better the LUL factor might have been enough to overcome the irritation.

    Reply
  • PorQueNoTuMama

    Hmm, there’s a problem when you start by going on a diatribe about how “art is being attacked” (he keeps repeating this slogan) and “the acting profession is being trampled underfoot” and phrases with emotionally charged phrases like “false, and very mendatious” and “an attack on what we love”.

    All that before even before even stating what the “amazon diversity rules” actually *are*.

    This is *deeply* suspicious. That’s the kind of thing you do when you’re trying to push a narrative rather than actually engaging in analysis. You don’t want the viewer to actually think for themselves, instead you want them to *feel* the way you want them to feel.

    “Art is being attacked”, i.e. “You’re under attack!”
    “False, and very mendatious”, i.e. “Amazon are evil!”
    “an attack on what we love”, i.e. “Be outraged!”

    Yeah, this is highly manipulative to say the least. And it’s all in the first 1:20 .. I’ll keep watching but what this guy is doing so far has nothing to do with analysis.

    EDIT: Watched up to ~7 mins.

    He states that directors and productions are being required to provide reporting on the representation of characters, e.g. sexuality, minority representation, etc within those productions.

    I can agree with the notion of being against formal reporting requirements, but formal reporting and documentation is required in other aspects of production. Does he also complain about financial reporting requirements? Or is it purely when it comes to representation requirements? I don’t know his history so I don’t know if he’s genuinely against formal requirements in production, but it’s a pertinent question when it comes to understanding his biases.

    We also have to take him at his word. I checked the YT description and he does *not* link to the original document. Or even mention its name in full. Nor does he mention information that the user might use to verify, e.g. page numbers, what he says. Given the way his video started we need a pretty big grain of salt.

    But there’s an obvious and fatal flaw to his entire diatribe. He claims “art is under attack”. But amazon is simply not choosing to fund productions that don’t meet its requirements.

    How is that an attack on art? Amazon isn’t trying to censor productions across the entire film industry, nor is it forcing other production companies or channels to comply with its own standards. Anybody who disagrees with Amazon is free to make their own production without them.

    Essentially the fatal flaw in this argument is that filmmakers are entitled to money from Amazon regardless of what they want to make. That’s simply nonsense.

    As someone who claims to be a film critic he should know well that there’s *always* been conditions placed on productions by the people providing the money. A very basic one being whether they think the film will make a big enough profit, and requests for modifications are common. Representation is simply another one, and make no mistake it’s there because Amazon thinks it’ll make them money, not because Amazon is on some moral crusade.

    People who want to make other films are perfectly free to make them, they might not get Amazon money, but they’re not being stopped from making art.

    Reply
  • Bagsen

    Guy goes on a 30 minute rant and does not ever once show the actual playbook he is referencing. Took me 30 seconds to google it. This one paragraph pretty much blows away his whole “Art is being attacked” argument:

    “Casting
    The story comes first. The Inclusion Policy recommends casting characters from all backgrounds, as long as it does not compromise the authenticity of the narrative. For example, when a movie or series focuses on a particular racial/ethnic group, or is set in a homogenous context or location, it will be exempted from the requirements to diversify casting.”

    You can go through the rest but I call 100% BS on this guy’s rant. [Read Inclusion Policy and Inclusion Playbook](https://dei.amazonstudios.com/inclusion-policy/)

    Reply
  • NestroyAM

    Guy seems to be an agenda-driven alarmist. His intro is brimful of emotionally charged nonsense and I checked out [Amazon’s Inclusion Playbook](https://dei.amazonstudios.com/age-religious/) on the religious point he raises and couldn’t find the passage he supposedly quotes about having to include positive examples of a religious community when showing fundamentalism.

    ​

    >● Religious extremism should be depicted with care. Stereotypes about religion may tie the practice of certain faith traditions or beliefs to violence. These stereotypes erase the peaceful practice and beliefs of different faith traditions. The most obvious example of this occurs when Muslim characters are shown in roles linked with terrorism and violence. Extremism and violence may be over-reported or overestimated. Presenting only images and stories of violence fails to represent accurately the practices of different faith traditions.
    >
    >● If you are telling a story that includes depictions of religious extremism, ensure that consultants from this religious group are working with you to eliminate harmful depictions, so that you include only necessary aspects of the story and avoid gratuitous violence or stereotyping.

    Feel free to point out where it says anything of the like.

    Generally, reading through it, it basically says: be careful to avoid harmful stereotypes (whether it’s regarding race, age, disabilities, religion) and suggests to hire consultation from these groups to figure it out.

    He mentions that he thinks Amazon is hiding “ethnic pluralism” in capitalistic code. I’d argue it’s the exact opposite. They are trying to have as much mass appeal as possible. I doubt they could give less of a shit about most minorities, but expressing that would hurt their bottom line, no matter how many right wing nuts there are out there who would applaud them for “speaking up”.

    That doesn’t mean that those guidelines of suggestions can’t have a positive effect overall. Representation **is** important.

    If someone’s project cannot be done (like the mentioned “Life of Brian”) by adhering to those guidelines – which I am not sure is the case, honestly, because Monty Python didn’t mock religion as much as they mocked worshippers who misunderstand and twist half of the things his “Jesus”-stand in was telling them. But IF a project cannot be made under those guidelines, there is nothing that keeps a director or screen writer from taking it to any of the other studios out there.

    ​

    TL;DR:

    Okay, I made the mistake of looking up his other videos after I wrote this up to see what his actual film critiques look like and **holy fucking shit**, it’s literally all anti-woke, “would you think of the children”, “they are destroying our art bullshit”.

    For transparency’s sake, I stopped watching after 10 minutes. Dude got his ad money from me, but when he started to spout that complete drivel about how “we are witnessing the rise of ethnic pluralism as the driving ideology of the **new right**” I had enough of this pseudo-intellectual revisionism.

    I love how OP labelled the guy as “German movie critic”, but the dude didn’t make a single “critique” of any movie that wasn’t him wailing about the tried and true right-wing talking points. Just call him what he is: a grifter. I wouldn’t be surprised if he would lean more and more right the longer his series goes on.

    Reply
  • mqee

    **TL;DW:** he’s complaining they’re using bureaucracy and quantifying ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities, and disabilities; giving these marginalized groups at least 50% of the talking roles; preventing cultures and religions from being associated with villains, for example not having an overtly Muslim villain. He then discusses the removal of sexualization and clichés, which may be positive or negative, he gives an example of how sexualization can be empowering. He discusses the association between the actor and their character, requiring gay actors to play gay characters, actors of a certain ethnicity portray a character of a certain ethnicity, and so on. He says it’s important for actors to not be themselves, that they must use certain techniques to bring authenticity to their character. He gives an example of an Egyptian actor playing a Russian character.

    I agree with him in principle but you don’t need 35 minutes to say that bureaucratizing and quantifying art is bad, that insisting that 50% of speaking roles must be given to marginalized groups is bad, that not associating villains with specific cultures and religions is bad, that not allowing actors to portray characters that are not of their ethnicity or sexual orientation is bad. Could have said that in five minutes.

    —-

    **TL;DR:** start watching from 31:50 to get the gist of the entire thing. “Acting is about transformation […] but Amazon Studios is impeding transformation and ultimately human diversity, […] whoever presses art into rules suppresses it.”

    Reply
  • ofrm1

    A proper critique of these rules would involve a visual aid showing specifically what the rules say and why they are objectionable. At no point does he show the rules and we are just expected to take his word that what he is saying is what they require.

    I almost always immediately take the opposite position of anyone who takes this approach of not showing evidence of what they are critiquing because they are either lazy or malicious in their approach which, to me, is a greater sin than what they are suggesting is occurring.

    Reply
  • johnnysaucepn

    Why is it, when these debates come up, the focus is always on:

    a) What kind of stories are we making? Are we making too many white stories for white people?

    b) What kind of characters are we casting for? Are we writing stories for a wide audience, but casting almost exclusively white/straight/able-bodied people?

    Both of these can be argued on the grounds of whether or not stories should be more diverse, or whether it’s authentic to diversify our cast given the setting.

    But it’s not just about the art – it’s about employment. Surely we should be able to tolerate a slight unrealistic mix of traits in characters to ensure that there are employment opportunities for actors of all backgrounds, not to mention behind the cameras? Does that *really* compromise the Art?

    Reply
  • Kristophigus

    I know it’s not Amazon, but I went and saw Strange World the other night and the entire movie felt like a forced checklist. Like yeah, it wasn’t *bad* because of it but it was VERY hard to ignore it being shoved down your throat. The whole living in harmony message was icing on the cake lol..

    Reply
  • mzivtins

    He makes some amazing and annoyingly, very obvious takes on what the policy does, or any policy by extension.

    Limiting the expressions of a human (in this case an actor/actress) by their ethnicity and/or sexuality is abhorrent.

    Policies written about the grouping of ethnic and sexual groups is the fundamental racist ideology manifesting itself into a play book.

    We are all humans, all equal. Not according to neo-policies about race and sexuality, THEY are different to you, and if you do not live or work by that ideology, you have now broken rules.

    For those who don’t watch, or those who are on either side of the fence, the one takeaway from this that every should agree with is: The moment you apply any form of bureaucracy over any art, it is no longer art.

    Reply
  • hazard224

    aka I am going to rant for 30 minutes about why the dwarves in rings or power shouldn’t be anything but white.

    Also looking at his channel just based on titles he has a clear perspective and approaches it all froma very right wing attitude. He is a beer hall away from being overt about what he really thinks.

    Reply
  • hawkwings

    People keep inventing new words for sexual orientation and one of them is polyamorous. Would it be necessary to hire a promiscuous actor to play Hugh Hefner or Howard Hughs?

    Reply
  • okinawalinuxfan

    These views garnered a whopping 10.3K subscribers on YouTube. Just an amateurish use of reductio ad absurdum to critique some well-meaning policies. All wrapped in pretentious right-wing pseudo-intellectualism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Like Us
Follow Us
Subscribe Us
Follow Us