That’s what I was referring to. Dylan referred to Quinn as an Eskimo in the song because of Anthony Quinn’s role. in the movie.
Yes, sorry.
That ties it together then, nice bit of movie trivia.
On top of that confusion many people are positive Quinn was Greek. He embraced his association with Zorba, playing it on the stage after the movie, and was loved for it.
Considering the number of ethnicities he played, Anthony Quinn could have satisfied the diversity requirements all by himself.
With respect to 2C, I’m wondering if the “entire crew” means everyone listed in the credits. Many movies that use a lot of CGI will have huge numbers of technicians from South or East Asia listed in the credits.
It wasn’t clear to me, but I’d imagine it’s either everyone listed in the credits, or everyone listed who was an employee of the production company (CGI and such things are customarily outsourced.)
While I don’t mind this new rule in principle, applying it is going to get messy and might result in some absurd inclusions and exclusions.
Definitely. After all, everyone knows Quinn was Mexican: Viva Zapata! - Wikipedia.
And French: Lust for Life (1956 film) - Wikipedia.
And Italian: Wild Is the Wind - Wikipedia.
And Ukrainian: The Shoes of the Fisherman - Wikipedia
And Arab: The Message (1976 film) - Wikipedia
And Libyan: Lion of the Desert - Wikipedia
And Malayan: East of Sumatra - Wikipedia
And Hun: Attila (1954 film) - Wikipedia
And Spanish: Seven Cities of Gold (film) - Wikipedia
And Mongol: Marco the Magnificent - Wikipedia
And Olympian: Hercules and the Amazon Women - Wikipedia
And Cheyenne: The Plainsman - Wikipedia
And Chinese: Island of Lost Men - Wikipedia
And Seminole: Seminole (film) - Wikipedia
And…
There are so few roles for Huns these days.
Well, maybe these new Academy rules will change all that!
To all of those saying that there shouldn’t be objective rules for an artistic award: Are you similarly up in arms about the requirements that a movie be released in theaters, and run in the LA area for at least two weeks? Surely, the geography of a movie’s release should have nothing at all to do with its artistic merits… and yet, they’ve been requiring that for ages.
Of course, it’s also possible to have an artistic award with essentially no rules, like the Hugo, where if something is worthy of an award, they’ll figure out some category to fit it into, or even create a new category for it. But the MPAA wants to have rules for its award, so they have rules.
Why does this matter? Since those rules didn’t exist back then, they didn’t try to follow them. If they did, they probably could’ve met the standards easily enough. The bar here is almost touching the ground.
Excellent point.
Agreed. These changes will only impact the relatively small pct of “prestige” films aiming for Oscar contention in the first place. I doubt the next Transformers production will concern itself with meeting the new guidelines.
That’s an apt description of the movie industry since it began. You had the truth within you all along!
While I am all for pushing for progressive policies I think this is too restrictive.
A movie such as “Twelve Angry Men” would never be considered for an award (and it was very much an award worthy movie).
It is quite possible to have a story worth telling that doesn’t meet that criteria.
I missed the edit window:
It may be too difficult to implement but I think a system that insisted a movie adhere to the racial makeup of the time for the story it is telling would make more sense.
If you are doing something like “Master & Commander” the cast should reflect a crew that you would expect to see at the time which is probably not a lot of women or minorities.
If you are adapting a book I think you should adhere to the book so something like “Lolita” should be populated as it was written.
And what do you do with movies like “My Dinner with Andre”? Do the other people in the restaurant count?
The movie centered on an “18-year-old impoverished youth accused of stabbing his father to death”. I don’t remember what kind of detail about the ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disabilities of those characters were described in the movie, I think there was more in the original teleplay, but these details would be very easy to add in if they weren’t there in a way that would satisfy this requirement:
I am not sure that is sufficient for their restrictions.
The primary storyline are the guys in the jury room and what happens there. The rest is just a reason for them to be there.
The subject being discussed may be a minority but I don’t see how that would count for this.
What happens there is that they discuss the trial and the crime and delve into the reasons of why they turn around from near unanimity for a guilty verdict. That is the storyline.
Now if that wouldn’t count, then it’s valid as a substantial criticism of these rules.
I would also add that I think it is important that the twelve jurors are all white and all men. Especially for its time.
You could make the same movie with a diverse cast of jurors but that would change the whole tenor of the movie. For its era it was important that the twelve people in that room were white men.
Yes, but that is the cast. This third qualifier for STANDARD 1 is clearly different from the first two in not specifying the cast at all, it is an alternative that allows for an entirely non-diverse cast.
I’d rather there had been an effort to implement these rules by voluntary commitment but they just do not seem to be a major roadblock for film makers.