From: anim8rfsk <>
Subject: Re: BAFTAs Go Batty
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id l25mr1353283qtj.58.1515000047964;
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: anim8rfsk <>
Subject: Re: BAFTAs Go Batty
References: <>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <>
Lines: 76
Organization: Easynews -
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 10:20:42 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 4113
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4106798315
X-Original-Bytes: 3969
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>,
 Ed Stasiak<> wrote:

> ilms_that_are_not_diverse_starting_in_2019.html
> DEC. 19 2016
> Starting in 2019, if Your Film Isn't Diverse, It Won't Be Eligible for a 
> BAFTA Award
> In an incredibly bold move,

There are a lot of words for this.  "Bold" is not one of them.

 the British Academy of Film and Television Arts 
> announced last week that,
> beginning in 2019, works that do not demonstrate inclusivity in their 
> production practices will no longer
> be eligible for the Outstanding British Film or Outstanding Debut by a 
> British Writer, Director, or Producer
> awards at the annual BAFTAs, often considered the U.K. equivalent of the 
> Oscars.*
> Eligible projects must showcase this in two of the following ways, as 
> the BBC reported: On-screen
> characters and themes, senior roles and crew, industry training and career 
> progression, and audience
> access and appeal to underrepresented audiences. BAFTA will also remove the 
> requirement that newly
> admitted voters be recommended by two existing members.
> Back in 2014, the British Film Institute established similar standards for 
> projects seeking National Lottery
> funding in an effort to improve representation within the filmmaking 
> industry. BAFTA's decision is particularly
> striking, however, when you hold it up against its American counterpart, the 
> Academy of Motion Pictures Arts
> and Sciences, which, of course, faced an embarrassing PR backlash with the 
> #OscarsSoWhite campaign
> this year. Not long after the Oscar nominations revealed, for the second year 
> in a row, a slate of all-white
> acting nominees, the academy announced that it was changing its membership 
> rules in an effort to address
> the issue. This included shortening members' voting statuses to 10 years 
> (able to reactivated so long as
> they remain active within the industry) and adding three more governors' 
> seats filled by people from
> underrepresented groups.
> But that change was nowhere near as radical as BAFTA's, which directly 
> addresses the bigger and more
> pressing concern for representation, from acting to directing to executive 
> opportunities, and everything in
> between. Stating, point blank, that you cannot even think about receiving 
> these accolades from one of film's
> most prestigious institutions unless you make an effort to bring in a wider 
> variety of collaborators is to light
> a much-needed fire under the filmmakers' butts. It won't solve every issue 
> overnight—surely somewhere
> out there there's a filmmaker, or a funder, who really, truly doesn't care 
> about awards—but it's a step in the
> right direction. As we've seen countless times, counting on people in power 
> to do the right thing while letting
> them go unchecked does not lead to progress, and even hinders it.
> Many people will undoubtedly find this move to be blasphemous, leaning on the 
> tired crutch of "artistic freedom"
> to label BAFTA as intrusive. They can live and die by that sword if they'd 
> like, but they'll only be proving that
> they're not quite as creative or imaginative as they claim to be.

So whoever wrote this was a retard.

Join your old RAT friends at