Subject: Re: BAFTAs Go Batty
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Ian J. Ball<IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-01-03 17:59:34 +0000, BTR1701 said:
> > In article<anim8rfsk-911F6F.email@example.com>,
> > anim8rfsk<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> In article<email@example.com>,
> >> Ed Stasiak<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/12/19/the_bafta_awards_wil...
> >>> de_films_that_are_not_diverse_starting_in_2019.html
> >>> 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.
> > So a movie about the Vikings now has to cast black and latino and Asian
> > people as Norsemen?**
> > Or are films about white people just not allowed at all anymore?
> > **I know Marvel already did that when they turned Asgard into It's A
> > Small World with swords, but I'm talking about more serious films.
> Yes - this basically rules any serious historical drama, or literature
> adaptaion, out of contention. So any future Jane Austen adaptation, or
> even more ridiculously, any film about a, say, 15th century African
> tribe or empire (all black cast, so "not diverse", right?...), would be
> out of luck.
Unless BAFTA goes with the current US definition of 'diverse', which is
'not white'. If they use our definition, then yes, an all-black cast is
still 'diverse'. In fact, it's at maximum 'diversity'.