Ok quick reminder about how the film business works. The “success” of a film - some of you want to say, “it’s merits - is based on way more than a great script and a great director.
1. Budget. The way budgets are assigned to directors is often not what the project requires, but an expression of the faith the funding institution has in the director. This process is absolutely rife with bias. Cc @Inclusionists for details
2. Creative freedom. A studio may give a big film to a director but not actually let that director see their creative vision through to the end. Harvey Weinstein was famous for this. So is every studio. Their interference can ruin the “merit” of a film.
3. Marketing budget. Films get seen largely because of the resources and expertise that go in to getting the word out. Most marketing teams don’t actually have that much experience with films by women, black and brown directors etc, and the equivalent resources are not invested.
4. Critical reception. Many studios won’t even give critics of color (and women, etc) the early access to films needed to get a meaningfully diverse set of opinions out there about a film. Critically, films are being evaluated for the public by a generally narrow perspective.
(Seriously unless you are actively working to diversify your intake of critical points of view, you are almost exclusively reading cis het white men at every single major publication.)
5. Awards season budget. You guys. It costs MILLIONS of dollars to run an awards campaign. Whose films get that backing are generally based on historical performance (see: best director category every year).
It is my belief that if @TheAcademy added a Best New Director category, it would incentivize funders at every stage to invest more in up-and-coming directors. In the meantime, awards season simply serves to fortify the status quo. Ho hum.
