Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Quotas in the Film Industry for Gays, Ethnic Minorities etc

What a ridiculous idea lets analyse this lets take the Gays at the last Census there was just 1.5% of the population who were Gay does that mean each film etc must have 1.5 Gays?  What is an ethnic minority? I am half german and 1/2 english do I qualify as an Ethnic minority? Surely true diversity is having the best person for the Job no what they are or Who they are

Ed Vaizey, the Conservative Minister for Culture, has praised the British Film Institute (BFI) for demanding ethnic minority, women and gay quotas on the films they finance. BFI is the largest funder of films in the UK, and from September they will no longer finance projects that do not fill diversity quotas, according to the Daily Telegraph.
The new "three ticks" scheme means that every film will have to fulfil two of the following requirements: on-screen diversity; off-screen diversity and "creating opportunities and social mobility". It is intended to ensure that more diverse actors and projects end up getting funded.
On screen, at least one of the leading actors must portray a character that is "positively reflecting diversity". The film itself is more likely to receive funding if it "explicitly and predominantly explores issues of identity relating to ethnicity or national origins, a specific focus on women, people with disabilities, sexual identity, age and people from a socially disadvantaged background".
The BFI is effectively handing out government money as it allocates £27m a year raised through the National Lottery. It supports around thirty projects a year and these have included The King's Speech and Philomena. It is chaired by Labour supporting former television executive Greg Dyke. 
They hope to encourage more films like the recent film "Pride" which is about left-wing gay activists backing the National Union of Mineworkers during their battle with Margaret Thatcher. They also funded a film about women fighting for the right to vote called "Suffragette", it did not include reference to the fact the leader of the suffragettes was a Conservative.
But Mr Vaizey still praised the initiative as helping to "raise the bar". He went on to say that he hoped other television and film outlets would follow the BFI's example. 
Viazey is best known for being a member of the Notting Hill set, a group of ambitious Conservatives that includes David Cameron. They are often perceived as being out of touch with the views of ordinary Tory voters.

As reported on 
Breitbart London in May, one of the Notting Hill set, Nick Boles was asked to apologise because his unpopular policies were putting Tory seats at risk in the 2015 General Election. He did not choose to apologise or back down.

I copied the following

This is horrifying. A charitable foundation established to promote the art of the motion picture - ALL motion pictures, not ones which appeal to one or another political perspective - now turns its funding aimed at encouraging creativity and originality into a system of politically-motivated patronage. I'm sure nobody here is ignorant of how worthless and demeaning 'diversity quotas' are so I need not go into that aspect of it, but what really takes my breath away is how blatantly partisan and anti-creative the whole business is. What's next, a scheme for struggling artists which fails to pay out if they don't paint a portrait of a member of an ethnic minority every month? One by one, charities are drifting away from any semblance of neutrality and purpose and becoming appendages of politics, staffed by activists and apparatchiks. (c.f. the RSPCA)
No mention of actual quality of script/talent or overall artistic merit in these multi-culti masterpieces I notice: hopefully that should ensure that the reels of PC garbage this scheme will fund will go safely unwatched.

This is social engineering at its most blatant across state institutions such as the BFI and BBC (I note that the BFI is listed as a CHARITY!)
Common Purpose rules the roost as they indoctrinate us into believing that we are a more diluted nation than we actually are, softening the nation up further into allowing even more immigration into this country. Well, I for one, have had enough. WHO IS IT that pays the TV license each year? Whose tax-payer's money goes into funding the BFI? It's the Anglo-Saxon MAJORITY that pays through the nose for ever-diminishing quality of film and TV programmes. Diversity! My foot!

What if you are making a historical film in which there are no ethnic minority characters - are you compelled to introduce them - to alter history to get funding?
What happens when the ethnic characters that are present are not heroes? Do we sanitise the Mugabes of the world - or just not cover them because they are not a 'positive' reflection of diversity and that means no funding? Is this in effect a subtle requirement to not only include minorities but to ensure their presentation is idealised?
When you have hit your quota of 'positive' gay, transgender, women, and ethnic minority characters, what will remain for other actors? Will it be white men of British descent who routinely get the supporting roles,.bit parts and, if they're lucky, the big villain? Will they effectively be facing racist discrimination?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.