vox--2020-09-09--Do the Oscars’ new rules mean no more movies about white people?

The Oscars are rounding the corner toward its 100th birthday — next year ’ s ceremony , whatever form it takes , will be the 93rd — but the awards show is far from set in its ways .
Just in the last year , the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences , the professional organization that gives out the Oscars , has shifted the rules to rename a category and accommodate a pandemic .
Not long ago , the organization was toying with a new “ Best Popular Picture ” category , although whether it will ever actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few short years ago , the membership guidelines changed in order to deal with its diversity problems .
And now , the guidelines are changing again .
The Academy has announced changes to the Best Picture category , aimed at the lofty goal of making Hollywood more diverse .
But it ’ s caused some confusion , with people ( some of whom don ’ t seem to have actually read the guidelines before weighing in ) alternately cheering and booing the changes .
So here ’ s a quick guide to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Oscars , and whether they ’ ll have any effect on either the show or the industry at large .
What are these new Oscar rules ?
On September 8 , the Academy announced a set of new eligibility guidelines for films aiming to compete for Best Picture , considered the top prize at the Oscars .
There are four categories of inclusion standards .
You can read the full standards on the Oscars website , but they basically break down into two big buckets : standards promoting more inclusive representation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will need to meet the standards in two of four categories in order to qualify .
First , a note .
This gets wordy fast , so to make it easier , I ’ ll use the following terminology : • The Academy designates “ underrepresented racial or ethnic groups ” within the standards to include Asian , Hispanic/Latinx , Black/African American , Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native , Middle Eastern/North African , Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander , or “ other underrepresented race or ethnicity.
” I ’ ll refer to this category @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • The Academy also designates a broader set of identity groups within the standards , which includes the underrepresented racial and ethnic groups listed above as well as women , LBGTQ+ people , and people with cognitive or physical disabilities , or who are deaf or hard of hearing .
For simplicity ’ s sake , I ’ ll refer to this group taken together as underrepresented identity groups .
The first category of standards ( which the Academy calls Group A ) deals with the stories or characters on the actual screen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have one of the following : • At least one “ lead or significant supporting actor ” from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group .
Or ... • At least 30 percent of a cast in secondary and minor roles from two underrepresented identity groups .
Or ... • A main storyline or subject that centers on an underrepresented identity group .
Group B standards regard the creative and production team behind the film .
To meet these standards , a film must meet one of the following criteria : • At least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as editing , director , makeup and hairstyling , costuming , or sound , as well as many others ) must be from an underrepresented identity group .
Additionally , a minimum of one of these must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group .
Or ... • At least six people on the crew ( excluding production assistants , generally the entry-level position on set ) are from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group .
Or ... • At least 30 percent of the crew are from an underrepresented identity group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the ( paid ) training opportunities that film companies offer groups of people who are underrepresented in Hollywood .
There ’ s some fine print here distinguishing between huge companies with deep pockets ( like Disney and Warner Bros. ) and smaller companies or independent productions .
But in general , to qualify in this category , the film ’ s production company or distributor must meet both of these two standards : • Must offer paid internship or apprenticeship opportunities , in a variety of departments , to people from underrepresented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employing people in those positions ( numbers vary according to the size of the company ) .
And ... • Must offer training and work opportunities in “ below the line ” ( essentially , lower- and mid-level positions ) to people from underrepresented identity groups .
Group D standards deal with “ audience development , ” with is Hollywood ’ s way of talking about the parts of the business that get people to buy tickets to movies .
To qualify in this category , the studio or company distributing the film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from underrepresented identity groups on their marketing , publicity , or distribution teams .
Remember : Films will only need to meet the standards in a minimum of two of these four groups in order to be eligible to compete for Best Picture .
Additionally , these rules don ’ t kick in until the 2024 Oscars ( which , because of the way awards calendars work , covers movies released in 2023 ) , which means that they won ’ t apply to movies that come out in 2021 or 2022 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 , filmmakers will need to submit a confidential form that indicates how closely their films align with those standards in order to be eligible ; presumably , they will still be eligible if they don ’ t comply , but the data will help both the companies and the Academy see where there are still gaps in the industry ’ s inclusion efforts .
It ’ s important to note that this is only for the Best Picture category — so a film could not meet these standards and still be eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy changing the rules ?
Great question !
In short , though Hollywood is inching toward more diversity , problems persist .
The first is that , for a variety of reasons , Hollywood — that is , the American film industry — is still predominately a place where white men , and to a lesser extent white women , from well-off backgrounds fill the key decision-making positions at major studios as well as “ mini-major ” and independent production companies .
White men still also direct most of the movies , write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the movies , especially the ones with big budgets .
( They ’ re also still most of the film critics , but critics don ’ t work for Hollywood , so that ’ s on media companies . )
That has , for a long time , had a visible effect on which stories get told , who gets money to tell them , who gets to fail and continue working , and — most pertinently for the Academy — which movies get rewarded at the Oscars .
The Annenberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great job documenting and studying the lack of diversity in Hollywood , if you ’ d like to read more .
Because membership in the Academy is based on factors like years spent working in Hollywood , awards won , and name recognition , and because membership in the Academy is for life , the makeup of the voting body has long been heavily slanted toward older white men .
A Los Angeles Times investigation in 2012 found that the median Oscar voter was a white man around age 65 .
The membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male ; only 2 percent of the Academy was Black , and less than 2 percent identified as Latinx .
The LA Times also found that only 14 percent of the membership was younger than age 50 .
Following the LA Times investigation and , later , the # OscarsSoWhite embarrassment , the Academy began making strides toward expanding its membership , making it more representative of the American moviegoing public at large .
That meant inviting more racially and ethnically diverse people to join , and larger numbers of younger people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers of new members , the Academy has increased its diversity .
Between 2015 and 2020 , the percentage of female members increased from 25 percent to 33 percent .
The percentage of people from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups has grown from 10 percent to 19 percent .
( Full statistics are available through the Oscars website . )
At a glance , that doesn ’ t look like a huge increase , but since people who have been members for decades remain in the organization even as new members are added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift .
The percentage of Academy members is not directly tied to or predictive of Best Picture nominees , nor nominees in any other category .
But the group is recognizing a fuller range of experiences , one that more closely matches the actual moviegoing audience , in its voting body .
And so , the Academy is aiming to expand the pool of possibility away from what has , in the past , been traditionally considered an “ Oscar movie ” and what has been considered “ niche.
” The new eligibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Does this mean a movie like The Irishman wouldn ’ t be eligible for Best Picture in future years ?
The Irishman fits the bill just fine .
Yes , it ’ s a movie directed by a white man , mostly starring white men .
But many of Scorsese ’ s longtime collaborators are ( mostly white ) women , including producer Emma Tillinger Koskoff ; casting director Ellen Lewis ; and editor Thelma Schoonmaker , who has been working with Scorsese from the very beginning .
The film ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico .
Those staffing decisions fulfill the requirements of Category B .
The film was funded and distributed by Netflix , a company that includes many women and many people of color among its executive team , including in key communications and publicity positions , and promotes internal development programs focused on diversity and inclusion — all factors in fulfilling Categories C and D. And that doesn ’ t take into account any LGBTQ+ people or people with disabilities — factors that aren ’ t obvious if you ’ re just perusing IMDb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — who might be involved .
What about Little Women ?
Little Women , being about , well , women , easily meets the criteria for Category A , even though its main cast is entirely white .
It ’ s also directed by a woman , produced by a team of women , and largely employed women as department heads .
And though you certainly can ’ t tell if a person fits into one of the broader Academy-designated underrepresented groups purely on name and picture , a quick scan of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 30 percent of the crew fits the requirements of Category B .
( That doesn ’ t even take into account Categories C and D at Sony Pictures Entertainment , the film ’ s distributor , which recently launched a diversity and inclusion initiative , nor the categories of LGBTQ+ people and people with disabilities . )
The 2019 Best Picture winner took a lot of ( in my view , deserved ) flak for its regressive and whitewashed view of race in America .
But it also easily passes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscar for his role in the film , which certainly qualifies as a “ significant supporting actor ” ( and thereby fulfills Category A ) .
Among its executive producers are Octavia Spencer and Kwame L. Parker ( which fulfills Category B ) .
It was distributed by Universal Pictures , which is led by chairwoman Donna Langley ; Universal ’ s head of distribution is Veronika Kwan Vandenberg , and its head of global communications is Cindy Gardner ( Category D ) .
And Universal has an established global talent development and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These three examples are all films from big studios with money to throw around , of course .
But a film like , say , Moonlight — the lowest-budget film to ever win a Best Picture Oscar , at $ 1.5 million — would have qualified easily , given that most of its cast are Black , its director Barry Jenkins is Black , Jenkins ’ co-writer Tarell Alvin McCraney is Black ( and gay ) , a number of heads of key departments are Black , and the movie ’ s main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ character .
Is this just empty signaling , then ?
Or will the new guidelines have an effect on Hollywood ?
It ’ s hard to say right now , of course .
In fact , it feels like films will have to work hard not to be able to tick off two of four boxes .
But that might be the point .
Submitting a film for Best Picture consideration will require the submission of a confidential form for two years before the guidelines go into effect .
That means film companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see if they are lacking in a key area and correct that blind spot before 2024 .
The easiest way to ensure that a company ’ s films will be eligible for Best Picture is to do two things : establish ongoing paid internships , apprenticeships , and career opportunities for people from underrepresented groups ; and ensure that people from underrepresented groups are in key audience development positions in the company .
Then even the whitest , straightest , most cisgendered-male movie about people with no disabilities , created and directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still qualify , provided the company itself was promoting inclusion and diversity .
That ’ s an option more accessible to large film studios because they have the resources to pour into developing talent .
And yet , a significant number of low- and mid-budget movies , which may be produced by companies without those resources , generate good buzz at film festivals and are then bought by larger companies .
Then they ’ ll be able to take advantage of their distributors ’ investment in diversity and inclusion initiatives .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on those kinds of initiatives , either because they don ’ t have the resources or for some other reason .
But if they produce or distribute a film that is about an underrepresented ethnic or racial group , women , LGBTQ+ people , or people with disabilities , and if people from those groups are also in key artistic positions or comprise at least 30 percent of the crew , then the film will still qualify for Best Picture consideration .
Overall , though , it seems clear that the Academy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly to encourage different hiring and development practices , even more than promoting greater diversity in the stories that audiences see on screen .
Are there potential issues with this ?
Absolutely .
You can imagine a film company in which tokenism is promoted , with apprenticeship and internship programs that lead nowhere , the minimum number of people from underrepresented groups promoted into key positions , and a lot of lip service paid to diversity and inclusion with very few results .
You can also easily imagine — because it happens all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which movies about people of color are made by largely white creative teams ( like , for instance , Disney ’ s recent live-action remake of Mulan ) , yet qualify because of the production company ’ s diversity initiatives .
Similarly , the guidelines make a lot of equivalences that seem , at best , problematic .
Is being gay the “ same ” as being Black ?
Is being trans the “ same ” as being deaf ?
Is being a woman the “ same ” as being of Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more consistently discriminated against than others , explicitly or implicitly , and guidelines such as these could simply lead to even more rigid , unspoken hierarchies in hiring — a proposition that ’ s a bit horrifying to consider .
The Academy has given themselves a few years to see whether this produces an effect and perhaps iron out some of the wrinkles , so it ’ s possible we may see tweaks and changes to the guidelines in the future .
As of right now , though , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Picture nominees that wouldn ’ t qualify under these rules , or wouldn ’ t easily qualify with a few company- or crew-level tweaks .
It seems like this won ’ t fix the # OscarsSoWhite problem , though Correct !
These rules only apply to films submitted for Best Picture consideration .
And given that a movie with an all-white cast , or story focused primarily on men , is still eligible , it doesn ’ t even guarantee that the Best Picture nominees will focus on significantly more diverse stories than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , movies are usually trying to qualify in a number of different categories , and most films that are aiming for the Oscars at least secretly dream of getting a Best Picture slot .
So the rules could have some trickle-down effect on casting choices and on which films get the “ buzz ” that can help propel individual performers , directors , writers , and others into the individual categories .
But that ’ s far from a given .
That ’ s always the issue with trying to generate massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an industry like Hollywood , which pays a lot of lip service to inclusivity but is , fundamentally , conservative , and averse to whatever the people at the top perceive as risks — whether that risk is the perception that “ Black films don ’ t travel ” or that “ men won ’ t go see a film about women.
” So are the Oscars going to look significantly different in 2024 than they have for the past decade ?
It ’ s impossible to know , but there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the goal of these eligibility guidelines is to incentivize investing in a more diverse , inclusive workforce , it may have some impact — even in a limited way .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Oscars are rounding the corner toward its 100th birthday — next year’s ceremony, whatever form it takes, will be the 93rd — but the awards show is far from set in its ways. Just in the last year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the professional organization that gives out the Oscars, has shifted the rules to rename a category and accommodate a pandemic. Not long ago, the organization was toying with a new “Best Popular Picture” category, although whether it will ever actually be awarded is unclear. And a few short years ago, the membership guidelines changed in order to deal with its diversity problems.
And now, the guidelines are changing again. The Academy has announced changes to the Best Picture category, aimed at the lofty goal of making Hollywood more diverse.
But it’s caused some confusion, with people (some of whom don’t seem to have actually read the guidelines before weighing in) alternately cheering and booing the changes. So here’s a quick guide to the guidelines, what they actually mean for the Oscars, and whether they’ll have any effect on either the show or the industry at large.
What are these new Oscar rules?
On September 8, the Academy announced a set of new eligibility guidelines for films aiming to compete for Best Picture, considered the top prize at the Oscars.
There are four categories of inclusion standards. You can read the full standards on the Oscars website, but they basically break down into two big buckets: standards promoting more inclusive representation and standards promoting more inclusive employment. Movies will need to meet the standards in two of four categories in order to qualify.
First, a note. This gets wordy fast, so to make it easier, I’ll use the following terminology:
The Academy designates “underrepresented racial or ethnic groups” within the standards to include Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or “other underrepresented race or ethnicity.” I’ll refer to this category as underrepresented racial or ethnic groups.
The Academy also designates a broader set of identity groups within the standards, which includes the underrepresented racial and ethnic groups listed above as well as women, LBGTQ+ people, and people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing. For simplicity’s sake, I’ll refer to this group taken together as underrepresented identity groups.
The first category of standards (which the Academy calls Group A) deals with the stories or characters on the actual screen. In this category, movies must have one of the following:
At least one “lead or significant supporting actor” from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. Or ...
At least 30 percent of a cast in secondary and minor roles from two underrepresented identity groups. Or ...
A main storyline or subject that centers on an underrepresented identity group.
Group B standards regard the creative and production team behind the film. To meet these standards, a film must meet one of the following criteria:
At least two heads of major departments (such as editing, director, makeup and hairstyling, costuming, or sound, as well as many others) must be from an underrepresented identity group. Additionally, a minimum of one of these must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. Or ...
At least six people on the crew (excluding production assistants, generally the entry-level position on set) are from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. Or ...
At least 30 percent of the crew are from an underrepresented identity group.
Group C standards have to do with the (paid) training opportunities that film companies offer groups of people who are underrepresented in Hollywood. There’s some fine print here distinguishing between huge companies with deep pockets (like Disney and Warner Bros.) and smaller companies or independent productions. But in general, to qualify in this category, the film’s production company or distributor must meet both of these two standards:
Must offer paid internship or apprenticeship opportunities, in a variety of departments, to people from underrepresented identity groups, and must actually be employing people in those positions (numbers vary according to the size of the company). And ...
Must offer training and work opportunities in “below the line” (essentially, lower- and mid-level positions) to people from underrepresented identity groups.
Group D standards deal with “audience development,” with is Hollywood’s way of talking about the parts of the business that get people to buy tickets to movies. To qualify in this category, the studio or company distributing the film must have “multiple” senior-level executives from underrepresented identity groups on their marketing, publicity, or distribution teams.
Remember: Films will only need to meet the standards in a minimum of two of these four groups in order to be eligible to compete for Best Picture.
Additionally, these rules don’t kick in until the 2024 Oscars (which, because of the way awards calendars work, covers movies released in 2023), which means that they won’t apply to movies that come out in 2021 or 2022.
However, beginning with films released in 2021, filmmakers will need to submit a confidential form that indicates how closely their films align with those standards in order to be eligible; presumably, they will still be eligible if they don’t comply, but the data will help both the companies and the Academy see where there are still gaps in the industry’s inclusion efforts.
It’s important to note that this is only for the Best Picture category — so a film could not meet these standards and still be eligible for other awards.
Why is the Academy changing the rules?
Great question! In short, though Hollywood is inching toward more diversity, problems persist. The first is that, for a variety of reasons, Hollywood — that is, the American film industry — is still predominately a place where white men, and to a lesser extent white women, from well-off backgrounds fill the key decision-making positions at major studios as well as “mini-major” and independent production companies.
White men still also direct most of the movies, write most of the movies, and produce most of the movies, especially the ones with big budgets. (They’re also still most of the film critics, but critics don’t work for Hollywood, so that’s on media companies.) That has, for a long time, had a visible effect on which stories get told, who gets money to tell them, who gets to fail and continue working, and — most pertinently for the Academy — which movies get rewarded at the Oscars.
The Annenberg Inclusion Initiative at USC has done a great job documenting and studying the lack of diversity in Hollywood, if you’d like to read more.
Related Why the wrong movies win Oscars
Because membership in the Academy is based on factors like years spent working in Hollywood, awards won, and name recognition, and because membership in the Academy is for life, the makeup of the voting body has long been heavily slanted toward older white men. A Los Angeles Times investigation in 2012 found that the median Oscar voter was a white man around age 65. The membership was 94 percent white and 77 percent male; only 2 percent of the Academy was Black, and less than 2 percent identified as Latinx. The LA Times also found that only 14 percent of the membership was younger than age 50.
Following the LA Times investigation and, later, the #OscarsSoWhite embarrassment, the Academy began making strides toward expanding its membership, making it more representative of the American moviegoing public at large. That meant inviting more racially and ethnically diverse people to join, and larger numbers of younger people.
Today, after years of inviting record numbers of new members, the Academy has increased its diversity. Between 2015 and 2020, the percentage of female members increased from 25 percent to 33 percent. The percentage of people from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups has grown from 10 percent to 19 percent. (Full statistics are available through the Oscars website.) At a glance, that doesn’t look like a huge increase, but since people who have been members for decades remain in the organization even as new members are added, that percentage will take years to shift.
The percentage of Academy members is not directly tied to or predictive of Best Picture nominees, nor nominees in any other category. But the group is recognizing a fuller range of experiences, one that more closely matches the actual moviegoing audience, in its voting body. And so, the Academy is aiming to expand the pool of possibility away from what has, in the past, been traditionally considered an “Oscar movie” and what has been considered “niche.” The new eligibility guidelines are another move toward that goal.
Does this mean a movie like The Irishman wouldn’t be eligible for Best Picture in future years?
The Irishman fits the bill just fine.
Yes, it’s a movie directed by a white man, mostly starring white men. But many of Scorsese’s longtime collaborators are (mostly white) women, including producer Emma Tillinger Koskoff; casting director Ellen Lewis; and editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who has been working with Scorsese from the very beginning. The film’s cinematographer, Rodrigo Preto, is from Mexico. Those staffing decisions fulfill the requirements of Category B. The film was funded and distributed by Netflix, a company that includes many women and many people of color among its executive team, including in key communications and publicity positions, and promotes internal development programs focused on diversity and inclusion — all factors in fulfilling Categories C and D. And that doesn’t take into account any LGBTQ+ people or people with disabilities — factors that aren’t obvious if you’re just perusing IMDb, or may not be publicly known — who might be involved.
What about Little Women?
Little Women, being about, well, women, easily meets the criteria for Category A, even though its main cast is entirely white. It’s also directed by a woman, produced by a team of women, and largely employed women as department heads. And though you certainly can’t tell if a person fits into one of the broader Academy-designated underrepresented groups purely on name and picture, a quick scan of the IMDb page makes it pretty clear that at least 30 percent of the crew fits the requirements of Category B. (That doesn’t even take into account Categories C and D at Sony Pictures Entertainment, the film’s distributor, which recently launched a diversity and inclusion initiative, nor the categories of LGBTQ+ people and people with disabilities.)
Related How to win an Oscar
What about Green Book?
The 2019 Best Picture winner took a lot of (in my view, deserved) flak for its regressive and whitewashed view of race in America. But it also easily passes the test. Mahershala Ali won his second Oscar for his role in the film, which certainly qualifies as a “significant supporting actor” (and thereby fulfills Category A). Among its executive producers are Octavia Spencer and Kwame L. Parker (which fulfills Category B). It was distributed by Universal Pictures, which is led by chairwoman Donna Langley; Universal’s head of distribution is Veronika Kwan Vandenberg, and its head of global communications is Cindy Gardner (Category D). And Universal has an established global talent development and inclusion program (Category C).
These three examples are all films from big studios with money to throw around, of course. But a film like, say, Moonlight — the lowest-budget film to ever win a Best Picture Oscar, at $1.5 million — would have qualified easily, given that most of its cast are Black, its director Barry Jenkins is Black, Jenkins’ co-writer Tarell Alvin McCraney is Black (and gay), a number of heads of key departments are Black, and the movie’s main storyline focuses on a Black, gay character.
Is this just empty signaling, then? Or will the new guidelines have an effect on Hollywood?
It’s hard to say right now, of course. In fact, it feels like films will have to work hard not to be able to tick off two of four boxes.
But that might be the point.
Submitting a film for Best Picture consideration will require the submission of a confidential form for two years before the guidelines go into effect. That means film companies aiming for awards will have a chance to see if they are lacking in a key area and correct that blind spot before 2024.
The easiest way to ensure that a company’s films will be eligible for Best Picture is to do two things: establish ongoing paid internships, apprenticeships, and career opportunities for people from underrepresented groups; and ensure that people from underrepresented groups are in key audience development positions in the company. Then even the whitest, straightest, most cisgendered-male movie about people with no disabilities, created and directed and produced by the same, would still qualify, provided the company itself was promoting inclusion and diversity.
That’s an option more accessible to large film studios because they have the resources to pour into developing talent. And yet, a significant number of low- and mid-budget movies, which may be produced by companies without those resources, generate good buzz at film festivals and are then bought by larger companies. Then they’ll be able to take advantage of their distributors’ investment in diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Of course, a company could elect not to focus on those kinds of initiatives, either because they don’t have the resources or for some other reason. But if they produce or distribute a film that is about an underrepresented ethnic or racial group, women, LGBTQ+ people, or people with disabilities, and if people from those groups are also in key artistic positions or comprise at least 30 percent of the crew, then the film will still qualify for Best Picture consideration.
Overall, though, it seems clear that the Academy’s new eligibility guidelines are designed mostly to encourage different hiring and development practices, even more than promoting greater diversity in the stories that audiences see on screen.
Are there potential issues with this? Absolutely. You can imagine a film company in which tokenism is promoted, with apprenticeship and internship programs that lead nowhere, the minimum number of people from underrepresented groups promoted into key positions, and a lot of lip service paid to diversity and inclusion with very few results. You can also easily imagine — because it happens all the time right now — a world in which movies about people of color are made by largely white creative teams (like, for instance, Disney’s recent live-action remake of Mulan), yet qualify because of the production company’s diversity initiatives.
Similarly, the guidelines make a lot of equivalences that seem, at best, problematic. Is being gay the “same” as being Black? Is being trans the “same” as being deaf? Is being a woman the “same” as being of Asian descent? Some of the underrepresented categories are more consistently discriminated against than others, explicitly or implicitly, and guidelines such as these could simply lead to even more rigid, unspoken hierarchies in hiring — a proposition that’s a bit horrifying to consider.
The Academy has given themselves a few years to see whether this produces an effect and perhaps iron out some of the wrinkles, so it’s possible we may see tweaks and changes to the guidelines in the future. As of right now, though, it’s somewhat hard to think of recent Best Picture nominees that wouldn’t qualify under these rules, or wouldn’t easily qualify with a few company- or crew-level tweaks.
It seems like this won’t fix the #OscarsSoWhite problem, though
Correct! These rules only apply to films submitted for Best Picture consideration. And given that a movie with an all-white cast, or story focused primarily on men, is still eligible, it doesn’t even guarantee that the Best Picture nominees will focus on significantly more diverse stories than they have in the past.
That said, movies are usually trying to qualify in a number of different categories, and most films that are aiming for the Oscars at least secretly dream of getting a Best Picture slot. So the rules could have some trickle-down effect on casting choices and on which films get the “buzz” that can help propel individual performers, directors, writers, and others into the individual categories. But that’s far from a given.
That’s always the issue with trying to generate massive, industry-wide systemic change, especially in an industry like Hollywood, which pays a lot of lip service to inclusivity but is, fundamentally, conservative, and averse to whatever the people at the top perceive as risks — whether that risk is the perception that “Black films don’t travel” or that “men won’t go see a film about women.”
So are the Oscars going to look significantly different in 2024 than they have for the past decade? It’s impossible to know, but there’s no guarantee that they will. Yet if the goal of these eligibility guidelines is to incentivize investing in a more diverse, inclusive workforce, it may have some impact — even in a limited way.


vox--2020-09-09--The orange skies and smoky air from Western wildfires, explained

Record-setting wildfires burning across Colorado , California , Oregon , and Washington are ejecting soot , ash , and smoke into the air amid searing heat .
Thick clouds of particles are wafting over cities and rural areas alike , and turned the Bay Areas ’ s azure skies ruddy on Wednesday .
Why is the air so orange ?
The tiny motes that comprise smoke are scattering the longer light wavelengths of reds and oranges to overwhelm the shorter wavelengths of blue , dimming the sun and creating a midday twilight .
But beyond the eerie glow , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health threats from wildfires to people who are even hundreds of miles from the flames .
In several areas along the West Coast , air quality has degraded to the worst category : “ hazardous.
” For example , in Mendocino County , wildfires have made breathing the air like smoking 12 cigarettes in a day .
“ The one thing that we ’ ve noticed in this season in particular … is just the geographic scale of the wildfire smoke , because there are so many large fires , ” said Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Air Resources Board .
The smoke from these wildfires is adding more stress to communities already battling Covid-19 and health systems already burdened with extra patients .
The dirty air could also worsen the symptoms associated with the respiratory infection .
And in the coming days and weeks , the ongoing fires may continue to rage , with new ones cropping up .
Smoke from wildfires is posing a health hazard to millions of people It ’ s easy to lose sight of the smoke for the flames , especially when so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
However , the billowing plumes from fires can become a major threat to the heart and lungs .
The smoke itself is a mixture of gases and particles like volatile organic compounds , carbon monoxide , soot , and ash .
Right away , they can cause watery eyes and scratchy throats .
But the biggest threats from smoke come from some of the tiniest particles , particularly those with a diameter smaller than 2.5 microns , known as PM2.5 .
These particles can penetrate deep into the airways , exacerbating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with heart and lung conditions should be aware of the additional risk during smoky conditions as wildfire smoke can increase the potential risk for serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions , such as heart attack and stroke , ” a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health told Vox in an email .
“ These risks are especially significant among persons over the age of 65.
” Persistent exposure to these kinds of fine particles can be deadly .
According to the World Health Organization , fine particle pollution , which can come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leads to 7 million deaths per year around the world .
Wildfire smoke poses a unique health threat compared to pollution from other sources .
Suzanne Paulson , chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic science at the University of California Los Angeles , noted there is emerging research indicating that wildfire smoke may be more toxic for a given mass than typical urban pollution .
“ The thing that is really different about wildfire smoke particles is that they have a bunch of unburned [ or ] partly burned plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the general urban pollution soup , it ’ s a relatively small component , whereas in wildfire smoke it ’ s very dominant.
” That unburned organic plant material can interact with metal elements , from other sources or the plants themselves , and increase the toxicity of those metals in the body .
That can lead to more inflammation or cause neurological problems .
Parts of the West Coast like Los Angeles also have landscape and climate features that enhance the risk of pollutants like PM2.5 .
“ We have really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city , ” Paulson said .
Mountains surrounding Los Angeles can act as a basin , while the city ’ s location between the ocean and the desert creates multiple atmospheric configurations that pin down dirty air over Angelenos .
Another factor making the ongoing fire season ’ s air quality so hazardous is the sheer scale of the ongoing wildfires .
With the amount of smoke these blazes are spewing , it becomes almost impossible to avoid it , even indoors .
“ Outdoor pollution always comes inside , ” said Ronald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at UC Berkeley .
“ How much it does that depends on the local construction of homes.
” In parts of the West Coast with year-round moderate weather , like the San Francisco Bay Area , buildings are not always sealed to keep air out or in .
In the Los Angeles area , about one in five households don ’ t have air conditioning .
In the Bay Area , almost two-thirds of homes are without cooling .
With the recent record-breaking heat across the West Coast , stagnant air under high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over urban areas .
The California Department of Public Health recommends staying indoors during periods of high air pollution and using tactics like running air conditioners with air filters and using a room air cleaner that has a high-efficiency particulate air ( HEPA ) filter .
But people without adequate cooling have been forced to choose between sealing up inside and opening windows to the smoke .
On top of this , the region is also coping with the Covid-19 pandemic .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the hazards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 .
“ Exposure to air pollutants in wildfire smoke can irritate the lungs , cause inflammation , alter immune function , and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections , likely including COVID-19 , ” according to the CDC .
Together , these factors are fueling an urgent health crisis across a massive swath of the western United States .
Wildfire season is far from over Wildfires in the western United States this year have already proved to be massive and stunning .
In Oregon , all 82,000 residents of the town of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Almeda Fire encroached .
California has also been hit hard .
The Bear Fire , which is part of the North Complex Fire , ignited Tuesday morning before spreading over more than 250,000 acres in 24 hours .
It ’ s just one of more than two dozen major wildfires burning across the state in what has already been an extreme and unusual fire season .
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( Cal Fire ) , wildfires across the state have now burned more than 2.2 million acres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record amount , and there ’ s still four months left in the year .
The ongoing fires have killed at least eight people and destroyed more than 3,300 structures .
“ Wildfires have always been a part of the landscape in the West , but they ’ ve gotten so much worse , ” said Paulson .
There are several key factors making wildfires more dangerous , almost all of them driven by humans .
People are building more in high-risk areas for fires .
That increases the risk of igniting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While many of the blazes that ignited in California in August were triggered by lightning strikes , the vast majority of wildfires are caused by people , whether via unattended camp fires , poorly protected power lines , or arson .
People have also suppressed many of the naturally occurring wildfires in the region , allowing vegetation to accumulate and subsequently dry out during periods of drought and extreme heat .
That leaves more fuel to burn than would have been present if fires were to burn their natural course , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And humans are changing the climate .
The surge in heat trapping gases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm up .
That is causing some of the forests in the West to dry out , making them vulnerable to pests like bark beetles and allowing them to burn more readily .
Climate change is also increasing the likelihood of periods of extreme heat that help provide the ideal fuel for massive wildfires .
That ’ s why crimson skies and hazy air have become an alarmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the West .
“ We find ourselves in these fire seasons where the number of people who are impacted by multiple days of high concentrations of particulate matter is really unique to the last few years , ” said the California Air Resources Board ’ s MacPherson .
“ We ’ re talking millions of people.
” As we head into autumn , California ’ s strong seasonal winds are also poised to pick up .
The Diablo winds in the north and the Santa Ana winds in the south can gust at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires and embers over wide swaths of dried out vegetation .
The combination of fuel , heat , high winds , and low humidity have led to red flag warnings for 28 million people living across Arizona , Washington , Oregon , California , and Nevada .
In California , the coming days will bring “ strong , gusty winds and low humidity , increasing activity on current fires and can cause new fire starts to grow rapidly , ” according to Cal Fire .
So until cooler , wetter weather sets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it may be months before the West can breathe easy .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Record-setting wildfires burning across Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington are ejecting soot, ash, and smoke into the air amid searing heat.
Thick clouds of particles are wafting over cities and rural areas alike, and turned the Bay Areas’s azure skies ruddy on Wednesday. Why is the air so orange? The tiny motes that comprise smoke are scattering the longer light wavelengths of reds and oranges to overwhelm the shorter wavelengths of blue, dimming the sun and creating a midday twilight.
But beyond the eerie glow, the smoke may be one of the biggest health threats from wildfires to people who are even hundreds of miles from the flames.
In several areas along the West Coast, air quality has degraded to the worst category: “hazardous.” For example, in Mendocino County, wildfires have made breathing the air like smoking 12 cigarettes in a day.
“The one thing that we’ve noticed in this season in particular … is just the geographic scale of the wildfire smoke, because there are so many large fires,” said Amy MacPherson, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board.
The smoke from these wildfires is adding more stress to communities already battling Covid-19 and health systems already burdened with extra patients. The dirty air could also worsen the symptoms associated with the respiratory infection. And in the coming days and weeks, the ongoing fires may continue to rage, with new ones cropping up.
Smoke from wildfires is posing a health hazard to millions of people
It’s easy to lose sight of the smoke for the flames, especially when so many massive fires are burning at the same time. However, the billowing plumes from fires can become a major threat to the heart and lungs.
The smoke itself is a mixture of gases and particles like volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, soot, and ash. Right away, they can cause watery eyes and scratchy throats. But the biggest threats from smoke come from some of the tiniest particles, particularly those with a diameter smaller than 2.5 microns, known as PM2.5. These particles can penetrate deep into the airways, exacerbating heart and lung problems.
“Individuals with heart and lung conditions should be aware of the additional risk during smoky conditions as wildfire smoke can increase the potential risk for serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, such as heart attack and stroke,” a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health told Vox in an email. “These risks are especially significant among persons over the age of 65.”
Persistent exposure to these kinds of fine particles can be deadly. According to the World Health Organization, fine particle pollution, which can come from trucks, factories, and dust, leads to 7 million deaths per year around the world. Wildfire smoke poses a unique health threat compared to pollution from other sources. Suzanne Paulson, chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic science at the University of California Los Angeles, noted there is emerging research indicating that wildfire smoke may be more toxic for a given mass than typical urban pollution.
“The thing that is really different about wildfire smoke particles is that they have a bunch of unburned [or] partly burned plant material,” she said. “In the general urban pollution soup, it’s a relatively small component, whereas in wildfire smoke it’s very dominant.”
That unburned organic plant material can interact with metal elements, from other sources or the plants themselves, and increase the toxicity of those metals in the body. That can lead to more inflammation or cause neurological problems.
Parts of the West Coast like Los Angeles also have landscape and climate features that enhance the risk of pollutants like PM2.5. “We have really amazing geography for trapping pollution over the city,” Paulson said. Mountains surrounding Los Angeles can act as a basin, while the city’s location between the ocean and the desert creates multiple atmospheric configurations that pin down dirty air over Angelenos.
Another factor making the ongoing fire season’s air quality so hazardous is the sheer scale of the ongoing wildfires. With the amount of smoke these blazes are spewing, it becomes almost impossible to avoid it, even indoors.
“Outdoor pollution always comes inside,” said Ronald Cohen, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at UC Berkeley. “How much it does that depends on the local construction of homes.”
In parts of the West Coast with year-round moderate weather, like the San Francisco Bay Area, buildings are not always sealed to keep air out or in. In the Los Angeles area, about one in five households don’t have air conditioning. In the Bay Area, almost two-thirds of homes are without cooling.
With the recent record-breaking heat across the West Coast, stagnant air under high atmospheric pressure has trapped pollution from wildfires over urban areas.
The California Department of Public Health recommends staying indoors during periods of high air pollution and using tactics like running air conditioners with air filters and using a room air cleaner that has a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.
But people without adequate cooling have been forced to choose between sealing up inside and opening windows to the smoke.
On top of this, the region is also coping with the Covid-19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the hazards of wildfire pollution can increase the risks of Covid-19. “Exposure to air pollutants in wildfire smoke can irritate the lungs, cause inflammation, alter immune function, and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, likely including COVID-19,” according to the CDC.
Together, these factors are fueling an urgent health crisis across a massive swath of the western United States.
Wildfire season is far from over
Wildfires in the western United States this year have already proved to be massive and stunning.
In Oregon, all 82,000 residents of the town of Medford were evacuated Tuesday evening as the Almeda Fire encroached.
California has also been hit hard. The Bear Fire, which is part of the North Complex Fire, ignited Tuesday morning before spreading over more than 250,000 acres in 24 hours. It’s just one of more than two dozen major wildfires burning across the state in what has already been an extreme and unusual fire season.
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), wildfires across the state have now burned more than 2.2 million acres this year across all jurisdictions, a record amount, and there’s still four months left in the year. The ongoing fires have killed at least eight people and destroyed more than 3,300 structures.
“Wildfires have always been a part of the landscape in the West, but they’ve gotten so much worse,” said Paulson.
There are several key factors making wildfires more dangerous, almost all of them driven by humans. People are building more in high-risk areas for fires. That increases the risk of igniting a wildfire and the damage they can do. While many of the blazes that ignited in California in August were triggered by lightning strikes, the vast majority of wildfires are caused by people, whether via unattended camp fires, poorly protected power lines, or arson.
People have also suppressed many of the naturally occurring wildfires in the region, allowing vegetation to accumulate and subsequently dry out during periods of drought and extreme heat. That leaves more fuel to burn than would have been present if fires were to burn their natural course, or if more prescribed burns were conducted.
And humans are changing the climate. The surge in heat trapping gases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm up. That is causing some of the forests in the West to dry out, making them vulnerable to pests like bark beetles and allowing them to burn more readily. Climate change is also increasing the likelihood of periods of extreme heat that help provide the ideal fuel for massive wildfires.
That’s why crimson skies and hazy air have become an alarmingly regular part of life for many in the West. “We find ourselves in these fire seasons where the number of people who are impacted by multiple days of high concentrations of particulate matter is really unique to the last few years,” said the California Air Resources Board’s MacPherson. “We’re talking millions of people.”
As we head into autumn, California’s strong seasonal winds are also poised to pick up. The Diablo winds in the north and the Santa Ana winds in the south can gust at speeds topping 70 mph, rapidly spreading fires and embers over wide swaths of dried out vegetation.
The combination of fuel, heat, high winds, and low humidity have led to red flag warnings for 28 million people living across Arizona, Washington, Oregon, California, and Nevada. In California, the coming days will bring “strong, gusty winds and low humidity, increasing activity on current fires and can cause new fire starts to grow rapidly,” according to Cal Fire.
So until cooler, wetter weather sets in, fires will continue to burn, and it may be months before the West can breathe easy.


vox--2020-09-09--The international controversy over Disney’s Mulan, explained

Disney ’ s new live-action film Mulan has become a global sensation , but not just for the reason the storied production company hoped .
Some viewers who paid to stream the movie on Disney+ last weekend found something troubling in the credits : Disney thanked eight government bodies in Xinjiang , a western province in China where around 2 million Uighur Muslims have been forced into concentration camps by the Chinese government .
It turns out parts of Mulan were filmed in Xinjiang two years ago , well after the world knew about Beijing ’ s plan to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s simply shocking , as there ’ s no excuse for Disney executives to have been unaware of the human rights abuses taking place just miles from the filming sites .
Plus , the film had courted controversy for some time , as its lead actress last year supported Hong Kong ’ s law enforcement over pro-democracy protesters , launching the # BoycottMulan social media movement .
For several years now , China has been systematically repressing its Uighur Muslim minority in that region — subjecting men , women , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , forced sterilization , family separation , and brainwashing , among other horrors .
They add to the Chinese government ’ s other abuses , such as banning expressions of Islamic faith .
Even worse , the film credits specifically praise the police security bureau in Turpan , a city in eastern Xinjiang with a large Uighur population .
That bureau is tasked with running some of the internment camps , experts say , and was blacklisted last year along with other Chinese law enforcement agencies by the US Commerce Department , prohibiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them .
It ’ s unclear if Disney and Turpan ’ s police bureau or other similar agencies interacted much or at all during filming , but it ’ s still not a good look .
A spokesperson for China ’ s foreign ministry this week insisted the camps are simply “ vocational skills education and training centers , ” even though ample evidence suggests that isn ’ t true .
Disney didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .
Some who ’ ve seen the film say it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chauvinism , ” as Mao Zedong termed it ) , the idea that all parts of China — including native Uighur and Kazakh lands , among others — should be governed and dominated by ethnic Han Chinese , the majority ethnic group in China .
Many leaders in the ruling Communist Party , like autocratic President Xi Jinping , are Han .
The villain in the new Disney film leads a group of assassins clearly coded as Muslims , said Darren Byler , an anthropologist at the University of Colorado Boulder who studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the characters are dark-skinned , wear turbans , and are dressed eerily like ISIS terrorists in their videos , some experts say .
The film “ traffics in Islamophobia , ” Byler argues , and presents Mulan , the protagonist , as “ a defender of the Chinese colonization of northwest China.
” He added : “ It was as if Xinjiang was simply a blank canvas , a land without an indigenous history.
” Human rights activists and many regional experts are angry at all of this , with some using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media campaign around awareness about the film .
“ In Hollywood movies , they claim to embrace social justice .
In fact , they kowtow to autocratic China disgracefully , ” Nathan Law , an activist pushing for a more democratic Hong Kong , tweeted on Monday .
“ They shamed themselves by upholding values they don ’ t even believe in .
Movies , should be more than money.
” Law has another reason to be upset about the film .
Last year , Liu Yifei — the Chinese-born American actress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came out in support of law enforcement officials in Hong Kong who were cracking down on pro-democracy demonstrators .
“ I support the Hong Kong police .
You can all attack me now .
What a shame for Hong Kong , ” she wrote in August 2019 on Weibo , a Chinese social media site .
Her statement prompted the initial calls to boycott the film .
It ’ s unclear if the social media campaign will doom the film ’ s success , which cost $ 200 million to make .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 million so far and will likely make much more when it premieres in China on Friday .
Still , # BoycottMulan has shown that the Chinese government ’ s human rights violations will no longer be ignored — and even companies as powerful as Disney may need to change how they engage with China going forward .
“ There is clearly a cost now to companies who remain intentionally ignorant of what ’ s going on in China , ” said James Millward , a Georgetown University world history professor .
Corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China over its treatment of the Uighurs — if they chose to Some major companies now find themselves enveloped in a firestorm , Millward said , whenever it becomes clear that they haven ’ t pushed back on Beijing for its mistreatment of the Uighurs .
In 2018 , for instance , the consulting company McKinsey held a retreat in Kashgar , China — just four miles from a Uighur internment camp .
The New York Times reported on that event , calling out the famous firm : Last year , Japanese clothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Xinjiang cotton .
“ Made of organic cotton delicately and wholly handpicked in Xinjiang , the men ’ s Oxford Shirts of MUJI are soft and breathable with a clean design , ” Muji ’ s website read .
Uniqlo ’ s site also at the time boasted its clothes were “ Made from Xinjiang Cotton , famous for its superb quality.
” Activists publicly shamed both companies .
“ What !
They ’ re actually using that as a slogan ?
” Sophie Richardson , China director for Human Rights Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
“ Have they somehow missed two straight years of news about gross human rights violations in Xinjiang ?
” Now , says Georgetown ’ s Millward , “ we can put Disney in an elite section of companies caught in this firestorm.
” Instead of promoting anti-Uighur , pro-Chinese government narratives , companies like Disney could use their clout to pressure leaders in Beijing to end what Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign calls a “ genocide.
” For a company like Disney , that could mean not filming in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewers , or — at the most extreme level — completely cut off any ties to the country .
But any one of those options , from the smallest to the nuclear one , are hard for any corporation to take , mainly because China is such a large and lucrative market .
And if companies do anything to anger Beijing , like not promote a government-friendly narrative in a movie about China , there ’ s a chance Disney would lose access to that market .
“ They are caught between a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Millward said .
And yet , human rights groups have urged other major brands to cut ties with suppliers in Xinjiang .
As Vox ’ s Terry Nguyen reported , “ In March , the nonpartisan think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute published a report detailing how 82 foreign and Chinese companies have direct or indirect ties to the Xinjiang region and beyond based on their supply chain.
” Among those companies : Amazon , Apple , Dell , Nike , Nintendo , Uniqlo , Victoria ’ s Secret , and Zara .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winter Olympics in 2022 .
That kind of event provides a big boost to a nation ’ s image — just like the 2008 games in China ’ s capital did .
Corporate sponsorships of the events provide even more international legitimacy .
A company may see paying to have its logo featured at the games as just an endorsement of the competition , but others will see it also as an endorsement of the host country .
A lack of corporate sponsors would also mean a lack of funds , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Olympic Committee to pick a new country to host the games .
That ’ s a long shot , experts told me , but those who want China to stop interning Uighurs and other minorities should take advantage of the high-profile event to put Beijing on notice .
For now , though , big movie companies might do better to avoid filming in Xinjiang and not help the Chinese government paper over human rights atrocities .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as little as $ 3 .

Disney’s new live-action film Mulan has become a global sensation, but not just for the reason the storied production company hoped.
Some viewers who paid to stream the movie on Disney+ last weekend found something troubling in the credits: Disney thanked eight government bodies in Xinjiang, a western province in China where around 2 million Uighur Muslims have been forced into concentration camps by the Chinese government. It turns out parts of Mulan were filmed in Xinjiang two years ago, well after the world knew about Beijing’s plan to “reeducate” Uighurs with Communist Party doctrine.
That’s simply shocking, as there’s no excuse for Disney executives to have been unaware of the human rights abuses taking place just miles from the filming sites. Plus, the film had courted controversy for some time, as its lead actress last year supported Hong Kong’s law enforcement over pro-democracy protesters, which led to the #BoycottMulan social media movement.
For several years now, China has been systematically repressing its Uighur Muslim minority in that region — subjecting men, women, and children to torture, sexual abuse, forced sterilization, family separation, and brainwashing, among other horrors. They add to the Chinese government’s other abuses, such as banning expressions of Islamic faith.
Even worse, the film credits specifically praise the police security bureau in Turpan, a city in eastern Xinjiang with a large Uighur population. That bureau is tasked with running some of the internment camps, experts say, and was blacklisted last year along with other Chinese law enforcement agencies by the US Commerce Department, prohibiting US companies from selling or supplying products to them.
It’s unclear if Disney and Turpan’s police bureau or other similar agencies interacted much or at all during filming, but it’s still not a good look.
A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry this week insisted the camps are simply “vocational skills education and training centers,” even though ample evidence suggests that isn’t true. Disney didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Mulan specifically thank the publicity department of CPC Xinjiang uyghur autonomous region committee in the credits.
You know, the place where the cultural genocide is happening.
They filmed extensively in Xinjiang, which the subtitles call “Northwest China”#BoycottMulan pic.twitter.com/mba3oMYDvV — Jeannette Ng 吳志麗 (@jeannette_ng) September 7, 2020
Some who’ve seen the film say it also promotes Han supremacism (or “Han chauvinism,” as Mao Zedong, China’s communist leader and the founder of the People’s Republic of China, termed it), the idea that all parts of China — including native Uighur and Kazakh lands, among others — should be governed and dominated by ethnic Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China. Many leaders in the ruling Communist Party, like President Xi Jinping, are Han.
The villain in the new Disney film leads a group of assassins clearly coded as Muslims, said Darren Byler, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado Boulder who studies the Chinese government’s oppression of Uighurs. For instance, the characters are dark-skinned, wear turbans, and are dressed eerily like ISIS terrorists in their videos, some experts say.
The film “traffics in Islamophobia,” Byler argues, and presents Mulan, the protagonist, as “a defender of the Chinese colonization of northwest China.” He added: “It was as if Xinjiang was simply a blank canvas, a land without an indigenous history.”
Human rights activists and many regional experts are angry at all of this, with some using the hashtag #BoycottMulan to build a social media campaign around awareness about the film.
“In Hollywood movies, they claim to embrace social justice. In fact, they kowtow to autocratic China disgracefully,” Nathan Law, an activist pushing for a more democratic Hong Kong, tweeted on Monday. “They shamed themselves by upholding values they don’t even believe in. Movies, should be more than money.”
Law has another reason to be upset about the film. Last year, Liu Yifei — the Chinese-born American actress who plays Mulan in the movie — came out in support of law enforcement officials in Hong Kong who were cracking down on pro-democracy demonstrators. “I support the Hong Kong police. You can all attack me now. What a shame for Hong Kong,” she wrote in August 2019 on Weibo, a Chinese social media site. Her statement prompted the initial calls to boycott the film.
It’s unclear if the social media campaign will doom the film’s success, which cost $200 million to make. It’s reeled in upward of $6 million so far and will likely make much more when it premieres in China on Friday. Still, #BoycottMulan has shown that the Chinese government’s human rights violations will no longer be ignored — and even companies as powerful as Disney may need to change how they engage with China going forward.
“There is clearly a cost now to companies who remain intentionally ignorant of what’s going on in China,” said James Millward, a Georgetown University world history professor.
Corporations like Disney could put real pressure on China over its treatment of the Uighurs — if they chose to
Some major companies now find themselves enveloped in a firestorm, Millward said, whenever it becomes clear that they haven’t pushed back on Beijing for its mistreatment of the Uighurs.
In 2018, for instance, the consulting company McKinsey held a retreat in Kashgar, China — just four miles from a Uighur internment camp. The New York Times reported on that event, calling out the famous firm:
At a time when democracies and their basic values are increasingly under attack, the iconic American company has helped raise the stature of authoritarian and corrupt governments across the globe, sometimes in ways that counter American interests.
Last year, the Japanese clothing companies Muji and Uniqlo promoted their use of Xinjiang cotton. “Made of organic cotton delicately and wholly handpicked in Xinjiang, the men’s Oxford Shirts of MUJI are soft and breathable with a clean design,” Muji’s website read. Uniqlo’s site at the time also boasted its clothes were “Made from Xinjiang Cotton, famous for its superb quality.”
Activists publicly shamed both companies. “What! They’re actually using that as a slogan?” Sophie Richardson, China director for Human Rights Watch, told Australia’s ABC last year. “Have they somehow missed two straight years of news about gross human rights violations in Xinjiang?”
Now, says Georgetown’s Millward, “we can put Disney in an elite section of companies caught in this firestorm.”
Instead of promoting anti-Uighur, pro-Chinese government narratives, companies like Disney could use their clout to pressure leaders in Beijing to end what Joe Biden’s presidential campaign calls a “genocide.”
For a company like Disney, that could mean not filming in the country anymore, delaying releases for their viewers, or — at the most extreme level — completely cutting ties with the country. But any one of those options, from the smallest to the nuclear one, are hard for any corporation to take, mainly because China is such a large and lucrative market. And if companies do anything to anger Beijing, like not promote a government-friendly narrative in a movie about China, there’s a chance Disney would lose access to that market.
“They are caught between a rock and a hard place,” Millward said.
Yet human rights groups have urged other major brands to cut ties with suppliers in Xinjiang. As Vox’s Terry Nguyen reported, “In March, the nonpartisan think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute published a report detailing how 82 foreign and Chinese companies have direct or indirect ties to the Xinjiang region and beyond based on their supply chain.” Among those companies: Amazon, Apple, Dell, Nike, Nintendo, Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret, and Zara.
Companies could also leverage the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022. That kind of event provides a big boost to a nation’s image — just like the 2008 games in China’s capital did. Corporate sponsorships of the events provide even more international legitimacy. A company may see paying to have its logo featured at the games as just an endorsement of the competition, but others will see it also as an endorsement of the host country.
A lack of corporate sponsors would also mean a lack of funds, and a large public outcry could in theory force the Olympic Committee to pick a new country to host the games. That’s a long shot, experts told me, but those who want China to stop interning Uighurs and other minorities should take advantage of the high-profile event to put Beijing on notice.
For now, though, big movie companies might do better to avoid filming in Xinjiang and not help the Chinese government paper over human rights atrocities.