Now that Big Tech has decided to join Hollywood in creating content, they appear to have embraced their opportunity to help build a new utopia. They have done with this enthusiasm, broadcasting their efforts to overhaul every aspect of cinema from writing to production to casting to thematic content. Where once propagandastic efforts had to be hidden from the view of the public, now it is worn as a bad of honor.
Big tech is even more powerful than Hollywood, and maybe more powerful than any government in the world. If Jeff Bezos at Amazon wants movies at Amazon to reflect a specific ideology he can do that and, as the richest man in the world, the profit motive is not his main concern. He seeks instead, like Mark Zuckerberg, like Bill Gates, and like Jack Dorsey to be emperors of a kind, helping to cultivate our modern utopia.
Amazon has released its new inclusion standards and policies. The press has been mostly quiet about it, because who would dare speak up? What can they say about it? Nothing. It’s their choice. Profit is not a concern so they can tell people what kinds of products they want to make. It’s all in the name of good, right?
It’s one thing to encourage inclusive hirings behind the camera, but once they start getting into storytelling and the formation of characters, content, and theme to promote a specific ideology then we are no longer looking at art. We are looking at full-blown, unapologetic propaganda.
The problem is that once you announce your intentions, people will see nothing but that in your eventual product. Most audiences today, old and young, can see a “woke” message. coming from a mile away. The more a film lectures them the less likely they are to want to watch it.
Obviously, propaganda is nothing new. It has been threaded through most of the mainstream Hollywood films for decades. But what has changed now, I think, is that the left is no longer the side that pushes back against it. This is looking more and more like a kind of list of demands being met or else the company will be called out and shamed on social media. The new doctrine of the new left is a kind of Marxist ideology where inequality cannot and will not be tolerated. Satire, humor, subversive content all seems to be disposable in the Brave New World that we are cultivating.
The problem, of course, is that it might have worked during COVID, during Trump perhaps. But it isn’t going to be something the public has any appetite for in any major way. Film Twitter might be down with it, at least temporarily, but we come to art because we have a need for it. We aren’t coming to art to go to school on how to think, or how we should live our lives. Thus, I expect this will have a negative effect on the films Amazon releases during this era of strident ideology.
We’ll be able to tag this era very easily by the films made right now. They will all have the same kind of messaging. The same kind of casting. And, despite their desire for “Authenticity”, it will be anything but. It can’t be authentic if it’s contrived to serve a specific ideology or meet a list of demands. No kind of art could survive this. Not visual art, not playwriting, not fiction, and not cinema.
When it comes to Big Tech like Amazon or Netflix or Apple getting in on the movie business game, or the Oscar game, the market no longer decides. It doesn’t matter how many people pay to see these films. The public has no say. They don’t care if no one watches them because making them helps their brand. It’s like McDonald’s offering up vegan options or salads. It helps their brand to make healthy foods because they are making their money another way. In this era, brand and image is everything.
It is my hope, however, that art can find a way. If not in my lifetime, hopefully in the next.
Here are a few quotes from Amazon’s Inclusion playbook and Inclusion Policy – imagine being the people hired to monitor the films to make sure they meet all of these criteria. Better yet, imagine movies like The Exorcist, Blue Velvet, Chinatown, Do the Right Thing, Bull Durham, Casablanca, The Player being made under these rules:
Developing Stories and Characters:
We encourage pitches, scripts, and stories from storytellers of all backgrounds, including those from underrepresented communities. Consistent with our Content Guidelines, Amazon Originals should reflect the wide diversity of our customers and recognize the dignity of all people by avoiding demeaning stereotypes and harmful tropes. For this reason, characterizations based on race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, disability (including mental health), body size or image, age, gender, gender identity, and gender expression should be made with care, and in each case will be subject to an enhanced review.StereotypingWe discourage stories that solely depict harmful or negative stereotypes, slurs, and dehumanizing language related to identity as well as narratives that link identity factors to jobs, religious beliefs, social class, or behavior.Historical DepictionsContent that features out-of-date historical stereotypes, language and iconography must avoid gratuitous use of such portrayals.Cultural AuthenticityWhen series regulars or lead characters portray people from underrepresented communities (women; underrepresented racial/ethnic groups; sexual orientation; gender identity; people with disabilities), we expect creative teams to make a concerted effort to hire above-the-line staff (directors, writers, producers and/or creators) who represent the identity groups depicted on screen. We will aim for 30% of the above-the-line staff to meet this goal in 2021. This aspirational goal will increase to 50% by 2024.
On the occasion when this is not possible, producers must indicate how they will identify and hire outside consultants/vendors, approved by Amazon, to provide culturally relevant expertise.Delivery of PlansPrior to principal photography, Amazon Studios and partners will work together to deliver their plans for how they plan to achieve the Inclusion Policy.
Report on Expectation AchievementAmazon Studios will provide a report template for each company to indicate whether the expectations were met. This report must be submitted within one month of completion of principal photography and will include:i. Gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability data on production-specific, above-the-line talent (Directors, Writers, Producers, Creators, credited actors) as well as below-the-line positions (department heads and seconds.)
ii. A full description of the film and episodic content that’s been created (i.e., storyline), and percentage or number of characters identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender, including non-binary, and those with a disability.
iii. The number and list of diverse suppliers hired for the production (including women-owned and minority-owned businesses).
Script-Based Descriptions & Stereotypes
The way that characters are described in a script can evoke stereotypes for casting directors, breakdown services, and even those reading for the part. Consider the following when describing characters in your script:
● Is there a reason to specify a character’s gender, race/ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, or disability in the script? Does source material specify a character’s identity in any way? Are you deviating from that depiction? Why or why not?
● Are there places where you should specify information about the characters’ background or identity (gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender expression, or disability) to help with casting? Consider sharing this information only if it is needed for the story.
● We recommend that writers be specific and authentic in their descriptions, to help casting directors and those reading for the part avoid harmful stereotypes.
Gendered or Sexualized Depictions
Sexualization can have negative effects on viewers. Sexualization of characters of all genders occurs on screen, but research indicates that women and LGBTQ characters are more likely than straight men to be sexualized. This begins when the script is written, with how your characters are described.
● Are your descriptions of characters grounded in their appearance, versus their personality? Are there descriptions of girls or women that lean toward their relationships or appearance, rather than who they are as characters? Are you writing about characters who are men in the same way? Are LGBTQ characters solely defined by their sexual identities? Are people with disabilities infantilized and/or desexualized?
● Are LGBTQ+ characters in overly feminized or masculine occupations? For example, are gay characters shown in appearance-related professions (fashion, entertainment, etc.)? Are they excluded from occupations in education, healthcare, or civil service (including police or fire department)?
● Although you may not realize it at the time you’re writing the story, adults are often cast to play teen roles. Consider carefully how these characters might be sexualized on screen. How might the descriptions you write about the characters be impacted if adults are cast in these roles?
Personality Traits
The description of a character’s personality or distinctive traits may lead to appearance-related stereotypes. Sometimes character descriptions are written in a way that draws upon stereotypes or tropes. This is particularly likely when writing women characters, or individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.
● Are you describing women’s personalities in ways that lead to assumptions about their sexuality? For example, are descriptions such as the “girl next door” used for characters?
● Be sure that your character descriptions do not evoke stereotypes related to women of color. Avoid use of the terms “exotic,” “feisty,” “sassy,” and other words stereotypically used to refer to underrepresented women. It is better to be specific — e.g. the lead is from Puerto Rico, loves to sing, and has a big group of friends.
● For LGBTQ+ women, ensure that personality traits do not play to stereotypes, either about femininity/masculinity or over-sexualization.
● Descriptions of people with disabilities may focus on aspects related to disability rather than a range of characteristics. Make sure your characters with disabilities are well-rounded and defined by more than their disability.
Consider asking the following questions when writing about romantic partners:
● Are women from all backgrounds and experiences defined solely by their relationship or relationship desires?
● Are men shown as dominating relationships or shown in romantic partnerships that revolve around their jobs and/or the demands of their work?
● Are there opportunities to include LGBTQ+ romantic partners in the story? Even if you are not able to depict the romantic partner, could your characters refer to their relational partners in the script?
● Are there opportunities to show underrepresented groups (including non-binary people, people of different religions, and people with disabilities) in romantic relationships that counter typical narratives?
Stereotypes & Humor
We understand that the best comedy can derive from the unexpected and be an agent of truth-telling. We urge content creators focusing on comedy, humor, or satire to engage with their material in deep ways. Ask the fundamental question: Are you the right person to tell this story and/or these jokes?
Begin by thinking about whether, as the storyteller, your humor comes from outside or inside the group at the center of the comedy. Out-group members using humor to mock or joke about characters from underrepresented groups can be highly problematic. Humor may reflect insensitivity, play to broad stereotypes, and reinforce historical tropes for members of underrepresented groups. Creators might try to challenge or spotlight stereotypes that have been oppressive—in other words, the comedy stems from good intentions. But content lacks authenticity when it doesn’t come from or take into account the perspectives of the in-group members at the core of the stereotype or context.
Humor may be used to illuminate the way a group has been treated, and can spotlight important ways that racism, sexism, and other biases and prejudices affect the lives of group members. One impulse content creators may have is to purposefully flip stereotypes or to deploy them in an exaggerated way to create humor. If you take this path, think critically about what role this stereotype has in your story. Make sure that by poking fun at stereotypes you are not inadvertently reinforcing the bias you seek to challenge.
Here are a few things to consider when you include humor in your storytelling:
● If characters from underrepresented backgrounds or historically marginalized groups only appear in your story to deliver humorous lines or as a source of amusement, this is problematic. Ask: Do these characters have any other depth or insight or do they merely serve to deliver comedy?
● If it’s the latter, how can you add depth to the characterization? Or, who else needs to weigh in to ensure the character is not one-dimensional?
● Review the script and story with members of the communities you are depicting to ensure authenticity and limit hurtful humor. Ask more than one individual to review the script/story. What audience members find amusing will differ from person to person. Your goal is to be certain that the jokes do not offend the communities featured in your story.