The Golden Rule without Christ: He who has the gold, rules.
It appears our British cousins do not subscribe to the artistic freedom idea, at least not when it pertains to political-correctness. Exercising the Golden Rule without Christ, they will require film-makers who want to receive funding from the British Film Institute to “ensure diversity in films” by “ticking” at least two of three criteria. The filmmaker must provide on-screen diversity, off-screen diversity and “creating opportunities for social mobility.”
Here is how the “tick” system will work:
… at least one lead character must be “positively reflecting diversity,” with the project 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.”
Off-screen, at least two heads of department must be from diverse backgrounds.
And the third category requires companies to offer paid internships and jobs to “new entrants from diverse backgrounds” and to help them progress, The Telegraph reported
According to their website, the British Film Institute is supported by the British Lottery. According to the British Lottery’s web site, they are a UK government institution. I don’t know very much about British law. For instance, they say they are created by a “Royal Charter.” I have no idea what a Royal Charter might be.
But, this sounds like government censorship to me. In fact, it sounds as if the government is telling script-writers and film-makers what kind of characters they should have in their films. Unless I’m mistaken, they are telling writers that their scripts must include a specific type of character in a main role and that this character must be written about in a favorable light. They are then telling filmmakers that they must follow through by making their film with this kind of character, who is seen in this favorable light.
The government intrusion into artistic expression in this is obvious. I don’t see how anyone can dispute it. It is direct, government control of artistic expression for the express purpose of controlling the attitudes and beliefs of the populace.
In addition to that horror, it is also vague and arbitrary enough to drive any abuse you want right straight through it. How, for instance, will a filmmaker who so desperately wants the money that they are willing to sacrifice their artistic freedom to get it, going to know when they are in compliance? When will they know that a character is favorable enough? Would a gay character who is a murderer or a bank robber be verboten because villains are unfavorable? Must this check-off-to-be-in-compliance character always be the hero of the piece?
How does anyone create art in a situation this fraught and formulaic?
It’s a messy business, dictating artistic expression. It inevitably leads to the death of art and the reign of tedious and boring propaganda.
What has happened to the UK? What, indeed, is happening to Western civilization?
British filmmakers must now meet new targets for ethnic minority, gay and female characters on- and off-screen if they wish to continue receiving funding from Britain’s largest public film.
The British Film Institute has revealed its “Three Ticks” scheme, which will be implemented in September to ensure diversity in films and behind the scenes, The Telegraph reported. Films must “tick” at least two of three criteria: on-screen diversity; off-screen diversity and “creating opportunities and social mobilitythe paper reported.