Skip to main content

2.4K Messages

 • 

72.9K Points

Wed, Aug 26, 2020 1:08 AM

Face-Off: Gender Neutral Awards

At the 70th Berlin Film Festival, Paula Beer and Elio Germano won the awards for Best Actress and Best Actor. They will be the last persons to win each award.

Starting in 2021, the Berlinale is dropping both awards, which will be replaced by gender neutral Leading Performance and Supporting Performance Awards.

Both men and women will be eligible to win the awards in a movement described by the co-heads of the festival, Mariette Rissenbeek and Carlo Chatrian, as "a signal for a more gender-sensitive awareness in the film industry."

How do you feel about this change?

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls081224478/

Responses

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

2 months ago

We need a third "I don't give a sh--" option.

1.4K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

2 months ago

Not a good idea! The possibility of awarding a great performance will (obviously) be limited

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.2K Points

2 months ago

Well for the sake of coherence, they should have gender-neutral toilets during the festival and guests will have to wear gender-neutral clothes... also they have to get ready for a massive blacklash if two men win the awards.


Of course its a stupid idea, restrictive and opportunistic, but the Academy will follow that trend, you better believe it. And they will use another name than Oscar... too masculine-sounding.

2.4K Messages

 • 

72.9K Points

That's what I thought, probably it won't be the case at Berlin, but if it goes mainstream, you will have a Woman winning obe year and a man the next or it will create a scandal about gender preferences.

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

I doubt the Oscars would do it if it meant fewer acting awards to present.

2.4K Messages

 • 

72.9K Points

And they have had very negative reactions every last time they attempted to change things. Probably other Festivals and minor awards may follow the example, but for the time being I don't think big awards will.

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.2K Points

2 months ago

By the way, how does that achieve equality?

1.4K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

Not related to this but you need to repost your poll suggestion 'Memorable Torso Movie Scenes' - It was caught in the IMDB problems a couple of days ago

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

2 months ago

Western Europe was the cradle of the Renaissance.

It has now become the cradle of the De-naissance.

Sad.

838 Messages

 • 

26.2K Points

2 months ago

I don't have a problem with it but it would be a good idea to expand the number of nominations per award. I don't know if it would be smart to just pool the nominees that would have been best actor/actress together or just nominate like the 10 best regardless of gender.

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.2K Points

But you dont fix something if its not broken... 2 male winners... 2 female winners... fair and square.

838 Messages

 • 

26.2K Points

Well if they keep those split awards, they should split best Director as well because I would be interested to see if more women would get higher grade director jobs. Again I don't have a problem either way, just interesting to think how they would handle the change.

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.2K Points

The directing is another matter... I agree that the vast majority of nominees have always been male... but I guess something in the old days didnt encourage women to pursue a career in directing... things have changed thanks to pioneers like Ida Lupino or Mira Nair and thats great but talent should be the standard not gender...

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

So "talent should be the standard not gender" applies to directing, but not acting awards?

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.2K Points

Absolutely Peter

Gender is irrelevant behind the camera... a role is different... its like comparing a coach and an athlete

(edited)

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

Male actors and female actors do the same job, not different jobs. This is the reason to make this change, and I can't really argue with it even though I might prefer to stick with tradition.

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

Gender is irrelevant behind the camera... a role is different... its like comparing a coach and an athlete

 

Fine, that is your thesis, but where are your arguments. We can't compare the cinema with sports. Most of the time, in sports, women are disadvantaged when competing with men, that is just fact. Women aren't playing in the NBA or the NHL, because they wouldn't be competitive enough. 

 

However, (except for the number of roles), there are absolutely no disadvantages of being a woman or a man when you are acting in a film.

4.2K Messages

 • 

126.2K Points

Did I say something wrong? My point is simply that:

 

- men and women have equal skills and talent when it comes to directing, writing, editing or anything else, no need to argue on that, we all agree.

 

- there were less women in the directorial side of the job probably for social reasons,  there weren't many women in leadership positions to begin with (business,  politics etc.) and directing a film wasn't just an artistic endeavor, so maybe women were disadvantaged, but it didn't prevent some to become directors

 

(it's much ironic that one of the greatest filmmakers of the 30s was a woman that worked for the Third Reich, the "Olympia" two-parter is certainly the seminal sport film and one of the best documentaries of all time and yet it came from the director of "Triumph of the Will", so women could be as talented as men and as controversial, which is fine).

 

- performing is not the same thing than acting because gender plays a role. Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara was the characterization of a  typical Southern belle that learned how to be independent and tough in an old patriarcal order.  Bette Davis could have played the role, maybe not Greta Garbo. As "Marty", Ernest Bognine embodied the figure of the average Joe trying to find love in an environment full of family pressure and where the diktat of the macho guy made him an outcast, Rod Steiger could have played the part, but not a handsome actor like Paul Newman, it had to be an average looking guy.

 

There are varieties of role in the world and it's only fine to divide them into separate categories, nothing implies that one is superior to other, but each enriches film-making through unspoken statement on figures defined by their gender, their looks, their ethnic background etc. Each role a man or a woman plays reflects a figure that belongs to the gender, and I can hold the same argument for ethnicity. Not that it prevented women to play male roles and have their performances acclaimed or awarded for that.

 

Now to put a little water in the wine, it's not totally true that gender doesn't play a role behind the camera because a director still brings his or her personal sensitivity in the way the camera gazes at the characters or the way the story unfolds.

 

The comparison with sports is just to assess that we don't watch a sport regardless of the gender, many people who love football (soccer) don't care about female competition, so maybe women are disadvantaged but would you blame male audiences for not being as enthralled by female soccer than male? or female audiences who don't care about soccer? And maybe there are fields where men are disadvantaged, I don't know maybe figure skating or modeling.

 

Anyway, concerning cinema, 5 male roles, 5 female roles, like I said, it's fair and square, and audiences are as interested by male than female roles as long as it's relevant and coherent.

 

 

5 Messages

 • 

140 Points

2 months ago

Give the price to a chimpanzee.

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Or a watermelon.

 

There is an old story about a village of idiots that crowned a watermelon king. I believe it originated in the Middle East; Elmo might be familiar with it.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

Nygma, 

 

I have googled watermelon king and only got results for a book, but anyway, I don't believe that crowning an object is a bad idea...

 

This pretty much explains my opinion:

Guru Granth Sahib

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nKqiXz5zOU&ab_channel=NanakNaam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib#Meaning_and_role_in_Sikhism

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-guru-in-Sri-Guru-Granth-Sahib

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofMIA154088&ab_channel=SikhiGian

(edited)

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

As usual, I suck with details; it was a poem, not a story; it's from India, not the Middle East; and it was just a melon, not a watermelon.

 

https://genius.com/Vikram-seth-the-tale-of-melon-city-annotated

 

(In another news, hyperlinks are now being automatically parsed.)

Champion

 • 

6K Messages

 • 

175.6K Points

2 months ago

I'd suggest a third option: I hate considering gender but because women receive only 30% as many speaking parts as men, female actors are automatically at a disadvantage when awards don't consider sex or gender. When the film industry treats male, female, and gender fluid actors equally, I will definitely support genderless awards.

 

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Indeed, we need people of each of the 58 genders to have 1.72% of the speaking parts in the movies

2.4K Messages

 • 

72.9K Points

I couldn't find a Berlin Film Festival related image, but I added it with a picture of a group of male actors. Thanks.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

2 months ago

I support their decision, indeed women disadvantaged since they get fewer speaking roles, but awards shouldn't be about percentages of minority representation, it should be about representing outstanding jobs.

Champion

 • 

7.3K Messages

 • 

253.8K Points

2 months ago