Hollywood Reporter: When Frances McDormand uttered the words "inclusion rider" in her acceptance speech at this year's Oscars, Google lit up with folks searching the term. Even the entertainment industry's savviest lawyers had to ask around for the exact meaning and derivation, although most could guess that it had something to do with ensuring diversity through contracts. Two weeks later, an increasing number of production companies are saying they will adopt inclusion riders, while WME co-CEO Ari Emanuel announced inclusion riders have become "imperative."
7 comments:
I probably do not know enough about this topic to be commenting on it, but here I go anyways. I think this is a pretty pessimistic outlook to take on this whole situation. Regardless of the practicality of the issue, the intent behind it is really strong and should be noted for what it is. The Hollywood elite are starting to actually take note of this situation and talk about what needs to be done. Sure, some of these promises are bound to be hollow and not really hold much weight, but that is going to happen regardless, and I am willing to bet they are the minority in this situation. McDormand is trying to get people talking and thinking about what actually needs to be done to fix this huge problem, and she succeeded. Even this article proves that. This issue needs people to start discussing and planning on how to actually enact this change, so yeah, her speech was good. It did what it needed to.
When I heard Frances McDormand's speech, I had no idea what she meant by inclusion rider. Once I learned what it meant I was hopeful that it could lead to some actual changes. However, this article took my hopefulness down a notch. Specifically the mention of equity riders. I had no idea that such a thing existed, mostly because I don’t think that it has done very much. There is still a large disparity in the wages of men and women, and between white people and minorities. I agree with the author of this article that there needs to be more transparency in these contracts if something like this is to make any real difference in the long run. This transparency is what made the #metoo movement so effective. Nothing was happening behind closed doors anymore, it was all on display for the public to see. I hope that this movement for inclusion has a similar or greater level of success. I still think that Ms. McDormand's speech was absolutely wonderful.
This article is less about why Inclusion Rider are bad and more about how Hollywood could render a good idea effectless. Many industries, like Hollywood, keep important aspects secretive. However, this article highlights how Hollywood’s secretiveness could prevent change. Though this many people pushing for Inclusion Riders, has already opened up the story. People have to keep pushing for the public to be able to see the phraseology in the contracts and to keep companies honest. In addition, these riders only work if there is a good “punishment” if the companies violate it. Contingency contracts are always risky because the people involved are essentially making a bet. For this reason, as the article does, we can be skeptical of Inclusion Rider, but since they have already made such a splash it might be a better use of time to figure out how to make them work. Hopefully, with or without Inclusion riders, Hollywood can figure out a way to make the industry more inclusive.
Last week I commented on an article, commending the recently under fire Ben Affleck and Matt Damon for adopting the inclusion rider concepts into their films, because I thought the inclusion rider was a brilliant concept that I did not necessarily see as being harmful. This article, however, may have altered my opinion on that. I still hold true to seeing a dire need for more inclusivity, as does McDormand and all the others opting for the inclusion rider, but at what price are we doing so. I think from the article there is some discomfort for the majority in not knowing what is truly included in the inclusion rider, but in all honesty, it is not something that the public needs to know, however (like Peter mentioned) transparency is what made the prominent movements widespread and successful. I still think progress needs to be made, and I think the inclusion rider is a strong first step. As long as the kinks are worked out and the inclusion riders actually come to fruition as being successful and accomplishing something, I am sure everyone will follow behind in support.
I am especially glad that this was one of the articles posted this week, as I think it is a great way to have more of a two sided conversation on the issues that have already been discussing over the past few months. As the article mentioned, I was one of the many who flocked to Google after hearing Francis McDormand's Oscar speech a few weeks ago to look up the definition of the term "inclusion rider". Similarly to my classmates who commented above, this legal action seemed like a good one to have added to production contracts at first. This article however, does make inclusion riders seem like they might not be worth all of the trouble, especially for minorities, that they might cause. The most jarring part about this article though, was how much power a speech like Francis MacDormand's had. I think that, while she may not have been promoting something that was totally helpful in the end, Francis McDormand and other celebrities like her have great power and I am so glad that they are using their power to start conversations like this one.
This is an interesting look at the fact the secrecy of inclusion riders means that we are not really able to judge their effectiveness. I find it telling that an insider publication like the Hollywood Reporter was not even able to access what is actually inside of an inclusion rider. Odds are that the details are purposefully being kept secret, so as to inhibit people’s ability to evaluate their effectiveness. If researchers and observers do not know what is actually “included” in inclusion riders, then Hollywood can claim to be addressing a problem that we aren’t really able to properly evaluate. The fact that Hollywood’s solution to the #MeToo movement is a contractual rider that they won’t divulge the details of to the general public speaks to a bigger problem that afflicts Hollywood. The industry’s secrecy is what allowed sexual harassment to fester. Maybe tackling the secrecy of Hollywood is a key to the success of #MeToo.
To me, it is pretty obvious that they whole inclusion rider thing is well-intentioned. It seems to me that the productions using inclusion riders are using them in ways that are not as effective as people hope they will be. Frances McDormand is trying to do something good; she used her speech time, much like Leonardo DiCaprio, to make a statement, not purely just to celebrate her own success. She cares about this topic and problem we have in this industry enough to give her airtime over to it. I hope she is not criticized in the future if productions use inclusion riders in an ineffective way. But, at the same time, if they are being used in an ineffective or wrong way, or they are not doing enough, I hope that she will continue to step up to bat and do work to turn things around. Good luck, McDormand!
Post a Comment