Opinion: a laudable urge for greater diversity at the Academy Awards could have an unforeseen upshot, warns Maciej Wójcik
More than a century ago, a writer named Władysław Reymont lived in central Poland. Like many before him and many after him, he was an alcoholic. However, unlike most alcoholics, he made use of his addiction.
Sitting in a rural tavern, he diligently took notes on the local peasant customs. Based on what he heard, he sketched out his novel. It took years, but the effort paid off. The novel Chlopi (The Peasants, in English) was published to acclaim, and the author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Unfortunately, Reymont never received it because he was unable to sober up long enough to travel to Stockholm for the ceremony. He remained in Lipce, a village that was later renamed Lipce Reymontowskie in his honour.
Nearly a hundred years after the novel was published, a film was made. According to many critics, the adaptation is particularly good. The fidelity to the novel, set design, costumes, and the excellent acting were praised. However, what was criticised, especially in English-speaking countries, was the discrepancy between the content and current standards of political correctness. The film “promotes traditional gender roles,” the role of the Church is seen as “upholding post-feudal social relations,” and the final scene is deemed “misogynistic” by critics.
But 100 years ago, nobody in Chlopi was thinking about inclusivity. The film is vibrant with colours, beautifully illustrated musically. It faithfully captures the atmosphere of the novel, showing the passions, mindset, and customs of the rural people, who then constituted over 70% of the population in those areas, where only every fiftieth could read and write. The mindset, division of labour, and social roles also correspond to the realities of the era. So do the views on gender.
The Peasants has had bad luck. While the book was indeed awarded the Nobel Prize, the prize was not taken. The film, on the other hand, could not even participate in the race for the most glittering prize at the Academy Awards, popularly known as the Oscars. Since the introduction of “inclusivity criteria,” it is infinitely harder for films produced in Eastern Europe to win the Oscar for Best Picture. A certain percentage of underrepresented groups, namely non-white or non-heterosexual individuals, is required in the cast.
The specificity of Eastern Europe has been completely ignored. The West once had colonies worldwide, and decades ago immigrants came from those colonies. Poland, Romania, Hungary, and other Eastern European countries never had any colonies. They do not owe such debts as Western countries.
Polish film productions cannot meet the second criterion either. It is possible for a film featuring only white and heterosexual individuals to win an Oscar, provided that diverse individuals were involved in the production process. However, when a BAME individual has skills useful in film production, they would rather choose Hollywood or one of the Western European countries, not Poland. Firstly, because of the earnings. Secondly, because of the exceedingly difficult language to learn, in which “exceptions outnumber the rules.” Pronouncing phrases like “kopalnia soli w Wieliczce” or “w Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie” could be used as torture for non-Poles.
Thus, a desire to introduce greater inclusivity has resulted in the exclusion of Eastern Europe from the competition. This is part of a wider phenomenon; a similar effect occurs in other areas of life. Immigrants from Eastern Europe are, according to the scheme, perceived as “privileged” due to skin colour, and men are also considered privileged. If they encounter discrimination, it is ignored or, at best, noticed with great reluctance.
For countries like Poland, there are two options for participating in competitions like the Academy Awards. The first way: by falsifying history and changing the demographics of productions in a way which would not be consistent with reality. The second way: choose one production with the best chance of winning an award and offer very high rates to the film crew from underrepresented groups, even paying for a translator. But wouldn’t this be a reverse discrimination?
It may seem that once again the West is “tailoring the world to its needs.” So, what if this time it is for the noble purpose of increasing cultural diversity, since the way it tries to achieve it causes further exclusions, just elsewhere?
