new diversity rules for Best Picture are ‘crazy’

If it were released today, “The Godfather” would possibly have no chance of winning a Best Picture Oscar.

That’s because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is beholden to new inclusivity standards. Starting with the March 2024 awards, movies will not be considered for a Best Picture nomination unless they feature a lead or significant supporting character from an “underrepresented racial or ethnic group,” have a main storyline that focuses on an underrepresented group, or at least 30% of the cast comes from two or more underrepresented groups (women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ or the disabled).

It’s got some voting members of the Academy up in arms.

“It’s completely ridiculous,” one director fumed to The Post. “I’m for diversity, but to make you cast certain types of people if you want to get nominated? That makes the whole process contrived. The person who is right for the part should get the part. Why should you be limited in your choices? But it’s the world we’re in. This is crazy.”

Richard Dreyfuss certainly agrees. In discussing the new standards of inclusion with “The Firing Line” on PBS last month, the veteran actor blasted the rules: “They make me vomit.”

Describing movies as “an art form” and “a form of commerce,” the “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” actor continued, “No one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is.”

One of Hollywood’s biggest producers told The Post that very few people in the industry favor the new rules — but, unlike Dreyfuss, they don’t speak out for fear of cancel culture.

“Everyone thinks the Academy went too far. It’s ridiculous to tell us we have to regulate our work,” he said. “We talk about it amongst ourselves but it’s not worth speaking up publicly.”

The last several years of Best Picture winners actually already meet the criteria.

In “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” the 2023 winner, Michelle Yeoh leads a mostly Asian cast. “CODA,” which won in 2022, centers around a deaf family in Gloucester, Mass. “Nomadland,” from 2021, revolves around Frances McDormand’s widow character who travels the US in a van. “Parasite” (2020) focuses on two South Korean families. The 2019 winner, “Green Book” was controversial because it stood accused of “spoon-feed[ing] racism to white people“ but would still make the cut.

But other films nominated this year possibly would not qualify.

“’All Quiet on the Western Front’ would not have been nominated,” said the director of the World War I film with a historically accurate white male cast.

“In terms of ‘Elvis,’ there are probably enough women and minorities to hit 30 percent and qualify,” Jim Piazza, co-author of “Academy Awards: The Complete Unofficial History,” told The Post. “But many of those people are in dance and party scenes and on-screen briefly. How they count will be difficult. There will be a lot of caveats.”

“Going further back, think about ‘Schindler’s List.’ Should that not have been nominated since there were no non-white people in the primary roles?” asked the director, referencing the 1993 Spielberg movie which largely features white male actors. “I’m wondering if Jewish people would count for ‘underrepresented racial or ethnic group,’ but it would be up to the Academy to figure that out.”

Other macho classics that, these days, would likely fall by the Best Picture wayside: “Gladiator” and “All the President’s Men.”

According to Newsweek, past nominees “Ford v Ferrari,” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” “American Hustle” and “Joker” also would not have cleared the Best Picture bar. 

“Imagine if great films were not made because of studio or corporate mandates that every film has to conform to the [inclusionary] standard for a Best Picture nomination?” the director said.

Besides casting, a film can meet standards by having people from underrepresented ethnic or racial groups involved in the making or creation of the movie, paid internships and training opportunities, and working on publicity, marketing or distribution.

Still, a film critic and historian who’s a member of the Academy describes the new criteria as “bold and audacious,” adding that it’s also groundbreaking in a way that can be tough to navigate.

“I’ve never witnessed such a thing happening in the world of the arts,” he told The Post. “I’ve never seen restrictions out on what you can do if you want to receive a certain recognition [for one’s art].”

Looking forward, he acknowledges that some of the most talented people in Hollywood may forgo Oscars recognition in order to see through their visions.

“If a truly outstanding film comes along that does not meet those requirements for a best picture nomination, then the producers will have accepted that,” the critic said.

A veteran Hollywood executive told The Post that he is ready to go that route.

“You have to make the best movie,” the exec said. “I want to be inclusive, but I don’t want to put in a person from a certain ethnic group who doesn’t belong there because of the story being told. And I don’t want to make a movie with an LGBT character who does not make sense with the narrative. You can’t do this without hurting the movie. It’s ridiculous to be told what to do at the expense of getting people into movie theaters.”

Said a journeyman screenwriter: “Everyone should be inclusive for good reason. But everyone should also have reasons for believing in meritocracy.”

A former top studio executive explained to The Post that he left his position a year ago in part because of diversity run amok.

“I knew this was coming, obviously,” he said of the 2024 rules. “But they’ve been going overboard on this in my opinion for quite some time. Casting is getting less organic and more about checking [the diversity] boxes. It’s hurting the product, not helping, and I don’t think it’ll be good for anyone in the long run.”

Added the executive: “I think the Academy got itself into a corner with inclusivity and now it can’t get out.”