Stupidity from the other side of the pond. The Thought Police are going after movies again.

I remember in the late 80s Paramount was starting the preproduction work on The Hunt for Red October and I saw a small article in the paper on an issue they had discovered. There were having a problem putting in a strong female part in a pretty much all male movie (As I recall the only women in the book where Captain Ramius's wife and Gates McFadden's one minute part as Carolyn Ryan.) Fortunately the lot got their head our of their asses and let the screen writers do a good script.

Since then Political Correctness has infected one movie (and television shows) after another, the movie industry has slowly been on a downward trajectory. Why? Because the movies suck. I'm not saying the PC infection is the only reason, but putting a Black African Muslim into the story of Robin Hood is really true to the story, right?

Now we have the latest symptoms of the infection from Great Britain. The BFI is saying you must "target ethnic minority, gay and female characters" to get money. Read, it's depressing. Often I've heard Europe gets the bad news 20 years before America. I can see this coming.

British Film Institute tells filmmakers to tick new diversity targets or miss funding

Movie companies have been told they must meet new targets for ethnic minority, gay and female characters on screen to be eligible for future funding from the British Film Institute.

The BFI, Britain’s largest public film fund, announced a “Three Ticks” scheme to ensure diversity in films and behind the scenes as it set out new rules for funding.

Under the system, to be implemented in September, films must “tick” at least two of three criteria: on-screen diversity; off-screen diversity and “creating opportunities and social mobility”.

The BFI, which allocates lottery funding and invests more than £27 million in film production, sales and distribution, supports about 30 new projects a year. It backed The King’s Speech and Philomena.

The new rules will compel filmmakers to place “diverse” actors and subjects at the forefront of their projects, as well as ensuring minority workers are represented on set and in the crew.

On screen, at least one lead character must be “positively reflecting diversity”, with the story 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”.

Among the films the BFI has praised for content include Suffragette, the story of the battle for women to gain the vote, and Pride, about gay activists supporting the miners’ strike. It will ask filmmakers to ensure that at least 30 per cent of supporting and non-speaking characters are also “diverse”.

Off-screen, at least two heads of department must be from diverse backgrounds, as well as a range of “key creatives” including the director, screenwriter, composer and cinematographer.

The third category requires companies to offer paid internships and jobs to “new entrants from diverse backgrounds” and to help them progress.

“Three Ticks” is likely to raise fears about compromising scripts’ authenticity, with period dramas less likely to naturally represent “diverse backgrounds”.

A spokesman for the BFI insisted all films would have the opportunity to meet the criteria, with even those not fulfilling them onscreen able to “tick” the other two sections.

Ed Vaizey, the culture minister, praised the initiative as helping to “raise the bar”, adding that he would like to see all television, film and performing arts companies following the BFI’s example...

Ok Mr Spokesman, if every file will be reviewed and eligible for money in spite of this ethnic cleansing, why set up the scheme in the first place? Also, if you have something that had no women or minorities (The Sherlock Holmes series, most of Shakespeare, etc) are you going to insist they be rewritten?

Over ten years ago Mel Gibson went for funding, production etc for a movie on the Crucifixion of Jesus. No one wanted to touch it and Gibson went on to produce it himself. The Passion of the Christ made over 600 million worldwide. I wonder if the BFI would have turned the man down because the movie didn't reflect well on diversity? I'll bet yes. They probably would have a similar issue with a Braveheart, another classic with few women, no minorities and the only gay characters were not that strong.

To summarize, the Crown really doesn't need a film institute to decide what movies are made (and the US doesn't need a NIA or NIH). The free market can make better choices on what people want to see.