Quote:
Originally Posted by RCRochester
The article doesn't suggest that, it outright states that Peter Becker, the president and creative lead, is exclusively responsible for the lack of Black directors, and here's the key thing... he agreed with them! He clearly takes responsibility and says that he has/had a blind spot, and pledges to do better in the future. That's not going to damage the Criterion brand, it can only improve it, even from the simple PR point of view.
|
What do you expect him to say in the context of today's racial divide when confronted with the fact that there are only four films in the collection?
Given that most viewers won't even read the article or accept his promise to do better, let's acknowledge that the headline and subhead is designed for impact, the inference is clear, and the damage is done.
Look at the Oscars. They are never going to recover from the damage that has been done to their brand, and some would say that's a good thing. Perhaps that's true for Criterion as well.
Four films, eight films, 16 films, what difference does it make?
You have to understand, many readers are not going to suggest what film to add to the Criterion Collection.
They are going ask the question, why is a middle-aged white guy selecting the best of cinema?
Others will say why should Becker be defensive and apologize about an issue that is far broader than the films he has selected and the associated reasons.
So when you ask the question, "Why Are There So Few Black Directors in the Criterion Collection," have the resolve to research and provide the potential reasons why for the reader in an unbiased manner.
There was, and remains, a paucity of Black directors of merit, related influence and cultural impact when you look back over the past 100 years of cinema.
That's the reason, not Criterion.
You asked the question, now find the courage to ask and identify the reasons behind the reason why, and publish that as an article, instead of placing the blame on Criterion.