The UCL studied the reception that the different films of the year have in the audience. The university focused on the factor of those who have and those who do not, a cast in which there is diversity, mainly racial.
In the last weeks in Cinemascomics.com Material has been published with the premise that supporting equality is necessary. However, the fact that including actors, actresses or characters only because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation has some influence on the quality of the products, is the question to be debated, defending diversity.
However, despite being a controversial issue that can generate many opinions, the academy has sought to show collective thinking. This is why the UCLA published a study that would demonstrate the general preference.
According to the report titled Hollywood Diversity Report: Pandemic in Progress, movies with a cast comprised of less than 11 percent minority actors had the lowest gross receipts.
The opposite would happen with those in which 41 to 50 percent of their actors represent minorities. They have the highest gross median.
The big highlight of the box office, and that would prove the point of the survey, would be Bad Boys for Life, which managed to collect 426 million dollars. The film's casting was more than 50 percent made up of members of minority groups.
The results also showed that in the streaming platforms, the personnel of different racial groups and the characters of different nationality, would have been synonymous with success in numbers of reproduction and transmission.
The limits Where to put them?
Thus, the positive economic impact is real, it means that viewers do like the factor of having a diverse cast, but the question is, should this have limits?
Nobody could be uncomfortable seeing magnificent actors like Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, Morgan freeman, Denzel Washington or Jamie foxx starring in the biggest titles on the billboard, but one would have to think, for example, of a biographical production.
Imagine that Napoleon bonaparte is the main character. Think that you choose Idris Elba or Omar sy to interpret it. The great acting capacity of these will never be questioned, they would surely play a great role.
Something similar, but interesting and admirable, was done by Bridgerton. In the series the Queen Charlotte is played by the actress Golda rosheuvel, showing a fictitious society in which in the Britain of the time the skin tone would not matter.
“It's something that really resonated with me, because it made me wonder how that could have really been. And what would have happened? What could she have done? Could the queen have elevated other people of color in society and given them titles and lands and ducats? ”, Commented the creator to Collider.
This can be one of the windows that would be opened to explain how to really defend the inclusion in an audiovisual product, since there was a reason for being.
But what has bothered the public is not this, much less the racial differences, but that characters that have a certain biotype have been taken and “diverse” actors are chosen only to force a pleasant political position and personify them without explanation.
Some cases have already been cited, although this study could give Hollywood the idea that there is nothing wrong with circumventing the original design of a fictional character and putting an artist in nothing of the kind.
Without a doubt, inclusion is necessary. There is no mistake in this. Tolerance must exist, there is no way not to wait for it. However, this should not make producers think that social pressure deviates their criteria when choosing their cast.
And the white actors and actresses? They are not good? Are they being threatened for not representing a minority?