Read the whole thing to see the details.They’re going to kill creativity. For example:

Best Picture winners which could not have been considered under these guidelines:
The Hurt Locker
The Departed
The Lord of the Rings
Gladiator
Braveheart
Godfather II
The Sting
The French Connection https://t.co/qViwyvcUDi

— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) September 9, 2020

The official art form in the Soviet Union during the 1930s was “Socialist Realism,” about which:

The purpose of socialist realism was to limit popular culture to a specific, highly regulated faction of emotional expression that promoted Soviet ideals. The party was of the utmost importance and was always to be favorably featured. The key concepts that developed assured loyalty to the party, “partiinost'” (party-mindedness), “ideinost” (idea- or ideological-content), “klassovost” (class content), “pravdivost” (truthfulness).

There was a prevailing sense of optimism, as socialist realism’s function was to show the ideal Soviet society. Not only was the present gloried, but the future was also supposed to be depicted in an agreeable fashion. Because the present and the future were constantly idealized, socialist realism had a sense of forced optimism. Tragedy and negativity were not permitted, unless they were shown in a different time or place. This sentiment created what would later be dubbed “revolutionary romanticism.”

Now Hollywood will impose on its film artists an official Social Justice Realism aesthetic credo. Actual life is not permitted on film if it violates social justice ideals.

I never imagined that Hollywood would voluntarily return to a moralistic Motion Picture Code imposed on its filmmakers, but here we are. They’re Puritans, but Puritans for the left, so it’s okay, I guess.

In my post yesterday about Anne Applebaum’s new book, I noted that she correctly cites Hannah Arendt’s observation that a totalitarian society, or at least a society that is preparing itself for totalitarianism, values loyalty over competence. Applebaum says this is what is happening in central European countries ruled by nationalist-populist parties. She might be right about that — I don’t know enough about those governments to say one way or another — but she is missing the way that Social Justice commissars are imposing the same kind of loyalty tests from the left, within institutions and industries they control. From my new book Live Not By Lies:

“Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty,” wrote Arendt.

All politicians prize loyalty, but few would regard it as the most important quality in government, and even fewer would admit it. But President Donald Trump is a rule-breaker in many ways. He once said, “I value loyalty above everything else—more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy.”

Trump’s exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity politics. Loyalty to an ideology over expertise is no less disturbing than loyalty to a personality. This is at the root of “cancel culture,” in which transgressors, however minor their infractions, find themselves cast into outer darkness.

In early 2020, an astonishing cancel-culture controversy emerged in which Jeanine Cummins, author of a much-anticipated novel about the Mexican immigrant experience, suffered savage attack in the media from some progressive Latino writers who accused the white woman of stealing the experiences of Latinos. Some prominent Latinas who had praised the book in advance of its publication—including novelist Erika L. Sanchez, and actress Salma Hayek—withdrew their backing, lest they seem disloyal to their group.

Beyond cancel culture, which is reactive, institutions are embedding within their systems ideological tests to weed out dissenters. At universities within the University of California system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track positions have to affirm their commitment to “equity, diversity, and inclusion”—and to have demonstrated it, even if it has nothing to do with their field. Similar politically correct loyalty oaths are required at leading public and private schools.

It is disgusting that Jeanine Cummins’s book was denounced, even by people who had praised it, not because of its lack of quality, but solely because of the racial identity of the artist who created it. This is where the left is taking American art and literature: towards politically correct mediocrity. As in the newspaper industry, the mandarins will sit around and congratulate themselves on their moral excellence, while the industry drifts into irrelevance.

It should not be lost on readers that the new Academy guidelines treat “diversity” as “suppressing white heterosexual males.” For example:

STANDARD A: ON-SCREEN REPRESENTATION, THEMES AND NARRATIVES
To achieve Standard A, the film must meet ONE of the following criteria:

A1. Lead or significant supporting actors

At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.

• Asian
• Hispanic/Latinx
• Black/African American
• Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native
• Middle Eastern/North African
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• Other underrepresented race or ethnicity

A2. General ensemble cast

At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups:

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing

A3. Main storyline/subject matter

The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing

Think of the moneymaking opportunities that will now arise from the Hollywood bureaucracy needed to assure diversity compliance. It’ll be just like having commissars from Mosfilm coming around to screen movies in advance to make sure they are faithful to the party line. Aren’t progressives great?