Review declined four times in a row...

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
I've submitted a review for the movie "Project Almanac" four times and each time it gets rejected (after sitting in the pending pile for about a week the first time before being declined). The reason for rejection each time, "Does not meet contribution guidelines." I have careful gone through each and every item in the guidelines and I can't for the life of me figure out why this keeps getting rejected. Here's the text of the most recent attempt:

----------
Virtually all white cast and some subtle, racially derisive content...

This
is one of those 4F movies (faux found footage film) that EPs like to
make because they don't have to hire an expensive cinematographer or produce a score, and can get away with hiring cheap talent. And often they don't even bother filling out the script outline and just let the players and directors ad-lib on set. They're inexpensive and one out of a thousand of these films actually becomes a hit and pays off big like "The Blare Witch Project". For this one they even tried to tie it into that hit film by using "Project" in the title, but it didn't work and this film was not a big hit.

The most noticeable aspect of this film was how white the cast was. There were several main characters, lots of supporting characters and many bit parts, but only one single bit part of a black person (played by Onira Tares, who got 18 seconds of dialogue, 14 seconds of screen time, and who the filmmakers caused to deliver bad news to the protagonists). And out of the hundreds and hundreds of background extras in this movie, there were only a handful of black folks who could likely be noticed by the audience and most of those black extras who were noticeable were associated with subtle racial derision.

Since the gloves are off in the hunt for racism in the movie industry (sources and methods are on the table), I'll describe the subject scenes:

1) at time-code ~ 00:07:15, there was a black woman extra along with one of the main characters who were doing exercises off in the distance -- the black extra was partially obscured by a vehicle wiper blade while the white character was unobstructed. (Filmmakers will sometimes cause black people in the background to be obscured as a method of subtle racial bias.)

2) at ~00:13:40, in the cafeteria a black male extra is seated immediately behind and next to one of the (white female) speaking characters. He is sitting next to another extra (a white woman) and talking to her, they are both smiling. The white female speaking character, talking about the leading character David Raskin, says to his sister Chris Raskin (a main character), "What's your bother doing? No offense, but that's kind of creepy." (Racially biased filmmakers will often associate some type of negative dialogue or event with images of black people, having characters saying negative things shortly before, during or after a black person is on screen. This one may also have been a commentary on interracial dating.)

3) at ~00:57:40, a black woman working at a government agency seems to give good news to the protagonists, but quickly explains what turns out to actually be bad news. I can't say more than that without spoilers. (Having black characters deliver bad news is a subtle way that racist workers in the movie industry cause negative feelings about black people to be unconsciously projected to the audience.)

4) at ~01:02:45, at a spontaneous outdoor event Quinn Goldberg (one of the main characters) is giving away free food to all of the students. He says, "I've got Mexican food! I've got Cuban, fusion, Indian, all sorts of different flavors." Off camera, Chris says, "Adam, where's mine?" The camera cuts to Adam Le, an Asian main character who is standing in front of four black extras, he takes food away from a black man and gives it to Chris, a white woman. (This was a blatant subjugation of the black man in favor of the white woman.)

5) at ~01:03:50, immediately after the food incident, the scene changes to a classroom where the teacher is talking about the Civil War (specifically, but not explicitly about Charles Francis Adams' diplomatic efforts) and says, "In his effort to avert the British from recognizing the Confederacy, he subjugated what?" The teacher repeats the phase... (The purpose of this scene was ostensibly to show how boring class is compared to partying outside (which has its own issues), but I believe the specific words the teacher said were put in the film to editorialize on the conflict between black and white people, in a manner that was unfavorable towards black people.)

6) at ~01:20:30, David has a brief, friendly, nonverbal interaction with a black character while an off-camera voice says, "Dude, the other night was dope!" Jesse Pierce, a main character with David, scolds him, "God, what's up with you David?" (There was no reason or motivation for Jesse to make that comment at that time. Biased filmmakers will often have a negative event or comment immediately after a positive interaction with a black person as a way of subtly associating negativity with positive interracial contact. This can most often be seen when there is interracial romance.)

That's it. Less than two minutes of black people as extras and one bit part, most of those with subtly derisive content. Now, without seeing the script and being on set, it's impossible to know who was responsible for these racially biased incidents. I'll leave it up to the folks associated with this project to sort that out and let them tell others in the industry who to avoid in the future.

Bottom line, the composition of the cast of this film was racially biased with mostly white people and the few scenes with black folks mostly had racially derisive content. Plus it was a lousy, 4F film. For these reasons, I'm giving it a rating of 2.

Triggers: strobe effects; racially biased composition of the cast; subtle, racially derisive content; wildly shaking, hand-held camera visuals (You know, a nice, used tripod is only $50. Just saying...)

rating 2/10; the movie version reviewed was 1:49 in length; (submitted June 30, 2020, 9:45 p.m. EDT; resubmitted July 6, 2020, 1:40 a.m. EDT; resubmitted July 8, 2020, 8:55 a.m. EDT; resubmitted July 9, 2020, 4;11 p.m. EDT)

------------

Photo of sally

sally

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 13394 Posts
  • 10950 Reply Likes
Hi Sally -

Please re-submit your User Review and directly after submitting post the submission reference number on this thread for our staff to take a look.
(Edited)
Photo of sally

sally

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Thank you. It's 200714-235001-489304.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 13394 Posts
  • 10950 Reply Likes
Hi Sally -
I can see that your review has since been approved. 
Photo of Blake Michael

Blake Michael

  • 11 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Hello Michelle, my article was due to be processed on July 13th but is still pending. Is there anything I can do to expedite the process ?
Photo of sally

sally

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
Thank you, Michelle.
Photo of sally

sally

  • 21 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
The review has been removed again. Why?
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Guidelines violations I would imagine.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Sally.
My goodness.

Virtually all white cast and some subtle, racially derisive content..
That breaches the Guidelines. That is your personal view.
"The Blare Witch Project". For this one they even tried to tie it into that hit film by using "Project" in the title, but it didn't work and this film was not a big hit.

Again. That breaches the Guidelines. That is your personal view.


The most noticeable aspect of this film was how white the cast was. There were several main characters, lots of supporting characters and many bit parts, but only one single bit part of a black person (played by Onira Tares, who got 18 seconds of dialogue
While this indeed may be fact, this has no business in a review. It is a complaint by you to the filmmakers.

only a handful of black folks who could likely be noticed by the audience and most of those black extras who were noticeable were associated with subtle racial derision.
Again a complaint by you to the filmmakers. Your making a personal statement (your opinion) on real life events, which is not allowed in a review.





I could go on, but suffice it to say there are well over 20 violations of IMDb's guidelines contained in your statements. Yes, statements. It's not even close to a review. It reads more like a plot summary than a review.

Here are the guidelines.
Please read them.
User review guidelines

The minimum length for reviews is 50 characters, however reviews of 200 to 500 characters are typically the most valuable to our users.  Reviews which are padded with junk text will be discarded.

What to include:

Your reviews should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Reviews that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support any mark-up (HTML, XML etc.) within the reviews apart from linking names and titles.

What not to include:

Resist the temptation to review on other reviews or features visible on the page. This information (and its position on the page) is subject to change without notice. A review form is not an appropriate place to tell us there are errors in the database. If you'd like to tell us about a specific problem, please click the 'Edit page' button near the bottom of the title page.

IMDb is pleased to provide this forum for you to air your opinions on your favorite (or not-so-favorite) movies and TV-series. While we appreciate your time and reviews, we respectfully request that you refrain from including the following in your review:

  • Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review. 
  • Time-sensitive material (i.e. mentions of events, promotional tours, seminars, lectures, etc.).
  • Avoid unannounced spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements, if you include spoilers without warning readers in advance, your review may be subject to removal. To label a spoiler make sure you check the 'contains spoilers' checkbox. Also, please never include spoilers in your review header as this is always visible.
  • Square brackets [ and ] are not allowed apart from when used to link names and titles
  • Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs, email addresses, links to Twitter or Facebook pages etc.
  • Availability, price, or ordering/shipping information.
  • Advertising, promotions or solicitations of any kind
  • Writing in ALL-CAPS! Writing sentences in all-uppercase characters is considered "SHOUTING" and must be avoided.
  • Content in languages other than English
  • Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.

Any review in violation of these guidelines will not be posted or may be edited to conform to the guidelines. In addition, IMDb reserves the right not to post any review for any reason.




Photo of Alexander NYVKE

Alexander NYVKE

  • 1600 Posts
  • 2759 Reply Likes
I saw this film, and I enjoyed it.

I only skimmed the review, but it seemed like it was entirely a rant about the absence of black characters?

IIRC, this low budget (but decent) sci-fi film had 4 or 5 main characters (late teens) who occupied 95% of the screen time. Again, to my recollection, the lead female character appeared to be mixed race, perhaps white/latina. Or maybe she just had a good tan.

This isn't a review, it's a rant.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
This is exactly why it was reported and removed!

I only skimmed the review, but it seemed like it was entirely a rant about the absence of black characters?