The BAFTA have announced new changes to their ever-changing Best Director category. Activists are pressuring every award show now to go “gender neutral.” The changes they’ve made here are a way to accommodate that demand, I figure, by adding to, not taking away from, the binary labels of male and female.
A hard no would have sufficed but we’re not there yet. Maybe we never will be. No one in the film industry wants to be “that guy,” and would much rather go along than push back against.
Here is what BAFTA says:
BAFTA’s 2020 Review included a positive intervention for female directors submitting into the BAFTA Film Awards Director category, allowing for a 50:50 gender split for male and female directors in the longlisting stage (16 in total). This has had a very positive effect on the number of female directors nominated and winning in this category compared with the years prior to the Review. This intervention is now being evolved to include directors who identify as non-binary. For 2024, the top female, male and directors who identify as non-binary will be longlisted to a maximum of 17, with gender parity between male and female directors upheld. In the nominating round, the number of nominated directors will remain at six.
And here is how Deadline puts it, quoting BAFTA:
“In Round One, the Directing chapter will vote for their top 16, of which the top female and male directors, along with directors who identify as non-binary (within the voting results range of the top 10 female/male directors) will be automatically longlisted to a maximum of 11, with gender parity upheld between female and male directors. The final places on the longlist will be determined by a longlisting jury, selected from the next eight ranked female and eight male directors and non-binary directors placed within this voting results range.”
Discussing today’s changes Emma Baehr, Executive Director of Awards & Content, said: “The changes to the 2024 rules reflect BAFTA’s ongoing commitment to using our Awards to help effect meaningful cultural change in the screen industries and our continued efforts to level the playing field through equitable, transparent and robust processes. We are hugely grateful for the expertise of BAFTA’s cross-industry Film Committee and the rigour and diligence they bring to reviewing and setting these rules annually. Celebrating creative excellence continues to be at the heart of our Awards and in a challenging and uncertain time for many working in the sector, our awards recognise the craft, creativity and tireless work that goes into bringing the magic of films and their stories to life.”
My eyes glaze over reading that first paragraph. I’m not even sure I understand what the process is here. I have no idea what it means, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t care that much anymore. If they are using their awards “to help effect meaningful cultural change in the screen industries and our continued efforts to level the playing field through equitable, transparent and robust processes.” these awards no longer mean awarding achievement. So, one wonders, what value do they have beyond servicing social justice activism?
The answer: Very little, beyond efforts to serve a greater need to massage the ever-advancing progressive ideology that has spread to every major cultural and political institution in the country. You are not allowed to object or you will be labeled a BIGOT.
White people are strictly forbidden to identify with their culture or heritage, and white men are not allowed to be proud of being white men — can you imagine? There appears to be no entry for white individuals into the utopian world other than to redefine one’s gender identity, which may or not impact their sexual identity. By declaring themselves nonbinary, they now have an identity that they can be proud of. I don’t blame them one bit. It’s hard out there for a normie.
But none of this measures worth as artists in any way. If anything, it stands squarely in opposition to it. Directors who are included because they’re women or nonbinary, or because they fit into a marginalized group will never be seen as deserving their place in the lineup but will always be useful to those at the top to absolve themselves of the sins of wealth and privilege. They are one of the newly-approved M&Ms in the “woke M&Ms” ad. They are there only because they are representative of a whole group. That means their work must be anchored to that identity because now they have to speak for that whole group. And will be ostracized if they do not.
I personally find that extremely limiting. I never wanted to be defined by my gender, so no one even knew my gender for the first five years I ran my site. Even now, the only time I play the gender card is when the harassment and the bullying becomes too much. But it barely works. I don’t think just being a woman counts for much anymore.
Despite all of the re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic, it does seem like the actual BAFTA voters have reverted to voting for what they actually like and taking whatever consequences come their way.
We are just at the moment before the pendulum starts to swing. We’re at the backlash phase now, which is getting louder by the day. This is seen at the box office, with low turnout and boycotts. It’s only going to get worse in that regard. But at some point, we will find a healthy middle ground. One can only hope.
In the meantime, we should always be looking out for the divergent paths of award contenders now — which ones are really the best, and which ones, to quote BAFTA, “help effect meaningful cultural change in the screen industries and our continued efforts to level the playing field through equitable, transparent and robust processes.”
Remember, art, like truth like information, wants to be free.