I spent so much time (eight posts) on the food topic because -- while there are important issues of culture, racism, and ableism -- it is also kind of a fun topic. You can read the serious things but also get thoughts like "Tacos sound good," or "I haven't made stir-fry for a while; I should pick up some noodles."
Discussing the BAFTAs is not going to be fun like that, maybe it will go more quickly.
It will be similar in that most of what I write is going to be about reactions and doubling down. Still, I suppose some introduction is in order.
The BAFTAs are the awards presented by the British Academy of Film and Television. This year's awards program happened on February 22nd.
One of the award winners, I Swear, was about the life of John Davidson, who has Tourette's Syndrom and has worked to raise awareness about it.
More specifically, Davidson has coprolalia, which results in the involuntary utterance of offensive words. That included hurling the N-word at Black presenters Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, as well as production designer Hannah Beachler:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6edwg06n1o
One other important thing to know is that Davidson also yelled at a slur at host Alan Cumming, relating to his sexual orientation. That was edited out of the show, which was on a tape delay.
A statement in support of Palestine was also edited out. They could edit, and apparently they did edit out a second racial slur (which I assume was the other N-word, though that has not been confirmed; the third one happened on the way to dinner). The BBC says leaving that one in was a mistake, but there are different ways of handling mistakes.
One thing I find odd about it is that they then removed the entire broadcast, rather than editing out one word. Sure, people would still know it had been there, but if they were okay with editing some, why not just remove that word?
That was one problem on the BBC/BAFTAs end.
Another issue was that Davidson says that he had asked to be seated where he could not be heard, and he had thought that would happen.
Different award shows have different ways of placing mics -- especially depending on whether the seating is at tables or in rows -- but it is normal to have some mics on the audience to capture applause. It would be reasonable to keep someone with Tourette's away from a mic, but that didn't happen.
The third issue was insufficient care demonstrated toward presenters and guests. There was only one of those "We're sorry if you were offended" statements.
There are starting to be better apologies now as the anger continues to grow, but they really need to dig deeper.
There needs to be a better statement about all of those factors.
I hesitate to blame it on "British humor", because that covers a broad range. I do worry that there was someone who thought it would be funny to have the mic near the person with Tourette's, and who was fine with leaving it in, even though people clearly knew it happened based on the first insincere apology. Those could very well be two different people, but that needs to figured out. If that is the case, those people need to be let go.
Without that, even using better-sounding words for the apology doesn't make it sincere.
If that doesn't happen, I would like to see lots of actors boycotting next year's BAFTAs.
As nice as it can be to be nominated and asked to present, it is ultimately one of many award shows. If they will not show care for their guests -- and I maintain that there was unfair treatment of Davidson, as well as of Jordan, Lindo, and Beachler -- then the Academy should feel the pain of that.
Award shows are generally quite boring, but people still watch for the stars. Take those away and people can just read the press release the next day.
Extreme? Well, racism and ableism have both gotten really loud lately, along with pretty much every other terrible bigotry. It's worth fighting back.
Because, yes, ableism is a real thing, even if many of the people crying about it now are demonstrably more insincere than the BBC.