Table of Contents
In recent weeks, developments have emerged regarding events that took place during this year's BAFTAs. As more information is released, it has made it abundantly clear that the current state of award shows shows that there is a lack of care and harm reduction in the current industry.
For those who may not know, but at this year's BAFTAs, while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo were presenting, John Davidson (who has Tourette’s) yelled out a racial slur. The slur was not edited out during the broadcast, and both Davidson and the BBC have apologized for their actions. With that being said, many viewers have called out the organization, claiming that the broadcast did have time to edit or censor the slur, as the broadcast was on a two-hour delay, and they had chosen to edit out instances of acceptance speeches in support of a free Palestine.
This is not the first and will not be the last time we see inappropriate behaviour at award shows; however, what many organizations fail to realize is that many of these events can be preventable, and that award shows are not only about celebrating works of art, but they are also responsible for reducing harm.
Looking at the BAFTAs, there were many opportunities for them to reduce potential harm or offence, such as letting it be known before the awards that a member in the audience has a neurological condition like tourettes that there may be offensive language or outbursts, therefore no one can be caught off guard. The broadcast can create a safe environment for everyone involved. Unlike what actually happened, where, after the incident, the host, Alan Cummings, made a quick "apology" claiming: "we apologize if you're offended," which not only puts Cummings in a difficult spot but also Davidson, Michael B. Jordan, and Delroy Lindo as they have to clean up the mess that was easily avoidable if production had put precautions in place.
What should have happened instead of making the host give a throwaway apology? Production should have had a representative, or a statement, at the ready that would have ensured that the host, presenters, and audience were kept safe from potential harm.
Not only should the BBC have edited out any offensive language that may have been said, but they could have also showcased why Davidson was at the awards in the first place. You see, John Davidson was attending the BAFTAs because of the biographical film I Swear about his life with Tourette's and his journey of advocacy for Tourette's awareness. The film's sole purpose is to highlight what Tourette's is and how it affects not only those diagnosed with it but also the people around them. If the BAFTAs had highlighted Davidson's advocacy as well educate viewers on this condition, perhaps the backlash from this incident would not have been so severe. More over, any potential harm and humiliation faced by not only Davidson, but also Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, members of the audience, and viewers at home would have been prevented.
If incidents like this continue to happen, then audience attendance, viewership, and award press will become obsolete. The takeaway will be that award shows are harmful and do not celebrate the art they are trying to highlight, but rather focus on controversy. This is why, as viewers and filmmakers, we need to highlight that we want to see these broadcasts take action against harm and make what are supposed to be the special events memorable.
