Comment: It is time for Bafta to rethink its jury interventions

Let’s be very clear on what the Bafta nominations are to the general membership of the body: voters choose the longlists and then they vote again in what is most likely two categories — best film, their own chapter, and film not in the English language if they have opted in.

Various juries and changing stipulations are attached to the main body of awards nominations, so, essentially, best film is the most reflective of the overall membership.

2023/4 is a really outstanding year. It is sad not to see The Zone Of Interest, Barbie or All Of Us Strangers make the cut for best film, but the five pictures in there stand proud: Anatomy Of A Fall, The Holdovers, Killers Of The Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, Poor Things. When will we see the likes of this again? Bafta members clearly know what constitutes a great film: but the question, looking at the overall list, is whether Bafta itself trusts its membership?

Bafta juries are an intervention and interventions are designed to alter the course of things, to improve an outcome. The main thrust of the engineering came after 2020’s #Baftasowhite as the institution clearly needed a shakeup: put simply, membership wasn’t diverse enough, they weren’t watching – or able to watch – enough films (there are so many, which is another story) and they weren’t watching widely enough, snow-blinded by the streamers. This much is true, but it still shouldn’t alter the understanding that Bafta members know what a good film is when they see it.

Looking at this year’s full Bafta nominations list, though, which wheelie-bins its way across the categories, #Baftasowhite has ended #Baftaso…what? The organisation is now in a very slippery patch occupied by institutions which don’t like the results of free votes, never a place that works out well in the long run. For example, having a British debut category which omits Rye Lane and Scrapper is a sign of an intervention that has lost sight of the plot, especially when you consider what is included. You can say, that’s juries for you, and the debut jury has been around longer than the others, but it still stings.

The documentary category, meanwhile, looks a bit like the Wild West and there’s just a sense of relief that Beyond Utopia and 20 Days In Mariupol did make it in the end. The headlines of course include the omission of Andrew Scott in best actor for All Of Us Strangers but Claire Foy and Paul Mescal in support, no Greta Lee for Past Lives but Teo Yoo in actor, no Lily Gladstone at all for Killers Of The Flower Moon. It’s not joined-up. There are sticky fingerprints everywhere on this list.

Much has been said, and rightly so, about the state of the film industry, but anyone with skin in the game knows independent British cinema is fighting its way tooth and nail into a fantastic creative place. Other interventions, spearheaded by the BFI and the funders, are bearing fruit at last. (The fact the filmmakers themselves struggle to make a living is a truth that shouldn’t obscure what they are doing: that’s the next intervention.)

Alongside that, UK audience tastes are clearly expanding (look at the box-office figures for Anatomy Of A Fall, Poor Things and Past Lives). It’s all beginning to settle between what is a streamer film and what is a cinema outing.

With all this effort, it is so frustrating Bafta has engineered itself into a place where its aim is to reward diversity but ends up ignoring a Femme or a Pretty Red Dress. Interventions shouldn’t really need to be ongoing. If you have intervened, changed the course of things, as with juries and opening out membership and instituting voting groups, then they should be fixed, or on their way to being fixed. Or something else needs to be considered. Otherwise, you just end up spinning around, plugging holes in a dam, making sense only to yourself.

Maybe it’s time for a vote. This time, though, it’s worth considering a full one.

• Six talking points from the Bafta nominations: strong jury impact, acting curveballs