'Mukbang,' Sydney Film Festival and Diversity in the Arts
Thereâs a lot to unpack here. Most of this is frustrating, for both the matters on which this author agrees with the Sydney Film Festivalâs champions and that on which I diverge.
To bring you up to speed, Sydney Film Festival Dendy Short Film Awards entry Mukbang and Best Director winner Eliza Scanlen have come under criticism due to claims of cultural appropriation and reports of the inclusion of an image in the film of an apparently white character strangling a black teenage boy.
Reportedly at the filmmakersâ request SFF released a new version of the film online absent the image and due explanation; this action too being subject to criticism. Today, Australian creative figures defended the Festival and the film in an opinion piece in the SMH which you can read here.
You can also read commentary from Michelle Law who has prominently criticised the Festival, as well as Andrew Boltâs widely-read perspective and some earlier coverage from the SMH. Scanlenâs statement on the issue, published to Instagram and referred to below, is not available at the time of writing.
Firstly, it seems the 27 individuals who signed todayâs letter have seen Mukbang. Great; theyâre right that itâs only fair to criticise a movie if youâve actually seen it, and those who have piled on without seeing it or have not otherwise made it explicitly clear in their coverage that they have done so are doing a disservice to whichever sides of these debates theyâve claimed to champion.
To this end I and others have sought from the (non-SFF) publicist the opportunity to see Mukbang so we could cover this debate fairly and honestly; as per the authors of this letter, âpeople need to watch the film for themselves to make up their own minds.â No I and others havenât made as many movies as Joel Edgerton or Warwick Thornton but those who may or may not disagree with the filmmakersâ and SFFâs approach and have with integrity covered the Festival for years deserve an opportunity to continue doing so.
Further to this point, if your point of view is that the film isnât racist you should explain why its detractors are wrong, itâs not enough to just say that theyâre wrong. Those published today have simply said we âdonât agreeâ in response to a series of highly articulated concerns with the material and I donât believe for a moment these 27 people lack the perspicacity to do better.
They have however said two things in direct response. The first is that this is âfor the Korean community itself to adjudicate,â without directly addressing the other major controversy of the image being pulled from the film, nor the ethics surrounding editing the short in these circumstances and indeed affirming which version of the short theyâve even seen.
To digress, and to qualify my previous coverage in which I was critical of SFF, the Festival did highlight during its run that the image had been removed at the filmmakersâ request. Their statement and subsequent releases did not address the ethical dimensions of editing a film after it had been submitted, screened and adjudged an award, nor did the statements or aforementioned actions seek to further (as todayâs letter purports to do) an honest and open debate about marginalisation which could have been achieved with a content warning and/or releasing of further literature or discussion to append the unaltered film, or further publishing a new version while leaving the original intact.
If a filmmaker wishes their film to be edited they can submit a new version to subsequent Festivals or cinemas on release. SFF, to which the film had already been submitted, screened and subsequently lauded, retains discretion to ensure the integrity of their selection and judging processes are fully reflected in the work that is released to the public via their forum and should have acted accordingly. Scanlen was right in this regard; the changes should have been directly addressed if they were going to be made. SFF have not addressed the nature nor consequence of these changes and rather just effected them.
As regards the statement that members of the Korean community should be adjudicating this matter, yes; of course. I agree with this letterâs authorsâ that it does serve the cause of diversity yet only dimensions thereof when advocates, however well-meaning, attempt to speak on marginalised communitiesâ behalves when they are not representative. Itâs fine to promote a perspective but thatâs it, thatâs your perspective.
This does not however mean, as implied by the letter, that others cannot be persuasive given moreover the letter both makes reference to showing solidarity with members of marginalised communities, if this is your perspective on this controversy, or, if you take an alternate view, distinguishing, as per the perspectives and actions of these authors, racist from non-problematic material as well as undertaking efforts to highlight rather than distract from actual racism.
To this end the authors of the letter are on point regarding systematic racism in Australia which historically affected and still impacts minorities including those referred to therein as ânon-Anglo whites.â I donât agree with this terminology, nor do many others, but accept the authors are speaking to a point of furthering inclusivity. As identified, the cultural and linguistically diverse communities referenced in the letter are not adequately accounted for by stratified definitions of minority groups which many self-proclaimed activists further and whose views the letterâs scribes have sought to align with the Festivalâs detractors.
This author being a member of one of the minority groups explicitly referenced in the letter knows these dangerous perceptions to be all to prevalent and to whatever extent such exclusivity is demonstrably evident in SFFâs current critics they are indeed doing the struggle against systematic racism a disservice. Too sharing the national background of, as is explicitly referenced in the letter, SFFâs Director and likewise having spent formative years in Apartheid South Africa though never encountering near so extreme experiences, this author agrees it is important to accurately identify barriers and reflect on the consequence of progress that has been made, which is not often factored, as much as it is crucial to look forward.
I didnât know about your father Nashen, Iâm sorry.
The letter also relies on and speaks broadly and accurately about the Festivalâs history of diverse programming and having lauded efforts from minority filmmakers. Shrewdly, it chose not to single out last yearâs Sydney Film Prize Winner. The authors have fairly identified that negating this institution (I despise the word âcancelâ in this context) would not be reasonable absent a proper assessment of the Festivalâs record on inclusivity and achievements and that this controversy should not be judged in a vacuum.
Itâs very reasonable to highlight this history, it being relevant to any discussion of SFFâs bona fides, yet this does not wholly contribute to an open and honest discourse about the movie lacking by virtue of the authorsâ aforementioned brevity, SFFâs treatment of the film and the simple fact that the gatekeepers wonât let anyone else see it.
on Festevez
