For several years now, the BAFTAs and the Grammys have been happening on the same day. I know they’re hours apart – London versus LA – but it still annoys the f–k out of me. The Grammys have become this giant, unwieldy, bro-tastic event that should not be four hours long, nor do they deserve to outshine the BAFTAs. Anyway, that’s my little preview of the clusterf–k of this coming Sunday. I’d rather just do full coverage of the BAFTAs. Especially given that this year, the BAFTAs are going to be interesting for several different reasons. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be in attendance again. The BAFTAs were the only major awards to recognize Viola Davis’s superb performance in Widows. And the BAFTAs aren’t here for Bryan Singer.
With just days to go until the ceremony, Bryan Singer’s name has been scrubbed entirely from the BAFTA Awards, despite Bohemian Rhapsody having seven nominations. Following recent allegations in an expose in The Atlantic accusing Singer of having sex with underage boys, the director has been removed from the one category in which he was mentioned by name, outstanding British film.
“In light of recent very serious allegations, BAFTA has informed Bryan Singer that his nomination for Bohemian Rhapsody has been suspended, effective immediately,” BAFTA said in a statement, adding that the names of producer Graham King and writer Anthony McCarten would remain. “BAFTA considers the alleged behaviour completely unacceptable and incompatible with its values. This has led to Mr Singer’s suspended nomination. BAFTA notes Mr Singer’s denial of the allegations. The suspension of his nomination will therefore remain in place until the outcome of the allegations has been resolved. BAFTA believes everyone has the right to a fulfilling career in a safe, professional working environment, and it will continue to collaborate with the film, games and television industries to achieve this.”
A spokesperson for Fox later added: “We fully support BAFTA’s decision.”
Bohemian Rhapsody was also nominated for best film, although in this case it is the producers who are named. Elsewhere, it earned a best actor nomination for Rami Malek and was shortlisted in the cinematography, editing, makeup and hair and sound categories.
I fully support BAFTA’s decision too. Would it have been better if Singer hadn’t even been nominated in the first place? For sure. Would it have been better if Singer hadn’t been hired to direct the damn movie? Absolutely. But I like that awards shows are trying to do what they can to take care of this, especially since the Directors Guild fought on Singer’s behalf to ensure that he got credit. He still has producer’s credit too, which is why his name is listed on the “Best Film” nominations. All that being said… I will be disappointed if Rami Malek wins the BAFTA or the Oscar, I really will.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.
I’m sorry, I can’t give them much credit for this, when they’re the ones who nominated him and his movie in the first place.
I suppose it’s SOME reaction to the article, which we’ve seen precious little of in Hollywood, so that’s something. But I find myself deeply suspicious of their timing- that article is out weeks. They only do this NOW? AFTER the votes are in?! Hmmmm….
YEP. Giving this movie awards is a big “no” from me even without Singer in the picture, but then again I am not a member of any kind of awards voting body.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Alyssa. EVEN IF you leave out Singer’s involvement entirely (which, I genuinely don’t get how people are able to do, but ok, clearly they are) it is a TERRIBLE movie. It should be nowhere near awards nominations, let alone WINNING them. Ughhh.
His face is so strange. It is a combination of cat face + baby fat face
Nah, BAFTA can choke. Voting is complete so most likely they pulled his name because Bohiemian Rhapsody won the Best British film award and they’re embarrassed by their members’ complete lack of taste or tact. Either way they are still rewarding an (alledged) child rapist’s movie. How gross.
Giving this movie any award is going to be a decision that ages very very poorly, particularly as there are likely more stories of sexual assault, abuse, and a COMPLICIT industry to come.
Omg that fixes everything! NOT.
Hollywood doesn’t care and never cared about Bryan Singer’s crimes.
Bohemian Rhapsody probably won that’s why they scrubbed the name.
The Directors Guild didn’t fight for Singer’s credit, it’s just the rules they have. You have to direct more than 50% of a project to get directorial credit, and there is some wording meant to prevent co-directing credits except in cases of established creative teams. It all dates back to a time when directors weren’t so important and didn’t have as much bargaining power and it was relatively easy for studio producers to take credit for everything. The DGA was founded specifically to help directors in the studio system as they (slowly) started gaining power in the 30s and 40s. It’s very hard to strike a director’s name off a project because it used to happen regularly whenever a director ticked off a studio person for any little thing. We don’t even know all the women who directed during the silent era because studio producers didn’t like acknowledging them (Mary Pickford’s one known directing credit is technically uncredited because even she, the most powerful woman in Hollywood at that time, did not have the pull to get her name on her work and there was no union to boost/protect/advocate for her). I won’t be surprised if the DGA ends up adding a clause to allow for the removal of a director credit in extraordinary circumstances because of this Bryan Singer mess, because they can’t like being seen as protecting him. He’s just benefitting from an old system, which explains a lot of Hollywood, really.
He did not have sex with underage boys as that implied consent from both parties, he sexually assaulted or raped them. You can still put allegedly behind it.
Hollywood Reporter, get it together.
OMG can they PLEASE stop saying “having sex with under age boys”??? He RAPED them.
GOOD