Less than an hour after the cameras are off, the first heckling comes. It’s unbearable, exclaims a black actress excitedly, that such discussions are given so much space. At the front of the stage, two men, themselves with a history of migration, look puzzled. You were just talking about your experiences, about structural racism.
If the German teacher says before the Abitur exam: “Turks get no more than a three from me”, but you can also go to the maths teacher and take the exam with him instead – is that structural racism? Or is the German teacher just an individual racist?
More and more black women in particular are speaking up. Some of their voices break with anger, cutting each other out like in the most agitated talk show moments on television. Of course there is structural racism, they exclaim – if you have to start at this level again and again, discussions would no longer be of any use.
A stark contrast to the hours before, to the welcome speeches. Everyone was incredibly happy then. Happy to be here; happy to speak; happy to be able to listen and learn so much. In addition, Tutzing Castle shone with its gold-blue palace ceilings, and outside, Lake Starnberg glittered decadently in the evening sun.
Two black women declare racism for the looks and ears of white people
Discussing diversity and participation for three days – invited by the Evangelische Akademie and the Munich Film Festival. That was the plan of the filmmakers present, and it’s not a particularly happy topic, as Professor Elizabeth Prommer explained with the new results of her Malisa study confirmed: Fewer women than men in both leading and supporting roles, and the women were also portrayed much younger and clichéd. People with a migration background are visible only half as often in the cinema as in society, almost the same applies to people of color and non-heterosexual people. Sobering, but at least everyone on the podium was happy that they finally had solid figures.
“See and be seen – Participation in Film” is the name of the three-day conference, and indeed: Especially during the introductory event, you could feel the cameras looking at the people in front of the stage, everything was sent live into the orbit of the Internet. It seemed to be that look of an undefined, faceless public that led to all the happiness and gratitude for being here and all that has already improved in the industry. After all – the number of women in leading roles has increased by five percent to 47 percent. “We all know that it’s only about white women,” black actress Sheri Hagen said the next day. When no camera is filming.
But the cameras were still on, and in the discussion, the actress Thelma Buabeng then told what roles she would be offered as a black woman – refugee, prostitute, maid, slave. But that couldn’t destroy the good mood, because the moderator Boussa Thiam switched to the “BlackWomxnMatter” initiative, which Bouabeng was supposed to talk about. “You mean the one you’re in?” Buabeng asked and laughed. Two black women declared racism for the eyes and ears of white people.
There are stories of rejection and exploitation
As soon as the cameras are off, that changes. The discussions on the podium, the questions from the people in the hall are by and for filmmakers. The stories become more personal, the discussions more heated. The moderators on the podium often call the people in the audience by their first names. You know each other. And yet there is a lot of anger, a lot of frustration in the room. Because it is still mainly film projects of the majority society – white, bio-German, bourgeois milieu – that are implemented. Many others would not get any additional funding. And filmmaking – you hear that again and again during these three days – filmmaking is insanely expensive.
There are stories of later award-winning film projects that initially did not find any sponsors – neither with one of the German film funds nor with the public sector – and were only shot when American streaming services were awarded the contract. Of endlessly long, exhausting discussions with broadcasters so that they can get involved with a trans actress in the leading role. From German filmmakers who write screenplays about Vietnamese in Berlin and ask colleagues from the Vietnamese community to “just read about it” – free of charge, of course.
“We seem like visitors from the future.”
But there are always representatives of the other faction. Those who say: well, we’ve already achieved a lot. “Hamburg counts,” says the Hamburg Film Fund, which introduced a mandatory diversity checklist in 2020. All applicants have to answer questions such as: How many women hold managerial positions in film production? Are there people of color in the planned project? This makes them the only film funding – both at state and federal level.
The “fantastic three”, as presenter Heike-Melba Fendel calls them, show that things can be done differently: three representatives of the British Film Institute (BFI). You are invited as a shining example to explain to the Germans how things can be done better. And in fact, what Melanie Hoyes, “Industry Inclusion Executive” of the BFI, is going to present is hard to imagine at this point: diversity standards that more and more institutions are adopting, in-house research, partnerships with the Bafta film awards, workshops in schools to attract viewers from to raise awareness of diversity from a young age.
Debate at Lake Starnberg – the actress Sheri Hagen speaks plainly about the German film industry.
(Photo: Bojan Ritan/ Munich Film Festival)
BFI director Mia Bays sums it up when she says: “We seem like visitors from the future.” But this vision of the future seems to be exactly what many here are longing for. Again and again, individual statements by Hoyes and Bays are followed by applause from the audience, the questions to them are mostly hymns of thanks, and when the two leave early with their colleague during the final discussion, there is a standing ovation: the Brits wave back from the future like three radiant queens.
“Talents lie like stones on the road.”
But they don’t just present the British ideal, they always end long discussions with pragmatic contributions that are beautiful in their simplicity: “You can market diversity yourself,” explains Hayes simply when it comes to the problems of marketing diverse stories. “One can say: If the female gaze is important to you, then go to this festival, watch this film.” Seeing diversity as an opportunity, not a problem – this appeal comes from different voices again and again.
But until it becomes more than just a nice-sounding motto, the German film industry obviously still has a lot to do. The responsibility for cancellations is often shifted back and forth between those responsible, one learns. The application processes for film funding are bureaucratic and organized differently in every federal state, many complain. In the Film Funding Act, diversity is only a half-sentence.
Neither in front of nor behind the camera are there nearly as many women, people with a migration background, queer people, people of color or people with disabilities working in film as there are in the population. Admittedly, Germany is not alone in this: When it comes to Hollywood films that have been successful in the box office, things are hardly looking any better for the most part. There is often still a fear that the average viewer of public service broadcasting just wants to see mirror images of himself and his milieu – and that migrant stories are therefore a financial risk.
“There is no evidence that stories with BiPoC or migration stories are poison at the box office,” Professor Prommer never tires of emphasizing. And Sheri Hagen adds: “There are talents, there are stories. They lie like stones on the road – you just have to pick them up.”