Standards (A6) refers to ‘Non-specific representation (e.g.

casting not intrinsically based

on or related to specific under-represented groups)’ which is defined as
the inclusion of character(s) possessing one of the protected characteristics [which includes
race] . . . where the possession of this characteristic is evident but remains incidental to the
wider narrative. This means that the character as written will not engage with specificities
of being of a particular race, gender etc., but that the film still provides a level of on screen
representation. The choice may also have a secondary effect of shedding a different light on
the narrative concerned. (FAQs 5)
The final sentence here is interesting in that it appears to state that the social good of
casting for ‘one of the protected characteristics’ comes before what might be the aesthetic
consequence of changing the presentation of the story. A revised version of the
criteria published in 2019 laid down a target of 20% of secondary or minor on-screen
individuals belonging to an under-represented ethnic group as a way of meeting this
Standard (Diversity Standards Criteria 3).
The BFI standards have been adopted by BBC Films and Film4 and so apply to all
the major public funders for film in the United Kingdom and, in what might be seen as
a nod to Henry’s campaign, in 2019 they became an eligibility requirement for BAFTA
Film Awards for Outstanding British Film and for Outstanding Debut by a British
Writer, Director, or Producer. This implementation of diversity standards in British
television and cinema has been one element in a broader adoption of creative diversity
policies in the cultural sector which has not been much welcomed by academic commentators
who consider that discrimination is still endemic: ‘diversity policy leaves no
room for understandings of discrimination that are rooted in histories of racism, sexism
or the reproduction of class inequality. As a consequence both production cultures and
representational practices continue to marginalise . . . even as “diversity” and “inclusion” have
become industrial and cultural buzzwords’ (Cobb, Nwonka, and Newsinger
5). Looking specifically at policies developed by the BBC and Channel 4, Sarita Malik
has argued that particular versions of ‘quality/creativity have been foregrounded over
structural inequality’ and that ‘creative diversity demonstrates the depoliticization of
race in PSB contexts’ (239). It is certainly true that the language of policy statements
often serves to mask the political imperatives, often to do with funding, which impel
their production as well as the complex set of behaviours on the ground which the
policy is trying to reorder. It should be noted also in terms of the BFI policy that not all
Standards need to be met in order to fulfil diversity obligations. Standard A, ‘On Screen
Representation, Themes and Narratives’, outlines six areas but only three need to be
met to fulfil this Standard.
In terms of casting, the idea that colour-blind casting can be a fair practice has been
severely challenged not least by actors themselves since presenting for an audition to be
judged on merit involves a whole series of previous steps involving background, access,
training, and finances; East Asian actor Daniel York, in a challenge to the RSC, scorned
the notion of a level playing field: ‘One of the arguments they use in casting is “we just
don’t consider colour, we don’t consider race.” You can only do that from a position of
privilege having never felt the impact of race’ (qtd. in Rogers and Thorpe, “Interview
with Daniel York” 499). Despite all the policies and directives, casting remains a busines