Don’t Expect to Get Rid of the Labels

As our human brains love shortcuts, labels are quick to emerge. They are our tools to quickly identify anything, including ourselves. There are many labels for artists: socialist artists, conservative artists, LGBTQ+ artists, political artists, indie artists, activist artists, environmentalist artists, and so on and forth. These labels, for sure, are helpful for them in gaining acceptance from specific segments of society/audiences. But, let’s not forget that every label is a predetermined expression to categorize, and a potential flaw in being an authentic artist.

I always find it ridiculous that artists pride themselves on being autonomous individuals while they seem unable to form their artistic identity without relying on the labels of particular groups. At the same time, I can empathize with them since a life without labels doesn’t get you far. And whether you define your own approach or not, others assign labels to you anyway.

As an example, I could be easily labeled as Mr. Conservative in Turkey (Türkiye if you can pronounce it) just because of my name and where I come from. Or if you are a filmmaker, there is always an unspoken assumption that you should align with leftist or socialist ideals. Your films should contain direct or indirect socio-political messages that must be highlighted in every promotional material. And, of course, you should always act together in the name of solidarity. If not, you may be labeled as a selfish opportunist or a pseudo-liberal even a fascist which is perhaps a more popular term in Turkey than Mussolini’s Italy.

So, you have to scream from the rooftops that you are not what they think. But once you reject one label, then you are hit with a new one that’s even farther from the truth. And I assure you, it’s not just a Turkish habit. It is everywhere, even in those progressive, democratic, and diverse developed countries. Every place and every group has its labels, and if you do not adopt one, you are on a wild ride.

Welcoming the Underdog Status

Imagine you are a filmmaker from a less-developed or developing country. The moment you step into the world of the cinema industry, you are faced with adopting the concept of diversity. This recognition is, in fact, accepting a disadvantaged position beforehand. Sure, you can stay true to your authentic self, but you might need to leave behind the traditional perspectives and identities of your country (surely, there is nothing wrong with welcoming the fresh and new, just as long as the pressure of woke and cancel culture don’t force it).

So, the expectations from you are pretty clear. You are supposed to focus on the socio-political issues in your homeland and help ease the conscience of the rest of the world, which tends to watch the injustices and tragedies. Nowadays, this is often the first demand placed upon filmmakers, especially from film festivals. And if your interests lie elsewhere, if you are more inclined to follow your own artistic agenda and make films for the love of the art, you are likely to face a decision: You can pretend and accept your designated role right away, and wear that label like a badge. Or you boldly continue on your way and risk the consequences, which often end up being ignored.

The Trends

There is already a huge trend where many filmmakers find their spotlight through the lens of diversity (DEI – Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity politics in the broad sense). It is as if a signal goes out: Adopt diversity, and you are in. This sets off a chain reaction where filmmakers follow a certain pattern and hope to ride this wave. It is almost like saying: Let’s make a film with all the diversity checkboxes ticked. But shouldn’t our primary aim be making exceptional films? Shouldn’t we acknowledge and appreciate people who are good at what they do, no matter what situation they are in?

Unfortunately, we become fixated on surface aspects: skin tones, exotic backdrops, and gender inclinations. And we settle for mediocrity in true cinematic qualities. Then we create a tricky system with favoritism which turns the spotlight into a scarce commodity for the rest. Just look at the films in those up-and-coming filmmakers sections of recent film festivals. Initially, they appear to be a colorful collage of diversity. But when you dig a bit deeper into how these filmmakers identify themselves and the details of their films – the themes, subjects, and characters – you’ll find yourself trapped in a narrow range of labels that feels like NGO promotions: environmentalism, feminism/gender equality/womanhood, LGBTQ+, political activism, Anti-Russia, veganism, labor struggles, anti-colonialism, racial/ethnic/exotic identities, social justice, immigrant/refugee narratives.

So, instead of providing true diversity, we are actually handed only a minority perspective. The consistency is striking, almost absurd. It is a cycle: Selectors keep picking the same labels, and filmmakers follow them to achieve success. So, the idea of diversity appears to be a popular trend rather than a principle.

And if you are a keen observer, it will catch your eye that even established filmmakers add some doses of diversity to their content for its advantageous aspects. You know, they suddenly adopt the topics and motifs they have not been interested in throughout their entire careers. Of course, people learn, develop, and change, right?

So, if only those branded by diversity dominate, what remains for the rest? You know, a fresh cycle of marginalized filmmakers is occurring, and now we have new disadvantaged groups. I am curious when they earn favor in turn. In my experience, we often find ourselves both the beneficiary and the casualty of those trends. It’s a complex issue, and we can’t dictate the moves.

Playing the Hare and Hound Game

Let me be clear, I have no intention of framing this as a discrimination issue, playing the victim and profiting from it. And I’m totally indifferent to whether my comments are seen as justifications for my own failures or if I’m perceived as someone who disparages what he can’t achieve (like a La Fontaine’s fox). These are just my personal observations, and my strategy on this matter is simple: I don’t put myself in a box, and meanwhile, I deal with the occasional labels thrown my way as it seems impossible to get rid of them.

Once I received financial support for my film project on an international platform, and I was introduced as a filmmaker from a struggling country. The truth is, I never described it that way. My film did not revolve around this subject. And neither I nor anyone on my crew lives an impoverished life (certainly, things aren’t perfect in our country, but we’re just doing alright). But, in their world of identity politics, they assumed I must fit into a disadvantaged position based on my gender, ethnicity, or social class in order to get support. And when none of those quite fit in their perception, they turned their focus on my country and labeled me as a filmmaker from a struggling country.

So, though this attribution might have good intentions, it was nothing but a well-dressed prejudice. Okay, I’m not a blind nationalist or patriot, but I don’t appreciate being underestimated. And, sincerely, I don’t seek anybody’s sympathy because of where I come from. I am passionate and skilled at what I do, and I am interested in establishing mutually beneficial relations. I want my works to be evaluated on their own merits, without any external factors like my background or my alignment with current trends. But no, they might even tolerate your lack of skills, but they won’t tolerate you if you cut off from their discourse.

So, must we, as citizens of developing countries, fabricate hardship to make films? Don’t we deserve support for only our proficiency in what we do? Unfortunately, these expectations are not placed upon us at first. You know, we can’t just jump into personal or experimental or avant-garde works, we should first convince them that we are able to criticize something that’s going wrong in our country or somewhere more exotic. And, once we have done that, then perhaps we will be ready to reach that artistic level in their perception.

But, that is not enough, we should also fit their inclusive identity politics. You know, nowadays they don’t even hesitate to ask it directly to show us their favoritism: What ethnicity do you belong to? What are your gender inclinations? They try to figure out if we could be included in their acceptable spectrum of diversity. It is called affirmative action, and in practice, it is like taking the eyes of a sighted person and giving them to a blind person in the name of equality. In this regard, I find affirmative action more dangerous than typical discrimination because it institutionalizes and legitimizes the practice. And it’s not only the fault of those who impose it, we as filmmakers are also guilty of accepting this mentality without question due to their perceived advantages.

(You might offer a reasoned critique by asking who exactly they are. I am referring to international film funds and festivals, regardless of their country. While some are very autonomous, they are generally influenced by each other and act similarly in these matters. The trick is repeatedly choosing the same people as decision-makers in various settings. I’m not exaggerating: I’ve encountered the same decision-maker in three organizations in three different countries in a short period of time. And some of those people do not have a film background at all, they have very focused backgrounds that are into specific socio-political issues. Think of them as the godfathers of the independent film industry, and the entire system as a mafia. Did I just label them?)

Bésame, Bésame Mucho

Despite their advantages, I always try to limit the influence of labels in my world. I even stopped calling myself an independent filmmaker as the term carries so many prejudices that my works are often judged before they are even seen (and, you know, independent cinema is already dead). Besides that, aren’t we all like complex blends? We sift each concept through a critical lens and it is our own unique perspective that creates distinct individuals with a mix of flaws and virtues. But if you cherry-pick labels to identify yourself it’s probably a sign that you seek validation from a certain group rather than welcome your true self (or your authentic persona that you have created).

And, in fact, when people fully accept us, we risk becoming just another label, even a caricature of ourselves. In this sense, the absence of acceptance is not all that dreadful to me. It might motivate us in our self-discovery and keep us searching. Does that sound like a critical self-reflective nonconformist idealist? Don’t hesitate, feel free to label me.