Response to letters from the Australian Film Institute & Australian
Cinematographer's Society
October 9th, 1996.
The Editor, Cinema Papers. MTV Publishing.
In regard to both Mr. Ingerson and Ruth Jone’s letters to Cinema Papers, re: my experience as an AFI Jury member and thoughts thereof.
The focus on my mention of the Cinematographers’ panel this year to select (or not to select as the case may be) the four top films in their section misses the point of my intended criticism. My gripe has nothing to do with the films I favoured, that is only my ‘opinion’ as I duly noted. One really must have one’s head in the sand to miss the quite public and widespread criticism (continual mentions on ABC Radio National, the SBS Movie show, amongst others) of the nominations of all sections of the AFI awards this year. And as for democracy… We are talking more of an Eastern Bloc politburo situation here than anything democratic. Last time I checked, democracy was ‘"for the people, by the people", not "for the people, by a small select panel hand-picked by appointed bureaucrats" But, since the letters focus on the Cinematography issue, let me answer them.
Are Ingerson and Jones really saying that membership of the ACS is all that is necessary for a Cinematographer to sit on the AFI jury panel and judge the most prestigious feature-film Cinematography award in the land? My understanding of the AFI’s procedure was that the Jury members (of all categories) had to have a feature-film credit in the area of expertise they were judging. This is indeed what they say to me every time they approach me to sit on the panel. Is this not so for the Cinematographers? Should this mean that membership of the Writer’s Guild or the Director’s Association is all that is necessary to be able to sit on the Writers’ and Directors’ jury?
I don’t want to nitpick re; the credit list furnished by Ms. Jones and I have no beef with ANY of the individuals concerned, but I thought we were talking CINEMATOGRAPHERS here, not 2nd Unit DOP’s, Camera or Steadicam Operators. The last time I’d spoken to my good friend Steve Windon, he’d photographed 'Hotel De Love', 'Country Life' and 'Rapa Nui', not Marc Spicer. And the list goes on. I thought Andrew Lesnie had shot "Babe", Dean Semler - "Dead Calm", Steve Mason - "Strictly Ballroom". Silly me. And how many DOPs shot Bad Boy Bubby? At last count it was thirty seven! Are they all now able to sit on the Jury panel? Let’s follow this theory through to other fields. Are all Script Editors, Standby Props, 1st and 2nd ADs, Assembly Editors, Production Co-Ordinators able to sit on the Jury panels next to the Jill Bilcocks, Jane Campions, Jan Chapmans, Laura Jones and Peter Weirs? Surely this is blatantly absurd.
Would a feature director submitting their movie to the AFI Awards honestly believe that someone who had made a ten minute short is the best person to judge their feature film? I think not. The director would rightly demand that he/she be judged by someone, if not of equal stature, at least in the same ball park - this is what "peer assessment" means. The AFI has oft claimed its Awards are judged by industry peers, but when Cinematographers who have never done a theatrical feature film get to judge those who have, then "peer assessment" has obviously been tossed out the window.
But to focus on this is to miss my point. When referring to Jury members in general being "embittered" and having "axes to grind", I wasn’t referring to the Cinematographers. I was referring to the whole nature of the jury system of pre-selection where a tiny group of industry professionals (who have to be under-employed to make all the screenings) have a disproportionate effect on awards that should be voted for by as many accredited members as possible.
The erratic nature of the nominations are there in other categories as well (‘Best Film’ and ‘Best Documentary’ amongst others). My criticism is not with the ACS or the members of any panel (it is their ‘opinion’ after all), my criticism is with the jury system itself. A system where such a small panel has to speak for the whole industry is fraught with problems (as any unjustly convicted criminal will tell you). It was a system that was brought in during the turbulent days of the 10BA funding where between 35-40 films were being made each year with upwards of 25 of them being unwatchable (I know, I had to watch most of them). This situation does not exist anymore. The amount of films made per year is now around 20. Surely accredited AFI members from each section of the industry, should be able to get to see all 20 films if they are going to vote democratically for the one that is the best of the year in their area of expertise? Or are the panel of 6-8 always going to do the bulk of our thinking for us?
I know from conversations I’ve conducted with the AFI personnel (who have done a marvellous job given the judging system they have to work with) that low attendances at the screenings from accredited AFI members was a major problem with the old system. Perhaps this could be remedied by opening up all screenings to all accredited voters. Since 16 out of the 20 films submitted were screened twice for Jury members and then twice again a month or so later for all Accredited Voters, this should not be a major expense or logistical problem. It may also give accredited AFI members currently in gainful employment, a chance to be involved in the process of selecting their "Best" four of the year. Maybe then the "nominations" would reflect the films with the most votes and not a panel’s arbitrary decision.
If not, maybe we should rename the "Best Film" award, "Best
Of The 4 Films We Have Been Allowed To Vote For Award". Maybe then,
I wouldn’t have a problem…
Richard Lowenstein