Att: RUTH JONES/LINDSAY VAN NIEKERK/BOB WEIS
OF: AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE
FROM: RICHARD LOWENSTEIN
PAGES: (INC. THIS ONE): 1

DATE: 3 DECEMBER, 1996

Dear Ruth, Bob & Lindsay

Thanks for the opportunity to submit my thoughts and suggestions to the AFI Awards Advisory Committee.. I do not think an "AFI Awards Advisory Committee" is the best way of handling the problem. We need to have a discussion open to all accredited members of the AFI. In amongst the furore of the past few weeks, I have had quite an amount of personal response from industry personnel to the points brought up in my letters and NOT one response has been in favour of the current system of selecting the nominations. These responses involve a number of quite prominent ACTORS, DIRECTORS, SCRIPTWRITERS, PRODUCERS, CINEMATOGRAPHERS, PRODUCTION DESIGNERS and EDITORS, some of whom were recipients of nominations, some were recipients of the awards and some were presenters on the night…In addition to this, the vehemence of the response from Ms. Jones and Mr Weis to a relatively intelligent criticism of one aspect of the Awards voting procedure made it obvious to most of us that I had touched a raw nerve and that there was some substance in the issues being raised… Anyhow, I would like to suggest that a panel involving a representative of each Guild is not the best way to go in the current situation… In spite of this, these are my basic suggestions…

1/. A discussion open to all accredited members of the AFI specifically in regards to the voting procedure of the Feature Film and Television Awards in which alternative procedures are considered and voted upon. As I have said in my previous letters, I would love to participate as long as it was a meeting open to ALL accredited AFI members, organised and publicised properly, and involving relevant industry personnel...

2/. As for the nomination and voting procedure itself, my first alternative is this:

Screen ALL the films to ALL accredited voters as in the pre-jury days. Have twice as many screenings over four to six weeks with a variety of screening times, including 7.30pm and 9.30pm and enable members to leave the screenings after 45 minutes if they so desire (as this is a form of voting in itself). This will give accredited AFI members currently in gainful employment, a chance to be involved in the voting and nomination process. It will be one process. The four films with the most votes will be the four announced "nominations" in each category. Since it is highly unlikely that more than 25 films will be made each year, I am sure you will find that the turnout for the screenings is way above the turnout it was in the old 10BA days.

3/. The second alternate suggestion is this:

If the "Jury Panels" are to be retained, might I suggest that they do not pick the four "nominations" but are involved in a "thinning down" process for the main screenings. For example; a "panel" of fully-fledged and officially accredited CINEMATOGRAPHERS (not Camera Operators, Stedicam Operators and 2nd Unit DOP’s) would decide on the 10 films "screened" in the Cinematography Category for all accredited CINEMATOGRAPHERS to then see and vote on. These 10 films would NOT be "nominations" but just a way of thinning down the amount of films the accredited CINEMATOGRAPHERS have to sit through. The four films with the most votes will then become the four "nominations" in each category and announced when all screenings have finished and the final votes tallied. This would cater for potential problems that arise when a large number of "quality" films are in the running. It is not ideal, but it is a little closer to the concept of democracy.

4/. My final suggestion is that the AFI re-introduce the concept of "peer assessment". It is essential that there be strict guidelines that control who is allowed to vote for each category or sit on the "Pre-Selection Jury Panels" (if they continue to exist). The AFI should recommend to each relevant Guild that in the Feature Film area of the Awards that the accredited voters and/or jury members are to be made up of personnel with AT LEAST one quality feature film credit at the highest level of their area of expertise. For example; The PRODUCTION DESIGN Award is judged by Feature Film PRODUCTION DESIGNERS, the SCRIPTWRITING Award is judged by Feature Film SCRIPTWRITERS, the CINEMATOGRAPHY Award is judged by Feature Film CINEMATOGRAPHERS and so on for all the other categories. Just because a Guild like the ACS decides that they will let Camera Operators, Stedicam Operators and 2nd Unit DOP’s vote or stand on the Jury panels so they can make up the numbers, should not mean that the AFI’s own standards and the public reputation of their Awards be compromised...

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment and for a most successful Awards Night party. I enjoyed myself immensely…

Cheers

RICHARD LOWENSTEIN