Business screen magazine (1946)

paradox BY STANFORD SOBEL PARADOX: All «riUrs proniole (he fact that their films hu>e uon awards at Film Festivals, but no writer belie>es that (he best films recei>e awards at Film F\'sti>als. In all the years I've been writing films, and in all the conversations Fve had with other writers who write films over the years, I have yet to meet a single scriptwriter who believes that the awards at Film Festivals go to the best written films, or for that matter that they go to the best produced films. And yet . . . both 1 and all the other writers I know invariably make a point of mentioning the fact that a particular film has won a Golden Mercury, or a Cine Golden Eagle, or a Chris, or what have you, especially in those cases where you're trying to sell your services to a new producer or client. Now . . . how does that make sense to you? If you don't believe that an award is an indication of superiority, why play it up as a wles tool? Paradox: Nobody believes in film festivals, but they keep proliferating. Every year brings a new crop of film festivals, and the only way they can survive, or increase, is if they are supported by producers and clients . . . and writers, who arc usually on the judging committees. Now if nobody believes in them. how come they keep proliferating and prospering? Because, dear friends and readers, they are profiiahle! Profitable for whom? you ask ... for lots of people, friends. For the sponsors, the producers, the clients and ... for the writers. I myself can testify that although I have placed many ads for my icrviccs over the years in many journals of commerce, the only ad which ever paid off in direct inquiries and sales was one in which I listed all the films I had written that year alone with all the aw;irc!s at national and international filni festivals won by those films. There is something mysteriously magical and powerful about the words, "Award-Winninp-Film" that makes people turn around and look atten tively at whatever is on the screen. And, if you really want to make a good investment . . . put a title on your film showing the Venice Mcrcurio D'Oro or whatever your film has won. Those leaders are really like little golden fingers of support for your sales message. They're expensive of course, especially since they usually have to be added a couple of months, or even a year after being released. But oh, Brother, are they ever worth it even if you only put them onto your house films! Clients love awards because nobody knows how to judge a film. And it gives a client the extra security he needs to be able to defend a film he's made, (and therefore also all the decisions he had to make in producing the film), if he can point to a series of awards and certificates of merit won by the film produced under his aegis and/or leadership. The sponsors of film festivals are the real winners, though. There is enormous profit in a film contest or festival, if it is done on a commercial basis. In fact, if it is not done on a commercial basis, it will probably lose money, paradoxically, because it will attract better films! But just look at the income from a film festival . . . entry fees, banquets, travel expenses, even charges for winners' plaques. One gruesome contest won by u film of mine required me to come up with $75 for the winner's plaque, which turned out to be a $6.00 vacuform plastic wall hanging. Luckily I didn't win "Best of Show," which was $100, Paradox: Good film festivals, which are prestigious, usually lose money for their sponsors, but bad film festivals, which are notorious, are usually very profitable for their sponsors. Now how can that bc'^ The answer. Friends, is in the judges. If the people sponsoring the film festival are interested in improving the quality of films and the industry in general, they will select good judges to do the judging . . . and that will cost them some important amounts of money. Prominent people who are interested and qualified will not waste their time in private screenings just for the prestige of having their names printed in a pre gram or of being introduced at a hotel beef dinner. Judges who are competent, qualified, prominent and interested in films are also going to be expensive . . . which is the way it should be. So if you want to make money on a festival, you just can't afford good judges. On the other hand, if you get local producers to judge films, they usually send over their production co-ordinators because they're too busy themselves. So the entire "raison d'etre" of the film festival, the judging and awarding of prizes, is a volunteer effort by unqualified people who themseh-es have an axe to grind. This kind of thing never matters to the winners. The winners of awards at Film Festivals usually feel that they are very de serving of the awards granted to then), and they usually have very little to complain about regarding the running of the contest, the judg ing. or the awards. It's the loserx wh(i feci cheated. There are exceptions to all these rules of course. I don't think any body ever minded losing to "Why Man C^reates" which has won practically every contest it ever entered. The way to cope with competition is never to enter a film against a film like "Why Man Creates!" And this is entirely a practical suggesti(»n If a client is (ipcn and frank Continued on page 16 BUSINrSS SCRFFN