Business Screen Magazine (1965-1966)

W V W eic Urmv: the lii>i(ic' Sioin of iIk' Festi\al in Venice "sfvcial prizes" were also awarded b\ Italian griHips. Great Britain, with three first awards and two second prizes, received the Grand Prix oi the Festival; followed closely by Germany, with one first prize, two second awards and two third prizes. The Grand Prix might have uone to Holland, too, as that country swept one first place, one second prize, two third prizes (including a tie); and one fourth award. Films from Finland. Sweden ^^'in Firsts Other first prizes of the F-estival were shared b\ linland and Sweden, with one apiece. France had one second prize and two third prize awards, including the tie shared witii the Netherlands. The United States won a single second prize. Italy had a third prize and a fourth place award but was comforted by special prizes given by national groups of that country to four of its entries. Two of the special prizes also went to German entries. All of these special awards were made by Italian manufacturing, press or publicity groups, other than the tradlitional Infornim (international distribution) prize, given this year by its Italian member. DlFl. of Rome. Time for Discussion \N'as a Real Asset \ital statistics are just that and little more. 1 he real story of the Festival lies in the images on the screens and in the discussions, social participation and the lively interchanges between members of the juries and various delegates. Venice resumed the healthy practice of holding a "parliamentary" discussion session through an entire morning before the Festival ended. Here delegates expressed their views on topics of international concern. An historic ■first" was achieved when Francois Lutangu, representing the Ministry of Information of the Republic of the Congo, made a brief but impassioned appeal for "films to help teach our people better methods of agriculture." Members of the official juries represented industry, industrial federations of their countries and governments who participated in the Festival. The U.S. was represented (through The Prefect of \ eiiiee (center) ;)/c.srii/s i)iiz( •liven "Steel and Aineiiea" li> one of V. .S. (leleniitey Carl Lenz (rifilil) tclio accepted on heluilf of American Iron & Steel Institute. the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on International Nontheatrical Events) by Ott Coelln, publisher of Businiss Sciu;iN and Car! Lenz, president of Modern Talking Picture Service, Inc. Per-Erik Lonnfors, of Finland; Erik Heimann, of Denmark; and Dr. Willi Riesenberg. of Germany, were typical of other jurors who represented their national manufacturer groups at Venice. Great Britain named as jurors Oliver Farmer (of Associated Electrical Industries Ltd.) and Peter Spearing (of The Imperial Tobacco Co.). Truls Treider was one of Norway's delegated jurors, representing the Federation of Norwegian Indusiries. .Sponsor Kxeciiti\es .Ainonn the Jurors Other well-known film sponsors were represented on the juries. Or. C". .\. Crena de .longh, information officer of Unilever; Dr. Karl Kagi. of Sandoz A.G. and Dr. Max Leutenegger were anumg these experienced executives whi' judged films at Venice. Rudolph Schmidt, a Unilever executive and Herbert Podhradsky. film institute executive, were Austria's contributions to the official jury. Mrs. Inga Millar. I Ik TiiLi/zd (lei Cinema on the Lido at \ eiiice is a jiiiniliar \ile for inlernntionid jdni eoinpelilioii This huildiuii's larnc. wril-riiiiipped main theater was sii]ipltnienti d Inj the smaller S<dou Volpi It here the inltrnalional juries ami delegates viewed the 124 /i7m.s siihmitted Inj IT eounlri(s. widely known for her wi)rk at Norway's ductivity Institute, was the other juror : that land. Sweden sent Arne Lundmark. resentim; the Skandinaviska Banken. and Sandell. public relations officer of .-Xb Si., V'abis. as that country's jury members. This cross-section of jury membership ■ derscores the competence, for the most of the men and women who selected the award-winning motion pictures in 1966. I served in groups of seven on each jury, gently viewing and scoring in their resp... categories, meeting daily at luncheon r^ sessions. These were the criteria followed is the specific objective of the film uchu (2) is the film likely ro commtmicate u level of the specified audience'.' and (3) . Nature's handiwork inspires the designs Finni.'ih textiles of Marjatta Metsovaaru. the creator of that eonntry's fir.st-prizi lias hroiifiht ]}ietorial heaiitij a new nn t. Shown at uork on a seipience for "Textih producer Ainio Japerholin, head of Sektor I lite lecliniccd and arlislic tiiialities of the (consider visual quality, sound and ter Hiinni Is the l'ni\ersal Metliuni. But . . The limiting factor which heavily influcn jury consideration was the uniformlv p quality of Idmni projection. Inevitably f ceded or followed by superb 35mm sho«n such films were compared unfavorablv ■> competing subjects shown in 35mm. The suit is apparent: not u single \timm eir' liny country received a fury award. TIh U. S. winner: a 35mm color print of Siee. America only served to emphasize thai cnu failure at Venice, ,-\nother L', S, eiUry, best-seen factual motion picture of this d ade. Johnson's Wax' /<> Be .Alive! was b lianlly projected in a wide-screen 7t)mm v sion (special composite print) but disqualifi ;is a pre1 '■)(i5 production. Fhe wave of i phiuse which swept the theater ;il the P;ilal del Cinema was heart-warming, however, this film has a great future when contempi ., 7()nmi theatrical arrangements have been cd pleted for its European public showings. This year's national host, the Italian Cc federation of Inilustry. headed by its |iresid«( Angelo Costa, shared organizational hon< with Dr. Domirco Re. vice-president ot I BUSINKS.S SCREEN • I**'!