Business screen magazine (1946)

PARADOX continued with mc. I can practically assure him of an award for his picture. You have to pick tlie right festival, with the right judges, and ihc right competition against you, and anyone can win an award, with almost any kind of picture, regardless of merit or lack thereof. Of course, if you want to win an award with real prestige, an aw.ird that really means something to people who know the fine pt^ints and the differences between awards, well then you have to be frank and open with me about a year in advance of planning the film. 1 think we all know what kinds of pictures win awards . . . they share certain basic characteristics of approach and technique and style, and yes, even certain characteristics of subject matter per se. The 'festival picture' is a genre all its own . . . and anyone can buy or have it if he wants to spend certain kinds of money and is willing to put the film in the hands of writers and producers who understand the 'festival film' and who produce such pictures routinely. I'm not sure this is a goixl development, but I am sure it is a throwing development. 1 have had more inquiries and interest shown in 'festival films' this year than in any previous year. In normal times, only one or two clients out of a dozen express any interest or desire in winning awards. But this year, practically every client, and every producer I've worked for, has been very interested in the possibilities of entering film festivals. That's not necessarily a good sign. It may even be a bad sign . . . one of a weakening marketplace, which requires bolsterinp by artificial means. And film festivals have become very artificial . . . very structured and routine . . . very familiar and outre. There is the routine of judging by unknowns. Just this morning one of my producer friends showed mc. (with some annoyance and impatience), an invitation in the morning's mail to be a judge of a film contest. It also suggested, \in verftuenza. that he should assign "eight or nine of his creative people" to the judging chore as well! That ended his own personal interest in this or any ntlu-r film competition. All judgings of films follow the U same routine. For those few of our readers who may, incredibly never have been judges or "screcners " in a film festival. I will describe the process. The honored judges, usually five or seven, gather after office hours in some neutral producer's screening room. The first film to be shown is fifteen minutes long, and they watch it all the way through to the end title. (That is the last time this evening any film will be seen to the very end.) The second film is seen about half-way through. The third film is shown only for about five minutes. And after that, the next twenty-five films or so are looked at for about two to five minutes, unless some really exciting picture comes along. But that doesn't happen too often. You get so you can judge them in the first sixty seconds or so. Or at least, you get to the point where that's about all your patience will permit. Obviously, this means that if you're going to try to win awards at film festivals, that first sixty seconds had better reach out and grab the judges, because it may also be vour very last chance, unfair though that may be. Paradox: Although it becomes a dull, boring, routine, annoying process which is largely a terrible waste of time, there is no activity more valuable to a writer than serving as a judge at a film contest. Now, maybe on the surface that doesn't make too much sense in view of the paragraph just preceding it. but it is still a true statement, and there is a wierd kind of logic behind it. The reason it's so helpful to be a judge is not that you sec new trends in the good films as they come along. In fact, the vast majority of what you have to wade throuuh is simply garbage . . . and derivative garbage at that. Rut the experience docs one very important thing for you it xhowx you what not in (III.' To repeat and to emphasize: JinCING FU.MS FOR .i FISTI\AI. TEACHFS YOU WHAT NOT TO DO! And then finallv, it's the night of the big awards dinner. This is another all-too-familiar routine to anyone who's watched the Emmys or the Oscars on TV. or to anyone who's been through it. (There is one tleparture from the norm. If it's ;i foreign film festival, the company president and his wife usually go over to receive the award on behalf of the company, although he may have put all sorts of obstacles in the way of producing the film.) You struggle into you iron lung Tux, pay some Neanderthal character S5.50 to put two new dents in your fenders, smile insipidly through a hospitality hour with two watered drinks, submit yourself to the indignity of the standard hotel banquet with its fruit cocktail in warm cup. its string beef congealed on a cold platter, and its melted mocha ice cream. Then you listen to a keynote speech by a puerile politician who has just been defeated for re-election, and finally the announcement of the winners of thi awards. It starts with clapping for the first winner, but after 37 more winners in 17 classifications you begin to lose track. The clapping stops. After all. why should the ninncrs-up clap for producers of films they feel are inferior to their own submissions? The most embarrassing problems at the awards banquet are the awards for which nobody appears as claimants. If they don't want to win, then why did they enter? Did the mail fail? Did their baby-sitter disappoint them? It's always a mystery. And those speeches of thanks! Those effusive congratulations from the professionals to the people who hired them, for their wisdom and creativity! Enough already! I think! the worst festivals are those where I they tell you in advance you may ! have won, but you have to come to the banquet to find out for sure, j That's really dirty pool! j Tlic best summary of an Awards < Banquet I'se ever heard was at a recent Festival which I shall call the Podunk City International FilmJ Festival. My client had won an award for the film I had written and he returned to the table beaming and joking about how surprised,, pleased, and tongue-tied he had! been on the platform. It was unfortunate, but unknown to my client, one of the losers in the same cate-j gory as our winner, was also at ourf table. He listened for a while, theni turned and said to me . . . "It's just like poker, Stan" I looked puzzled, and he shrugged and explained . . . "The winners make jokes, and the losers cry 'deal!' Just like poker . . . except the odds are tougher to figure," BUSINESS SCREEN