Business screen magazine (1971)

CRUISING THE FILM FESTIVAL CIRCUIT by PATRICIA BROSE 0 tt Coelln's article in the March/ April issue of Business Screen on "Rating the Film Festivals" i>f special interest to me, coupled t was, with the compilation of 1972's Most Honored Films." Of the 18 films listed, twelve won hrce awards, five won four awards, nc won five awards: Bomb Threat! Ian. Don't Panic. As producer of Bonih Threat!, it truck me that other producers and ponsors might be interested in our xperiences on the festival circuit. We ntercd Bomb Threat! in all the festials listed in Business Screen, plus a ew more. It was a fascinating game, oming up against what were suposcdly the best films in the land, lonth after month. Here are some ubjcctive comments on a few of the stivals, and our experiences with ■>em last year. NATIONAL SAFETY FILM CONELST. Ott Coelln, in his "rating" colmn, noted that the finalists in this ontest are judged by men and womn who "know their subject matter". Vc have a Bronze Plaque in our past nd had always shared the widely held ood opinion of this contest. I must ay. however, that I was startled by le treatment Bomb Threat! received 1 the 1972 contest. We were notified that we were not winner, which was of no special onccrn since all films can't win. tomb Threat! is not purely a safety ilm so I felt that either it was not iieir sort of picture, or more likely liat it simply was not good enough to 'in. Later however, from many sources including one of the judges, who was ot especially friendly to us) I got the isquieting news that our film was to ave been a winner, but was disqualiied by the comments of one of the jdges who took it upon himself to lacklist the film due to "unsafe con;nt". Therefore, the film could not be onsidcred for an award. Not only was the film blacklisted lut the other judges felt that they must o along with his comments, even hough the line of dialog to which he ibjected did not relate to any other field but his — the Army. Now you can hardly consider it fair for "the Army" to knock the film since it: (a) Was not an Army training film, and (b) Had not been sponsored by them. The truth of the matter is, however, that the Army had approved the film wholeheartedly and is our hii;ge.'it customer. The Army spent thousands of dollars purchasing multiple prints of the film, it's used by all of their bomb squads across the country, training police and civilian installations as well as Army personnel. And the Army's "top cop", the Provost Marshal General has a representative touring the country featuring this film in presentations on civil disturbance. All of this happened in advance of the National Safety Film Contest and continues to this date, therefore, it seems clear that the judges who "know their subject matter" can really be stating their own personal opinion. It's one thing to be subjective about the quality of a film but it's quite another thing to cast yourself in the role of expert, representing an organization, and in fact be speaking in total opposition to that organization's stand. This is a rather long explanation of one special event. What is important is not that one film was prevented from receiving an award, but that there is no way for the film's producer to answer this sort of judgment. Since the awards are given subject to the opinion of "safety factor", this is fatal to the unlucky safety training film. I note that none of the eighteen "most honored films" were winners of the National Safety Contest in 1972. It's not all that easy to make a great safety film, and it's especially difficult if the cards are stacked against you. This brings up one other comment on the contest. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for them to have two separate sections in the contest — one for films produced by the National Safety Council and the other for films produced by outside production companies? In no way do I consider that favoritism is shown, but it would look better if their own films were judged in a separate category. CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL. That's not the easiest festival to get into unless you want to devote an hour a week (for several weeks) calling and writing, trying to get entry blanks. And in some ways it's not the easiest festival to win, either, depending on what you're entering (or who you are). About two years ago, William Brose Productions, in Hollywood, recognized the real need for a film on bomb threats, which were becoming more and more a problem for industry, government and institutions to consider seriously. Not finding a ready sponsor, the company determined to go ahead with the film anyway, and rely on individual print sales to cover costs. As a part of their promotion activities for the film, the producers decided to enter as many recognized film festivals as possible. Along with many frustrations with the various film contests, they «/.?<> had outstanding .uwcess, winning seven awards overall during 1972. The film. Bomb Threat! Plan. Don't Panic, has been well received by industry and government, not only in the United States, but all over the world. It has been a real economic success for William Prose Productions, also, with over 750 prints sold to date in 21 countries. Because the producer, Patricia Brose, has now had wide experience with film festivals, and has developed .■tome most interesting thoughts on the subject, we have asked her to dc.'scrihe how she went about "cruising the festival circuit" last year. July/ August, 1973— BUSINESS SCREEN j 33