Business screen magazine (1971)

feedback LETTERS TO THE EDITOR More on "Cruising the Film Festival Circuit" Dear Sirs: As a long-time member and current chairman of the National Committee on Films for Safety. I am responding to Patricia Brosc's comments about our awards program. I refer to her "Cruising the Film Festival Circuit" which appeared in your July August issue. And I believe it's imperative that BUSINESS SCREEN readers also see my response. Our Commillee in no way "blacklists" any film entries. A film cither wins an award or it doesn't — and that's as far as it goes. A judge's vigorous criticism of a film during our screenings might or might not influence his fellow judges; it depends entirely upon the validity of his criticism as it applies to the film's stated purpose, and the specific audience for whom the film is intended. Films have won our awards when an individual judge has criticized them severely. Films have failed to win our awards when an individual judge has praised them as "outstanding!" Reactions can vary widely among a group of film judges as they do among every film audience. But the important thing is that after each film is screened and discussion has ended, each judge scores privately according to his own individual appraisal — and it's the average evaluation that decides. There is no reason to have a separate category for National Safety Council films. The National Committee on Films for Safety and the National Safety Council are entirely separate entities. The Council is represented on our Committee, but is only one of 2} organizations so represented — and each organization has but one vote. More importantly, when we are judging a film that was sponsored or produced by an organization represented by one of our judges, thai judge docs noi participate in the evaluation of that particular film. There isn't a shred of disgrace — let alone a "blacklisting" — in failing to win an award in our annual film contest. Competition is keen — always has been, and grows keener each year. In the 30 years that we have conducted a film competition, we have seen a remarkable increase in both the quality and quantity of safety films produced. and this was precisely the reason why the National Committee on Films for Safety came into being. It is no simple matter to view 100 or more films over the course of a few days and conscientiously try to separate the "Excellent " from the "Very Good." And while I doubt that any of us consider ourselves infallible as film judges, I do believe that every one of us has strong faith in the group evaluation which emerges from our judging procedures. Phil F. Carspccken, Chairman National Committee on Films Safety Dear Sirs: Patricia Brose's "Cruising the Film Festival Circuit" in your July-August issue suggests some hanky-panky at the 1972 Chicago International Film Festival. As a member of the jury for the Business and Industrial competition, in which her film was entered, I would like to set the record straight. It is true that Frank Havlicek of Motorola was among the jury members (of which there are many). But he did not judge the Brose film, and he — as is customary — eliminated himself from the jury while the Motorola film. Bombs, was being judged. To characterize Mr. Havlicek as "the judge of the competition" is completely inaccurate. At the Chicago festival, preliminary judging of the Business and Industrial category is done by smaller panels of the entire jury. Each panel recommends films to be finally judged by the entire jury; a panel may eliminate a film from further competition at the preliminary judging. The Brose film apparently was so eliminated, because I do not recall its being presented to the full jury. I know that Mr. Havlicek was not on the panel that apparently rejected the Brose film because he and I were on the same panel, and our panel did not judge that film. The Motorola film was not shown at the Chicago Festival because Motorola had stipulated before it was judged that it could not be given a public showing. In that I concur; the film was designed solely for police use. and was too explicit about bombs for showing to the general public. The judging at the Chicago Festival is done with the highest integrity, and I am personally offended by implications that it is otherwise. Incidentally, it is not unusual for a member of the jury to be associated with a film entered in the competition. That jury member simply eliminates himself from any judging of the film. Abbott Laboratories, for example, had entered a film in the 1972 competition. But it didn't survive the preliminary panel judging. And I thought it was a damned fine film! Thomas A. Craig. Manager Professional Relations Dcpt. Abbott Laboratories North Chicago, III. Dear Sirs: I read with great interest Patricia Brose's article "Cruising the Film Festival Circuit" in the July August issue and appreciated the nice words she had for the International Film & TV Festival of New York, especially regarding the awards medal. I would like to take issue only with her suggestion that our finalists' fee be abolished. I have given consideration to this every year because it is perhaps a little awkward, but I would like to, explain its continuation. TTie entrant fee, such as $40 for an industrial film,] has remained the same for ten years. You will agree that $40 in 1962 is quite different from S40 today, especially since the fees for projectionists, screenings, salaries for office staff etc. have tripled and in some cases quad rupled. Now I had two possible course of action — to raise the entrance fee oi institute the finalists' fee. To me. the latter course is more in the interest ol participants. If I were to raise the entry fee to S80. a company which were t enter four films would have to pa] $320. But should a company enter foi films at $40 and have one of thi entries make the finals, the bill woul come to only $210, a saving of $70, On the other hand I believe — and thi is the opinion of many participatin; companies — that if a film makes the finals (and by the way, of the 2,000 01 so entries only about 10 to IS*";^ make^ the finals) it is much easier for a company to afford the additional S.'iO.CXIl and reap benefits from the publicity. Don't you agree that this is more tO their advantage? Herbert Rosen, President International Film & TV Festi of New York 40 I BUSINESS SCREEN— S«ptember October, 1973