|
Festival
programmers put together roughly three-quarters of our programs,
including all of the theatrical narrative features. For the remaining
quarter we turn to the Bay Area's active, savvy, dedicated professional
media community, who, through the Golden Gate Awards™ competition,
determine the year's best documentaries, shorts, animation, experimental
film and video and television. The GGA quite simply is one of the
most unique, respected and popular competitions in the world-and
the most international.
By Sura Wood
The
overriding goal of the juries that select the winners of the Golden
Gate Awards™ is to acknowledge outstanding work, but the process
can be unwieldy, exasperating–and as rewarding as democracy
itself. The 157-member GGA jury pool is made up of filmmakers, journalists,
exhibitors and academics whose diverse perspectives reflect professional
expertise and personal aesthetics. During deliberations, passions
often run high. But the principle of reaching a decision through
dialogue and debate has paid off ever since the awards were established,
in 1957.
"Jurors
want to be fair but, when it comes down to it, they want to fight
for what they believe in," says Kris Samuelson, Professor of
Film at Stanford, who has served as a juror and jury chair since
1989 for such varied categories as history, sociology, current events,
youth, family and Bay Area shorts. With husband John Haptas, Samuelson
has made two films which won Golden Gate Awards: Wrong Place, Wrong
Time (Best Bay Area Short, SFIFF 1988) and Empire of the Moon (Special
Jury Award, Bay Area Documentary, SFIFF 1992). Samuelson says that
conflicts often arise between those who are more involved in content
and those who are more focused on form. "As worthy as the content
might be, if it's not a beautifully, magnificently crafted film,
it shouldn't win a prize. So what you see sometimes is people coming
to near blows because they love the topic more than the making of
the film."
As
programmer for the Castro Theatre, Anita Monga watches and selects
films for a living. She has served on juries since 1985 and assembles
the same group of people each year (predominantly exhibitors) who
see all the films together. "We have fun, and I make sure our
jury eats well," she says. Monga started out judging television
features and later switched to the short narrative category. "I
pick short films because I love the form." This year, her final
jury looked at 75 films which had been culled from 540 entries screened
by seven subjuries. "I take it very seriously," says Monga.
"Our category is enormous, and we try to give a fair shake
to each film we are looking at." Monga keeps an open mind and
has, on occasion, been persuaded by her fellow jurors to reconsider
her position. "Everyone brings a different point of view to
the process." She adds, "We have managed, not necessarily
a consensus, but a respect for each other, and we discover things."
Inevitably–and
naturally–juries reflect real-life situations with all their
complex issues. Judy Bloch, Calendar Editor for the Pacific Film
Archive, is a veteran juror who, over the years, has judged the
television features, arts and Bay Area shorts categories. Bloch's
jury experience has been most rewarding. Once, however, many years
ago, she was part of a panel that, because of the large number of
films they had to watch, split up into two groups–one composed
of men (mainly from the commercial world), the other of women. "The
men categorically hated what we chose and we hated what they chose,"
says Bloch. "It was fascinating; but the part that was more
maddening than interesting is that the men reported us to the Festival
as being incapable of judging the films. I don't remember how we
resolved it, but it was so ironic that every conflict that could
have been brought in, was brought in: male vs. female, fiction vs.
nonfiction and art vs. commerce." Not to worry–steps
have since been taken to avoid such standoffs!
"I'm
usually the one who gets excited about an oddball piece of work
and becomes its champion," says Henry S. Rosenthal, a local
producer whose film, Conceiving Ada (directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson),
screened at the 1998 Festival. "But I've always found the jurors
to be fair and earnest even if I disagree with them." Rosenthal,
who teaches producing at the Academy of Art College and San Francisco
State University, considers being a juror integral to his career.
"It's an interesting way to take the pulse of what's going
on." But while the entries can provide a line on emerging trends,
they can also caution against cliches. "One year a shot
of a dripping water faucet appeared in 19 films," reflects
Rosenthal, "as a generic, multipurpose, highly charged, emotional
image to indicate boredom, alienation, anxiety, depression or suspense–usually
in slow motion with a big doink and a lot of echo." And does
the sheer number of films and the concentrated nature of the process
ever cloud his judgment? "My mandate is to evaluate the work
in light of my experience and my personality. I know what excites
me. The best work always rises to the top."
And the best work, as judged by this year's Golden Gate Award™
juries, was screened at the Festival. In 1999, 1,630 entries from
60 countries were judged in 27 different categories. Fifty-four
films and videos were shown.
Sura Wood is a film journalist who contributes to Release
Print, SF Arts Monthly, SF Weekly and the Marin Independent Journal.
^ back to the top
|
|
