By Greg Dolgopolov
Are the AACTA Awards all about Sequins and Champagne or are they serious about representing the diversity of Australian cinema?
In response to heavy criticism from independent filmmakers last year who felt marginalised and deceived by the existent opaque qualification criteria, the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA) recently announced a new Feature Film Eligibility Policy for their 7th Awards Season. It should be acknowledged that the policy and thinking behind it are a positive initiative and go a long way to improving the situation that maintained an exclusive, relatively closed shop of selected films eligible for the red carpet and doubled down on keeping independent voices and low budget features out of mainstream cinema culture.
I asked AACTA about these changes and received the following answers regarding AACTA’s position via writing. Below are his responses to my questions and my commentary.
AACTA: The changes follow extensive industry feedback and consultation with Screen Australia, screen craft guilds and a number of other industry bodies.
Greg Dolgopolov: Festival directors I spoke to who were omitted from the list did not have any “extensive industry feedback”. They were completely unaware this was going on. You would think if festivals were going to be involved in this initiative they might have consulted the festivals.
AACTA: Historically, feature films have been able to enter and proceed to competition for the AACTA Awards either through Direct Eligibility (via traditional theatrical release), or Pre-Selection (a jury-assessed pathway designed to allow a wider range of films, that don’t meet the direct eligibility criteria, to be considered on merit and not their distribution model).
In recent years the volume of films releasing via what was previously captured in the ‘Pre-Selection’ pathway has increased markedly. In response to this and to the ever-changing screen industry landscape, among other factors, AACTA has replaced the previous two-tier process with a single clear pathway that lessens the potential barriers to entry.
As part of the new and more accessible eligibility policy, AACTA is broadening the definition of a ‘theatrical release’ to include local and international film festival screenings. AACTA’s revised policy also makes considerations for releases outside of a commercial cinema setting, such as VOD and SVOD platforms.
All films meeting the new eligibility criteria will be automatically entitled to compete for the 7th AACTA Awards, opening a clear pathway for smaller, independent films to compete for the Awards. By easing the requirements for films to be eligible for competition, AACTA is improving diversity and inclusivity for those films that take a less traditional release path.
GD: Cool! This sounds very reasonable. There is a clear commitment to diversity, accessibility and transparency in the selection process and a commitment to lifting the potential barriers to entry. So then why has AACTA selected only eight Australian film festivals – which is the primary means for many independent and low budget films appearing before audiences? What was AACTA’s criteria for selecting the following film festivals: the biannual Adelaide Film Festival; CinefestOZ Film Festival – a tourism orientated festival a couple hours south of Perth; For Film’s Sake (a women’s film festival in Sydney that at the time of the policy had not yet been staged); Gold Coast Film Festival; Mardi Gras Film Festival; Melbourne International Film Festival; and Sydney Film Festival. Why Mardi Gras Film Festival and not Melbourne Queer Film Festival? Why no festivals from Canberra, Brisbane, Perth, Tasmania and NT? Seems awfully Sydney-Melbourne centric. There are no specific opportunities for Indigenous or multicultural films or genre content.
AACTA: In determining the list of qualifying Australian film festivals for the inaugural year of these eligibility process changes, AACTA consulted directly with industry bodies including Screen Australia and screen craft guilds. Specifically, we looked at three of the larger film festivals in Australia – MIFF, SFF and AFF. We then also added CinefestOZ (which undertakes a well-regarded Australian film competition alongside general programming) and GCFF (which now stands as the primary film festival in Queensland and is also very focused on emerging Australian film). Then, following industry consultation, we sought to include smaller festivals that focus on more diverse content. In recognition of the long history of WOW, For Film’s Sake was included (industry also agreed FFS’s programming was a good representation of emerging and female filmmakers and films), while based on its programming and high profile, Mardi Gras Film Festival was selected.
————-
Film festival scholar Kirsten Stevens notes, “That looks quite a small and Sydney-centric list: Revelation, Stranger with my Face, the Melbourne and Brisbane Queer Film Festivals, as well as numerous other events seem strange omissions. What will this mean for festivals competing for Australian content? Non-qualifying events may well lose what small Australian content they do show to those anointed few; if filmmakers – rightfully so – wish to give their films the best opportunity for acclaim and attention. The oversight of Vision Splendid as a site specifically for Australian films highlights the limitations of this list.”
It seems to me that this list of eight Australian film festivals is counter-productive and creates unnecessary competition from an otherwise supportive festival community. If a festival is not a gateway to Award eligibility could this undermine the impact, sponsorship and drawing power of that festival? Why are AACTA members in Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Perth and Tasmania disadvantaged by this selection criteria? Surely in the interests of expanding film culture and providing opportunities for emerging, independent and genre filmmakers having a narrow list is not helpful.
AACTA argued that the choice of only eight festivals was a cost issue, “due to limitations on resources, AACTA had to limit the number of film festivals included in the inaugural year of these changes. However, AACTA has planned these changes with the view for a staged roll out, and foresees more of Australia’s many film festivals being included in the future.” It is not clear how having more participating festivals will have an impact on resources given that AACTA’s remit is to theatrically screen all feature films in competition and that voting members are given access to feature films in competition via the online streaming platform AACTA TV. More participating festivals would provide members further opportunities to see the films in a festival environment. Festival screenings of Australian films will potentially generate more AACTA members.
Here is the conundrum: diversity is touted as a big imperative for AACTA but they don’t want to include too many entries as they would have to screen them to their membership and this would cost them more. So what gives? Diversity. Selection will remain limited.
Festivals provide screening opportunities for films that may otherwise never have a theatrical life and may not find an audience outside of an un-curated VOD platform. This small step of excluding a range of festivals will have a deleterious impact on increasing diversity. Rejecting festivals from the “family” will drive down independent film accessibility and will exacerbate the barriers to entry into mainstream film culture and audience visibility that AACTA Award selection provides. Anointing eight chosen festivals, even if that list is subsequently expanded, will have a negative impact on a range of film festivals that have bold programming and long standing commitments to screening Australian films. The well-funded “big three” will prefer commissioned films along with safer, proven projects. They will screen more of the same rather than supporting raw talent and providing adventurous alternatives. The AACTA Awards should not be just about champagne, red carpets and sequins, but about fostering the diversity of Australian screen culture.
The AACTA policy revision is a good initiative as it seeks to broaden the base. But why omit innovation and diversity that the smaller festivals deliver? If cost is an issue then alternative, digital solutions need to be promoted – those solutions currently exist. What is urgently required is that the Australian qualifying film festival list needs to be expanded and festivals programming new and original Australian films need to be supported and consulted.
