Nicole Sperling and Reed Johnson, The Age, report
Australian documentaries may miss major awards nomination.
A NEW requirement that documentary films must be reviewed by the Los Angeles Times or The New York Times in order to be eligible for Oscar consideration is being touted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
They see it as a way to cut down a recent glut of feature films submitted, including many that air on TV but play in one theatre for one week.
But the change, which would come into effect for the 2013 Oscars, is raising concerns among some filmmakers.
They fear that the new rule will favour wealthier documentary makers, who have professional publicists.
A spokeswoman for Australia's government agency, Screen Australia, was unaware of the change when contacted by The Age yesterday, and declined to comment.
The artistic director of the Melbourne International Film Festival, Michelle Carey, said that while she was sympathetic, she had concerns about the academy giving such power to the press, and the implications of the decision for the Australian industry.
''It's very difficult for any documentary to get a theatrical release unless it's got major studio backing or a major name such as Michael Moore,'' she said.
''Australian documentary makers will suffer more, as they don't tend to make big, big-budget films.
''This sends a ripple through the industry. It is indicative of a trend towards bigger budgets, not just in documentaries.''
The L.A. Times reviews nearly every film released on a commercial screen for a week in Los Angeles.
The New York Times policy is to review every film released on a commercial screen for a week in New York, or Los Angeles.
It also reviews some new releases screened by non-profit groups, such as museums.
Other documentary makers suggested that the new requirement ignored the reality of the varied ways in which high-quality documentaries were being exhibited today, whether in movie theatre or on television.
A highly creative period for documentary filmmaking internationally has been ushered in by the widespread availability of digital cameras, meaning nonfiction filmmakers face fewer technological barriers to entering the field.
''The changes do not address the key problem, which is 99 per cent of the documentaries being made are not released in theatres,'' Lawrence Hott, a two-time Oscar nominee, said in an email.
''I would prefer to see the academy figure out a way to get rid of the theatrical requirement and recognise that the distinction between theatrical and non-theatrical for documentaries is a phoney one and makes no sense in the modern world of documentary production.''
Rob Epstein, chairman of the academy's documentary branch executive committee, said: ''The mission of the academy is to honour motion pictures intended for theatres.''
He said there had been a vast increase in the number of non-theatrical documentaries, films that would not have real theatrical distribution, but were merely running in a theatre for a week to qualify for academy consideration.
Some of those films include acclaimed made-for-TV documentaries, such as Martin Scorsese's George Harrison documentary.
That was a four-hour film that HBO intended chiefly for its cable channel, but added a brief theatrical run to make it eligible for Oscar consideration.
The new rule seems intent on curbing the inclusion of such films, even though some critics and documentary makers regarded Scorsese's film as easily among last year's best.
LOS ANGELES TIMES, with GINA McCOLL
No comments:
Post a Comment