My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2012: Potter Laughs
Another week has past, it's two days before the 2012 BAFTA Film Awards, and so I making one last email attempt to get my arbitrary and pedantic grievance with BAFTA (outlined further below) some airtime on the BBC's
Kermode and Mayo's Film Review radio show and podcast.
Sent: 10 February 2012 10:53
Subject: Kermode and Mayo's
Film Review: BAFTA, the last bash!
Dear Academy and Cinemascope,
Your show has had comparatively little discussion of the BAFTA's. As this year's award ceremony is in a couple of days now, I thought I'd have one last bash at airing my pedantic concerns about the awards. (for more than you'd care to know see my blog http://vaguestideas.blogspot.com/search/label/BAFTA). I wrote previously to request you to ask Mark, and any other BAFTA members on hand, how they justify the backdoor proviso in the eligibility rules that lets in films released in the UK in the current year up to two days before the ceremony, as opposed to the previous year primarily under consideration.
A while ago the BAFTA ceremony was moved from April to February, to sit in the calendar betwixt the Golden Globes and the OSCAR's, at the same time eligibility rules were changed to allow films released in the UK outside the previous calendar year to be nominated. This only served to allow the nomination list to include OSCAR eligible films that had stateside but not UK releases, the upshots being that the BAFTA's could act like a "me, too" predictor to the OSCARs after the mess of the Globes, and that distributors could plan January and February releases for award fodder and abuse the system for free advertising.
Why I have a problem with this: the BAFTAs should serve both their members and the UK audience who should all have had a chance to see the films by the time they're nominated, let alone awarded. The BAFTA members may nominate films that they have been given screenings, either in cinema or on disc, by distributors, if the UK release date is up to 2 days before the awards ceremony.
On Mark's blog about his top 11 for 2011, some respondents thought he should excise The Artist as it wasn't put on wide release until January (its official UK release was 30 Dec 2011, so it squeaks by my BAFTA concerns). If the UK audience can be put out by something as arbitrary as one man's choice of top films of the year, how well does it sit when the list is the consensus of the British film industry.
The eligibility rules should not be seen to pander to either the distributors, or the notion that the UK market, and its release dates are irrelevant. At some point in the future when releases are global and across all formats, this will become moot. Until then let's have a level playing field for both the British industry and its audience.
Brian Tarnoff (who is foolish enough to waste what little cache that exists in being named by Mark and his 4 New Forest Festival cohorts as the second best senior amateur Film Critic in the New Forest -- 2011, on this arbitrary trifle)
PS. Tonight I will be joining the ranks of professional projectionists, albeit in a mobile cinema stylee, down in the New Forest, with a screening of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Mark's welcome to drop by to inform the audience of the inconsequence of the spying.
So I sent this one off in a timely fashion. However, it snowed last night, which has stranded the kit I need for tonight's Brockenhurst Moviola screening, down a steep track in the middle of the forest. After pumping up a flat tire I set off just as the radio programme begins, but on arrival at a cottage amidst pony paddocks the radio is silenced as I'm brought up to speed, and receive a carload of digital gubbins and medium sized big screen fixings, by the time I'm back on the road the programme is nearly finished. I'll catch-up with the show when the podcast is released in a couple of hours.
Two weeks ago my attempt at drumming up on air support with another mail to the same show met with the coincidental cold comfort of my comment about Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris being read out behind a run down of the Oscar nominations for best picture. I do a certain amount of time wasting posting on threads on both the Facebook page of the podcast, and Mark Kermode's BBC vlog. Earlier this week I posted these questions on a thread on the Facebook page requesting ideas for their interview today with Daniel Radcliffe:
Harry and Hermione's dance to Nick Cave was one of the emotional highlights of the series what scene was he most touched by?
Also, is he the "new" Elijah Wood?
Have you yet been denied a role because of Potter? For instance, you couldn't be cast in Shakespeare's Roman plays because if you exclaim any latinate names the audience will expect you to produce a wand or have sparks fly from your fingertips, just try shouting "Coriolanus!" you'll see what I mean.
Guess which one they used (or listen,
Kermode: Daniel Radcliffe, 10 Feb 12, you'll find it at about 39:20). "That's very very funny." Daniel responded to the clever but ultimately, from his point of view, unanswerable question, as no one is likely to tell him when he hasn't been considered for a role. Now I'm not so paranoid as to think that they used my question as a sop for not bringing up my BAFTA worrying campaign, the universe is rarely that intentional in its snubs. I really doubt that the programme makers have any specific awareness of me as an individual, they might have avoided quoting me twice within a fortnight if they had, to give their many other listeners a look in.
So I'm pleased that I got a laugh out of Harry Potter.
And I'll have to see what I can do about BAFTA next year.
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art
My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2012: Strike Two
Having cocked up the timing in my first attempt to get my campaign (to get BAFTA to drop their rule that lets them nominate movies unreleased in the UK during the year under consideration) some air time on the
Kermode and Mayo's Film Review radio show and podcast, I thought I'd have a second crack of the whip with this more brief note to the show:
Sent: 03 February 2012 13:39
Subject: Kermode and Mayo's Film Review: Am I being greedy?
Dear VHS and Beta,
It was sod's law when I sent in an email to your show last week (see below), about my pedantic issue with the arbitrary BAFTA rules, not five minutes later an unrelated posting by myself was read out on your show. It was just my two penneth about Woody Allen's latest which I'd left on your Facebook page on a thread calling for views on the top 10. Unexpectedly my sister in law then phoned my wife to ask if I hadn't anything better to do than to pester radio shows with my opinions.
Now, I appreciate I should have sent that email in a more timely fashion. Given that this paltry issue regarding the BAFTA's is still dear to my heart, I'd still like you to consider it. I appreciate that you've a large audience and giving me another airing, albeit on another subject, and not that anyone, save my sister in law might notice, may be asking too much, but I leave it up to your judgement, and how much space you've available in your all too brief show.
Thanks,
Brian Tarnoff (still the second best middle aged amateur Film Critic in the New Forest -- 2011)
I left the previous email attached at the bottom, assuming they wouldn't remember/keep it from last week. Well, this got me all of nowhere. I know it's purely a crap shoot as to whether I can tweak the interest of the producers, staff or presenters of the show. It's nine days to the BAFTA's, so I only have one more go for this year.
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art
My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2012: Sods Law
In another pointless effort to further my arbitrary and pedantic campaign against the BAFTA's soft rule that allows films to be nominated before their actual release in the UK when the films under consideration are ostensibly those of the previous year, I've written to the BBC's weekly radio programme that focusses on film reviews,
Kermode and Mayo's Film Review. Mark Kermode is the resident film critic, and proceedings are kept grounded and entertaining for film geek and non-film-geek alike by radio presenter Simon Mayo. Their double act occasionally leans too much on catch phrases and in jokes, but most of the time they fit in enough consideration of films on release, quality interviews with film makers, and genial banter/bicker to be time well spent (their podcast is amongst the top five BBC weekly podcasts with approx 600 thousand downloads per month).
The letter begins with a strange salutation which is the format used by most correspondents with the show, referring to the co-presenters as a pairing referencing film or other duos, or in this case a recent ongoing bicker from the fact that Kermode has said that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not about spies, and Mayo feigns ignorance of the concept of subtext. In a bid to get the letter some attention from the show's production staff I do make some mention of my extremely tenuous link to Mark Kermode as the letter explains.
Sent: 27 January 2012 15:07
Subject: BAFTA Challenge
Dear Spy vs Not About Spies,
I was disappointed last week to find little discussion of the BAFTA nominations, I assume that with the OSCAR nominations out that this might be relevant this week. I have had an admittedly pedantic problem with the BAFTA rules which allow films to be nominated which are released after the primary year in question. As pedantry is no stranger to your fine programmes airwaves, I'd like to raise this query.
I have some trepidation about asking this question as I'd like to stay the right side of the good Doctor as he is one of the founder / organizers of the New Forest Film Festival, for which I'm a volunteer, and whose 2011 Critic of the Year Award I was runner up for (over 18 category) with an entry Mark described as "worryingly good". I may have already irked him with the bizarre suggestion of a "Battle of the Silent Film bands" for next year's fest (not doing myself any favours reminding 'im now). Be that as it may, I proceed with the courage of my pedantic conviction.
Can you ask Mark, and indeed any other BAFTA members present, this simple question:
How can BAFTA justify nominating films released in the UK in 2012 for awards primarily for the films of 2011?
To my mind it only serves to
a) allow in films likely to nominated for OSCARs that were released in the US but not the UK in the year in question, this is so that BAFTA can claim relevance in the OSCAR's race between the Globes and the OSCARs.
b) pander to the distributors that can use the BAFTA's to boost films still currently on or imminently release(d).
My chief complaint is that the awards should be nominated and given to films that we the public have had a chance to see before the nominations come out, not merely those the members of BAFTA with the privileges of special screenings and screeener discs.
I have argued this point with some analysis over on my blog : http://vaguestideas.blogspot.com/ (with the tag BAFTA). To give examples, this year's longlist had 20% of the nominations for films released in the UK in 2012, and 50% were for films on DVD release in the UK in the first quarter of 2012. The actual nominations have 15% of the nominations for films released in the UK in 2012, and 50% were for films on DVD release in the UK in the first quarter of 2012.
I appreciate that these trends exhibit a chicken/egg causality as the distributors control release dates and are allowed to put forward films for nomination, and that, hopefully, in a future of simultaneous world wide multi format releases this may become moot.
Thanks for any comment my, possibly pointless, pedantry may illicit.
Brian Tarnoff (the second best middle aged amateur Film Critic in the New Forest -- 2011)
PS. I will be joining the ranks of professional projectionists on February 10th on Mark's home turf in Brockenhurst with a screening of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, when I'm not keeping an eye on the focus, aspect and keystoning, I'll be trying to spot the Tinker and Tailors, as clearly there aren't any spies.
Unfortunately puppies, notes for NFA's Landscape Management Committee, and preparations for a part time job as a projectionist got the better of me. So the email went out during the first half hour of the show. I know that it's probably unlikely that the production staff are going to consider anything they don't see before the show, optimally earlier in the week, but I didn't want a whole other week to steal a march on the subject, so I dug in and sent it.
One of the more recent gambits by the producers of the show has beefed up their Facebook presence, they already do a lot on Twitter which I don't follow, and Mark Kermode has a BBC video blog site which I do. The Facebook page engages with listeners requesting capsule reviews of top films, or the new releases the presenters themselves haven't seen, but also purely spurious threads to find puns with film titles. So, sods law, within about five minutes of sending out my email a few lines from a comment I'd left about Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris got read out on air:
Midnight in Paris is merely a half decent Woody Allen film elevated by comparison to his last two decades of subpar dross. It's great that he has a little niche carved out for him to make what he wants as he wants as often as he can manage, but he really could have done better with people to say no to Match Point, Melinda and Melinda and Vicky Christina Barcelona, and those were supposedly the good ones....
If you look at some of his work with collaborators, they include some of his best. The trick that helps Midnight in Paris is that he has to use real characters from history rather than the paper thin ones he seems to originate.
Simon Mayo squeezes out half the words, trying on the fly to keep the sense, but drops my point about Woody doing much better work when he has more collaboration. That's by the by, I didn't think that thread was going to be part of the show, and it seems even more unlikely, that now they've said my name already, that they'll give anything else I've sent them any airtime. Ahh well.
The worst thing about this is that my sister in law happens to be listening and phones my wife who is luckily working from home today. "Doesn't your husband have anything better to do than to get his name on a radio programme?" she chides jokingly. On the strength of the above, I really hope I do.
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art
My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2012: The Nominations
The BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Nominations for the 2012 Awards are out today. I have been expressing dislike of the BAFTA rules which allow films to be nominated outside the year under consideration, often before their actual UK release. The crux of my problem with this is that it cheats the UK
public audience of the enjoyment of making up their own minds about the
nominations and awards before they are handed out.
In the past few years my
argument has focussed on the untidy language of the exception in the rules which created some contradictory circumstances when nominated films released two days before the award ceremony itself (and in some cases afterwards) could not have fulfilled one other condition that the films must be screened for seven consecutive days to a paying UK audience. BAFTA have changed the exception and have removed this potential conflict with this simpler but more inclusive proviso:
If a film opens between 1 January and the Friday before the Awards in February then it may be eligible as long as it is screened to Academy voting members before a certain date.
To my mind it only serves to
a) allow in films likely to nominated for OSCARs that were released in the US but not the UK in the year in question, this is so that BAFTA can claim relevance in the OSCAR's race between the Golden Globes and the OSCARs.
b) pander to the distributors that can use the BAFTA's to boost films still currently or imminently on release.
Pretending relevance in the OSCAR's run up is absurd. For one thing the timing of voting is too close to the parallel longlist runoffs for nominations for one to directly influence the other. Also, look at just how few of the Hollywood based nominees actually turn up to the BAFTA's, you'll find they're mostly actors, who will normally be happy to have an excuse to pop to London, mecca of the stage. Some of the actors are doubled for presenter duties during the awards themselves which pays for their jolly whether they win a BAFTA mask themselves or not.
| Film |
UK release |
Nominations |
|
|
|
|
| The Iron Lady |
06/01/2012 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
| Shame |
13/01/2012 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| War Horse |
13/01/2012 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
| Coriolanus |
20/01/2012 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| J. Edgar |
20/01/2012 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
| The Descendants |
27/01/2012 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
| Carnage |
05/02/2012 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
| A Dangerous Method |
10/02/2012 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
| Young Adult |
10/02/2012 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
In my
previous analysis of the longlist 20% of the nominations for are for films released in the UK in 2012, and 50% were for films on DVD release in the UK in the first quarter of 2012. This does shift slightly in the actual nominations have 15% of the nominations for films released in the UK in 2012. Significantly of the longlist movies under consideration, only five released in January 2012 have survived the cut, leaving one January and three due to be released in February on the heap (see 0 nominations above). This may only be a reflection of the viewing opportunities for the BAFTA voters, as in the past few years films released up to 2 days before the ceremony have been nominated.
Looking at the trends there is a preponderance of nominations in the latter half of the year. I appreciate that these trends exhibit a chicken/egg causality as the
distributors control release dates and are allowed to put forward films
for nomination, and that they in turn may be second guessing the voters long term memory loss and may stack more promising contenders. It says little for the perceived (by either distributors or voters) quality of anything released before July.
In the future we may look forward to simultaneous world
wide multi format releases. This is argued by some as the best way to both combat piracy, and to give the audience the widest range of preferred viewing choices, whether they want to trek to their local multiplex or sit in the comfort of their home cinema. This should render the argument moot, assuming that BAFTA then have the good grace to adjust their eligibility back to the proper calendar year. If they still let late, on the heels of the ceremony, releases in through their current back door, then the collusion with the distributors which I've merely insinuated would be laid shamefully bare.
On the other hand once the pool of films becomes virtually the same as the OSCARs, how will the BAFTAs distinguish themselves? Their members represent the British Film industry, which despite its ongoing identity crises, contains a vital amount of talent, knowledge and skills used by Hollywood and the film industry of the world. Their awards should reflect both their British talent and the British audience.
For the time being, while the point is not yet moot, I will press on. The BAFTA's can only be improved for the time being if they stop trying to be a "me, too" in the run up to the OSCAR's. The nominations should reflect the UK release schedule, not the US. Perhaps a move back to the pre 2000 date of early April for the Awards is in order, it would allow the BAFTA's a more distinctive voice, not muddled between the HFPA and AMPAS. The members of BAFTA shouldn't need to be reminded that the B in BAFTA is for British.
Labels: BAFTA
My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2012: On Some Other Blog
I am an irregular commenter on Mark Kermode's
Kermode Uncut Blog, and I have been shoehorning in little bits of my rant against BAFTA's inclusion of Nominations for films not released in the UK at the time of Nomination, nor in the year under consideration.
Under his VLOG
And The Nomination Isn't... Kermode bemoaned the Oscar's long list, particularly the exclusion of the amazing F1 documentary Senna. This gave me a scintilla of an excuse to bemoan the BAFTA's as on their way to similar destination....
13. At 18:36 25th Nov 2011, Brian - New Forest wrote:
Sadly the way the Oscar's play out is very much a product of the PR machinery of the studios/distributors. You might as well blame Senna's production company for not pushing hard enough, not sending enough screeners and Senna themed trinkets (I thought the Formula 1™ 2011 Game, F1 2011 Dead Men's Curves add on pack that lets you replay play every fatality in F1 history was stretching the boundaries of taste, but those academy voters all have grandkids who love that stuff).
The Oscar's have been a lost cause, well, forever. I have a bone to pick with the Bafta's as they are headed in the same direction. This has mostly been since the Bafta's changed their rules and ceremony dates, in a bid for relevance between the Golden Globes and the Oscars. The rules have been bent to allow films which were eligible for Oscars, but haven't had a proper release in the UK the year before (there's a proviso that allows films "released" in the UK between Jan 1st up to 2 days before the BAFTA ceremony, to be nominated). A "release" constitutes 7 days in a single commercial cinema to paying customers which hardly encompasses the UK market, and as release dates are set in mud, some nominations have been for films that have openned neither small nor wide until after the ceremony (nominated Vicky Christina Barcelona had its date bumped until two weeks after the ceremony). Consequently the BAFTA nominations list consists almost entirely of films just on or about to be on general release, or about to have their DVD releases in the UK market. The fact that this is all orchestrated to chime with the Globes to Oscars buzz robs the BAFTA's of any distinction beyond the urbane wit lent by Mr Fry.
I would challenge all BAFTA members including Dr. K to sort this out, the BAFTA nominations should consist of films that the UK viewing public have had a decent chance to see before the ceremony, not just the members who have to fit in "viewings" or see films for their consideration as they may not have been meant to be seen on the flat screen with the lights on in a cluttered front room awash with pets and disaffected kids. The nominations should be relevant to the artists and the audience (us), not the distributors and the hacks. So please remove the BAFTA's as a pit stop between the Golden Globes and the Oscars, because the longer they sit there the more likely the industry will make them like BOTH, and nobody with any sense wants that.
I even got a bit of support from a fellow poster:
15. At 18:44 25th Nov 2011, Scurra wrote:
@Brian: Yes, I have sometimes wondered whether it would be smart for Bafta to change tack entirely and have their award ceremony in September. Make the qualifying period July - June instead of the calendar year - after all, it's not as though the year of release matters that much. And it might influence the release dates a little too...
I replied:
35. At 02:21 28th Nov 2011, Brian - New Forest wrote:
@Scurra, I'm not that bothered about BAFTA using the calendar year, it's that they add provisos for films past that year to include films that were out in the States and most likely nominated for Oscars, but which weren't released in the UK in that year. However your suggestion might be a way to shake it up. They should pick 12 months and stick to it.
Sorry if my annual BAFTA annoyance is a bit off topic. [...]
Under Kermode's VLOG
Looking Forward he asked us which films we are looking forward to in 2012, which gave me an opportunity to get in a slight dig:
27. At 17:40 30th Dec 2011, Brian - New Forest wrote:
Although I'm looking forward to Prometheus as well, I'd counter the list of good Ridley efforts cited above with:
Legend
GI Jane
Matchstick Men
Robin Hood
As the latter was pretty egregious, I'd withhold my expectations.
Also, to pedantically bang my drum to anyone who'd listen (or not as the case may be), I won't be at all surprised to see some of these upcoming films featured in the BAFTA's although they have not been released in this year. BAFTA has a proviso that exists solely so they may nominate films that have been nominated for Oscar's but which haven't been given a proper release to the UK viewing public. All it serves is to lamely suggest relevance for the BAFTA's between the Golden Globes and the Oscar's and a chance for distributors to push UK release dates of nominated films closer to the BAFTA ceremony, as films are eligible for nomination if their scheduled release is up to two days before the awards ceremony itself. (anyone interested in following the progress of my so far tractionless rant may google "my annual bafta annoyance").
Mindless pedantry aside, my heart's true anticipation can only be expressed by a red mop-faced drummer named Animal:
Muppets! MUPPETS! M U P P E T S!
(Given the claims of Fox News of political indoctrination, perhaps this is the real Film Socialisme. Unfortunately, that title had already been used.)
Under Kermode's VLOG
Eleven From Eleven, he asks us to suggest which of his top 11 from 2011 he should jetison in favour of including the splendid Drive. While I earlier posted a comment that he should dump We Need To Talk About Kevin,
which had left me cold (#15), after seeing comments posted complaining about the release date of The Artist in relation to the list, I wrote:
86. At 04:58 9th Jan 2012, Brian - New Forest wrote:
@22, 41, 45-- you've made me change my mind. Dr. K should leave out The Artist, not because it isn't the fine film that so many who have seen it claim it to be (and frankly though I've not seen it, the trailer had me enraptured, will need to suitably adjust expectations before I see it when it comes round our neck of the woods Feb 20th), but for the pedantic reason you cite, it is simply not a 2011 release for the ordinary UK punter.
This is one of the reasons that I try to have a go at the BAFTA's every year for having rules which allow films not released in the calendar year in question. Now I would never level charges of elitism at Dr. K, but BAFTA has graced 9 films to be released theatrically in 2012 with nominations on their longlist (out of 65 films). These are films which the BAFTA members have had a chance to see, but not the UK public (barring festival and "platform" release screenings). These 9 films rack up 56 nominations which is just over 20% of the 279 longlist nominations. 2 of them are released just 2 days before the 12th February Awards Ceremony. 50% of the nominations are for films which will be released on DVD in Q1 2012. Sadly this makes the BAFTA's look like a cynical marketing exercise poised irrelevantly betwixt the Globes and the Oscars. It will be interesting to see how these numbers change when the longlist gets whittled down.
As for the critics end of year lists, well, if it's their own personal list of the films that they have happened to see in that year, then fine, can't argue with that. But by that token why consider release dates at all? Due to caring for a litter of puppies causing cabin fever isolation and temporary exile from the cinema, I caught up on a number of titles I missed from previous years, and I can say that amongst my favourite films I saw in 2011 I'd include Gilliam's Tideland and Davies' Of Time and The City. However, I think there's a reasonable expectation that professional critics lists are meant for their audience, and perhaps should be geared accordingly, not based on their at times rarefied privilege (or pain) to exalt in the great films (as well as endure the endless dross) before the rest of us.
So, depending on which emphasis Dr. K would like to give his list, based on the films he had a chance to see or the films that we had a chance to see, then he could bump The Artist.
Or maybe I'm just being mindlessly pedantic. All in good company here then...
This got some agreement further down in
103 107 114 and
116 in so far as wanting to exclude The Artist from Kermode's top of 2011 list as it didn't have a proper 2011 release (it had a "platform" release in London on 30th Dec 2011). Given that sort of feeling about something as purely subjective as one critic's top list, it's not a huge jump to suggest that a similar criteria might be applied to a supposedly rigorously arrived at consensus such as the BAFTA's. Unfortunately, my own sense of pedantry prohibits me from adding The Artist's nominations to my BAFTA statistics as IMDB does give it the UK release date from December, although clearly it's a grey area I hadn't considered before.
What next? Well we have the final BAFTA nominations coming up, and I have to find a way to carefully word some letters / emails to BAFTA and most probably to Kermode and Mayo's Film Review, so that they get useful attention.
Labels: BAFTA
My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2012: Preamble and Longlist
This year I am making a slightly more concerted effort to breathe life into my quibble with BAFTA's bent rule that allows films released after the standard year in question, but which were in the States and so eligible for OSCAR's. I hate this because I feel that the general public should have a chance to have seen all the films before the nominations, let alone the awards. They should remember that the B in BAFTA is for British and so should properly reflect the British film audience and release schedule.
In the past years the BAFTA's have cheated their own eligibility requirements, allowing films to be nominated that do not meet all their own criteria. Let's look at last year's requirements:
Eligibility
Films must be released theatrically in the UK, within the Academy awards year:
1 January to 31 December 2010. Films that open between 1 January and 11 February 2011 inclusive may be 'qualified' by Distributors by being screened to Academy Film Voting Members by Tuesday 21 December 2010.
To be eligible, a feature film must:
* be feature-length, i.e. with a running time exceeding 60 minutes;
* receive its first public exhibition or distribution in the UK as a theatrical release;
* be exhibited publicly to a paying audience within a commercial cinema in the UK for no fewer than seven consecutive days.
Films from all countries are eligible in all categories, with the exception of Outstanding British Film, Outstanding Debut, Short Film and Short Animation which are for British films only.
Almost every year BAFTA have nominated a film that opens on the last day of eligibility, usually two days before the awards. This means it cannot have satisfied the seven consecutive days proviso by the date of the ceremony. Although four films for the 2011 Awards opened after 2010, only one fell foul of this requirement:
2011 Latest Open Date 11th Feb, Awards 13th Feb.
True Grit (11 February 2011)
Previous years have seen these films so dishonourably nominated:
2010 Latest Open Date 19th Feb, Awards 21st Feb.
The Lovely Bones (19 February 2010).
2009 Latest Open Date 6th Feb, Awards 8th Feb.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (6 February 2009)
Doubt (6 February 2009)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (13th Feb 2009 released after the eligibility and the awards)
2008 Latest Open Date 8th Feb, Awards 10th Feb.
There Will be Blood (15th February 2008 released after the eligibility and the awards)
This year BAFTA have closed this problematic loophole, by making the eligibility even more flexible. From 2012 the rules now state:
In order for a film to be valid for consideration its first public exhibition must be in a cinema (rather than on television or online), and it must have a UK theatrical release in a public UK cinema for no fewer than seven consecutive days in the calendar year that corresponds to the upcoming awards. If a film opens between 1 January and the Friday before the Awards in February then it may be eligible as long as it is screened to Academy voting members before a certain date. A film must be feature length, i.e. with a running time exceeding 60 minutes. Films from all countries are eligible in all categories, with the exception of Outstanding British Film, Outstanding Debut, Short Film and Short Animation which are for British films only.
This means that films that open up to two days before this year's ceremony only need to be screened to BAFTA's members before a given date and are let off virtually all of the eligibility requirements (apart from the feature length of over 60 minutes). To be honest, this is probably closer to what they intended with the previous version of the rules, and this change has unmuddied the waters that flowed from their previous language.
The Film BAFTA's were moved from April to February in 2001 to occupy the space between the Golden Globes and OSCAR's. This is when the rules were changed to allow in films with post-hoc release dates, mainly to give the BAFTA's a supposed relevance in the awards season, after all how could they claim relevance if they could fail to nominate a similar list of films to the Globes and OSCAR's if restricted to niggling things like the UK release dates. This of course does not make the BAFTA's any more relevant, it merely gives the BAFTA members a chance to second guess the OSCAR's. This leaves the BAFTA's as a cynical exercise for the distributors to get some free ad time on the allegedly non-promotional BBC, and to use award buzz to flog their films to the UK market.
This becomes extremely apparent when you analyse the longlist nominations. Of the 65 films garnering 279 longlist nominations 9 (13%) are released in 2012, two just two days before the awards themselves. Those 9 films have 56 longlist nominations, making up 20% of the longlist nominations. Of the films properly theatrically released in 2011 a whopping 50% of the longlist nominations are for films receiving their UK DVD release in Q1 2012, right around the February awards ceremony. This leaves only 30% of the longlist nominations for films released in the UK theatrically in 2011 and not premiering on UK DVD within the first quarter of 2012, of these only 17% are for films with both UK theatre and DVD releases firmly in 2011, the remainder with unconfirmed UK DVD release dates (as of January 8th 2012).
Now there is a slight confluence of chicken/egg poultry family planning here when we consider how the films are put forward, again according to BAFTA:
As long as a film passes the rules of eligibility then it may be entered for the film awards. A film may be qualified for consideration by the films[sic] distributor or producer, or by any Academy voting member. Once the film is submitted then a screen credits form will be required to be completed by the distributor or producer.
So this is very much in the hands of the distributors who determine the release dates as well as having major input into the awards process itself. When we look at a graph of the longlist nominations by film release month, we may find it hard to believe that any decent films have hit the screens before July.
BAFTA will point out that the longlist does not represent nominations until the members vote in the second round to whittle the up to 15 films in each category down to 5 proper nominations. Furthermore, longlists are not announced in these categories: Outstanding Debut by a Writer, Director or Producer, Short Film and Short Animation. So these figures are likely to change, but by how much is to be seen.
| Film |
UK release |
Nominations |
| The Iron Lady |
06/01/2012 |
14 |
| Shame |
13/01/2012 |
4 |
| War Horse |
13/01/2012 |
13 |
| Coriolanus |
20/01/2012 |
6 |
| J. Edgar |
20/01/2012 |
7 |
| The Descendants |
27/01/2012 |
7 |
| Carnage |
05/02/2012 |
2 |
| A Dangerous Method |
10/02/2012 |
1 |
| Young Adult |
10/02/2012 |
2 |
For the 2012 awards year I will attempt to get this point across through online forums, letters to BAFTA, and correspondence with the BBC's various film programmes Watch this space.
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art
My Annual Bafta Annoyance 2011
Another year in my rant against the BAFTA's for cheating their own eligibility requirements in order to nominate films that haven't actually been released and usually are merely imminent around the time of the award ceremonies themselves. I hate this because I feel that the general public should have a chance to have seen all the films before the nominations.
I have no quibble with the films released in the UK in the calendar year being honoured, in this case 2010. However, a significant portion of those nominated have been released in 2011, and, as usual at least one even fails BAFTA's own requirements. This is an utterly craven pandering to the distributors.
Let's remind ourselves of this year's requirements:
Eligibility
Films must be released theatrically in the UK, within the Academy awards year:
1 January to 31 December 2010. Films that open between 1 January and 11 February 2011 inclusive may be 'qualified' by Distributors by being screened to Academy Film Voting Members by Tuesday 21 December 2010.
To be eligible, a feature film must:
- be feature-length, i.e. with a running time exceeding 60 minutes;
- receive its first public exhibition or distribution in the UK as a theatrical release;
- be exhibited publicly to a paying audience within a commercial cinema in the UK for no fewer than seven consecutive days.
Films from all countries are eligible in all categories, with the exception of Outstanding British Film, Outstanding Debut, Short Film and Short Animation which are for British films only.
Four quite heavily nominated films are released in 2011, all after the nomination announcements. These are Black Swan (11 nominations, release Jan 21st), Biutiful (2 nominations, Jan 28th), The Fighter (3 nominations, Feb 4th) and True Grit (8 nominations, Feb 11th). The first three squeak in and meet the late eligibility requirements. True Grit is released on the last day of Eligibility period, but it fails the "publicly to a paying audience... for no fewer than seven consecutive days." as the award ceremony is two days later on the 13th.
Previous years have seen these films so dishonourably nominated:
2008 Latest Open Date 8th Feb, Awards 10th Feb.
There Will be Blood (15th Feb )
2009 Latest Open Date 6th Feb, Awards 8th Feb.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (6th Feb 2009)
Doubt (6th Feb 2009)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (13th Feb 2009 released after the eligibility and the awards)
2010 Latest Open Date 19th Feb, Awards 21st Feb.
The Lovely Bones (19 February 2010).
This may seem horribly pedantic, but my main point is that awards should be nominated and awarded from a level playing field, say a given 12 month period, not skewed to only films which have theatrical, or now possibly DVD releases that create synergy with the date of the Awards ceremony. I don't begrudge the films or their makers nominations, but this should reflect merit, not the machinations of film distributors. This also leaves the BAFTAs open to the accusation that they are an irrelevant stop-gap between the Golden Globes and the Oscars, as they bend their eligibility to include films that have earlier release dates in North America and are more suitably eligible for those awards.
This year I will make a much more solid attempt to get this rant some traction, watch this space...
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art, My Tasteless Opinions
My annual BAFTA annoyance 2010
Well there are fewer nominations to cite this year in my rant against the BAFTA's for cheating their own eligibility requirements in order to nominate films that haven't actually been released and usually are merely imminent around the time of the award ceremonies themselves. This is an utterly craven pandering to the distributors. I have no quibble with the films released in the UK in the calendar year being honoured, in this case 2009. However, a significant portion of those nominated have been released this year, and, as usual at least one even fails BAFTA's own requirements.
Let's remind ourselves of this year's requirements:
Eligibility
Films must be released theatrically in the UK, within the Academy awards year:
1 January to 31 December 2009. Films that open between 1 January and 19 February 2010 inclusive may be 'qualified' by Distributors by being screened to Academy Film Voting Members by Thursday 17 December 2009.
To be eligible, a feature film must:
* be feature-length, i.e. with a running time exceeding 60 minutes;
* receive its first public exhibition or distribution in the UK as a theatrical release;
* be exhibited publicly to a paying audience within a commercial cinema in the UK for no fewer than seven consecutive days.
Films from all countries are eligible in all categories, with the exception of Outstanding British Film, Outstanding Debut, Short Film and Short Animation which are for British films only.
This year's Best Actress category includes Saoirse Ronan for The Lovely Bones (19 February 2010). O.K., this is released on the last day of Eligibility period, but it fails the "publicly to a paying audience... for no fewer than seven consecutive days." as the award ceremony is on the 21st.
Previous years have seen these films so dishonourably nominated:
2008 Latest Open Date 8th Feb, Awards 10th Feb.
There Will be Blood (15th Feb)
2009 Latest Open Date 6th Feb, Awards 8th Feb.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (6th Feb 2009)
Doubt (6th Feb 2009)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (13th Feb 2009 released after the eligibility and the awards)
This may seem horribly pedantic, but my main point is that awards should be nominated and awarded from a level playing field, say a given 12 month period, not skewed to only films which have theatrical, or now possibly DVD releases that create synergy with the date of the Awards ceremony. I don't begrudge the films or their makers nominations, but this should reflect merit, not the machinations of film distributors. This also leaves the BAFTAs open to the accusation that they are an irrelevant stop-gap between the Golden Globes and the Oscars, as they bend their eligibility to include films that have earlier release dates in North America and are more suitably eligible for those awards.
I will attempt yet again to get this rant some traction, watch this space...
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art, My Tasteless Opinions
BAFTA Annoyance 2010: Director Nominations
This year's BAFTA Nominations themselves are more frustrating than usual, particularly in the Directors category. (you can read my separate perennial Annual BAFTA annoyance rant
here)
2010 BAFTA Director Nominations:
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Neill Blomkamp, District 9
James Cameron, Avatar
Lone Scherfig, An Education
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
Really???
I enjoyed Avatar, District 9, and probably just under half of Inglorious Basterds, but best director for any of them? You have only to look at BAFTA's Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer category to find at least two that wipe the floor with them Duncan Jones (Moon) and Sam Taylor-Wood (Nowhere Boy) (I haven't seen Eran Creevy's Shifty or Stuart Hazeldine's Exam).
Cameron for Avatar would be like nominating George Lucas for Eps 1-3 of Star Wars. Sure they've pushed the technological envelope, and in some ways that is to be applauded, it doesn't make their films any more worthy. On this basis William Castle should have been given Best Director for "The Tingler" with its innovative use of electrical shock delivered to each cinema seat. Mind you Avatar is a better film than the last 3 Lucas outings, and better than Cameron's overpraised cinematic turd "Titanic" ("You will believe a ship can sink!"), but that's only because he came up with a decent story, a fully formed if slightly dodgy world, and bland but heroic characters to go with the spectacle of pixels being pissed against the screen.
As a fan of Tarentino, I'm beginning to worry that his first three films are the best he'll ever direct. Encouraging him, or Cameron for that matter, for uneven output is evil and counterproductive.
I don't begrudge Blomkamp for District 9, he does manage, in my opinion to stretch the conceit of his previous short over the feature length (others may disagree with this point), and it is better than the other entries I've derided, but still, it should be a filler nomination in some weaker year.
A non exhaustive list of Directors more worthy of nomination for this year's BAFTA than Cameron, Tarentino and possibly Blomkamp:
Duncan Jones, Moon (it's also criminal that Sam Rockwell didn't get the acting nod, the best unappreciated dual role since Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers)
Sam Taylor-Wood, Nowhere Boy
Ethan Coen, A Serious Man (probably one of the Coen's best)
Terry Gilliam, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassas (I'd take an uneven Gilliam opus over a dodgy Tarentino any day)
Stephen Soderberg, The Informant! (Also thought Matt Damon was incredible in this very slight but well constructed movie)
Spike Jonze, Where the Wild Things Are (not the most enjoyable film, but a unique distillation of the neuroses of childhood).
Tom Hooper, The Damned United (though disappointingly not a zombie movie... and where is Michael Sheen's nod for acting?)
Bruce McDonald, Pontypool (a cerebral and claustrophobic zombie horror with a contagion spread by language)
That's just those I've seen, I missed the likes of Jane Campion's Bright Star, Kari Skogland's Fifty Dead Men Walking or Armando Iannucci's In The Loop. That's without even mentioning the non-English language works, when you have Almodovar, Haneke, Claire Denis and Chan-wook Park on top form.
Perhaps all this is be taken as moot point as Katherine Bigelow should win for The Hurt Locker. But how on top of the world will she feel if all she does is beat her ex and his big dumb blue skinned friends?
Labels: BAFTA, Life Irritates Art, My Tasteless Opinions
My annual BAFTA annoyance 2009
Last year I had a small email argument with BAFTA personnel over the barely eligible "There Will Be Blood" (disregarding the merits of the film, which amongst other things contains a "spoiler" in its title).
This year I've decided to take my beef to a higher authority, I've sent an email to the BBC Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode BBC Radio Live 5 Film Review show, in the vain hope that they'll give the argument airtime and publicly bollock BAFTA for their weaselly unprincipled distributor led inclusion of films up for OSCARs(tm) but not properly released in the UK within the awards year.
The letter reads as follows
Dear Charters & Caldicott,
As you no doubt remember a few years ago the BAFTA's were moved to occur after the Golden Globes but before the Oscars, in a desperate/transparent/pointless (delete as appropriate) attempt to seem more relevant and boost their profile as a supposed predictor of Oscars (the position queasily held by the Golden Globes). Along with that BAFTA then bent the eligibility rules to include films that were released theatrically in the States (i.e.. up for Oscars), but which hadn't actually had a proper UK release within the awards year:
"Films that open between 1 January and 6 February 2009 inclusive may be 'qualified' by Distributors by being screened to Academy Film Voting Members by Thursday 18 December 2008."
That means that films released two days before the actual ceremonies may qualify. However, another eligibility rule states:
"To be eligible, a feature film must be exhibited publicly to a paying audience within a commercial cinema in the UK for no fewer than seven consecutive days."
By that logic the following three nominated films should be disqualified, as they won't have fulfilled this obligation by the time of the awards ceremony:
(UK Release Dates according to IMDB:)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (6th Feb)
Doubt (6th Feb)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (13th Feb -- this actually fails both tests)
Now we all know that the timing and use of the BAFTA's by the distributor's is merely to give these films a marketing bump. They probably will have had small pseudo releases in some small cinema for a preview week to qualify.
The real point of all this nitpicking (which leaves the merit of these films in the dust): Nominated films should have received their release in the year in question in the UK. The public, including idiots like myself, should have had a proper chance to see the films, so that there is interest in the supposedly laudatory outcome of the awards, not an opportunity to have trailers for coming attractions foisted on us. By bending the rules to account for the North American release schedule, the BAFTA's seem less relevant, more like a "me too" exercise. If the distributors wanted their pictures qualified over here as well, they should release them at the same time in the UK as in the US.
Meanwhile on the other side of the pond AMPAAS, are allowing Brad Pitt his Best Actor Nomination for Benjamin Button when they denied Andy Serkis a chance at the Best Supporting for Gollum on the basis that his performance was altered through digital manipulation. I may enjoy Benjamin Button when I can finally see it if I just imagine Gollum in the place of Pitt (theory: is every other film by Fincher rubbish/genius?)
Perhaps Pointlessly Pedantic,
Cheers,
Brian Tarnoff, the New Forest.
PS. This is the whole eligibility bit from the BAFTA website:
ELIGIBILITY
Films must be released theatrically in the UK, within the Academy awards year,
1 January to 31 December 2008. Films that open between 1 January and 6 February 2009 inclusive may be 'qualified' by Distributors by being screened to Academy Film Voting Members by Thursday 18 December 2008.
To be eligible, a feature film must:
* be feature-length, i.e. with a running time exceeding 60 minutes;
* receive its first public exhibition or distribution in the UK as a theatrical release;
* be exhibited publicly to a paying audience within a commercial cinema in the UK for no fewer than seven consecutive days.
Whether this reaches the airwaves is to be seen....
Labels: BAFTA, My Tasteless Opinions
My annual BAFTA annoyance
Every year I get annoyed by the BAFTAs (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Awards. This is not the same sort of annoyance you might have about the Oscars (why was THAT nominated?), its based on the absurd timing when they moved the BAFTAs several years ago to be awarded between the Golden Globes and the Oscars, a really pathetic
This year has been better than recent years in terms of having nominees that have received genuine releases within the qualifying calendar year. However, and this is not to debate the relative merits of the nominated film, There Will Be Blood does not qualify under the
eligibility rules:
ELIGIBILITY
Films must be released theatrically in the UK, within the Academy awards
year,
1 January - 31 December 2007. Films that open between 1 January and 8
February 2008 inclusive may be 'qualified' by Distributors by being
screened to Academy Film Voting Members by Thursday 20 December 2007.
To be eligible, a feature film must:
* be feature-length, i.e. with a running time exceeding 60 minutes;
* receive its first public exhibition or distribution in the UK as a
theatrical release;
* be exhibited publicly to a paying audience within a commercial
cinema in the UK for no fewer than seven consecutive days.
Films from all countries are eligible in all categories, with the
exception of Best British Film, The Carl Foreman Award, Short Film and
Short Animation which are for British films only.
There Will Be Blood has not been released by 8th of February 2008, it's
UK release date is the 15th. I saw a free preview on the 11th. So the
film fails to meet the requirements of by the 8th of February, and seven
consecutive days to a paying audience within the allotted time. OK,
there's the possibility that the distributor has done a faux release
somewhere, just to qualify ahead of the actual release in order to gain
kudos before it gets in the theatres. Really, these sort of loopholes
should be closed, films should only be eligible within the calendar year
and with one week of actual commercial release within that year.
Perhaps they should even revoke eligibility if a film is given a proper
release near or after the BAFTA awards themselves.
I should add that I thought Daniel Day-Lewis performance was very good
and should happily enjoy nomination. But lets not kid ourselves about
how distributors are using awards.
I concede that given that vagueness the film just squeaks in, but should we have a system so open to such abuse? I was aware that there was a limited release starting on Feb 8th (the last qualifying day!). The film does not have a full week run within the period (OK, the rule vaguely doesn't stipulate that the run must be within, but my point is that this part of the rules is simply dodgy).
My real point is still that eligibility should be limited to a given calendar year. This artful method of qualifying only serves the distributors. It also makes the Academy seem desperate to make sure that their nomination list seems relevant against the Oscars and the Golden Globes by including films that were released in the US in the year but not in the UK (and yet get to "qualify" from either a proper January or early February release, or, and I've been to screenings where a film has had a special one-off one cinema release to get qualified before its actual wide release). Actually these films that qualify this way, are still qualified for nomination in the subsequent year, and this in particular makes a nonsense of this system.
Finally, I don't begrudge the actual filmmakers their honors. Recognition of excellence, regardless of which "year" a film appears in, can only be a good thing. Keeping the playing field tilted to end of and beginning of next year release dates only serves to reinforce the notion that the UK and European market are only the poor cousin to North America. And whilst this may be true, the Academy shouldn't be complicit in its confirmation.
Labels: BAFTA, My Tasteless Opinions
