Just a word about a JURY

In a parallel universe where looks can kill, I meet my maker as my body minutely begins to decompose in the 12th row of the NTN at the Namibian Theatre and Film Awards.

Later, when the coroner performs an autopsy on my battered body, he has to duck into the hallway to dry heave at the sight of the vicious and collective savagery that has sent me soaring to the pearly gates. What has killed me is the arsenal of daggers shot from all four corners of the theatre as nominee after film nominee finds out that they were close but they will not be leaving with a cigar. To illustrate their discontentment, each announcement is followed by the shooting of an invisible dagger aimed at one of my vital organs for the simple reason that, as a film jury member blessed with finite filmic wisdom, I have done the scandalous thing of casting my vote for what I believed was this year’s best. Not for whom was the best two years ago or whose fan mail is inundated with orders for members-only coffee mugs, but for the filmmakers who took the clean slate 2011 and 2012 afforded them and worked hard and well to breathe technical and creative life into their respective categories. As I am sitting in front of a particularly vocal couple who believe there is only one film in Namibia worth the time it took for them to motor in from Biasedtowardsmyfriendville, I begin to realise that both local filmmakers and their friends have a lot of growing up to do. This thought is soon followed by the idea that some of both may be entirely clueless as to what industry they are working in and what a jury is tasked with doing.Though it hardly bares saying, a jury is not in the business of awarding one’s personal friends regardless of who you or they may be.The films come in as standalone pieces regardless of an individual’s past success and they are stacked up against each other according to category. A jury then weighs the success of elements within that category and awards the film they believe was best at using the medium competently and creatively.In order to do this, the films are watched, individually ranked for each category and then these rankings are collectively discussed, discussed some more, often with a re-watching of clips, discussed once more and then they are ranked as the top five within all the submissions once the jurors reach a consensus, given the intelligent opinion of each member. The final five, each of which have been through this process, are then separated from the chaff and are singled out as the best in the country within their category and announced as the nominees.The actors and actresses who are nominated are those who are believable, professional and interesting to watch. Their accents do not slip, they do not look like they are auditioning for Pinocchio pre-realboyhood and they do not make you cringe and wish for free acting coupons to be delivered to their doorstep. With haste. The directors who are nominated are those who pull all aspects of their production together from production design to lighting and composition while guiding the performances of their actors in a way that results in believable protagonists and support.They are also responsible for making us tear up a little by shooting a scene from behind a blade of grass as a ballerina runs through a field to the cool strains of ‘The Nature of Daylight’ by Max Richter. By the time they have pulled everything together, inspired those amazing performances and managed those incredible shots better than the next guy, if the last 25 years in Oscar lore are a credible example, 20 out of 25 times, they will go on to win Best Film. So a director can pretty much make or break this thing for everyone involved. No pressure. The editor cuts it together and organises the footage in an engaging and original way while ensuring the story makes sense… unless they are the editor on Christopher Nolan’s ‘Memento’ (2000.) because then, you know, go wild. What I’m trying to say, in a very summarised and silly way, is that each category has its elements and each person responsible for that particular category is acknowledged and rewarded for using those elements in a capable and most inventive way. So a jury is not going to award a film simply because you liked it, they are going to pore over each aspect and decide who worked within the medium best. As an ‘intelligent audience’ they will not appease anyone’s ego by announcing second, third or fourth best, they will just tell everyone who cares to listen that they thought this person did it better than the other four. With that said, what filmmakers and their friends need to celebrate and take in their stride is the fact that a nomination is an acknowledgement and celebration of your prowess and a win indicates you managed to inch your way ahead of the pack when compared to your competitors within a category.This could be by a millimetre or a mile. Needless to say, this year it was by millimetres and all nominees should be proud and conduct themselves with dignity sans snideness or delusions of infallibility.This is the maturity and competitive spirit we need to foster in our fledgling film society and I hope everyone feeling embittered can get on board and help steer us towards a free and challenging industry that awards the best without favouritism or some sort of loyalty to a particular brand.That is not what this business is about. Steven Spielberg has sat in an audience, been nominated and lost. If anyone in this industry thinks they are beyond that and that this is not the reality of the game that they are in, I’m sad to say they need to place a Desperately Seeking advertisement in the newspaper of their choice pronto. Title: New Career.