About the Author

author photo

Agnes Varnum is a freelance writer, film programmer and communications manager for the Austin Film Society. She is the primary contributor to doc it out and Tribeca Film Institute's Resources.

See All Posts by This Author

Cinema Eye Awards

March 17th, 2008 • Related Posts • Tags

If you are a doc enthusiast, you have probably heard about the upcoming Cinema Eye Awards. Organized by AJ Schnack and Thom Powers, the will take place tomorrow at the IFC Center in NYC. I’ve maintained blog silence on the topic, though I have supported the but submitting writing to their program and voting, but I ran into AJ at SXSW this past week where he asked me to blog about the .

To be honest, I haven’t written on this because I have a couple of issues with it and rather than poking holes in the sails of my friends, I wanted to see how things would shake out. But, AJ wants these to be a community project and prefers for us to have our discussion in public, so to that end, there is an ongoing discussion over at The D-Word, should you wish to bend AJ, Thom & Co.’s ear. Below are my thoughts.

My main issue is the corporate sponsorship. I realize that any kind of need corporate support. The costs associated with ceremonies and administration would be impossible to manage. Other are often housed within a non-profit organization that will secure support from a variety of corporate sources to produce the event but the integrity of the remains with the producing organization (think Independent Spirits, Gothams). Here, you go to the Cinema Eye website, click on the category of films you want to browse and you are hyperlinked to Indiepix’s website where you can not only read about the film, but purchase it as well.

I know that all of the people involved including Indiepix are good people who want to support documentary, but this is blatant sales and to my mind undermines the integrity of the being given. The direct result of Indiepix supporting the is to drive traffic to their website to buy films. Do I want people to buy films? Yes. Do I think that should raise the profile of films and drive sales? Yes. But that appear to be bestowed by a company as a way to sell DVDs fall short of an honor by the community.

In this instance, I can see that this is the first year; everything has come together quickly and I happen to know most of the folks involved, so I don’t doubt that their hearts are in the right place. I also believe that others like myself have contributed to the project in hopes of it blossoming and being something the documentary community can be proud of, but going forward, this will be a lot harder to support if it remains in the hands of a single corporate sponsor.

The other issue which I’m less clear on is the voting process. On the ballot, it wasn’t clear that you had to have seen all of the films in a category to vote, and in fact that isn’t the case. AJ responds to Doug Block’s question about this, “I don’t know that I think that someone has to see every film in every category, but I would hope that voters have seen nearly every film in the categories that they vote in.”

I’m a bit fuzzier on my own opinion of this, but something feels wrong about voting against films when they haven’t been viewed, or voting for them because they are they only film in the category not viewed. I had seen 4 out of 5 films or so in nearly every category. I hesitated in voting (got it in just under the wire) because I wanted to watch the movies I hadn’t seen, but with my responsibilities of the last month, couldn’t do so. Again, this being the first year, it was clear that participation and support is key to allowing the seedling of an program to grow into something more, so I went ahead and voted but I feel a bit guilty about it.

I’m sorry I can’t be at the tomorrow night. I wish all the nominees and organizers who have put a lot of effort into this much luck. And I hope that my feedback here is seen as constructive and will be added to the myriad of voices chiming in on how to grow these .

There Are 7 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by Michele Gambetta on 19 March 2008:

    Agnes,
    Really interested in your comments and the possibility of a dialouge.

    If you want the independent-film community to gain more visibility and for filmmakers to sell more films, what is the problem with being sponsored by and linking to a quality-driven corporate sponsor? The internet is fostering new methods of connection and communication, so whats the problem with exploiting the power of on-line communities to spread the word about new films?

    Why would you question an independent sponsor such as IndiePix’ making an artists’ works more accessible and obviously for sale? Artists get a good chunk of the sales price. How would you prefer to see it?

    Cheers,
    Michele

  2. Comment by Agnes Varnum on 19 March 2008:

    Thanks Michele, for your questions. I’m guessing by your questions you believe that there is no issue with the very direct linking of the company and the awards? Certainly, the Indiepix website aims to help would-be viewers find films they will like and serve them up via DVD or download. They’ve also developed software to assist in finding connections between films to guide choices. This is the “power of on-line communities to spread the word” that you speak of, and I appreciate it very much and have always supported Indiepix.

    However, even this year, the company sponsored Jennifer Venditti’s film “Billy the Kid,” which won best debut feature (and very well-deserved, I’d add). AJ had to defend the selection of the film as a nominee on his blog because the integrity of the nomination could be in question when the sponsor of the awards is also the funder of a nominated film. Like I said, and as AJ explained, I’m inclined to believe they are on the right side of this this time around, but going forward, if an Indiepix-funded film is nominated, do you have no question in your mind that this is coincidence?

    What if a film is not available for sale on Indiepix’s website? Will it still be nominated? What if the film can only be purchased elsewhere? Will they link to the site where it can be bought? I am the last person to argue that awards are without bias. Everything has a degree of subjectivity, as I’ve argued here about the Academy Awards, but I want to feel like these kinds of honors are open to all comers and none has an advantage over another, yet there appear to be no lines to maintain the integrity of the honors and the seller of the films.

    I’d like to see a nonprofit that doesn’t have a financial interest in the nominated films in charge of administering the awards.

    And just by way of illustrating an experience I had with these murky waters… A long while ago, I purchased web hosting from a company recommended by CNET. After I had tons of problems, I did a bit more digging and found out there were a lot of questions surrounding CNET’s endorsement as they were receiving ad revenue from the company in question. They didn’t reveal their relationship to the recommended company in their recommendation, and given mine and others very bad experiences with the web host, I’m inclined to not trust CNET’s recommendations any longer. It’s not exactly the same, but trust me, this kind of payola is happening, and we don’t need it, or even the implication or possibility.

  3. Comment by Michele Gambetta on 20 March 2008:

    Thanks, Agnus,
    I understand what you are saying and can see the potential conflict with a company-produced film and that same film being awarded by the company, no matter how good the flick. Billy the Kid was exceptionally fresh and w/ vision, and since this was a first time for most involved, i agree: it was all good. But I understand your point about a potential conflict of interest.

    Do you think it would be different if there were other production and distribution companies involved in the awards ceremony?

    I’m coming from a fine arts background and have some other questions/thoughts. The relationships between film and video/new media are blurring these days, and methods and venues for selling are also. I think its kinda a wild-west, many rules are changing, and its an exciting time to be an artist…

    The fine arts tend to be elitist which is something i have grappled with in my own artmaking — but film seems different — more “for the people”… Do you have any thoughts about the blending of

    ie. Do you think it matters to filmmakers and/or consumers whether a film is sold on Amazon, on a smaller commercial site, or a non-profit site?

  4. Comment by Agnes Varnum on 20 March 2008:

    I think most awards have various corporate sponsors, and it has not presented a problem that I’m aware of. I hope other companies have the ability to come aboard as sponsors (is that possible if it is Indiepix’s awards?)

    I’ve never met a filmmaker who didn’t want their film seen in a theater. There are people who produce for television but independent filmmakers seem to approach their work with the idea that it will go into theaters. Any other options are considered down-river. They actually make money on those down-river options, as opposed to theaterical runs which typically lose money, but that doesn’t seem to matter. As a consumer, I’d prefer to watch a film when I want and on the screen I want.

    You should watch “Beautiful Losers” if you get a chance; it is about DIY artists who wound up making it big, but the film is really about creative process and doing your art in your own way. I think you’ll like it:)

  5. Comment by ruiyan on 20 March 2008:

    Agnes, you bring up an interesting point about theater vs. broadcast. While I think there are a great many beautiful documentaries that should be seen on the big screen, I am usually more content to watch docs either on tv or via netflix, and I say that as someone who loves docs and is involved with them professionally.

    Yance Ford actually wrote a post for the P.O.V. blog about the Cinema Eye Awards and the broadcast/theatrical dilemma:
    http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/2008/03/thoughts_on_the_cinema_eye_awa.html

  6. Comment by AJ Schnack on 21 March 2008:

    Hey Agnes,

    Thanks for writing this piece. I do want conversation and am glad that you’ve added to it.

    I want to clear up at least one idea, one that is reflected in your comment above. These are not “IndiePix’s awards”, no more than the Spirit Awards are IFC’s despite the fact that IFC is the primary sponsor, airs the awards, hosts the website and the big afterparty and scored two surprise Best Picture nominations in the past 2 years - AMERICAN GUN in 2007 and PARANOID PARK in 2008.

    When I went to IndiePix with this idea in early December 2007, I went to them hoping that they would be one of our sponsors. IndiePix believed in the idea and offered to come in as a partnering and presenting sponsor to guarantee that we could actually pull off the awards in a short period of time. It was their hope - and mine - that we could line up a bunch of other sponsors to come on board, but due to a.) the short timeframe and prior commitments made by a number of potential partners, and b.) the fact that we were an untested entity, we didn’t have the broad corporate support that either I or IndiePix hope to have in future years.

    This should not detract from the amazing support and sponsorship of our partners at the IFC Center nor the smaller contributions of a number of LA and NYC companies and foreign film insitutes who assisted with everything from our montage to transportation of nominees.

    But the fact is that these awards would never have happened without the courageous leap taken by IndiePix and it would pain me - knowing how much of a risk they took - if anyone believed that IndiePix exerted any undue influence on the awards portion of our event. Their commitment from the beginning was to produce the show that Thom Powers and I wanted to create and to stay out of questions of presenters, nominees, winners, etc. Without doubt they lived up to their promise.

    I talked about BILLY THE KID’s inclusion to indieWIRE because Eugene asked whether or not KURT COBAIN ABOUT A SON would be eligible (it wasn’t because I withdrew it) and whether or not the nominating committee knew that IndiePix was a sponsor (they didn’t). I think you’d be hard pressed to find a film that has been more honored than BILLY THE KID this year and - to be honest with you - I was surprised that it was only nominated in the Outstanding Debut category, although it received votes in a few others. To suggest - even obliquely - that BILLY was nominated or won because of IndiePix’s involvement with the event is, to put it bluntly, a big stretch. Further, to suggest that folks like Cara Mertes or Sean Farnel or Rachel Rosen would be swayed or moved to vote for an IndiePix title in the nominating process is hardly borne out by the programming habits of our top doc festival gurus.

    Anyway, this is not to criticize your posting - especially since I encouraged you to write it - but rather to set the record straight. I look forward to IndiePix’s continuing involvement with the Cinema Eye Honors and I am sure that they join me in looking forward to the involvement of a number of other entities from our community as we move forward to thinking about 2009.

  7. Comment by Agnes Varnum on 22 March 2008:

    You are reiterating what I have already conceded in my post and comments though I’m sure others will appreciate you continuing to assert your points. However, since all of the press releases and communication I received from the Cinema Eye Awards came directly from Indiepix, you must also acknowledge that this is not the kind of separation we see between IFC and Film Independent for the Spirit Awards. The press releases for those awards, the listings of films and staff overseeing the awards are not IFC employees. My point remains: I look forward to seeing the Cinema Eye Awards divested from their founding sponsor and being administered by a financially disinterested organization.

    Congrats to you and Thom on what sounds like a wonderful evening! Can’t wait to see the program.