YES BLOG

The Jury

Meanwhile, I am watching three films a day as part of my jury duty.  The selection is extremely interesting and genuinely international; films from countries including Bolivia, Chile, Israel, Mexico, Sweden, Denmark, China, South Korea, Afghanistan, Austria, and Iran; many of which I might not have been able to see had I not been on the jury.  But I am uneasy about the idea of competition: how can one film be set against another when the filmmakers’ intentions are so different?  How can a film which was made for next to nothing in excruciatingly difficult circumstances be compared to the relative ease of production of, say, a film like ‘Sideways’ (the only North American film in the competition)? Every film is difficult to make; there are untold struggles in its making that are incomprehensible to anyone outside the film business, but, even so, the struggles are relative.

In our early jury discussions I am uneasy with the readiness of judgment; I find myself defending films I don’t particularly like, just to go against the tide of quick criticism.  It is so tempting to trash a piece of work; but the pleasure of the lashing tongue is short-lived; it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.  Ridicule is a low form of critique – the last refuge of those who think they ‘know’.  But my fellow jurors turn out to be a delightful and interesting mix; Guillermo Arriaga (screen writer, of Amores Perros, amongst other films); Michael Fitzgerald, (producer of ‘Wise Blood’, and ‘Color me Kubrick’); Maria Novaro, (director of ‘Danzon’;) and Jorge Blanco, much feared Mexican critic who I find warm and charming, not least, of course, because he likes my work.  (Later in the festival a filmmaker regales me, painfully, with tales of feeling persecuted by some of his acidic reviews; another example of the relativity of criticism.)

Comment on this post