Awards

[Daz]

It's great to see ASErs receiving the recognition they well deserve, although a shame that the AFI are following the BAFTA and splitting craft awards away from production.

I was at the Grierson (http://www.griersontrust.org/) documentary awards last night in London - in the very theatre where Faraday first demonstrated electricity! Not too many film editors at that event, sad to report. Equally of concern was a conversation I had with one of the trustees, who asked what it was a film editor actually did. Sigh.

My nominated film was edged out by a natural history documentary about the Mississipi river, a beautifully shot piece. The director was heard to thank the commissioning editor for the luxury of 180 filming days. Wow! What a night!

[E_Tedeschi]

Yes! Congratulations to Denise, James, Alexandre and John!

Better luck next time, Daz?

e.

[JWRL]

There were a few issues with the AFIs this year, I believe. First, there's the obvious one of the splitting off of the craft awards, but the second, and to my mind more worrying issue was that the telecast coverage started at 11.00 pm!

The AFIs I believe have lost focus. I think that it's now well past time that they dropped the television section from the main night, and possibly (horror!) altogether. By doing that the craft awards could be reinstated where they belong. We have already a very big television awards night in the Logies and we hardly need another.

I think that the second issue is more concerning. The AFI this year retained the Paul Dainty organisation to stage the AFIs in an attempt to lift the profile. And I believe that from the little that I saw, they did mount a very impressive looking awards night. But the fact that the telecast was so late is an indicator of community apathy about Australian films, not about problems with the AFI awards night.

And I don't know what you do about that.

[Daz]

Always the bridesmaid, Enzo (-;

[Peter]

The Australian Film ARTS (I have learn to stop calling it an industry, as I believe an industry supports its workforce) is going through a difficult time, as it always does, and our flagship, if you like is cinema, followed by television.
The AFI had to win back credibility or die. The holding of awards does a couple things, it recognises the achievements of the film makers involved and raises the profile of the films within the market. In order to engage the publics interest it must be as glamorous and exciting as possible, hence the actors, the 'stars'.
Now I don't know how it came together but I'm betting Channel 9 said we'll do the show if Dainty organisation puts it together and Russ hosts it. L'Oreal came on board to add the sparkle our stars provide the glamour. Then the public gets excited, goes to see Aussie films and we're working again.
Damn I wish it was that simple.
The Awards were split, because they couldn't do it all on one night. As it was it was a marathon for Russell over the 2 nights and I thought he was terrific, very funny.
They shouldn't be split but if they have to be then we need to get the split right.

[Peter]

The telecast was so late because it followed the 'Harry Potter' movie. Channel 9 estimated it would get an audience of 2 million viewers for 'Harry' and even if they lost half their audience, the AFIs would still receive 1 million viewers.
Much more than has ever been achieved.

[E_Tedeschi]

JWRL is spot on about the timeslot. An 11pm start is not going to prove much of a ratings success, no matter what the lead-in.

Looking at the ratings for the night, Harry Potter proved to be the ratings juggernaut that everyone would have expected. Despite that, the AFIs failed to win the ratings for it's slot anywhere other than Sydney and Adelaide. Melbourne and Perth got bored after 15 mins, switching over to "Jewel of The Nile", while Brisbane gave it a little longer, before also flicking over after 45 mins to watch Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner battling the arabs.

Perhaps in order to win a TV audience, the AFI might be better off striking a deal with the networks to hold the event and broadcast immediately after ratings season? That way they could stick it in a timeslot where people may actually watch due to the dross that starts to crop up on TV around that time... but what do I know - I'm just an Editor.

I'm not sure that dropping the TV awards would be wise, though. For the average TV viewer, anyway, many may want to tune in to watch shows they know get gongs, rather than films they may not have heard of (shocking, I know!). As for the Logies, I personally think that shows like "Love My Way" are more akin to feature film than they are to "Renovate or Detonate" :)

And I agree with Peter - if the split is right, it may work better. Ideally, I'd prefer one big deal.

My two cents. Or is it five...?

Enzo.

[Daz]

Wow, 1 million at 11pm. I would love to see the ratings when they do come out.

BAFTA had already split feature film from telly, but then they went one step further and split telly craft from telly production.

I may be completely wrong about this, but don't the Oscars still manage to give their craft awards on the big night?

[Peter]

Yep Daz, they do. The Technical awards are held the day before I think. They are the real technical awards not the mistaken craft awards the press here keep labelling ours as.

John's absolutely right, the timeslot was a killer. I don't know what feed back one can gauge from that. And no they didn't achieve a million viewers, no where near it.
Television probably has to stay, I mean if we can't get an audience for our Aussie films how could we get an audience for our film awards?

[E_Tedeschi]

The Oscars have a separate "Sci-Tech" dinner night, where they award things like the development of a new camera crane, or a new lens, or lifetime technical contribution - not really creative storytelling awards (ie editing or production design - all ways to help tell the story), but more creative engineering behind the gear that enables the storytelling.

As for the official ratings results, I believe the show peaked at about 895,000 within the first half hour, but averaged around 399,000 overall.

I don't think even Harry Potter hit it's magical target of 2 million.

e.

[E_Tedeschi]

Beat me by a minute!!

:)

[Daz]

A minute is a long time in telly...

[Peter]

Just experience Enzo no offence.

[E_Tedeschi]

None taken, Mr. President.

:)

[JWRL]

Interestingly, as an aside to the expected 2 milion for Harry Potter the highest rating film on television all year was an Australian made-for-TV movie. And it was (Ta-da!) Da Kath & Kim Story on the ABC on Sunday night!

So what does that say about Australian audiences wanting or not wanting to see Australian movies?

[E_Tedeschi]

That's very interesting, JWRL. Although a Kath and Kim movie (I would imagine) would be more akin to TV sitcom than feature film? I didn't see it - was it a movie-length episode, or did they venture from the tried and true?

e.

[Peter]

It says they want to see Kath and Kim. It was about the best promotion I have seen for a tv show in a long time. The ABC was getting coverage on the free to air channels, extraordinary really.
But it does say this is the type of movie or show a large proportion of Australians want see.
The pool is a lot smaller for the Lantanas. So if we make the more sophisticated dramas, then we had better do it very well.
Anything in between will struggle. Our market just isn't big enough.

[JWRL]

But I'm old enough to remember the Ealing comedies (you poor old devil you). Before they went into production the British film industry was pretty much as ours is now, ie, Brits proudly used to boast that they wouldn't go and see a British movie, radio programs used to send them up, etc., etc.

We seem to have an attitude in this country that we're creating art, not entertainment. It's important that we make films with integrity, but we can't lose sight of the fact that if you don't have an audience you are just a prophet crying in the wilderness.

[Daz]

Nothing wrong with having a laugh. Some of the hardest work I've ever done in my life was TV comedy. For Ted Robinson, as it turns out, who I see picked up an AFI for "The Glass House". Anybody seen it?

[E_Tedeschi]

Daz, The Glass House is one of the funniest shows on television. Very topical and satirical "panel" show (for lack of a better description), with good comedians (Wil Anderson, Corinne Grant and Dave Hughes), and a healthy dose of silliness thrown in.

Wil started a show a couple of weeks back with "Today is the national day of Austria... George W. Bush sent PM Howard some flowers."

:)

e.

[JWRL]

Yes, the Glass House is must-see television in my house too. And like a lot of Ted Robinson's work it depends very heavily on the brilliance of the minds of the panelists. Let's hope that the new ("trust me, we won't use them") sedition laws don't pull their claws.

[annac]

more on awards nights... The AFIs were late and long. Thank heavens the results were on the net before the broadcast finished. Congratulations to SBS for the IF Awards - a snappy one hour broadcast live.

[Neil Ryan]

Originally posted by E_Tedeschi
Harry Potter proved to be the ratings juggernaut that everyone would have expected. Despite that, the AFIs failed to win the ratings for it's slot anywhere other than Sydney and Adelaide. Melbourne and Perth got bored after 15 mins, switching over ...

I wonder if there was an issue with the audiences of the two programmes?
Perhaps it was simply that Harry Potter fans aren't all interested in Australian film industry awards?