Discontent with film award politics

Protests and questions emerged almost instantly, probing the role of the awards, their relevance, and their representation of the nation’s filmmaking capacity. Can such accolades effectively compare big budget efforts against their smaller counterparts, as evidenced in the David vs Goliath battle between The Great Gatsby and its fellow nominees The Rocket, The Turning, Mystery Road, Dead Europe and Satellite Boy? Was the lure of The Great Gatsby’s Hollywood pedigree too strong for the Australian organisation, its glitz and glamour more appealing than the darker, more intimate options? Is choosing the best Australian film of any given year from such a limited pool of features really the best way to recognise the contributions made within the industry?

The seeds of controversy were first planted in December when The Great Gatsby performed strongly in the nominations. Many reasons were put forward as ammunition for its unworthiness of acknowledgment by Australia’s leading film awards, including the film’s American story, studio and funding, and the non-local origins of its lead-acting nominees, Leonardo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan. Once The Great Gatsby earned its 13 crystal trophies to make its wildest AACTA dreams a reality, discontent only grew.

Taking out 12 of the 13 AACTA categories it was competing in, The Great Gatsby outperformed every other Australian release to confirm its supremacy over the year and the awards season. Only in the Best Actress category did it go home empty handed, its other loss coming to itself via two nominations in the Best Supporting Actress field. Lest the film not garner enough other accolades, the AACTAs also bestowed upon it a special award for outstanding achievement in visual effects. That gong was made all the more memorable for its gifted rather than voted-upon status, and all the more objectionable given that the broader category was removed from awards contention in the lead up to the 2014 ceremony.

This was the third year in the AACTAs’ three-year history that the best film coincided with the populist choice, a curious overlap in an industry that sustains few bona fide, mass appeal, crowd-pleasing hits in any annual calendar, and fewer still that achieve significant success at the local box office. At the event focused on 2012’s Australian cinema output, The Sapphires received the ultimate honour at the expense of Burning Man, Lore and Wish You Were Here. In 2011, Red Dog took the top spot over The Hunter, Eye of the Storm, Snowtown, Oranges and Sunshine and Mad Bastards. Both winners made much more money than their competitors, and were subjected to greater variance between positive and negative reactions in their reviews. Yet since the Australian Film Institute rebranded its accolades to the AACTAs for the 2011 awards season, the most accessible film – and therefore the most financially successful – has risen to the top again and again and again.

The Great Gatsby’s impressive showing across its nominated categories is admittedly not without precedent, including as recently as last year when The Sapphires took out 11 statuettes. Previous films to achieve the feat were considerably less broad-ranging in content and audience appeal, with Somersault’s clean sweep of all 13 categories it was nominated in in 2004 unlikely to be forgotten, and The Piano’s haul of 11 in 1993 the prior record holder. Animal Kingdom and The Home Song Stories won 8 in 2010 and 2007 respectively. Many years show the prominence of one or two features over their competitors.

The AACTAs may be the highest profile film awards body in the nation; however others exist, including two organisations exclusively for film critics: the Melbourne-based Australian Film Critics Association (AFCA), and the Sydney-based Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA). Both are recognised by and affiliated with FIPRESCI, the international association of film critics and journalists. Both have sizeable membership bases, spanning around the country. Both hand out their own annual gongs, as voted by their constituents.

More often than not, a chasm rather than a correlation exists between AACTA, AFCA and FCCA, though overlaps aren’t uncommon between the latter two bodies. This year, both picked Ivan Sen’s Mystery Road as the best film of 2013, with the FCCA award shared by Kim Mordaunt’s The Rocket. Both selected the same director (Ivan Sen for Mystery Road), lead actor (Aaron Pedersen for Mystery Road), lead actress (Naomi Watts for Adoration) and supporting actress (Rose Byrne for The Turning), too. Recent years have seen similar comparability, including in 2011 when the film, directing, lead actor and actress winners of the AFCA and FCCA awards aligned.

That The Great Gatsby received a lukewarm response from reviewers can’t be overlooked, but did the backlash its AACTA wins sparked translate across to a poorer showing with the critics’ organisations? Yes and no: wins were fewer, but nominations remained plentiful. Amongst the AFCA nominees, The Great Gatsby earned 8 nods in 7 of the 8 relevant fields, lacking an entry in the best screenplay category, and going home empty handed overall. Over at the FCCA, it garnered 10 nominations 9 of the 11 appropriate areas, winning for cinematography, editing, production design, and best supporting actor for Joel Edgerton.

In the major AFCA and FCCA categories, winners were made of features perhaps more deserving, and certainly features that received greater critical acclaim, but The Great Gatsby was still firmly in the running. The critics may not have loved the film, but they weren’t averse to considering it amongst the year’s award-worthy efforts.

Perhaps the variance calls into question the very purpose of such an act of appreciation, and highlights the subjective nature of deeming one film – or a component of a film – better than its peers. That awards are a reflection of the opinions of their voters and nothing more, however skilled or informed they may be, is something that is all too often ignored in the rush to regard recipients as the definite examples of quality cinema. Alas, too often only the winners’ names survive for posterity.

Also worth considering are the many inherent hazards stemming from creating a hierarchy of excellence within such an industry of such limited size and resources. The local filmmaking scene is small and insular, with many budding and experienced creatives facing significant difficulties when making films – whether trying to secure financing, navigating the shooting process, or getting noticed by audiences. With this in mind, should the features championed be more representative of the industry, not the high-flying outliers? Is such a position relevant to the process, or does it cloud the perception of objectivity?

What 2014’s pool of Australian features will hold is yet to be seen, as is the outcome come awards time in early 2015. Early release Tracks is excellent and has been deservingly recognised as such in its general release, whilst forthcoming efforts Canopy, Healing and These Final Hours are similarly impressive, each inching towards their cinema outings with the assistance of strong festival receptions. The Rover, Felony, Kill Me Three Times, Son of a Gun and Predestination may boast famous international names among their cast (Robert Pattinson, Tom Wilkinson, Simon Pegg, Ewan McGregor and Ethan Hawke, respectively), but their local grounding can’t be questioned. The list of challengers continues, with Galore and Charlie’s Country also possible contenders, though the already-seen Wolf Creek 2 and I, Frankenstein are less likely to rank among the nominations.

From the forthcoming slate of films, all signs point towards a strong showing from the types of efforts the Australian industry is more commonly known for: lower-budget, character-driven dramas and genre efforts, rather than mass market, feel-good and blockbuster pieces. A repeat of this year’s dominance and controversy seems unlikely, as does the ascension of a film so barely embraced otherwise – but 2014 is in its infancy, and anything can happen as the year plays out. If the way we habitually and historically award and applaud Australian cinema has one constant, it is that quantity of accolades and the quality of films don’t always mix.