A FILM JUROR'S EXPERIENCE
by:  Teresa R. Tunay, CINEMA Executive Board Member

When I received the invitation to serve as juror at an international film festival in Belgium, I was thrilled, but I didn't know what to expect.  I had never been a member of any film festival jury, and although I have served for four years as a CINEMA movie reviewer, (having been a member of the Executive Board since its inception in 2000), I felt that my knowledge and experience of film criticism was hardly adequate for the job of juror.  But I wasn't discouraged; in fact, I shivered in anticipation, although I knew that this film fest was nothing like Cannes or Venice or Berlin. 

It was to be a small one, I was told—with around 80 films participating (in contrast to Cannes which features over 300 films every year)—and it would be held from April 23 to May 2 in Turnhout, a historic, charming town in northern Belgium.  That was all I knew; only when I got to Antwerp did I learn that its official name was Open Doek Film Festival.  "Open doek" is Flemish for "open door."

Once there, I was grateful I kept my door open to the idea of being an inexperienced juror.  It was extremely challenging, to say the least, and those ten days of viewing and deliberating on films certainly led to insights and realizations about the social-political value of film that I would not have gained at any other time or place.  It was a singular experience. 

I discovered that there would not be just one jury at film festivals; even at the best known festivals, there would be as many sets of jury as there would be awards.  Open Doek, now on its 12th year—and by this time has earned a reputation for being one of the most dynamic and innovative among the "young" film festivals worldwide—had four juries: a "youth jury" composed of teenagers; a "jury behind bars" which had prisoners as jurors; a "professional jury" made up of movie industry people; and us, the "international jury" whose members were selected by SIGNIS, a worldwide Catholic association for communication.

As a jury, we did basically the same as what we do locally at CINEMA—watch a movie, weigh its merits and demerits according to a set of guidelines, etc.  The big difference is, the CINEMA Board which deliberates weekly on the new releases has an all-Filipino membership.  At Open Doek, the jurors were virtual strangers, coming from different countries and cultural backgrounds, and the biggest challenges would come during deliberation time—at least two hours after each movie we would watch.  There we would not just end up grading the audience suitability of a movie.  We would "rate" each movie in comparison with the others competing for the Award, and because our jury represented SIGNIS, we had to be extra mindful of the value of a movie as a potent tool for social transformation.  To win the SIGNIS Award, it is never enough for a film to be artistic or entertaining, albeit perfectly so; it also has to have a transformative quality about it, or at least, it must offer the viewer a trail that leads to grace.  (Big deal, huh?)

So, imagine the situation—the jurors, products of diverse cultures and coming with varying sensibilities, scrutinizing 10 competing films supposed to be the best creations from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America.  What is beautiful for Juror A may be cheap sentimentality for Jurors B and C, but plain stupidity for Juror D.  Or what is evil for Jurors C and B may be justifiable practicality for Juror A but is totally overlooked by Juror D.  At deliberation time, and especially when viewpoints would clash, each juror would state his or her piece, explain his perception, defend his concept as he would a thesis.  Leveling off time was made smooth, fortunately, by the fact that the jurors had the maturity to honor the SIGNIS criteria for awarding the film that:

1.  is of high artistic quality;

2.  dramatizes positive human values;

3.  enables the values dramatized in the film to be seen in the light of the message of the Gospel;

4.  challenges its audience to respond to its social and justice dimensions;

5.  can be used by groups to understand issues through story and symbols;

6.  reflects its culture, and helps the audience to respect the language and the images of that culture;

7.  has a universal impact and is not confined to its national or local context.

After an arduous deliberation process, the jury chose "Blind Shaft," a film from China, as winner.  Not a unanimous decision, but the jury felt it did its best by the exacting SIGNIS standards.