Now...this is less a criticism of the people than the system. These four people spend 10 days in a room watching 1300 films. That is an insane task to ask anyone (increasingly we found it difficult to even find people who wanted to do it). Often they are watching 100 films a day. They become cranky, hungry, tired and slowly begin to get on each other's nerves. Their patience diminishes, the vision blurs and their mental process tires.

In short...it's an unfair experience for the committee member, festival, filmmaker and audience.

Our solution, and it is by no means perfect, was to have selection done in house under my supervision. It usually involves at least three of the festival organizers. As Artistic Director, I have the final say and naturally my decisions effect and influence the look and tone of the event. I make no apologies for that. A museum or gallery has a curator, why not a festival? In truth, there is nothing radical about this system. It is common practice at live-action festivals as it is with many newer animation festivals (Holland, Fantoche, Anima Mundi; Stuttgart has a combination).

There are a few critics of this system who throw out that tired line about democratic process. That's just an excuse for avoiding responsibilities (see 'democratic vote' above); an emergency exit that eliminates the need for thoughtful, impassioned discussion and provides a handy hand washing for those who really don't have opinions; besides, since when is democracy in the best interests of the people?

With our in-house system I have the advantage of knowing virtually all the contemporary films out there (not that THAT necessitates TASTE). Without the restrictions of a committee we take at least a month to observe the films leaving plenty of time for discussion and repeat screenings. Yes, I have final say, but I take the opinions of my colleagues seriously and rely on them to stop me if I'm perhaps being too lustful toward, let's say, an Estonian animation film. Besides the process demands more than one judge.

We also have the ability to reconsider a rejected film or two if there is room. Why not? Why this formal OPERATIC procedure that sings: ALL IS FINAL!!! ? I ain't afraid to say it: We make mistakes, especially with the limbo entries. See...there are films that are VERY GOOD and VERY BAD. That's usually fairly easy to sort out...but that big pile in the middle is essentially left to a crapshoot. All sorts of important but also trivial influences sway selection of those films: Maybe they had to piss when they saw your film? Maybe the coffee was brewing. Maybe it was just before lunch after a long morning. Maybe they cut it off too early. Bottom line: Any festival that tells you that the system of selection is some pure, objective process of GODS is, as my friend Ronnie said, "Shitting in your mouth and calling it a sundae."

Now you know. Oh and hey...how'd you like Meltzer?

Hottie Animator of the Month
Jayne Pilling. Jayne should be knighted or damed (as in Dame Pilling) for the endless hours of life she has given to animation.

Last Month's Secret Message Was: 4'33.
The winner was David Dyment of Toronto, Ontario. Dave wins an extra large industrial roll of bubble wrap.

Chris Robinson is a writer, festival director, programmer, junky and has been called the John Woo of diplomacy. His hobbies include horseback riding, pudpulling, canoeing and goat thumping.