Festival gatekeepers don’t reveal what basis they make their selection so applicants have no idea why they are getting rejected or accepted.

Part one of this series raised the important question of whether or not to keep submitting to festivals that don’t take our work. The problem of course is that for those of us who are devoted to producing work of the highest standard that we can achieve, it’s heartbreaking not to be heard. After all, a film is only a series of frames without its audience. And so we are dependent, at least to some degree, on the festival gatekeepers who make it possible for our films to be shared with an audience.

But the gatekeepers aren’t telling us on what basis they make their selection so we have no idea why we are getting rejected or accepted. Except for Chris Robinson. At least he has the courage to write, “The only agenda I have is to pick the films that rock my soiled socks.” As for the rest, it’s anyone’s guess. The criteria appear to be totally subjective. Words like excellence, quality, best, etc. crop up occasionally, but do these words have any real meaning to the filmmakers who are trying to decide which fests might be more likely to select their work?

I contacted Janet Blatter, who just completed her Ph.D. in animation education (can you believe this?) and put the question to her.

Sharon Katz: How do we tackle the dilemma of not having published criteria for the selection process? Do we just accept that this is a lottery and get on with it?

Janet Blatter: Why are the festivals not giving us criteria? Is it because they think it’s impossible; or because they think it’s irrelevant; or because there are too few people with too few resources to establish and communicate them to the animators and the public?

I think they’d like to lay the blame on a lack of resources, but actually I believe that those who choose which films make the grade — and which don’t make it — think it’s impossible and irrelevant to establish genuine selection guidelines.

Animation is not the only art form that had to come out with criteria. OK, it’s hard but it’s not impossible. And not only is it relevant, it’s urgent because so many people are dedicating their talent, resources and lives to this practice. Not only that, but often they are working alone and don’t even have a sense of being part of a community of practitioners.

OIAF’s Chris Robinson picks the films that rock his soiled socks.

SK: We know that some of our films are genuinely more successful with the festivals than others. It would be fabulous if selection committees would share their evaluation criteria with us.

JB: Yes, and for them to say that it’s entirely subjective is a cop-out. If you get them to talk about what is a lousy film, you’ll begin to get some criteria to work from. Though to be sure this is a moving target because the things that we look for in animation, as in art or design, change over time (and culture). The qualities may be difficult to express but not impossible.

In order to publish criteria, one has to make them explicit. In the visual arts we have art critics and curators who explain what it is that rocks their socks. Everybody wants their socks rocked, not just Chris. For some reason the animation community does not seem to require an explicitness of criteria as other artistic or peer reviewed enterprises do.

To leave it as simple as “this film rocks my socks” or “this film sucks” is trite and puerile and has no place in an art form with such talented and dedicated people. It sends a horrible signal to society to not take animation seriously because animators don’t even take it seriously themselves.

We teach students how to come up with a language to critique every other artistic genre: film, painting, literature, music, etc. Somehow animation is off limits. I don’t even want to go there because it says everything about how society devalues animation, and by not identifying and sharing their selection criteria the festivals are contributing to that.