Animation
World Magazine, Issue 1.10, January 1997
To Be or Not To Be An ASIFA-Sanctioned Festival
by Chris Robinson
This article, by the director of the Ottawa Animation Festival brings to the surface a number of long-standing complaints regarding the relationship between ASIFA-Internatiional and the major international festivals they sanction. As such, we would like to invite comments from all interested parties, whether they agree or disagree with Robinson's point of view.
Logo for the Ottawa International Animation Festival 96
Since its beginnings in 1960, ASIFA-International has taken great strides
in ensuring the continuous development of the "art of animation."
Through its sanctioning of festivals, creation of workshops and retrospectives,
support and protection of independent animators and their films, the creation
of an archive, and a number of other activities, ASIFA has not only established
some much needed exhibition venues for animators, but has also shown us
just how far reaching animation is as a way of expression for many different
cultures. As evidence, ASIFA has evolved from one organization into many,
with branches springing up all across the world. Yet some 37 years later
in a drastically altered world, ASIFA-International appears to have lost
its way. This once active and energetic association has become a bureaucratic
"old boy's club," seemingly more concerned with the prestige
and benefits of their position than with actively promoting "the art
of animation." Gutsy and altruistic initiatives have given way to
stagnant diplomacy. For example, recent festival reviews seemed to have
been based on the hope of return invitations rather than honesty, and the
ASIFA children's rights workshop (children are asked to make films based
on issues adults think are important rather than allowing them to express
their own opinions), reeks of a stifling political correctness.
My recent experiences with the organization, as director of the Ottawa
International Animation Festival (one of five sanctioned festivals), have
not only reinforced my feelings about its stagnancy, but has ultimately
led the festival to consider withdrawing from ASIFA. Despite repeated attempts
to communicate with the board in Annecy, Holland and Zagreb, with the exception
of a few individuals, it did little to inquire, advise, or assist with
Ottawa 96, let alone respond to my concerns about ASIFA's relationship
with the festival and its overall role in animation.
Just prior to Ottawa 96, ASIFA finally contacted us. Unfortunately, all
they wanted was to take advantage of the ASIFA rule that obliges festivals
to cover all board members' accommodations and pass expenses.(Rule 7c:
"Each festival must invite the members of the ASIFA board (22 maximum)
that obliges festivals to cover all board members" accommodations
and pass expenses.) Given that, with a few exceptions, board members have
done nothing to assist the festival, I found it astonishing that they have
the nerve to magically appear and make such demands. This was especially
frustrating in light of the severe government cuts that the festival was
forced to absorb this year. In anticipation of these cuts, we did our best
to avoid letting them affect the quality of our programming. and looked
elsewhere for cuts. (E.g., we hired less staff and reduced the size of
the Selection Committee from five to three.) When the cut became official,
the other obvious area to cut was the board invitations rule. Despite a
detailed written explanation to the ASIFA board, one board member remained
insistent that he be invited. He immediately called a colleague, who then
complained to me and insisted that I invite the board to the festival.
So much for artistic mandates.
Now I must say that, in the end, this seemingly disruptive member turned
out be very helpful. Nevertheless, I am baffled by the hypocrisy of an
association whose mandate is to promote independent animators and the "art
of animation." Money that could have been used to maintain ASIFA's
"mandate" was instead redirected to accomodate individuals from
ASIFA-International and ASIFA-Canada who did absolutely nothing for the
festival.
Unbelievably, one board member, who upon arrival discovered a minor problem
with his hotel started screaming at festival staff and volunteers. Now
this might appear to be petty gossip, but in my opinion these seemingly
minor actions merely reinforce ASIFA's pettiness and stagnancy.
The State of the Rules
The second issue is the state of ASIFA festival rules. They exist in theory,
but are actually rarely enforced. At Zagreb 96, for example, its organizers,
apparently without the Selection Committee's consent, put a couple of dreadful
local films in competition to boost the studio's morale. The rules (5E)
clearly state that all "[d]ecisions . . . are final and no limitations
shall be placed on them for aesthetic, ethical, or political reasons"
(a naive expectation, but a rule nonetheless). To make matters worse, an
ASIFA board member was on this committee. To my knowledge, nothing has
been done to address this flagrant rules violation.
But Zagreb is not alone. All ASIFA festivals violate the rules. And this
perhaps says more about the rules than the offenders.
The ASIFA board recently revised its rules without any festival directors
being present. Given that festival directors likely know more about the
structure and context of their event then the board, and that the five
festivals exist on three different continents, this is simply a ridiculous
course of action. You simply cannot create a uniform set of rules for events
that are themselves subject to very different social, economic and political
contexts. Hence, the transgression of rules.
ASIFA-Canada
Unfortunately, these problems are not limited to ASIFA-International. ASIFA-Canada,
who were slightly more active in assisting Ottawa 96, nevertheless exhibited
the same characteristics. Despite having being a member for the past two
years, I have, with one exception, never been told when meetings occur.
During my one and only meeting with the board, like children writing letters
to Santa Claus, they started reciting from their wish lists (i.e., Why
don't you do this? Why don't you do that?). These demands were made, without
any offers to assist, by people who had no real grasp of the organizational
structure behind the festival. Like children at Christmas, they don't care
how they get the gift, as long as they get it. And even then they sometimes
still find something to complain about. For example, at our expense, we
offered ASIFA-Canada a page on our Web site. Within a week, an angry email
arrived complaining about some of the errors on the page. A page they wrote.
The problems with ASIFA-Canada extend well beyond the festival. What appears
to be a national association is in reality a Montreal-dominated chapter
that is far too closely linked with the National Film Board of Canada to
actually reflect and promote the many independent animators scattered throughout
the country. (The recent creation of ASIFA-Vancouver was in part a response
to this problem.) There are independent animators in Canada that don't
work for the NFB and, if ASIFA mandate has any meaning, their concerns
should be a priority over a government funded (albeit decreasing) studio.
Added into the mix is the routine ASIFA-Canada/International post-festival
commentary, which is generally a naive response that criticizes and applauds
the festival without any real context. For example, Ottawa 96 was accused
by some of being too corporate. With a fuller of understanding of the difficulties
facing us, accusers might have learned that without corporate support,
there would have been no festival. (In fact, the success of Ottawa 96 has
enabled us to create a much-needed International Student Animation Festival.)
This is not to say that Ottawa 96 was perfect, it wasn't. But a more acute
grasp on the contexts of each event would make for more informed opinions,
positive or negative.
Surving Without ASIFA?
At this time, I believe the Ottawa festival could easily survive without
ASIFA, and this should be of grave concern to the board. Since Ottawa 88,
entry and sponsorship levels have increased each year. While ASIFA certainly
assisted Ottawa in its early years, being a sanctioned festival has not
played a significant role in these increases. It is doubtful that either
of these components will be affected if Ottawa loses ASIFA's approval.
In a time of drastic government cuts to the cultural sector, the state
of the industry more than anything else determines the success or failure
of the festival. If Ottawa is now considered one of the top animation festivals
in the world, thanks should go to its staff and volunteers; to the North
American companies who have supported us; to the few remaining government
supporters who, in the face of massive cuts, continue to acknowledge the
national and local importance of the festival; not to ASIFA.
Despite these complaints, the relationship between ASIFA and Ottawa carries
a long history, and it would be foolish to cut these ties without first
attempting to mend them. In response to these problems, Ottawa organizers
have come up with some alternatives.
For an ASIFA board member (International or Canadian) to receive free accommodations
and/or passes, they will have to either find a sponsor to cover their costs,
or work for the festival. This work could include curating and organizing
retrospectives and/or workshops, or simply working as a staff member during
the festival. Secondly, festival directors must have a say (and vote) in
the creation or revision of festival rules from the beginning. The ASIFA
board is simply not equipped to fully understand the structures, problems
and contexts that are unique to each event. Finally, the ASIFA-International
board would do well to break up the "old boys' club." This "club"
has increasingly alienated the younger generation by not better informing
and involving them in the ASIFA process. Most of us have no idea how one
becomes elected to the board, let alone when actual meetings occur. The
medium is becoming increasingly dominated by a younger generation whose
concerns are not being adequately represented. If ASIFA is to be of any
service, it must reflect this new generation.
These are merely a few suggestions based on my perspectives from the Ottawa
festival, I am certain that there are other stories and suggestions. To
ensure that these words expand beyond the screen, it is essential that
a dialogue be establishedÏamong ASIFA members and interested parties
to discuss the future of this association. Ottawa organizers were not overly
enthused about creating a more corporate festival, but we had little choice.
While other festivals can seemingly do without corporate support (e.g.,
Zagreb), Ottawa exists in a completely different geopolitical context.
If we are to remain the most relevant animation festival in North America,
we must reflect both the artistic and industrial nature of this medium.
Like it or not, animation consists of art and industry, to ignore one is
to deny the entire history of animation.
As we approach the end of the century, there is great excitement about
the variety of new avenues open to animation. But whether ASIFA will catch
up depends on its ability to escape from its 1960s ideals, break free from
its bureaucratic tunnel vision, and evolve into a more active, assertive
association that truly reflects the diversity of this complex and always
changing world. It also depends on you.
Chris Robinson is Executive Director of the Ottawa International Animation
Festival and the International Student Animation Festival of Ottawa, which
will take place in September 1997. In addition to writing articles on film
and animation, Robinson organizes a bi-weekly series of underground film
screenings in Ottawa.
Back to the Table of Contents
Feedback?
Past Issues
[about | help
| home | info@awn.com
| mail | register]