FFI makes tragic comeback, panned by filmmakers

FFI makes tragic comeback, panned by filmmakers

Hera Diani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

To sum it up, the 2004 Indonesian Film Festival (FFI) held on
Saturday evening was unbelievably inept in many ways.

The event, which was broadcasted live on a private TV station,
was incredibly boring, with dull and dim-witted hosts, unexciting
performers and award presenters.

Worse still, what was supposed to be a celebration of the
revival of the local film scene and an event to recognize
filmmakers ended up sparking their anger.

The live rundown of the show was so badly arranged that the
award categories, such as best cinematography and best
screenplay, were presented during commercial breaks.

In addition, the award presentation broadcast, long known for
its critically panned, lowbrow fare, rambled on almost without a
break.

Noted director Riri Riza was the first to give a stinging
rebuke of the organizers when he went onstage to receive the best
screenplay award he shared with Prima Rusdi for Eliana Eliana.

"This is proof that film has been taken over by the stupidity
of television," he said.

As more categories were presented during the commercial
breaks, director Nia Dinata and producer Mira Lesmana followed
suit in criticizing the event when receiving their awards,
condemning the organizers for not properly appreciating those
unpublicized filmmakers who worked behind the scenes.

It was a tragic comeback for a film festival that used to be
highly anticipated, and which significantly cultivated and
influenced public opinion on quality local films during its
heyday in the 1970s and 1980s.

The festival was on hiatus for 12 years after it faltered in
the early 1990s against the stranglehold of Hollywood flicks on
local theaters.

It is now back, in tandem with the increase in local film
productions in recent years -- from just one film made in 2000 to
13 in 2003 and 18 this year.

Nominations for this year's awards spanned 2000 to 2004, but
some of the selections raised some questions.

As good a film it is with its groundbreaking theme about same-
sex relationships and poking fun at the rich, the reasons behind
picking Arisan! (Gathering) as best picture is slightly
questionable.

At the Academy Awards, for instance, the film that wins best
picture usually takes several other categories -- indicating the
film's superiority in production design, visual effects,
direction or screenplay.

Titanic, Braveheart, The English Patient, Cleopatra and in a
rare 11-category sweep, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, are a few
such best pictures.

In the case of Arisan!, it did not win best cinematography,
screenplay, director or art direction -- the latter is perhaps
what it deserved, given the excellent effort for its sets.

The only other award the film grabbed is best editing, which
is a headscratcher, since editing is not the film's best aspect.
The slow pace in the beginning of the film, several redundant
scenes and the rough cutting are proof of this.

A better selection should also have been provided than the
actual winners of best actor, best actress and best director.

It does not take a diploma in theatrical arts to see that Tora
Sudiro's debut in Arisan! is amateurish and stiff.

And what was so special about Dian Sastrowardoyo playing
herself, a pretty, rich, popular teenager in Ada Apa Dengan
Cinta? (What's up with Cinta)? This is like choosing Lindsay
Lohan as best actress at the Academy Awards for her role in
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen.

Meanwhile, long-time actress Jajang C. Noer, whose brilliant
performance as a harsh widow in Eliana Eliana, was overlooked.

As for best director, Riri Riza seems a better choice than
Rudy Soedjarwo for his excellent work in Petualangan Sherina and
especially Eliana Eliana -- which is, quite frankly, the best
film released so far in the past four years -- and only Riri has
proven himself to be a director with a great sense of
storytelling.

There was an impression that the jurors wanted to spread out
the awards evenly, as all of the best picture nominees received
at least one award.

With the winners being mostly young people and newcomers, it
is clear that the jurors were aiming to groom and encourage new
talent. However, by doing so, they have endorsed mediocrity,
which will only halt the development of Indonesian film and
possibly cause stagnancy, especially since quality films are
still few and far between.

These multitude blunders of the FFI 2004 only confirm the
opinion that the organizers should be comprised of young people,
instead of old-timers who suddenly resurface with the revival of
the film scene.

It also confirmed that the majority of jurors should come from
the film community and specialize in this field.

Jurors for the FFI 2004 were an incongruous mix of writers,
film critics, a psychologist and a former state minister -- most
likely order to avoid a conflict of interest, but this was a
misguided notion.

Hopefully, the next FFI will be better -- if there is a next
time.

Ever since the film scene was crippled in the 1990s,
Indonesian filmmakers have been flying solo without any
government support. Meanwhile, as the quality of film productions
increase, they have contributed to national revenue, given the
high tax on films and production materials -- but sadly, without
incentive.

A film award is the least we can give to honor the nation's
filmmakers and the least we can do to try and improve the film
industry. And this must begin by awarding those who deserve it.