I jumped into a discussion at
Nikki Finke's blog about whether or not the Independent Spirit Awards are too dominated by higher-profile, specialty division films.
My take:
The question of who votes gets to the core of why the ISAs drift to the mainstream - access. Eligible voters are members of LA Film Independent or NY, Chi, MN IFP. These people are filmmakers, though in many cases that may be more aspirational. Fact is, all one needs to be a member is to pay a fee of around $100.
I was a member the last two years, though I let mine lapse this year. I would get the occasional screener DVD, and they’ve tried to arrange others via Neflix and online streaming, plus some screenings in LA and maybe NY.
So it’s up to a membership with fringe connections to see a slate of nominees that are often difficult to find. If you didn’t catch the smaller films during their one-week run at your local art house, and they haven’t been released on DVD, good luck finding them - even if you’re an ISA voter.
The ISAs consistently nominate a stronger crop than the Oscars, and I give them credit for considering some ultra-low budget fare alongside specialty material. But given their voting body, the winners will tend to be the most widely distributed.
The same line of reasoning should be applied to Academy voters - film professionals, but not necessarily experts in a given category and less likely to have seen smaller films, shorts, etc. Critics Associations probably offer the most valid evaluation of a year's films, but their press releases will never be as sexy as the events at the Kodak Theater or on the Santa Monica beach.
I'm back in my hotel room after three docs and the Gimme Some Truth gameshow. This festival is something else. Throngs of people march the streets, from venue to venue, crowding into restaurants and coffee shops along the way. And for what? To catch a glimpse of Tom Cruise, or see a young starlet get arty/naked? No - these crowds are pumped up to see the true face of war and poverty.
