Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kenmorefield

2014 Ecumenical Jury Award(s)

Recommended Posts

 

 

Eligibility - 1. anyone who participated the previous year automatically gets invited back (they can obviously decline)

2. to be invited, you have to have 12 or so reviews published somewhere??

I am more concerned with how much jurors have seen than how much they have written. It would take me awhile to break down the numbers, but from eyeballing the ballots, there wasn't much of a correlation between size of juror writing venue, frequency of his/her writing, and percentage of nominated films he/she had seen. Sometimes, actually, those who don't have to watch Dumb and Dumber To have a bit more time to track down stuff that is genuinely interesting. That said, the affiliation with some established venues give the jury more credibility I do like having a mix, though, b/c I think it helps avoid the professional/lay person divide. I think it was Mark Moring who nominated Lego Movie (which made the list), and having Joel to write the Noah blurb was extremely valuable.

 

However we resolve this, while I don't want to make a rash decision, with our list out there I think a quicker resolution would be better than a slower one. 

 

I did tweet out a disclaimer and add one to the list/write up stating that we are not affiliated with SIGNIS/Interfilm in any way.

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However we resolve this, while I don't want to make a rash decision, with our list out there I think a quicker resolution would be better than a slower one.

I did tweet out a disclaimer and add one to the list/write up stating that we are not affiliated with SIGNIS/Interfilm in any way.

That's a good start, but I think we still need a convenient, clear way of referring to ourselves, parallel to "The Ecumenical Jury at the Festival de Cannes" in this story.

 

I am opposed to the idea of calling this an A&F venture, as the current membership is not entirely of the A&F community. This is one circumstance in which not linking it to A&F would make the membership perhaps work better - but I am open to debate on that.

Even if not all of us are active A&F members, I still contend there is a case for A&F branding. As I mentioned above, the proposal was pitched and organized here, nominations were made and debated here, and most of us are invested here.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

However we resolve this, while I don't want to make a rash decision, with our list out there I think a quicker resolution would be better than a slower one.

I did tweet out a disclaimer and add one to the list/write up stating that we are not affiliated with SIGNIS/Interfilm in any way.

 

That's a good start, but I think we still need a convenient, clear way of referring to ourselves, parallel to "The Ecumenical Jury at the Festival de Cannes" in this story.

 

 

 

The results are also getting a lot more traffic than I anticipated....maybe too late for first rush, but it would be nice to have a name settled so that those who are reading it don't just know what we are *not.* 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I table the idea of staying generic for the sake of expediency. I tossed out Annual Ecumenical Jury Association. That is generic as it gets, but something along those lines would be appropriate for the time being.


"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

However we resolve this, while I don't want to make a rash decision, with our list out there I think a quicker resolution would be better than a slower one.

I did tweet out a disclaimer and add one to the list/write up stating that we are not affiliated with SIGNIS/Interfilm in any way.

That's a good start, but I think we still need a convenient, clear way of referring to ourselves, parallel to "The Ecumenical Jury at the Festival de Cannes" in this story.

The results are also getting a lot more traffic than I anticipated....maybe too late for first rush, but it would be nice to have a name settled so that those who are reading it don't just know what we are *not.*

Agreed. Something snappier and more memorable than the NNAWAFOCTBITGO* Ecumenical Jury.

*(Not Necessarily Affiliated With Arts & Faith Or Christianity Today, But In That General Orbit)


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing out ideas with the full realization that most brainstorming ideas are bad but there's a value in throwing them out there:

 

the Itinerant Ecumenical Jury (IEJ)

 

the 2014 Itinerant Ecumenical Jury conveys that, "hey, we're here this year, but next year we might well be some place else....

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am willing to settle for 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury, I prefer Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury for the simple reason that 1More Film Blog is overwhelmingly a personal project associated with a single name, while A&F is an open community, in principle open even to those jury members who aren't currently active members. 

 

Arts & Faith is how we got the list of nominees we got. I don't know that the same discussion and the same pool of nominees would have been possible, not only without A&F as a community center, but as a forum for discussion. From a practical perspective, A&F is in the DNA of this list. 


Just throwing out ideas with the full realization that most brainstorming ideas are bad but there's a value in throwing them out there:

 

The Itinerant Ecumenical Jury (IEJ)

 

As spitballing names for a new brand go, we could do worse, but I hope we can do better. 

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But perhaps this could be the A&F Ecumenical Jury in the same way that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl is sponsored by Tostitos? Maybe A&F could sponsor the group in exchange for link backs to the forum, name recognition, etc. Certainly if we are going to use A&F resources (such as they are) to make nominations and discussions, the forum out to get something out of it.

I vote for the Poulan Weed Eater Ecumenical Jury. But only if we can get Poulan to sponsor us.

 

(Forgive the attempt at humor. I once, a few years out of college, traveled overnight by bus from Washington, D.C., to Shreveport, La., to see Virginia Tech play Indiana in the Poulan Weed Eater Independence Bowl. That sponsorship name has been stuck in my brain ever since. Tech won, BTW.)


"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Alissa just emailed me and said that she's fine with Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury. ("I'm not active there, but I am a member, and it's owned by Image and they are my people :)")


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 and it's owned by Image and they are my people :)")

That's sort of an odd comment for the Chief Film Critic of Christianity Today to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 and it's owned by Image and they are my people :)")

That's sort of an odd comment for the Chief Film Critic of Christianity Today to make. 

 

Really? I can't speak for Alissa, but I presume she would disagree, and I would defer to her. 


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, absolutely. She knows her business more than do I. It just surprises me. I don't think there is anything untoward, but I do think the optics look bad.

 

P.S. Gareth has never been an A&F member; I'm not sure about Brett. Mark is registered but doesn't post much. Then again, they simply e-mailed or Facebooked me their nominations and votes. 

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more ideas or votes on branding, anyone? 

 

Here's my summary:

1) Some of us (Mike/Me) prefer a generic name, but, unfortunately the generic name seems too close to an established brand. Even if it is/were legally permissible, the confusion does us no good and might cost us some needless ill-will.

2) I don't particularly want the 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury (sounds like Steven doesn't either), but it is currently the only affiliation I feel entitled to unilaterally apply, since it is the only one I can unilaterally green light .

3) Steven seems to prefer the Arts & Faith (or A&F) Ecumenical Blog. I'm not keen on that, but I can live with it. But Arts & Faith is itself a brand, and not one that I own.(Steven, have you talked to anyone at Image about this?)

4) I'm reluctant to sign over a metaphorical blank check to Image...that is to change the name and then find out there are conditions on how jury is constituted or run that I am not comfortable with but which only come out after it would be tough to change it back. It seems like a good idea to settle the name and then table (or have more leisurely) discussions about the make up, jury selection, etc. But that seems to involve either me trusting Image enough to hand over the list (I'm not sure I do) or Image trusting me/us to lend us their brand name before all the details are worked out. 

 

Inter-Varsity always told me "no decision is a decision," so it seems like the immediate decision is not "what is this going to be?" but is it going to be "Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury." (If the answer to that is "no" then the disclaimers will just have to be sufficient for now and the opportunity for branding in the first iteration probably lost already. (Not sure the difference between picking a name next week and one six months from now is that much different. But picking one today vs. next week is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UnA&Ffiliated Ecumenical Jury


"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and it's owned by Image and they are my people :)")

That's sort of an odd comment for the Chief Film Critic of Christianity Today to make.

 

Really? I can't speak for Alissa, but I presume she would disagree, and I would defer to her.

FWIW, Alissa is a vital part of the Image community. She's written for them. She attends, and teaches at, the Glen Workshop. And she graduated from SPU's MFA in Creative Writing program, which is run by the Image team. For starters.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

 

"Forget it, Jake. It's Funkytown."    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

and it's owned by Image and they are my people :)")

That's sort of an odd comment for the Chief Film Critic of Christianity Today to make.

 

 

Really? I can't speak for Alissa, but I presume she would disagree, and I would defer to her.

 

FWIW, Alissa is a vital part of the Image community. She's written for them. She attends, and teaches at, the Glen Workshop. And she graduated from SPU's MFA in Creative Writing program, which is run by the Image team. For starters.

 

 

Alll of which I am sure CT knew when they hired her. And collegiality is a good thing. 

But if Image hired her as a creative director and she discontinued the Glen Workshop and then participated the next year in a similarly themed workshop in Santa Fe (staffed by many of the same participants) but under a CT Brand name, I would find that equally odd.

 

Ultimately, however, whatever perceived conflict of interest there might be is not between CT & Image but between CT & Alissa, and that's why I say I'm sure she know s her business better than do I. 

 

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Mike's suggestion of "Annual Ecumenical Jury Association?"

 

I'm in favor of something more generic along those lines, but I'm fine with Arts and Faith Ecumenical Jury if that's the best we can come up with.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any more ideas or votes on branding, anyone? 

 

Here's my summary:

1) Some of us (Mike/Me) prefer a generic name, but, unfortunately the generic name seems too close to an established brand. Even if it is/were legally permissible, the confusion does us no good and might cost us some needless ill-will.

2) I don't particularly want the 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury (sounds like Steven doesn't either), but it is currently the only affiliation I feel entitled to unilaterally apply, since it is the only one I can unilaterally green light .

3) Steven seems to prefer the Arts & Faith (or A&F) Ecumenical Blog. I'm not keen on that, but I can live with it. But Arts & Faith is itself a brand, and not one that I own.(Steven, have you talked to anyone at Image about this?)

4) I'm reluctant to sign over a metaphorical blank check to Image...that is to change the name and then find out there are conditions on how jury is constituted or run that I am not comfortable with but which only come out after it would be tough to change it back. It seems like a good idea to settle the name and then table (or have more leisurely) discussions about the make up, jury selection, etc. But that seems to involve either me trusting Image enough to hand over the list (I'm not sure I do) or Image trusting me/us to lend us their brand name before all the details are worked out. 

 

This is a good summary. I understand that Greg Wolfe will have some input soon. 

What about Mike's suggestion of "Annual Ecumenical Jury Association?"

 

I'm not dead-set against this, but to my ear it sounds a little…grandiose. I'd prefer something more unassuming, hence my preference for a brand name. 

If Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury doesn't work out, perhaps instead of 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury what would you think about abbreviating this to 1More Ecumenical Jury? 


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury doesn't work out, perhaps instead of 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury what would you think about abbreviating this to 1More Ecumenical Jury? 

 

I'm not dead set against it. It's just that...well someone (maybe have been Steven) once said that the genius/idiocy of my blog name is that it doesn't really work unless you understand it's my name. There is a self-effacing quality to "one more" that is cute/playful when it is self directed at me but which I think sounds a little too cute or stupid if it tries to be more than that.

 

Is Decent Film Ecumenical Jury out of play? or Filmwell Ecumenical Jury? (I think Evan posted at Filmwell, and so did Mike, of course. Wasn't Alissa affiliated at some point?)

Edited by kenmorefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:
: If Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury doesn't work out, perhaps instead of 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury what would you think about abbreviating this to 1More Ecumenical Jury?

 

Brilliant. Love it.

 

kenmorefield wrote:
: . . . someone (maybe have been Steven) once said that the genius/idiocy of my blog name is that it doesn't really work unless you understand it's my name.

 

That isn't where the name comes from, though, is it? I thought it was just following on from Another Film Board.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of affiliation with Arts & Faith: "The Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury." But Arts & Faith is not only interested in film. How about: "The Arts & Faith Annual Film Jury"? I appreciate the interest in moving away from direct association with InterFilm/SIGNIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a self-effacing quality to "one more" that is cute/playful when it is self directed at me but which I think sounds a little too cute or stupid if it tries to be more than that.

 

 

 

SDG wrote:

: If Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury doesn't work out, perhaps instead of 1More Film Blog Ecumenical Jury what would you think about abbreviating this to 1More Ecumenical Jury?

 

Brilliant. Love it.

 

Oops, I stand corrected. (Couldn't have timed that one better.) new_rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take Filmwell out of the running. It sounds clunky, and it just doesn't make sense given that our site is really marginal at best.


"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, everyone. Wow. This is a very cool idea but I can see that it's raised a LOT of issues.

 

First of all, I'm grateful for the recognition that's being given to this online community. This seems to me a matter of common sense and justice. Communities like this require resources and a good amount of TLC to sustain. Which is why Image was asked to take it on.

 

So acknowledging the living community and its sponsor seems like a natural way to go.

 

Image and A&F also have considerable history and track record -- helpful in establishing credibility and a sense of authority/wisdom/collective experience.

 

Also, the words "art and faith" offer something between too generic and too specific.

 

Ken raises another important facet: if the sponsor is invoked, does it have any say in the rules, procedures, etc.?

 

Since many people in this community are fairly close to the Image team, as has already been established, I don't think we're in danger of treating the title as a "blank check." That is, we're already friends with many of you and therefore in dialogue with you. We're not about to simply start dictating, making this a one-way communication system.

 

I suppose there is a question about authority implied here. Who's running the show, at least as far as making final calls is concerned?

 

From our point of view there's little desire or need to impose anything on y'all. The primary concern on our part is whether we're comfortable associating our institution with this. And I'd be hard-pressed to imagine an outcome that we wouldn't be happy with.

 

From all this I think you can tell that I'm favorably inclined to the A&F connection. But if we go that way, it should be the consensus of the group.

 

If this helps deal with some of the big questions, feel free to drill down to specific concerns and questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...