Lithuanian cinema is increasingly traveling around the world and gradually winning over local audiences. The question remains: what is more difficult – to win a prestigious festival prize, beating many competitors, or to convince your own compatriots, who blindly repeat stereotypes about Lithuanian cinema, to give it a “second chance”.
The 17th edition of the “Silver Cranes” is also becoming more solid, although every year there are murmurs in the industry – sometimes louder, sometimes quieter. These cannot be avoided; it is not that kind of genre. But I want to draw attention to a few aspects that stood out in this year’s “Cranes,” looking at the ceremony itself and the time leading up to it.
About the ceremony
Overall, it is pleasing that the organizers of the “Silver Cranes” listen to feedback. The hosts and musical performances suit the occasion – especially nice was the invitation of the Plungė Cultural Center Symphony Orchestra this year, truly building cultural connections beyond just on paper, not limited to the capital.
The awards ceremony is no longer interrupted by “Panorama,” and among the award presenters there are no longer people with no connection to culture: from the series – you run a sprint, so you will present the “Silver Crane” for the best short film. A few years ago, it was surprising that during the ceremony there was time to thank the audit company several times, but the selection committee was left unmentioned; now the latter is both listed and applauded, and the chairwoman Gabija Jaraminaite was entrusted with presenting one of the awards.
Because of this, I want to believe that in the future the organizers will no longer call animation a genre. That they will reconsider the issue of gender equality when selecting award presenters – twice as many men as women stand out, especially recalling some film community discussions about equal gender representation in the sound and composer categories (although it must be admitted that the “Cranes” in this case rather reflect the problematic dynamics of the industry than cause them).
I hope they will also critically evaluate some of the event’s script turns. For example, how from Covid-19 and Ebola it moved to “Fashion Infection,” or how a comment about films on the couch with snacks became an introduction to LRT content promotion. It is worth mentioning here that rotation would also be useful in the position of the awards script author; otherwise, the ceremony risks becoming a predictable event, not seeking new colors. Just like that stereotypical Lithuanian cinema that does not exist in reality. The winners’ speeches, however, were also quite predictable. Thanks to colleagues, family, joy over the high flight of Lithuanian cinema dominated. Occasionally, a political dimension emerged – with a comment on “cultural melioration” stinging due to reduced film funding, mentioning the surrounding darkness, wearing a protest badge, recalling those fighting for free speech, and highlighting the film community’s civic stance. It is worth noting that this year the word was not given to the Minister of Culture (last year the then minister Šarūnas Birutis presented the “Golden Crane”).
However, it seems that filmmakers, who last year truly became an example of civic-mindedness and unity, somewhat forgot this role during the ceremony. I understand, it is a celebration. But at the same time, it is such an important platform for a message bigger than personal recognition.
Personally, it is most regrettable that the “5th Day Festival” was not mentioned at the awards.
Started as a response to the cultural community’s call to join a warning strike protesting the Ministry of Culture’s handover to “Nemuno Aušra,” the improvised festival invited people from more than 40 Lithuanian cities and towns to film screenings and meetings with creators. Today, transformed into the initiative of the Cinematographers’ Union Film Club, it continues to show films to local communities and invites discussion on the 5th of every month.
What a great achievement! Not only for cinema, whose national distribution is difficult due to the lack of screening infrastructure, but also for strengthening communities by creating a much-needed space for conversation.
And this internal victory will not be recognized by “Sundance” or Karlovy Vary. Only we can appreciate it.
Before the ceremony
So why don’t we appreciate it? And why after every year’s announcement of nominees is there so much talk – publicly and privately – revolving around the same thing: the wrong ones got attention?
Read more “City Service” will issue a 100 million euro bond issue, will acquire “Axioma Servisas”
There are several reasons. The most obvious is that people have different tastes and may disagree about them – this is not the focus of this text. But some moves, in my opinion, are determined by the structure of the awards themselves. Some – by the conservatism of the community.
In the first case, I want to highlight a few aspects.
First, film culture still receives too little attention at the “Silver Cranes.” It is great that a dedicated award appeared a few years ago, but it is symptomatic that it is not a crane statuette but a special award, i.e., a crane bas-relief. And what a big and important step it would be to put an equality sign here, presenting a “full-body” crane for film culture. As if confirming that both parts of this ecosystem cannot exist without each other.
Film culture still receives too little attention at the “Silver Cranes.”
What a big step it would be not only to present an award but – as in other categories – to announce nominees. Because being nominated is already recognition and an opportunity to spread the message about the diverse national film culture and about oneself more broadly. Ultimately, this would allow more focus on the work done over the past year, showing the activity of film culture, as the current award format begins to resemble another lifetime achievement recognition.
Second, the work of the committee. A positive change has occurred in its organization – from a record 11 members of the selection committee, it is returning to 9. Although I still have doubts whether such a committee can have a truly comprehensive and deep discussion (especially considering time constraints).
The remuneration also seems to be a significant problem. Having had experience working on a selection committee (by the way, positive, as that year we managed to avoid bigger scandals and committee scalping – not everyone is so lucky), I am not eager to join it a second time. Five hundred euros with taxes for intensive, very time-consuming work can be signed up for once, out of solidarity with the film community. But next year you will already consider whether you can afford it. Of course, it is easy for me to talk about higher pay when I do not have to navigate the annually cut film budget, but the risk must be named – to ensure the quality of the selection committee’s work in the long run, the issue of remuneration is important.
If we take on controversial proposals, reducing the number of committee members and increasing the financial share for each member would…
Finally, it seems important to pay attention to the occasional closedness of the film community itself.
Finally, it seems important to pay attention to the occasional closedness of the film community itself. It is not the first time I have noticed – not only in award summaries but also in some film criticism texts – that newcomers from other fields are sometimes viewed with slight suspicion (the most prominent examples being the cases of Darius Žiūra and Gerda Paliušytė, partly Nerijus Milerius).
There have been exceptions, but they required strong symbolic capital – prestigious foreign awards or a national prize. But even without it, I want to emphasize that cinema only benefits from new voices and perspectives, and national film awards, in my opinion, should pay more attention to them – especially when they find themselves in competitive struggle with some orthodox, formally outdated works.
Having promised not to do this, I will finally end the text with the statement that the wrong ones were awarded? Those awarded, regardless of personal preferences, deserve applause and congratulations!
I just assign two more personal cranes. In the category of cinematic courage. To Gerda Paliušytė for the film “Laivas,” which became a breath of fresh air in our cinema. And to the film community for its strong civic backbone, which it forgot to properly be proud of during the ceremony. For the steps of free creators who write the silent history of cinema and draw future trajectories – I hope also for the “Silver Cranes.”
Read more Due to the massive Russian attack on Ukraine, Poland has scrambled fighter jets
