Ashley Smith är doktorand i Filmvetenskap och Nadi Tofighian, disputerad forskare i Filmvetenskap. Båda är delaktiga i undervisningen på kurser i Filmvetenskap som lärare och seminarieledare. Utöver detta arbete  var båda även med i den så kallade nomineringsgruppen för Guldbaggen.
Denna intervju publicerades 2015 för 2014 års filmer.

Ashley Smith som även läste vårt Masterprogram i Filmvetenskap är från USA och för enkelhetsskull ges svaren på engelska både från Ashley och Nadi

 

Det finns nomineringsgrupp och jury, ni är med i nomineringsgruppen - vilka består den gruppen av och vad gör ni?

Ashley: The nomination committee is made up of people who are working professionals in each of the specific prize categories, such as acting and editing, but it also consist of people who are film professionals in ways other than production, like cinema owners or film festival programmers. In a similar way, film scholars are able to consider films in terms of how they fit into broader historical trajectories or how they are working within (or breaking) specific generic conventions. Film scholars are also familiar with thinking of media productions as aesthetic objects that also carry cultural-political weight. This is not to say that someone coming from a more production-oriented background can’t discuss a film in terms of its cultural implications, or that film scholars aren’t able to address some of its technical aspects.

Ashley: As part of the nomination committee, we see every qualifying Swedish film made during the calendar year. These include fiction films and documentaries that are over 70 minutes long and have had at least one regular screening at a commercial cinema. This year there were 55 qualifying film for us to watch. We watch these throughout the year as they are commercially released. Most often, it is up to each of us to go to an ordinary screening of a film. For films that have a very limited release (or are scheduled for a late December released after our votes are cast), there is a special screening arranged for us at Filmhuset in Bio Mauritz.

Nadi: It is worth noting that this year there were more films than usual (usually there are around 40 films), due to changing of criteria. Previously it was necessary to have screenings in three different cities to be eligible to compete.
 

Hur går nomineringarna till och vad gör vinnarjuryn sen??

Ashley: Each member of the nomination committee chooses their top three choices for each of the prize categories. We don’t have to unanimously agree on our choices. The votes are counted to determine the overall top three choices for each category, and these are then sent to the winner jury. Ultimately, while we see every qualifying film and consider it for each category, while the winner jury only sees the top three films nominated to each category and makes their decision based on that.

Nadi: Another difference is that the winner jury discusses and comes up with a decision, or vote on it (majority required), whereas our votes have been totally individual. For the upcoming year there has been a change, where the nomination committee has been divided into four specialized groups where each group is responsible for two-six categories. Within the groups, each group consisting of 7-10 people, we have to consult and agree on the three nominees.

Hur ser ni filmerna - på bio med publik, specialvisningar, hemma ...?

Ashley: It is important that we see each film in the most typical of viewing conditions as possible. Obviously, it would not be fair to watch one film in a commercial cinema with a large screen, crisp projection, and a high-end sound system, and then compare that to another film screened on a tiny laptop with a dirty screen. Additionally, since categories like best sound design or best cinematography require acute attention not only to the way these elements support thematic and narrative elements but also to the technical dexterity with which they are executed, it is essential that we experience the films under the best possible viewing conditions.

Nadi: I agree And just to be clear, we have both to the extent possible and for the majority of the films, seen the movies at a cinema. Two screening weekends at Filmhuset, one in August and one in December, are arranged for the nomination committee.

Ashley: An extra dimension to the viewing experience was gauging the audience’s reactions to the films we watched. In films for adults, it was relatively common to hear people laugh, gasp, or sigh, but I thought it was especially fun to see children’s films at ordinary cinema screenings.  Kids react very differently to public screenings than adults do. Kids asked their parents questions when they didn’t understand what was going on, they yelled at the characters onscreen when they didn’t agree with what they were doing, and they cried when the fictional world got a little too frightening for them.

Nadi: Yes, and I would say that this is also valid for comedies, thrillers etc targeted to an older audience. For instance, I appreciated to experience the laughter and self-recognition of the audience in the cinema while watching Turist and En duva, where the audience reaction sometimes differed noticeably from mine.

Ashley, hur är det som amerikan att göra bedömningar av svensk film - kan du se film med "andra ögon" tror du?

Ashley: As someone coming from the United States and watching Swedish films...

There were certain films whose endings left me shocked. In one particular case, it wasn’t that the content was violent or thrilling, it was that the ending went against some kind of generic convention that I was used to – some kind of reassurance in the uniqueness of the individual and the optimistic assurance that your dreams could possibly come true. In this case, the film really brought the range of possible expectations down to earth, down to a more realistic level. For a light-hearted comedy, that was very sobering.

I was also surprised by the number of actors I saw in multiple leading roles in just one awards season. For example, Moa Gammel had the starring role in three films this year!

Vilken film borde alla se som visades 2014?

Ashley: Nånting måste gå sönder, Losers, Hemma, Om våld, Remake, och Under Gottsunda.

Nadi: Om våld – för att den kombinerar Fanons postkoloniala text från 50-talet, med arkivbilder från 60-, 70- och 80-tal och skapar något som är relevant för oss på 2010-talet.
Nånting måste gå sönder – för att det är en vacker och mycket välgjord film om kärlek.
Under Gottsunda – för att den poetiskt berättar en historia om Sverige idag.
Hemma – för en utmärkt skådespelarensemble.
Tänk om… – för musiken och animationen.
Remake – en enkel kärlekshistoria som engagerar, och är välredigerad.
Losers – lågmäld och vacker film i skogsmiljö.

Stort tack!