OCIC participated in its own international juries and in ecumenical juries

at film festivals around the world: 18 cities, Berlin, Cannes, Venice...

these are the cities which host the festivals. Some are very well-known.

Others, like Niepokalanov in Poland or Vina del Mar in Chile, are

well-known to specialists, if less well-known by the general public.

There are other festivals around the world where OCIC did not have a jury.

The award criteria required OCIC to go only to those festivals recognised

as competitive and important by the International Federation of Film

Producers. Most of these festivals are included in the 18 festivals in our

list. However, there are several exceptions to this rule, for example,

Turnhout (Belgium), Niepokalanov (Poland).

Of the 18 festivals where we placed a jury prior to the birth of SIGNIS,

fourteen took place in Europe, three in Latin America and one in North

America (Montreal). It is true that Europe has a long tradition of film

festivals. This tradition is in line with the development of cinema

culture on the continent. In the recent past, Latin America has seen a

renaissance in some prestigious cinema events like the festivals of Mar del

Plata (Argentina) or Vina del Mar (Chile).

Africa and the Pacific are regions of the world where film festivals are

comparatively rare. Happily, there is Fespaco (Pan-African Film Festival

of Ougadougou). Mogadishu, Somalia, held a festival for a brief time but

it has not survived because of the political situation in the country.

South Africa has made several attempts to establish a festival. But

successive attempts have been hindered by financial difficulties.

In the Pacific, Australia has a number of international festivals,

especially Melbourne and Sydney. They include competitions, but for short

films only. In the islands, scattered over the vast Pacific Ocean, this

kind of event is practically unknown.

During 1998, the year that OCIC and Unda took the decision to become one

World Catholic Association, the OCIC or, sometimes, Ecumenical juries gave

awards to 37 films. They came from 32 different countries. One might ask

how many juries around the world have had to exercise sensibilities for

appreciating films so diverse. We find amongst those films honoured films

from Kirghizie, Azerbaijan, Mauretania, Mali, Cambodia, Peru, Nicaragua...

These awards respond precisely to one of the main tasks of our juries, to

broaden the cinema horizons of the public. They demonstrate also that

cinema of quality, portraying values which are humane, social, cultural and

spiritual, are produced by numerous countries around the world.

We need to remember that these awards are made within a particular

situation. Our juries can make awards only to films shown within the

framework of the festival which controls the selection of what is

presented. This means that in annual cinema production there are some

great films which merited an OCIC or an Ecumenical award. But, since they

were not included in any festival program, they could not be the

recipients of an award. That is one of the limits of the awards.

Sometimes OCIC was criticised for making awards to unknown films, films

which would never be distributed in most parts of the world. This

criticism is well-founded. But, at the same time, it could be seen as an

invitation to action. During the course of the year, articles on the

award-winning films are published as well as the address of the producers.

This is one way of attempting to interest the distributors or the

television networks in acquiring the rights to these films and circulating

them in different countries. Some of the films are documentaries or short

films. These films are wonderful educational tools for use in schools,

parishes, discussion groups.

It is true that situations arise when the choices of the juries are

criticised. Some people are quite surprised by scenes from films to which

we have given prizes or mentions. Others ask themselves what values, or

counter-values, the films carry.

This kind of concern is serious. We are attentive to it. But one cannot

respond without noting further nuances. When severe criticisms are made,

we have noticed that those who object are often people who are shocked or

who do not understand the choices of the jury. We have also noticed that

many of them never go to the cinema or have not been for a number of years.

Cinema is a language which evolves very rapidly. It is also embodied in

cultures which themselves are also in rapid evolution. The choices of our

juries express themselves necessarily in the very language of cinema

culture which is at the heart of cultures today. The majority of the

members of our juries view dozens, sometimes hundreds, of films a year.

The reality of cinema is our daily bread. It is in today's cinema that our

juries must search for the values, the quest for hope, light for our

contemporaries. It is certainly not an easy task.

"Good news stories don't make headlines." Cinema is, essentially, about

storytelling. It should not surprise us when we see cinema frequently

drawing its stories from the lives of unhappy people, from the drama of

life, from hatred, from sin. However, if films which close themselves in

solely on despair do not appear in our list of awards, those which open us

to hope, to respect for others, to some kind of salvation, often appear.

But the sensibility of the audience is important. It is only when one

remains at the stage of the hatred, violence and sin portrayed in a film

that one cannot follow the path that leads to grace. This point is often

the source of misunderstandings about the choices of films for awards.

That said, nothing might please a jury more if it was able to honour films

which raised no discussion, were moving for every audience, educative for

every spectator, full of light. But such films are rare, as we know. The

reality of human experience is full of pain and conflict.