What really is the role of a Film Academy?

It took me quite a while to write about the very controversial 21st Film Academy Awards because I felt it wouldn’t be proper for me to do so as I come from another award-giving body. But then, since the Film Academy of the Philippines (FAP) gets its subsidy – no matter how small (roughly P3.5-M per annum) – from the government through the annual Metro Manila Film Festival), I believe that as a taxpayer I can openly question its activities. Besides, whatever I will be writing about the FAP is borne out of pure concern for this body, which has been part of my life. I had worked briefly as its media director during the early phase of my career.

The FAP is actually an umbrella organization looking after the welfare of its various guilds (actors, directors, cinematographers, production designers, etc.). But a few years ago, we saw the directors’ guild having a breakaway group and this reflected badly on the Film Academy because that was a clear indication of some directors’ discontent over how things are being run in the guilds under the FAP.

It is also deplorable that to this day, most FAP members do not seem to understand the role of the Film Academy. Some members actually expect financial help from the Academy – even if that is not the responsibility of the FAP. (It is actually the Mowelfund that gives medical assistance and even death benefits to movie workers.) And then, there are some members who believe that the FAP is there to provide them with film assignments – which is not the function of the Academy because it is not an employment agency.

The Film Academy of the Philippines was actually established to professionalize the industry. Once the FAP succeeds in doing this, then everything else follows and movie artists and workers will eventually have a better and more ideal film community and we as moviegoers will probably enjoy – finally – only the best film products.

Unfortunately, in the past few years, the FAP has done nothing but hand out awards. It has no other activity – maybe because it doesn’t have sufficient funds. But then, that’s no reason for an organization to stagnate. So, in the past decade or so, its sole purpose of existence has only been to hand out awards – but even that, it couldn’t do right.

During the first two years of the FAP, each and every member was allowed to vote in the Academy Awards. The system went like this: An actor nominated his fellow actor and a production designer nominated his fellow production designer. Everyone was allowed to nominate in the category for Best Picture. In the final race, the members could vote in all the categories.

As in the Oscar Awards, campaigning was allowed and this was the first big mistake of the FAP officials. While some winners were deserving of the award, there were also those who won solely on the sheer strength of their campaign strategies. But generally, the roster of winners was acceptable to everyone.

Campaigning, however, was eventually disallowed because the Academy officials were obviously horrified by the campaign gimmicks of some members during the first FAP Awards. But how do you stop those who engage in subtle campaigns? Still fresh in my mind was this story about an actress who brought home an Academy trophy after feeding the bit players corned beef to go with their afternoon beer at the LVN canteen.

The following year, FAP officials tried to remedy the situation by creating an electoral college – a group of industry members plucked from the various guilds, tasked with the selection of nominees and winners. This was doomed from the start.

There was this member of the electoral college – an actress – who, during the discussion at the screening room of the old Arcega’s Cinema, stood up and brought up the issue of Nora Aunor and Vilma Santos monopolizing all the awards (the Gawad Urian, Metro Filmfest, the Catholic Mass Media, the then newly-created Star Awards and, yes, the FAP). She then broached the idea of giving the Best Actress trophy to somebody who had yet to win an award – never mind the fact that Nora and Vilma really gave the best performance of the year.

Unfortunately, the members of the electoral college listened to this actress and followed her suggestion. During the awards night, the trophy for Best Actress went neither to Nora or Vilma, but to a popular star whose performance – although not really embarrassing – shouldn’t have even merited a nomination in the first place. (To be concluded)