During the last Winter Olympics – as Canada, France and Russia traded accusations over that figure skating scandal – more than a few observers commented that, corrupt judge or not, it is a very imprecise process to rank creative performances, be it twirling on ice to the tune of Lara’s Theme or, say, directing A Beautiful Mind.

Maria Topalovich, president and CEO of the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television, makes the same comparison, and is quick to remind critics of the Gemini and Genie awards that judging TV shows and movies is not an exact science.

‘The great thing – a very healthy thing – about art is the way people respond to it,’ she says. ‘It’s like the difference between figure skating and downhill skiing…It’s art and people will never respond to it the same way. It’s rarely predictable and frequently surprising.’

The Academy caught a great deal of flak this past fall for, among other things, apparent lapses in the Gemini nomination process – most notably the snubbing of popular favorites such as Trudeau in the best MOW or miniseries category and Da Vinci’s Inquest star Nicholas Campbell for best actor. Fans of David Cronenberg are sure to be similarly riled by the Genies, which have snubbed Spider, despite its strong turns at several film festivals.

Distributor Odeon Films arranged a two-week run for Spider in Edmonton to qualify for the awards this year. Although the film was ignored for best picture, it did capture six other nominations.

Odeon president Bryan Gliserman says that – although Academy nods in Canada do not carry the same box-office weight as those in the U.S. – even a nomination or two can boost a film’s performance. ‘It’s not quantifiable…but it’s one of the many factors taken into consideration when putting together a marketing plan,’ he says. ‘We do not wish to ignore the potential column inches or awareness that might come with a nomination or win.’

Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, which Odeon carried, enjoyed a slight but noticeable box-office boost following its six Genie wins last year, says Gliserman.

Any Canadian feature production or copro can enter for award consideration, so long as it was released for one to three consecutive weeks within the calendar year ‘in a theatrical venue…to a paying audience’ in one or more of the qualifying cities. Shorts and documentaries that played in theatres or at festivals can also enter.

Topalovich insists that the voting process, although different for the Genies and Geminis, is kept as fair as possible. Every fall, the Academy assembles a jury of 100 members to screen the would-be nominees. No one who worked on any of the films can be a juror, and members are selected for both regional and craft diversity. ‘We spend quite a number of months putting the jury together,’ says Topalovich.

‘I would pick [jurors] mostly based on body of work, regardless of quality,’ says Colin Aguiar, a composer who assisted with the 1999 jury selection. ‘I wanted to know they had a lot of experience writing music. If they had good taste, that was a bonus.’

The movies are screened for the entire jury in Toronto over five or six days, after which each juror casts a ballot for best performance in their particular craft (writing, music, editing, etc.) and a second for best picture. Jurors are not allowed to confer on their choices. Each film with the top five votes in each category is then nominated for a Genie.

This year’s Genie jury was holed up in the Canada Square theatre for 10 hours a day in late November, plowing through 38 features and 33 shorts.

Filmmaker and juror John Kalangis, whose 1998 feature Jack & Jill earned a Genie nom, admits the screenings are a bit grueling. ‘You try to be as fair and attentive as you can, but that can be difficult after 14 or 15 movies. Your decision is made immediately after the screening and in some cases a film might have an instant impact on you, but five days later you’ve forgotten about it. Others you’re still thinking about a week later.’

The system might not be perfect, but it’s fair, he says. ‘I never sensed any prejudice in the process. There was nobody saying, ‘This one was really popular so let’s burn it.”

The nominated films are then voted on by a broader jury of some 1,800 ACCT members, this time by mail. Again jurors vote for a winner in their craft and for best picture. The process is similar in some respects to that of the Oscars and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences in the U.S.

In lieu of more screenings, the Academy provides free videotapes of nominated films on request. ‘It’s very, very active from the time we announce the nominations,’ says Topalovich. ‘Members are very interested in seeing what films are nominated and to make an educated vote.’

Kalangis also applauds the process. ‘I don’t know that there’s an awards body that does a better job. When they do the Oscars it’s…just a question of who bought the biggest ads in Variety.’

He and Topalovich both think that criticism is a natural side effect of any awards show. There is, after all, no accounting for taste. ‘The best movie I saw all last year was [Atanarjuat:] The Fast Runner; it didn’t even get nominated for the Best Foreign Language Oscar,’ Kalangis says.

-www.academy.ca