Dear Editor,
Yesterday, I read a letter in the paper urging the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) to honour the original deadline for their film competition. While the author’s position is understandable, the letter presents a reductive viewpoint, disregard-ing numerous other perspectives. The most credible point in the letter was that the ERC could have planned the competition better. Indeed, producing a film is complex, and it was impracticable for the ERC to expect an original short film with a twenty to thirty-minute runtime to complete production in less than thirty days. Potential participants had to invest time and money in a screenplay, build a production team, cast, shoot and edit a film that adhered to the ERC’s theme. To contextualise the effort involved, a screenplay for that runtime is around twenty to thirty pages long without considering any other aspect of the produc-tion.
The ERC posted the compe-tition flyer on Facebook and Instagram on November 1. They may have publicised it via other mass media, but I have no evidence. Due to the limited publicity, many potential participants learned about the competition several days after the launch. Others found out even later. According to the ERC, their competition aims to be a platform “for filmmakers to contribute to the promotion of harmony, inclusivity, and diver-sity in our society.” Without quality submissions, the ERC cannot achieve its goal. The stipulation that “all submissions become the property of ERC” may dissuade entrants from investing too much in delivering a great product. Participants are unlikely to profit much from competing. Even if they win, they appear to lose their ability to benefit from their work merely because they participated.
If the ERC extends the competition’s deadline, it will be neither the first nor last time this happens in a competition of any kind at any level. Competition deadlines are often extended due to a lack of submissions (espe-cially quality ones), faults in planning, logistical limitations, or any other reason the organis-ers deem valid. A cursory look online will reveal screenplay and film competitions worldwide have been extended for various reasons. The author’s attempt to mischaracterise valid complaints about an unreasonable timeline is pretentious at best and bitterly ludicrous at worst. Labelling the ERC’s consideration of an extension as “pandering” dis-regards their position as the organiser and ignores a host of plausible justifications. Ulti-mately, the decision rests with the ERC. The competition’s results and the quality of the submissions will reveal much about the process and all involved.
Sincerely,
Omari Joseph
Media Producer
