I find it regrettable that certain aspects of our hobby are treated with emotional concern. Democracy, however, lives on the basis of the plurality of opinions. A different approach is not a personal offense, if it is presented as a value-neutral one.
The EAK / SIFA evaluation sheet used by the Eurofilmers is, in my opinion, only suitable for average travelogues and documentaries.
Anything beyond this, however, is in practice not sufficiently considered: e.g. Experimental films, artistic works which go against the grain, symbolic structures with meta-planes and thus multi-layered interpretations, parable-like fiction and animation films, etc.
This is mainly the case with average films - and if limited jurors are doing the assessment, there is a risk of misjudging, because the above mentioned genres, for example, are lacking the SPECIALISED evaluation point (where is the factual information?).
Even Walt Disney’s masterpiece "Fantasia" would have problems as an animation, because a single piece of music serves as its basis and in CAMERAWORK (exposure, sharpness, camera positioning, etc.) and in sound processing (ambient noise, sound effects and mixing) there would be no marks.
The quality of such films is precisely because of the departure from convention, and this leads to the general conclusion that our marking system, does not take sufficient account of creativity and originality that was in an older system once called "artistic design" and "spiritual content".
The artistic-spiritual value is precisely what is most important! Criteria that the system used to mark high !! (And by the way, would also highlight unusual travelogues / documentaries). This should come first !! perhaps before dealing with the technical work, wherever possible before the beginning of film-brainwashing.
For this "higher way," we set ourselves the task of dealing with a problem of the present, a way of life, etc. E.g. to present it as a parable, or in a different form, then people will appreciate how difficult it is, because you have no picture material, and all the structures are distorted and must work out for themselves a dramaturgical cut (see Disney).
The points of the ideas implemented in the current system only partially fulfils this requirement. And even if one of the other nine criteria were creatively re-interpreted, the problem would remain because the average quality films are already earning points.
Consideration of the creative aspect and of the "intellectual value", which could be found in all design criteria, would lead to the fact that extraordinary films would not be reduced to the average, and that imaginative productions as well as mundane dull jokes (mental value pretty much zero, dramaturgy predictable) would not be overestimated.
It would also mean that the level would rise and the number of medals decrease. This would be quite useful, so that if the relationships are not right, the medals of the better projects will be devalued (a reason for not taking part.)
Finally, for the sake of fairness, it must be added that the jurors of the past have in many cases been able to apply the nine criteria of our system flexibly.
In summary, however, the statement that creativity, spiritual value, artistic design, whatever it may be called, must be much more valued and added as additional categories, because only then could we clearly differentiate between "unity" and "film art." "- with all the gradations in between.