I've won my fair share of 4 stars over the last 5 years... i'd definately give this judging malarky a go. I've certainly slated them over time! Ha ha! Maybe i should do it for my sins?!
Tim kindly invited me to be a Judge at his festival earlier in March this year and i absolutely loved it! It was a fun evening, and i didn't get to hide behind my comments either... i delivered my thoughts directly to the makers infront of everyone. Scary... but enjoyable.
Indeed Geoff and his co-judge (David Moore - a retired head of sound at Sky TV) delivered some of the most useful, positive and detailed comments I've ever seen (other than on forums) be it at Staines, Region or BIAFF. They delivered them on the night and later in written form. I am very grateful and will no doubt be calling on Geoff's services again.
Tim
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
Thank you Jill for providing info on the judges; however my point is that the top awards go to very conventional movies in an arena where there is no commercial pressure and the movie maker is free to go anywhere except win top awards at BIAFF. Age is not so much about numbers as about attitude and it is possible to work out what will win the approval of BIAFF judges and make films accordingly. In past years I can only recall one occasion where the top award went to a film that fell outside the conventions to be met by a storm of objections. I usually get a brochure that details the judges but not this year.
I was determined not to continue this thread but Col's post has got my 'goat'.
The best judges of films, both amateur and professional, are, in my opinion, NOT film makers in their own right. Film makers are looking for things that relate to the actual mechanics, rather than the overall effect and result. I would far rather have my film judged by a keen cinema fan quite ignorant of the mechanics. Indeed, they are the people I consult when finishing a cut. Dave Watterson, for example, one of the most balanced judges I know, is not an active film maker as far as I understand. We would do a lot worse in seeking judges, than going to a cinema and catching an audience leaving a show. They know what has worked, what entertains and what they enjoyed.
I agree with you, Michael. The best judges are not always filmmakers. There is even more ... If judges are filmmakers they don't need to be good filmmakers...
I remember Emy* who was a member of my former club. Her films were not the best ones, but her criticsom was the best. She always had poor results. I always admired her courage to take part in our local competition. But I loved to show my films in the preparation period (5-6 weeks before the local competition) when she was there. She was intelligent, serious and honest. She had a thorough knowledge of all kinds of everything. She could give a fantastic critical analysis of a film. She was also very kind. There was only one thing: she could not always accept criticism about her own films.
On the other hand I remember one of the top filmmakers in my country. He was a member of my own club for a short time, but in the mean time he has "travelled'" from one club to the other. Once he said about a film made by one of my friends: "That's rubbish! ". He got my friend down.
Yes, you are right, Michael. Maybe the best critics are the ones who watch films regularly at home or at festivals. Tthe ones who go to the cinema very often... Of course maybe a judge-filmmaker understands better what the making of a film really means... He sometimes does not realize that a non-budget or non-commercial filmmaker has used a wheelchair to take some "riders" instead of a automatic machine on rails. But that's not essential. As we have already said more than once on this forum: it's the qualtity of the film that must be judged, not the efforts that the filmmaker has made.
Very sorry for commenting on jump cuts in John Roberts' film. Have just watched it on wife's laptop and it hardly ever jumps so it must have been my PC. Will learn one day, I hope.
With regards to judges... from an enjoyment perspective, i want my film to be watched by a Film Lover. From a feedback perspective, i'd rather that from a Film Maker. So i would prefer someone who is both a lover of watching films as well as making them.
In some countries there are training programmes for judges. For example in Holland I believe that there are two levels of courses. One for club level judges and one for 'official' jury members. They teach such things as how to analyse films and how to write appraisals. I undertand that in Holland you can't judge any competition unless you have undergone the appropriate training.
I think the trainers give their time for free, but the trainees have to pay enough to cover the expenses of running the courses.
I think in principle that sounds like a great idea Jill
But... Everyone who passes their driving test still drives their car in the style and manner of their choosing. I would also be interested in the 'training' - surely a very subjective and emotive topic as film-making would therefore result in the trainers passing on at least a modicum of their own subjectiveness? The 'art' of what makes a good film is not black and white - if it was then everyone would know what they would need to do to shoot an award-winning film - the 'grey' areas of film production are what makes it interesting, varied and a hot topic on forums!
As a musician I was fascinated to hear several piano-based hit singles in the late '80's, all sounding almost exactly the same in playing style but from different artists. It transpired they all had the same piano teacher!
However, my word of the day is 'justification' and I think some judges, especially at club level, are poor at justifying their decisions. If a judge thinks my film/song/art is bad then tell me why, so I can understand it better. Then I can decide whether to take on board the criticisms or not. So, in that respect I believe training in the way judges present their criticisms or write their appraisals can only be a good thing.
About five years ago I was a judge at the national competition in Holland. It is called NOVA. I also judged films for ERSA Roosendaal at club level.
Before judging the members of the judging panel received some instructions in Roermond (NOVA) and they explained everything. They told me which aspects were most important like "storyline, theme" etc... It was a fantastic experience. I was the only Belgian and I could feel that the Dutch had already undergone some training.
Everything happened behind closed doors. After every film the judges wrote down their marks. The secretary asked to compare the marks and to say something about the film. The judges could still change their marks after having listened to their colleagues. We talked for about a quarter of an hour after every film. We stayed in Roermond for four days.
I don't think the judges at Roosendaal had undergone any training but anyway they judged every film expertly.
You are right saying that there are courses for judges in Holland, Jill. In Belgium they started with it about three years ago. I don't think you are obliged to have been taught how to analyse films and how to write appraisals. I am sure not at club level because I am sometimes asked to be a judge. At our regional competition called PROVAC (like SERIAC, NERIAC) there were only trained judges three years ago. I was not impressed. I heard one judge say: "I have already seen a similar film by that man...." The man's best film was eliminated. His two try-outs were selected for a higher level.
I think it is good to organise such courses, but I don't think it is good to ask only judges who have undergone such a training. Please, Jill, I still think the BIAFF-judges are the best in the world! There is always some discussion, but it gives some "colour" to a festival.
Surely the truth is we need both types of judges. People who know nothing about the mechanics of film best reflect most people in the world and therefore are, in my opinion, best placed to judge how effective the film is - what emotions it stirs, how informative it is, how entertaining it is. They are also able to give good feedback about what would make the film better.
However, film-making judges are more likely to be able to identify specific areas for improvement - not just technical (audio quality, lighting, colour matching etc) but also artistic (composition, use of audio etc). I'm not sure it is possible to "train" someone to cover all these aspects, but it is certainly possible to give guidance.
Tim
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
Just got back from a cruise to receive my adjudication for 'The turning of the Screw'. Spot on, just what I would have given it although, of course, one always hopes for something better!
As usual, the forum is singing from the same hymn sheet, but perhaps a slightly different tune!
With regards to judges... from an enjoyment perspective, i want my film to be watched by a Film Lover. From a feedback perspective, i'd rather that from a Film Maker. So i would prefer someone who is both a lover of watching films as well as making them.
.
.
.
Part of the problem is that non-movie makers are judges
And NO we are not all singing from the same hymn sheet.
I am now starting to think that we should scrap the present system and devolve the matter of judging BIAFF entries down to grass root club level. Split the entered movies into groups of 10 and send them to a club in a region where there are no entrants in the batch of 10. They grade the movies and pass them on to another impartial region, they grade and the average is the award the movie will receive.
Grass roots assessing=no room for whinging or moaning
Col Lamb Preston, Lancashire. FCPX, Edius6.02, and Premiere CS 5.5 user.
Find me on Facebook, Colin Lamb
