1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013

[Lee Prescott]

Hi Alzz,

BIAFF 2013!

Well for what it's worth I have just seen a "film" which will remain unnamed at this time which was awarded
far more than 1 star..... by its judges. A number of people being at a loss, have contacted me, some from abroad,
regarding the fact that in the opening sequences the long standing cinematographic rule about "Crossing The Line"
was broken - more than once!

The questions that arose were as follows:-

1. Are the IACs judges in this case ignorant of the rule?
2. Has the IAC now decided that such a rule doesn't matter?
3. Have they commenced aiding and abetting "audience confusion"?
4. Would a different team of IAC judges have been influenced by it and have awarded a less result?
4a: IF SO, then what's the point of entering BIAFF? -A film should be judged on its individual merits not against others!

For whatever the reason the Producer/Director permitted this, .i.e. space, natural lighting etc. then that should have been
taken into account at the planning stage - assuming there was one!!!

Admittedly there are allowable / acceptable occasions, (In car [front] seats, sports fixtures etc.to name two, this was not one of them!

Another point that was raised referred to the variable sound levels on at least two (outdoor) occasions. Seemed to me that the overall sound levels were reduced because of background noise! If so there are other ways of dealing with such a problem! After all it's not uncommon!

I and my correspondents would be most interested in other folks opinions / views on this!

regards to all: LEE.

[ned c]

I wish writers would not describe films they fault; expect comments and not name the film so that we can discuss their comments. Should it be a film I was involved with I would welcome the debate. Are n-c film makers such wilting flowers that they cannot defend/discuss their decisions?

Oh; and in passing their are no "rules"; film is an art form; if crossing the line is clearly an artistic decision then criticism is inappropriate.

ned c

[Mike Shaw]

I agree with you ned.

I think perhaps the only line-crossing here was the way the post was made.

From my own perspective and from what I heard in the coffee breaks, a number of people thought a number of films were inappropriately rated, especially when compared with other 'similar genre' films rated either higher or lower.

My most memorable film of the weekend - an under 21 film called 'Across the Tracks'. It may have had its flaws according to the pundits (the mad dash by each to the other side of the tracks for example)- but to me the camera work, acting and the concept, from a very young film-maker, was excellent. There were better made films, but for me, the simplicity of concept, and the facial expressions were a joy to watch. Oh ... and both of the actors crossed the line... that was definitely part of the plot!

[TimStannard]

It is a conundrum. How to have a sensible debate, which requires examples we can all see, without naming the films -which were submitted by people for BIAFF judges to judge - not for us to comment on in open forum?

As it happens I'm pretty certain I know to which film Lee is referring but I'm reluctant to comment for fear of offending the maker.

If, on the other hand, the maker had asked for my comments, or indeed I was a judge, I'd have no qualms about it.

[col lamb]

Not only was crossing the line "rule" broken but in another movie so was the use of a significant number of jump cuts.

Have a look at the movie Mindbreak, there is a link to it on the main BIAFF movies section, in one scene there are a succession of jump cuts, does these detract from the movie....no......do they ehance the movie....yes.

If you have not seen it do check it out as it thoroughly deserves its allocade, there is only one shot which purists would say ever so slightly detracts from the overall impact and that is a slow zoom out of a photo frame that is a bit wobbly, this would place me in a dilema if I was judging it as to get the highest award each movie should be technically perfect in addition to the usual creative aspects.

I for one am totally fed up with "rule" about there being a beginning, a middle and end not to mention the all important establishing shot, the appropriate use of ultra close up, the ubitquitous BBC style shakey footage, the main sound being swamped by the dialogue, the overly long movie, the pulled focus scenes...........how far do we go, rules are meant to be broken

With so many movies shown during the weekend and so few of them on the website; I hasten to add that Dave and Jan have done a great job at getting so many on the site in such a short time, then we can only effectively discuss movies that we all have the chance of viewing even it it is only on a PC screen.

I have been a significant critic of the method of judging over the years but this year overall they did a great job with the movies I saw at Chesterfield or those that I have watched online since.

One thing that I do not accept as being acceptable is for movies to be technically at fault such as wind noise or sound effects not matching the action or a stutter in the plan shot, or the camcorder auto focus working at a critical time, this is just sloppy, after making all the effort to make the movie in the first place the least the editor/camerman/director can do is to get it right and if a fault finds its way into the movie then 1* at least should be lost.

I too am all for civilized constructive debate and we cannot have that if we do not have reference to the source material that caused the initial post.

[TimStannard]

I agree rules are meant to be broken. But breaking them has an effect on the viewer.

As I see it we have expectations when we see a sequence. If those expectations are not met this can have one of two effects (possibly both at the same time).

1. It can disorientate the viewer or emphasise something (ie crossing the line disorientates, jump cuts can disorientate and/or emphasize a subject/mood)

2. It removes the viewer from the film - it reminds them they are watching a film - disengages them to a greater or lesser extent.

The first can be desirable, the latter rarely. Wobbly camera, jump cuts and crossing the line can all enhance an action scene if the film maker wants to emphasise the mayhem of a fight/chase and the confusion of the participants.

The second is rarely desirable.

I believe the art of breaking the rules is to achieve (1) without (2)

In the case of the film I suspect Lee is talking about, this was a simple conversation in a domestic setting between two people setting the background for the story. All crossing the line did was take us out of the story and distract from listening to and picking up the significance of the dialog.

The above is based purely on what I have figured out by myself. No reading, no lectures, no theories handed down, just plain common sense (or ignnorance). I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[Lee Prescott]

'Lo All,

"Interesting" responses! At the time I made my posting I had my reasons for not naming the film and in any case the
queries raised are quite genuine so why not ask the questions? Why should I not raise them on this "Forum"? Isn't such one of its functions?

First: As I see it the subject is genuine as are the consideration of any "rules" no matter for what.
Second: So "Rules are made to be broken"? What about the age old "rule of thirds"?
Third: Judging team 'A' slate a film because rules are broken! Judging team "B" uplift the same film et al!
Fourth: Result, how do people figure out or work out where they stand during production / direction?
Fifth: Where in my posting did I fault the film?..................

I wish writers would not describe films they fault; expect comments and not name the film so that we can discuss their comments. Should it be a film I was involved with I would welcome the debate. Are n-c film makers such wilting flowers that they cannot defend/discuss their decisions?

Oh; and in passing their are no "rules"; film is an art form; if crossing the line is clearly an artistic decision then criticism is inappropriate.

ned c

I think perhaps the only line-crossing here was the way the post was made.

Sixth: The film was / is not mine!!!

Seventh: The film genuinely referred to and queried as an "example" is "Marriage Games".

So sorry I made the posting, I doubt if I'll bother again - (friends)!

Lee.

P.S: Seems Tim got it right!

[Dave Watterson]

From all of this I see two points emerging:

1. The so-called "rules of film making" are only advice based on what seems to work well. They are not "rules" in the sense of "regulations". Thus breaking such a rule is not in itself important. What does matter is whether the audience is disturbed or distracted by it.

2. There is always a problem of being consistent, when the assessments of films are made by different people (or teams of people).

It seems to me that

(1) is a matter for the judgement of the assessors in each individual case. Sometimes "rule-breaking" works, sometimes it does not.

(2) is a problem for any competition that gets more than a modest number of entries.
The IAC British International Film Competition tries to address this by making all its judging team work together on the Friday evening of the judging weekend. They assess the ratings for a group of films selected by the Competition Officer to represent a range of standards.
My personal view is that this is not adequate and that therefore some variation in star ratings occurs.

Dave

[Mike Shaw]

That film, now named, was not one I saw while at BIAFF, and so I poked around and found it (of course) on the IAC website thanks to Dave and Jan.

The 'line-crossing' was (to me) quite noticeable, and yes, a little disorientating. I didn't notice some of the other 'problems' mentioned - that isn't to say they weren't there, simply that they went over my head as I became absorbed in the story line. However, there were other things in the film that I would have commented on had I been one of the judges. As for its rating - I'm afraid I disagreed with several of the star ratings at BIAFF this year - some I thought were under-rated, and some over-rated. I mentioned and discussed only those I thought under-rated with their makers. Those I thought 'over-rated' I would want to discuss with the judges, to understand (or try to understand) their decision. I certainly wouldn't want to talk about them in open forum - possibly embarrassing the makers, which was why I said that I thought it was the original post that had crossed the line.

I agreed with Ned, and I agree with Dave. 'Rules' are guidelines, not laws to be obeyed. Movie-making is a subjective art, and for us, a hobby, a way to release creative juices. Each of us has our own ideas on how to do that - and each of us has our own approach and type of movie we like to make: whether others like or dislike that genre, approach or a particular construction is almost irrelevant. We express our own ideas our own way. Some with talent, others with skill, and a few with both.

It boils down to another factor that I have mentioned quite often ... do you make movies to compete with other people's movies, or do you make them to be seen (and hopefully enjoyed) by others? For me, being seen by others is the main intention: my preferred judges are and always will be an audience. Last year I had a '4 star movie' which falls pretty flat when shown to an audience. It may be a 4-star by 'ticking the boxes', but I rate it as a total flop. Another, 3-star movie I made always gets an excellent appreciative reaction from an audience. To me, that's worth a 'diamond'.

[col lamb]

I did not see the movie at Chesterfield and in the light of this thread I have just watched the movie in question.

Firstly if the movie maker reads this I am not getting at you, it is just the inconsistencies of the judging that are being discussed and you lucked out with your movie being at the heart of this thread.

Positives

Reasonably well acted

Good storyline

Editing was to a good standard

Good balance and quality in the recoded sounds for most of the movie

Most shots static and typically framed

Negatives

Opening title sequence has a single still image on screen for too long.

“Crossing the line” shots in the kitchen for me do severely detract from the movie.

The sound quality in the kitchen in very poor, I really struggled to hear and follow the dialogue

Pub scene, the wobbly shot through the beer pumps certainly does not enhance the movie

Was the “dusk” shot in the park where they are on the bench supposed to be a “dusk” shot or was the camcorder incorrectly set. If it was supposed to be dusk the editor shot have read Mike Shaw’s excellent article in FVM on how to produce nightime looking video

Sound quality issues again when the two women are in the pub conservatory.

The shot through the open door into the conservatory has so much reflection that it detracts from the movie as I was looing at the reflected behind the camera images.

Sorry to be so negative but the final totally unbelievable element of the movie is casting and the age difference between the Husband and the
Wife, it looks more like Mother and Son.

Conclusion

A 2* movie

[Mike Shaw]

I think the age difference between husband and wife was intentional and part of the plot - there were a couple of references to the fact that there was an age difference between them (hence, perhaps, part of the reason for the paranoia on the wife's part), and for some reason, I took the difference to be 20 years. Whether that was stated I cannot be sure, I'd have to watch again.

Otherwise, those seem fair assessment comments - though my rating would have been 3 star I'm afraid, even with the line crossing.

[Geoff Addis]

I tend to agree with Mike's comments in both posts, but I do find the process of 'knocking and naming' any individual film and its award in order to criiticise the IAC policy or judging to be in rather a bad taste. Whatever we as viewers may think of the film, we should not forget that it was a product that its maker had spent time and probably a lot of effort in its creation and was duly proud of its completion. By all means criticise in a constructive manner by offering advice, but do it in such a way that you neither embarrass or offend individual film makers, otherwise we could see even fewer members coming to our clubs or festivals!

Geoff.

[col lamb]

Geoff

I disagree about the knocking and bad taste elements of your post. Whilst the judging this year has been better than in the past it is still lacking and there are limitations in the current system and the fact that this movie has been singled out is unfortunate on the movie maker but if the end result is a further re-visit to the judging process and a tightening up of the system then it will all be worthwhile.

Also the effort that goes into a movie should have no bearing at all in its grading and in fact if so much effort is put in then at least the movie maker can do is to make sure that all the elements of the completed movie are technically appropriate and the content is as envisaged, anything else is just sloppy.

To give an couple of examples, two 4* movies from this years BIAFF which I thought were great are Another Day and your own The Turning of the Screw now to have both of these excellent movies in the same grading as the movie in question does a dis-service to the makers of these movies and it shows the limitations of the judging system. To compare a drama with a drama then in my view Another Day is at least 2* better than Marriage Games.

One of the movies I entered got 3* but was not shown, it took me two days to shoot and over one hundred hours to write the script and to edit so all in all about 125 hours worth of effort, I must add that I am totally OK with the grading and judges comments; so for effort what is my movie worth. My other movie also got 3*, I had 20 minutes of video after our visit to the park, editing took me 4 hours and then another 3 hours for adding the script, so lets say less than 10 hours in total, just because it took less time does that mean that it is a lesser movie?

One thing that I find totally hard to accept is when judge comment on a movie about its errors and yet it still gets more than an average rating, that is one of the main faults with the judging system

Finally the judging system should be such that certain criteria should be met and to allow a higher than average grading to a movie (I am being general here and not specific Marriage Games) which has limitations, shaky footage, poor sound, focus hunting and the other technical elements does neither the movie maker any justice and certainly it does not respect the efforts of any other entrant who sees their own movie either graded the same of lesser than the over rated movie, in other words in demeans the IAC.

[Geoff Addis]

Col,

I do not disagree with all your comments and observations regarding the judging, but my intention was to draw attention to the fact that it can be hurtfull to some people if they are 'named and shamed'. Of course, by submitting our films to be judged and viewed at a festival we should be prepared to be criticised, but let this be in a constructive way. If we wish to criticise judging then perhaps that should in more general terms and reference to individual films should be directly with the judges, rather than 'broadcast'.

It is interesting that the Southern Photographic Federation's marking for still images is based on a total of ten marks; up to 1.5 for technical quality, up to 3.5 for the appropriate use of technique and up to 6 for message/story. What this indicates is that technical quality is expected to be good and equally in our film making there should be no excuse for poor or sloppy technical quality.

Geoff

[Willy]

Yes, the rules of filmmaking are only an advice. Breaking a rule is not in itself important as Dave says. Some weeks ago a welknown filmmaker visited my club. He told us how to structuralize a film. Your film must have an introduction (with set up), a middle part and an end he said. Length: 25%, 50% and 25%. It is not ridiculous to say such things. It sometimes helps, but I think it is not so essential. Indeed it is only a guideline. It also depends on what kind of film you are going to make/have made.

Mike Shaw said : "More and more I became absorbed in the story line". That is very important I think. That is essential. By the way: last week I was invited by a cultural group to show some films. I also showed "Flat Out" and "Remote Control" by Mike. Many thanks, Mike. The audience were absorbed by your two films from the beginning till the end. They laughed quite a lot. They appreciated the humour. That's what we are making films for. To enjoy ourselves and to enjoy an audience. I was proud to tell those people that I know you!

I also agree with Geoff. We must do everything we can to encourage filmmakers.

Some years ago one of my friends had to judge a film. He told me he was irritated by crossing the line in that film constantly. I noticed it, but the story-line was fantastic. I was happy that the film won gold at the most important film festival in the world. I think it was gold. But of course I also find it possitive that judges try to find technical faults in a film. As long as they don't exaggerate. Sometimes you need sounds of wind and sea to create a special atmosphere. The atmosphere must go crescendo. However, the sound can be too strong according to some judges. This is something very subjective, but it is not something to give the film a less appreciation. I wonder if some friends are not often dazzled by possible technical standard of the film.