Over a period of 20 years seeing amateur films, mainly at club level, but
also at regional, national and international level, like many of us I have
seen many 'good' films. By that I mean ones that have enthralled and transported
me. On the other hand, again like many of us, I have seen vast numbers ranging
from fair, poor and dire - lots of the latter!!
I shall be grateful if contributors to 'Speak Out' could find time to give
their opinions on the following:
How do they define a good amateur film, whether or not it is made for viewing
at club or even international level?
What, in their opinion, constitutes a good amateur film, what constitutes
an outstanding amateur film?
I hope some of you will give your views, I am sure it would be of help to
me.
Thank you.
Laurie Miller
A good film
-
JET
Re: A good film
What constitutes an amateur film is a good question.
It makes you wonder after seeing the latest IAC film festival where some
films
were made by one or two people well other entries from aboard had 20 to 30
credited for their production. Other foreign film had an accreditation to
ARRI
(If you look at ARRI hire pricing you will had pressed to hire any equipment
at
less than £200 per day). Furthermore, at 2003 Norwich, one foreign film also
stated where it had been televised.
So what is an amateur film?
JET
It makes you wonder after seeing the latest IAC film festival where some
films
were made by one or two people well other entries from aboard had 20 to 30
credited for their production. Other foreign film had an accreditation to
ARRI
(If you look at ARRI hire pricing you will had pressed to hire any equipment
at
less than £200 per day). Furthermore, at 2003 Norwich, one foreign film also
stated where it had been televised.
So what is an amateur film?
JET
-
Michael Slowe
Re: A good film
Laurie, there should be no difference between "a good film" and "a good amateur
film". A film is a film. Too many people think that because someone is
a professional he automatically makes better films than an amateur. Whilst
this is true more often than not it is by no means "a given". Many of the
films in the Sunday programmes in Harrogate were better (much in some cases)
than the average documentary on television. Indeed I have often been asked
why some of my own work is not on TV and the answer is the same for most
amateurs, namely that they make their living in other ways and in any case
want to be free to make their own type of films with no pressure to please
any paymaster.
Examples from Harrogate that I found quite outstanding were the overall winner
Strings of Life, Mahlzeit,
Prinsje and The Prodigy. They were all technically excellant and showed
great imagination. Everyone will have their own favourites but you can't
define "a good film"; you just know when you see it, rather like a cut that
just seems right rather than one that doesn't. Laurie, you know what I think
anyway since I have had the pleasure of visiting your club recently and showing
some films.
Michael Slowe.
film". A film is a film. Too many people think that because someone is
a professional he automatically makes better films than an amateur. Whilst
this is true more often than not it is by no means "a given". Many of the
films in the Sunday programmes in Harrogate were better (much in some cases)
than the average documentary on television. Indeed I have often been asked
why some of my own work is not on TV and the answer is the same for most
amateurs, namely that they make their living in other ways and in any case
want to be free to make their own type of films with no pressure to please
any paymaster.
Examples from Harrogate that I found quite outstanding were the overall winner
Strings of Life, Mahlzeit,
Prinsje and The Prodigy. They were all technically excellant and showed
great imagination. Everyone will have their own favourites but you can't
define "a good film"; you just know when you see it, rather like a cut that
just seems right rather than one that doesn't. Laurie, you know what I think
anyway since I have had the pleasure of visiting your club recently and showing
some films.
Michael Slowe.
-
Paul Chater
Re: A good film
Laurie,
First of all, what constitutes an amateur: An amateur is a person or persons
whom take on an activity for the love of it, and NOT for any financial gain,
reward, or resale of their product thereafter. After that, ‘A film is a film’
whether it made by a professional or amateur, whether Club, regional or international.
Every film should be made for the enjoyment to entertain, thrill, humour,
inform, convey a message or play with our feelings.
No matter at what level the film maker is at, there are two types of films;
well made and poorly made films. For me every film/video starts off as a
winner and this is only spoilt; by the way it is filmed, or by the sound
contents, or how it is edited.
However, many people allow their personal choice of subject matter and their
age group interests take precedence. In other words what suit a teenage may
not match an OAP views.
Therefore, a well made film is where the picture has a quality to view, the
sound is there to enhance the listening and the content of the film keeps
my mind active and wanting to see the end. The next stage is making a great
film is where sounds and pictures are used correctly for balance and timing
to create images and effects that enhance the film’s subject whilst capturing
and enthuse the viewer.
This means that a film with strobe lighting and heavy rock music can be judged
on the same level against steam train film.
Nevertheless, you can have the best photography and the most perfect soundtrack
with a great storyline but if it is not put together correctly you will not
have a good film whether club or international level. Therefore, if all films
start off as a winner and this is only spoilt; by the way it is filmed, or
by the sound contents, or how it is edited. Then, what constitutes a good
from a poor film is in the edit and how many mistakes you are willing to
show: in your filming, sound coverage, voiceover, musical background, your
timing, and the balance of all these elements for entertainment.
Personally, I believe, the most important part of any film making is how
it is edited. Making any subject entertaining to the majority is a skill.
Making a boring subject/topic interesting as well as entertaining is a greater
achievement.
If someone has a simple answer to what makes an International winner. Please
email me direct and only me.
regards
Paul.
First of all, what constitutes an amateur: An amateur is a person or persons
whom take on an activity for the love of it, and NOT for any financial gain,
reward, or resale of their product thereafter. After that, ‘A film is a film’
whether it made by a professional or amateur, whether Club, regional or international.
Every film should be made for the enjoyment to entertain, thrill, humour,
inform, convey a message or play with our feelings.
No matter at what level the film maker is at, there are two types of films;
well made and poorly made films. For me every film/video starts off as a
winner and this is only spoilt; by the way it is filmed, or by the sound
contents, or how it is edited.
However, many people allow their personal choice of subject matter and their
age group interests take precedence. In other words what suit a teenage may
not match an OAP views.
Therefore, a well made film is where the picture has a quality to view, the
sound is there to enhance the listening and the content of the film keeps
my mind active and wanting to see the end. The next stage is making a great
film is where sounds and pictures are used correctly for balance and timing
to create images and effects that enhance the film’s subject whilst capturing
and enthuse the viewer.
This means that a film with strobe lighting and heavy rock music can be judged
on the same level against steam train film.
Nevertheless, you can have the best photography and the most perfect soundtrack
with a great storyline but if it is not put together correctly you will not
have a good film whether club or international level. Therefore, if all films
start off as a winner and this is only spoilt; by the way it is filmed, or
by the sound contents, or how it is edited. Then, what constitutes a good
from a poor film is in the edit and how many mistakes you are willing to
show: in your filming, sound coverage, voiceover, musical background, your
timing, and the balance of all these elements for entertainment.
Personally, I believe, the most important part of any film making is how
it is edited. Making any subject entertaining to the majority is a skill.
Making a boring subject/topic interesting as well as entertaining is a greater
achievement.
If someone has a simple answer to what makes an International winner. Please
email me direct and only me.
regards
Paul.
-
Dave Watterson
Re: A good film
"Laurie Miller" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
As to "an amateur film" - it is not possible to say that person (a) is an
amateur while person (b) is not. So many amateurs now make wedding videos
or local pageant videos and sell them, that this line is too blurred. I
think it must be decided on a film by film basis: was this movie made for
profit or not? (That leaves open the way for an extremely successful one
to be bought by Hollywood so that the maker can move to a Carribbean island
and spend the rest of his/her life watching Michael Slowe photograph pelicans.
The point being it is sold only after winning its amateur awards.)
Good?
At heart I am with Michael Slowe on this ... but in practice you could say
that a decent club-level movie has a clear development of its subject and
signs of a purpose (to tell a story, explain a process, arouse an emotion).
It will be well-exposed. Shots will be steady. Sound will be clear and
at reasonable level. There will be neat titles.
In other words it will be a business-like piece of work with most of the
technical details right.
Outstanding?
The same but more so!
The best movies have a richness. Every element of the work is employed with
deliberate care to tell or enhance the story. For example each character
might be linked with a colour so that he or she appears always with
something red about them while another character is always associated with
pastels. Musical themes may be associated with each character. The way
the character appears in shot will be broadly consistent (does each shot
of
them start with them centre-frame or are they revealed each time, coming
through a door, turning a corner or at the end of a pan.) Their words will
be in their own distinctive patterns and dialects. If probed each actor would
be able to tell their character's life history even though that has little
to do with the movie being made. (Much of all that can be applied to
documentaries as well as fiction.)
Photography would be not just correct, but beautiful. Like a Kurosawa movie
you should be able to capture, blow-up and hang in an art gallery any frame
of the movie.
Editing will vary pace to suit the mood of the film.
There will be a soundscape to the film - behind the music and dialogue there
will be an appropriate but slightly exaggerated sound picture of the world
about them. (In a dialogue sequence, if the insect and bird sounds
suddenly stopped it would be immediately noticeable and arresting.)
Above all the script (or plan / storyboard for non-fiction) will have been
thought about long and hard. It will have been worked on for ages to make
it concise but clear. Each word will have at least one meaning but ideally
more, so that it tells you something about the personality or motives of
whoever says it as well as communicating their intention.
The biggest single failing in amateur movies in competitions is the lack
of thought. So many, many of them are obviously the result of one moment's
inspiration ... however much that is followed by organisational and practical
skills to make the movie it is not enough.
Movies, like poetry, have to reflect a concentrated form of life back at
us.
As to International Standard ...
Dave W
What a can of worms, Laurie!How do they define a good amateur film, whether or not it is made for viewing
at club or even international level?
What, in their opinion, constitutes a good amateur film, what constitutes
an outstanding amateur film?
As to "an amateur film" - it is not possible to say that person (a) is an
amateur while person (b) is not. So many amateurs now make wedding videos
or local pageant videos and sell them, that this line is too blurred. I
think it must be decided on a film by film basis: was this movie made for
profit or not? (That leaves open the way for an extremely successful one
to be bought by Hollywood so that the maker can move to a Carribbean island
and spend the rest of his/her life watching Michael Slowe photograph pelicans.
The point being it is sold only after winning its amateur awards.)
Good?
At heart I am with Michael Slowe on this ... but in practice you could say
that a decent club-level movie has a clear development of its subject and
signs of a purpose (to tell a story, explain a process, arouse an emotion).
It will be well-exposed. Shots will be steady. Sound will be clear and
at reasonable level. There will be neat titles.
In other words it will be a business-like piece of work with most of the
technical details right.
Outstanding?
The same but more so!
The best movies have a richness. Every element of the work is employed with
deliberate care to tell or enhance the story. For example each character
might be linked with a colour so that he or she appears always with
something red about them while another character is always associated with
pastels. Musical themes may be associated with each character. The way
the character appears in shot will be broadly consistent (does each shot
of
them start with them centre-frame or are they revealed each time, coming
through a door, turning a corner or at the end of a pan.) Their words will
be in their own distinctive patterns and dialects. If probed each actor would
be able to tell their character's life history even though that has little
to do with the movie being made. (Much of all that can be applied to
documentaries as well as fiction.)
Photography would be not just correct, but beautiful. Like a Kurosawa movie
you should be able to capture, blow-up and hang in an art gallery any frame
of the movie.
Editing will vary pace to suit the mood of the film.
There will be a soundscape to the film - behind the music and dialogue there
will be an appropriate but slightly exaggerated sound picture of the world
about them. (In a dialogue sequence, if the insect and bird sounds
suddenly stopped it would be immediately noticeable and arresting.)
Above all the script (or plan / storyboard for non-fiction) will have been
thought about long and hard. It will have been worked on for ages to make
it concise but clear. Each word will have at least one meaning but ideally
more, so that it tells you something about the personality or motives of
whoever says it as well as communicating their intention.
The biggest single failing in amateur movies in competitions is the lack
of thought. So many, many of them are obviously the result of one moment's
inspiration ... however much that is followed by organisational and practical
skills to make the movie it is not enough.
Movies, like poetry, have to reflect a concentrated form of life back at
us.
As to International Standard ...
Dave W
-
AN
Re: A good film
Jeepers, creepers!
After reading all that lot I can hear the soft,
gentle swish, as the air is suddenly disturbed and the delicate
landing of white, slightly dampened materials.............
...............................the sound of towels being thrown in!
All that varied, long listed, creative work taking God knows how many
countless hours to attain (if ever at all!), you very well cover,
for an audience of but a few hundred here and a fifty/hundred there, give
or
take a hundred or so if you're lucky, Dave.
Jeepers creepers!.......
.......Albert.....with bulging peepers.
After reading all that lot I can hear the soft,
gentle swish, as the air is suddenly disturbed and the delicate
landing of white, slightly dampened materials.............
...............................the sound of towels being thrown in!
All that varied, long listed, creative work taking God knows how many
countless hours to attain (if ever at all!), you very well cover,
for an audience of but a few hundred here and a fifty/hundred there, give
or
take a hundred or so if you're lucky, Dave.
Jeepers creepers!.......
.......Albert.....with bulging peepers.
-
Atta Chui
Re: A good film
"AN" <AnimatioN@btopenworld.com> wrote:
us start in the first place? We enjoy the process, we like to see our dream
movie materialized... Of course I like to hear audience clapping their hands
too, however this can't be the reason we make films, right?
Distribution is a big problem for us. I spend time with local students here,
encourage them to make films, suggest them to hold film evenings, so I can
slip my films in (ha ha, it actually works)
What about Internet? My films are too long. Your animations are short and
perfect for this medium. You can easily boardcast your movies 24 hours a
day to the world.
Wonder if IAC can take a lead?
Atta
That's the life of an amateur filmmaker, you are right. However, what makefor an audience of but a few hundred here and a fifty/hundred there, give
or take a hundred or so if you're lucky, Dave.
us start in the first place? We enjoy the process, we like to see our dream
movie materialized... Of course I like to hear audience clapping their hands
too, however this can't be the reason we make films, right?
Distribution is a big problem for us. I spend time with local students here,
encourage them to make films, suggest them to hold film evenings, so I can
slip my films in (ha ha, it actually works)
What about Internet? My films are too long. Your animations are short and
perfect for this medium. You can easily boardcast your movies 24 hours a
day to the world.
Wonder if IAC can take a lead?
Atta
-
AN
Re: A good film
"Atta Chui" <iac.web@ntlworld.com> wrote:
If entering two films and one is shown to about 100 people,
that's 16p per viewer for present day entry fees. But with a good film
the viewer should be paying US 16p to see it!
OK,OK, so we creative amateurs put up with this high cost/small audience
return
because we do it for love......I do it for an *audience* Bits of
gold/silver/bronze paper or silverware are of no interst to me at all.
When IAC send the results UNLESS this will mean an audience then
that big word they are fond of using, CONGRATULATIONS, should read,
COMMISERATIONS.
What the answer to the audience numbers problem is I know not but
we could make a good start by kicking out all the TV execs who
pay the likes of over exposed, Anne Robinson/Carol Vordeman etc
to became multi millionairs within a few years.
This will save money, but more importantly, air time to show those
films, which many at this years IAC fest. said, were worthy of
a TV showing. So why not, eh?
will be finished. The sooner the better. I already have a web site
of my unusual humourous images, so soon they will all be amoving!
Here's a plug, for those who have not yet seen something different.....
http:www.btinternet.com/~Animation/PHOTOGRAPHS/
Come back soon and see em move......for free!
Albert..freely on the move.
Let's not kid ourselves about film. I/we make em for others to see."AN" <AnimatioN@btopenworld.com> wrote:
for an audience of but a few hundred here and a fifty/hundred there, give
or take a hundred or so if you're lucky, Dave.
That's the life of an amateur filmmaker, you are right. However, what make
us start in the first place? We enjoy the process, we like to see our dream
movie materialized... Of course I like to hear audience clapping their hands
too, however this can't be the reason we make films, right?
If entering two films and one is shown to about 100 people,
that's 16p per viewer for present day entry fees. But with a good film
the viewer should be paying US 16p to see it!
OK,OK, so we creative amateurs put up with this high cost/small audience
return
because we do it for love......I do it for an *audience* Bits of
gold/silver/bronze paper or silverware are of no interst to me at all.
When IAC send the results UNLESS this will mean an audience then
that big word they are fond of using, CONGRATULATIONS, should read,
COMMISERATIONS.
What the answer to the audience numbers problem is I know not but
we could make a good start by kicking out all the TV execs who
pay the likes of over exposed, Anne Robinson/Carol Vordeman etc
to became multi millionairs within a few years.
This will save money, but more importantly, air time to show those
films, which many at this years IAC fest. said, were worthy of
a TV showing. So why not, eh?
Yes Atta, and as soon as I am on broadband my entering festival daysWhat about Internet? My films are too long. Your animations are short and
perfect for this medium. You can easily boardcast your movies 24 hours a
day to the world.
will be finished. The sooner the better. I already have a web site
of my unusual humourous images, so soon they will all be amoving!
Here's a plug, for those who have not yet seen something different.....
http:www.btinternet.com/~Animation/PHOTOGRAPHS/
Come back soon and see em move......for free!
Albert..freely on the move.
-
Dave Watterson
Re: A good film
Given that the cost of making digital copies of movies
is nearly negligible and that quality is darned good
I wonder why the IAC library does not now take in ALL
festival entries.
The admin overhead would be noticeable but not enormous:
listing, cataloguing etc and that way at least every
entry would have the chance of a viewing.
Dave
is nearly negligible and that quality is darned good
I wonder why the IAC library does not now take in ALL
festival entries.
The admin overhead would be noticeable but not enormous:
listing, cataloguing etc and that way at least every
entry would have the chance of a viewing.
Dave
-
Michael Slowe
Re: A good film
"AN" <AnimatioN@btopenworld.com> wrote:
and I make longer films which rely on their pictorial quality as much as
anything else and which would not show well on the net. We need big, high
res. pictures to create the effect that we have worked our socks off for!
Poor sound and a tiny monitor picture cannot be for us.
Michael Slowe.
>
That's all very well Albert but your films are very short and snappy. Atta"Atta Chui" <iac.web@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"AN" <AnimatioN@btopenworld.com> wrote:
for an audience of but a few hundred here and a fifty/hundred there, give
or take a hundred or so if you're lucky, Dave.
That's the life of an amateur filmmaker, you are right. However, what make
us start in the first place? We enjoy the process, we like to see our dream
movie materialized... Of course I like to hear audience clapping their
hands
too, however this can't be the reason we make films, right?
Let's not kid ourselves about film. I/we make em for others to see.
If entering two films and one is shown to about 100 people,
that's 16p per viewer for present day entry fees. But with a good film
the viewer should be paying US 16p to see it!
OK,OK, so we creative amateurs put up with this high cost/small audience
return
because we do it for love......I do it for an *audience* Bits of
gold/silver/bronze paper or silverware are of no interst to me at all.
When IAC send the results UNLESS this will mean an audience then
that big word they are fond of using, CONGRATULATIONS, should read,
COMMISERATIONS.
What the answer to the audience numbers problem is I know not but
we could make a good start by kicking out all the TV execs who
pay the likes of over exposed, Anne Robinson/Carol Vordeman etc
to became multi millionairs within a few years.
This will save money, but more importantly, air time to show those
films, which many at this years IAC fest. said, were worthy of
a TV showing. So why not, eh?
What about Internet? My films are too long. Your animations are short and
perfect for this medium. You can easily boardcast your movies 24 hours
a
day to the world.
Yes Atta, and as soon as I am on broadband my entering festival days
will be finished. The sooner the better. I already have a web site
of my unusual humourous images, so soon they will all be amoving!
Here's a plug, for those who have not yet seen something different.....
http:www.btinternet.com/~Animation/PHOTOGRAPHS/
Come back soon and see em move......for free!
Albert..freely on the move.
and I make longer films which rely on their pictorial quality as much as
anything else and which would not show well on the net. We need big, high
res. pictures to create the effect that we have worked our socks off for!
Poor sound and a tiny monitor picture cannot be for us.
Michael Slowe.
>
-
AN
Re: A good film
"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
agoing there, as soon as I've sorted some things such as how to
prevent copying and gone broadband etc. Your problem would
also be the amount of storage you would have to have....I get
50meg with BTopenworld, enough for about 5 films at least!
I accept that your only chance of getting big bums on seats
(that's big bums in quantity not in size!!) is to keep on attaining
the equivalents of IAC silver and above around the world,
as you seem to do, although to ensure the big IAC Sunday screen etc.
you need gold and higher as you know.
But I see better times for you too as broadband becomes commonplace,
methods of transmission/satellite improve to allow larger pictures
to be Interneted. The good times are acoming Michael.......the trouble
is, will you and I be around to see 'em?
Cor, you nearly 70?
Cheer up me ol' son, you'll soon be getting a free TV licence as
we have here.
Albert.....getting free rubbish!!
Yes, the net is more suitable for me and that is why I amYes Atta, and as soon as I am on broadband my entering festival days
will be finished. The sooner the better. I already have a web site
of my unusual humourous images, so soon they will all be amoving!
Here's a plug, for those who have not yet seen something different.....
http:www.btinternet.com/~Animation/PHOTOGRAPHS/
Come back soon and see em move......for free!
That's all very well Albert but your films are very short and snappy. Atta
and I make longer films which rely on their pictorial quality as much as
anything else and which would not show well on the net. We need big, high
res. pictures to create the effect that we have worked our socks off for!
Poor sound and a tiny monitor picture cannot be for us.
agoing there, as soon as I've sorted some things such as how to
prevent copying and gone broadband etc. Your problem would
also be the amount of storage you would have to have....I get
50meg with BTopenworld, enough for about 5 films at least!
I accept that your only chance of getting big bums on seats
(that's big bums in quantity not in size!!) is to keep on attaining
the equivalents of IAC silver and above around the world,
as you seem to do, although to ensure the big IAC Sunday screen etc.
you need gold and higher as you know.
But I see better times for you too as broadband becomes commonplace,
methods of transmission/satellite improve to allow larger pictures
to be Interneted. The good times are acoming Michael.......the trouble
is, will you and I be around to see 'em?
Cor, you nearly 70?Cheer up me ol' son, you'll soon be getting a free TV licence as
we have here.
Albert.....getting free rubbish!!
-
Dave Watterson
Re: A good film
A question I have raised before ...
If the purpose is to get your work seen and enjoyed
by as many people as possible, Albert. Why are you
concerned to stop copying? Surely the more copies
the more viewers.
Or are you considering charging per view?
Dave
If the purpose is to get your work seen and enjoyed
by as many people as possible, Albert. Why are you
concerned to stop copying? Surely the more copies
the more viewers.
Or are you considering charging per view?
Dave
-
AN
Re: A good film
"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
anyone would think it worth plagiarizing!), but just in case.
"Roll up, roll up, and see the show for free."
BTW, my images web site has had near 2000 hits in 2 years.
If only a quarter or so visitors looked at all my images
(and hopefully may also view my films when streamed )
this gives me an audience of 250 each year for every film,
at NIL cost to me!
If my site is attractive/interesting/unusual, folk who have
seen it will tell others and in this way I consider that the
250/year will grow....anyway that's my business plan!
Albert....in business.
I wish to prevent anyone plagiarizing my work, (not thatA question I have raised before ...
If the purpose is to get your work seen and enjoyed
by as many people as possible, Albert. Why are you
concerned to stop copying? Surely the more copies
the more viewers.
anyone would think it worth plagiarizing!), but just in case.
No charge at all.....Or are you considering charging per view?
"Roll up, roll up, and see the show for free."
BTW, my images web site has had near 2000 hits in 2 years.
If only a quarter or so visitors looked at all my images
(and hopefully may also view my films when streamed )
this gives me an audience of 250 each year for every film,
at NIL cost to me!
If my site is attractive/interesting/unusual, folk who have
seen it will tell others and in this way I consider that the
250/year will grow....anyway that's my business plan!
Albert....in business.
-
Dave Watterson
Re: A good film
We drifted away from Laurie's original question.
I think at heart a good film should have:
- a sense of purpose (make you laugh or cry, teach etc)
- a clear structure so that most people can follow it
- good photography
- good sound (these days harder than the photography)
- clear titles
These imply some hard work in planning what you shoot
and/or how you assemble the material.
It is easier, perhaps, to list the faults of a bad film.
Hmmm
Dave
I think at heart a good film should have:
- a sense of purpose (make you laugh or cry, teach etc)
- a clear structure so that most people can follow it
- good photography
- good sound (these days harder than the photography)
- clear titles
These imply some hard work in planning what you shoot
and/or how you assemble the material.
It is easier, perhaps, to list the faults of a bad film.
Hmmm
Dave