The secret is now out. As you can see from an article on the website, both
Atta and I were involved in the process of judging the 212 entries in this
year's competition.
And we are not telling you the results!
At least not yet.
People should start to hear directly from the competition manager towards
the end of the month. As soon as he gives the all-clear Atta plans to put
up the full list of award winners.
We can promise that there will be lots of great movies to see at the festival.
We had fine entries from home and abroad. If there was a consensus of any
kind among the judges about the overall trend it was that movies are getting
better and better (hence the need for the new Bronze Plus and Silver Plus
categories) but that a great many lack pace. That's not just a matter of
cutting them shorter it is about varying the speed of the story-telling to
suit the mood. (By story-telling here I mean the story the film is telling
whether that be fiction, documentary, reportage or whatever.)
Can anyone explain why this should be so?
Or has it always been so, but masked by other problems which have now been
solved?
Dave (McTease) Watterson
IAC International Comp
-
AN
Re: IAC International Comp
"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
Francis Durbridge thriller, (he wrote the old radio
Paul Temple serials), "Fatal Encounter."
Don't worry Dave, it isn't only amatuer films which lack pace,
but pro writers plays too.. God, how it dragged and
dragged its way to a very boring conclusion, not helped I may
add, by the wooden amatuer performances from most
.
Why, why o why, cannot amatuer actors learn to do the
facial/hand/finger/leg business which helps
bring a performance alive? .....such as drumming fingers/nervous
hand movements/slight leg shuffle/head/eye movements/etc/etc/etc.
After all, they're only the little expressions we all do naturally
every day of our lives.
Albert...doing what comes naturally! (old song)
I went to the theatre last evening and sat through aIf there was a consensus of any
kind among the judges about the overall trend it was......
..... that a great many lack pace.
Francis Durbridge thriller, (he wrote the old radio
Paul Temple serials), "Fatal Encounter."
Don't worry Dave, it isn't only amatuer films which lack pace,
but pro writers plays too.. God, how it dragged and
dragged its way to a very boring conclusion, not helped I may
add, by the wooden amatuer performances from most
.
Why, why o why, cannot amatuer actors learn to do the
facial/hand/finger/leg business which helps
bring a performance alive? .....such as drumming fingers/nervous
hand movements/slight leg shuffle/head/eye movements/etc/etc/etc.
After all, they're only the little expressions we all do naturally
every day of our lives.
Albert...doing what comes naturally! (old song)
-
Dave Watterson
Re: IAC International Comp
Yes, Albert, I remember Francis Durbridge, but more for his later tv dramas
like "A Portrait of Alison" which were among the first real dramas I saw
apart from children's stories.
A lot of older material is relatively slow today. Sometimes people argue
that this is because we had a less unified language before widespread broadcasting
and that you had to keep the pace down so that people with different accents
could decipher the words. Others reckon it is because the wonder of moving
pictures was enough to hold the attention and that the action was just icing
on the cake.
Most people seem to think it is because we have speeded up our perceptions
and learned to absorb a lot in a short time. If that is so ... why are there
not more women media makers? Women (as a general group) have long had the
reputation of being able to size up other people in a quick side glance.
Or is it that women movie makers think they have to slow down so that men
can keep up?!
BUT - old books are also much slower. Who actually reads Dickens these days
rather than watching a tv adaptation? And Dickens wrote fairly fast-moving
plots. I am not aware that music has changed pace much but that may just
be my ignorance of that field.
As to the detail of acting ... yes, people often seem to think that all they
have to do is learn the lines. ("All" - says he who can dry up before camera
all too easily!)
There is a movie equivalent: why do directors very seldom shoot really big
close-ups of eyes? They make invaluable cut-aways, make the audience feel
really intimate with the character and other people's eyes totally fascinate
us - hence all the "window on the soul" notions.
Dave (creaking slowly over his keyboard) W
like "A Portrait of Alison" which were among the first real dramas I saw
apart from children's stories.
A lot of older material is relatively slow today. Sometimes people argue
that this is because we had a less unified language before widespread broadcasting
and that you had to keep the pace down so that people with different accents
could decipher the words. Others reckon it is because the wonder of moving
pictures was enough to hold the attention and that the action was just icing
on the cake.
Most people seem to think it is because we have speeded up our perceptions
and learned to absorb a lot in a short time. If that is so ... why are there
not more women media makers? Women (as a general group) have long had the
reputation of being able to size up other people in a quick side glance.
Or is it that women movie makers think they have to slow down so that men
can keep up?!
BUT - old books are also much slower. Who actually reads Dickens these days
rather than watching a tv adaptation? And Dickens wrote fairly fast-moving
plots. I am not aware that music has changed pace much but that may just
be my ignorance of that field.
As to the detail of acting ... yes, people often seem to think that all they
have to do is learn the lines. ("All" - says he who can dry up before camera
all too easily!)
There is a movie equivalent: why do directors very seldom shoot really big
close-ups of eyes? They make invaluable cut-aways, make the audience feel
really intimate with the character and other people's eyes totally fascinate
us - hence all the "window on the soul" notions.
Dave (creaking slowly over his keyboard) W
-
AN
Re: IAC International Comp
"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
and other organs(!) too...
....the more the merrier and increasing creative possibilities.
(I did consider at one time making a film entitled, "Facial".
Entirely shot on an old face (like mine!) in big CUs etc)
Further to slow films.... Lets have a new competion where the
film with the most cuts wins !!
That should make the directors/editors get a b....y move on!
Or how about the film with the shortest shots, taking a leaf
out of the fast flowing great TV adverts?
Why stop at eyes?...use the twitching nose/mouth/ears (There is a movie equivalent: why do directors very seldom shoot really big
close-ups of eyes? They make invaluable cut-aways, make the audience feel
really intimate with the character and other people's eyes totally fascinate
us - hence all the "window on the soul" notions.
and other organs(!) too...
....the more the merrier and increasing creative possibilities.
(I did consider at one time making a film entitled, "Facial".
Entirely shot on an old face (like mine!) in big CUs etc)
Further to slow films.... Lets have a new competion where the
film with the most cuts wins !!
That should make the directors/editors get a b....y move on!
Or how about the film with the shortest shots, taking a leaf
out of the fast flowing great TV adverts?
Albert.......just slow and creaking everywhere!Dave (creaking slowly over his keyboard)
-
Ned C
Re: IAC International Comp
For those of you who are members of AMPS Stuart Rumens is writing a series
for the Newsletter on directing actors. If you remember Film Maker Magazine
he was their regular coulmnnist on things relating to acting for film. Interested?
Join AMPS at ampsvideo.com
Unashamed ad from
Ned C
"AN" <animation@btopenworld.com> wrote:
for the Newsletter on directing actors. If you remember Film Maker Magazine
he was their regular coulmnnist on things relating to acting for film. Interested?
Join AMPS at ampsvideo.com
Unashamed ad from
Ned C
"AN" <animation@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
There is a movie equivalent: why do directors very seldom shoot really
big
close-ups of eyes? They make invaluable cut-aways, make the audience feel
really intimate with the character and other people's eyes totally fascinate
us - hence all the "window on the soul" notions.
Why stop at eyes?...use the twitching nose/mouth/ears (
and other organs(!) too...
....the more the merrier and increasing creative possibilities.
(I did consider at one time making a film entitled, "Facial".
Entirely shot on an old face (like mine!) in big CUs etc)
Further to slow films.... Lets have a new competion where the
film with the most cuts wins !!
That should make the directors/editors get a b....y move on!
Or how about the film with the shortest shots, taking a leaf
out of the fast flowing great TV adverts?
Dave (creaking slowly over his keyboard)
Albert.......just slow and creaking everywhere!
-
Michael Slowe
Re: IAC International Comp
"AN" <animation@btopenworld.com> wrote:
it contains quite a bit of dialogue and as all film editors know words take
time. Time was when I banned all dialogue and some films were cut with whole
sequences consisting of five frame cuts! Albert liked those, and so did
the sadly missed Tony Rose, but styles move on and some documentaries need
words. We have to present our story as we think fit, but when judges have
to view over 200 films in a weekend they do need stamina and cool heads and
too many words don't help. Is Dave suffering?
Michael Slowe.
>
Oh dear, I have entered a fairly slow (but I am told interesting) film but"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
There is a movie equivalent: why do directors very seldom shoot really
big
close-ups of eyes? They make invaluable cut-aways, make the audience feel
really intimate with the character and other people's eyes totally fascinate
us - hence all the "window on the soul" notions.
Why stop at eyes?...use the twitching nose/mouth/ears (
and other organs(!) too...
....the more the merrier and increasing creative possibilities.
(I did consider at one time making a film entitled, "Facial".
Entirely shot on an old face (like mine!) in big CUs etc)
Further to slow films.... Lets have a new competion where the
film with the most cuts wins !!
That should make the directors/editors get a b....y move on!
Or how about the film with the shortest shots, taking a leaf
out of the fast flowing great TV adverts?
Dave (creaking slowly over his keyboard)
Albert.......just slow and creaking everywhere!
it contains quite a bit of dialogue and as all film editors know words take
time. Time was when I banned all dialogue and some films were cut with whole
sequences consisting of five frame cuts! Albert liked those, and so did
the sadly missed Tony Rose, but styles move on and some documentaries need
words. We have to present our story as we think fit, but when judges have
to view over 200 films in a weekend they do need stamina and cool heads and
too many words don't help. Is Dave suffering?
Michael Slowe.
>
-
Dave Watterson
Re: IAC International Comp
Dave is alive, well and judging the Dundee Club competition at the moment,
thank you.
Most judges saw around 40 movies over the IAC judging weekend. At the Cotswold
Festival weekend where the judging sessions do not last late into the evening
final judges usually see around 30 or 35. At the Guernsey Lily there is
just one judging day so the final jury see about 20 films.
It is great fun - but also tiring. You feel the responsibility to assess
each entry as carefully as you can and to try to write something helpful
about each one. That means most allegedly spare moments over the weekend
are actually spent writing notes to yourself for use over the following fortnight
when you prepare formal critiques.
At the Festival of Nations in Austria last year the jury formally judged
96 films over 6 days but we saw and had to comment on many more such as the
"shorties" and school entries. So again it was a question of closely watching
around 20 movies a day. The difference was that we did not write notes for
the entrants - we had to get on stage every couple of hours and talk about
them. Discussion with the knowledgeable audience was an important part of
the event and if the film maker was there she or he could take part too.
I cannot yet be drawn into discussion of any IAC results ... but I am sure
festival-goers will have a great time.
I know what Michael is getting at in his remarks about speech. There are
many films where I want to shout out "Show, don't tell!" Some of our drama
entries seem to have been designed more as radio scripts than film ones.
But there are films where speech - even slow, hesitant speech - is vital.
When people talk about themselves, their lives and their feelings we don't
mind the time. Think of Mal Whiteley's "One Day At A Time" where you would
not want to sacrifice a word.
Dave Mc4x3Eyes Watterson
thank you.
Most judges saw around 40 movies over the IAC judging weekend. At the Cotswold
Festival weekend where the judging sessions do not last late into the evening
final judges usually see around 30 or 35. At the Guernsey Lily there is
just one judging day so the final jury see about 20 films.
It is great fun - but also tiring. You feel the responsibility to assess
each entry as carefully as you can and to try to write something helpful
about each one. That means most allegedly spare moments over the weekend
are actually spent writing notes to yourself for use over the following fortnight
when you prepare formal critiques.
At the Festival of Nations in Austria last year the jury formally judged
96 films over 6 days but we saw and had to comment on many more such as the
"shorties" and school entries. So again it was a question of closely watching
around 20 movies a day. The difference was that we did not write notes for
the entrants - we had to get on stage every couple of hours and talk about
them. Discussion with the knowledgeable audience was an important part of
the event and if the film maker was there she or he could take part too.
I cannot yet be drawn into discussion of any IAC results ... but I am sure
festival-goers will have a great time.
I know what Michael is getting at in his remarks about speech. There are
many films where I want to shout out "Show, don't tell!" Some of our drama
entries seem to have been designed more as radio scripts than film ones.
But there are films where speech - even slow, hesitant speech - is vital.
When people talk about themselves, their lives and their feelings we don't
mind the time. Think of Mal Whiteley's "One Day At A Time" where you would
not want to sacrifice a word.
Dave Mc4x3Eyes Watterson