NEW V TRADITIONAL (Courtesy of Roy who's idea it is)

[Peter Thomlinson]

Roy, to a degree I think you are wrong. People who make films (in my limited experience) do view commercial films and documentaries, and do analyse them quite a lot. I did this before I was a film maker, and still do. Lots of people in the club I once belonged to, also did this. Well, the serious film makers certainly did, and that may have been more than 40% at a guess.

The skill is to make a less "traditional" film and yet totally capture the audience to a point where they don't notice the style - unless of course they are very "analytical" film makers themselves.

What I don't like about modern (TV) documentaries is the problem of the director (or producers) total dishonesty. What do I mean by that statement!

Well, a certain technique has crept in for quite a while now. They are making a doc say, about the Second WW (yawn, yawn), and a certain aspect of it. They have not the required footage to cover a certain part of the subject, so they prattle on with the voice over, but at the same time show the tops of trees taken from a low angle and with the camera panning or moving in a circle. What's that to do with Monty's cock up in the desert, say? I'm sure they hire in stock shots to use as fillers for relevant footage. The trouble is that you can get away with that once or twice in a doc, but not several times. It is just bad doc making. It would be better to have a talking head instead, and be honest about not having anything to show.

And have you seen how the TV companies now accept any footage from any member of the public, often shot on a cell phone, where it hosepipes and zooms and jump cuts all over the place. At one time standards were high and such rubbish would not be technically good enough to show on TV. It's all for breaking news I know, but they keep repeating it for hours. Its the same with sound quality, there are no standards left. But I'm diverging now!

Whilst I would veer rather towards the traditional techniques myself, I am happy to accept some of the brilliant work done by both young and older film makers who use less rigid methods. Often the content is so good that it hardly matters. It is really the content that is at the heart of film making, and that is another area where I probably disgree with some people here.

Keep up this interesting discussion!!

[Roy]

Hi Peter, I think you have mis-read my meaning or perhaps I did not state the case clearly. I thought I was referring to General Audiances. This whole thread I thought was to ascertain what the man in the street made of these New methods, and not particularly what Film makers thought of it.
I only entered the fray because it was stated that audiances had accepted the new Look. And I still say that only a small proportion of the middle to elderly aged general audiance are not disturbed by hosepiping Zooms and an excess of Hand held cqmera shots. Roy

[Michael Slowe]

I was going to let this lie but I have to defend poor Ned (probably doesn't need me!) against implied criticism from Roy. What Ned and I are saying is that new or old style, it doesn't matter as long as it works for the audience. Meaningless hosepiping, unintelligble sounds, complete lack of structure does not usually work. On the other hand innovation is to be welcomed, especially so when emplyed with skill and purpose. And Roy, most people I know who go to the cinema do sit around and talk about the film they have seen. They do know what works and what doesn't and they are not just stuck on the big names involved (although to be fair that is what attracted some of them in the first place). By and large amateur film making is too conservative (less so with continental productions) and both Ned and I are as guilty as anyone in this regard. We have, incidentally, seen each other's films so I know!

[stingman]

I am finding myself caught in the middle of this debate. As to what I like a film to look like then I am in the middle of the road.
I want to keep and see the traditional look of a film, but, I also like to see a film that has new ways of filming and camera angles in. I like to be surprised and think, `WOW`, that scene was good. I would have done it THAT way. Or when I watch a film I sometimes think that that scene was pointless or wasn`t put across very well.
Now that i`m into making films, I am VERY critical of the way a film or tv show has been made.

[Willy]

It would be very interesting to have entries judged by two panels, amateur film makers and a panel of informed film/TV viewers who have no interest in how films are made but a lot of interest in their values. I suspect that the results would be very different.

Anyone up for it?

Ned C

The best football coaches were not always the best football players. In my opinion you don't have to be a (good) filmmaker to be a good judge. As long as the judges are honest, then it's OK. Last week someone who used to be involved in the organization of a major festival told me : it's sometimes good to have a new name on the "roll of honour" of your festival. It gives some "cachet" to your festival. I have my thoughts about that. The best film must be the winning film. "Tout court !".

Our Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx won the "Tour de France" five times. When he was taking part the sixth time he got a poke in his stomach by a fanatic along the road when he was riding on a mountain. Eddy felt miserable. He had to vomit and thought of giving up the race.

That organizer also admitted that it's good to have a melodious name on the list of victories. Oh yes, it's a pity that I'm not called Adriano Jaconelli, just like my former English colleague ... I'm jealous when I hear his name. My first name is Willy ... One of my other former colleagues is called James Hogg. Acoording to that organizer James does not have a name to win a major festival, does he ? Please, do not think that I feel frustrated with my name. In Britain I have already received with full honours everywhere. I sometimes feel very embarrassed by that. I mean it. To be clear. That person didn't organize a British festival.

Honesty and fairplay are very important in judging. That's why it's so important to receive evaluation reports. Yesterday I received three sheets with remarks made by the judges who had to evaluate one of my films at the PSA festival in the USA. The judges had to answer six questions. 1. What do you think about the general organization ? Is it scripted and does it meet objective (ie. documentary, humor, historical, etc...) ? 2. Technical Quality : focus, exposure, use of close ups, zooms, etc... 3. Audio : volume, sound effects, background noise, appropriate to script, etc. 4. Use of graphics, editing, transitions, etc... 5. Strong points. 6. Suggestions for improvement. I would not mind if there was also one judge who was not used to analyse a film like that. But one is enough. Once I made a film about bullfighting in the South of France. The scene was terrible ... it was shocking. Result : some judges said that they didn't like that scene ... I prefer judges who understand why I wanted to show a shocking scene.

As you already know in my country sometimes 150 films are screened one after another. The judges don't have any time to write down their remarks. Some filmmakers are very fanatic and they (or their partners) attack the judges when the results are rather poor. These filmmakers are feared participants. They have some reputation. Judges must feel strong enough not to care a damn what these filmmakers may think about the marks that they have given. Really 'frontal attacks' is the order of the day. That's disappointing of course. Filmmaking is our hobby. In the latest issue of "Film and Video Meker" I read about me : "... na

[Willy]

Filmmaking is our hobby. In the latest issue of "Film and Video Meker" I read about me : "... na[/quote]

Sorry, I had a technical problem with my computer therefore I could not finish the last sentence. I repeat :

In the latest issue of "film and Video Maker" I read about my films : "... names that when you see them in a festival programme you just know you are going to be entertained by a really good film. One of these is Willy ..." I must say I also have that feeling when I see names like Michael Slowe, Ken Wilson and others in a festival programme. That's the best compliment you can get , isn't it ? As Michael said some time ago : it's something extra if you win an award. That's for sure, but the most important thing is that you succeed in entertaining an audience.

[Roy]

I see we are back to judges again. So I give up. It looks as if I am up against an old boy network of Competition winners, who have forgotton why most people go to the cinema.

[Willy]

I see we are back to judges again. So I give up. It looks as if I am up against an old boy network of Competition winners, who have forgotton why most people go to the cinema.

Oh, Roy, that's just what I wanted to tell you. We go to the cinema to enjoy films. We also attend competitions and festivals to enjoy films. I think it's not wrong to take part in competitions. I'm sure that you too are interested in any kind of competition (sports, cultural events, etc...).

[Peter Thomlinson]

Now boys, behave, or Aunty will come and get you (Not sure whose aunty, but be warned !!!)

[Dave Watterson]

Don't stop bringing us back to the subject, Roy. We tend to veer off onto judging because all too often we only consider serious aspects of film making in the context of competitions and judging.

For my part I like some "modern" techniques but not the extremes. It becomes a matter of taste. I'm with Ned in admiring enormously Breaking the Waves for its "modern" video-camera style but I did not enjoy The Bourne Supremacy where the shaky-cam effect did not seem to me to add anything. The director, Paul Greengrass, talks about using that style to add life and energy but that did not work for me. The fancy editing in Die Another Day which speeded-up brief moments of action - like the car sliding over the ice - just annoyed me.

What is acceptable to general audiences does change over the years. If you watch old films on tv you can feel them creaking along at a pace we would find unacceptable today. The problem is always finding out how far you can go without alienating a large part of the audience.

Commercial cinema is mainly targeted at 18-25 year-olds so maybe those films can go further than is comfortable for us older folk. There was, however, a tv garden design programme featuring Dermot Strong which used fancy angles and camerawork ... and yet its audience must surely have included a great many of us over 25 who found the technique annoying.

Should we consciously target different age groups and make our movies accordingly?

Dave

[Peter Thomlinson]

What is acceptable to general audiences does change over the years. If you watch old films on tv you can feel them creaking along at a pace we would find unacceptable today. The problem is always finding out how far you can go without alienating a large part of the audience.

This is very true Dave. Old episodes of "The Bill" on TV for example look very dated and so slow!

Should we consciously target different age groups and make our movies accordingly?

I don't think this would work, would it? However I did see part of of a movie on TV just now that was obviously made for 12-20 year olds. Pretty awful, especially the music. But there you are, it is already being done. I suppose such films work on TV, where the only audience may be that age group, on a Sunday afternoon.

[ned c]

Well this thread really has got going. Thanks for coming to my aid Michael, greatly appreciated. Several new "cans of worms" have been opened so here I go, remember, these comments are MY views and I cannot speak for anyone else although I may have a tendency to do so from time to time.

I completely agree about the docudramas where there are fuzzy "recreations" or irrelevant mood shots. These seem to be designed to avoid showing a talking head, my interest is better retained watching an interesting talking head than some obvious fake cover-up.

Commercial films are usually aimed at specific audiences, most frequently adolescent males of all ages. I find the idea of making amateur films aimed at specific audiences defeats one of the basic tenets of amateur film making where the film maker is not beholden to an audience but to an idea. There are two audiences out there, other amateurs and a general audience. I have now given away 30 copies of one film we made, a film that won one minor award in its competition life.

As I said in an earlier post I watch movies for a number of reasons but I like the viewing experience most when I am challenged. Particularly by a subtle sub-text.

What comes through loud and clear in this debate is that we all bring something different to our viewing and that it is a personal experience.

I know that judging is "off limits" but this demonstrates that dispassionate judging films is essentially an impossibility.

There was a comment in one of Cinema Thurso's posting that struck a chord, in the end all films are a compromise, we never get to deliver the film we envisioned. But what fun we have trying!

Ned C

[Peter Thomlinson]

Well this thread really has got going.

I completely agree about the docudramas where there are fuzzy "recreations" or irrelevant mood shots. These seem to be designed to avoid showing a talking head, my interest is better retained watching an interesting talking head than some obvious fake cover-up.

There are two audiences out there, other amateurs and a general audience. I have now given away 30 copies of one film we made, a film that won one minor award in its competition life.

As I said in an earlier post I watch movies for a number of reasons but I like the viewing experience most when I am challenged. Particularly by a subtle sub-text.

What comes through loud and clear in this debate is that we all bring something different to our viewing and that it is a personal experience.

Ned C

Thanks Ned for some good contributions to the debate. It is hard to make a film that is attractive to all age groups and to all types of audience, but I suppose good dramas are always popular. Good documentaries should be too, but if the subject matter is static by nature then its even harder.

I'm not sure how much mileage that old staple of the film makers club has now, and I'm refering to the travelogue (often a holiday film) - as we see so many films from exotic locations on TV now. I gave up making them and I don't even take a video camera on holiday any more, even though a few months ago I went to New Zealand and Thailand, where I took stills only.

In a way the documentary is probably the hardest to make successfully, but as you say a really subtle drama with good subtext is also hard work and very rewarding.

New ideas in fikm making are hard to come by, as its mostly all been done before, but finding that elusive angle or new approach is what we must do to keep it alive.

[stingman]

I had a warm feeling last night. NO, not that kind!

At our church, we showed a film called, I think, `Left Behind`. You all may not have seen it, anyway, The warm feeling was that I could have made that film better then them! Isn`t that great. A film you have just seen or are watching could have been better made by oneself!

It showed alot of stock footage of violence and basic mayhem, with bits that they had done like news reports and a bit of acting.

Now I`m not a believer in using stock footage in one`s own film. It looks tackie and the film quality is different so it sticks out like a sore thumb.

[billyfromConsett]

I strayed a bit but my point was that the 'new' can of course be seen alongside the older styles, a film is a film is a film. Artistsic expression takes many forms but the modern videos still have to be watchable and comprehensable which many are (but not most as I have witnessed to my cost). We must of course welcome the young film makers with open arms and find ways of encouraging them into our midst, we may then learn more and ourselves develope our art.

Times I've noticed are a changing, and I hope new verses old becomes new alongside traditional, in one differing but happy family. I've seen a club audience savage a set of movies made by media students- oh the poor head of media who had come to visit us! No wonder he later retired!

I still hate continual wobbly cams though. Can't watch "The Bill".

On side note and replying to Dave, - the argument about whether judges should be film-makers is a bit the one about judges of theatrical auditions. Should they or shouldn't they? Us actors might say they should - because they know how hard it might be to do certain things.

It might apply here (definitely at club level) when we do things like interview people in a noisy area. If the film-maker is successful, you hear somebody talking, without the ambient noise bossing the shot. Mr Judger-Watcher will hear the interview without maybe fully appreciating the work of miking that inverview. The experienced judger-watcher, like yourself maybe, would appreciate that audio skill and give it a mark. Maybe that's what it can boil down to - experience.

If as Film Thurso says, our films should take the technical side and acting for granted, then some people might simply not bother to really work on something, cos they'll be no thanks fot it, which is not exactly what our clubs want. Most of us have that little bit of ego that needs stroking when they get it right, even by a judge! Though if they're not entering competitions, their argument is fine for them, but not for all.