Are we really getting better?

[Dave Watterson]

The results for all three major amateur film festivals in the British Isles are now on the main IAC website. Each chose a different film as its top prize winner.

I am interested to see that in the last few years all of them have added extra award categories near the top of the results:

BIAFF added Gold Plus and Silver Plus a couple of years ago
Cotswold added Gold Plus last year and Platinum this year
Guernsey added Special Commendation this year

It suggests that a higher proportion of entries is "bunching" in the "second place" area.
Is that because judges are not being strict enough?
Or could it be that amateur film makers are getting better?


Dave

[stingman]

I think that amateur film makers are getting better!
If their like me then this holds true !!
My reason is that we are influenced by the new ways of filming and editing by television and the cinema. I have in the last two years watched tv with a critical eye and have started to be influenced by it.
My filming has started to take on new ways of doing things. My editing is a bit more slicker and I try different things.

[Michael Slowe]

To answer that from my personal point of view, NO. Although making films on all the wonderful digital video equipment and computers is far easier and quicker I am frustrated to find I am making films very similar to those I was making 30 years ago! Sad but true! My it was harder then. Searching out odd ends of 16mm film, begging transfer houses to transfer my audio tapes to 16mm mag film, editing on a 'hand wind' pic sync, film and audio locked in sync, marking sound beats with chinagraph pencil, making dissolves utilising a second film roll incorporating black spacer and overlapping the pictures. Then arranging an audio 'dub' at a sound studio where maybe three or four reels of mag film could be mixed (having spent days preparing a coloured dub sheet for the engineer), taking the final mixed audio roll and picture roll to the lab. negotiating a price I could afford and then joy of joys, sitting in their small screening theatre and seeing the finished pristine print up on the screen. Video makers today don't know they're born!

To actually answer your question properly Dave, I think that there are greater numbers of good films today but the standard at the top is not all that different.

[Willy]

I was so proud !
After having taken part in international film festivals for 10-12 years I am not so interested in the results anymore. I still remember the first bronze medal that I won in a local heat. I was so proud !

Personal preference
To be honest ... I think that my last films are my best : "Together with Yoda" and "Breendonk" though my "Irish Moment" (2001) and "Breizh" (2002) were more successful at BIAFF. In "Breizh" for instance there are more technical mistakes in it and that film was not so powerful. Maybe it means that the judges were not so strict at that time. It also means that personal preference of the judges can be decisive.

Stimulants
Anyway I just enter BIAFF, the Lily and other festivals because I am always interested in the judges' comments. I always try to encourage other "compatriots" to enter festivals, even when their films are much better than mine in my own opinion. And why not ? In the first place the films that are shown at festivals must be enjoyable and entertaining. I would be a hypocrite to tell you that I would not be happy with an excellent result, but really this is not so important. If it would be possible to take stimulants like the riders in the "Tour de France" to win a competition I would not take them.
Once the winner of a festival told me : "It's a pity that the moment of glory (= receiving a gold medal or cup) is so short when you have won." Isn't this stupid ?

Open category
The last few years I have discovered that also professional filmmakers misuse amateur film festivals to promote their films. In the first place they think of making money with them. Some weeks ago I typed the title of a successful Belgian film in "google" and what did I see ? The maker mentioned his excellent international result to stimulate the sale of his film. This is very sad I think. His film is for sale in a chain of bookshops.

In my opinion there should always be an "open category" for more commercial, for strong sponsored films and for films made by film schools. Filmmaking is a hobby for us in the first place and amateur film festivals are for hobbyists !

[ned c]

I think the potential for better productions is in position with the simplification of the production/post-production process. It is interesting reading Michael's action list because we can now do all of this in the comfort of our computer room. The eternal problem is that of creativity, professionals have the same problem, look at the number of truly dreadful commercial films that get made (in my opinion).

Willy's comment raises the recurring question of what is a professional these days? If you examine the lists of people involved in winning amateur films you will find a sprinkling of those employed in the broadcast industries, many who make wedding/event videos for money, and a willingness of clubs to make "public service" films for charities and other deserving causes that take the money out of the pockets of small production houses. I still think we have it right at AMPS, it is the objective of the film not the occupation of its makers that defines its status. We have a student category for the film school and general run of students making films as part of their education.

Judging is a crapshoot but even so the really good films make their way to the top but I do believe that there is a lot of good stuff pushing into the level just below the top.

ned c

[Michael Slowe]

Willy, I disagree with your position on amateur / professional. We might be 'hobbyists' as you put it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to being as good as the pros (or better if we are particularly inspired by a subject).

I have always welcomed the presence of film school students (yes and pros) in international competitions and well remember the wonderful films from America that appeared in the old Ten Best. I recall them now and they certainly inspired me to improve and try and match them. As Ned says, the edges are blurred nowadays anyway.

I have just been asked (by a former Oscar director no less!) whether I would permit my alpaca film to be shown by a contintental TV station, apologising that 'the money wouldn't be that good"! I replied that as an amateur I can't accept any money but it could go to charity. So there is no bar to us going over the line so why not in reverse? This is straying 'off topic' but I still maintain that whilst it is easier to make films today we are not getting much better - technically better maybe- but not artistically.

[stingman]

I have just been asked (by a former Oscar director no less!) whether I would permit my alpaca film to be shown by a contintental TV station, apologising that 'the money wouldn't be that good"! I replied that as an amateur I can't accept any money but it could go to charity.

I personaly would have accepted the money! !! My reason is that it IS a hobby but things do cost US a lot of money. Hollywood films are sponsored and get their money from the Box Office. We don`t get any money. And because of this things have to be bought.
I need a new camera if I want to film again (which I do!) This costs alot of money and I get so little spare that it is a neverending saving and spending cycle just to pay the bills!
I`m not on a sob, sob story but a few `extra` quid, even if it`s a Tenner goes to help to pay for the tapes, bland dvd`s and even towards broken cameras and updated computer motherboards and processors.
It`s not like we get thousands of pounds for our work, but a few quid now and again certainly helps.

What do others think?
Do we have a strictly, No money rule or charge a few quid like £10 to cover the cost of tapes if we are on a low budget?

Please take into account your wages/income as if you earn a few quid (alot) then it is a bit easier to say, I`ll do it for free.

An Example. I had to take the day off of work to help my friend Film a wedding. I could not afford to do it for free, and he paid me. Does this make me a Pro or unprofessional to our hobby and an outcast. My electric still has to be paid for!

What do we all think?

Sorry to hijack this thread. Sometimes thread evolve into other topics!

[ned c]

In the old days when the amateur was very clearly separated from the professional, Ian, you would now be a professional and no longer eligible to enter any amateur film making activities. This was very strongly enforced in the days when international athletics was an amateur activity and only theoretically enforced in some other sports, eg Welsh Rugby Union. The communist countries never bothered with such nonsense so their athletes were all professionals usually serving in the army for cover!

Times have changed and I agree with Michael's assesment that amateur film makers can make films just as well (or badly) as the professionals. Particularly now that much of mainstream TV uses the old inept amateur styles as its model. This is an expensive activity and I agree that earning some support income from our expensive equipment makes sense and should not jeopardise our status. The only requirement is that "amateur" films are made for the sheer pleasure of film making with no expectation of reward regardless of who makes them.

ned C

[Dave Watterson]

Let's go off-topic, then! It was my topic and I don't mind.

As most of you know I'm not a film maker but a film enthusiast, so I have not had to face the amateur/professional issue in that arena. I do face it in other areas.

I run or assist with several websites on a voluntary basis. As a professional technical author I have also worked on websites for money. Recently I was offered a modest fee to do for one national charity the sort of work I do free for the other websites. I am reluctant to accept the commitment.

I also spend a fair amount of time translating and/or "polishing" texts for books, magazines, subtitles and committee documents. In my professional life I get well paid for that sort of thing. In the voluntary field I refuse rewards.

So by analogy with the film world I sympathise with the AMPS dictum which Ned mentioned: look at the work not the worker. Was the work done in the hope or expectation of substantial reward? Was it done for the joy of doing it or helping others?

In the days of amateur cine there were technical advantages for the professionals. The distinction is much less clear now. Yes, if you are earning your living by making videos you can justify spending more on kit. (For example - virtually every wild-life cinematographer owns his or her camera and rarely rents one.)

There is a clear advantage in being able to pay for professional work from actors, narrators and musicians. Lack of those skills spoils many a non-commercial fiction film.

On the other hand most professionals have to work to tight remits and deadlines. I think of a professional cameraman's job as being like a bus-driver's. It needs skill and experience, involves new challenges every day, but you have to drive the same route to the same timetable day in and day out. As an amateur driver you can go where you want to. As an amateur moviemaker you can make what you want to.

In an odd way it is easier to turn down a job or quit if it becomes miserable - when you are being paid. There is an equation: don't work and don't get paid. If I have agreed or offered to undertake something for a friend the moral obligation to complete it is much stronger.

So ... after that ramble ... I do not believe Ian or Michael have abandoned their "amateur" status by what they have mentioned doing. Nor do I think Ned's professional life as a cameraman and producer bars him from entering amateur competitions with work he makes as an amateur.

Willy and others have talked to me about some amateur film makers in countries which have a minority language. Those people make their movies as amateurs but seem to want to sell them to television. In order to meet the demand for programmes in the local language television buys them - and in tv terms they will be cheap programmes. By the AMPS rules such movies ought not to be in amateur movie competitions. The problem is proving intention.

Many years ago the traditional amateur movie club Finchley Cinevideo Society made a short called "The Anna Contract". They made it as amateurs and took part in competitions. It was spotted by a film distributor who bought it to use as the supporting film for a feature he was distributing. It is clear Finchley did not intend to make the film for money. In fact they did ... or maybe they gave the fee to charity, I don't know.

If it were possible to distinguish I'd happily accept a Finchley film in an amateur competition and would prefer to reject one made with the hope of selling to a tv station in Europe.

Dave

[Brian Saberton]

Delving into the depths of my memory I seem to recall seeing a competition many years ago where the rules stated that an amateur was deemed to be someone who did not earn more than 10% of their income from the hobby. I can't remember which competition it was, and it could have been for photographs.

[Willy]

Willy and others have talked to me about some amateur film makers in countries which have a minority language. Those people make their movies as amateurs but seem to want to sell them to television. In order to meet the demand for programmes in the local language television buys them - and in tv terms they will be cheap programmes. By the AMPS rules such movies ought not to be in amateur movie competitions. The problem is proving intention.
_____________________________________________________

I agree with all the things that you have written my friends, but ... let's compare the rules of our amateur film festivals :

BIAFF : "An amateur film or video is one that is deemed te be made for love, with no financial or other reward an without professional assistance".

Guernsey : "A non-commercial film or video is deemed to be one that is made for love, with no financial reward and without professional assistance other than processing, copying or the physical process of sound transfer."

Cotswolds : ""A" Amateur : (non professional) where the maker has no financial or commercial object and produced without professional assistance.

AMPS : "Productions made solely for fun and pleasure, for artistic expression ..., have not been subject of any sales or rental agreement ...

_____________________________________________________

I agree with all these rules. I don't have any problems with filmmakers who make films about weddings to earn some money. I don't have any problems with filmmakers who try to cover the costs of their films, ... but what do you think about the following things that really happened ? Should these filmmakers have had the right to enter amateur film festivals like the Cotswolds, BIAFF, Guernsey and AMPS ? :

1. You make a film for fun together with someone. After it has been finished your colleague asks you to sell this film to make as much money as possible. He has built a new conservatory and he needs money to pay the bill. Do you agree that he enters an amateur film festival ?

2. A filmmaker spends 6 weeks in a nature reserve in New Zealand. He doesn't have to pay for this journey at all. He gets all the money from a bank company. When the film has been finished he sells the film to a TV-channel. Do you agree that he enters an amateur film festival with this film ?

3. A filmmaker wins an international amateur film festival. He tries to sell his film telling people on a website that it is an excellent film because it has won an international competition. His film is also shown in cinemas as a secondary film. Do you agree that he enters an amateur film festival with this film ?

4. A filmmaker gets 60.000 euros to make a film. He enters an amateur film festival.... Do you agree with this ?

In my opinion fair play is very important. It's typically British ! _____________________________________________________

Some weeks ago I filmed in Guernsey together with my good Guernsey friends. Thanks to them I could limit the expenses. However I could not afford and take the risk to spend an other few weeks on the island. Next year I would like to go back to film seabirds and other things on the other smaller islands. If our film would have been sponsored we would have been able to finish our film in the course of 2008. Now we'll have to wait until October 2009 !

A festival is a competition. You compete with other hobbyists. That's fair. That why I regret that there is no "open category".
Only The Cotswolds allows professional filmmakers in a seperate category

[Willy]

Let's go off-topic, then! It was my topic and I don't mind.

Back on the right track ... !
We know that you are a welknown judge, Dave. Being a filmmaker or not... That doesn't matter. I agree with everything. Being an amateur filmmaker has its advantages. You can do what you want, etc... Working under pressure is not good. Though I'm not completely convinced and perhaps I'm the only one on this forum, but I'm also sure that I am voicing the feelings of many many other hobbyists.

The standard is higher now
The standard of filmmaking is higher than let's say 10 years ago "thanks" to the "contribution" of some filmmakers whose films are sponsored in an excessive way (50,000 - 60,000 euros) and who are eager to make money with them. They want spectacular things in their film and that is only possible when having enough funds.

Your choice
Imagine, Dave, the following two examples... How would you feeling when judging the following films ?

1. I've seen "The Mirror" made by a club in Southport. It's a film featuring 14-year old Carl who faces relationship problems - with his family, his friends an a particular girl. Carl's difficulty lies in finding someone to advise him but, because the others are busy running the hotel, the only one available is Alan Field, a 25-year old who lives with his grandmother... The production features 40 local actors, some from Southport Dramatic Club and Southport Youth Theatre.

In my opinion it is a good story. You also feel the enthusiasm of the young actors who worked together with a team of filmmakers who are not in their twenties, thirties or forties anymore. I've also seen "The Making Of"-film. However, there are some technical mistakes in this film. For instance the photography (composition), the choice of the angles (crossing the line), etc... I would give gold, but not gold plus. I fear that other judges would give less.

2. I've also seen a fantastic film made by very professional filmmakers. All the actors are TV-stars. The climax of the film is a woman being raped. That scene is very very rough. You can only ask professional actors to do this. The story is very powerful. That woman has ended up in a criminal environment because she needed money to be self-supporting and also to give her children all they need. There are no technical mistakes in this film... I would give this film an international medaillion and perhaps many special awards, having compared this film with other ones. I would give an international award but with a "nasty aftertaste".

In amateur film festivals the judges should always treat the hobbyists fairly, otherwise it's better not to encourage them to compete with filmmakers who have pure commercial intentions. Maybe I'm the only one who has that opinion on this forum but I don't want to play up to everybody here.

Therefore I am still in favour of festivals with "an open category" like in AMPS and other ones. Seperate the pure hobbyists from the pure moneymakers. Why is there not an "open category" in BIAFF anymore ? About 4-5 years ago there was one.

[stingman]

1. You make a film for fun together with someone. After it has been finished your colleague asks you to sell this film to make as much money as possible. He has built a new conservatory and he needs money to pay the bill. Do you agree that he enters an amateur film festival ?

2. A filmmaker spends 6 weeks in a nature reserve in New Zealand. He doesn't have to pay for this journey at all. He gets all the money from a bank company. When the film has been finished he sells the film to a TV-channel. Do you agree that he enters an amateur film festival with this film ?

3. A filmmaker wins an international amateur film festival. He tries to sell his film telling people on a website that it is an excellent film because it has won an international competition. His film is also shown in cinemas as a secondary film. Do you agree that he enters an amateur film festival with this film ?

4. A filmmaker gets 60.000 euros to make a film. He enters an amateur film festival.... Do you agree with this ?

In my opinion fair play is very important. It's typically British ! _____________________________________________________

Willy. On principle. I would not do any of the above. I would not want to be paid to do a film and then enter it into one of our competitions. It isn`t in my spirit or the spirit of what it`s all about. I would feel that i`m conning people.

I would however be willing to be paid money to do a film but I would NOT enter it into one of our competitions.
I am a believer in fair play (I get this from when I play 5-a-side football and 9-a-side outside on the astroturf).

I have no problems in charging someone when I film an event for them. It is only pocket money anyway. Say £20.00. That would cover the event and editing and putting it on DVD. This I do for non-close friends. You lot on here would get it for free! So you know how I feel about you all!

I still class myself as an ameuture because I make films for fun and pleasure. It`s a great feeling when you film, edit it and then watch it. You ALL know that.

Another thing has come to my mind.....

What if you got a full time job as a BBC cameraman. Would you still be an ameuture if you made a film for one of our competitions! Because making a film is more than just filming. You have to have some form of idea or scrypt, Film it, edit it etc, etc!

Just a thought!

[ned c]

There isn't an open category in AMPS, Willy, there are two categories, Student, which applies to films made by students and General, which applies to all other films regardless of who made them.

The main point of the AMPS Festival is that the films must not be made for financial gain. We do have one example where a winning film was subsequently sold on the Internet and we posted a statement withdrawing the award. Generally we would not have acted because we would have assumed that the film maker did not intend or expect the film to go on to a commercial life but in this case the AMPS awards figured in the promotional material. We do aim to maintain the spirit of the AMPS rules so read them carefully.

Sponsored films present a problem and we have clarified this so that non-commercial films sponsored by government agencies, both national and local (eg arts councils) are acceptable but films sponsored by commercial organisations are not acceptable.

Taking the examples,

1. This film is up for sale before the Festival so is a commercial film.
2. The NZ nature film is clearly a commercial production in every way and would not be accepted.
3. This is covered by my comments above.
4. It depends where the 60,000 Euros came from (government or commercial) and what is to happen to the film after it is produced.

ned c

[Peter]

Many years ago the traditional amateur movie club Finchley Cinevideo Society made a short called "The Anna Contract". They made it as amateurs and took part in competitions. It was spotted by a film distributor who bought it to use as the supporting film for a feature he was distributing. It is clear Finchley did not intend to make the film for money. In fact they did ... or maybe they gave the fee to charity, I don't know.

They did get paid for it as I remember - but they did not enter it anymore in any competitions after it hit the commercial screen. It was before my time mind you, so I may be wrong.