Are we really getting better?

[Willy]

[quote="stingman

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!

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!

Films for pocket money
I am not against filmmaking for pocket money. For instance any amateur can make films about wedddings. These are not films for festivals. I am not against commercial filmmakers either. They can also make other films, films that are not commercialized.

Urbain Appeltans for instance had his own firm called "Cineac" (TV productions). It was printed on his car. Everyone could see it in the car park of the hotels where the international film festivals took place. Yes, and why not ?

His "Dimato", "Prinsje", "Hannah" are not for sale. He made these films for fun. His job was also his hobby. Now he is retired and he only makes films for fun.

TV-cameraman
I have a very good friend who is a cameraman for our national TV-channel. His name is Werner Vandenbulck. I encouraged him to enter the Guernsey Lily Festival. He will even go to Guernsey in October.

Holocaust Express
Indeed, Ian, making a film is more than just filming. That's what most people don't understand. Werner won a "highly commended" with his "Holocaust Express". See results Guernsey. I am sure that in the future he will even get better results. He has better films, but it was too late to subtitle them and to ask Dave to change my English into better English which he always does as a volunteer.

Respect
In my country pure amateurs should be more respected. Judges and organizers of festivals can do something about it. Of course, a judge does not always know whether a film has been made without commercial intentions. If organizers are only eager to show films with famous TV-stars ... to attract more people at their festivals, then they are wrong in my opinion.

[Dave Watterson]

In my country pure amateurs should be more respected. Judges and organizers of festivals can do something about it. Of course, a judge does not always know whether a film has been made without commercial intentions. If organizers are only eager to show films with famous TV-stars ... to attract more people at their festivals, then they are wrong in my opinion.

Here Willy has touched on something which does not happen so much in Britain or the USA ... professional actors being willing to take part in amateur productions. It does happen now and then - Alan Colegrave's "Reasons" is a fine example, as is Alisan Beadie's "The Party". But for the most part we don't ask ... and I suspect they might be unwilling to take part. But if you are a performer whose native tongue is a minority one - maybe you are more open to such enterprises to keep in practice and to develop your screen skills.

The great Catalan film maker, Jan Baca, always uses fine actors from theatre and television - these days thanks to his casting director, former star and friend Maria Josa who teaches acting and steers her best students and former students towards him. They are proud to have one of his films on their CVs and to have a copy for their portfolio.

But on the main point ... Willy has, as usual, put his finger on the problem. How do the judges - or to be realistic the competition managers - know which is and which is not a "genuine" amateur production?

Dave

[Dave Watterson]

Brian has got me scratching my head because I too have a vague recollection of one competition having that rule about maximum percentage of archive/stock footage but I cannot place it.

One of the many bees in my bonnet is the worship of numbers when it replaces common sense or judgement.

In a movie what matters is not the percentage of outside footage but how crucial it is to the film. If it is scene-setting, like wartime shots to establish an era, that's fine. If it is at the heart of the movie then 1% is too much! The music business has long known this and there have been court cases about melodic moments encapsulated in a tiny handful of notes being ripped off by other composers.

It is no secret that I don't like judging systems which ask me to score a movie with x points for this quality and y points for that. The numbers don't mean much. What matters is the overall impact of the film.

NO - I will not let myself get carried away on this topic. Yet.

Dave

PS One of my favourite humming songs is "1,3,5,8,7,6,9 ..." so in one post I've gone from "Gregory's Girl" to Spanky and Our Gang - I need to sleep more!

[Peter]

Here Willy has touched on something which does not happen so much in Britain or the USA ... professional actors being willing to take part in amateur productions. It does happen now and then - Alan Colegrave's "Reasons" is a fine example, as is Alisan Beadie's "The Party". But for the most part we don't ask ... and I suspect they might be unwilling to take part. Dave

I've only made one "serious" drama and I used two professional actors for the main parts. I had lots of replies and auditioned several. They were very keen to take part for very modest expenses only.

[stingman]

Again in this forum, we have touched the personal preferences thing. One person believes in one thing and the other person believes in something else.

I think this forum and it`s members have matured a bit ! A year ago we would be at each others throats and then saying our `sorry`. We are starting to accept each others views with an open mind.

Well done peeps. Even I have learn`t this!

I do still have mixed views on using proffesional actors through. It`s not with my spirit of what it`s all about. That`s my opinion.

[Peter]

I do still have mixed views on using proffesional actors through. It`s not with my spirit of what it`s all about. That`s my opinion.

Ian

I don't think there is anything wrong with using professional actors in an amateur production, as long as the crew and director - editor, lighting, etc are all amatuers from the club or society.

It also means the final drama is much better as so many club productions are ruined by the use of amateur actors, although sometimes they can be, and are of course, very good. (Finchley once used an actress who was an amateur but trying to become professional, and she was very good, BUT where would you place her ?? Amateur or professional?)

No, as long as they are not paid (other than expenses) and they are happy to get a DVD of the production, I don't see anything wrong. As well as this, its great experience for them, trying to break into the acting world, and they get a demo DVD or tape of their work to show when trying to get work, so it helps all round.

I know the two actors learnt a bit from my little drama, and I learnt a lot from them. It's a two way thing, and evryone gains. And they had great input into the whole thing. I can't speak highly enough of them and my superb (amateur!!) crew!!

[stingman]

I see where your coming from and I agree with you. The production will be a better polished affair.
The only thing I see (and in my heart) is that I would not put a film that has semi-pro people (who worked on it) into the IAC competition or any other ameauture one. That`s just me. If people do it, that`s fine by me. The whole point of these ameature comps is to show that us people can make good films and we learn by it and peoples reactions to it with judges comments.

It is a thin blue line which some people cross, some don`t. I don`t cross it, but then I am not in a position at the moment to consider crossing it. If the time arrises then I may cross it, I may not! I don`t know. It`s like temptation. If your married and this fantastic looking girl whispers something in your ear. Do you go with her or not. You don`t really know what your do untill you are in that positition!

[Peter]

If your married and this fantastic looking girl whispers something in your ear. Do you go with her or not. You don`t really know what your do untill you are in that positition!

Have you the fantastic girl's phone number?? If yes, then come on Ian, share it out!!!!!

[stingman]

Have you the fantastic girl's phone number?? If yes, then come on Ian, share it out!!!!!

Er, NO! I`m a family man born and bred !! There would be too much at stake and too much to lose if I was tempted. Believe it or not, I don`t like to hurt peoples feeling.

Now give me a videocamera and a paid `actress` then It could be done in the name of filming! After all, I am a director, actor, editor, soundman......... !
Who would care if I forgot again to put a tape in the camera!

[Willy]

Here Willy has touched on something which does not happen so much in Britain or the USA ... professional actors being willing to take part in amateur productions. It does happen now and then - Alan Colegrave's "Reasons" is a fine example, as is Alisan Beadie's "The Party". But for the most part we don't ask ... and I suspect they might be unwilling to take part. Dave

I've only made one "serious" drama and I used two professional actors for the main parts. I had lots of replies and auditioned several. They were very keen to take part for very modest expenses only.

_____________________________________________________

I am not against films with professional actors, Peter. Do not apologize. As long as they are members from your club or society, as you told us ... and as long as they are not paid.

In Belgium, however, one of our prominent filmmakers has made a film now with 12 TV-stars in it ! You can see them on TV almost every day. We know from other friends that they don't act in amateur films without being paid. Moreover the film is for sale. You can even see some parts of this film on a Belgian website. The "amateur" filmmaker promotes his film by saying that it won the first prize at an international film festival. It was ... an amateur international film festival ! That's something that I cannot accept.

The Party
Alisan Beadie's "The Party" was one of my favourites in BIAFF (Tunbridge Wells). The filmmaker has also won a special award for "best humour" at the Guernsey International Film Festival. Maybe the wonderful actress in "The Party" is in Alisan Beadie's club or she has acted without being paid. I enjoyed that film very much. It was very entertaining. We needed that film at BIAFF because all the other films were so "dead serious". It was a short (6 minutes) and pleasant intermezzo.

Why not OPEN CATEGORY ?
I am not even against films with well-paid actors in international festivals. We can learn something from these films, but they should be shown in an OPEN CATEGORY. I wonder why there is not an "open category" anymore at BIAFF. Five years ago, in Norwich, there was still one, because that prominent Belgian filmmaker won an international medallion, but ... in the open category ! I don't think I am wrong.

[ned c]

First, the Belgian film maker should have his award withdrawn because his film is obviously not a "non-commercial" production. In fact the absolute opposite. If he refuses then I would make a point of publicising that the award was in an AMATEUR Festival (ie "home movies", that should devalue his film) and ban him from entering future Festivals. There is no point complaining about such activities, act to stop them.

The whole point of non-commercial (amateur is a word that is now synonymos with inferior in the film making world) film making is that NO-ONE is PAID; to admit films made by paid crews and/or actors defeats the point. There are dozens of Festivals specifically for films made by people who are paid or hope to be paid when the film is a commercial success. These are fiecely competitive with many entries shot on 35 mm film.

The reasom for the Open category in the old days was for professionals who made films for fun. Now that many people who enter are "semi-professionals" (a loathsome term I feel, designed as an excuse for when it all goes wrong) the key issue is "To qualify this film must NOT be made for or expect financial reward and those making it must NOT receive any payment."

This is much clearer than trying to define the status of the makers, it clearly defines the status of the film.

ned c

[Willy]

First, the Belgian film maker should have his award withdrawn because his film is obviously not a "non-commercial" production. In fact the absolute opposite. If he refuses then I would make a point of publicising that the award was in an AMATEUR Festival (ie "home movies", that should devalue his film) and ban him from entering future Festivals. There is no point complaining about such activities, act to stop them.

We cannot stop them. In Belgium everything is politicized. Our Minister of Cultural Affairs has made a new umbrella organisation, called CvB. He is the boss now and he has created new jobs. Well-paid jobs. Also young people who have never made films or who have never shown any interest in making films have been given the task to run the organisation now. They don't bother about amateurism and professionalism (read maiking commercial films). They only want to see excellent films and photos. They appreciate films with lots of (well paid) TV stars. Acting is fighting windmills. Some film enthusiasts have already suggested making a new umbrella organisation that is independent from the offical one. If you act then you are declared "persona non grata". I wished that one of my Belgian friends would confirm what I am saying now on this forum. Anyhow, this is a Belgian problem... but we cannot stop them from taking part in international festivals. That's a pity. No I'm going to stop this discussion, but I think it was useful telling you all this.

[Dave Watterson]

Again Willy touches on an intriguing issue. I have heard similar views about their position from many other Belgian film friends. What may not be clear to readers in the UK and USA is that in Belgium film clubs get support from the government for their work. That goes through CvB, the body he mentioned. In the UK similar organisations are The Film Council and The Arts Council.

People in the UK sometimes complain that we rarely get any help from the state. They do not realise that there may be a price to pay. The officials in charge of handing out the money have an obligation to see it used properly. That means they formulate policies and strategies. If what you want to do fits in with their plans they can help you. If your plans are different, they cannot help.

There may or may not sometimes be additional factors like a desire to have demonstrable successes they can show to their political masters so that their funding can be continued or maybe even increased. (Cynics would add that this is a means of ensuring there is money to pay their salaries.)

The film appreciation groups in the UK went through roughly similar issues to the ones Willy mentions. They managed to get government help for their national body and for some events, even some money to pass on to individual clubs. This was great, but all the film clubs had to bow - to some extent - to the policies of the funders.

The old saying is that he who pays the piper calls the tune - so it makes some sense that the grant-givers can impose rules on those they help. The catch is that the greater part of the actual work is being done by people voluntarily in their own leisure time. So any success the national policy may have is actually achieved by the unpaid devotion of individuals as much as the clever strategies of the administrators.

So if enough Belgian film makers and clubs decided not to kow-tow to the CvB they could probably do so - but they could not expect to continue to get funding and support from it. Once you have had funding it is very difficult to do without it.

I do not want to focus on Belgium - a country in which all sorts of issues are politicised because of its diverse cultures - everything has to be considered in terms of the Flemish / French split for a start. (Besides there are so many wonderful Belgian people and film friends I want to keep ... and the chocolate ... and the beers ... )

I just want to suggest that this could be an example of the risks involved in seeking more state help for our movement.


Dave

[Peter]

So if enough Belgian film makers and clubs decided not to kow-tow to the CvB they could probably do so - but they could not expect to continue to get funding and support from it. Once you have had funding it is very difficult to do without it.

I do not want to focus on Belgium - a country in which all sorts of issues are politicised because of its diverse cultures - everything has to be considered in terms of the Flemish / French split for a start. (Besides there are so many wonderful Belgian people and film friends I want to keep ... and the chocolate ... and the beers ... )

I just want to suggest that this could be an example of the risks involved in seeking more state help for our movement.


Dave

This is totally true. Governments always want their pound of flesh. That is why it is better for the money to made available by the state but handed out with no strings attached by an independent body. Trouble is that so called "independent bodies" have their chief officers appointed by the government, either directly or independently, by someone carrying out their wishes. That's how the BBC, the Arts Council, the House of Lords, and you name it, all work by government approval. There is a short word to describe it - "corruption."

[stingman]

(Peter: This is totally true. Governments always want their pound of flesh. That is why it is better for the money to made available by the state but handed out with no strings attached by an independent body. Trouble is that so called "independent bodies" have their chief officers appointed by the government, either directly or independently, by someone carrying out their wishes. That's how the BBC, the Arts Council, the House of Lords, and you name it, all work by government approval. There is a short word to describe it - "corruption." End Peter)

This is of course very true. Each body will also take their cut of the money as well!!! So only a really small percentage gets to the right place.

But don`t bring the BBC into this please. This is one of the best things that England has, After The Queen. God Bless Her.

I won`t discuss this further either! Some things are best left open in closed doors so not to offend anyone of our friends in this forum.

As you can tell. I`ve been puntched so many times in Arguments (theroyetically) that I learn`t not to get so involved in certain things. You lose friends and chums over the stupidist things.

Thanks.