How do young people feel about our name?

IAC General Discussions
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

How do young people feel about our name?

Post by billyfromConsett »

I ask this question, that came up on another thread, and which might have a bearing on our whole organisation.

When a young person who makes movies sees our name - Institute of Amateur Cinematographers does that encourage them to be part of us, have a neutral effect on him/her, or at the other extreme, does it sound old fashioned and miles away from youtube or myspace; where many are posting their movies on the net?

For to me, even the word 'amateur' now has slightly lower esteem value than maybe it used to.
User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman »

Institute of Amateur Cinematographers does sound a bit 1880`s. It sounds like a work house. What about The Amateur Film-Makers Assosation.
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
User avatar
fraught
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Post by fraught »

Personally... i really like the words Institute and Cinematographer. Its the Amateur bit that i'm not 100% sure of.

I find that its quite impressive to say that you are a member of the Institute for Amateur Cinematographers. It certainly sounds respectable, and that it takes itself seriously... but the problem is, does it take itself too seriously? I dont think a change of name is required to be honest... but there are other changes that certainly need to happen.
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Post by billyfromConsett »

stingman wrote: What about The Amateur Film-Makers Assosation.
This is obvioulsy a subject that may be controversial.

It's the amateur bit. How would you feel if somebody called your movies amateurish?
User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman »

You do have a point Billy. I wouldn`t like someone to call my films `amateurish!`. That would be bad!

I seem to be going soft in my old age. I seem to be agreeing with everyone :shock: !!
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Post by Dave Watterson »

For several years now the official version of the name has been

IAC - the film & video institute

Several similar organisations around Europe have been finding ways to drop the word "amateur". I broadly agree ...

BUT

We may be in danger of focusing too much on the top end of non-commercial film making. Our movement and its clubs exist for all interested movie makers. The vast majority make films which could be called amateurish ... and why not?

A minority of IAC people want to reach the standards of top international competitions. Great. Many more just want to make their holiday and family videos a little better.

Dave
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Post by ned c »

Institute - an archaic word that better defines a body approving professional qualifications than a group of film/video makers.

Amateur - marginally better than "home movie maker" I suppose but see my earlier post for the modern definition. This is not about being PC but acknowledging that English is a live language and the meaning of words changes.

Cinematographers - I am sure that everyone who writes on this forum is much more than a cinematographer (or even worse word, videographer). We are film/movie makers and have to be skilled in much more than the acquisition of the pictures.

I suppose it all depends on what we want for organisations like clubs and the IAC. A club should offer skills/equipment not readily available to the individual and the opportunity to learn. Traditionally there has also been a social aspect to club membership.

The IAC is a co-ordinating national body that cares for the wider interests, eg the copyright clearances, the BIAFF, the journal, general communication and the distribution of a wide range of n-c films. There is no doubt that generally clubs are in decline so the action should move to the IAC to serve a new world of shifting groups that come together to make films. As communication moves to the Internet then age is irrelevant - guess my age from my writings!!!

I suspect that the traditional club will fade away to be replaced by small "film units" who get together to make a film and then go their separate ways. However, we will still need the IAC or something like it, we sadly lack anything quite like it here in the USA.

However if we want to promote and broaden the membership of the IAC then accept that this is the age of "image" and if we have an old fashioned image then, perhaps unfairly, we will not progress. I feel the IAC needs rebranding with appropriate name and logo that is 21st century rather than 1930s.

ned c
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Post by billyfromConsett »

Dave Watterson wrote:I broadly agree ...

BUT

We may be in danger of focusing too much on the top end of non-commercial film making. Our movement and its clubs exist for all interested movie makers. The vast majority make films which could be called amateurish ... and why not?
Many people don't want to be labelled amateurish. If that suggestion is even silently there is the hard fact, then I'm asking if it's part of the reasons why young film-makers aren't attracted to our clubs. I wonder why our clubs find it so hard to publise to people younger than about 45.

If our campaigning and marketing is either not being done at all, or not achieving a growth in our club's members (affecting IAC membership), then it might be worth trying to find out why.

If there is a danger (maybe the danger could be more clear to me) of some of us focusing attention on high standards needed to achieve in the film-making world, then let's not go there. I'd only want to help us survive, not bring the whole thing crashing down.

But I personally have been inspired recently by the work of a guy whose first movie was a 50min drama that he premiered in a local theatre - on a big screen with good sound.

All of us won't do stuff like that, and many will be content to do as they always have film wise. Which is fine, except that our age group seems to be getting older and older. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm guessing.

The rising age group seems the bigger danger to me, which could be partly caused by us not connecting with younger film-makers.

I feel a tad guilty that Fraught's post didn't catch my eye, and that I didn't support him at the time. But it's hard work when we're in a minority amongst Club and IAC members
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Post by billyfromConsett »

ned c wrote:I suspect that the traditional club will fade away to be replaced by small "film units" who get together to make a film and then go their separate ways. However, we will still need the IAC or something like it, we sadly lack anything quite like it here in the USA. ned c
Can't agree with that, and its not my vision at all. The club does have a place, and we at Newcastle have increased our membership recently by working hard and looking for those folks who will both add and be a part of our club.
ned c wrote:However if we want to promote and broaden the membership of the IAC then accept that this is the age of "image" and if we have an old fashioned image then, perhaps unfairly, we will not progress. I feel the IAC needs rebranding with appropriate name and logo that is 21st century rather than 1930s.ned c
That's a very big step that I doubt could happen. The IAC is very much alive and kicking despite any feet in the past. There's loads being done for the best, but I don't think though that we shouldn't leave any idea well out in the cold.
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Post by ned c »

I wonder if the situation in the Newcastle club is representative of club experience in the UK? Obviously you all do an excellent job and I learnt from your earlier posts about some of the methods used to keep your club alive and well.

Unfortunately here in the USA a number of clubs have closed their doors over the past three or four years. The commonest problem is an aging membership and a lack of new people willing to take on the club management.

I believe the IAC does a fine job but I think it could be grown with the right image because it has something worthwhile to offer to a wider group of film makers.

ned c [/quote]
User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman »

As to the average age of members in our clubs. I`m being honest now and don`t wish to offend anyone.......

As most of you all know, the average age of our club members is about 75. We have lost two members (through bad treatment, same old story!) and two deaths. We havn`t had new members for at least 2 years. If a club doesn`t get new members then it will die a slow death. So will it`s members who get health problems and don`t come because of this or there dead!

If we truely love our clubs and it`s members then we should really do something really quickly. I love my club members. They are a wonderful buntch of people and ALWAYS willing to help out with problems. It`s a shame it isn`t mutual with them towards me. Say La Vie. Life goes on!
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Brian Saberton
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by Brian Saberton »

The debate about the age profile in clubs has cropped up many times before and I can recollect this issue being discussed as far back as the 1970's. It's a similar story with the name of the IAC and although, as Dave points out, the official title was changed some time ago I think most of us simply refer to it as the IAC which is probably how it is best known, much like commercial companies like BP, Esso or ICI. Changing the name of an established organisation can be very dodgy though, witness what happened when the Post Office became Consignia. At my club we changed our name from Dalziel Cine and Video Club, to Dalziel Camcorder Club in the interests of being more modern but it did absolutely nothing to attract new members, young or otherwise. Perhaps what we do is more important than the name.

I believe that clubs should welcome members of any age but it is very difficult to attract new people and the amateur film movement is not unique in this respect as you will find many club based operations telling a similar story. In Scotland some of our clubs are doing really well in attracting a sizeable membership but others, like my own club, are struggling. I'm also a member of a camera club and we are beginning to see an upturn, especially among younger photographers, with some clubs reporting large numbers of new members attracted, we think, because of digital which has been embraced enthusiastically by clubs and federations without many of the traumas that accompanied the switch from cine to video.

There is no easy answer, if there were we would all have done it. Anyone who is in full time employment will be only too well aware of the time pressures that this imposes nowadays, leaving very little time, if any, to take up other activities. Most young people (i.e under 20) seem to prefer the company of their peers in our rather compartmentalised society and in any case many seem to see the amateur (sorry) non-commercial scene as a potential stepping stone to getting into the commercial film-making sector and don't stay around too long. It's all a great shame but times change.

At least the IAC can act as a federation for all the disparate groups and individuals that are involved in film making, and the quality of the best work that is coming into BIAFF these days is impressive and quite eclectic. Traditionally, the clubs have catered for the hobbyist (is this another non-PC word?) so perhaps that could be the niche market, in todays jargon,to aim at but how to go about it is quite another matter and I wish I had the answer.
Brian Saberton
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

HowDo Young People Feel About Our Name?

Post by Michael Slowe »

This is a long overdue topic for dicussion on this forum and I hope 'the powers that be' are listening.

Certainly the IAC is doing an admirable job as far as it goes in uniting film makers and giving them a forum, competitions, meetings, magazine, library etc etc. How do people learn of its existance? I had been entering the old Ten Best years before I knew about the IAC back in the 60's. It was only when I happened to see an IAC label on a film can that I was prompted to make enquiries and even in those days the word 'institute' struck me as sounding rather stuffy.

I take all the points made so far and wouldn't suggest changing 'IAC' since it is a brand and many of the public probably don't know what ICI or EMI stand for. I like the definition that Brian Saberton defined when he said we are a Federation of Film Makers. Not a club as such but all associated in the same undertaking.

Now, the real point of the discussion is how to get the youngsters who are making so many films (videos) but who we don't see. Firstly the question of our image has to be addressed, maybe even by a professional in this field, because that is vital. Secondly, although I have never been a great fan of films on the net I have recently become converted by seeing the most wonderful quality material on both PSYNEMA.com and a site called Miro. The net is where the youngsters show their own and view other people's work and we have to seduce them to our 'federation' as well.

Finally, a brief comment on one of Wartterson's points. We DO have to aim at making the best non commercial films, why would anyone be upset by that? If we don't then we deserve the label amateurish which, surely, is what we want to avoid.

The clubs can be as amateurish as they want (IF they want which I doubt) but the IAC, as our flagship so to speak should aim to promote the highest standards available to it.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

When Caithness Arts was being established a few years back the name was the subject of much debate. I wasn't keen on the word "Arts" because of it's high-brow feel. I wanted a word that would draw in younger people. The word "arts" is very separate from movies and music and as such, your typical 'arts' person tends not to include the latter in the 'arts' bracket. Movies and music are the two areas where almost all young people begin to find an interest in the arts.
What has to be achieved within a name is to bring a concise description of what the organisation represents whilst also giving it's members a feeling of being part of something bigger and being an important part of that organisation.
The Institute Of Amateur Cinematographers is an established name well known to film industry so it would be a shame to lose it but...
Amateur as a word is often mis-understood to meaning 'less well made'.
Institute suggests either education (no bad thing) or asylum for mentally insane( possibly an accurate description of us).
Cinematographer, whilst a lovely word that sounds better than videographer, is only one job in movie making- we encompass all aspects of film production.
So how do we make a name that covers what we do, attracts the young and continues the tradition of amateur film making in the UK?
Ray Williamson
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:08 pm

Post by Ray Williamson »

I think some of you are confusing "Institute" with "Institution".
The latter being the workhouse or lunatic asylum.

Others will no doubt draw their own conclusions as to whether IAC members should be in either of those institutions!
Ray Williamson, East Sussex.
Post Reply