1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013
-
Dave Watterson
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
- Location: Bath, England
- Contact:
Re: 1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013
Oh Michael ... you did not read the notes on the IAC website or the Docutah website ... 45 minutes limit for shorts!!!
Re: 1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013
Hi Michael; I think you have confused DOCUTAH with the AMPS Festival. There is no time limit at DOCUTAH. Entries are in two length categories. Under 45 minutes are "shorts" over 45 minutes are "feature length" and there are awards in both categories. So be ready for next year!
We are still trying to arrange a new home for AMPS; there will be no AIFVF this year but hope it will reappear next year in a much better supported form.
ned c
We are still trying to arrange a new home for AMPS; there will be no AIFVF this year but hope it will reappear next year in a much better supported form.
ned c
-
Michael Slowe
- Posts: 809
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm
Re: 1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013
Sorry chaps, quite right, confused.com.
-
Peter Copestake
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:23 am
- Location: Colne, Lancashire
Re: 1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013
At the risk of boring people when, perhaps, the subject has run the course I have just noticed this from Ned's last piece -
many still think that giving a numerical value is somehow more accurate but in truth it is just subjectivity with numbers.
When the numbers are all given, ie for each part of the judgement as was the case in the late lamented Cotswold the maker can see quantitatively, as it were, the weight given to different criticism.
Audience appeal/entertainment value was marked out of 30 and creativity/originality/ approach to subject out of 20, so 50% of the marks were a matter of quite personal taste.
The other 50% were more technical and while personally I wouldn't put 'titles' as very important and linking them with 'editing' for 20% might undervalue the latter one can see at a glance which aspect let a film down.
Re-reading the comments on my last entry, Dalle de Verre, I realise how much thought has gone into them.
Thank you particularly, Dave & Jan.
many still think that giving a numerical value is somehow more accurate but in truth it is just subjectivity with numbers.
When the numbers are all given, ie for each part of the judgement as was the case in the late lamented Cotswold the maker can see quantitatively, as it were, the weight given to different criticism.
Audience appeal/entertainment value was marked out of 30 and creativity/originality/ approach to subject out of 20, so 50% of the marks were a matter of quite personal taste.
The other 50% were more technical and while personally I wouldn't put 'titles' as very important and linking them with 'editing' for 20% might undervalue the latter one can see at a glance which aspect let a film down.
Re-reading the comments on my last entry, Dalle de Verre, I realise how much thought has gone into them.
Thank you particularly, Dave & Jan.
Peter Copestake
Re: 1 2 3 4 5 STARS BIAFF 2013
Numbers are comforting; they give a sense of organization but this is only true if they are derived in a scientific way from a known standard. A temperature of 25 C a pleasant day; shirt sleeves in the garden; 5 C coat and scarf; we know where we are. But film is an art there are guidelines created by usage and ignored by the creative and original; there is no standard you can use. For example "Bonnie and Clyde" when first released was panned by many critics who later reversed their views; the world of art is full of creativity that went from condemnation to world renown. It seems to me that many amateur views of film art are based on the traditional 1940s/50s style of films; many of which are truly superb but time; technology and techniques have moved on and you can work in old styles and genres but success is based on the creative approach. As I have said before my criteria for a good film is that I want to know what will happen next and where the journey is taking me. If this is working at full pressure than jump cuts; crossing the line and other "rules" become irrelevant. Take the continuity of time; for example "Pulp Fiction" completely demolishes it; I love the film; you may hate it; I respect your view but both conclusions are subjective and reflect what we like not the measurement or application of numerical assessment!
ned c
ned c