Jameela

A forum for sharing views on the art of film, video and AV sequence making as well as on competitions, judging and festivals.
User avatar
John Simpson
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Jameela

Post by John Simpson »

Great picture, all three of you look so happy, and as you say the sunshine and the blossom really set the picture off.

I have now read all this thread and my view is the modern environment of increasing video platforms on the internet it is amazing what BIAFF has been able to achieve. The fact that many of the IAC regions with their film festivals are struggling bears witness to the fact that running film festivals is not easy. The amount of effort people, especially David Newman put into the festival is commendable. I would suggest that as long as BIAFF can keep going it should do so without too much change, the films entered could do the changing as trends change, and there is nothing stopping any sort of film being entered - if the filmmaker believes in the film they have made then the star rating could be peripheral, it still has the opportunity to get a bit of extra publicity

BIAFF is only part of the IAC and I'm sure there is opportunity for anyone including myself or Jameela to explore any initiatives.
User avatar
TimStannard
Posts: 1128
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Jameela

Post by TimStannard »

Michael Slowe wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 10:30 pm Tim, were you joking when you commented on the lack of dissolves in my film? The whole point was to have decisive cuts, hopefully to accompany appropriate audio. Dissolves do have a part to play in the language of film but they should have a purpose surely?
Yes, Michael. My comment was firmly a tongue in cheek reference to an earlier conversation(when Howard brought it up, itself a reference to the conversation on this forum).
I made the comment about your film specifically because it was a perfect example of how dissolves would have killed it.
Tim
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
User avatar
TimStannard
Posts: 1128
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Jameela

Post by TimStannard »

John Simpson wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 1:26 pm Tim says he thinks nurses and teachers need to be properly trained, I agree, there is a gold standard. But I think the argument in the forum is that there is not such a gold standard in film making.
I stand by my statement. There is a gold standard in film making. The gold standard is all the "boring" stuff, the technical stuff. Whether a shot is in focus, basic rules of composition, audio that does not have distracting background noise etc etc. This does not mean it is a set of rules from which any deviation is considered substandard. It is an understanding of such rules which can help the artist express themseleves or the communicate their message effectively by a mixture of following or breaking those rules.

In the same way, a knowledge of all the "technical" stuff does not make someone a good or a bad nurse. However I'd rather be cared for by one who does have the medical knowledge. Fortunately, watching a film made in portrait by someone who continually hosepipes and on which the audio is obscured by wind noise is not likely to result in serious medical consequences.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting there isn't a place for work which is technically poor (I suspect that I am not alone with never being satisfied with my own technical competence). What I am suggesting is that it is much easier to learn (and therefore teach) technical skills than to have ideas and vision and that people who submit a technically poor film should be given the information they need to understand why their film was not as effective as it might have been.
John Simpson wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 1:26 pm I refer again to very sucessful "professional" TV series such as "This Country" which is dummed down and has a lot of what might be called candid filming.
John, I think your example backs up my argument for technical competence. The makers know exactly what they are doing and understand how to construct shots. What we are looking at appears to be roughly shot but it is far from it. Composition, exposure, focus, colour consistency are all what we might call "traditional". Sound is very clear. The only aspect I can see which appear to divert from the traditional "gold standard" are the constant zooming, shaky camera, and the hosepiping.
But there are very cleverly done. We notice the zooms but they are rarely extreme and they go from A to B (compare this with typical poorly shot footage where people overshoot then reign back or zoom in and then reframe). The shaky camera shots always have what the director wants us to focus on within the frame (again, in poor shaky shots, the subject will often leave or partially leave the frame). The hosepiping is not searching around for a subject upon which to settle, it is clearly directing the viewers' attention to a specific.
Tim
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it
User avatar
John Simpson
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Jameela

Post by John Simpson »

Jameela M Boardman wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 3:14 pm I just wanted to show an alternative brighter possible future, and how the IAC could become attractive to serious younger filmmakers.
Jameela
The younger film makers who have been invited to be BIAFF judges in recent years seem to have settled in well and enjoyed themselves, but they do lead busy lives. Perhaps the IAC and BIAFF could be happy to be seen as a stepping stone to a career in the film industry, a lot has changed in the film industry since the beginning of the IAC in 1932. For a start it is not owning the techology or money for film which may have controlled whether people made a film. It is more about the desire, to say something in the form of a film. Is a person prepared to set aside the time to learn the skills ect and make a decent film. There is a certain amout of Marxism about it, nearly everybody has the "means of production". But do they have the Va Va Vom?
Post Reply