When is a film your own?

A forum for sharing views on the art of film, video and AV sequence making as well as on competitions, judging and festivals.
Post Reply
Dave Watterson

When is a film your own?

Post by Dave Watterson » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:33 am

When judging all I normally care about is what I see on screen and hear from
the loudspeakers.

But recently I was faced with a movie paying tribute to Scots-Canadian animator
Norman McLaren. My fellow judges loved it. I did too, but pointed out that
most of what I loved was the McLaren work shown in extract through the movie.

On another occasion I saw a video which was a tribute to the maker's brother,
a successful climber who shot a lot of super-8 on the mountains. The climbing
material was great, despite the transfer quality. The linking material was
pedestrian.

So how should such works be judged?

If I only care about what I see and hear then both rate good marks. If I
deduct what elements of quality came from elsewhere then it is another story
...

But if I start down that slope, what about the many movies where music lifts
and enhances the film. Do I discount that because the film maker did not
create the music?

It is probably not practical these days to make a movie which does not have
some input from an outside source - if only in the soundtrack.

Ideas, please?

Dave

ned c

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by ned c » Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:50 pm

I think the creator of the work is the director and most film making outside
the amateur world is a co-operative activity and the director gets the primary
credit "A Film by Ken Russell". There has been a very successful series on
TV here created entirely from still photographs on such topics as the Civil
War, Baseball and Jazz, the director, Ken Burns is regarded as the creator
of theses films. It is how the material is used in the compilation of the
film that matters. The climbing film should not receive accolades if the
construction is pedestrian. Itwould be useful to the film maker to offer
some suggestions on how to make the best use of the S8 material. It is the
total effect that matters not the constituent parts

Ned C



"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
When judging all I normally care about is what I see on screen and hear
from
the loudspeakers.

But recently I was faced with a movie paying tribute to Scots-Canadian animator
Norman McLaren. My fellow judges loved it. I did too, but pointed out that
most of what I loved was the McLaren work shown in extract through the movie.

On another occasion I saw a video which was a tribute to the maker's brother,
a successful climber who shot a lot of super-8 on the mountains. The climbing
material was great, despite the transfer quality. The linking material was
pedestrian.

So how should such works be judged?

If I only care about what I see and hear then both rate good marks. If I
deduct what elements of quality came from elsewhere then it is another story
..

But if I start down that slope, what about the many movies where music lifts
and enhances the film. Do I discount that because the film maker did not
create the music?

It is probably not practical these days to make a movie which does not have
some input from an outside source - if only in the soundtrack.

Ideas, please?

Dave

Willy Van der Linden

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Willy Van der Linden » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:15 pm

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
When judging all I normally care about is what I see on screen and hear
from
the loudspeakers.

I have a similar problem sometimes. In Belgium you often see films made by
divers who made a trip to the Red Sea for instance. The colours are always
fantastic. The tropical fish are so beautiful ! The shots of sharks and other
seamonsters are spectacular. Last year there was a diver who had made a trip
to South-East Asia. He dived into the sea with his camera about 100 times
he told us. Perhaps he exaggerated, but anyway I enjoyed his magic underwaterworld.
He had also added fine music to it. Again it was a difficult film to judge.
I hesitated a bit because I thought : perhaps the fish have made his film
wonderful.

Ian Gardner

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Ian Gardner » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:35 am

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
When judging all I normally care about is what I see on screen and hear
from
the loudspeakers.

But recently I was faced with a movie paying tribute to Scots-Canadian animator
Norman McLaren. My fellow judges loved it. I did too, but pointed out that
most of what I loved was the McLaren work shown in extract through the movie.

On another occasion I saw a video which was a tribute to the maker's brother,
a successful climber who shot a lot of super-8 on the mountains. The climbing
material was great, despite the transfer quality. The linking material was
pedestrian.

So how should such works be judged?

If I only care about what I see and hear then both rate good marks. If I
deduct what elements of quality came from elsewhere then it is another story
..

But if I start down that slope, what about the many movies where music lifts
and enhances the film. Do I discount that because the film maker did not
create the music?

It is probably not practical these days to make a movie which does not have
some input from an outside source - if only in the soundtrack.

Ideas, please?

Dave
I think david likes to hit on peoples nerves and get them going! As david
knows, this is a hurtfull subject and relates to two examples in our club.
Both were club projects for two different subjects. One last year and one
this year. To cut a long story short. Both projects had (say) five cameraman
and the same director.
Last years film was to film a water mill. For this example were say two
films are made of it. One involves the club film with it`s five cameraman.
The other film involves a film filmed by one person. My argument would say
that the film with the five in would stand a better chance of winning the
comp as it is better to have more ideas (camera angles) then if a film was
done by one person. Your going to have more ideas and more footage to play
with. I said that it souldn`t have been entered. I entered a film that I
had spent days filming and weeks editing. first I edit out all the crap shots.
I then edit it into some sort of story. I then edit it down to the required
length for the comp. This is the hardest bit. I sould have won it alone on
editing. Anyway, there film won!

The second example is this years film. Remember five cameramen. The srory
goes like this. The `director` organises a film to be made of his local Bowls
club. This is to encourage young people to play bowls. This is filmed by
the fivemembers. It is then edidted. After this I fell out with two of the
camera people and the director. (I wasn`t envolved in this project, I fell
out over a different matter, but three of the people worked on this project.
The director said he would not enter it into the Doc comp. He lied and did
a doc comp entry and gave the full credit to the number one trouble maker!
It didn`t win but I was very annoyed as this person didn`t even edit it.
They had only a 20% stake in it. I entered my `Fast train to paris`, and
it came second to last. I was a bit annoyed but you all know what I think
of some judges! especally at local club level. It`s their opinion against
a real life audience.
One example I have thought of is that if we can use `other peoples footage`
then I could `nick` some stuff off of a BBC documentry, pad it out abit with
flashey graphics and call it my work!
I is hard. Thats why I try to film everything myself. I feel that music
is a bit different. I can film anything I want to but my `making music` may
be a bit bad. It`s not but it could be.
Over to you all.

Ian (Have written a good and very calm reply considering what i`ve been through)
Gardner

PS. I learn`t alot this year and have found it best to just give in to it
all or just keep one`s mouth closed because some people cannot say sorry
or don`t know how to have a debate without everything going there way. I
better stop now or I will throw my cordless keyboard out of the window!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Watterson

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Dave Watterson » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:36 pm

"Ian Gardner" <ian@gardner44.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I think david likes to hit on peoples nerves and get them going!
No, Ian, I did not mean to bring this touchy subject up - I know from our
private emails that you have had more than enough of it. I really was only
asking how people feel about films which incorporate large chunks of professional
footage in particular ...

Dave

Ian Gardner

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Ian Gardner » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:51 am

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
"Ian Gardner" <ian@gardner44.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

I think david likes to hit on peoples nerves and get them going!

No, Ian, I did not mean to bring this touchy subject up - I know from our
private emails that you have had more than enough of it. I really was only
asking how people feel about films which incorporate large chunks of professional
footage in particular ...

Dave
I know Dave. I`m not moaning! During the summer months, all newsgroups and
forums go slack. We need alot of different subjects going to wet our peoples
appritights! The more dogie ones seem to get better responces.
Keep them coming David. I seem to look at this forum 24/7! or at least once
a day.
Our clubs got it`s BBQ and award giving tonight! I must remember to take
my big bag on my motorbike to carry home my Video Maker of the year cup!
(again). I must remember to pay my subs otherwise they may cancell my membership!

See you soon

Ian Gardner.

Guest

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Guest » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:57 pm

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
When judging all I normally care about is what I see on screen and hear
from
the loudspeakers.

It is probably not practical these days to make a movie which does not have
some input from an outside source - if only in the soundtrack.

Ideas, please?

A good question, Dave. I think I understand the problem better now. Do you
remember Douglas Boswell's "Foxtrot" ? It was a film about a sinking submarine.
Douglas used many shots from professional films. As an amateur it is not
possible to ask the captain of a submarine to make a trip at sea so that
you can film it from another boat. That's why Douglas used these professional
long shots in his film. But most shots were taken by him in the submarine
itself. As long as the film maker is creative himself then it's OK, I think.
Some years ago we decided in our region to accept a maximum of 25 % of professional
film shots in documentaries. I think it was a good idea.

My film for next year will be about my two great-uncles who died in Flanders'
Fields. One of my aunts still has a photograph of the two boys standing next
to each other and wearing a uniform. I also found the original mortuary cards
! Last week I was in that part of Flanders to film Ypres (Wipers), Tyne Cot,
but also the war graves of the Germans and Belgians. In Langemark more than
44,000 German soldiers are buried ! It's unbelievable. That commander-in-chief
called Haig was a war criminal ! He wanted to be victorious but for that
hundreds of young men had to perish ! Of course I was also surprised by
the number of British and Canadian war graves.

Now I'm looking for some archive film shots taken on the battle field of
Passendale (Passiondale). I saw a film on TV in the Museum of Passendale.
I filmed it but now you can see that the quality is even worse than the original
film on a. I think that they were given to the Museum of Passendale by the
Imperial War Museum. In Passendale there was an enormous surprise for me
: the narrator of that film was ... Colin Howett, my own narrator ! He has
never told me anything about it.

So after all, the original film shots in my own film "Two Brothers, Two Heroes"
(After some time I my change the title) will last not longer than 1 minute.
The length of my film : perhaps 15 minutes. It will be a short documentary
this time. That's what I hope. So I think that original and professional
film shots should be accepted, but the film maker must show that he has been
creative himself.

If anyone can find some original images of the Battle of "Passion Dale"
or any other place in Flanders' Fields for me, then I would be very grateful.
There is only one other little problem. For the first time I'm making a 16:9
film, but I think I can change the 4:3 size into 16:9 I think.

Willy Van der Linden

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Willy Van der Linden » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:42 pm

"Willy Van der Linden" vanderlindenhig|telenet.be wrote:

A good question, Dave. I think I understand the problem better now...
I don't understand why my email address appeared on the forum. Did I do anything
wrong again ?
Willy

Dave Watterson

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by Dave Watterson » Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:07 am

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:
I don't understand why my email address appeared on the forum. Did I do
anything
wrong again ?
For some reason if you start a new thread (from the list of "latest items"
click "Post") your email address does not appear. Whenever you respond to
a thread someone else has started, your email address appears.

If you prefer not to publish your real email address, make one up!

That said, I always use one of my real email addresses and get very little
spam on it.

Dave

ned c

Re: When is a film your own?

Post by ned c » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:59 pm

Try http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.00g004 this is the Imperial
War Museum site. They have lots of film and photos of WW1

Ned C




"Willy Van der Linden" vanderlindenhig|telenet.be wrote:
A good question, Dave. I think I understand the problem better now. Do you
remember Douglas Boswell's "Foxtrot" ? It was a film about a sinking submarine.
Douglas used many shots from professional films. As an amateur it is not
possible to ask the captain of a submarine to make a trip at sea so that
you can film it from another boat. That's why Douglas used these professional
long shots in his film. But most shots were taken by him in the submarine
itself. As long as the film maker is creative himself then it's OK, I think.
Some years ago we decided in our region to accept a maximum of 25 % of
professional
film shots in documentaries. I think it was a good idea.

My film for next year will be about my two great-uncles who died in Flanders'
Fields. One of my aunts still has a photograph of the two boys standing
next
to each other and wearing a uniform. I also found the original mortuary
cards
! Last week I was in that part of Flanders to film Ypres (Wipers), Tyne
Cot,
but also the war graves of the Germans and Belgians. In Langemark more than
44,000 German soldiers are buried ! It's unbelievable. That commander-in-chief
called Haig was a war criminal ! He wanted to be victorious but for that
hundreds of young men had to perish ! Of course I was also surprised by
the number of British and Canadian war graves.

Now I'm looking for some archive film shots taken on the battle field of
Passendale (Passiondale). I saw a film on TV in the Museum of Passendale.
I filmed it but now you can see that the quality is even worse than the
original
film on a. I think that they were given to the Museum of Passendale by the
Imperial War Museum. In Passendale there was an enormous surprise for me
: the narrator of that film was ... Colin Howett, my own narrator ! He
has
never told me anything about it.

So after all, the original film shots in my own film "Two Brothers, Two
Heroes"
(After some time I my change the title) will last not longer than 1 minute.
The length of my film : perhaps 15 minutes. It will be a short documentary
this time. That's what I hope. So I think that original and professional
film shots should be accepted, but the film maker must show that he has
been
creative himself.

If anyone can find some original images of the Battle of "Passion Dale"

or any other place in Flanders' Fields for me, then I would be very grateful.
There is only one other little problem. For the first time I'm making a
16:9
film, but I think I can change the 4:3 size into 16:9 I think.

Michael Slowe

Watterson Spam

Post by Michael Slowe » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:16 am

That's because you are a Scot! You probably get loads of haggis though.

Michael S.


"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
That said, I always use one of my real email addresses and get very little
spam on it.

Dave

Ian Gardner

Re: Watterson Spam

Post by Ian Gardner » Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:39 am

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
That's because you are a Scot! You probably get loads of haggis though.

Michael S.
OUCH! Don`t say that or were get a my countrys better then your country flame
war!
We already know that Englands Greener then everywhere else. Matbe it`s because
were piping all the Scotish down into England!!

Ian (God Bless The Queen) Gardner

Post Reply