Should we ape TV or create our own styles?

[Dave Watterson]

The great Italian non-commercial movie maker, Rolf Mandolesi, argued in the latest UNICA News magazine that we should not be seeking to imitate television in the way we shoot documentaries. He thinks we should be trying to do more, to get the shots tv does not have time to wait for or set-up.

On the one hand audiences are used to television-style documentaries, so there is a built-in comfort factor if you use that. Hopefully people will find the style transparent and concentrate on the subject.
On the other hand by giving our (usually) short documentaries a distinctive visual or editing style, perhaps we can give emphasis to subjects in a way which will stir the audience more than the conventional approach.

Is that asking too much?

Dave

[ned c]

The problem we face is that our primary audience is other n-c film makers who have their own ideas on what constitutes a good film which is often quite different to what an audience of non-film makers appreciates. Broadcast TV is a voracious beast and virtually every subject imaginable has been tackled by it and in virtually every conceivable way. What does Mr Mandolesi have in mind, an example would be helpful?

For me the future is towards more personal films, I write poetry and am trying to combine that with moving images but these have a very limited audience and my entry in a couple of Festivals did not do well!

It is interesting that non-film makers seem to appreciate this effort as I have been asked for a number of copies so I see my audience as outside the traditional n-c movie circuit. I agree with Mr Mandolesi that we n-c film makers must break away from the constraints of the commercial world but recognise that the judges at Festivals seem to be steeped in a very traditional view of cinema so don't expect any prizes!!

ned c

[Willy]

For me the future is towards more personal films, I write poetry and am trying to combine that with moving images but these have a very limited audience and my entry in a couple of Festivals did not do well!
I agree with Mr Mandolesi that we n-c film makers must break away from the constraints of the commercial world but recognise that the judges at Festivals seem to be steeped in a very traditional view of cinema so don't expect any prizes!!
ned c

Incognito ?
Everybody has his own distinctive or editing style. Imagine that we enter a film incognito, so without using our names. I think that the viewers at festivals would recognize my style and that one used by some friends. I think I would also recognize a film made by John Astin and Michael Slowe for instance. Or a film made by our friend that we lost some days ago, Bernhard Hausberger. John makes fantastic documentaries by using pictures from books, by registering/recording buildings, bridges, tourist attractions, etc... Michael talks to people in a very spontanuous way. Think of his "Melissa, Alcapa", etc... Bernard asked his "actors" to talk to the camera. I make a mixture of a documentary and feature film. My "Breendonk", "Together with Yoda" are some examples. Tell me if I'm wrong, my friends.

It's difficult to break with your own style
Some time ago a notorious judge suggested to use a different style. To do something else. It is difficult to break with your own style. I make feature films, one minute movies, travelogues and documentaries. There is some diversity in my films, but I don't like to change my style in making documentaries and to imitate the style that is used on TV. The impressionists remained impressionists. The expressionists remained expressionists. I guess that an avant-garde painter hates the style in paintings made by P.P. Rubens and Rembrandt. However, I would like to take part in a festival incognito once, using a different style, just as an experiment. I already did it, but it was not one of my best films and I had already entered 5 or 6 other ones. Next time my name will be Guillaume du Tilleul. I will be a filmmaker from France.

The theme is decisive. Not the style.
Don't expect any prizes, Ned says. That's right. There is one problem that always makes me think deeply. The judges often tell me that my films are not always for a general audience. In my own town a filmmaker was successful for many years. Why ? Because he showed tenderness in his photography. The audience prefer the view of young downy blue tits in a nest begging for food to soldiers dying in the mud. The style is not decisive. The theme is.

Do we have to "pamper" viewers and judges ?
The last few weeks we worked together on a documentary in our club. I am not the producer. It is about the installation of a gigantic transformer in the harbour of Antwerp. Very exciting, but more exciting for people who are interested in technology. I fear that many judges will say : the editing is OK, but this is not a film for a general audience. The problem is : when is a film good for a general audience and do we have to pamper the audience by making films to satisfy the viewers ?

[Dave Watterson]

Now we see who really reads the main website properly and who does not!

Rolf's comments are there twice. The original is in the UNICA News section at http://www.theiac.org.uk/unica/2008/200 ... html#three and it is quoted in part by Bernhard Hausberger in his article about his new film Building Bridges which is at http://www.theiac.org.uk/film-making3/b ... idges.html

The relevant part of Rolf's article says:

"What apparently has been forgotten by many authors and members of the jury alike, is the very concept of short film made by amateur or non-professional or independent film-makers: namely the fact of using one's freedom to approach problems, situations, experiments and so on, in a creative and therefore artistic way. The other side of that coin is that they should refrain from imitating professional films, whether in the selection of themes and the style of film language, or TV programmes including interviews and interviews, and these films should be judged consequently.

"Recently, when I was in Montecatini, I was able to watch films produced by 1st and 2nd semester students of the Hamburger Medienschule in Germany. Although these students aim to become professionals, they were required to produce at the end of the first semester a video containing absolutely no dialogue or word of comment. On the other hand these ingredients could be included in the work for the end of the 2nd semester. As a result: all the works produced at the end of the 1st semester were definitely richer in original ideas and imagination than those for which spoken text was allowed.

[At UNICA 2008: ] "When we saw, for instance, that the film Aus der Seele - which was only 7-minutes long, had no dialogue, but symbolised defiance of dictatorship by means of subtle metaphors (a jury member wondered "whether this film had a political message") - was awarded no more than bronze, as opposed to the film Brücken bauen, a 24-minute documentary film in pure TV style, with a distribution of sweets and other small gifts to the children of the Roma community, a commentary meant to fill the gaps and to activate the tear glands of all spectators - including the jury members, was awarded gold in the second round, we have good reasons to have some doubts. "

I should have summarised his views better at the start of the thread ...

Dave

[Willy]

Now we see who really reads the main website properly and who does not!
Dave

I can imagine that not many friends have read Bernard Hausberger's "Building Bridges", Dave. It appeared only a few days ago. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, I read the two texts with interest. I was very impressed by Bernard's last words :

"I don't want to polorise audiences. I want to inform. I want to show hearts, feelings, everyday life about you and me ...
For me film is everything, and my difference to the professionals is the following :
°the professionals have to produce films so that they are able to live,
°but I live so that am able to film.
°And that's it !

An other reason why we will miss Bernhard Hausberger !

[ned c]

Some thoughts. It is a complete waste of energy complaining about the decisions of judges that you don't agree with. If ever there was a purely subjective activity it is judging (and "criticising") movies. It is dangerous to take judges/critics seriously as there can be a massive negative impact or pehaps even worse a danger of believing that the positive comments and adulation, medals, multiple stars, etc. have any real significance. The best we can hope for is a discussion with a fellow film maker or even better a non-film maker and get their comments on the work. My objective in entering movies into Festivals is to have them viewed and if possible receive some audience comments.

One part of Mr Mandolesi's comments is very important, his review of the work of the film students. This underlines the very real importance of including film students and the movie work of students in general in the world of n-c film making. May I once more recommend that the IAC seriously review including a student section in the BIAFF? These are the models of truly original thinking Mr Mandolesi was refering to.

ned c

[Michael Slowe]

As always, Dave has touched on the very crux of non commercial film making. Of course we all have our own styles and it is, as Willy so clearly states, difficult to change even if we wanted to. Only the real genius does that, in the case of Picasso, many times! Amateurs do try and ape TV productions, some do it very well, but I agree that the very fact that we are free to do as we want should encourage more adventure. Bernhard hit the nail on the head when he said he "lived to make films" rather than making films to live. I am currently involved with a big professional feature production and am making their 'making of' film (for no pay I hasten to add!) and I can feel the pressure, something I hate and it is making me very glad that I never went into the commercial world as I was in the past urged so to do.

Ned's suggestion, which I have long advocated, of encouraging students to enter our festivals, is the one thing which would revitalise the world of amateur film making. Remember what American film student films did for the old Ten Best in the 60's and 70's, I still think of those films. Why does that not happen?