Re: BIAFF 2012 RESULTS

Post by **Dave Watterson** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:40 pm

NOTE: I HAVE MOVED THE FIRST FEW POSTS FROM THE PREVIOUS THREAD ABOUT BIAFF 2012 INTO THIS ONE - A SENSIBLE SUGGESTION FROM MICHAEL SLOWE. - Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was great to meet a few forum friends at BIAFF in Weymouth ... and Michael generously made good on his promise to buy the drinks. (Thanks, Michael.) Several people had gone by the time we got together - most noticeably Fraught, who was present earlier in the day along with the newly shorn Seb Hall, upbeat host of Basingstoke's Red Carpet Screenings. Fraught's Room 4 was probably the subject of more discussion than any other film of the festival.

Our get-together was a small part of an excellent event. More about this will turn up elsewhere on the website when Jan and I have woken up! It is lovely to meet so many friends and to make some fine new ones ... but my tiny brain hurts trying to remember names.

The BEST OF BRITISH award went to PIGEON POST and the DAILY MAIL TROPHY to ANGELS ON THE RAIL.

BUT if you could not get to BIAFF you can see some of the shorter films in our Online Cinema at http://www.theiac.org.uk/movies/biaff20 ... f2012.html

TimStannard · Post by **TimStannard** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:34 am

As expected, I only got down for the Sunday, but echo Dave's sentiments that it was good to meet so many forum members in the flesh.

I suspect most of us here have been involved in setting up film shows to a greater or lesser extent and therefore have some inkling as to the amount of work that must be involved in organising something as big as BIAFF.

My congratulations and thanks to everyone involved, from the organisers, the SoCo clubs and all the volunteers. From what I heard and what I saw in Sunday, it was a very slick event.

Mike Shaw · Post by **Mike Shaw** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:24 pm

Home again - Monday PM. Yep - great to meet up with people 'old' and new - and to put faces to names. Thanks for the beer Michael - next time its on me!

Some really stunning films this year. Again.

Michael Slowe · Post by **Michael Slowe** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:03 pm

Perhaps we should really have started a new thread for the BIAFF post mortems to save having to go through three pages but it's a bit late now.

I departed the moment the lights came up as I'd taken four hours driving down (Friday!) but was delighted to do it home in just over two. I therefore did not know the Daily Mail winner but knew (feared) what it would be and had it confirmed by a telephone call to my car by my fellow club mate Peter Kidman (thanks Peter). What a travesty! There was a chance of rewarding the most skillful and imaginative piece of film making, amateur or commercial, that I've seen in years with Vincent but they gave it to a mammoth, epic, feature film instead. Angels on the Rail is a fine work, don't get me wrong, but we see this kind of thing every month on TV or cinema. It was absolutely immaculate in every way and this has impressed the panel perhaps more than it should have. Vincent was real art, deep in the mind, beautifully acted and shot but it was the spiritual aspect that really made it special.

I know some agree with me, what does the panel think? Other worthy candidates in my humble opinion were Pigeon Post (only got a 5) and Quieta Non Movere. One Moment was wonderfully done but maybe a trifle too obscure.

One really important point though, and one with which many have commented on, is that the gulf between the best of the 4 stars and the worst is huge, yet the same award is given. It is a problem I know with so many entries (great) and 4 stars is the 'standard' grade for most competent amateur film makers. The range of competence through this grade though has to be recognised and maybe sub divided in some way.

Otherwise a great weekend and the hard working organisers have earned the plaudits being handed out. Not one incorrect aspect on the screen!!!!

tom hardwick · Post by **tom hardwick** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:11 pm

We think alike, you and I, Michael.

I too rated Vincent very highly indeed. There’s sections in the film that immediately tell us we’re watching the work of a skilled filmmaker. Vincent enters his (beautifully lit) office. His phone rings. He’s lectured to in silence, the telephoto lens isolating him from room and the lecturer. We don’t hear a word – everything is left to the actor. He returns to his desk and chooses items to take and discard. Such screen-play imagination, such quiet film-making authority. Love it.

I'm all for having more steps on the ladder. The best and the least-best of the 4 stars are miles apart and it would help if we had 20 rungs to compartmentalise more accurately.

tom.

fraught · Post by **fraught** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:59 pm

Cheers Dave, it would have been great to have stayed and enjoyed a beer with you all, but sadly we needed to hit the road earlier than expected.

I really enjoyed the festival this year, and I have to say the presentation in the 'Hitchcock' room was brilliant!

I got some nice feedback and comments from people regarding both of my films shown. I also have to say that I was really pleased that Room 4 got the laughs I was hoping. After recent comments I was really worried about how the audience was going to react! But everyone seemed to laugh in all the right places.

Not sure if everyone got the ending though... but I'm gathering someone must have discussed it because no one asked me about it.

tom hardwick · Post by **tom hardwick** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:47 am

I hope it wasn't just the judges that didn't get the last shot ending Fraught. Will you reveal all here? Loved the way you handled the dialogue between the people, that's so difficult to accomplish realistically yet you did it with apparent ease. That was the stand-out part of the film for me.

Mike Shaw · Post by **Mike Shaw** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:57 am

My interpretation ... the eye ball, glass, had fallen out of a socket ... and the woman was whistling, so ... considering what she was supposedly doing at the time ... does it need much more spelling out .... (have I spoiled the mystery and given the game away ... ???). Worse - have I got it totally wrong?

I don't consider myself prudish but it didn't really appeal to me - possibly because I felt embarrassed on behalf of the people I was watching it with! It certainly did get a lot of laughs and chuckles - and it was definitely done well with good humour - there were many chuckleworthy moments. My 'embarrassed-on-behalf-of' problem probably arises from a very strict, almost Victorian pre-war upbringing where certain things were not said or done 'in front of the ladies'. Times have changed. About time I caught up with them ... and the chuckling ladies!

TimStannard · Post by **TimStannard** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:52 am

tom hardwick wrote:I'm all for having more steps on the ladder. The best and the least-best of the 4 stars are miles apart and it would help if we had 20 rungs to compartmentalise more accurately.

Surely the more you compartmentalise, the more disagreements there will be.

Much of what is being judged is subjective. Once a level of technical competence is reached, what "works" for one judge may well not "work" for another.

I do agree that there is a wide difference between the best and the least best in the 4-star category, but even with the 5 tier system + Diamonds, I'm sure all of us will be able to find a few three-stars which we perceive as "better" than some four-stars. Imagine the disagreements with a 20 tier system.

Personally, I'd rather keep the current system, but raise the bar for the four stars.

And I'm speaking as someone who doesn't believe his own film, entertaining as it may be, was really worthy of four stars (though it's received enough compliments by now from people who know what they're talking about for me to believe it's my judgement that's in question)

TimStannard · Post by **TimStannard** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:18 pm

Michael Slowe wrote:One Moment was wonderfully done but maybe a trifle too obscure.

I really enjoyed that film. It had a great look,was very well acted, and had a lovely pace. But what I really enjoyed was I found it menally stimulating, I was constantly trying to make sense of it or find a message.

I failed.

Can anyone explain it to this bear of little brain? Or does not have a meaning? Perhaps it's jus a bizarre little story.

Mike Shaw · Post by **Mike Shaw** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:38 pm

The quotation that the girl left for the man in his mailbox was a big clue I think - though right now I cannot remember the exact words.

I think (my interpretation!) is ... in a symbolic, ethereal way ... the girl was living for the one moment when she could see the man of her dreams - at 4pm (1600 hours) each day when he presumably returned from work. She wanted to attract his attention, but was shy, embarrassed even, and shied away from the actual 'meeting'. After one of his trips to the mailbox, he left stuff behind - and went back to it - she 'replayed' this while lying down by walking her fingers first in one direction, then back ... but then continuing further back onto her own body. She wanted to meet him, wanted to0 'make a home for him' - the taped images on the walls - but was shy, running from the possible encounter. When he first enters her rooms, the walls are white, bare ... but then he enters 'her world'' - the tape created environment. And she is still bound by her shyness ...

That's how I saw it all. I could well be totally wrong - the makers will probably say, 'interesting, but that's not it at all!'

I do think it was an amazing piece of creative work - right from the hand diving out of the duvet at the beginning to switch on the kettle to the two faces at the end. I was very fortunate to be one of the first round judges - it was an instant '5 star' from all of us. I am not surprised though that some - many perhaps - didn't follow the symbolism or significances of the events.

Quite clever of the organiser - Dave Newman - to put this film on at 4pm! Well done David!

tom hardwick · Post by **tom hardwick** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:38 pm

Interesting that the first few seconds of a film can tell you - without a shadow of doubt - that this will be a film worth watching. The first few seconds can heighten your awareness, raise your bpm, bring you upright in your chair.

The start of One Moment is just this. As Mike puts it so well, 'the hand diving out of the duvet at the beginning to switch on the kettle'. When I see such beautifully imagined and photographed set-pieces I wonder what the hell I'm doing judging them.

tom.

fraught · Post by **fraught** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:59 pm

Mike Shaw wrote:My interpretation ... the eye ball, glass, had fallen out of a socket ... and the woman was whistling, so ... considering what she was supposedly doing at the time ... does it need much more spelling out .... (have I spoiled the mystery and given the game away ... ???).

Mike's got it. I guess you have to have a fairly broad mind to work it out.

Although i did hear some people discussing it after the showing, and it sounded like they had got it.
Whatever your view on the film... atleast you're all talking about it, which means i've done my job.

Me and my colleagues really liked John Astin's documentary 'Musket, Pike and Drum' and the film 'Over the Garden Wall'.

I really enjoyed Michael's 'The Painter', although felt it could have been shorter.

I didn't see the film at this festival, but i have previously seen the film 'Remember Me' at a Red Carpet Screenings Film Festival last year... It's a fantastic little short, really powerful!

Post by **Dave Watterson** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:31 pm

A MOMENT

There is an extra twist in the German version of the title, "Ein Eigenblick" - a blink of the eye. It is usually used to mean "a moment" but here both translations apply.
Mike is right, the quotation helps to shed light. It is from Schiller and in a rather old-fashioned, poetic translation goes:

From the clouds, must Fortune light ye
From Heaven's lap descends in showers
And the mightiest of the mighty
is the moment. It is ours.

It sums up Schiller's belief in seizing the moment. That seems to apply rather well to this mysterious, beautiful little film.
Jan has asked its maker, Alice von Gwinner to tell us more about it, so keep your fingers crossed. Mike: thanks for pointing out David Newman's brilliant scheduling of the film.

OVER THE GARDEN WALL

That is a film I love ... it is in essence a radio play, but so well written and beautifully performed that it reminded me of Alan Bennet television moments: the dignity and magic of "ordinary lives".

ROOM 4

Think about it ... how deep is an eye socket?! This is a famous old smutty gag brought to life by a fine film maker.

I have not seen the other films mentioned. Those who are interested can see the German version of MOMENT, ROOM-4 and many more BIAFF entries on the main IAC website.

Dave

TimStannard · Post by **TimStannard** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:55 pm

ONE MOMENT: Thanks Mike. It's all so obvious now you've explained it. I had trifled with much of this whilst watching, but the symbolism of the penultimate shot - of the girl being taped to the wall - so obvious now - had escaped me. It probably doesn't help that I simply don't "get" poetry. I don't know why, but I just struggle as soon as it's in verse. Even now it's taken me half a dozen readings to extract any sort of meaning from those four lines of Schiller's even though I'v some idea what i'm looking for. Thanks, Dave for your additional explanation.

On the other hand I had no problem understanding ROOM 4 when first I saw it. This probably says a lot more about me than I'd care to admit to.

Next query. PIGEON POST Brilliantly filmed, acted, fantastic attention to detail in dressing the location s (although the vintage car would have been vintage even then - I have it on good authority it belonged to the location manager) and very nicely written. However my enjoyment was marred because the entire basis for the plot seemed implausible. I hope I'm wrong and if so, I'm sure someone here will correct me.

The plot relies on the fact that the protagonist and his young lady had communicated by carrier pigeon. This is established by Millie(?) having received a message via carrier pigeon from her beau who lives within easy cycling distance. Would they really have swapped pigeons to communicate over such a short distance? Please tell me they would.