IAC International Judging ...

[Suziedave]

Well done to all who got good results. I made an effort to actually edit a film this year, and entered it into our local club comp. Maybe i will even have time to enter another IAC comp later in the year - watch this space !

[Ken Wilson]

A bit belatedly, here are my comments..and some judges comments, from our BIAFF results. I sat on these for nearly 2 weeks, not literally of course, but for one thing, I wanted to gather my thoughts and for another there was some work on the house to do first. I congratulate the writers here who were pleased with their results. I also would congratulate Nigel Barton from Southport, who won the best comedy award with his film: "Rent-A-Mate" which also won our own fiction competition. I rang Nigel to tell him he had won our competition, as he couldn`t attend in person and I had to give him the news so that he could send us a message. I said he should enter the IAC competition, known as BIAFF. He said he didn`t know too much about it, but would look into it. So for him to win the award is great news.
But to my own results which were disappointing. Both received 3 stars. I don`t know exactly how this compares to the old system, but I would guess it falls between Bronze plus and Silver. Neither of our films this year were amongst our best, but some comments made, baffle me. The serious one, "The Bed" will be shown at Chesterfield and so I don`t want to say much about that one for anyone who might see it. But our comedy, "Tripped Up" was panned and will not be shown, so I feel free to comment on that one.
Comedy is as we all know, very hard to get right. I thought the idea was good, the script worked well and the actors did a great job. I spent a long time editing it and it cut together well. But until the premiere night, I didn`t know that it wasn`t very funny. It`s hard to know why. It`s wordy (as the judges commented on) but most of my comedies are wordy. I don`t care too much for slapstick. But my theory is that there is too much plot for a 15 minute film. It takes too long to get to the point and then ends quickly. But the judges didn`t say it quite like that!
What they said was:
“We felt the script was slightly ponderous as well as being rather far fetched even for a comedy. We suspect Keith`s situation had been exagerated for comedic reasons but this was over done and it made it completely implausible…”

Many of my plots come from real life. Keith (the main character) plays a man who has various scams to con people out of money, so that he avoids working for a living. The main idea from the film came from the true story of the man who faked his own death in a sailing accident. He was supposed to have drowned and his wife claimed his life insurance to pay off debts and to property speculate. She then joined him in South America where they lived for several years. This was where my ideas started.
"...exagerated for comic effect".. I really don`t think so. My music is also too jolly apparently. But this week I have watched several comedy films on TV and DVD. All were "whacky" "Zany" plots with very over-stressed jolly music. One of them was "What About Bob?" with Bill Murray. Implausible, far-fetched, jolly music...yes it had all three. Where do we go from here? I really don`t know.

[fraught]

I feel your pain Ken, as i've been there. Film making in whatever genre is an art form... and art is very subjective. Example, Empire magazine hail Eraserhead as a "5 Star Film" and a piece of "Cinema History". My view of Eraserhead is that its overly long, pompous, monotonous, and down right boring! I wouldn't even give it 1 star!

Last year, my film 'ABC' got a 2 Star Award, which i felt offended by. To me, i couldn't understand why the judges didn't get what i was doing. I even asked the people on this board to comment, and the majority agreed with the judges comments. Which had me scratching my head! Why?!

The reason is, we're all different and like different things... why would my latest film 'Overtime' get a 4 Star Award at BIAFF, and win the 'Best Fan Film Award' at AMPS2008, yet not even be shown at the Phase 4 Fiction festival?

It's all about tastes... and sadly Humour is the hardest to "get". I'd love to see your film to give you my opinion of it. I wont give it an actual award, but i will give you honest feedback from a grounded ex-film student and fellow film maker.

[Willy]

But to my own results which were disappointing. Both received 3 stars. ...
Comedy is as we all know, very hard to get right...
What they said was:
“We felt the script was slightly ponderous as well as being rather far fetched even for a comedy. We suspect Keith`s situation had been exagerated for comedic reasons but this was over done and it made it completely implausible…”
"...exagerated for comic effect"...
.

4 stars for you, Ken !
I have not seen your films, Ken, but I give your films 4 stars instead of 3. Strange, isn't it ? I know that every year you have at least 3 films. This year only 2. The more productive you are the worse the results are. I have the impression that after some time the audience and judges are getting tired of the same style of films and their filmmakers. The danger is that they also start to compare your newest film with the previous ones. That's also wrong. You are a "regular customer", Ken, and I think you should wait a few years before taking part in BIAFF again. Maybe this sounds a bit provocative, but I mean it. Once you wrote on this forum that BIAFF is for flashes in the pan. Filmmakers from abroad take part in the festival. They win and don't come back anymore. With a diamond award they can promote themselves and leave BIAFF behind. That's a pity. The judges wrote : "We felt the script was slightly ponderous as well as being rather far fetched." When I watch Mrs Bucket, sorry Mrs Bouquet, then I also find it exaggerated, but I enjoy this series. Do festival organizers prefer new films made by new faces ? In this way they can upgrade their festival(s). In an other thread I told you about the new generation that broke through in Belgium. In fact it was the result of positive discrimination.

Better films, but no better results !
I had my best BIAFF results in 2001 and 2002. Two international medallions or let's say "diamond awards". I think that my other films were much better, but the results were worse. Three years ago the big boss of the IAC said : "With that film you should have won the Daily Mail Trophy", Willy ! The following year "Together with Yoda" achieved silver plus, but ... Last year my film achieved 5 stars behind the scenes, but they changed it into 4 stars. The Belgian judge has told me. He was also responsible for this, but mind, ... he is still one of my best friends. We will go to Chesterfield together. He is very honest. Now the judges wrote : "There was a debate within the panel as to whether this film should be ranked higher, but on balance, the length of the film for a general audience, the number of similar events portrayed and the repetitive style in presentation held it back".

Film for a general audience
I appreciate this sentence. It shows that the judges are honest. It also gives a nice feeling that the judges even thought of giving me 5 instead of 4 stars. However, it also shows that the judges are getting tired of my style of filming. I don't agree with "the number of similar events" ... because the film is a reportage of different events : a funeral of Australian soldiers, the visit of Her Majesty, a Scottish tattoo, a New Zealand reception, digging up the remains of a soldier, a concert, a torch lit procession of soldiers marching in Canada Avenue, a scene with archive footage etc... I think that the judges are getting tired of the First World War theme. I understand. I myself felt a bit relieved when having finished "On the Road to Passchendaele".

"Nothing Girl"
One sentence was very strange : "The Judging Panel have nothing but admiration for the producers (in plural) of this film for taking on such a large and worthy project." There was only one producer. It was me. The Passchendaele Volunteers asked me to make a reportage about the events. It does not mean that they were the producers of the film. I made a long film for them (55 minutes) and a shorter version for a general audience (25 minutes). I spent money on the film. I didn't earn money with it. As soon as judgers have the impression that an authority has commissioned the film they don't consider it to be a real festival film. That's a pity. I only make films for fun. I wonder if all the diamond award winning films will be good for a general audience. At least one is very obscure. Nobody will understand it. Do you remember the discussions about "Nothing Girl" some years ago ?

My "Waiting for Godot" achieved 3 stars and will not be shown. The story. Some students who can't read - they are illiterate persons - are waiting in front of their classroom. They are only helped by pictograms. The door is closed. Some of them don't behave in the corridor. One is very impatient and kicks a can against the door. The teacher opens the door. She is angry. She hangs a written sign on the door. It says : "No lessons, today. Come back tomorrow !". This is very nasty, because the poor students can't read. These are puzzled. They have waited so long and ... (theme of "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett. Result : the viewer has sympathizes with the students. They hate the teacher. I was baffled by the following sentence in the judges'comments : "The written sign put up by the teacher at the end posed a question for the viewer : why didn't the teacher simply talk to them ?" The answer is simple : because she wanted to pester the students.

After all it's very positive that we receive judges' comments even if we don't agree with them. We are not obliged to accept the evaluation as criticism is always subjective and very personal. Just like Fraud said : maybe in Britain they don't like your film. In US they do. On the continent it is a great film. I admire the work done by judges because I have already been a judge myself many times.

[Dave Watterson]

It seems to be a year when many of the people whose names are often at the top of the prize lists did not do quite so well as usual. Among them ...

Ken Wilson
Willy Van der Linden
Michael Slowe
Phil Martin
Michael Gough
Circle-8
Partners Group
Rolf Mandolesi
John Astin

Even Bernhard Hausberger, who won the Daily Mail Trophy for best film in 2007 and 2008, got 5-stars and not a diamond this time.

- Dave

[Brian Saberton]

I suppose some people will take comfort from Dave's list of film makers who have not done as well as usual in this years BIAFF but I can't help thinking that it must be unusual for so many highly experienced film makers to have an off year all at the same time. Browsing through the results I noticed that even Rolf Mandolesi, who has been winning awards at international level for many many years with his visually stimulating and imaginative films, got only 1 star for one of his entries this year.

[Mike Shaw]

I think it explains how I scraped through with far more than I expected this year - complete reversal of 'normal judging', a judgemental aberation.

But - Hey, I'm not complaining! How else could I get such a good result?

Lucky me for having something in the running this year.

BTW - my effort rated four stars - so even more surprising it picked up a pot.
I was chuffed it rated four stars. I usually just get three stars for my efforts.

At least the judges have made one bunny happy!

[Willy]

I suppose some people will take comfort from Dave's list of film makers who have not done as well as usual in this years BIAFF but I can't help thinking that it must be unusual for so many highly experienced film makers to have an off year all at the same time.
.

I also had that impression, Brian. A friend of mine was one of the final judges at BIAFF last year. In January he was a judge in the panel of my own club competition. He didn't like one particular film. Also his colleagues thought it was not a good one. They didn't understand the story at all. They called it pure "Spielerei". Only two films out of nine were not selected for the next round. Also that particular one. However, I asked the young filmmaker to take part in BIAFF with it. Result ? He won a diamond award ! In my opinion my clubmate deserved a diamond award, but not with this film, with his second film which was also appreciated by the judges in Belgium. A very spectacular and emotional film. It achieved 5 stars and this was right in my opinion.

It all shows how subjective everything is. Hopefully the judges don't feel offended by what we are saying on this forum. But it's a discussion forum ! Last year I was the only judge for the Mersey Ten Competition. The former president of that region gave a short speech at the end. He told the audience that he didn't agree with the order. I had to swallow it down. Luckily the overall majority seemed to agree with my evaluation. Being a judge is risky.

Mike,
First of all my congratulations ! I am looking forward to seeing your film in Chesterfield.
The Prize for "Best animation" ? I am not surprised. Some years ago your one minute movie was pure animation and it was excellent. I voted for it. It was spectacular and ... everybody could understand your short amusing film.

This forum is not a Wailing Wall, Mike. We don't complain all the time and we accept that a number of films are better than ours. Every year I do my utmost to encourage young and older excellent Belgian filmmakers to take part in BIAFF. I create my own competitors. I like challenges. However, I hate positive discrimination and nonsense in judges' comments. The best films must win the competition. I don't say that it happened at BIAFF this year. But it happened in Belgium last month. An extra competition was organized. First prize : 3000 euros. The 25 best were all youngsters. Most of them are students at filmschools. Afterwards I read on the website : "It was a festival to stimulate young filmmakers"... In my opinion it was an example of positive discrimination which is reprehensible. I know that some Belgian regions have already decided to form a new and non-political umbrella organisation. They don't accept the present policy of the Belgian "nationalized" IAC anymore. The organizers of the festival for youngsters wanted a wind of change blowing through the Belgian IAC. This may lead to a schism now. As long as we have not seen the diamond and five star films in Chesterfield we don't have the right to say that the awards are not justified and that we got less than we deserved. We must be patient. A new "Battle of Britain" in Chesterfield ? Certainly not ! We are all peace-loving creatures.

An other example of positive discrimination. In January I was a member in a local competiton panel. We were five. Two of them had to judge films for the first time. Their scores were exceptionally high. I was the president of the panel and I asked them why they had done this. Their reply : "The filmmaker is a professional cameraman who works for Channel 1 Television. It means that his film is excellent !" I told my friend the camera man after the competition and of course he didn't accept point of view either. Luckily he had the best film and it was a very good one, but not an exceptionally good one.

[Ken Wilson]

Fraught said: I feel your pain Ken, as i've been there. Film making in whatever genre is an art form... and art is very subjective. Example, Empire magazine hail Eraserhead as a "5 Star Film" and a piece of "Cinema History". My view of Eraserhead is that its overly long, pompous, monotonous, and down right boring! I wouldn't even give it 1 star!...

...The reason is, we're all different and like different things... why would my latest film 'Overtime' get a 4 Star Award at BIAFF, and win the 'Best Fan Film Award' at AMPS2008, yet not even be shown at the Phase 4 Fiction festival?

Thanks to "Fraught" and Willy and others for their comments. To "Fraught," yes I agree about "Eraserhead." Years ago, a friend recommended it to me and then lent me a VHS tape of it. I thought it was really bad, dreary and boring. I am a big sci-fi fan, but also just can`t get to grips with "Blade Runner." (Gasps heard from the crowd.) It is supposed to be a classic, but I have really tried several times, to watch this film, even going to the re-release of it at the cinema. But each time I am so bored that I go to sleep. So I have never managed to watch it all the way through. It`s a real puzzle.
Your own film "Overtime" was well received at the Phase 4 judging session and I think your comments reflected this. Our festival is only one evening and in the 3 and a half hours, we screen our own new movies, a selection from the competition and also have a buffet meal break in there too. So time is very limited and I think I said somewhere, that we had enough good movies for a second show. I will certainly send you something of mine on DVD to watch in the privacy of your own home!
I think Willy had a very good point and it`s something I have long felt myself. What we may call, "known" film-makers, those who have past successes and a back catalogue of movies, can raise expectations in an audience or with judges. For example, if I go to the cinema to see a Nicholas Cage film (for instance) because I like his films and then it falls short of expectations, I would be disappointed, possibly more so than seeing a film from someone I know little about. The same is true of us. So a judge may say, here`s the latest one by Willy Van de Wilson, this should be good... But it`s not quite what was expected. Hence disappointment and a lower mark.
I am also not keen on the entire judging being done in one weekend. 255 movies in one go is much too much, I know because our little competition gets around 25 and that`s a lot at one sitting. It used to be that IAC competitions were judged over at least 2 weekends, but financially, this is no longer an option. But I`m sure it must affect some results due to judge`s fatigue. they`re only human! Sort of.

Ken

[fraught]

Your own film "Overtime" was well received at the Phase 4 judging session and I think your comments reflected this. Our festival is only one evening and in the 3 and a half hours, we screen our own new movies, a selection from the competition and also have a buffet meal break in there too. So time is very limited and I think I said somewhere, that we had enough good movies for a second show. I will certainly send you something of mine on DVD to watch in the privacy of your own home!

I remember you mentioning that... i was just using Phase 4 for making a point.

I'd love to see some of your work. If you are at BIAFF on the Sunday, let me know and i'll hunt you down.

[Ken Wilson]

Hi "Fraught." No we will not be there on Sunday. After (a very early) breakfast, we will have to leave. We are at Chesterfield on Friday and Saturday, but have some paid work to do on Sunday, so for the first time since 1996, we cannot see any of the Sunday shows. If you are not there on Fri/ Sat, I will post you a DVD of some of our films.

Ken.

[billyfromConsett]

Some very interesting points about
*) some of the results
*) judging in a weekend
*) the results by regular year-on-year movie makers
*) the film-school movies that scoop many of the best awards then move on.

The results
I know I was happy with my results at Biaff this year, and the crits I received gave me something to do to improve one of them - so I've started using After Effects to play with one of my entries; a process which is also good for my arsenal of techniques.
My 1 minute film got three stars and won't be shown at Chesterfield (but hey, it's here: http://www.vimeo.com/3793369 ). The judges were spot on mind. It has got shots showing the background in clear focus at times, rather than the actors - that's because the viewfinder of my old Sony cam was the cheapest part of it and didn't help the cameraman at all. Also, there could have been more close-ups, which is a reasonable crit. The judges were fair and kind - I can't complain. If I wanted to complain I would contact the competition manager. He would at least listen nad probably look into it. In that movie's case I feel that only a re-shoot could seriously improve that movie. So it's fine for me to just show.

I suppose I do question how serious the 1minute films hold in our organisation. At Biaff in April there's no 1 min show. But it's nothing to worry about.

The Weekend of Judging
Regarding any concern about the IAC judging the movies in a weekend ... Well there are plenty judges, they were in comfortable though basic conditions. The process IMO was professionally handled - people worked and took care. How that compares against the way it was done some time back, er with people staying at each others houses and judging all day and into the night (just rumours, maybe old wives tales - can anybody firm this up?) it seems far better at present. How do you improve this? Maybe the IAC could engineer the movies to be seen at least twice, or give judges more time to debate the movies' merits maybe, but the competition costs may increase.

Regular movie-makers
Willy poses some interesting and thought provoking points. I used to think that it might have happened the other way - "oh good, we've got a movie by Mr A, his are brilliant!" But now I honestly can't say if there is a positive or negative point awarded in the heads of the judges before they see a well known film-maker's movie. Is there a knock on factor because of the film-school effect though?

Film-School Movies
I did see one or two movies, mostly from Germany, where a film entered into Biaff obviously cost a lot of money to make. Maybe the movie makers didn't get paid. But the movies needed an array of professional kit to look how they did - ie cameras, mics, jibs, tracking rails, dollies, lighting, even wires (removed in post) and there was at least one movie with maybe a hundred people given credits. The time that was able to be spent making those things beautiful and slick peices of art is something us amateurs with ordinary jobs cannot match - not at least in terms of slickness and money spent. If those movies are going to get into our competition then the top awards could be carved up mainly amongst those film-schools - who possibly use the competition simply as a prize to win. Their interest may stop there - it could be that most of the students will never know that their movie is on at Chesterfield. The other benefit some for some people that they work commercially and put their IAC awards on their website.

I noticed this one, the diamond winner Rex http://www.rexdefilm.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=56
The film is a commercial DVD and on sale!!

The question is - should people, as either students studying film-making, or professional film-makers who use our organisation to help their sales, at least be IAC members before they take our trophies from us true non-professionals?

[ned c]

Let me start at the end, the film REX must have its awards withdrawn as it is obviously a COMMERCIAL production with English/Dutch versions on sale along with the sound track. The one stipulation we have at AMPS is that entries must be non-commercial, regardless of the status of those who made it. The BIAFF rules are less clear but surely an "amateur production" is one made without expectation of financial reward and without payment to those who took part. One cannot be a "little bit professional" just to pay the costs you know!!!

Film students present a different case and I believe there is an important place for them in the n-c world albeit in a seperate category from those not undergoing film related education. This is why I believe the IAC should establish a category specifically for film students with a different judging panel. We need there input because they are the innovators.

Cranes, dollies, "super" cameras etc do not make good movies; they may add production values but they are not a substitute for a good yarn, well told. I must assume the films Billy refers to had excellent story lines as well as production values or were they awarded because of their "gloss"?

ned c

[Willy]

1.Let me start at the end, the film REX must have its awards withdrawn as it is obviously a COMMERCIAL production with English/Dutch versions on sale along with the sound track.
2. Film students present a different case and I believe there is an important place for them in the n-c world albeit in a seperate category from those not undergoing film related education.
3. Cranes, dollies, "super" cameras etc do not make good movies.
ned c

I agree with Ned and Billy.
Nobody knows "Rex"
1. Some months ago I was a final judge for NOVA, the Dutch competition. I know most prominent Dutch non-commercial filmmakers. Some days ago I asked one of my Dutch friends if he knows the maker of Rex. This young man seems to be unknown in the n-c filmmworld in Holland. Also last year and the year before commercial films won international festivals for n-c filmmakers. However, the organisers can't be blamed. They have been cheated !

2. A very good suggestion, Ned : A special category for students at filmschools. Just like in the AMPS-festival. I must admit. I encouraged students of a filmschool to take part in BIAFF. Douglas Boswell was one. Samuel Faict is one. The latter has won a diamond award now. I supported him fincially. I lent him my casablanca which he does not need anymore because he has all facilities at school. I was surprised with Samue'ls result. He will add this victory to the list on his own website which does not mention the name of my club. Good promotion for him. I fear that my club will lose him very soon. You are right, Ned. Non-commercial filmmakers can learn from students of filmschools and students can learn from us. Unfortunately these future filmdirectors soon leave their nests.

"Ordinary" members of a club or real stars ? A word of difference !
Billy is right. They have all facilities. They can ask the best actors who work for TV. My actors are "ordinary" members of my filmclub or members of a drama club. This is only one example. Good acting may make of world of difference. Douglas Boswell was assisted by the Belgian filmmaker Stijn Conincx, who was raised to the peerage thanks to the fact that he won a nomination for an Oscar in Hollywood. The more facilities you have the better films you can make, but of course you must also be a good filmmaker.

I am happy for Samuel, my youngest clubmate, but maybe I am happier for the thirty-year old Tim Verschaeren who won 5 stars knowing that he is a pure non-commercial filmmaker who makes films for fun rather that for making a career.

Producing a film should be respected
3. Cranes, dollies ... do not make good films. That's right. I am always proud if I can find a primitive way of achieving something without paying. A wheel chair instead of a dolly. An automatic ladder of the local firebrigade instead of a TV-crane, etc... The costumes of friendly drama club instead of the costumes hired at a firm... An other reason to form a special category for students of filmschools. Producing a film is sometimes a gigantic job. It will be more respected if students are seperated from pure hobbyists.

One of my friends who attends international festivals very often says that she does not understand why we are for a special category for students of filmschools. You must know that she does not make any films herself. Only filmmakers can understand this problem I think.

Hopefully you don't think I am a criticaster. This word has a negative meaning in Belgium. I just want to express my feelings in the interest of the IAC.

[ned c]

A further comment. In 2007 Scott Hillhouse's film "Life's Little Gaps" won top prizes at AMPS and BIAFF. Scott, or House as he prefers to be known, went to film school and has worked on profesional productions as a grip. He is also a member of Oklahoma Movie Makers the group he worked with to make his film. It was completely self funded, at a considerable personal cost to House. When sent to the BIAFF I received a request from the Competitions Officer to confirm that this film was not a commercial production or a "calling card" made to further House's professional career. Legitimate questions which I was able to answer and the film went ahead in BIAFF and won its awards.

When commercial films win in n-c Festivals because the makers have been less than honest then the awards should be withdrawn and the makers asked to remove the announcements from their websites and announcement of the withdrawal made on the Festival website. We live in age where "bending the rules" for personal gain is unfortunately common.

We also need a clarification of what the BIAFF rule "made without professional assistance..." means as it is obvious that professional actors (not paid I agree) have been used in productions and professional film makers (including me although now retired...does that count?) have entered films. My definition of a professional is very clear "anyone who has been paid for working in any area of film or TV production, teaching, supply or distribution." I have a feeling that to debate this rule is to open a can of worms that many would rather keep closed.

ned c