Amateur films: commercial or not?

[ned c]

The point made by Billy about Film School entries can be answered by having a separate category for Student Entries. I believe that it is in the interest of the n-c film world to welcome students in to our Festivals as many of them will not find work in the profession but have a lifelong interest in film making that we hope will keep them in our organizations.

My view is that even making nativity DVDs and selling them for GBP3 makes you a professional, income has been derived from film making, the fact that the income is totally inadequate to cover the production costs is a decision made by the film maker recognising what the market is willing to pay.

It is important to make a decison about the role of the professional film maker in the n-c world. The traditional amateur Festivals were aimed at the film maker who had no professional connections; although it is clear that this was ignored from the very beginning; remember those BBC professionals who were members of award winning clubs? I recall ridiculous discussions when it was suggested that professionals were OK provided they did not work in their area of expertise; eg cinematographers could direct but not touch a camera, etc.

It is easy to define the status of an n-c film; it is made by unpaid people with no intention for sale; it is very difficult to define the status of the film makers and make that the basis for defining entry.

How is it actually possible to exclude professionals of any level from n-c Festivals since it is easy to ignore the clause eg Guernsey Lily "made for love and without professional assistance." Will all event and wedding videopraphers, low budget corporate and training film makers, actors etc. and anyone who has ever been paid for working on any aspect of a film production please leave the Festival!!

ned c

[billyfromConsett]

I'm all for having films made by students competing in Biaff, and I too feel that a category should be created for this purpose. It would be great if students from the UK were very much included in these numbers.

We have to integrate with young film-makers or ignore them at our peril.

[Chrisbitz]

My view is that even making nativity DVDs and selling them for GBP3 makes you a professional, income has been derived from film making, the fact that the income is totally inadequate to cover the production costs is a decision made by the film maker recognising what the market is willing to pay.
ned c

There are plenty of technically speaking professionals making films, but I feel that's getting off the topic. personally, I don't have a problem with them. I'm one myself.

I think there's a HUGE difference between a professional filmmaker, and a commercial film.

This topic is about a commercial film...

[Mike Shaw]

So, summing up -

* Professional film-makers can make a film for IAC 'amateur/non-commercial' compettions, provided their movie isn't made for commercial reasons. (This includes 'amateurs' who make the odd wedding movie for a fee of some sort)
* If people ask for a copy of your amateur/non-commercial film - whether it be two people or 100 people or 1000 people - then you have to give a copy to them for free, otherwise it is deemed to have been sold and it then becomes a commercial enterprise. Presumably 'free' includes postage where required as well?

It's OK of course if a third party (i.e. - the IAC) charges for copies of 'amateur/non-commercial' movies on DVDs, since the moviemaker still doesn't benefit (other than having his/her movie seen by more people). Someone else could benefit presumably?

Maybe we should recognise that there are some movies that people would like to buy - from amateur/non-commercial movie makers. Hardly fair to expect the moviemaker to churn out copies galore - and perhaps post them - for free?

It is a minefield of ifs and buts as far as I can see.

[Berry]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the warm welcome. It's a joy to see such a big amount of reactions on this topic. It's good to see that this is indeed an issue that many people have different opinions about.

I would like to respond to almost every post that's been put up in the last couple of days, but I'll try to restrict myself in order to keep this post readable...

It's not forbidden to be a professional and an amateur at the same time.

I recall ridiculous discussions when it was suggested that professionals were OK provided they did not work in their area of expertise; eg cinematographers could direct but not touch a camera, etc.

I think I agree with this. Although it is a slippery subject (as are many issues discussed in this topic), I do find it should be possible for so-called professionals to make amateur films, as long as they don't take their specific field of expertise into the amateur world. That would be hugely unfair towards all our friends who try and give their best in making films, but who will never be able to match the professional's quality.
But this point is slightly off topic (or not?). We are talking about when an amateur film becomes a commercial film. But as I read some of the posts on this topic, I start to believe that this point may actually be a kind of 'second centerpoint' in this discussion. Both issues are closely connected. One of you argues that as soon as you sell a DVD, you become a professional. Someone else states that you become a commercial filmmaker as soon as you sell you film. Well, what's the difference between 'commercialism' and 'professionalism'?
Commercialism is when you sell things to make as big a profit as possible .
Professionalism is when you are getting paid for doing what you do best.
What do you think?

My opinion on the selling side is, if you have made the film and its 100% your property... why not try and sell it? Like you say, atleast you can try and recoup some of your money back!

As you might expect, I agree on this. I still don't see a problem in selling something that's completely made by me (and my team of course).

I just think that a line would need to be drawn between amateur/hobbyist and professional.

This quote touches the piece above. This might very well be the real division we should make. Or perhaps this is worth a new topic alltogether?

The above statement should exclude me from entering films in the BIAFF as they have to be "made without professional assistance", I have never hidden my status and the BIAFF have never rejected any of my entries so we can safely say that the rules are open to interpretation.

Again, I agree. Amateur film festivals are no fascistic institutions, obviously. We're among friends and colleagues and these rules I think exist to give a festival a general backbone, a written piece to fall back on in case of conflicts or discussions. The reason that a professional producer has had his movies at BIAFF, indeed indicates that rules in the amateur circuit are not laws. The issue of amateurism vs. commercialism puts us in the same position. The BIAFF (or even GL and AMPS) rules are not 100% clear in what an amateur is. The rules are formulated rather openly. I am not saying that they should be changed since this is part of the charm of the amateur world.
Someone said:

you can't add words to the rules to make them suit your argument

I didn't! I just interpreted the rules differently. What does the phrase "made (...) with no financial (...) reward" exactly mean?
This would be a kind of verbatim translation of this rule onto my own situation: "I didn't make Rex with a financial reward". But that's not even a proper sentence, there is something missing at the end, so you have to interpret.
And another question on top of that: the rules these festivals use do not give us the definition of 'the amateur'. They are also an interpretation. They interpret the phenomenon of 'amateurism'.

Here is my problem with your film, it is being offered for sale, the argument that very few copies have been sold and you just hope to recover some expenses changes the whole intent of the film.

Not true, imo. The fact that I try to sell my film certainly does not change the intent of the film. It was not my intention to sell it when I made it, nor was Rex intended to make a profit.

There is also the possibility that your film may become a cult favorite and you sell thousands of copies, what is your argument then? You cannot be a "little bit commercial", you are either in or out.

Agree. This is a tricky thing. If you're talking in these numbers, there's no way you can deny the commercialism of your film. I'm not sure what selling figure suddenly makes a film commercial in my opinion, but if you facilitate this demand, you must have made a conscious decision to sell in these numbers. That's probably the thing: the moment where someone decides to 'go commercial' and sell out.
Back to my 'case': I would feel very uncomfortable to submit Rex to any amateur filmfestival if I would have sold this many copies (or even a lot less, a hundred copies would also be embarrassing). I think I would withdraw my film from any festival and contact the festival managers of the festivals where it would have played already. I would also do this as soon as my film would be picked up by a distrubution company or something. As soon as your film enters the realm of generally accepted commercialism, you have to do these things.
But that's the very point we're discussing here: what is 'generally accepted commercialism'? I still believe you become a commercial filmmaker if you make a film to sell it afterwards (in any possible way). So yes, I think one can be a 'little bit commercial' (not the words I would use), without becoming a commercial filmmaker.

There is a difference between a film that is offered for sale from a website with no known customer base or demand and one that grows in demand by word of mouth only. Yes, a film that "won" recognition and eventual distribution would meet the AMPS rules because the film maker did not set out to sell copies to recover costs or generate income.

This is a tricky thing again. Especially the last part. The AMPS rules are clear about this (especially compared to BIAFF and GL regulations): "made (...) with no profit motive in mind". In the example Dave gives us, the movie was indeed not made with a profit motive in mind. But again: neither was Rex!
And on top of that: there was a customer demand, just after we premiered Rex. I did get a lot of requests to buy our DVD, but no-one did! Everyone watched it online...!
There is this a very, very thin line we're talking about. Why was a film made? For profit: commercial. For fun: amateur. I'm sorry, but I do believe it's that simple, as long as the 'fun' part stays within certain boundaries. Huge sales figures can make a film which was initially made just for love, a commercial product. But that's also a very thin line...

How about I make a film for $1m and sell it only to recoup costs... It's irreleveant that I plead till I'm blue in the face that I didn't intend to sell it when I made it. You can't be expected to know my state of mind when I made it.

Agree, no-one knows the state of mind you were in when you made it. That's why it's so important in cases such as these (as with Rex), to look at other factors. (That's a luxury we have in this amateur world!) Do we know this guy who's offered this film (in my case, apparantly not too many people knew me )?
If so (and if a pre-selection committee has doubts about the 'amateurness' of the author): look at the filmmaker's track record or simply ask him about his motives! If a filmmaker is unknown, but his film is for sale, check the context in which it is being sold. Is it actually, physically offered in a shop or is the online environment in which it is offered plain and simple? These things matter a lot, I think, in determining whether or not you are dealing with an honest amateur or not. Of course there is no time to do this for every entry into a festival. But then again: not every film entered is being sold, right? In this friendly and social community of amateur filmmaking, one might expect an honest standpoint from every filmmaker who enters. Are there many reasons to doubt a filmmaker's amateur-motives? Are there many examples of filmmakers entering who where really not amateurs?

If you have to pay to see my film, then it's not amateur.

A short comment about this: as I said above, you don't have to pay to see my film as it's online at about 9 different websites... Rex was published on (some of these) sites a couple of weeks before I put it up for sale on my website. This would have been a stupid thing to do if I really set out to make some nice coin.

But some of you must be thinking: how the hell could we have possibly known all this? We don't know this guy from Holland, and all we see is his film for sale online. I understand the frustration (and perhaps anger), and I have just recently come to realize that these sensitivities exist. I have never, ever thought that putting Rex up for sale would stir up this kind of conversation. But again, you're right: you couldn't have known my honest 'amateurist' intentions.

Or if people really want to have DVD copies, I don't think anyone would complain if you were only selling them at cost price, say €4-5?

This is an interesting point. I'd love to hear the 'nay sayers' ( ) comment on this. Technically (according to their point of view) it's for sale and thus not an amateur product.

Imagine that having tropical fish in an aquarium is your hobby. You buy the fish that you can afford. It's also like that in filmmaking. I offered my actors in the Breendonk-film sandwiches and drinks. I paid everything myself. I am not a wealthy man, but I could afford it. I hired a vintage car for "Together with Yoda". It was not cheap. I paid it myself, but afterwards the reward was that many people seemed to enjoy my film. My costs were refunded by the positive comments, the results at festivals and the smiles on the faces of people while seeing my film. I am proud to be a non-commercial filmmaker !

Willy, I'm on your side on this. Don't make a film if you can't afford it! That would be stupid, or even impossible. The fact that Rex is finished and being shown, proves that there was enough funding to produce it. And the fact that I'm working on a new film proves that I didn't need the 'profit' of Rex' DVD sales to finance this new movie.
As my Rex is online for everyone to see, I will and cannot send out DVD copies for free. It's just too expensive. I know I haven't made the best of deals, as a single DVD copy (including soundtrack CD, full color disc labels, 4/4 inlay and a thick Amaray case) costs me a little under € 8,- to produce, but I thought it should look as professional as possible.

If your film is made with any sort of budget, then it's not amateur? Of course you can pay actors expenses, and sell your copies at cost price, (which I would say would be £3-4?) but if you have any financial input into the film, like a grant or a sponsor, then that makes it ineligable? Unfortunately giving profits to charity still makes it a profit making film?...

I think there doesn't have to be a limit on a budget of an amateur film. Why should there? Why restrict those among us who actually are able to collect relatively large budgets?
I think as long as the funding doesn't come from a professional party (ie production company, commercial producer, TV station, etc), a film is produced with an amateur budget! Even if I ask my local butcher to sponsor our film, it doesn't become a commercial or even a professional product, in my opinion! As Chrisbitz states: the spirit shouldn't be ignored & an amateur film should be made for fun and be as accessible and free as possible. Putting it online and selling it next to that, still makes it available for free. Offering the DVD for sale is an extra 'service', which should only be done if the film is available for free elsewhere.

The (..) areas causing me concern: the situations where large group of people from film-schools make movies, obviously with the support of education finance. This support buys free actors, production, props, professional assistance (paid tutors), a whole range of tools and editing apps to give their movies professional production values.

Another very interesting point indeed. For my next film, I'm going to try and get some top Dutch actors (and not pay them anything, of course). Is this considered to be 'professional assistance'? If so, where do you draw the line? People who act for money in a theater company every now and then: technically: professionals (they're getting paid), but in reality they own a bookshop (for instance). Acting is something extra for them, next to their regular day job.
It would be very nice to hear some festival director's opinions on this. I'd love to see how they would judge a film made under these circumstances.
Film students are a whole different chapter. I don't think they should compete in the same categorie as us amateurs, that's unfair in a way. I know some people find this true for me as well, but I think there is a difference between people who actually got educated in making fiction films and people who earn money advertising fruit yoghurt.

In my view Rex has crossed the line, purely as it’s for sale to the world.

This quote is a nice examply of how 'polarizing' this whole discussion is. It's all about crossing this line that Billy talks about. Let's define this line...!!!!

My view is that even making nativity DVDs and selling them for GBP3 makes you a professional, income has been derived from film making

Another example of professionalis vs. commercialism. I don't think selling something makes you a professional in that field, as Chrisbitz points out:

there are plenty of technically speaking professionals making films, but I feel that's getting off the topic. personally, I don't have a problem with them. I'm one myself. I think there's a HUGE difference between a professional filmmaker, and a commercial film. This topic is about a commercial film...

I think Mike sums it up very well:

* Professional film-makers can make a film for IAC 'amatuier/non-commercial' compettions, provided their movie isn't made for commercial reasons. (This includes 'amateurs' who make the odd wedding movie for a fee of some sort)

This would mean that George Lucas could take part in BIAFF, as long as he doesn't sell his film!! That's kind of strange I think, when you're talking about an amateur film festival...!!!

And:

* If people ask for a copy of your amateur/non-commercial film - whether it be two people or 100 people or 1000 people - then you have to give a copy to them for free, otherwise it is deemed to have been sold and it then becomes a commercial enterprise. Presumably 'free' includes postage where required as well?

I sense some sarcasm here, am I right? This is exactly what we're talking about here. Main question: what's the defintion of an amateur movie...???????
Please allow me to give my definition: "A film that is deemed to be made for love, with no financial reward in mind and without technical and/or creative assistance from professionals (ie. people who make money doing what they do)." and in close relation to this my definition of the amateur circuit: "The place where amateur films are shown that have not been commercialised or sold to networks/distribution companies. The amateur circuit is only home to films that are meant to be shown to as big an audience as possible, on a free and open stage."

Looking forward to reading yours!

Please forgive me if I sound harsh or anything. I definately don't feel offended by any of your remarks and comments, and I hope you neither will be by mine. This is a nice (very broad and deep) discussion in which people have very contradicting opinions. That's very cool...

[Chrisbitz]

That is such an amazingly impressive and fair post, I just don't know where to start.

I think I'll just wait for someone else to post first.

[ned c]

Thanks for your detailed comments, Berry.

My apologies for having injected the "professional v amateur" debate into a review of "what is a commercial film", but I do think it does have some relevance.

When entrants sign the Festival form it is assumed they are telling the truth and in the case of AMPS we assume the film has been made for "fun" and not for financial gain. If, subsequently the film achieves a level of demand by word of mouth that the film maker is distributing copies and needs to recover costs and postage then that is fine, this was not the original intent. However, this does transform the film maker from being an amateur to being a professional. This is personal commercialism, the application of my skills to earning money, quite different to selling the work of some other artist/creator. If my creative work is for sale, either directly by me or through a third party then that make me a "professional creator".

A personal experience that related to this was the documentary I made with Iowa State University for which I carried all the expenses personally, part of the agreement was that the film was not to be sold, under any circumstances. The film won a Ten Best of the West award and was included in their compilation that was to be offered for sale (to help recover expenses), we had to withdraw the film as this contravened the agreement. Subsequently we removed the copyright claim on the film and have encouraged people to make copies, it can also be downloaded (if you have the time!) from the University website. My point is that rather than selling copies we should encourage people to make their own copies, modern DVD copying is easy and efficient. Since the creation has no commercial value then no one is losing out but rather gaining viewership.

I cannot see the difference between employing professional actors and a professional cinematographer but not paying them. The majority of professional actors are "part time professionals" and have other jobs to make a living, this is also true of many other professionals in the film industry, (spend a few days in LA and everyone is associated with the film industry even if they are serving your lunch!). I suspect that this would contravene both the spirit and the intent of the BIAFF regulations although acceptable at AMPS. Again it is the way the term "amateur" is defined, AMPS defines the FILM and its commercial intent not its MAKERS, BIAFF defines the MAKERS.

ned c

[Willy]

Like most Dutchmen you are an excellent debater, Berry. This is a compliment. The Dutch are also very good and energetic business men. Maybe the best business men in the world ! They have enormous powers of persuasion. Our forum-friends know that I love the Dutch almost as much as the Britons. I am sometimes invited by the filmclub in Roosendaal and I was even a judge in the final judging panel of NOVA last year. I also attended the Benelux-Festivals in Beverwijk twice and at the European school my Dutch colleagues were my best friends. I have the impression that you are a real Dutchman, Berry ! In some way I am jealous.

However, I think that there are some contradictions in what you are saying. I will give an example :
"In the example Dave gives the movie was not made with a profit in mind. But again, neither was Rex !" ... And the fact that I am working on a new film proves that I didn't need "the profit" of "Rex DVD sales to finance this new movie without financial reward in mind. I think that's the core of this discussion." BUT : to me it is clear that you want to recoup your costs (=financial reward in mind) and also to make new projects possible.

In fact it is a pity that you have offered your film on sale mentioning your awards on your website, because up to now you have not sold one DVD as you told us. My question: don't you regret having done this ... and will you do this again in the future ?
I also asked two other questions in a previous message, but I must admit that it would be better to open an other thread for them. For instance : You told me that there are disadvantages to be a member of a filmclub. I still wonder why . I also asked a question about "crossing the imaginary line" in "Rex".

After all I think that Mike Shaw has given an excellent summary of all the opinions made by our forum friends.

Something very important in my opinion. In a private message a friend, who has quite a lot of experience in organising competititons, said the following thing :

"We want our audience to be entertained by top quality films ... but obviously "amateur" films are superbly entertaining too. Maybe a seperate category is the answer. These are interesting times."


Maybe you can only understand this if you are a real hobbyist who makes films all the time on your own expenses. When I am a judge I enjoy very simple "amateurish" films made by non-commercial filmmakers even more than extroaordinary mega-productions. It makes me think of a short film called "Wagtail" or something like that. It's on the AMPS-compilation disk and it was sent to me. The maker was one of the winners. Maybe he used the cheapest camera in the world. Obviously it was not a film that could be sold. That's the charm of a festival for non-commercial filmmakers.

One more thing, Berry : I am very happy that you have joined this forum. I don't always agree with you and you don't agree with me and with some friends, but we are all sure that you love making films. You make films for fun. That's great ... whatever your real intentions may be. We need people like you. As my British friend said in his private message : Maybe a seperate category is the answer. An open category. 5-6 years ago there was one at BIAFF.

[Mike Shaw]

I sense some sarcasm here, am I right? This is exactly what we're talking about here. Main question: what's the definition of an amateur movie...???????
Please allow me to give my definition: "A film that is deemed to be made for love, with no financial reward in mind and without technical and/or creative assistance from professionals (ie. people who make money doing what they do)."

Can you see what a quagmire of (mis)interpretation this whole subject engenders? Oh wow. (Yes, I was being a little sarcastic btw!)

Let me take that definition "A film that is deemed to be made for love, with no financial reward in mind and without technical and/or creative assistance from professionals (ie. people who make money doing what they do)" in two stages.

First, if I make a movie for the love of it, as I do, then all those people want copies, and I charge them - or they donate to me - the cost of duplication and postage, I still have no financial reward in mind. But, because I have sold copies now, that makes it commercial in the eyes of some. The active words here are with no financial regard in mind - remember my original query on this stated that if there was anything over after the cost of reproduction/printing/ etc had been paid it would go to a charity. Thus, no financial gain or reward. However, the naysayers are saying no no (or nay nay), "you've sold it. That makes it commercial!"

The second point in the statement - "without technical and/or creative assistance from professionals (ie. people who make money doing what they do", rather knocks out the possibility to go to paid for lessons on cinematography doesn't it ... we're then getting advice from professionals who make their living at it. Even if I ask a pro for advice on how to shoot a particular scene - a) to get the scene right and b) to learn a bit more about the hobby, I'll be breaking the rules.

Frankly, I think the whole thing needs proper examination in a sensible way, taking in all the factors involved. The current 'I think this and they said that in their comp rules' is getting us all no where. It is a quagmire. The definitions are either too loose or too restricting.

If the 'non-commercial' rule meant you could still recover the cost of duplication, but weren't allowed to profit from sales, then I think it would make more sense. Think of a film, now, made for a charity - aimed at drawing in money for the charity. How does that stack up? The film has been made not for sale - but to make money - for the charity. It's OUT by the rules. And if you ask a pro film maker to advise on the lighting for your indoor shots, whether directly, in a classroom, or through the pages of a magazine - you're OUT again.

Nope. It is definitely a quagmire, and what it needs is a little more common sense and a lot less dogmatism. In my opinion of course.

[Willy]

I sense some sarcasm here, am I right?
Nope. It is definitely a quagmire, and what it needs is a little more common sense and a lot less dogmatism. In my opinion of course.

Sarcasm ! That is a very strong word in Dutch, Mike. I don't think there is any sarcasm. I agree with everything in your last messages. Maybe we've all made a quagmire of it ourselves on this forum, but it is true ... the rules must be "adjusted". I am worried that our festivals with lose some of their charm and that after some time we won't be able to encourage real hobbyists to take part in BIAFF and the Lily anymore. In my opinion there must be some "souplesse", but I am against the saying "rules are there to be broken !".

An anecdote : in Belgium everybody talks about him. He has already discouraged many non-commercial filmmakers. His actors are famous TV-stars. He tells everybody that his actors don't want to be paid. They find it an honour to play a role in his films he says. I am sure that he doesn't lie at all, but on a website of a publishing house you can find the title of a book that is for sale. It has the title of his film. The publishing house also tells the reader that the film is based on the story of the book. You can buy both. Once I wrote a book together with some friends. We received a percentage on the sale of that book at the end of the year .... That man also has two co-producers. Some years ago he wanted to take part in a festival. He didn't tell his two friends. The first prize was money ! Of course the organisers of the festival invited him to the ceremony, but he couldn't (or didn't want to) come. He hoped that the organisers would send him the money.Therefore his two friends were asked to come, but in the beginning they didn't know that their own film was the winning film of a festival.

Such things are disgusting and may spoil the charm of a friendly festival. Luckily it happened behind the scenes. My friends know that I am not a fanatic at all. I even encouraged people like Urbain who had his own firm (Cineac TV-productions) to take part in festivals like BIAFF, just because I knew that he also made films only for fun. He is also someone who always did his utmost to encourage young people to make excellent films. I think that also Berry is a passionate young filmmaker. I don't say this in an ironical way. I mean it. There is a danger of giving your opinion in a written way. On this forum for instance. Written words can easily be misinterpreted. That's also why so many forum-friends read our messages but don't want to give their own opinion. Now it's time to read Ned's message, because I have already seen that he has started a new thread on the forum with maybe the same theme.

[Dave Watterson]

Maybe it's worth discussing why the rules are there, and what's the spirit of the rules? I personally imagine that the rules are there so that a 14 year old kid can compete on a level playing field with a millionaire film maker.

That remark from Chrisbitz strikes at the heart of this discussion - and others like the one arguing for judging "like against like" so that documentaries are not judged against dramas and so on.

We can argue about words - and that is fun - but what is our intention?

A level playing field sounds nice ... but how could you achieve it?

Many people are lone film makers. Is it fair that they compete against groups? (I realise that working with a group like a club can be a handicap rather than a help sometimes! But there are several groups where one person specialises in sound, another in camera work, another in directing, another is presenting to camera or acting and so on.)
Some people can spend a fortune on equipment, others have different priorities in life and spend the minimum on their film making hobby.

Some people have a great deal of experience of cinema - amateur and professional - so they can draw on all of that to help them, while others are newcomers just beginning to experiment with movie making.

Some people are clever others are not.

Some people have talent in our hobby others do not.

There is a nasty suspicion in the back of my mind that some people whose films do not get top prizes want to reorganise things so that their type of film will do better. It is relatively easy to focus on "commercialism" or "professionalism" ... but do you want to go further? How about competition categories for people of different age groups, or IQ levels, or height, or skin colour, or political view?

If you finally narrow it down enough everyone can be a winner in their own category of one!

Of course I am going to ridiculous extremes here ... but seriously what is the underlying aim of all those rules? Let's set aside for a time the interpretation of words and phrases. Let's think what we really want to arrange and then see if we can find ways to express that unambiguously in words.

I must add that for me one of the joys of IAC - the Film & Video Institute is that it supports and encourages ALL types and ALL levels of film making. In the daily work of the IAC and its members the distinction between award winners and non-winners is totally unimportant. These issues only emerge when looking at competitions whose purpose is to sort out the films on the basis of their quality, as perceived by the judges.

Dave

[Willy]

1. A level playing field sounds nice ... but how could you achieve it? ...
2. There is a nasty suspicion in the back of my mind that some people whose films do not get top prizes want to reorganise things so that their type of film will do better.
3. I must add that for me one of the joys of IAC - the Film & Video Institute is that it supports and encourages ALL types and ALL levels of film making. In the daily work of the IAC and its members the distinction between award winners and non-winners is totally unimportant.
Dave

My camera, a sony 2000, is broken. I bought a second-hand camera in Germany last week, but I have not received it yet. That's a pity because the weather conditions are excellent to do some camera work and I am being bored stiff at this moment. It has one big advantage. I have enough time to work off my emotions on this forum. This is one of the reasons why I write so many long messages. Hopefully I will receive my camera very soon...

1. You can never achieve it, Dave, but you can always try to improve the system. At Benelux I didn't hear any complaints about the system. There were different categories. Age groups, racial groups etc... that's exaggerated ... Nobody on this forum argued in favour of this and there will always be poor fellows who must compete with millionaires. That's something we can't avoid.
2. It's easy to say so if you don't make films and don't compete in festivals every year. I myself won some top prizes the last few years (AMPS, Czech Republic, regional and national competitions etc...). I would be a hypocrite to say that these awards have left me cold. However at this moment I am reorganising things a bit. Why ? I remember that someone suggested to try something else.... Filmmakers like ... and I myself have their own style. They take part in our British festivals every year. There may be a nasty feeling that after some time the audience get tired of these "stereotypical" films. We make films because we enjoy it, but also to express our feelings and to create fun in the hearts of friends who attend our festivals. There is some fear that after some time people don't enjoy our films anymore. Then there are two possiblities : you stop making films for festivals or you try to reorganise. I mean you try to make different films.
3. I agree with you more or less, Dave. For me one of the joys of the IAC is that it supports and encourages all types and levels of filmmaking, but the films must still have been made by real hobbyists. It would be unfair to deny this. Maybe I am as stubborn as a Guernsey donkey now, but I think that everybody here agrees with this. For the other ones there are festivals in Montreal, Berlin and Cannes. My former clubmate Douglas Boswell who makes films for fun and for a living does not take part in BIAFF anymore because otherwise he would feel embarrassed. This is to his credit.

[Willy]

[quote="Dave Watterson
...It has one big advantage.

Sorry, I meant disadvantage.
One more thing : "In the daily work of the IAC and its members the distinction between award winners and non-winners is totally unimportant." I know what you mean, Dave, but winning awards is important for most competitors otherwise they would not compete. An award is a form of appreciation for the work of art that they have made. After each festival there is always a discussion about stars and diamonds among the members. In fact this is one of the fascinating aspects of a festival.

[Berry]

Hi guys,

Coming off a long weekend, it took me quite a while to read all the new posts (including those in the new topic started by Ned C).

As it appears, this whole thing includes so many issues and problems, that is seems almost impossible to get all these things properly defined. For instance, we've talked about amateur film, commercial, non-commercial, professional, passion, professional assistance etc, etc. Hardly any of these words mean exactly the same to each of us filmmaking friends. And even though we try hard to express our opinions on all of these terms, the defintions and interpretations other people on this forum have will probably remain unchanged. This is because we've touched upon a very essential and sensitive aspect of our amateur circuit. People are passionate about this, they really "think what they feel". And feelings are hard to change.

All these discussions make it apparant that we are talking about a real set of issues here. We might not be able to convince each other of our own statements and points of view. It's therefore probably the best to let each festival decide what they think is an eligible film. I just learned yesterday that Rex won't be accepted at the Guernsey Lily festival because it is for sale on my website (as all of you probably know ). Even though I don't agree with the way the selection committee has interpreted their own rules (Rex was not made with a financial reward in mind), I will accept their decision, whatever it is. I now start to realise that it is a festival jury's job to decide whether or not a film suits the 'amateur' or 'non-commercial' standards that his/her festival maintains. The only thing that's up to us, is to continue to make films in the way we feel most comfortable.

This goes for a lot of you I think: I have been making films for some years now, and I have never stopped listening to my heart. I have always done things in the way that felt best at that moment. I never made a decision that would compromise the integrety of my film. Simply put: when I make a film I do the things the way I want to do them. (This may sound harsher than I mean it, but you'll get the point!)
If a consequence of this is that Rex (or any future film) will not be eligible to play at a festival, then so be it. Although I find it very unfortunate to lose a potentially big audience, I don't think I should change my principles to suit someone elses. This is something I learned after contacting Peter Rouillard about my willingness to cancel the online sale of Rex. It didn't feel right and I shouldn't have done that. It was not correct to ask him this. Not towards him, but neither towards my own princples.
I guess you're never too young to learn!

(By the way, I am not reffering to the GL festival in particular, but to the festival community in general. For instance, the above statement would also go for a film that runs for 31 minutes, while a festival only accepts 30 minute films.)

However, this still remains a wonderful discussion. My point is that the issues we talk about are rooted so deeply, it is very hard to convince each other. But this doesn't mean we should stop talking about it! Please, let us continue to express our feelings in this highly topical discussion!

[Berry]

Willy,

I finally have some time to answer the questions you asked last week.

1. My question, Berry : "What are the disadvantages of being a member of a filmclub ?"

Working with a team you know very will has huge advantages. This is absolutely true. You know each others sensitivities and strenghts. This works in your film's favor.
Working on your own (which is only possible on a very, very small scale) has huge advantages as well. You can work as fast as you want and do things the way you want them to be done.

However, there are also disadvantages. Working with a team gives you tremendous responsibilities towards your fellow filmmakers. You are bound to create obligations and ask even more of yourself (or is this an advantage?).
Working on your own, of course, also limits your creativity besides the obvious liberties.

To find a way to combine the best of these two starting points, I decided not to join a filmclub.
Let me explain.
Being a member of a filmclub gives you the simple responsibility to attend club meetings. As I said before, I do not have the time to commit myself to a club in any way. This would not be fair to the club: yes I am a member, but no I have no time to contribute.
Secondly, I feel that I can control my creative freedom (hate the word) more if I continue to make films from my own initiative, ie. 'independently'. Working with friends in a filmclub makes you responsible and dependent on your clubmates. Please do not take offence on what I'm saying, because I do see the huge advantages a filmclub has (collective talent, experience, equipment, budget), but I suppose it's just not for me. I don't think any filmclub would be happy to have me as its member...

2. In Clervaux a judge told us that you crossed the imaginary line a few times in your film "Rex". I told you this.
In your message to me you have said the following thing :
"It is comical that some of your friends quibble over crossing the imaginary line in my film "Rex". I find this an obsurd discussion. Rules are there to be broken. As long as crossing the imaginary line does not affect the interpretation and logic of the story then it is OK in my opinion. The filmmaker is free to experiment where he wants to do this."
I agree with the last sentence, Berry. You must even cross the imaginary line if it is functional. If it gives a strange and wrong feeling, then I think it is better not to cross the imaginary line. What do you think about this ?

Difficult point, because I almost never 'think' while shooting, I just tend to 'do'. But in hindsight I think I partially agree with you. You should cross the line when it is functional, no doubt about that. No reason not to do this actually. Not doing this just because "filmrules state that you should never cross the line", is indeed rubbish. Filmrules (whatever they may be) should never, ever restrict your creative freedom! They are there as a guideline, not as a law.
If crossing the line gives a strange and wrong feeling and this is your intention, then it is functional. If it is not your goal to create these feelings, it is probably a mistake!

I think the bottomline in filmmaking is following the 'logics' of the art. If two people are talking, you shoot both people's faces. If someone is running away from something mysterious or unknown, it's probably best to show just the person's backside, in order not to reveal the monster or whatever.
Not crossing the line is also a 'logic' of the art, for it has become part of the art's grammar. But when you feel like taking some poetic liberty, the grammar doesn't keep you from doing this, unless you see this grammar as your 'starting point'...