That's clearly put. I understand. Thank you.Jameela M Boardman wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:17 am Sorry Tim, but I can't compromise on the word 'hobby'. To an outsider 'hobby' and 'vocation' may look the same, both can involve considerable time and expense, but the crucial difference is that of intention. A hobby is optional, a vocation is the purpose of one's life.
I may be way off track here, but I'd suggest your vocation is not so much making films as getting your message across. This is different from what Michael Slowe describes which is a passion for film making - I'd be interested, Michael, if you consider it a "vocation" as well as/rather than a passion or obsession.
I am not belittling that - the message is what's important. The film making is how you get it across.
Similarly nursing is considered by many who enter the profession a vocation. But the vocation, what they dedicate their lives to, is caring for people. Knowing how to inject a correct dose of medicine safely is the means, not the vocation.
Ditto teaching. The vocation is imparting knowledge and inspiring students. Knowing how to use classroom software and technology (in our days we called it a blackboard) or how to ensure we pass an Ofsted inspection
Like it or not, there is an element of competition here. We expect standards. No matter how caring a nurse might be, if she hasn't passed her exams I do not want her administering medicines to my sick mother or daughter. Similarly I don't want someone who cannot pass GCSE maths teaching my daughter A level maths.
"The Charity's object and its principal activity continue to be that of the promotion, advancement and improvement of general education in relation to all aspects of cinematography and associated audio and visual arts and the development of public appreciation of such arts"
Nowhere does this suggest to me that this has anything to do with the importance of the subject or how artistic the film is. What it does tell me is that the IAC exists (or should exist) to help you get your message across better.
I disagree. Your film is being judged by how well you get your message across - not the message itself. I'm sure you'd agree that given two films with equally important messages, the one which provokes a stronger reaction in the audience has done a better job and is therefore worthy of more praise than the other. The IAC is about film making and the appreciation of films, NOT the message itself.
Here you and I are in total agreement. The objective should be guidance as to how to improve the delivery of the message. However, in my limited experience, I have never, ever heard of a film as having "lost" a competition or an entrant described as a "loser". I would be most upset if I did hear it.Jameela M Boardman wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:17 am To have a film put down as the loser in a competition such as BIAFF, is sadistic towards the artist who tried to speak out. Perhaps the film was aimed at a different type of audience. Perhaps the judges were not familiar with the issues. Perhaps the filmmaker just needed guidance not a kicking.
Finally (in this post!) "art" is a real problem. The only arbiter as to whether something is art or not is the artist. If I take a photo of someone urinating against a wall and say it's art, it is art. If a gallery chooses not to exhibit it, should I feel marginalised?