film students on this side please

[Atta Chui]

Do you think we really need to put film school student productions in a separate
"Open" category in competitions?

Technological gap is narrower now. While youngers might have more time to
burn, many of us have 10s of years of experiences. Surely "we" can make productions
that stand well with film school productions.

Your skill to write a script and direct the film has nothing to do with technology
at all.

As long as the film is independent and is not for commercial purpose, it
is a fine one!

Atta

[Michael Slowe]

"Atta Chui" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Do you think we really need to put film school student productions in a
separate
"Open" category in competitions?

Technological gap is narrower now. While youngers might have more time to
burn, many of us have 10s of years of experiences. Surely "we" can make
productions
that stand well with film school productions.

Your skill to write a script and direct the film has nothing to do with
technology
at all.

As long as the film is independent and is not for commercial purpose, it
is a fine one!

Atta

Atta, couldn't agree more! The less barriers the better.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

I agree, it doesn't matter if it's a "student" film or "amateur", we are all
in the same boat here. We all throw our cash at non-profit ventures. Fair
doos, the students will move on to earning buck outta there works (theoretically)
but meantime the work deserves fair and equal treatment.
Hey but anyway, I'm sure we find our every production is a learning experience.

[Dave Watterson]

It was before my time on IAC Council but I think the reason for making a distinction
between "open" and "amateur" was a perception by many amateurs that students
and others in the open group had access to better equipment. There might
have been something to that in the days when some people still used 16mm
but not now.

We must remember, however, that IAC's purpose is to encourage ALL amateur
movie makers ... not just the best. It is quite as important that an absolute
beginner whose work may be pretty poor is encouraged and nudged in the right
direction as it is to give well-deserved praise to a fine movie maker.

I agree there are now many shades of "amateur" from mum shooting pics of
the kids on the lawn to professional boom operators directing a drama, using
their colleagues and borrowed kit, via the wedding video folk and all those
clubs who do newsreels or what are in effect "corporate videos" for charities
and local good causes.

There seems to be a group of people content to be "not specially god at movie
making" but who like to get praise and prizes as much as anyone else. I
think they may be looking for the odd "A for effort" reward. But it is their
influence that I perceive to be behind the distinction. Perhaps what the
rule really means is "don't put my movie up against a good one".

I wish we could agree on a way of encouraging all movie makers brave enough
to enter their work for competitions and scrutiny but not at the expense
of ghettoising the best.

McDave

[AN]

Quite recently Channel 4 was asking for submissions for the outline of an
animated film to be financed by them up to max run time of six minutes, for
students.
The budget to be given to successful entrants was between 6 and 30k pounds!!!
I wasn't interested myself as it required one to work on 16:9 ratio, (which
as I've said before, I consider to be creative crap.)

But the mischievous in me got the upper hand and I sent them two of my films
(which also ran for 6 minutes), whose total budget was 19.50p ! Haven't
heard back from them... Maybe it's because I pointed out to em that my HUGE
lighting rig consists of two 60watt Woolworths electric light bulbs,

Albert...lighting up time.

[Michael Slowe]

"Dave Watterson" <big.dave@net.net> wrote:

It was before my time on IAC Council but I think the reason for making a
distinction
between "open" and "amateur" was a perception by many amateurs that students
and others in the open group had access to better equipment. There might
have been something to that in the days when some people still used 16mm
but not now.

We must remember, however, that IAC's purpose is to encourage ALL amateur
movie makers ... not just the best. It is quite as important that an absolute
beginner whose work may be pretty poor is encouraged and nudged in the right
direction as it is to give well-deserved praise to a fine movie maker.

I agree there are now many shades of "amateur" from mum shooting pics of
the kids on the lawn to professional boom operators directing a drama, using
their colleagues and borrowed kit, via the wedding video folk and all those
clubs who do newsreels or what are in effect "corporate videos" for charities
and local good causes.

There seems to be a group of people content to be "not specially god at
movie
making" but who like to get praise and prizes as much as anyone else. I
think they may be looking for the odd "A for effort" reward. But it is
their
influence that I perceive to be behind the distinction. Perhaps what the
rule really means is "don't put my movie up against a good one".

I wish we could agree on a way of encouraging all movie makers brave enough
to enter their work for competitions and scrutiny but not at the expense
of ghettoising the best.

McDave

Dave, you have just highlighted one of the main problems that the IAC must
face. We must not "dum down". One of my main motivations in my early film
making days was to match the films that I used to see at the annual Ten Best
show. To finally manage that gave me huge satisfaction but that would not
have been possible if the high standard films had not been in the competition
in the first place. Similarly at my club (the old Edgware Cine Society) when
I saw the films by the more experienced members I was amazed and without
those films to aim at I probably would not have progressed.

We must be exposed to the very best work that is being produced, amateur,
film school and yes, people who earn their living from film (but not commercial
films) if we are to raise the standard. By all means encourage everyone but
don't shield them from the wider world.

[Ned C]

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

produced, amateur,

film school and yes, people who earn their living from film (but not commercial)

I don't understand this comment. Although I am semi-retired (this means I
can turn down jobs I don't like the look of)I am involved in making commercial
films so do I get cut out again!

Ned C

[Michael Slowe]

"Ned C" <goslands@infowest.com> wrote:

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

produced, amateur,
film school and yes, people who earn their living from film (but not commercial)


I don't understand this comment. Although I am semi-retired (this means
I
can turn down jobs I don't like the look of)I am involved in making commercial
films so do I get cut out again!

Ned C

Ned, are you deliberately misunderstanding? I specifically suggested that
we should welcome professionals but that presumably films that they have
made in the course of following their profession (that is commercially made
for profit), would be prohibited by the current rules.

I have always suggested, even in the old Movie Maker days, that professional
(commercial) films themselves should be welcome in our competitions but that
would, I know ,be regarded as unfair competition. I don't see why, because
many commercial documentaries seen on TV today would not get very far in
some "amateur" competitions.

[reg lancaster]

Things on this site are really livening up, aren't they? Great stuff!

Can I remind big Dave and others that the biggest reason the Open category
came in was not equipment related really. It was when we would be at St Ermins
for the IAC Festival, and on the Gala Show programme would come some pretty
good films, lasting say five to twenty minutes.
I am not equating quality with time on screen, of course, but what caused
dismay among most British watchers, would be the up to four minute end title
sequence listing anything up to 100 people who had helped make it.
They were made as part of University courses, to create show reels, and emanated
mainly from Berkley or UCLA... it appeared that they felt it looked good
on their CV to have Silver and Gold seals from our competition.
The ordinary homegrown amateur film maker, or even the ordinary film making
club, just could not see the playing field as level.

Then the BBC launched their short film (i.e. the classic cefinition of less
than 60 mins) competition which I believe now attracts thousands of entries,
and those Open, here-I-am-Holly-wood films have largely disappeared from
our and other European short film competitions.

Of course we now have genuine non professional films coming from the Continent,
and maybe someof our film makers don't like that, but it does raise the standard
of the Show as you'll have seen at Norwich. That they are so grown-up and
intelligent in their attitude to big contemporary problems is all to do with
the state of our national attitude to cultural matters. We have massively
dumbed down as Michael Slowe was saying here,on the one hand, and also it
could be said that we suffer from an absence of brash young film makers at
the start of their film making lives, though there are some, like Mark Jackson
and Oliver Wright who are really promising.
It is all to do with the problem of where are the young adults? The whole
problem of hobby organisations UK-wide. People don't "join" the way they
did years ago, and they certainly are few and far between who want to "do"
as well!
If you have the answer, let's hear it lads and lasses.

Reg Lancs
8607








"Dave Watterson" <big.dave@net.net> wrote:

It was before my time on IAC Council but I think the reason for making a
distinction
between "open" and "amateur" was a perception by many amateurs that students
and others in the open group had access to better equipment. There might
have been something to that in the days when some people still used 16mm
but not now.

We must remember, however, that IAC's purpose is to encourage ALL amateur
movie makers ... not just the best. It is quite as important that an absolute
beginner whose work may be pretty poor is encouraged and nudged in the right
direction as it is to give well-deserved praise to a fine movie maker.

I agree there are now many shades of "amateur" from mum shooting pics of
the kids on the lawn to professional boom operators directing a drama, using
their colleagues and borrowed kit, via the wedding video folk and all those
clubs who do newsreels or what are in effect "corporate videos" for charities
and local good causes.

There seems to be a group of people content to be "not specially god at
movie
making" but who like to get praise and prizes as much as anyone else. I
think they may be looking for the odd "A for effort" reward. But it is
their
influence that I perceive to be behind the distinction. Perhaps what the
rule really means is "don't put my movie up against a good one".

I wish we could agree on a way of encouraging all movie makers brave enough
to enter their work for competitions and scrutiny but not at the expense
of ghettoising the best.

McDave

[AN]

"reg lancaster" <amlancaster@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Then the BBC launched their short film (i.e. the classic cefinition of less
than 60 mins) competition which I believe now attracts thousands of entries,

I believe that ceased 2 years ago. But the Bradford museum of photography
etc. now do a shorts comp.

Of course we now have genuine non professional films coming from the Continent,
and maybe someof our film makers don't like that, but it does raise the
standard
of the Show as you'll have seen at Norwich.
That they are so grown-up and
intelligent in their attitude to big contemporary problems is all to do
with
the state of our national attitude to cultural matters.

We have such an easy life here that we are not moved very much to make the
heavy 'message' film... we have little to say. The continentals, (maybe
because of the WW2 occupation?) seem to have more to express.
Albert...Express dairy.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

Here Here! Albert. I've always believed that movie production is vastly overpriced
these day especially with high quality CGI like in "The Mummy Returns" obviously
done as a 'homer'by ILM on their way to the shopping mall. The largest singal
portion of a films' budget going to actors/celebrities who can't be anyone
except (and perhaps not even) themselves.
We, the amateurs, can teach the mainstream a thing or two on bugets. I recall
Sean Astin taught Richard Donner a few tricks during production of "The Goonies"
when he was a mere 15 yrs old. Sean started out making super 8mm movies before
his big career break.
The money we spend on our films is by proportion still a lot but it does
go somewhere that yields either resources or results.
As for 16:9, it's a pity TV still has a little but a long way to go to presenting
the cinema image correctly on the small screen. Good old 2:35.1, Cinemascope
2x Anamorphic Panascreen format!
Have any other amateurs used their old anamorphics with their video cameras?