Is IAC magazine worth it?

[Michael Slowe]

Of course everything is far from ideal with the IAC but it's all we have here
in the UK for non commercial film makers. In the old days (1950's, 60's
and 70's) we had the splendid magazine Movie Maker professionally owned and
edited and believe me it held the whole non commercial film making community
together and enthralled. Many now famous film makers (Ken Russell, Kevin
Brownlow and others) came to prominence through their pages and their competition
The Ten Best. Granted it had many advantages over our present day situation
but that is what we should aim at.

How many films has 'Ace' made this year and has he entered them in the IAC's
festival BIAFF? I urge him to try and contribute at least in this fashion.
Film making is much more than a hobby to me, Ken Wilson and others I could
mention, it is a passion as life itself. To misquote the legendary Bill
Shankley it's more important than that! The IAC is all we have at present
so we should nuture it, encourage it and do all we can to ensure it's survival.
Perhaps the subscriptions should be based on people's ability to pay which
may raise more money. This is how the actor's union Equity runs, members
pay a sum based on their last years earnings, with a sensible cut off figure.
Would such a scheme work for the IAC and would it be tolerated by members?
Maybe it would.

Finally, perhaps the 'powers that be' (Dave note) could transfer the whole
of our debate to the public pages of the magazine where it would (could?)
be read by very many more people than apparently partake on this forum.


"Ace" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

KV and Ron Jarrett are right on the money re the IAC magazine. However as
Ken Wilson states
"the magazine is the only place that members get news.." Fair enough, but
does it require the overall glossy aspect and associated expense to achieve
that? I don`t think so.
As far as NW region members are concerned, they get a small cheap pamphlet
type thing called Tripod News which is included with the IAC magazine....
Now I don`t know whether this applies for ALL the relevant regions of the
IAC, but whilst this pamphlet looks cheap and is cheap, it serves its purpose
in providing information. If its a case of keeping members fingers on the
pulse,why does`nt the IAC use that method instead? Far cheaper and more
practical.
All these people who say `Oh, I want to be able to feel the magazine
and
smell it and read it in my armchair, bath, back garden, etc etc.....Where
the hell is all that coming from!!!???
GET REAL!!!
To Ken Wilson and all the other advocates of the magazine the basic fact
of the matter is this..
It is NOT worth the money it costs to produce.PERIOD.
Why? Well not to put too fine a point on it, its full of W and P. I won`t
translate but heres a clue for those who need it.....wind and water.

I don`t know about anyone else, but I always get the impression that the
IAC is hanging on by its fingernails from one year to the next - so if finances
are such an important issue I`ll open up another Pandoras Box and ask this
question; In relation to what the IAC gets in yearly revenue re membership
fees, exactly how much DOES that magazine cost to produce? I for one would
like to know.

Mention has also been made of the fact that a lot of people have not got
internet access and that the mag is the only means they have of getting
news
(well I`ve already put forward a cheaper alternative to that)but lets get
things into proportion here..
As I do not know what the total IAC membership is in real terms (someone
on this forum has suggested 1800?), for the sake of argument lets say its
1600.
Question; How many people actually use this forum? As someone rightly mentioned
not long since, this forum is driven by a hardcore of only half a dozen
people
(!) They know who they are, and when things get quiet it it usually Dave
Watterson who throws a question in to keep the thing going!
By the law of averages there MUST be more than half a dozen of those 1600
members who HAVE got internet access.The fact is they they don`t bother.Exactly
why is the 64000 dollar question.
Even if it was only a quarter of that 1600, its still a sad state of affairs
when only 6 or 7 of them use this forum.

As far as the IAC is concerned, unless changes are made along the lines
which
`Ned C` suggests elsewhere on this forum, the phrase `flogging a dead horse`
springs to mind.

Ace

[Dave Watterson]

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:

I think that a member of the editorial FVM-staff can always correct
spelling mistakes and change the sentence structure a little bit in the
articles
that he receives.

What staff? There is only Garth. No one even acts as a typist for him.

Lee Prescott, many miles away, tries to chase up advertising. At one stage
Kenneth Seeger used to proof-read but I suspect that is not happening so
much now.

So far as I can see Garth hardly ever corrects or amends articles. Now and
then he trims something for reasons of space. Occasionally he chooses not
to use something offered to him.

I think he, like his distinguished predecessor Liz Donlan, does not see it
as part of his role to make such changes. He acts more as publisher than
editor. In fact, sadly, Garth sometimes adds typos because he often retypes
manually material he has been sent.

Dave

[Willy Van der Linden]

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:
I think that a member of the editorial FVM-staff can always correct
spelling mistakes and change the sentence structure a little bit in the
articles
that he receives.

What staff? There is only Garth. No one even acts as a typist for him.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jesus ! I admire Garth's work and I also admired Liz Donlan's work ! A pity
that I live in Belgium. I'm willing to act as a typist for him as a voluntary
worker, but of course I can't. Making such a magazine should be the work
of an editorial staff, not of only one person ! The magazine looks very professonal
and therefore I take off my hat to Garth. But it's also very positive that
many friends like Ken, Michael, Dave, Tom ... write useful articles for the
magazine.
Willy

[Ned C]

Who is Andy Marken USA?

Ned C

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:
I think that a member of the editorial FVM-staff can always correct
spelling mistakes and change the sentence structure a little bit in the
articles
that he receives.

What staff? There is only Garth. No one even acts as a typist for him.

Lee Prescott, many miles away, tries to chase up advertising. At one stage
Kenneth Seeger used to proof-read but I suspect that is not happening so
much now.

So far as I can see Garth hardly ever corrects or amends articles. Now and
then he trims something for reasons of space. Occasionally he chooses not
to use something offered to him.

I think he, like his distinguished predecessor Liz Donlan, does not see
it
as part of his role to make such changes. He acts more as publisher than
editor. In fact, sadly, Garth sometimes adds typos because he often retypes
manually material he has been sent.

Dave

[Ace]

"Ken Wilson" <kw@phase4.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

KV and Ron Jarrett are right on the money re the IAC magazine. However
as
Ken Wilson states
"the magazine is the only place that members get news.." Fair enough, but
does it require the overall glossy aspect and associated expense to achieve
that? I don`t think so.
As far as NW region members are concerned, they get a small cheap pamphlet
type thing called Tripod News which is included with the IAC magazine....

To Ken Wilson and all the other advocates of the magazine the basic fact
of the matter is this..
It is NOT worth the money it costs to produce.PERIOD.

The problem with a good discussion is that it will inevitably get very heated
and eventually turn nasty and personal. There are some good points along
this line of debate, however, my position remains steadfast! The magazine
is one of the two most important reasons for being a member of the IAC.
The
other is the BIAFF competition and movie weekend.
I first would like to clarify what I said about many people who do not have
a computer at all and no internet access. I know this for a fact as we travel
all around the country giving film shows and people have told me this. So
to remove the magazine entirely would surely be very unfair to those people
who wouldn`t get their news any other way.

I personally don`t spend very long sniffing my copy of the FVM, well not
more than an hour or two anyway, but I know what people mean. As a child
the smell of Christmas was the fresh print smell of my annuals (children`s
books) which were the most important presents I got.
"Hobby" magazines do not have to be up-to-the-minute in the same way as
a
newspaper or the "instant" news we get from TV. Tom`s articles which give
a lot of advice about equipment, often cameras or lenses, does not go out
of date in a couple of days time and is relevant when the next issue comes
out a few weeks later.

The regional magazines solution, i.e. cheap pamphlets, in no way can be
seen
as a substitute for a quality magazine.
I agree that there are lots of things than can be improved but comments
here
which are totally lacking any constructive suggestions are pointless. Those
on this forum who simply shout: "Rubbish", "Pointless" and "Bin-it" are
either
just winding us up or just moaning and wingeing for the sake of it.
Improve the mag by writing interesting material for it. As someone said
on
here, it is very easy for people to criticise, but not in the least helpful.

I agree with Tom that sometimes the colour pages could be used to better
advantage. I too have sent in colour pictures only to have then printed
in
black and white when the colour page seemed underused with only a single
picture or text heading. But I have edited our regional magazine "Nor` Easter"
and know how much work goes into that (pamphlet.) I had very little material
sent in most of the time so nothing to work with. The FVM editor, Garth
does
get some articles sent in, but I`ll bet rarely enough and it will be a scramble
at the last minute to fill it.
So stop complaining and do something about it. Write some articles and send
them in.
Yes, the IAC does seem to limp from one year to the next, but we need do-ers
not wingers!

Ken.

Excellent! I thought my comments would stir things up.We`re warming up at
last.
Seems the IAC dinosaur does`nt like its tail being tweaked.
Six responses on the forum and not one of them has answered - or even attempted
to -
my question regarding what the FVM actually costs to produce. Why? Why no
facts
and figures? Nobody got the backbone?
First off lets get the following out of the way - to the dedicated few
up and down the country who put the hours in to produce all IAC literature,
big or small. All credit to them. Nobody`s disputing that, but why bring
what they are doing into the equation, as some people have done in their
response? What has that got to do with what I`m primarily concerned about
- the financial burden the FVM is putting on the IAC?
Responding to what I have to say with things like `Oh, its easy to criticize`
and `you should try it before criticizing` etc,etc are meaningless and are
not going to solve anything. If that’s the best that people can come up with
theres no hope. Its just a classic case of the IAC burying its head in the
sand and hoping for the best.
Ken Wilson wrote `So stop complaining and do something about it..` Well
I have done - I`ve put forward a constructive suggestion (the pamphlet idea)
which could possibly save the IAC some serious revenue and whats happened?
He dismisses it out of hand and accuses me of being a whinger! Brilliant.
Nice one, Einstein! That’s not going to solve the problem, is it?
Writing articles and sending them in, as he suggests, will not stop
the costs of producing the FVM from rising from one year to the next, and
its THAT issue that needs dealing with. And as for actually expanding the
FVM well, that to me is just financial suicide.
I think what counts is what the members want - so, given the fact that most
IAC members are not on the net I think they should decide whether the FVM
is worth it or not by putting it to a vote. With a cheap questionnaire in
a future issue, ask THEM which they would prefer given that costs are now
becoming critical - the FVM mag or a cheaper alternative, with resultant
savings being used towards other things.
And if the FVM was voted down by a majority, would you Mr Wilson, still insist
on having it?

And to Michael Slowe - for your information I have entered BIAFF before
today.Cheers.

Ace

[Peter]

I probably have no right to contribute to this debate, but as it is an interesting
one, and so I'm going to join in. I'm sure I will be slagged off for being
too controversial, but who cares!

Michael of course, writes about those heady days, a golden era, not only
for film making, but for the arts generally. I'm talking here of the 50's
60' 70's and maybe 80's, as I'm sure he was.

It is sad, but there IS only the IAC now. I've never been a member of the
IAC, even during the period when I was an enthusiastic film maker, and a
member of a film society. The reason for me not joining the IAC is that I
have aways seen the IAC as an old man's club. I know this is a contemptible
statement to make, especially as I'm an old geezer myself now. At the same
time, I think I at least try to "think young" and I identify strongly with
young people. (Pretty girls asside ...) So the survival of the IAC, however
imperfect, is important.

I expect any of you that know me, will contradict this piece of self judgement,
and cry "Hell, he's THE most boring old git ever seen!" And I'm sure they
may be right. BUT, and here is the nub, we are now facing a revolution in
technology, not to mention education, and an explosion of cultures, all of
which have invaded these shores. Thus we see the death nell for, not only
film making as an artistic endeavour, but for music and many other arts too.

Am I pessamistic about this? Well, yes, very. But also optimistic at the
same time, but I can't say why. If we could get away from our obsession about
technique and technology, we may yet have a chance, and the golden age could
be upon us again. I live in hope, but I will probably die in hope too.

People won't use this forum, because there are too many alternatives, and
the general content, if I may be so bold, is not compelling enough.

So start sharpening the knives ...

Peter

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

Of course everything is far from ideal with the IAC but it's all we have
here
in the UK for non commercial film makers. In the old days (1950's, 60's
and 70's) we had the splendid magazine Movie Maker professionally owned
and
edited and believe me it held the whole non commercial film making community
together and enthralled. Many now famous film makers (Ken Russell, Kevin
Brownlow and others) came to prominence through their pages and their competition
The Ten Best. Granted it had many advantages over our present day situation
but that is what we should aim at.

How many films has 'Ace' made this year and has he entered them in the IAC's
festival BIAFF? I urge him to try and contribute at least in this fashion.
Film making is much more than a hobby to me, Ken Wilson and others I could
mention, it is a passion as life itself. To misquote the legendary Bill
Shankley it's more important than that! The IAC is all we have at present
so we should nuture it, encourage it and do all we can to ensure it's survival.
Perhaps the subscriptions should be based on people's ability to pay which
may raise more money. This is how the actor's union Equity runs, members
pay a sum based on their last years earnings, with a sensible cut off figure.
Would such a scheme work for the IAC and would it be tolerated by members?
Maybe it would.

Finally, perhaps the 'powers that be' (Dave note) could transfer the whole
of our debate to the public pages of the magazine where it would (could?)
be read by very many more people than apparently partake on this forum.


"Ace" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:


KV and Ron Jarrett are right on the money re the IAC magazine. However
as
Ken Wilson states
"the magazine is the only place that members get news.." Fair enough, but
does it require the overall glossy aspect and associated expense to achieve
that? I don`t think so.
As far as NW region members are concerned, they get a small cheap pamphlet
type thing called Tripod News which is included with the IAC magazine....
Now I don`t know whether this applies for ALL the relevant regions of the
IAC, but whilst this pamphlet looks cheap and is cheap, it serves its purpose
in providing information. If its a case of keeping members fingers on the
pulse,why does`nt the IAC use that method instead? Far cheaper and more
practical.
All these people who say `Oh, I want to be able to feel the magazine
and
smell it and read it in my armchair, bath, back garden, etc etc.....Where
the hell is all that coming from!!!???
GET REAL!!!
To Ken Wilson and all the other advocates of the magazine the basic fact
of the matter is this..
It is NOT worth the money it costs to produce.PERIOD.
Why? Well not to put too fine a point on it, its full of W and P. I won`t
translate but heres a clue for those who need it.....wind and water.

I don`t know about anyone else, but I always get the impression that the
IAC is hanging on by its fingernails from one year to the next - so if
finances
are such an important issue I`ll open up another Pandoras Box and ask this
question; In relation to what the IAC gets in yearly revenue re membership
fees, exactly how much DOES that magazine cost to produce? I for one would
like to know.

Mention has also been made of the fact that a lot of people have not got
internet access and that the mag is the only means they have of getting
news
(well I`ve already put forward a cheaper alternative to that)but lets get
things into proportion here..
As I do not know what the total IAC membership is in real terms (someone
on this forum has suggested 1800?), for the sake of argument lets say its
1600.
Question; How many people actually use this forum? As someone rightly mentioned
not long since, this forum is driven by a hardcore of only half a dozen
people
(!) They know who they are, and when things get quiet it it usually Dave
Watterson who throws a question in to keep the thing going!
By the law of averages there MUST be more than half a dozen of those 1600
members who HAVE got internet access.The fact is they they don`t bother.Exactly
why is the 64000 dollar question.
Even if it was only a quarter of that 1600, its still a sad state of affairs
when only 6 or 7 of them use this forum.

As far as the IAC is concerned, unless changes are made along the lines
which
`Ned C` suggests elsewhere on this forum, the phrase `flogging a dead horse`
springs to mind.

Ace

[Ian Gardner]

"Peter" <p-t@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

I probably have no right to contribute to this debate, but as it is an interesting
one, and so I'm going to join in. I'm sure I will be slagged off for being
too controversial, but who cares!
I`ve tried twice on here to post a really good reply but I have pressed

the wrong button on my keyboard and kept on looseing it. I give up. I try
later!
Ian Gardner!!!

[Ian Gardner]

"Peter" <p-t@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

People won't use this forum, because there are too many alternatives, and
the general content, if I may be so bold, is not compelling enough.

You are correct on this one. A forum has to be better or different to stand
out. People (human nature) are not bothered with standard stuff. They need
something different or totally OTT. I like this forum and the people on here.

A short story about critics..................
As you all know, I`m different! I normally try and fight for my opinion
even if it rubbishes my name. I this for the good of the people, even if
they don`t know it!
We had an editing competition and the judges totally B*****ed it up. The
rules to the comp were not aheard to. They treated the comp like all the
others. I lost marks and got a bad judges reply for my entry. Even through
it was within the rules and what they said went against the rules. I moaned
and moaned at the committee to change the rules to be more fairer and better.
They would not budge. So I did something about it. At the next competition
I did a really bad thing. It was a protest film. The comp was a `Video to
Music comp`. I chose the worst, noiseyest, loud, and really bad piece of
music I could find. I put titles ant the beginning and at the end. In the
middle (the film), I left it just blank! It had one fade from black to black!
The following day after the comp I received an email from the vice chairman
(he is my brothers, wifes dad!). He said that my credability was at an all
time low with the club and it`s members. He said my name was mud. If it continued
then I would be asked to leave! Has anyone here been kicked out of there
video club?
Anyway. I replyed to the club members (I have all there email addresses)(remember
I was Club secertary last year!)and apolagised for my film. I did say that
it was a protest. Anyway, at the next meeting (I forgot it was on that week)
the committee discused with all the members about competition rules. They
changed them. Only one is still a bit bad and i`ll look at that! Anyway the
rules are now fairer and better for new and older filmakers.All THAT hastle
and hate against me just to make something better for others! Is it worth
it.... Yes! One isn`t liked while it is going on but putting others first
comes first in my book. Even if they don`t know it!
My point is that it is really easy to keep a place of office or on a forum
if you are just `on the fence`. You are liked for this because you don`t
rock the boat. But if a person is like this then nothing gets done and things
drag on. On the otherhand. If you cause a storm. Things do get done, but
people hate you for it. So does one play safe or not.
Another thing. Discussions on this forum should be made yes.. but to get
a point across it does get heated and it then becomes personel. This should
not happen full stop.

So to get more people on here we need to think up subjects that are contrversal
maybe but still connected to this wonderfull passtime of Film Making.

So start sharpening the knives ...

You and me do have a rocky past on here. Bring it on! My knife is sharpened!

What do others think? Have I totally lost it?

Ian the boat rocker Gardner!

[Ian Gardner]

"Ace" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Excellent! I thought my comments would stir things up.We`re warming up at
last.
Seems the IAC dinosaur does`nt like its tail being tweaked.
Six responses on the forum and not one of them has answered - or even attempted
to -
my question regarding what the FVM actually costs to produce. Why? Why no
facts
and figures? Nobody got the backbone?

Basicly. I would like to know but it isn`t my business to know. It`s not
yours either!

First off lets get the following out of the way - to the dedicated
few
up and down the country who put the hours in to produce all IAC literature,
big or small. All credit to them. Nobody`s disputing that, but why bring
what they are doing into the equation, as some people have done in their
response? What has that got to do with what I`m primarily concerned about
- the financial burden the FVM is putting on the IAC?

A glossy mag IS good and yes, I also read mine in the bath! I cancelled my
membership to the IAC because it was exspensive and i`m taking a year or
two out to upgrade my gear. So no mag for me untill I re subscribe.

Responding to what I have to say with things like `Oh, its easy to criticize`
and `you should try it before criticizing` etc,etc are meaningless and are
not going to solve anything. If that’s the best that people can come up
with
theres no hope. Its just a classic case of the IAC burying its head in the
sand and hoping for the best.

Again. It`s none of our business but the IAC committee should take a note
of it`s members as in my latest post (see critics). We could all do what
I did and rebel and make a stand. Are you a boat rocker or just full of hot
air without a balloon?

I think what counts is what the members want - so, given the fact that most
IAC members are not on the net I think they should decide whether the FVM
is worth it or not by putting it to a vote. With a cheap questionnaire in
a future issue, ask THEM which they would prefer given that costs are now
becoming critical - the FVM mag or a cheaper alternative, with resultant
savings being used towards other things.

I actually agree with you here but I do like the mag. Members can rebel
you know and make a stand. This can be done by cancelling one`s subs or putting
bad films in. Like I said. Are you hot air or can you make a stand. Remember
that the IAC gets most of it`s money from subs. If this revinue goes then
the IAC stops. This would be bad but maybe talks can be possible before a
STRIKE!

Ian Action man Gardner

[Ian Gardner]

"Willy Van der Linden" <vanderlindenhig@telenet.be> wrote:

Jesus ! I admire Garth's work and I also admired Liz Donlan's work ! A pity
that I live in Belgium. I'm willing to act as a typist for him as a voluntary
worker, but of course I can't. Making such a magazine should be the work
of an editorial staff, not of only one person ! The magazine looks very
professonal
and therefore I take off my hat to Garth. But it's also very positive that
many friends like Ken, Michael, Dave, Tom ... write useful articles for
the
magazine.
Willy

Dear Willy,
Please refrain from useing the Lords name in vein.
This is in no dissrespect to you but it does offend some people. Myself
included. You can always use the ***** (stars) if you like!

Thank you.
Ian Gardner

[Dave Watterson]

"Ned C" <ned@ampvideo.com> wrote:

Who is Andy Marken USA?

A bit of Googling reveals:

G. A. "Andy" Marken is President of Marken Communications, Inc. - a PR firm.
He writes extensively on marketing and communications. He has worked for
firms including Philips, InterVideo, Ulead, Matsushita, Pinnacle, Dazzle,
ADS Tech, Verbatim, Mitsubishi and Panasonic. I don't know where Garth hooked
into his material but it is obviously syndicated because you can read the
same articles in many places on the web.

For example his article in the current 'Film & Video Maker' (January / February
2007) is on http://www.iofilm.co.uk/io/dvd_insider/ ... 061024.php
and the web version has helpful illustrations.

I have nothing against using syndicated material as such - I just wish (a)
that it were better written and (b) more directly relevant to our hobby in
the UK.

Dave

[Peter]

"Ian Gardner" <ian@gardner44.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

"Peter" <p-t@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

People won't use this forum, because there are too many alternatives, and
the general content, if I may be so bold, is not compelling enough.

You are correct on this one. A forum has to be better or different to stand
out. People (human nature) are not bothered with standard stuff. They need
something different or totally OTT. I like this forum and the people on
here.

A short story about critics..................
As you all know, I`m different! I normally try and fight for my opinion
even if it rubbishes my name. I this for the good of the people, even if
they don`t know it!
We had an editing competition and the judges totally B*****ed it up. The
rules to the comp were not aheard to. They treated the comp like all the
others. I lost marks and got a bad judges reply for my entry. Even through
it was within the rules and what they said went against the rules. I moaned
and moaned at the committee to change the rules to be more fairer and better.
They would not budge. So I did something about it. At the next competition
I did a really bad thing. It was a protest film. The comp was a `Video to
Music comp`. I chose the worst, noiseyest, loud, and really bad piece of
music I could find. I put titles ant the beginning and at the end. In the
middle (the film), I left it just blank! It had one fade from black to black!
The following day after the comp I received an email from the vice chairman
(he is my brothers, wifes dad!). He said that my credability was at an all
time low with the club and it`s members. He said my name was mud. If it
continued
then I would be asked to leave! Has anyone here been kicked out of there
video club?
Anyway. I replyed to the club members (I have all there email addresses)(remember
I was Club secertary last year!)and apolagised for my film. I did say that
it was a protest. Anyway, at the next meeting (I forgot it was on that week)
the committee discused with all the members about competition rules. They
changed them. Only one is still a bit bad and i`ll look at that! Anyway
the
rules are now fairer and better for new and older filmakers.All THAT hastle
and hate against me just to make something better for others! Is it worth
it.... Yes! One isn`t liked while it is going on but putting others first
comes first in my book. Even if they don`t know it!
My point is that it is really easy to keep a place of office or on a forum
if you are just `on the fence`. You are liked for this because you don`t
rock the boat. But if a person is like this then nothing gets done and things
drag on. On the otherhand. If you cause a storm. Things do get done, but
people hate you for it. So does one play safe or not.
Another thing. Discussions on this forum should be made yes.. but to get
a point across it does get heated and it then becomes personel. This should
not happen full stop.

So to get more people on here we need to think up subjects that are contrversal
maybe but still connected to this wonderfull passtime of Film Making.


So start sharpening the knives ...

You and me do have a rocky past on here. Bring it on! My knife is sharpened!

What do others think? Have I totally lost it?

Ian the boat rocker Gardner!

Ian, I think that people like you, who stand their ground on sincerely held
principles (principals? My spelling is BAD)- are extremely valuable members
of a group, or club, or whatever.

I also did this (stood for what I believed in), and in the end I received
the cold shoulder, and have been receiving it ever since. In the end I felt
that certain people were trying (not with much success) to victimise me.
It was political, and also probably because I was myself a bit uncompromising.
I left the club, and then I went back for one meeting, about one year later,
and some people were really pleased to see me, and friendly, but the "people
of power" (only two or three) were obviously not pleased to see me, even
though I'd won them a fairly prestigious prize for something I scripted,
directed, and edited. (As well as organising professional actors for this
project).

So I feel that I could probably never re-join that organisation, and I'm
sad to see that it is less of an attraction now anyway, for various reasons.
Do I feel bitter? Well, yes, a bit. But things have changed there to the
level that makes me want not to be involved again. And, I've moved on to
other things.

Having said that I do miss quite a few of them, but one has to accept that,
unless I happen to meet them in a neutral environment, and then it often
is just like old times. But this rarely happens, and I don't make movies
of any sort anymore, and probably never will. I may go to VideoForum in February,
but only if I can meet up with certain old friends, and this looks very doubtful.

But, yes, DO be controversial. Most people are not, and this sometimes makes
for a boring life! OK, I'm going to be slagged off now by some people - but
I have a very thick skin, not to mention brain ...

Peter

[Michael Slowe]

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

"Ned C" <ned@ampvideo.com> wrote:

Who is Andy Marken USA?

A bit of Googling reveals:

G. A. "Andy" Marken is President of Marken Communications, Inc. - a PR
firm.
He writes extensively on marketing and communications. He has worked for
firms including Philips, InterVideo, Ulead, Matsushita, Pinnacle, Dazzle,
ADS Tech, Verbatim, Mitsubishi and Panasonic. I don't know where Garth hooked
into his material but it is obviously syndicated because you can read the
same articles in many places on the web.

For example his article in the current 'Film & Video Maker' (January / February
2007) is on http://www.iofilm.co.uk/io/dvd_insider/ ... 061024.php
and the web version has helpful illustrations.

I have nothing against using syndicated material as such - I just wish (a)
that it were better written and (b) more directly relevant to our hobby
in
the UK.

Dave

[Michael Slowe]

Sorry, I pressed a wrong key the first time!

Dave, I agree with you about this gentleman, I don't like what he writes
and it's too American for our taste. Still, bearing in mind Garth's problems,
he obviously needs the copy, maybe we should all send him material that is
more relevant for us film makers here.


"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

I have nothing against using syndicated material as such - I just wish (a)
that it were better written and (b) more directly relevant to our hobby
in
the UK.

Dave

[Ned C]

All organizations like the IAC are facing difficult times. They have little
appeal to young people who see their means of communication as being via
the Internet both in terms of their discussions and showing their productions.
As far as clubs are concerned they won't attract young people who don't want
to spend an evening with people their parents and grandparents age. Age becomes
irrelevant on the Internet and that film maker you admire may be 15 or 50,
it doesn't matter. However, all n-c film makers, regardless of age need a
central organization to represent them both nationally and internationally
and to organize and co-ordinate n-c Festivals. So we need the IAC or something
like it but it must come to terms with the Internet age. I find it difficult
to believe there are large numbers of IAC members without an Internet connection
but even if there are they should not set the agenda for the future, every
effort should be made to accomadate their needs in terms of print but at
an economic cost. The IAC runs a first class Festival in the BIAFF and, yes,
we need a "magazine" and I opt for Internet distribution. Color pictures?
No problem. Varying the number of pages on the basis of material received?
No problem. Postal rates increase? No problem. Incorporate video clips? No
problem. Save another forest? Yes! A simple print version for those lacking
an Internet connection, yes, this does make them second class mmembers but
the financial savings can be applied elsewhere.

What do I want to read in a magazine regardless of its medium?

Tom Hardwick and Ken Wilson; always good value. Event reports, yes. Articles
on "How we made......" with lots of insights into problems and how they were
overcome. Practical experience with equipment not colored by the manufacturers
blurbs. How to.... Publish the judge's comments on the winning BIAFF entries
so that we can all learn from them. Club news, organizational things; fine.

This is the 21st Century and mid 20th Century thinking is no longer relevant.

Ned Cordery