Re: amateur/n-c films
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:02 pm
Referring to this and the other thread on a similar topic it seems to me that we run the risk of tying ourselves up in knots and putting obstacles in the way of people with honest intent entering competitions if we make too much of an issue about how you define a professional film maker and their involvement in amateur productions.
First of all (and I speak as an entrant) I'm quite happy with "Rex" being in this years BIAFF and the award it received.
2- If film making clubs or groups can earn a bob or two to further the aims of the club from the sales of films made for other community groups where is the harm? In my opinion these can still be classified as amateur films. Personally I'm happy to see these kinds of film in our competitions. You might argue that it is taking work away from commercial companies but the fees they charge tend to be well beyond the resources of small societies.
3 - Being good at making a wedding video doesn't necessarily imply that you will be any good at making other genres of film as it is an entirely different skill.
4 - By the same token, owning expensive equipment doesn't in itself make you a good film maker. Good films are born out of ideas and imagination and there are plenty of examples where award winning films have been made with modest resources.
As to the debate about the word "amateur" this does seem to generate more angst in the film making world than elsewhere. On a recent series of TV's Master Chef the contestants were identified as "amateur cooks" without anyone seemingly being offended and it isn't a problem in the world of photography so I wonder why it is a problem for us?
First of all (and I speak as an entrant) I'm quite happy with "Rex" being in this years BIAFF and the award it received.
2- If film making clubs or groups can earn a bob or two to further the aims of the club from the sales of films made for other community groups where is the harm? In my opinion these can still be classified as amateur films. Personally I'm happy to see these kinds of film in our competitions. You might argue that it is taking work away from commercial companies but the fees they charge tend to be well beyond the resources of small societies.
3 - Being good at making a wedding video doesn't necessarily imply that you will be any good at making other genres of film as it is an entirely different skill.
4 - By the same token, owning expensive equipment doesn't in itself make you a good film maker. Good films are born out of ideas and imagination and there are plenty of examples where award winning films have been made with modest resources.
As to the debate about the word "amateur" this does seem to generate more angst in the film making world than elsewhere. On a recent series of TV's Master Chef the contestants were identified as "amateur cooks" without anyone seemingly being offended and it isn't a problem in the world of photography so I wonder why it is a problem for us?