IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

Stingman wrote:But don`t bring the BBC into this please. This is one of the best things that England has ...

I would not disagree that the BBC is still one of the best things we have, or at any rate "had" - (and not just England!!) but it is pretty damaged and it probably won't last much longer. In the last ten years or so the BBC has lost it's independence and is now frightened to do anything which might upset the government. At the same time it has to pander to popular tastes. In other words, it plays to the lowest common denominator. It is no longer a public service broadcasting company, and really is now just a commercial company with a government grant

It's very very sad, particularly for me as I once worked for them.

Most of what you say is true (in my opinion!!)
The BBC (God Bless Her) is still recovering from the Phone Scandles.

Alas when I first join a Filmaking club in 1969, I thought the idea was to make films as professional as possible with amateur equipment and small size filmstock. I still beleive that today. In those early days I was soon put right by the elders who loudly proclaimed that professionalism was a dirty word. When I made my first lip sync drama film, most of the elders dismissed it as talking heads, although it went on to win several awards. The same elder then when on to show one of his films which consisted of Big CU's of characters obviously speaking and saying nothing. I know which of the two versions I would prefer. Good filmakers, who obey the rules laid down by Eisenstein now and then, are making better films techically, but I think there are less of them. Possibly because they are dying off. Modern filmakers have never had it so good. They ought to try to make a lip sync film with a silent camera and a tape recorder. They may then have a little more respect for the old timers. Roy

Professionalism being classed as a dirty word may have been due to its association with money, profits, shareholders and Equity to those amateurs years back. These days I have to show professionalism in my approach to my photographic clients, but my amateur upbringing ensures that I go the extra mile for the love of the medium.

If you've seen films such as "28 Days Later" you'll have seen filmmakers using equipment that you or I can buy in countless photographic outlets up and down the country. Their professionalism has nothing to do with the way the film looks (After Effects is also available to us all) but it does affect their budget constraints and the ETA the producer has specified.

So technically we could all make "28 days Later". Of course when we make films we generally don't farm out the work to 168 different people, but the idea, the spark, the originality - well, that's something we have just as much of as any professional.

tom.

Oh, here we go again, dear Tom. Sorry that I am very touchy about that subject. Perhaps too touchy ! I must say that I agree with you.

After having seen one of my films people already told me : "Your film looks very professional !" I had mixed feelings. I was proud and I was worried at the same time. I thought : "What did he mean by 'professional' ?". I didn't farm out my work and I didn't earn any money. But yes, I had a film crew : only members of my club.

Once I worked together with someone. I give some actors a box of Belgian chocolates or a bottle of port. Perhaps I've already told you this. My colleague didn't want to share the costs, but I didn't mind because the actors were some of my friends, not his friends. When the film was finished he asked me if we could sell the film. We had spent some money on the film, but not too much. I am a man of principles, but perhaps also a bit naive, and I refused. My friend was angry with me. Perhaps he still is, but I still feel fine. Afterwards it also appeared that he had a firm called : "UV Vision"... He made films for business to promote their manufactures. Sometimes I wonder : maybe he was right ... We should have sold the film to cover all our costs, but where's the limit ? Anyway, before making the film we had not said anything about commercializing the documentary.

Every man has his price Willy, they just weren't offering you enough. Selling one of your films doesn't make you a professional or commercial filmmaker in my book - that condition exists when you earn your living making (and of course selling) your films.

In the same way Ridley Scott or Tom Hardwick (said in the same breath!) can make a film this weekend for love alone and give it away. It's a purely amateur effort, made for the love of it.

But you can take it from me that if your friend said your film looked 'very professional' you can accept that as a compliment. He was thinking 'amateur = poor (amateurish) and professional = good'. The fact that he could possibly tile his own bathroom far better than a lot of professional tilers doesn't occur to him. And a lot of very 'professional' directors turn out Hollywood garbage by the bucketfull.

So I'd say sell your film. You have a product and he has a market for it. Selling it may well lead you down paths you might not have trodden otherwise.

tom.

WHAT I meant was making films with that Finished polish which was there in commercial films in the sixties and was sadly lacking in a lot of amateur films. Now a lot of amateur films have that polish and it's not because of the equipment. I like to think it's because they love making films or videos as they are called now. Roy Alexander

Roy - I still call them films. I use the word movies if I have to and very occasionally ciné to refer to the stuff with sprocket holes.

A competition judge quoted by David Longley said: " I don't want to give awards to Messrs Sony, Panasonic and JVC" - meaning that modern camcorders do a lot of the technical work that we used to do by hand: white balance, exposure, focus - even holding the thing steady.

But I think you are right to identify a change in the way amateur film makers think and work. There are still some of the old sort out there but it comes as a shock to see their stumbling efforts and realise that not so long ago they were typical.

Ned has long suggested we should call ourselves "non-commercial" film makers to indicate that we are not thinking about money when making our movies.

Incidentally what sort of sums do you pay out to make your movies? Let's not count travel to distant lands because that is probably for your holiday. One fiction film maker reckoned a 3 minute drama of his cost £600 in expenses for the cast, food etc. Those who embark on long fiction works think even bigger. The makers of 'The Release' seen at BIAFF speak of a £7,500 budget.

Dave

Dave, I am suprised about the budget for the film "The Release". This prompts me to ask the question, Does money buy success? Roy Alexander (small budget Fiction film maker).

Willy wrote: Once I worked together with someone. I give some actors a box of Belgian chocolates or a bottle of port. Perhaps I've already told you this. My colleague didn't want to share the costs, but I didn't mind because the actors were some of my friends, not his friends. When the film was finished he asked me if we could sell the film. We had spent some money on the film, but not too much. I am a man of principles, but perhaps also a bit naive, and I refused. My friend was angry with me. Perhaps he still is, but I still feel fine. Afterwards it also appeared that he had a firm called : "UV Vision"... He made films for business to promote their manufactures. Sometimes I wonder : maybe he was right ... We should have sold the film to cover all our costs, but where's the limit ? Anyway, before making the film we had not said anything about commercializing the documentary.

I may have answered this before as well! I would have sold the film. Sorry to disagree with you Willy
My reason is that the film was first thought out, made and edited, with the intension of doing it for fun or for experience. Some of us may have a dream of being noticed. Of course, We/I don`t make films for money, just for fun. But when people say that they have enjoyed your film, you get a warm feeling of satifaction and achievement.
The ultimate goal would be for someone to take someone on and employ them as a camerman or in the production of `Real Films`. That would be my goal, I`m still enployable!
May be some of us make films because we want to but don`t have a job in the field that our hearts want. And THAT IS Filmmaking.