IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

There seems to be a common point of discussion amongst amateur film makers
and judges, regarding the length of films. Films by amateurs are usually
less than 20 minutes in length, yet are still often criticised for being
too long. WHY? Fiction films in particular need time to develop. Even now,
we rely on character stereotypes to short cut the story as we don`t have
the luxury of a 2 hour running time. Our "budget" is usually non-existent
so it is presumed that the longer the film runs, the more we can see the
flaws, which is a point. Our lad Albert often argues for films 10 minutes
or less, which is understandable for him, being an animator, but I can`t
agree. A bad film is bad even at 2 minutes in running time and a good film
can last almost indefinately. In the pro world people said LORD OF THE RINGS
1 was too long- but not for me. I could have sat through number two straight
after it.
Any opinions anyone? (Come on Albert.) Ken

"Ken Wilson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

There seems to be a common point of discussion amongst amateur film makers
and judges, regarding the length of films. Films by amateurs are usually
less than 20 minutes in length, yet are still often criticised for being
too long. WHY? Fiction films in particular need time to develop. Even now,
we rely on character stereotypes to short cut the story as we don`t have
the luxury of a 2 hour running time. Our "budget" is usually non-existent
so it is presumed that the longer the film runs, the more we can see the
flaws, which is a point. Our lad Albert often argues for films 10 minutes
or less, which is understandable for him, being an animator, but I can`t
agree. A bad film is bad even at 2 minutes in running time and a good film
can last almost indefinately. In the pro world people said LORD OF THE RINGS
1 was too long- but not for me. I could have sat through number two straight
after it.
Any opinions anyone? (Come on Albert.) Ken

I have on many occasions outlined why I consider ham movies to be overlong,
so why ask me, in particular, to repeat it yet again?.....poor script(very
poor!)/poor acting(Oh my God!)/poor directing/poor use of scissors/poor music.
So 10 minutes max. Some say they need longer times to develope characters,
but the characters are normally dreadful actors with no fire in their bellies,
in a very third rate, non nailbiting story, which only, for me, only developes
into boredom, not 'sitting on the edge of ones' seat developement. How's
that?

BTW,I am willing to admit, that many of my 2 minute films could also be cut
further, but at least the audiences 'boretime' for mine is only 2 minutes
not 10 plus! When I see ham films advertised as being over 10 minutes my
wife and I groan, because
(and there ARE some pleasant exceptions), we know what we are in for!
Albert....in for it.

I come at the question from a different angle. I've long thought that with
professional films there is almost always something to enjoy even if the
film as a whole is crap. The lighting may be good, the minor performances
may be good, the script may have flashes of wit ...

Sadly this is rarely the case with amateur films. One element of an amateur
movie may be pretty good for most of the time, but that's it. All too often
every other aspect of the production is patchy. There are exceptions, fine
ones, but if you have sat through several feature length and apparently talent-free
productions as I have ... you become wary.

However ... I suspect (fear) that is not the general perception. It seems
to me that most of the audiences for amateur film are not prepared to put
work into enjoying them. A film appreciation audience would not dream of
giving up on a movie until at least half an hour of it had run. They are
geared to expect development over 90 - 160 minutes. They will stick with
some very difficult films. "Amateur audiences" get bored after 2 minutes.

I think this is also linked with the "amateur audience's" reluctance to accept
films dealing with serious artistic and emotional issues.

When I assembled a collection of British amateur work for sending to Austria
and other German-speaking countries I restricted my choice to movies less
than 20 minutes or so - in order to ensure a good variety and range. But
I did so reluctantly because it cut out several movie makers I would have
liked to include.

That said ... how anyone manages to complete even a five minute movie of
the top rank amazes me. I often stand in awe of our best amateur movie makers.

Deadeye McDave

"Dave Watterson" <one-eye@virgin.net> wrote:

.........snip......

However ... I suspect (fear) that is not the general perception. It seems
to me that most of the audiences for amateur film are not prepared to put
work into enjoying them. A film appreciation audience would not dream of
giving up on a movie until at least half an hour of it had run. They are
geared to expect development over 90 - 160 minutes. They will stick with
some very difficult films. "Amateur audiences" get bored after 2 minutes.

A film appreciation audience consists of 'film buffs' watching a professional
film, so
they know from past experiences that the pros invariably turns up with the
'goods'
even after 90 plus minutes. The amateur audience, again from experience,

knows what is coming (usually). Also, and more importantly, this audience
is not composed of keen film buffs,(except you Dave), but probably in many(most?)instances,

just 'TV soap fans.' They are just not film appreciation types, and so get
bored
quickly.

I think this is also linked with the "amateur audience's" reluctance to
accept
films dealing with serious artistic and emotional issues.

There you are then, they're just 'soap' fans!

Albert....Carbolic ing(!)

PS. I like the new layout Atta. Very posh.

"AN" <AnimatioN@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Dave Watterson" <one-eye@virgin.net> wrote:

.........snip......
However ... I suspect (fear) that is not the general perception. It seems
to me that most of the audiences for amateur film are not prepared to put
work into enjoying them. A film appreciation audience would not dream
of
giving up on a movie until at least half an hour of it had run. They are
geared to expect development over 90 - 160 minutes. They will stick with
some very difficult films. "Amateur audiences" get bored after 2 minutes.

A film appreciation audience consists of 'film buffs' watching a professional
film, so
they know from past experiences that the pros invariably turns up with the
'goods'
even after 90 plus minutes.

There are more bad films made by pros than good ones. The usual saving grace
is that the picture is reasonably shot and the sound clear and well mixed
but if you would like a list of awful acting, pathetic scripts, absent continuity,
and just plain unwatchableness then the pros will win every time.

I think Dave is right, the audiences at amateur showings are made up of two
groups, other amateur film makers and those who are there as a courtesy to
friends and family and would much rather be somewhere else. The test would
be to show an average mix of amateur films to an audience of film buffs and
get their reaction,

PS. I like the new layout Atta. Very posh.

I agree, thanks Atta.

Ned C

"Ned C" <glam@isp.com> wrote:

There are more bad films made by pros than good ones. The usual saving grace
is that the picture is reasonably shot and the sound clear and well mixed
but if you would like a list of awful acting, pathetic scripts, absent continuity,
and just plain unwatchableness then the pros will win every time.

But film appreciation societies would see the best of pro films.
Only Joe public see the crap.
How about Arnie getting 30 million dollars for Terminator 3?
Great idea/wonderfull action.
Arnie maybe a dreadful actor but no one else could play that part better

than he can. He just looks a real meanacing machine.

Albert..."I'll be back!" hee hee.

Some interesting responses to my question. Albert is predictably negative
but I think it`s a very complex issue. I used to find some of our festivals
had rather boring films and in fact it could be hard to find really good
documentaries by amateurs. I enjoy documentaries on tv, so what is the difference?
I think many am. docs. were/are all about static subjects i.e. buildings
(castles/ churches etc) whereas tv ones are mostly about people. There are
also the old standby`s of canals and trains which have limited appeal. However,
either I am becoming more of an "amateur film appreciator" like Dave or our
films are getting better. I find now that I am rarely bored at shows/ festivals
and even the local clubs` newsreels are fine. Professional films are a different
matter and more often than not are a big disappointment. MATRIX RELOADED
was to me a huge pile of pooh. Why didn`t they leave it alone after one.
Money perhaps?
I am currently shooting a three hour drama set in one room just for Albert.
Ken, teasingly.

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

I am currently shooting a three hour drama set in one room just for Albert.

The last 3 hours of a condemned man's life in his cell perhaps?
The last 3 hours in private hospital room before a life support system was
switched off?
The first 3 hours life of a baby fighting for its life in a maternity ward?
The last 3 hours spent in a solicitor's office before.......???
The first 3 hours in a honeymoon suite?.........!!! X cert this one?

They all sound potentially interesting to me, so get on wiv one ov em, Ken!

Reserve me a seat in the ninepennies.

Albert...making a drama out of a crisis.