"Ned Cordery" <
forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
Recently I posed a question on the IAC General regarding the definition
of
what is a professional now and how this affects entries into IAC and other
Festivals that exclude films made by professionals. The silence has been
deafening!
I think the problem is that everyone is as unsure as you are !! A working
definition is that movie making should not be your main income. But even
that
fails to allow for cases where someone who works in the industry makes a
film
on their own or with friends for which they are not paid and don't expect
to be.
Such films have won prizes in the past. In general I know the IAC competition
officers have tended to accept a movie where (say) a pro cameraman has been
the
director on the amateur project, but to resist cases where a pro director
makes
an amateur film as director.
By the way it is usually the Competition Officer who decides such issues
rather
than the judges.
Then this morning I read that judges of amatuer films in the UK
feel that amateurs should not adopt a "position" in documentaries and should
be even handed.
Popycock. Balderdash. Pants.
And I write as a judge of long-standing at club, regional, national and international
level. So there!
Why on Earth should a documentary NOT have a strong point of view? (Hurrah
for 'Bowling
for Columbine'!) You could make a case for saying that a state broadcasting
organisation should aim for balance ... but even then neutrality is not demanded.
On the BBC, you can have, for example, a rabidly pro-Tory play provided not
too long after there is a rabidly pro-Labour one.
Perhaps it is time for me to go,
NO. NAY. NEVER.
No. NAY. NEVER NO MORE.
You must play the wild Rover
For ever or more.
Dave (McDetermined) Watterson