"Laurie Miller" <
forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
How do they define a good amateur film, whether or not it is made for viewing
at club or even international level?
What, in their opinion, constitutes a good amateur film, what constitutes
an outstanding amateur film?
What a can of worms, Laurie!
As to "an amateur film" - it is not possible to say that person (a) is an
amateur while person (b) is not. So many amateurs now make wedding videos
or local pageant videos and sell them, that this line is too blurred. I
think it must be decided on a film by film basis: was this movie made for
profit or not? (That leaves open the way for an extremely successful one
to be bought by Hollywood so that the maker can move to a Carribbean island
and spend the rest of his/her life watching Michael Slowe photograph pelicans.
The point being it is sold only after winning its amateur awards.)
Good?
At heart I am with Michael Slowe on this ... but in practice you could say
that a decent club-level movie has a clear development of its subject and
signs of a purpose (to tell a story, explain a process, arouse an emotion).
It will be well-exposed. Shots will be steady. Sound will be clear and
at reasonable level. There will be neat titles.
In other words it will be a business-like piece of work with most of the
technical details right.
Outstanding?
The same but more so!
The best movies have a richness. Every element of the work is employed with
deliberate care to tell or enhance the story. For example each character
might be linked with a colour so that he or she appears always with
something red about them while another character is always associated with
pastels. Musical themes may be associated with each character. The way
the character appears in shot will be broadly consistent (does each shot
of
them start with them centre-frame or are they revealed each time, coming
through a door, turning a corner or at the end of a pan.) Their words will
be in their own distinctive patterns and dialects. If probed each actor would
be able to tell their character's life history even though that has little
to do with the movie being made. (Much of all that can be applied to
documentaries as well as fiction.)
Photography would be not just correct, but beautiful. Like a Kurosawa movie
you should be able to capture, blow-up and hang in an art gallery any frame
of the movie.
Editing will vary pace to suit the mood of the film.
There will be a soundscape to the film - behind the music and dialogue there
will be an appropriate but slightly exaggerated sound picture of the world
about them. (In a dialogue sequence, if the insect and bird sounds
suddenly stopped it would be immediately noticeable and arresting.)
Above all the script (or plan / storyboard for non-fiction) will have been
thought about long and hard. It will have been worked on for ages to make
it concise but clear. Each word will have at least one meaning but ideally
more, so that it tells you something about the personality or motives of
whoever says it as well as communicating their intention.
The biggest single failing in amateur movies in competitions is the lack
of thought. So many, many of them are obviously the result of one moment's
inspiration ... however much that is followed by organisational and practical
skills to make the movie it is not enough.
Movies, like poetry, have to reflect a concentrated form of life back at
us.
As to International Standard ...
Dave W
Cor, you nearly 70?