Re-thinking the unthinkable!

[Animato]

Re-thinking the unthinkable (In February 2005)

Having been an active and highly motivated member of an IAC affiliated club for many years, I ceased to be a member almost one year ago. This was due to a loss of interest in video making, and a certain disillusionment with club life and activities. I had in fact stopped making movies more than eighteen months prior to my decision to leave the club.

In retrospect, there are one or two thoughts about club activities that have come into my mind, now that I have started to make videos again. In fact I have had a complete re-think about why I make movies, and my motivation. I hope these ideas may be of interest to others in the amateur movie making world. (Having recently been criticised for my views in these pages, I am going to put these ideas in quite gentle and general terms).

I realised, a couple of months ago, when I started shooting new material, and editing old footage, that I had, during my club membership, learnt how to make documentaries, travel videos, and even drama movies. I had learnt all those golden rules about using a tripod, good camera work, fine editing, sound techniques and so on. (Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying I was any good at any of this).

In fact, I had spent my twelve years making movies that conformed to the rules that video making clubs the world over all tend to adhere to, and which are only broken at a certain risk to the sanity of the film maker. Having entered my videos with modest success in various competitions, both internal and external, I knew I had to conform - or be placed, if not last, fairly low on the list of competitors. This, as I now realise, is because judges (including at the time myself, and most club members), appraise work by fairly rigid criteria. Such criteria includes the need for the use of (mainly) tripod shots, good editing, exposure, colour balance, sound levels and effects (I.e. a wild track), as well as a commentary, titles, and judiciously chosen music
- only used “in the right place.”

Of course, “using the right music, and in the correct place” opens up a whole can of worms, as everyone’s idea about the use of music is very personal and subjective. There were also unwritten rules about the making of travelogues - such as the need for a map after the titles fade out, to show everyone where the location was situated, even if it was in the middle of London. (Where’s London? I hear someone ask!!)

This is all very commendable, but for me it did eventually rather take the fun out of film making, and I do not think I was alone in making the mistake that the messenger had become more important than the message. In fact the content was overlooked in the face of having to use the best equipment, and the best technical standards that I was capable of employing.

“So what!” - I hear you all ask.

Well, I realise I was making movies for the judges, be they members of my club, or outside people who were totally unbiased and did not know me from Adam.

At this point in time, I can see a reason for me to make movies again, perhaps. However, these will be made for my own reasons and pleasure, and not for anyone else. I hope I won’t care if other makers think my work is rubbish. (They probably won’t see it anyway). If they do, they will hate it, as I will mostly shoot hand-held, edit carelessly, not bother about colour balance and exposure (I.e. shoot using automatic mode). I may use some titles, or even captions, but almost certainly no voice over - and the music will be my choice and will be placed where I like it, and be dammed. So I won't expect anyone else to want to watch it, other than a biased or especially interested party, such as my partner.

If anyone feels like commenting about any of this - please do.

[Dave Watterson]

In a long and fascinating post "Animato" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote about the cine/video club scene:

Since I have never belonged to a cine/video club I can only comment from the outside, but it does seem from that vantage point that what you say is true of many - perhaps most - clubs.

Mastering the crafts required in making movies is hard and clubs try to help, but to me it seems like a painter learning to apply paint to canvas ... a necessary skill but not the point of the exercise.

I totally agree that what you say in your movies is vastly more important than how you say it.

What might surprise you is that most judges I know at National/International level competitions agree. So long as technical "faults" are not distracting, who cares about them?

So step away from the club scene if you want, but keep putting your work into top-level competitions at home and abroad. Sometimes it may get short shrift from pre-selection panels who are more used to working at that club/teaching level you describe ... but at other times it may reach the final judges who will be concerned with what you say and how effectively you say it ... not with the number of chips in your camcorder or the brand of tripod you use.

Faced with the challenge of trying to match professional standards with our limited time, funds and equipment we all-too-often focus on techniques rather than results. Hurrah to you for saying so loudly and clearly.

Dave Watterson

[Michael Slowe]

I very much feel like commenting. You have got your priorities all wrong by concentrating solely on the techniques of film making. The technical skills are a "given" if the film is to be viewable, but what really matters, as Dave Watterson says, is what you have to say and how you say it.

The subject matter has to catch the attention, the manner of presentation has to exite, the editing has to have style. The use of a tripod is generally important merely to ensure that the viewer doesn't get a headache, not because it is written that you have to use one. No one can specify how and when you use music, if you don't naturally sense what is required then you don't have a true grasp of the medium. It is all a matter of "feel" and instinct.

Watch a lot of films, amateur and professional and you will soon find what works on the screen and what doesn't. Don't be put off by judges or club members comments but listen and see if they make sense compared with what you see in films that you see and like.

Michael Slowe.

[atta chui]

Very often people think certain films must be shot in certain ways. if you've got 3 lights then there is only a way to put them, so no matter where the actor walks at night there will be 3 lights shining on him.

you decide how your film looks like, what style it is, and make it the way you want. why should you not do this, especially if you are an amateur filmmaker with complete freedom?

so, like Dave says, as long as the techniques you use is not too distracting, it should not be a concern.

TV series "ER" is shot with handheld camera.

Earlier Japanese films do not have the concept of "line of action". it is Hollywood that taught us this concept.

okay, the film still needs to be shot carefully to carry your ideas effectively. for example, shakey shots remind your audience that there is a cameraman jumping about, so this may distract your audience from getting themselves immersed into your film.

there are many good ways to tell a story.

- Atta

[Dave Watterson]

"atta chui" wrote:

Earlier Japanese films do not have the concept of "line of action". it is
Hollywood that taught us this concept.

Does this refer to "crossing the line" - moving the camera over an imaginary
line between two characters on screen? If so I am intrigued. As audiences
we have certainly learned to depend on that for our orientation.

I wonder if it is like perspective ... where most of us have to learn as
small children that an object which appears smaller on screen than another
similar one, may in fact be the same size but just further away.

Dave

[Ned Cordery]

Learning the traditional basics of film making is a vital part of the process, it helps us understand visual story telling and learning the craft is an essential precursor to developing one's own voice and growing into an artist.

It seems that most of your comments are aimed at judging and the tendency of judges to concentrate on a dated interpretation of the crafts rather then the creativity. I know that some festivals apply scores to camerawork, editing, continuity, etc but as I have written a number of times these are not defined absolutes and yesterdays unacceptable jump cut is todays normal transistion; so whatever method is used to try and paste over the fact - judging is completely SUBJECTIVE. Accept this and if the last film the judges saw was The Sound of Music your rapidly cut hommage to punk does not have a prayer.

The real question is why are you making films?

In the past it seems that you made films to enter into amateur competitions and win prizes and so observed
what would have a chance of winning and followed that model. There is nothing wrong with this and I suspect that this is what many amateurs do. However, it seems that you have experienced an epiphany and now want to make films that express personal views made in a personal way and more power to you because this is when the really interesting things happen so enter your films into festivals so that we can see them, revel in a storm of controversy (been there, done that) far better than the brass certificate for another train film cut to piston polka.

Ned Cordery

[Michael Slowe]

OOOH Ned, you have touched a raw nerve of mine - Piston Polka was one of my favourite films of the 1970's (may even have been 60's) made by two legendery amateur film makers Leslie Gilham and Sidney Manasseh. I am ashamed to say that I have attempted films of a similar genre quite a few times since with varying success. I just love the experience of sitting down and watching visuals perfectly cut to matching music in a rush of pictures and sound. True it's not contrerversial but it can be fun.

Michael Slowe.

[Ned Cordery]

Michael, I wondered if that would stir up a response, if I remember correctly Piston Polka was about traction engines. There was also Crunpet Concerto and much better than both Leslie Gilham's Femina and Sidney Manasseh's Gun Men, although that came in for some stick as it had a freeze frame which was a special optical in those days and regarded as professional assistance!

That was all in the 60s. My introduction to film making was at Wansfell weekends run by Leslie, Sidney and Ron Wing, who is now in his 80s and well, busily revisiting his 16mm documentaries with a view to NLEing them. No disrespect intended to a group of fine film makers,

Ned

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

Now here is a man who has come round to reel film-making (as real as it gets because we are dealing with dreams). I've seen so often on other forums, persons busying themselves with burning issues about the best digital camera or even super 8 camera and all sorts of technical stuff. No-one seems to remember the point of making film is the same as painting a picture or writing a book- it's about telling a story, creating an image that we feel has some worth for the world to see.

I've said this time and time again. It'a all very well splashing out on top end equipment but what worth has it when your energy is spent on equipment instead of developing and fine tuning the story, characters and content.

The merits of club activity certainly has value for sharing ideas with our fellow movie makers generates further creativity. This is why I arrange Showcase events for Caithness Arts. It's artists of all interests brought together to see what each other does and learn new possibilities.

Judging a film (and here I know knowing directly having never put anything into competition) from what I read here, seems also to miss the point of a film. There is a need to remember in amateur circles that there are many classic motion picture from the golden era of Hollywood and more recently which are in many ways technically flawed. King Kong with it's revolutionary but shakey stop motion is as good today as it was new not out of technical excellence but because it's a well made film in performance terms with a story that simply works.

Going into a production with the mindset that we can't film it in a certain way because it doesn't conform to existing rules simply limits creation. Mankind's thinking is based on the "What If" principle. To the best of our
knowledge we are the only species that will not stop at looking at a thing but will go further and ask ourselves- "What if? How did man come to make his first fire, how did he come to the idea of heating brown mud to make iron- 'what if' is the key.

Apply this to film making with no boundaries.

Here at Cinema For Thurso we haven't been restrained by people saying "it can't be done" especially in special effects on super 8mm. We are doing matting and animation effects for which equipment simply doesn't exist. It came about because I looked at some equipment which was made for something else and
I thought what if? I tried it and well now things have been getting made that were way out of our reach 2 years ago. And you know the picture quality isn't always as good as we would like but if we didn't do it through the system we've got, it wouldn't be possible for some of our ideas to reach film.

If you really want to do films that are special (even if only to yourself) one has to break the rules, only then will we see something new coming out in British cinema. What competitions demand and what the public enjoy often don't connect.

It's important to take the creative bull by the horns and say- I'm doing the creating here matey! Music now there's a thing. The right music- think architecture. When building in a site next to an old building say a Victorian stone building- do you try to copy the old style or do you go all out modern and contrast/clash. In Thurso there is a building constructed in the 1960s with a very 60s art on it's end. As painted art goes it's not my cup of tea but yet I'm fond of it because it's been there all my life. It doesn't fit it's surroundings but to remove it now would just be wrong because we are acustomed to it. Well the latter mostly works best because of the contrast and you can apply this in film by applying a track that might seem inappropriate.
Comedy is one area where this is often done but it is possible to take it into other fields. To set a new standard breaking the rules and throwing conformity to the wind are parr with the course and the more it's done the more we draw accustomed to it.

Ten years ago the "F" word was regarded as very offensive (and still is to many rightly so) but today it is the "C" word that is the most cutting in the language yet we will get used to it and soon it will be part of conformity and within the rules.

(Where’s London? I hear someone ask!!)

Recently in Orkney there came an issue with the council there that they thought it would be a great idea for the taxi drivers on the Islands to take a test of their knowledge of locations. To this the local press put a cartoon in their pages with a shocked looking taxi driver looking over his shoulder saying, " Scara Brae, where the hell's that?"

The bottom line is, (and here I repeat myself for the umpteenth submission) the story comes first- not the techy stuff. Story dictates the means by which the film should be made- is it color or monochrome, stereo surround or mono, is it a CinemaScope epic with sweeping vistas or a gritty TV drama and so on. All the information as to how a film should be made is right there in the story not in the rules or judges opinion!

[Animato]

Thanks to Dave, Atta Chui, and Ned for your interesting, supportive and creative comments.

Michael, you seem to have completely misunderstood my posting. Please re-read what I have actually said!

First of all, I am aware that the technical side of any art form is secondary to the point of the art (i.e. the content). That was the point I was trying to make, also in regard to the “over technical” emphasis found in some (or even many) video societies.

In the old days I used to spend anything up to 6 hours per minute of finished movie, editing the pictures, and the sound etc. Now I may spend only 1 hour or a lot less per minute. The editing quality is still acceptable to most people (probably not by you, Michael, but that’s hard cheese!)

My hand held camera work, mostly on wide angle or moderate telephoto, seems to be acceptable, at least to me, and also to people outside amateur movie making. (I do not deliberately throw the camera around). However, it is not rock steady, so you will probably think it is rubbish.

Music! – You cannot have read my posting carefully enough. I feel I know what music to use and where to put it. My point was, that some people might have different ideas! In the same way that viewing a video someone else had made containing a lot of heavy rock music would put me off (in most cases) the actual video, when I use Jazz, light, or Classical music in my videos, then equally, other people may find that hard to take. One person’s “feel” and “instinct” can be totally different to another’s. Michael, you cannot be the sole arbiter of taste, judgement, and quality, no matter how good and successful your own films are. There are others who may want to smash the edifice, break the rules and stick two fingers up. Whilst I am not trying, or advocating such film making myself, others should be free to carry this out, and break all those precious rules! It could be seen as condescending to condemn all other work if it breaks certain taboos.

Finally, I did take the blinkers off a long time ago, and I‘ve watched and studied films made by the likes of Ingmar Bergman and many other great directors, as well as many hours of other professional and amateur work over the years.

I ceased to be put off by judges and other club members a long time ago, and will probably carry on making my own movies, however badly. The only difference may be that I won’t foist them on other people or expect others to be very enthusiastic about them, and I probably won’t join a club to project them onto the big screen or help me “correct my mistakes,” at least in the immediate future.

Michael, I do hope you won’t take any of this personally, but I felt I have to challenge some of the assumptions you are making, having I think, mis-read, or misunderstood my original posting.

Best wishes to everyone at the IAC.

Animato

[Dave Watterson]

I know Michael can answer for himself but I suspect he slightly misunderstood
the nature of the original posting and that Animato slightly misunderstood
the nature of his response.

It happens that I spoke to Michael the other day and he had been watching
a collection of "art" movies in the context of the arts-centre-world ...
found them alien, nearly impossible to understand ... and he was planning
to go to the next show ... to learn.

McDave (the peacemaker)

[Ned C]

"Animato" <animato@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

Finally, I did take the blinkers off a long time ago, and I‘ve watched and
studied films made by the likes of Ingmar Bergman and many other great directors,
as well as many hours of other professional and amateur work over the years.
I ceased to be put off by judges and other club members a long time ago,
and will probably carry on making my own movies, however badly. The only
difference may be that I won’t foist them on other people or expect others
to be very enthusiastic about them, and I probably won’t join a club to
project
them onto the big screen or help me “correct my mistakes,” at least in the
immediate future.
Best wishes to everyone at the IAC.

Animato

At the risk of being self serving may I suggest that you enter your films
in the American Intl Film & Video Fest details at www.ampsvideo.com we are
accepting entries on PAL DVD this year. We have a section for Experimental
films and last year's winner was an absolute stunner of hand held pictures
wonderfully odd music and some superimposed animation. The amateur film world
urgently needs a breakthrough into the 21st Century so accept that you will
get some flak from the traditionalists but then so did the impressionists!

Ned C