IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

I am not a moderator - though as the one who fought for the chance to have
this open forum on the IAC website I feel some responsibility for it.

It is more than that - I regard the regular contributors as friends.

I have been lucky enough to meet many of them and to know that they are lively,
interesting people with plenty to say. Some I only know through their forum
postings. Others I also know through private email contact.

Willy and Ian touched on the biggest risk ... a casual word typed in a hurry
may trigger a strong reaction in someone else.

I don't think we can avoid such trigger-words. Some people here write in
their second or third langauge. Almost all of us write quickly in spare moments
between other tasks. Most of us occasionally pick the wrong word.

The answer - I suggest - is never to write back when you are furious.

If something on the forum gets you mad type a message in your word-processor
and save it. Wait 24 hours. Re-read and revise your reply to make sure it
explains your anger but recognises that the offending writer probably did
not intend to upset you. (Even if you suspect they did intend it !!) Then
copy and paste that reply to the forum.

Of course we have different views ... that's what makes the forum interesting.
Let's just make sure we respect the views of other people.

Roll on good debate and helpful suggestions!


Dave (oil on troubled waters) Watterson

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

I am not a moderator - though as the one who fought for the chance to have
this open forum on the IAC website I feel some responsibility for it.

It is more than that - I regard the regular contributors as friends.

I have been lucky enough to meet many of them and to know that they are
lively,
interesting people with plenty to say. Some I only know through their forum
postings. Others I also know through private email contact.

Willy and Ian touched on the biggest risk ... a casual word typed in a hurry
may trigger a strong reaction in someone else.

I don't think we can avoid such trigger-words. Some people here write in
their second or third langauge. Almost all of us write quickly in spare
moments
between other tasks. Most of us occasionally pick the wrong word.

The answer - I suggest - is never to write back when you are furious.

If something on the forum gets you mad type a message in your word-processor
and save it. Wait 24 hours. Re-read and revise your reply to make sure it
explains your anger but recognises that the offending writer probably did
not intend to upset you. (Even if you suspect they did intend it !!) Then
copy and paste that reply to the forum.

Of course we have different views ... that's what makes the forum interesting.
Let's just make sure we respect the views of other people.

Roll on good debate and helpful suggestions!


Dave (oil on troubled waters) Watterson

I`ve left all your comments (above) because of your wonderful wisdom!
We DO HAVE to be very carefull. I know only to well with my camera club.
Thanks David O Wise One!

Ian Gardner

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

I am not a moderator - though as the one who fought for the chance to have
this open forum on the IAC website I feel some responsibility for it.

It is more than that - I regard the regular contributors as friends.

I have been lucky enough to meet many of them and to know that they are
lively,
interesting people with plenty to say. Some I only know through their forum
postings. Others I also know through private email contact.

Willy and Ian touched on the biggest risk ... a casual word typed in a hurry
may trigger a strong reaction in someone else.

I don't think we can avoid such trigger-words. Some people here write in
their second or third langauge. Almost all of us write quickly in spare
moments
between other tasks. Most of us occasionally pick the wrong word.

The answer - I suggest - is never to write back when you are furious.

If something on the forum gets you mad type a message in your word-processor
and save it. Wait 24 hours. Re-read and revise your reply to make sure it
explains your anger but recognises that the offending writer probably did
not intend to upset you. (Even if you suspect they did intend it !!) Then
copy and paste that reply to the forum.

Of course we have different views ... that's what makes the forum interesting.
Let's just make sure we respect the views of other people.

Roll on good debate and helpful suggestions!


Dave (oil on troubled waters) Watterson

Dave - you are on dangerous gound here!

I post very regularly on another forum (in fact the BBC Radio 3 website).
On there people do get "modded" quite often and easily by the "moderators."
People become quite incensed, about that and many other things, and other
contributors. We learn to ignore (or maybe respond in kind) to the more outspoken
people. The only time I have reported a post to the mods was when someone
made threats against someone else on that message board, and this person
was I think, a bit deranged. He stopped posting for quite a while and now
makes only occasional posts.

The trouble is when people get (1) either very personal (which I don't mind
too much as I can respond) or (2) start making threats, or (3) make racist
or other such remarks, which has happened on this board, as you well know.
On the Radio 3 board there have been some close shaves with talk about Hitler
and Jews. But people do make sure these transgressors are made to feel some
shame. Generally speaking we are a fairly tough lot.

I think it is very easy for some people to be out of control on any message
board, and the BBC ones are all used under a nickname, although some people
do post with their real names, as I did at the start. I now use a nickname
for the simple reason that I can be identified professionally, and I don't
necessarily want that. (Some of my posts about "period instrument performers"
are quite critical ...) Message boards attract people who relish the chance
to be disguised under a nickname, and remain anonymous, whilst at the same
time they are able to insult everyone else on the board. They would probably
never behave like that face to face.

I think it good that this board does not have mods - as on the BBC one, it
is sometimes like being watched over by Big Brother. However, that does mean
that this MB is vulnerable to nutters, and some quite unsavoury characters.

To be honest, I view his MB from time to time, but rarely post on it. However,
I have some good friends here, and they sometimes correct me in the error
of my ways, so to speak, but they never make me angry. I sometimes give them
a hard time too!

If we all behave responsibly, without holding back on reasonable arguement,
and constructive criticism, then all should be well. We must just make it
clear that the racists and the unconstructive insulters are not welcome here.
And make sure that younger people can safely read our comments, without anyone
using obscenities.

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

I am not a moderator - though as the one who fought for the chance to have
this open forum on the IAC website I feel some responsibility for it.

It is more than that - I regard the regular contributors as friends.

I have been lucky enough to meet many of them and to know that they are
lively,
interesting people with plenty to say. Some I only know through their forum


The answer - I suggest - is never to write back when you are furious.

If something on the forum gets you mad type a message in your word-processor
and save it. Wait 24 hours. Re-read and revise your reply to make sure it
explains your anger but recognises that the offending writer probably did
not intend to upset you. (Even if you suspect they did intend it !!) Then
copy and paste that reply to the forum.

Of course we have different views ... that's what makes the forum interesting.
Let's just make sure we respect the views of other people.

Dave (oil on troubled waters) Watterson

Very good advice David and perhaps I was a bit hasty in expressing my outrage
at some of the comments on 'Nothing Girl' but surely I could not have offended
anyone since I was careful to be non specific in all my comments. The key
to contributing to a forum is to avoid the personal in any comments made
and I thought I succeeded in this. Anyhow we have now heard from the author
of the film and I take some comfort from the fact that I was not far out
in my summary of the ideas that I thoght prompted the film.

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

Very good advice David and perhaps I was a bit hasty in expressing my outrage
at some of the comments on 'Nothing Girl' but surely I could not have offended
anyone since I was careful to be non specific in all my comments. The key
to contributing to a forum is to avoid the personal in any comments made
and I thought I succeeded in this. Anyhow we have now heard from the author
of the film and I take some comfort from the fact that I was not far out
in my summary of the ideas that I thoght prompted the film.

Michael - I'm sure anything you have said about "Nothing Girl" can't have
been misunderstood. You were making general comments, as you say, and also
constructive criticism and remarks. In fact you totally supported the film
maker. I think it is right that you can stand up for something you believe
in, even if other people might not agree.

I have not seen this film so I can't make any comments about liking or disliking
it. Unfortunately, sometimes some people make comments, without even seeing
or hearing the subject matter.

If we get too paranoid about what we say, then it devalues our input. As
you and others have said, let's not be personal, and try and remain constructive.

It has been an interesting discussion, and has lifted the level of debate
on this board.

I don't think you offended anyone, Michael. There was just a feeling that
you felt so strongly about the subject that we had better let it lie for
a while in case you got really angry. (An angry Michael Slowe would be a
sight that might make even me buy a camcorder to record it ... how much
do you want for your old one, Tom?!)

But I was really prompted to write by something I read the other day. I don't
have the quote precisely but the sense was that when you let a message into
your movie, art goes out of it.

This puzzles me.

I can see that if you get carried away with the message you might forget
the artistry of film making. But are the two really incompatible?

I did recently watch a professionally made film about the work of our local
hospice (partly to see how it compared with one on her local hospice which
Carol Wilson made with occasional help from that Ken chap she lives with.)
It was powerful, moving and yet ... maybe, yes, the director had got so carried
away that the film did not work as an "entertainment" (not the perfect word,
but you know what I mean.) Maybe there is some truth in the notion.

Any thoughts, gang?

Dave

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

I don't think you offended anyone, Michael. There was just a feeling that
you felt so strongly about the subject that we had better let it lie for
a while in case you got really angry. (An angry Michael Slowe would be
a
sight that might make even me buy a camcorder to record it ... how much
do you want for your old one, Tom?!)



Dave

I don't think Michael was that angry, or would get even more so? Maybe I'm
just an insensitive young man, but I thought this was just the usual Michael,
a bit outspoken, but refreshingly so ... (You will have to pay a lot for
all this backing up I'm doing, Michael!!)

Peter

I don't think Michael was that angry, or would get even more so? Maybe I'm
just an insensitive young man, but I thought this was just the usual Michael,
a bit outspoken, but refreshingly so ... (You will have to pay a lot for
all this backing up I'm doing, Michael!!)

Peter

I know who this 'Peter' is and he is not such a 'young man'! Nevertheless
I am grateful for his support.

On the subject of art interferring with content of a film I think ideally
the two should be carefully mixed. It is always a problem when you have
a lot of information to communicate and getting this over can inhibit one's
artistic aims but the two are far from incompatable, quite the contrary.

I'm puzzled because this is a very civilised and well behaved forum. No-one
has been "flamed" to my knowledge.

Message movies are great and the madder the maker the better the movie. We
have decided to resurrect and update "Last Lines", the movie that caused
us to go into hiding at a Festival. But that was years ago and it is probably
positively mainstream now although I doubt the four letter words will be
very acceptable in the amateur world. As the technology gap between the amateur
and professional worlds have closed many amateur film makers have remained
frozen in the 60s (get off that hores, Ned C). Let me try another, the maker
of "Nothing Girl" is obvioulsy a professional film maker so what about that
"bona fide" amateur clause in the BIAFF rules? (It's OK I'm retired). Must
be one of my bolshie days!

Ned C



"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

I don't think you offended anyone, Michael. There was just a feeling that
you felt so strongly about the subject that we had better let it lie for
a while in case you got really angry. (An angry Michael Slowe would be
a
sight that might make even me buy a camcorder to record it ... how much
do you want for your old one, Tom?!)

But I was really prompted to write by something I read the other day. I
don't
have the quote precisely but the sense was that when you let a message into
your movie, art goes out of it.

This puzzles me.

I can see that if you get carried away with the message you might forget
the artistry of film making. But are the two really incompatible?

I did recently watch a professionally made film about the work of our local
hospice (partly to see how it compared with one on her local hospice which
Carol Wilson made with occasional help from that Ken chap she lives with.)
It was powerful, moving and yet ... maybe, yes, the director had got so
carried
away that the film did not work as an "entertainment" (not the perfect word,
but you know what I mean.) Maybe there is some truth in the notion.

Any thoughts, gang?

Dave

"Ned C" <ned@amts.com> wrote:

- get off that hores (!!!!)

Well we all do typos, but in the context of talking about bad language that's
fun.

Serious points -

We have had occasional tiffs here - nothing compared with flame wars elsewhere,
but to be avoided if possible.

People who work in the industry - can enter the IAC comp. The rules deal
with the film not the person:
"An amateur film or video is one that is deemed to be made for love, with
no financial or other reward and without
professional assistance." And as Pierre makes clear in his article about
the film it was made as an indie project. In fact he is a lighting man -
check him out on www.imdb.com

Message movies are great and the madder the maker the better the movie.
We
have decided to resurrect and update "Last Lines", the movie that caused
us to go into hiding at a Festival.

Sounds fun! Standards have indeed changed. When "Kevin - a Life?" took
a top award a couple of years ago one or two older hands were worried that
the IAC audience was not ready for a documentary about a gay man with AIDS.
The audience gave it warm and well-deserved applause.

Funnily enough words often seem to cause more problem than what is shown
- though it is a brave amateur who shows an animal being hurt or slaughtered
on film to a UK audience. (Killing a pig for barbecue is a shorthand symbol
of a big celebration in the commercial cinema of many countries.)

I have mixed feelings. As a sometime writer I like the idea that words have
a special power. On the other hand they are just words: marks on a page,
vibrations in the air. Sticks and stones worry me more.

Tell us more about "Last Lines", Ned.

Dave

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

"Ned C" <ned@amts.com> wrote:

We have had occasional tiffs here - nothing compared with flame wars elsewhere,
but to be avoided if possible.

I agree

People who work in the industry - can enter the IAC comp. The rules deal
with the film not the person:
"An amateur film or video is one that is deemed to be made for love, with
no financial or other reward and without
professional assistance."

"without professionals assistance" how is this interpreted? The AMPS Festival
rules just specify "no financial reward". And it is clear that it is the
film that must comply with the rules, not the makers.

Tell us more about "Last Lines", Ned.

Last Lines was made in the 70s in the days of Super8 which had a world wide
following as a "people's" cinema, particularly in S America where some exciting
films were made. I was living in the USA at that time and with a long time
collaborator we decided to have a go at the S Americans (the fact that my
collaborator is from Argentina and had lived in Europe and subsequently the
USA for political reasons added a certain piquancy). We suggested that the
world's problems are due to overpopulation and a random atomic cull would
be a good idea. This was very tongue in cheek but you can imagine the reaction.
To reach our audience we gave the film to Stuart Rumens (for those who remember
Film Making magazine he was their regular columnist) and he took it around
the world where it was generally very badly received. This culminated in
Quebec where he also showed an animated film allegedly from QE2 to her disloyal
subjects in French Canada. The story got even better here as Stuart was taking
his father's ashes (he had been a merchant seaman) to be sprinkled in the
St Lawrence seaway, first Air Canada lost his suitcase containing the urn,
subsequently found only for Stuart to discover that the seaway is frozebn
solid in January. We also attended a showing in Toronto where we were as
badly received as the film. We were young and enjoyed irritating people,
we have not grown old gracefully,

Ned
>

of "Nothing Girl" is obvioulsy a professional film maker so what about that
"bona fide" amateur clause in the BIAFF rules? (It's OK I'm retired). Must
be one of my bolshie days!

Ned C

Oh Ned, don't start that one!! I thought all that had been abandoned. If
we want the standards of film making to rise let's not worry who submits
entries to festivals. As long as they are not making that particulay film
for commercial gain they are within the rules as far as I am concerned.

I agree, Michael, as I said, one of my bolshie days,

Ned


"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

of "Nothing Girl" is obvioulsy a professional film maker so what about
that
"bona fide" amateur clause in the BIAFF rules? (It's OK I'm retired). Must
be one of my bolshie days!

Ned C


Oh Ned, don't start that one!! I thought all that had been abandoned.
If
we want the standards of film making to rise let's not worry who submits
entries to festivals. As long as they are not making that particulay film
for commercial gain they are within the rules as far as I am concerned.