IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

Well it has been very lively on here these past couple of weeks and refreshing
it all is too. I always think it`s best to speak your mind and be honest,
but of course we shouldn`t upset anyone in the process if we can help it.
The debate about "Nothing Girl" seemed to take over all the discussions on
BIAFF and we lost focus of the bigger picture....(mmm) Michael rightly defended
his position as we all did too.
I would say back to Michael what he said to me at Bedford; "He`s a bit of
an odd chap, but a good film maker!"
I laughed and I`m sure he will too.
Controversy can obscure the whole point of a film sometimes, to a position
where things are getting out of hand.
Our most controversial film (so far) was "Behind the Clouds". As Dave has
mentioned, my wife Carol works in the local Hospice and she suggested the
idea of the film covering the subject of bereavement. After some considerable
time deciding how it could be done the script was written and the film made.
It did well in some competitions (a Gold at "Movie ?**") but at one, it was
thrown out in the preliminary judging session with the comment: "This is
not entertainment".
I was (and still am) proud of the film. It only runs for 12 minutes but is
very powerful and some people do get upset physically by it and cry. It is
honest and has a lot of meaning behind it and we have been told it has helped
at least one bereaved person.
So I think the point I am making is that we will never please everyone (as
we know) and some films will be loved and hated in equal measure. We all
have our personal prejudices, even judges and this will influence what we
like and what is chosen as a winning film.

On my own judges comments, I think that this year they are by and large,
quite fair. One interesting one on the film "Confidentially" that I was given
was regarding what is "in the chair". The remark made was:
"One judge thought that the reveal should have been left until the last shot.
Another thought that it should have been shown much earlier as it was obvious
what was in the chair".
As there were 3 judges on the panel, this must mean that the third one thought
it was right to go where it is. This seems to sum up the situation with judging
perfectly.

Ken.

On my own judges comments, I think that this year they are by and large,
quite fair. One interesting one on the film "Confidentially" that I was
given
was regarding what is "in the chair". The remark made was:
"One judge thought that the reveal should have been left until the last
shot.
Another thought that it should have been shown much earlier as it was obvious
what was in the chair".
As there were 3 judges on the panel, this must mean that the third one thought
it was right to go where it is. This seems to sum up the situation with
judging
perfectly.

Ken.

Actually Ken I discussed this with some people at BIAFF because personally
I thought that you rather trivialised the theme by showing anything (anyone)
in the chair, especially a Teddy. We could make our own minds up who it
may be and I had assumed there was nobody there very early on in the piece.
I was a bit disappointed when you revealed the Teddy and wondered why at
that juncture, although right at the final shot would have been even more
trite. There you are then, that illustrates your point about differences
of opinion on films!

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

On my own judges comments, I think that this year they are by and large,
quite fair. One interesting one on the film "Confidentially" that I was
given
was regarding what is "in the chair". The remark made was:
"One judge thought that the reveal should have been left until the last
shot.
Another thought that it should have been shown much earlier as it was obvious
what was in the chair".
As there were 3 judges on the panel, this must mean that the third one
thought
it was right to go where it is. This seems to sum up the situation with
judging
perfectly.

Ken.

Actually Ken I discussed this with some people at BIAFF because personally
I thought that you rather trivialised the theme by showing anything (anyone)
in the chair, especially a Teddy. We could make our own minds up who it
may be and I had assumed there was nobody there very early on in the piece.
I was a bit disappointed when you revealed the Teddy and wondered why at
that juncture, although right at the final shot would have been even more
trite. There you are then, that illustrates your point about differences
of opinion on films!

I have to say that I am a bit taken aback at your response here Michael.
I cannot see how the audience seeing what is in the chair "trivialises" it
in any way whatsoever. If nothing had ever been shown throughout the film,
I am sure that I would have felt the wrath of judges and audience alike for
not fully explaining what was going on and who she was speaking to. There
was a great deal of thought and discussion during the making of the film
as to what is in the chair and how and when we should reveal it. In fact
I carefully avoided saying what was in the chair on this forum, but you have
now blown the plot to some extent for readers of this.
However, this aside, the film is obviously a study of someone who is slowly
coming apart at the seams as their mental state deteriorates. It was well
researched and as with many of my scripts, certain incidents and plot points
are rooted in fact. I feel the need to defend the film as I feel that you
have attacked it unjustly. "Trite???" I am baffled!

Ken.

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

I cannot see how the audience seeing what is in the chair "trivialises"
it
in any way whatsoever.

This really is a question of artistic judgement.

For those who have not seen the film - and you should as soon as you can
- it is essentially about a woman breaking down. She talks out her worries
and feelings. Most of the time we do not know whether or not anyone is hearing
this confession.

The heart of it is in her words and what they gradually, obliquely reveal.
It is a stunning performance by Narelle Summers. What Ken and Carol added
was visual interest with the camera prowling round the woman in her room.
The shots never distract us from the performance but they keep at bay that
artificial theatricality which sometimes afflicts similar drama like Alan
Bennet's "Talking Heads" series.

As audience we were priviliged spectators, seeing and hearing what no real
person could have done. (If the film had not revealed what was sitting in
the armchair, we might have assumed that we were the person hearing her confession.)

The dilemma of whether or not to show what was in the chair arose only out
of the "mise en scene" - the way the action was presented. It would not have
arisen in a straightforward "Talking Heads" style - or in a conventional
confession scenario like Heron Productions movie "Gertrude" where Heather
Cumner gives a similar performance but to a real character, a hapless colleague
trapped into listening.

And there's the rub. A confession straight to camera is so artificial that
we don't expect any dramatic end. One presented with such visual flair leads
us to expect a dramatic revelation ... which can only ever be an anti-climax.

On the other hand which appears more credible - and therefore more moving?


Dave

Ken, I am in no way attacking your film. I thought it quite wonderful and
very effective and well worth the award it got and probably more in the future.
It's just that I considered that the effect would have been the same (maybe
better) without anyone (or thing) being in the chair. It wasn't me who raised
the issue of the chair's occupant, I was responding to an earlier mail on
the subject and expressing an opinion. Attack? Blimey you can't have had
any of your films attacked as I have mine otherwise you would use the word
more carefully!

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

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



On my own judges comments, I think that this year they are by and large,
quite fair. One interesting one on the film "Confidentially" that I was
given
was regarding what is "in the chair". The remark made was:
"One judge thought that the reveal should have been left until the last
shot.
Another thought that it should have been shown much earlier as it was
obvious
what was in the chair".
As there were 3 judges on the panel, this must mean that the third one
thought
it was right to go where it is. This seems to sum up the situation with
judging
perfectly.

Ken.

Actually Ken I discussed this with some people at BIAFF because personally
I thought that you rather trivialised the theme by showing anything (anyone)
in the chair, especially a Teddy. We could make our own minds up who it
may be and I had assumed there was nobody there very early on in the piece.
I was a bit disappointed when you revealed the Teddy and wondered why
at
that juncture, although right at the final shot would have been even more
trite. There you are then, that illustrates your point about differences
of opinion on films!

I have to say that I am a bit taken aback at your response here Michael.
I cannot see how the audience seeing what is in the chair "trivialises"
it
in any way whatsoever. If nothing had ever been shown throughout the film,
I am sure that I would have felt the wrath of judges and audience alike
for
not fully explaining what was going on and who she was speaking to. There
was a great deal of thought and discussion during the making of the film
as to what is in the chair and how and when we should reveal it. In fact
I carefully avoided saying what was in the chair on this forum, but you
have
now blown the plot to some extent for readers of this.
However, this aside, the film is obviously a study of someone who is slowly
coming apart at the seams as their mental state deteriorates. It was well
researched and as with many of my scripts, certain incidents and plot points
are rooted in fact. I feel the need to defend the film as I feel that you
have attacked it unjustly. "Trite???" I am baffled!

Ken.

As one of the admirers of 'Confidentially' and as a maker of fiction films,
I thought Ken and Carol got it just about right. Apart from Narelle's superb
performance I agree with Dave's comment about the restless camera following
her around the room, kitchen, etc, this and the use of widescreen kept it
cinematic in style. What is important is that the film grabbed one from the
start into knowing that it was building up to something, and kept us all
waiting for the outcome. I was not too bothered about what was in the chair,
- practically all children grow up with cuddly toys - and keep them well
into adulthood! some still keeping them in bed, so this obviously works as
a sense of comfort to them, and in this case, someone to confide in, - after
all, this character was somewhat unhinged! I also thought it was brought
in at about the right time, quite late into the film - and we still had the
climax. The only thing that puzzles me is, how did they make such an attractive
girl look so dowdy, and - dare I say it, almost plain ? of course the acting
helped enormously, but.........?

Peter Rouillard

Actually Ken I discussed this with some people at BIAFF because personally
I thought that you rather trivialised the theme by showing anything (anyone)
in the chair

As one of the admirers of 'Confidentially' and as a maker of fiction films,
I thought Ken and Carol got it just about right. Apart from Narelle's superb
performance I agree with Dave's comment about the restless camera following
her around the room, kitchen, etc, this and the use of widescreen kept it
cinematic in style. What is important is that the film grabbed one from
the
start into knowing that it was building up to something, and kept us all
waiting for the outcome. I was not too bothered about what was in the chair,
- practically all children grow up with cuddly toys - and keep them well
into adulthood! some still keeping them in bed, so this obviously works
as
a sense of comfort to them, and in this case, someone to confide in, - after
all, this character was somewhat unhinged! I also thought it was brought
in at about the right time, quite late into the film - and we still had
the
climax. The only thing that puzzles me is, how did they make such an attractive
girl look so dowdy, and - dare I say it, almost plain ? of course the acting
helped enormously, but.........?

Peter Rouillard

Thank you to you all for your interest, especially to Peter for his kind
words and to Dave for his interesting analysis. My thoughts on the word "Trivialised"
did grater, as this film tackled a very serious subject, well away from our
"usual" comedies. In fact we do a lot more than that! But our three most
"serious" films, "Behind the Clouds", "It`s Only a Dream" and "Confidentially"
have all had some basis in fact. The problem is; "Based on a true story"
confuses a lot of people. It does not mean that the story as presented is
true in it`s entirety. I entered our film "Behind the Clouds" in our regional
competition that year in the fiction section. But as I had put on the "Based
on a true story..." caption at the start, the competition officer over-ruled
me and put it in the non-fiction section, which was plainly wrong.
Elements of most (if not all) of my films, are true. Sometimes it is just
one character trait or some comments that I have heard someone say. Sometimes
it is a whole scene or maybe the general concept of the whole film.
To quote the title of the latest one, confidentiality means that I cannot
publicly reveal where some of this comes from as those involved would not
wish their personal stories to be paraded publicly. Therefore, I cannot defend
a film in a completely satisfactory way, when a judge or a section of the
audience says: "That isn`t right" or "that would never happen that way!",
because in many cases, it has!
Hope that this clarifies my point without being even more mysterious.

Ken.