"Ned C" <
forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
It occurs to me that a useable definition of an amateur film is one that
is
financed by the makers and direct participants only and no other source
of
financing is allowed.
Although this gives a very simple and practical way to classify whether a
film is an amateur one or not, I feel that we should not care solely on how
the project is funded, but also on the purpose of the film.
For example, some community projects get Lottery funding - those films were
not done for commercial purpose. They bring in young talents, make a good
film, and we should not exclude them.
Suppose I am a freelance filmmaker and want to get a video contract from
a local company, I use my own money and make a demo film using the company
as the subject, eventually my pitch fails... does this self-funded nicely
made video look like a good candidate for an amateur film competition?
And whether you get professional help is not really important. Many amateurs
themselves are very talented and work in a professional way. Good competitions
have good judges who know where the bar is for each film.
Atta Chui
"you shouldn't work in such a professional matter. this is not fair to the
rest of us!"
