The 23rd ifva Awards Asian New Force Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jurors: Ellen Kim (Kim), Tom Lin (Lin), Ying Liang (Ying),
Organizer Representatives: Tobe To (To), Kattie Fan (Fan)
Fan:

Thank you for your time. Today our mission is to select the awards: Gold, Silver
and Special Mention, altogether three prizes. Our usual procedure is to talk about
the films one by one, and then nominate award winners. If there are no questions
we can begin one by one, with the first film, A Human Being is Good.

Lin:

I was a little bit confused. Is this three short films? A trilogy?

Fan:It’s three titles put together. You can regard it as one work.

Lin:

It felt to me like a YouTube project, and if so I understand, because nobody wants
to watch anything long on there. I thought it was cute, and the repetition adds tothe humor. By the third time, you know what he is playing with and what he’s doing.
But when it got to the third time, it was a little exhausting because it was the samething. If it was one short film, then it doesn’t really work for me. If they are threelittle snippets on the internet, they’re fun and you can watch them in whateversequence you like, but as one short film, the third section for me is a total let-downbecause it’s the same exact thing.

Kim:

I was surprised that my opinion is exactly the same as Tom.

Ying:

Because I was also on the first round jury, this is the second time I watched thefilm. For me it’s a good experience watching it on the big screen. For me, the form
is strong, and the use of visuals is interesting. It looks very low-budget. It is fun,cute. Among all the finalists, this one is the most like a short film. But I agree withyou (Lin) that it’s just a funny film, and you don’t care more about the characters’
lives and the whole picture. When discussing this film in the last round, we thought
this may not be the best one among the finalists. This year, the Asian New Force
Category is not very strong overall.

Lin:

Yes, I was a little disappointed.

Ying:

For the first-round jury, we felt it was a little difficult to select 10 finalists.

Lin:

Out of 400 works? Really?

Fan:

369.

Lin:

I was surprised there are no short films from Mainland China among the finalists.
In the past when I watched short films, very powerful ones were coming out of1

Mainland China.
Fan:

Last year or the year before, we had two or three finalists from China. The winnerfrom a few years was a Chinese film.

Lin:

I was wondering if it had something to do with their film industry going in one
direction, in a very commercial direction. Do you see that happening in South
Korea?

Kim:

Many short films are portfolio films. They would have action sequence to show
they have the ability to direct dynamic action scenes. The unique aesthetics ofshort films is not easy to find in Korean shorts.

Fan:

A similar situation is happening in the Open Category for local shorts as well. Since
Ying was involved in the first-round jury, maybe you can give more information on
why films were selected as we discuss individual films. The next one is Tea Land.

Lin:

I agree a lot with what Ying Liang had said about this film.

Kim:

I was thinking of so many different things when watching the film. In Korea, wehave migrant workers, and it is not very common to deal with such characters instory-telling. In many features they are depicted as “others” within a homogeneous
society. I was surprised that in Taiwan there are such diverse groups. There isanother film about fishermen. There are two films from Taiwan among the finalists,
why do both deal with immigrant workers? Maybe it’s part of the ifva spirit to look
into different minorities, or something like that? This film is not very new and freshfor me. In terms of storytelling and filming, it’s not very original.

Lin:

I know this director and I’ve seen his previous works. To add on what you said
about the two short films from Taiwan, that their subjects are both immigrant
workers, it’s the atmosphere of Taiwan society at this moment. Taiwan has becomea very politically correct place in terms of ideology. A lot of minority issues arebeing pushed in a more drastic direction. For example, the issue of gay marriage.
Taiwan is looking to perhaps becoming the first place in Asia to legalize gay
marriage, and this is because of people being suppressed and are now coming
out. It’s the entire atmosphere where you feel this is the right thing to do for a lotof young people, that it’s the right thing to support minorities and gays, and toembrace a more liberal ideology. I have seen many short films about immigrant
workers, a lot of them are very well made. It bothers me a little bit that it’s becoming
such a big thing in Taiwanese short films. In the past couple of years, those shortfilms are winning a lot of awards abroad, and it has become the fashion for young
filmmakers to seek out these subject matters. In a way it’s a bit strategic on theyoung filmmakers’ parts. Some are minorities who are making these films about
themselves, but there are also privileged, middle-class Taiwanese students who2

seek out these subject matters because they feel it’s important that they speak out
for minorities. Unfortunately, they are the ones getting attention. I’ve seen
filmmakers making stories about themselves, but because they are not part of aminority that is gaining attention, their short films, though well-made, areoverlooked.
Back to this film. For me the storytelling was a bit too smart, and so loses a bit ofgenuine-ness to the characters. You have these great characters who are being
put into this weird genre subplot of a murder, or one freak death and then a murder.
There is one scene in which the young man who died at the beginning, he’s having
sex with a woman outside, and somebody is walking in the hallway and sees themand starts masturbating...
Ying:

That’s the Vietnamese man.

Lin:

The plot twist felt a little forced. It’s not to say you can’t mix the two kinds offilmmaking, but with this one, it doesn’t mix them well enough. By the two kinds offilmmaking I mean realism and also stories involving a lot of coincidences. The
whole film starts with a coincidence of this guy suddenly dying, but before he dies,
she has to hide the money. It’s very careful plotting, but it’s too smart and not to its
advantage. When you can feel the plotting and the manipulation of the filmmaker,
that’s a certain kind of filmmaking, which is fine, but it does not work very well withthis film.

Ying:

Watching it a second time, I feel the director and actors mixed in a lot of different
elements in the story, such as immigrants, runaway people, sex. Later the story
looks too compressed, which is not a good thing because the captain looks very
simple. I don’t know why there are so many immigrant workers, including two from
Vietnam and three from Thailand. The Vietnam men looks like he has some sexual
designs on the Thai woman, but he has a wife. It made me a little confused. The
production value is very high, but there are problems with the storytelling andcharacters. I can’t relate to the ending and don’t understand why the charactermade the choice to bring the body of the man back, because I did not feel thefriendship between them.

Lin:

Maybe it’s unintentional, but for me, the film felt exploitative of these characters.
Especially the scene with the young girl taking a bath: why was that nudity
necessary in the film? On paper it would make sense to show the hardship of theseworkers, but it was shown in a way that it felt like it’s leaning towards entertainment,in the sense of telling a good story. That was a little uncomfortable for me when I
was watching this short film.

Kim:

In Taiwan, is there support for foreign or migrant filmmakers? The point you makeabout political correctness, I’d rather see a work by minorities themselves, a film3

by people who really understand these workers. Maybe the film will not be as wellmade, but a more truthful voice will be found. This kind of work will be much moreinteresting for me.
Lin:

There’s always a debate concerning making films about people who are different
from you, and how much you understand of them. It doesn’t bother me forsomeone to be making a film about another culture as long as you do enough ofyour homework and really get in there. If you are making a film about aborigines,
go live there for a couple of years. I don’t know how much homework this director
did, but as an audience I didn’t feel there is enough authenticity to it.

Fan:

The next one is Nocturne.

Ying:

I also wrote something about Nocturne. The style is really like Taiwan New
Cinema—long shot and slow pace, so-called low concept, not melodramatic. It’spart of history, but put in a personal story and focuses on a micro-group in a family,
which is interesting. The film within a film idea is good, but not very fresh. Between
the real life and drama there is a gap which is interesting to fill. The music and theending titles are interesting. The running time of 20 minutes made me feel notenough to explore the characters. I also question why he chose this style and form.
Maybe because it’s based on an autobiographical novel. It’s an interesting film
about the history of Singapore and Malaysia. The concept about filming and thelove story is not very fresh to me.

Lin:I have a question for Ellen. Can you tell the difference the characters speaking in
Mandarin and Hokkien?

Kim:

I can tell they are speaking in dialect of Fujian. I read the artist statement that it’spart of an omnibus project dealing with Chinese dialect, and I totally understandwhy he chose to use that kind of form to juxtapose the film itself and the scene, sothat you can connect the language in the fictional form and how difficult it is tocorrectly represent it, to show how difficult it is to make a film in this original dialect.
I think the form fits in well with the mission of this project, so I didn’t think it was
unnecessary. The artist did very well, I may not choose it as the best film, but I
think it has its own virtues.

Ying:

There are some elements that it shares with Tea Land in that they both look likethe shorter version of a feature. The production value is good. But with thestorytelling, some parts I don’t understand, and don’t know why they used this kindof form.

Lin:

For me, it was surprising. When we got to the shot of the woman looking into thecamera for a long time that was surprising for me. As a short film, I agree more4

with Ying Liang, that it does not have enough strength to stand on its own, that it
feels like it’s part of something bigger that I don’t understand, like it’s an exercise.
Afterwards I read that it’s part of an omnibus, and I get it. The mood andatmosphere are good, but does not have the strength to stand on its own. Whenhe jumps from the period story into reality about the filmmakers, that’s fine, butwhen you jump into the real world, that world needs to be real. I laughed at theline when the director says of the actress, “I need her to be natural” when he is notnatural himself. It wasn’t good acting of the actor playing the director. That part felt
faker than the fake film they are making. From that point on, everything about the
production side of that short film felt fabricated to me. It didn’t have the realness
that a form like this requires. It does have some merits and surprises.
Fan:

The next one is About the Maritime Drifters.

Lin:

This is the only documentary. In the middle of watching this film, I was secretly
hoping that it’d turn out to be a narrative, and everything is staged, and I’d be very
impressed!

Kim:

The interviews with the business owners were very interesting.

Lin:

They were interesting in that they were showy, in a way. For a documentary aboutmaritime drifters, I was hoping for a bit more insight. It sheds light on the situationand tries to give equal time to different parties to have their say. It was interestingin the choice of answers she tries to give us from the establishment, from theagency and the government, which do not show them in a good light. The
filmmaker cuts from one answer to a contradicting one, and I remember theaudience laughing when the workers say they were signing blank documents, andthen the next scene the agents say, “That’s impossible, we don’t do that.” It’s thefilmmaker being just and not being just. Because it is only 20 minutes long, it didn’t
take any deeper than getting accounts from different sides. She starts the
documentary with a funeral, with this person dying, but we don’t hear much about
it, we don’t learn about the death any more, which was disappointing. I wanted tolearn how this young man died from different parties. If the workers, agency andgovernment were all talking about this one thing, it could be a more focused
documentary. But because of how vast the filmmaker wants to show this subject
matter, it didn’t feel the 20 minutes was not enough.

Ying:

In the last round, we were not able to pick a good documentary, and this one isbetter than the others. As a student work, it’s not bad. It is about a real case, andthey did good research. It gives voice to Taiwan fisherman in a fair way. This kindof editing gives a sense of drama. Of course, there are problems with this work, inthat it does not focus on the subject: the relationship between the fisherman andhis boss. They are students and so not very sensitive about this kind of characters,
and don’t know how to explain the situation. The scene where they are fixing the5

nets because they want to get work is interesting, but there are only three or fourshots, including a high angle shot of the immigrant worker fixing the net. We cannot
really relate to the situation. What are their feelings and relationship with thesestrangers? If the filmmakers can capture the stories about this kind of workers,
they can touch a lot of different audiences from all over Taiwan. Now it’s just like a
TV documentary or news program.
Kim:

It’s a good work for its short duration, but I agree that it’s necessary to do a deeper
and longer documentary on this subject. A documentary filmmaker cannot help
taking one side, there are some interesting interviews with the captains andowners, but if you want to take the fishermen’s side, t’s more meaningful to show
their real lives in a deeper way. It’s worth it to show just one man’s life. If thedirector wants to continue with this subject, she can go in this direction.

Lin:

The shots of the nets were not done by the filmmaker, I think. They are shot by theagencies to show how fast the workers can work. Because they were students,
the distance they went with this documentary was not far enough. We do get on
the boat, but we are never out to the sea with them. We see them living on theboats and their lives at the port, but never see them out in the sea. That’s
something I was hoping for. They talk about working 24 hours, but I never saw
what that looked like.

Fan:

Let’s move to the next one: Death of the Soundman.

Ying:

I like this film a lot. On the second time watching it some things surprised me, likethe ending. They always shoot some political images such as the flag and theleader of Thailand, which is interesting. It is humorous and original. I can accept
the style, even though it is a bit slow. The sound is a character in the short film.

Lin:

I like it. I appreciate the maturity because it is very serious in its execution, but it
doesn’t take itself very seriously. It’s light on its feet even though it’s dealing witha subject important to the filmmaker, which made it accessible. It’s an accessible
film about film sound. I particularly found the part in the zoo very entertaining. It’sa very delightful film.

Kim:

It worked in two ways for me. One is the sound, and I really appreciate the soundof the zoo and the many different animals. The second thing that worked is thehumor. Usually, Thai humor does not translate very well for me, but this film worked.

Lin:

Thai commercials are funny as hell.

Km:

I know what you mean, I have seen funny Thai commercials. Anyway, usually forthe commercial comedies, it’s very difficult for them to have the same impact as in6their local culture. But I think the humor in this film is universal. The guys who arevery serious about their work are funny to the audience, and the film works foreverybody. Good work.
Ying:

About the casting. The two characters look too similar.

Lin:

But that’s what’s funny to me, that one is the master and the other is the apprentice,
but they both look the same, and both very nerdy. And you can imagine theassistant turning into the master one day.

Ying:

Perhaps they can be nerdy with different styles.

Fan:

The next one is Are You Volleyball?!

Lin:

I like the kids, they are well treated and fun to look at. I appreciate where thefilmmaker is coming from. He’s trying to tell a kind story, a story that can bringmore peace in the world. But the execution is very conventional. It’s a nice shortstory, and it doesn’t do anything else besides that. I don’t know if it’s an intentional
choice to cast the soldiers. Were these actors playing Americans or they can’t findwhite actors to play this part? It did not feel like English is their first language but
that’s the language they are communicating in. That for me was a little troubling.
They look similar to the refugees.

Kim:

I think the film is very commercial. It works very well, but if someone is expecting
an artistic short film…I am not against it, it’s a good story, well made and very
touching, but for this festival, I’m not sure. As a jury member I cannot choose thisfilm, but as an audience, I enjoyed it.

Ying:

The story is not very fresh to me, but the cast performed well, including the kids
and the adults. It’s not an easy film to make. The running time of 14 minutes isgood. In the last round all the jury members liked it.

Fan:

The next one is Tshweesh.

Lin:I find this very interesting. I even went back and started researching on it, trying tofigure out what the name means, what is going on in Lebanon and why Beirut isrepresented in this way. I was impressed by its execution. It’s stylistic in a very
non-threatening way. I like the way the film approaches these characters on theirrooftops having their own lives, doing these different things. I could have done
without the woman with the headphone, and I read about what the filmmaker was
getting at, and I went to look at Antonioni’s La Notte, and they open in exactly thesame way, and I understood it was an homage to Antonioni. One thing I had trouble
with is once they got to the ending where the planes are flying above and there’s
bombing, I was wondering if t was worth the wait. The audience have been in it for7

a long time, and the bombing felt like a punch line, but it came a little too late forme. When it came I didn’t even think I needed it, because the whole atmospherein the beginning was interesting enough and threatening enough, in a way. I felt
this threat all along, especially when none of the people can get reception on theirTVs. There is something going on in the air, and it’s threatening. It would havebenefited by being a little shorter, and I would still be able to get what I was
supposed to from it.
Kim:

This is the one I chose for the best film because it remained in my mind all night.
It takes a lot of effort to make, it shows you the landscape very well without any
leading characters. I’ve always believed in having strong characters for storytelling,
but this film worked without any clear storytelling. You feel the people on therooftop could fall any second, there is a very real feeling of threat in their daily lives.
In the end, when the attack came, they still continued their daily lives as if nothing
happened. The close-up shot of the girl in the swing was…

Lin:

I agree it’s very evocative.

Kim:

The swing is coming into the house and outside on the balcony. It felt it is like ametaphor: you can be safe in your daily life, but in a second, you can be in a very
dangerous outside world. The way the director thinks and interprets through his
images makes this a great work for me.

Lin:

What’s your take on the woman with the headphones? I couldn’t understand her.
This is the only character we’re following, and listening to what she’s listening to.
But I have no idea what she’s doing—walking into an old house, looking at thisand that. I didn’t get it. Maybe if you know Antonioni you’d know.

Kim:

I didn’t get it but it didn’t bother me.

Ying:

I don’t know the background of the filmmaker, but I feel she loves Beirut in thesame way that Antonioni loved Milan. She uses the woman to go through the cityfrom the top to the ground, going into the buildings. She really likes the city.

Kim:

The woman is like a decoration, if you take out her scenes, the film could still work.
It was the flower on the cake.

Lin:

For me, the flower on the cake is the little girl on the swing.

Ying:

In the last round this was not the favorite, because we all saw it on the computer.
8

Yesterday I saw it on the big screen, and it looks like a masterpiece to me. It is likepoetry about Beirut. I like the shot of the airplane coming, and you can see two
young people making love on the rooftop. This film is among the top two for me.
Fan:Let’s continue with One More Experiment.

Ying:

This is among my top two.

Lin:

I didn’t find it interesting. I get where the filmmaker is coming from. I had a hardtime with this one, I just can’t get into it. You can see the filmmaker put a lot ofeffort into creating a realistic futuristic environment, but it was just too in-your-faceintellectual, especially with the Stalker-like monologue. I love Tarkovsky, andStalker is my favorite Tarkovsky film, but to see it in this light, it didn’t feel genuine
for me.

Kim:

One of the roles of films is to give a unique experience. I had a very goodexperience throughout the film. I like the futuristic and deserted set, and theexperience with the actor is unique. The sequences are very long, and in the latterpart of the film, the acting is very different, which I appreciate. The film is dedicatedto actors and film art.

Ying:

In the second half of the film, he becomes another person. The dialogue has a lotof subtext. The actor’s performance is the main thing that touched me, letting meknow that this filmmaker really loves human beings and has a lot of hope for the
future. At the beginning, the scene with the fat people watching the film is very
nourishing. With the scene in the booth, I can really feel the energy of the actor.
The filmmaker is very smart and uses a very simply way to explain the theme. He
really believes in the future, and with his storytelling, I got his message.

Fan:

The next one is VOICE.

Ying:

It’s an interesting film with no dialogue, and depends on scenes, action anddancing. The relationship between the stay at home guy and the tree is interesting.
But I didn’t get enough out of the film. The budget looks low, and shows that thefilmmaker is eager to make this film.

Lin:

I find it charming. It is basically a silent film with no dialogue. Everything isconveyed through images and sound. It’s an exercise in loneliness about this man,but it didn’t go any further than that. Although the film is enjoyable, I didn’t get any
more from it. It’s a well-executed idea and a good short film.

Kim:

I like it, it could be my recommendation for Special Mention. The main characterhas a simple life, he does not have contact with anybody, and his face looks so
9

sad. For me it’s a sad film, a film about loneliness. It’s well made, using limited
actor and set, but gives you certain feelings and emotions. I like the scene where
the character becomes a dried-up tree. It’s a simple, emotional and beautiful short
film.
Ying:

The story development is good, finally the woman leaves, but one thing changedin the man’s life. However, the character is a little weak. The lonely, isolated man
is a good character, but I think you need a little more to form the whole picture.
Maybe he had loved somebody or had bad experiences. The film can be better.
The film is low budget and not easy to make.

Kim:

It’s like Haiku poetry, an abstract short film and he kept things simple. Maybe it
lacks something, but adding something may not solve the problem.

Lin:

If I had to find one thing disappointing with this short, it’s the fact that the shadow
is coming from a plant, but the plant is never treated as a character. It’s only the
shadow of a plant becoming a woman, and then the plant dies or something. But
for me it didn’t die, it’s just withered. Maybe it’s winter and the leaves fall off, but
you wait for spring and the woman will be back. He never treated the plant as aliving thing. At the end I expected him to do something, like throw away the plantor buy another one? It’s more about the shadow than the plant, and it isdisappointing that it does not focus on the plant, which would have made it better.
But as it is, there’s nothing wrong with it.

Fan:

The last one is Gray Umbrella.

Lin:

I like this one, a bit in the same way as Death of the Sound Man, but this one ismore provocative. It’s interesting, funny, and a great use of fantasy and surrealism
in a short film. Just as in Death of the Sound Man, the director knows what he isdoing is silly, like the constant tapping of an umbrella on the head, the choice of abalding actor. He’s using humor to get across his message about habits, about
what we fight against. It’s a small idea but has large meanings, like what are thethings that are suppressing us. In the beginning we fight it, but then it becomes aconstant and we get used to it, but getting used to it does not mean it’s right. For
me it’s a really good short film, and did all that in 8 minutes. It’s very professionally
executed; the filmmaker had a good idea and he thought of every single shot andhow to execute it. The look, sound design, the way each shot is composed—
everything is so well-calculated. It has a lot of heart and a lot of brains. Out of the
10 finalists, this is one that I can’t find any fault with. It’s my number one film.

Kim:

You can interpret this film in many different ways. You can think about the politicalmeaning, or it can be about daily life. It makes you think in a deeper way

10

Ying:

Last round, we almost missed this one. The reason is maybe because it’s too short.
For me, I’d compare it with Tshweesh, One More Experiment and Death of theSound Man. Running time should not be a factor, the idea is the most important.
The structure is interesting and the use of voice-over makes it different from otherfilms.

Fan:

At this point, jurors could nominate one or two films that they think should get theGold Award. Ellen has already mentioned one, and for Tom, Gray Umbrella is
your first choice.

Ying:

I’m not sure.

Lin:

What is Ellen’s choice?

Fan:

Tshweesh. So far, we have shortlisted 4 films: Tshweesh, One More Experiment,
Voice, Gray Umbrella.

Kim:

VOICE is just for Special Mention.

Lin:

I think it’s clear that we are in line that we are more impressed with these five films:
Tshweesh, One More Experiment, VOICE, Gray Umbrella and Death of theSound Man.

Kim:

I have a question: why do you include a Russian film in an Asian award?

Lin:

I thought it’s just done in Russia and it’s an Israeli film. Here it says the director isfrom Russia.

Fan:

Russia is eligible.

Kim:

I don’t understand. I thought this category is more about the cultural identity thanterritory. I thought you want to discover Asian new force, so why you want to picka Russian film for that? I like the film very much, but…

Fan:

In our rules and regulations, we include Russia in the list of countries we accept
submissions from. We have had this category for around 10 years, and in the
beginning, nobody questioned why we include Russia, but in the past three or four
years, there have been more questions about it. We are planning to review this.

Lin:

Russia has its own culture, music, literature. I like Russian culture, it’s fascinating
to me.

Kim:

Tshweesh is my choice for Gold, Silver is One More Experiment. The other three
I like equally.
11

Lin:

My Gold would be Gray Umbrella, my Silver would be Tshweesh. My Special
Mention is Death of the Sound Man.

Ying:

My Gold is One More Experiment, Silver is Tshweesh, Special Mention is Deathof the Sound Man.

Lin:

All three of us have different Golds.

Kim:

If we assign Gold 3 points, Silver 2 points and Special Mention 1 point, then wecan already decide.

Lin:

This is too scientific.

Kim:

Usually Special Mention goes to the film favored by minority jury members. For
me Gray Umbrella should get Special Mention.

Lin:

Let’s just talk about the Gold. The Beirut film for me is second place. It’s a goodfilm and well-made, so even though it is second place for me, I have no problem
with it getting the Gold. I’m more okay with that getting the Gold than One More
Experiment, because I thought it’s just an okay film. If we are fine with Gold andSilver being Tshweesh and One More Experiment, respectively, then Special
Mention is a choice between Death of the Sound Man and Gray Umbrella. I’d
be okay with Death of the Sound Man getting Special Mention, but feel bad forGray Umbrella because it is, for me, the best-executed film.

Ying:

For me, the first and second place films are almost the same level, so it’s up to
you.

Fan:

So Gold Award goes to Tshweesh, Silver goes to One More Experiment. How
about Special Mention?

Ying:

Can we give to both?

Fan:

It’s possible if you really want to. They both get a certificate.

Kim:

Death of the Sound Man and Gray Umbrella both deserve Special Mentions.

Lin:

It also has to do with programming. Watching a short work like Gray Umbrella lastafter 3 hours of other short films was a nice relief, especially since it’s a good work.
That was a factor for me.

12

Asian New Force Category Awards Winners
Gold Award
Tshweesh,Feyrouz Serhal / Lebanon
Silver Award
One More Experiment
Sergey Vlasov / Russia
Special Mention
Death of the Sound Man
Sorayos Prapapan / Thailand
Gray Umbrella
Mohammad Poustindouz / Iran

13