thThe 11 ifva Open Category Jury Panel Meeting (Excerpt)

Jurors in Attendance: Ellen Pau (PAU), Linda Lai (LAI), Vincent Chui (CHUI), Winnie Fu (FU),Susie Au (AU)Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Chelsea Man (MAN)KWONG: Welcome to the 11th ifva Open Category Jury Panel Meeting. Today, we are going toaward five outstanding works among the eight selected finalists the Gold Prize, theSilver Prize and Special Mention prizes. This is the distribution of prizes in theory, but
if we decide to give two Gold or Silver Prizes after our discussion, we will re-distributethe prizes accordingly. Each of us can make suggestions as to how we shall proceed
in the discussion, or we can talk about the merits of each film. Our comments can betaken as reference points. Does anyone have any opinion on this?

LAI:

I’d like to ask about the decision process of choosing these eight projects. Was there
any main point of dispute for our three jurors in the preliminary round (Ellen Pau,
Vincent Chui and Winnie Fu)?

FU:

There were not too many points of dispute. But I think we all had our preferences andwe pointed them out quite early on in our discussion. I remember we had more than 15
projects selected, and we went back and watched them again, then discussed via email.
Did we not?

CHUI:

We did.

LAI:

I would like to know if there was any dispute when choosing these projects, or you
already had a priority during your discussion?

FU:No, but we could not pick ten, only eight.

AU:

Since I was not involved in the discussion in the preliminary round, I would like to ask
whether the criterion of the creative use of medium refers to the technical aspect? Was
the preliminary round of discussion based on this? Because the eight projects are ofvery different styles. For instance, in one of the projects, I found the director very
concerned with the aesthetics of filming, creating every shot in a refined and delicate
manner. Whereas there were films that gave me the idea that they were the work ofcontemporary young people who want tell stories in a multi-media format, with their use

of DV and computer software like Final-Cut Pro, who were also successful in executingthat idea. Since these were two distinctively different approaches, how do we assess?
I think we should first decide on a platform…

LAI:

I thought about that before arriving here, and I have asked myself a few questions.
Firstly, we should not be skeptical of these eight selections since they are the last eight.
Indeed, after watching the first screening I realised that due to the differences of the
projects, they are beyond comparison. I think, in some film festivals or competition,
there comes a point when it is no longer a matter of merits, good or bad, high or low,
but what the judges would like to promote, or what kind of message they would like toassert. For the reason that I do not think there is ever a fair judgment. I wonder if weshould discuss these issues first, or to deliberate on the individual projects?

AU:

I agree. For example, I have seen short films from Japan and Korea. One can clearly
see the objective of the selection, which is: I am trying to experiment different forms intelling a story, but my goal is to make feature films in the future. A clear underlying
statement is presented in the shorts, therefore when one is picking a selection, one
knows what is being promoted. It says: I hope when this filmmaker joins the film
industry, he or she can create something that is different from what the mainstream ishappening now. If that is the case for us, I think my approach in the selection would bevery different.

FU:

We do not necessarily have to use this approach.

CHUI:

We did not encounter this issue while we were making the selection. We just picked
the better ones.

FU:

That’s right.

LAI:

So let’s discuss this today.

FU:

What you said earlier is a fundamental issue, since there tends to be a wide variety offilms in the open category.

LAI:

True, and it is what I expected. That’s why I think we have to discuss this issue first.

FU:

The 100 films the ifva committee has chosen for us to watch are already basicallydivided into groups, for instance there are films made by students, obviously from theuniversities in Hong Kong. In fact, the student films can be compared within the same
category, such as those from the School of Creative Media, City University of Hong
Kong are stylistically similar, the same thing is true for those from the Academy of
Performing Arts. If you want to have a platform for comparisons, this can be taken asone. But we did not necessarily choose according to that principle, because I absolutely
believe that this was the first attempt of many of the young people who entered ifva,
and they did not necessarily intend to enter the mainstream.

LAI:

I think she only made an example just now.

AU:

Yes, I only made an example.

PAU:

But I also think that was a telling example, one which a consensus might not bereached tonight. It is because if we were to make an underlying statement in our
selection, can we reach a consensus tonight? Or should this issue be addressed by theifva committee?

LAI:

I did not want to discuss some general issues, such as “what is creativity?”I

understand fully that creativity is what ifva is after, whether it is in the concept or thetechniques of execution. The question I intended to pose though, is even more specific.
That is, we are considering eight films, I only think about these eight films, and not a
general issue. We all know these eight films, and I think we have a pretty good idea of
their subject matter, approach, camera-use, their place when compared to industry
standard, or whether they are experimental.

Therefore, perhaps we can reach aconclusion faster, in the sense that, for instance, this year we would like to single out
those bolder and more experimental pieces. If that is the case, “boldness” will be thequality we honour this year. Alternatively, if we decide that “skill” is something that had
been lost in recent years, then “skill” can be something that we commend.

AU:

Exactly.

LAI:

I think we can exchange ideas on this.

AU:

We are sitting here as jurors…. I think it is important to know what kind of direction weare taking. As a matter of fact, mainstream is just one of the examples. What matters

is what we want to encourage. As I have said in the last meeting, I think what ifva
encouraged in the past was to shoot aimlessly… To me, it appears that they haveabandoned formula and skill. Those two things are not necessarily restraining or
confining, but they seem unimportant to the young filmmakers now!

Should we

continue to have this attitude? Personally, I think we should take a step back, pause
and think. If you agree with me, perhaps we should reconsider whether this is the
direction we take.

KWONG: As a matter of fact, since last year, the ifva committee has been emphasizing that what
it promotes is not confined to films, but also extended to moving images in general. We
hope the filmmakers whose works have been shortlisted or awarded do not copy or
imitate other people. That is to say, we can accept flaws, but a film must have its own
character and point of view. Since ifva is not American Idol, what we have to uphold isa certain attitude, a type of originality in execution or perspective. As for what the jury
wants to encourage or highlight each year, I think we shall let the jury of each year
decide for themselves. That is why we asked the five of you to be the jury this year.

LAI:

Discussions are constructive. That was how I got to find out how Au thinks.

PAU:

Therefore, do we need to have a consensus? As to how we choose the films…

AU:

Actually, the example Lai gave just now demonstrated vaguely how a few “big words”
can be conclusively used to represent the direction we might choose. For instance,“boldness” can be the direction we take today…

KWONG: Or as you said earlier, technique and skill can be a defining factor in determining afilm’s merits.

AU:

How about “experimental”? Experimental or conventional are concepts that we canreassess. Or as you mentioned earlier, we haven’t seen technique or skill in a while,and they are qualities that we are starting to take notice in again. That is to say, apartfrom the originality in ideas, we should also pay attention to the originality in execution.

CHUI:

Actually, the films that we have chosen do not differ that greatly in style. For years, ifva
has been this way, finding different people to express their own views. I remember
Chow Keung (note: the organiser of the first ifva) once said, if a film is particularlyoutstanding, there would not be much dispute among the jurors. Perhaps there was
not any outstanding work this year…

LAI:

No, I don’t think we have to determine a particular direction first. But we might as well
try to understand what our views are, it’s better than jumping into discussing each films
straightaway…

CHUI:

May I be bold as to give this example: as I said last time, for the work like Name of Wu
Mei, I find it really difficult to join the discussion. I must admit, I don’t really know how
to look at this type of works. But since ifva has asked me to be a member of the jury, I
should discuss it in the way that I know. For such a film, you can voice your opinion,
but if I really could not get round to it and understand it, I will ask questions. I think it isbetter this way. If we suddenly decide “experimental” is the theme of selection this year,
then I can leave immediately.

LAI:

I don’t actually want to reach a conclusion, I just want to know how everyone thinks.
For instance, when I watched the films I kept changing my position. After I finishedwatching the films, I realised that the films that moved me are those that touched onsocial subjects.

Although they looked rough, I somehow felt that there were still

filmmakers that cared about what we did not want to see in life. But I do not mean to
say that social consciousness have to be the theme this year. That is not my position
either. I just want to get a view of whether there is anything that deserves to be pushed
or promoted, and whether or not we have the same view. It would be good that we do,we could have a consensus. It also would not matter if we don’t.

AU:

Our approach can also be whether a film is genuine, then technique can take a back
seat.

Taped
FU:

Bourgeois, mainstream.

AU:

I did not like Taped at all.

PAU, FU: Me neither.

KWONG: Would you care to deliberate on what you like or do not like about it?

AU:

The film possessed a contemporary mentality, which I found repulsive. The director’s
execution was aimless, as if the idea of depicting the mindset of youngsters today wasto put together a few meaningless shots.

KWONG: What kind of mindset do you mean?

AU:

The view of love nowadays, the contemporary treatment of the visual medium, one’s
imagination and one’s reality. Perhaps we have lost the guts to commit, or tocommunicate through words. It seemed to say, if I liked you, I would only film you
without your knowledge or consent. This mentality could be a very interesting subject
matter to explore, but since he used this style to make the film, and since he used
these two actors (Carl Ng and Maggie Q), since that is the way he treated the story, I
felt that this mentality was what the director himself had fallen into, and it was so
disgusting. That’s what it was to me, I’m sorry.

PAU:

I did not think the film was that bad. I did not dislike it completely, I only think it waspretentious. In fact, when you mentioned the word genuine earlier, I felt that if genuine
is what we are after, we could immediately dismiss this film. But I do think the reason it
deserved a place among the eight finalists was that I don’t really believe he shot it
aimlessly. At least I have a feeling that the director had briefed the actors what toshoot, and the shots were done with a purpose. The only thing was, the filming wasdone by the actors and not a cinematographer.

LAI:

I went to the screening and listened to the discussion, and I know the background of
the production was not like that. In fact, the shots were done with a professional
camera, and pretended to be shot by the actors themselves.

CHUI:

The form he used has nothing to do with the content of the film. He only tried a newtechnical approach, for example, using two cameras.

But at the end, in terms ofcontent, he did not have to use them.

AU:

I think he did not explore what he set out to explore.

CHUI:

He did not have anything to explore.

AU:

Outwardly, he used a lot of techniques favoured by young people today to dress up a
lot of things, but it was for show-off and no substance. It could not lead you to a mainpoint. Neither his heart nor his head could accomplish that. As for what I meant with“aimless”, I don’t mean to say technique is essential, it’s only that people have started
to fall into a type of casualty, a type of attitude that says “just film some stuff and gohome”…

AU:

As a result you find that everyone is using this way to present images, but how does
one say what one wants to say within this spectacle? I think in terms of attitude, he did
not genuinely explore this phenomenon about the reality of images. If that was the
topic he was to explore, I would certainly like to see it.

LAI:

There was a lot of potential in the set-up.

PAU:

It was not perfect though. His editing, the shots that you considered casually shot, hiscamera use, or the whole story – the theme you mentioned earlier, of detachment andthe inability to communicate in a relationship, he has dealt with. You considered thistheme hip, and you thought that was the reason he chose to make it his theme.
Perhaps he really did intend to explore this theme, and I think he had done the job.
The only thing that disappointed me though, was exactly what you said, that he could
have done it better and made it more touching. Although I don’t consider deliberatesentimentality an important motivation, but my impression was that the whole film wasshot by those two characters, and it made the film… Unless he has added more scenes
in the story, it would only be the way it was now, there was a limitation to this form.
Certainly he could have handled it better, like you said, he had a lot of potential todevelop the story…

LAI:

Perhaps there could even be a third or fourth angle.

PAU:

I agree, perhaps there could even be a third or fourth angle. He could even use
different colours to represent image and imagination. It could even be that, for thecameras the two characters used, in a certain point of the story, become indistinct fromeach other, the Audience not able to tell which shot was whose. These are the things
he could have achieved. He did not execute it well enough, but one could see that was
his intention. And for him to have this idea and this motivation, to me, was good enough.
It is nice to see a film with this intention.

LAI:

However, I think the way he handled it only emphasised the star gaze. I think the
choice of these two actors was significant.

For there are indeed many films that

explore the ways and means of film cameras, but this film fell exactly into the kinds oftraps that we always talked about when discussing this type of design. To use multiple
cameras, to shoot in this style, could be an examination of detachment, because a film
is purely a gaze.

I believe this film could have reinforced this idea, rather thanabandoning the idea midway, and failing to make us see more clearly this kind of
relationship between two people with the multiple camera use and dual angles. Nor
could it comment or judge on the effects of the camera. I find this film very pretentious.

PAU:

I don’t think he wanted to deconstruct this…

LAI:

Deconstruction was not what he was after, so he simply showed off some fashionable
techniques.

AU:

I agree I found a showy quality to it, I feel the same way. But does that make it sociallyor politically incorrect?

LAI:

I don’t mean to say anything as deep, I just feel the director did not make his point. He
used a lot of resources to put up an eye candy. Even the story was badly-told.

PAU:

I couldn’t even see it as a story, he was only attempting to play with the idea of merging
those two films.

FU:

I also considered it a visual experiment. It had a sense of contemporaneity. I’d like todefend it, since I was among those who picked this film. I disagree with the notion thatit did not have anything to say. I think the director was only playing with different media,
obviously trying to experiment with the theme of “machine”. Certainly, the film waspretentious. While I was watching it I also find the things that made me the most
uncomfortable were how calculating he was in shooting in those angles, and his
affected use of colour. But then again, I also agree, if I had to choose eight finalists,
the film will not be the first, second, nor third.

Our StepsFU:

It is stylistically very similar to the productions of RTHK (note: Radio Television HongKong). It left a deep impression on me.

AU:

But it was finely done…

PAU:

But there was no surprise. When it ended, it did.

CHUI:

I think it was very good. But I also agree, in this competition, if you take into accountthe independent spirit and so forth, I can only give it the third place. I saw this for the
first time when it was shown at the Academy of Performing Arts. I believe this teamhas a lot of potential, especially in the cinematography. The music and editing werealso very nicely done. But that was it. When I looked at it again, I realised there wasproblems in the story. Towards the end of the story, with the part about the father losing
his clothes, I did not know what happened there. What was in that case? They did noteven provide some very basic information. However, they are undoubtedly very
dedicated and talented filmmakers.

AU:

I also agree it was very fine, I was quite surprised. They have set high demands inexecution, the composition of the shots…

LAI:

For every line in every shot, it was composed beautifully…

AU:

Or the props in the foreground… This was a beautifully shot RTHK drama. Personally
I would not be touched by these films. The RTHK has been promoting how they tellstories about social issues in order to touch the audience but always fail. What we got
are aesthetically fine programmes that surprise us, in the sense that the productions all
look like commercials, and make us wonder where these filmmakers come from. I
believe this is the case for this work as well. There were also a lot of plot holes in thestory. If one look at it in terms of story, of the techniques in story-telling, or narrative
approach, it fell short in every aspect. But at the same time it was evident that a lot ofthoughts had been put into making this film. For instance, the director used a certain
shot in place of a certain line of dialogue, obviously he had contemplated it.

Butcreatively speaking, it was not outstanding.

Hae
PAU:

I think we all remember this, it was a fake documentary. In fact, there were a few fakedocumentaries among the projects submitted, they were obviously school assignments.
We only picked the best one out among them.

CHUI:

It seems Hae tried to make a statement.

PAU:

It was a little too long. I think if it were shortened by half, I would have enjoyed it a lot
more. Since it dealt with the concepts of the real and the unreal, the director had founda few professors to discuss what is “Hae”, some of them real professors, some of themmade you wonder if they are real or not. I find that this theme of the real and the unreal
in this documentary was explored quite interestingly. But as for originality and whether
it could touch people, I think it was not up to that standard.

AU:

It did reflect the contemporary viewpoints on certain things. For example, it utilised
different broadcast elements, like inserting interviews in the middle of the story. The
project had its interesting points, but is it original? It did not appear so.

CHUI:

In the middle of the film with the part about Tung Chee Hwa, I thought the director had
more to say. But at the end he just slacked off. I was quite disappointed when I saw
the ending. However, this was the most outstanding one among those in this format.
The others were very senseless and silly.

LAI:

I found it quite good too, and this was also my first time seeing it. I enjoyed his crazed
approach, in the sense that he ran out to do research based on one simple idea, tosubstantiate a theory. But there had been plenty of people who had done this in thehistory of film, it had become a genre. I also found the film quite rough, it could not be
among the first three prizes.

The Blacks
LAI:

I like The Blacks.

PAU:

I found it very true when I saw it.

FU:

It’s a comfortable piece of work.

PAU:

It resembled reality TV in the sense that it followed the subject everywhere. Even for a
simple shot, it worked.

LAI:

I liked that the fact that the crew followed the subjects around. The director invented a
few activities, so it was not just merely following, the crew was actually involved in thesubjects’ lives. As a matter of fact, I would like more people to see this film.

th

The 8
LAI:

I like it.

CHUI:

I found it very enjoyable too. Afterwards I watched it again, since I found it too long thefirst time. There was a shot in the middle before the male protagonist put on glasses
that I did not know what the director wanted to say. Moreover I did not want to find out
as I did the first time the story was indeed so superficial and simple. But it did not
matter, I watched it once again and it was still okay to me.

LAI:

But I did not understand how it would end this way. It was as if the director couldn’t
figure out an ending, so he repeated the fifth day when Eve appeared. I really like thebeginning though…

CHUI:

The beginning was very good.

LAI:

The first half was good too.

AU:

I also preferred the beginning. Whereas for the end I found there were things that were
not clearly explained. The set up at the beginning was nicely done.

FU:

But he did not know how to end it.

AU:

It did give an impression that he was still thinking while he went on. That was what it
felt like.

LAI:

I feel that he amended the lack of resolution with editing, rather than having a complete
ending beforehand. It was not in the script.

FU:

I think this film is either the best or the second place.

AU:

It was not good enough to win either first or second place. But I do believe the subject
matter is quite interesting. There were things that were not explored fully, but it did notruin the overall rhythm, so it was okay.

LAI:

How do you feel about the actors? Did they match the performance requirement?

FU:

They were okay.

PAU:

They were okay, we could not ask for too much.

CHUI:

It’s hard to say…

PAU:

I have already sung praises for them in a comment I wrote. I believe that without those
two actors the film would have been a disaster, the whole film would not work.

CHUI:

I did not think there was any problem with the ending. The first time I saw it I thought it
was too long, so I was not too keen on it. But when I saw it for the second time, I foundthe ending acceptable.

LAI:

It was quite concise.

PAU:

I don’t remember the ending that well.

LAI:

Actually I want to see it again…

AU:

I did not like some of the details, but then I thought would those details affect the film asa whole? Not necessarily. Take for example I did not like the appearance of God on
television. When I saw that I thought, wow, how come it became that bad? I was quitetaken aback by it. But as a whole, I believe he was very focused on doing one
particular thing. So was that really that bad? Nevertheless I did not see the point of it,
as he had been using the voice to represent God, and then in this juncture I wondered
why he thought it necessary for God to appear? These were the decisions he madethat I was skeptical about.

LAI:

As a matter of fact, that was the voice of the director. It represented the voice of thecreator, and not God.
th(The jury re-watched The 8 )CHUI:

His use of music was very good as well…

PAU:

He had taken into consideration every aspect of the production. It was well done, andvery all-rounded.

Just LovePAU:

I like this film a lot.

LAI:

But there were one or two scenes the appearance of which I did not understand. For
instance, the scene where the mother character watched television.

AU:

I believe the director wanted to reinforce the conflict between the two characters.

LAI:

But I found the mother odd.

PAU:

That was because the actress who played the mother did not know how to act,
because she was not her real mother. This was only a tiny flaw. The director added
this scene for a particular purpose, I think it was necessary.

LAI:

But that scene stood out from the rest. When I watched to that point, it was as if I was
woken up suddenly.

PAU:

That was the fault of the actress. But the other two actresses were very good, they
acted very naturally. Of course, apart from those two actresses, the other actors were
not as good as them.

LAI:

The man who sold flowers woke me up, then the mother character woke me up as well.

PAU:

That is right. The others were not nearly as good as the main actresses, their acting
was very good. More to that the story was very convincing, and the director had
portrayed the two characters well, making them three-dimensional. One felt that they
were human.

AU:

I agree that Just Love was a charming story, though it did have faults in its execution.
One would think, what made you cast this character in this way? How could you
accept such a take? But apart from that, the whole film was sweet and charming,
perhaps due to the fact that it had an authenticity and realness, it was not pretentious
at all. It might be odd at times technically, but there was one thing that wasinteresting – as we discussed just now, the director had used this form to handle thestory, like the documentary element that it used. The structure of the story made itinteresting. Without these elements, one would think she did not know how to make afilm, only taking a good story and tell it in a handy way. But with these elements, hermotivation was clear. Although I disliked the scene of the mother as well, I tried toanalyse the purpose of the scene. Added to the fact that she inserted documentary
sequences into the film, the scenes of the mother’s reaction became reasonable. For
as though her acting was really bad, one understood the intention of the director, andrealised that if the scene were taken out, she would not have said what he wanted to
say.

LAI:

Basically I liked the fact that it had other layers to the story. To me, only the scenes of
the two lead actresses were enjoyable. The exchange in the boxing hall was wonderful.
But as soon as other actors appeared, I was taken away from the story.

PAU:

Including the coaches...

LAI:

The coaches, the young man who sold flowers, the mother, they pulled me out of thestory.

PAU:

I felt the same way. The coaches were particularly funny.

CHUI:

Although she had a lot of problems in his execution and techniques, when I watched
the film I found it a rare gem. I even considered the acting of the two lead actresses
average, but this was the one of the stories among all that made me care about thedevelopments of the characters. That was delivered in the story. There might bevisually substandard shots in the film, but it was not shot aimlessly. But in terms ofactors, I even felt the two lead actresses were problematic.

FU:

I considered those two actresses rather good.

PAU:

It seemed that we all have a generally good impression of this film.

FU:

Mainly I think the casting was good, those two girls were charming. They carried thefilm and made it comfortable to watch. Plus the film was sincere, which was not foundin other work submitted.

LAI:

Those were their own qualities.

FU:

It was sweet, but not so much as to disrupt the flow of the film. This was a bright andsmart film.

LAI:

There were places for improvement.

PAU:

I think if it were any longer, it would become boring. This was the perfect length forvignette-style films like this.

LAI:

Not necessarily. There could be simple improvements, like how to put together scenes,
where to cut. These could be improved.

PAU:

That’s okay. If anything should be added, it should be portrayals of happiness in thestory.

Graffiti and Home Movies
LAI:

I dislike it very much, I’m sorry.

CHUI:

I think it was acceptable. I quite like it.

LAI:

As soon as I heard the voice I wanted to turn it off.

AU:

I think the visuals were acceptable, although the repeat use of the same images was
not an original technique, the whole film worked and it made me feel. But I found thevoice repulsive, the director really should have taken the voice out. Other than that, if
one were to look at the images and listen to the voice-overs, one would be moved. The
only thing was that he was not too original, but in terms of the images and his use ofthem, and not inserting anything else in between, made this film realistic. By using his
scripts and the interactions of the characters, he moved the audience in a simple
manner. The approach itself worked.

LAI:

Actually I liked those images a lot, I found them charming. But I did not like the voice,neither did I like what the voice said. It was because not only did the voice-over fail tocompliment the images, it made them clichéd. I think the use of it was clichéd, and as
a result the images were wasted.

KWONG: I would like to ask Au, you said earlier that parts of the film was not original enough…

AU:

I think the thought itself was not original. For instance if one has a bunch of homemovies that one would like to use, how to one know which ones to use? When you
listened to what he wrote, you would realise he knew which shots could work, do youunderstand what I mean? That is to say, you might have 20 tapes, now you havepicked three or four minutes out of it, then of course you knew which were the shotsthat you want to use, and where you want to use them, and to make the audience feel.
This is exactly what I meant by clichéd. Truth be told, this film was definitely clichéd,and I did not like his descriptions. But I also realised that some people might betouched by it, even I was touched by parts of it, perhaps because those shots worked.
The fact was that he was talking about something clichéd but universal: his father was
dying, the poignancy he felt towards life could then easily touched others.
Nevertheless I think the way he used the images repeatedly, and the direction he tookin his script were not original enough.

CHUI:

I myself found it quite enjoyable, because I was truly moved by it when I saw it, and I
did not mind that voice. But I do agree there were clichés in this work. I found it
realistic though when I was watching it. But then at the end when he tried to explain his
reason of making this film, it was redundant. I mentioned last time a documentary
about a few middle-aged men forming a band (Delay? No More!), even though it was
not selected at the end. As we have discussed last time, after watching more than 100
films, as long as there was one about middle-aged people, the film would definitely
stand out. For the reason that there were too many films about teenage boys and girls
wallowing in heartbreak, in which they spent half an hour depicting states of sadness,or telling how lost and aimless they felt. So then I quite like that documentary, it was
delightful to see a group of middle-aged men forming a band. Bt then after thinking it
through, you would realise this was a common enough theme. It just stood out though
among these films.

FU:

I found the image texture of the Super 8, the colours and the images poetic. I did not
really mind that voice, only that he talked too much, and that it might not help the film.
This film was not too outstanding either, but it did move people.

If he really did

exaggerate, he only exaggerated the feelings. Or perhaps it was a bit outdated?

AU:

If you use the word outdate, I absolutely agree. His intention, approach and execution
were all outdated.

FU:

This was the part in which he lost some points.

PAU:

She spoke my mind, it was outdated.

The only thing that moved us was the

combination, it moved middle-aged people like us.

LAI:

The combination did not work, I only liked those images.

AU:

I think for a long time, people like us missed Super 8.

PAU:

Middle-aged people like us.

AU:

As soon as I saw that texture… Truth be told, if you ask me what he said, all I
remember was a few words. You would not remember what he talked about, only
those shots.

FU:

It was rather old-fashioned.

PAU:

I think the film was completed, there was not much to be developed. Therefore I do notthink it deserves the first or second place.

LAI:

I agree.

Name of Wu Mei
FU:This was a very professional film. I remember it was me who recommended it. In fact I
have seen it before at the Microwave Media Arts Festival, I found it to be a very
calculating vision and sound experiment…

PAU:

I did not find it particular innovative, text has been used quite commonly. To read thetext out was, to me, a relatively weak method. There was a television set in it, why
couldn’t the director turn the text into something we could see onscreen? In fact, there
could also be another layer. I found the whole film too flat, with only one soundtrack…
What one soundtrack meant was that there are two characters, one soundtrack andone image. He could have turned the imagery in the book into a metaphor, which is to
say to turn the film itself into a metaphor, it would be much better than just playing withform to this extreme extent. What you see now is a play with form, obviously quite a lot
too, but it did not utilise the things in the literature.

AU:

When I first saw it, for the first three minutes I did not like it. But I realised if he wastrying to speak something and when he spoke it so loud he was making you
understand he was using media creatively. His formalism statement was loud andclear, one must know what he was doing. And I meant to say, I appreciated that, onlythat there were places that I did not like. One was the way two voices kept speaking

those text, and then a man typing at his computer furiously, these were the things I did
not take too well. But it is only how I personally feel. I absolutely agreed with thenotion that he was very calculating in the visual and audio execution, he knew when to
shock you with a sound, and then to merge the sound into the narration of the text.
Towards the end of the film, I found the impact greater and greater, which is to say theprevious parts were rather loose. For my personal taste, I do not like this type of work.
That was why I kept asking how should we decide when I first came in. I think this was
the only piece in which the form was played so thoroughly. If I chose to put aside mypersonal preferences, I think we should pick a film of this type. This was the only film
among the eight that explore the form, and it had an independent spirit. But whether it
was done in a unique way or whether it was done well, I do not think so. Neverthelessit had its brilliant aspects, and it could earn high marks.

FU:

Another point you said he did not achieve was that… in fact he did not want to use thetext, in the way that you read a novel would be so different from the story he told us.
For me too, I could not get into it at first, and I also did not care for the scene of theman in front of the computer, it seemed strange to me. It took me quite a while to get
into the film, but once I did I was completely absorbed into it. It was the particularly thecase for the scene with the paper bag in the elevator, it fired my imagination. His playwith form was taken to an extreme, but in a standard and monotonous way thatinspired in the audience to imagine a storyboard and to create the rest of the story intheir own mind. I particular appreciate this, and I think he achieved it. Though noteveryone might feel the same way.

KWONG: Are you all ready for the next round of this meeting, the nomination of the films for the
prizes? Each of you can nominate three films.

(The voting result: Taped: 0 vote. Our Steps: 2 votes. Hae: 0 vote. The Blacks: 4 votes. Theth

8 : 5 votes. Just Love: 2 votes. Graffiti and Home Movies: 0 vote. Name of Wu Mei: 2 votes.)

KWONG: In other words, we can delete Taped, Hae and Graffiti and Home Movies from our list.
Now we have 5 films. Can we nominate the films for the Gold Award and other prizes?
Let’s vote now, giving marks to each of the films. Three for the Gold Award, two for theSilver and one for special mentions. The film with the highest mark gets the Gold
Award.

AU:

But I would like to ask, would it be possible not to have a Gold Award?

CHUI:

I think we should give out a Gold Award.

FU:

I agree that I feel there is a film that deserves a Gold Award this year.

PAU:

I think what sets this year apart from the rest is the Silver Award, since the standard of
the finalists were quite even this year.

AU:

If we must have a Gold Award, I think we need to turn back and decide what direction
we should take in determining a Gold Award. Shall we have a consensus?

PAU:

The system of giving marks to each film is most efficient way to narrow down our
choices and singling out the outstanding pieces.
th(The result: The 8 : 6 marks. Just Love: 5 marks. Our Steps: 2 marks. The Blacks: 2 marks.
Name of Wu Mei: 2 marks.)

PAU:

I do not dispute this result.

FU:

I do not disagree with it either.

PAU:

I think we should give out three Special Mentions.

AU:

That sounds good.

LAI:

But do we all agree that The 8 is so good that we have to give it the Gold Award?

FU:

I think we do have to give out a Gold Award.

CHUI:

To me, it is true for this year…

LAI:

Okay.

PAU:

I think it is necessary to have this kind of encouragement.

AU:

What is so special about this year that we have to give out a Gold Award?

th

FU:

No, what I meant to say is if you let me decide this year, I would prefer to have a Gold
Award.

CHUI:

I mean to say it is the most outstanding film this year.

FU:

Considered to be the best this year.

KWONG: Could you elaborate on the reason why we should have three Special Mention
recipients this year?

LAI:

It is because when we were deliberating, I remember not that many people liked Our
Steps, only Chui supported it, but it ended up receiving so many votes.

AU:

I supported it, along with Chui.

KWONG: Could you elaborate on why Our Steps deserves a Special Mention?

CHUI:

As Au told me at the beginning, every year, ifva gives out the impression of
encouraging people to shot aimlessly. It might not be true, but there are people who
hold that view. For this film, all the details were done rather well, which was something
we could all see.

AU:

I also consider it a very fine piece that can enter the mainstream. Personally I find thecasting was good, the actors suited the roles of the father and the son. Although there
was not much originality in every aspect, the techniques or the script, it did possess asense of integrity that moved me. I mean it in the sense that, in these days whenalmost no one would make the effort to make a drama sincerely, to earnestly completea fine piece of narrative short film, to design the foreground and background and toblock how and where the actors should move. Added to that I also like those childactors very much.

CHUI:

That actor was really good.

AU:

It was quite demanding for the child actor.

CHUI:

There were still things to be desired in the story, but within those scenes, the father andson did have chemistry.

AU:

It was a difficult shot. It had integrity and was very all-rounded.

LAI:

The topic of The Blacks deserves our notice. The director not only shot outdoors, he
was involved in the story. He created certain events to participate with the interviewees.
Therefore it was not merely a video project, but also a socially involved project.

AU:

What I find interesting is that I never thought about having three Special Mention
recipients. It was interesting in the sense that the three recipients represent threedifferent genres: narrative, experimental and documentary.

It is interesting for thewhole competition to have this combination. If there was only one award, we could nothave made this point.

LAI:

I agree.

AU:

That was why when three Special Mention were suggested just now, I instantly agree.
I entered this room with exactly this doubt, at the end these three awards cleared my
doubt. I feel the whole question is resolved.

KWONG: I have a suggestion: some of you will be presenters at the awards ceremony. Would
you then talk about the reason behind your decisions? Au put it very well just now,
especially with the point on the Special Mention prizes. I think people would like toknow about the rationale behind the decisions. Would you share it with the audience
then?

All:

Yes.

LAI:

I found Name of Wu Mei a well-rounded piece. I liked the way voices were used, theclear knowledge of how there are different functions for male and female voices.

Open Category

Gold Award
th

The 8

Jervis SUEN

Silver Award
Just LoveFUNG King-long

Special Mention
Our Steps
LEE Chi-wai, KWAN Wing-men, NG Hoi-yan, YEUNG Ki-fai

The Blacks
CHOY Yuk-ling, KU So-lan, CHENG Man-wah, WONG Yuen-ling

Name of Wu Mei
KONG Khong-chang