thThe 14 ifva Youth Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Juno Mak (MAK), Chan Wai (CHAN), Chan Wing Chiu (CHIU), ChanPik Yu (YU)
Absent Jurors: John Wong (WONG)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong(KWONG), Rachel Wam (WAN)

MAK：

My Rose and Life Must Go On are the most impressive among the ten short films I
have screened. I believe I am the youngest in the panel; and for people of my age,the lives of this group of youngsters are what we consider fresh and thus are
attractive to. I guess they are around 18 years of age, who want to enjoy life here
and now and pursue the dreams they aspire to. It’s like burning up their youth as
they follow some abstract kinds of dreams, but somehow get lost on the way. They
are waiting for something to happen, thus putting themselves in a state ofcontradiction and helplessness. It gives a stark contrast between their looking for a
dream and for a life. The music and cinematography of both works are relativelyimmature.

CHAN： Life Must Go On surprises me because the work is very complete. As it is the firstwork shown in the screening, I find it quite hard to look at the rest of the entries thatfollow. (laugh) Despite the overall techniques of Life Must Go On have flaws, thelevel of skills displayed in this year’s Youth Category is unexpectedly high. I likehow he captures people’s faces and also his friends. He did it in a seemingly
arbitrary way, but it is a very true reflection of their lives. I also appreciate hishumanistic concerns towards children and his friends, even if that was not intended.
The work touches me as its originality and concerns speak to me.

Two features, Let You Know and I’m Back, have a well-balanced execution.
They live up to some dramatic requirements. For examples, Let You Know has
furnished a complete story, but is inept in terms of directing the performers and also
the delivery of emotions. The same flaws can be found in I’m Back, where avoice-over is used in the finale to, at a fast pace, convey an awakening. It
demonstrates a kind of political correctness but at the same time it turns asomewhat original idea into a melodrama.

I find The Empty Body very outstanding. It gives a very precise delivery. Yet, it isrelatively short in length, which is about three minutes, with no dialogues. Basicallyits imagery works and is up to the standard.

Without Title also outstrips the others. And when I came across the phrase “pleasefeel it yourself” in its introductory text, I reckon it is a work with a view. It enables
people to feel its passion and invites us to look at the world in its eyes. Its subject
matters are Central and Hong Kong which we are all familiar with. The camera isvery passionate and rhythmical; there you find neither story nor drama, dialogues
nor text. It is particularly impressive for a work in the Youth Category to havereached this standard.

My Rose is very unique and impresses me. It gives a very precise delivery eventhough it does not have any dialogues. It astounds me.

MAK：

At first I would say Let You Know is a good work, even though it is much less an
original story but a cliché melodrama; and the treatment is not at all creative though
it is very appropriate. After I saw Life Must Go On, however, I believe it simply
outstrips Let You Know.
I’m Back is impressive because it carries humour. I think it is very difficult to makepeople laugh. There are a couple of scenes which are very funny in I’m Back.

I was drawn by Life Must Go On and My Rose. The latter, in particular, impresses
me. It is not a long piece of work, but looks stereotype.

I would consider Life Must Go On a documentary, and it is the strongest among theothers.

YU：I think the ending of Life Must Go On is the magic touch of the whole film, and that
also makes the work a great one. It astounds me. My Rose is the mosteye-catching, with the theme best articulated. It makes use of simple language topresent what it says--without uttering a single line of words—but you do understandwhat it tries to tell you.

CHIU:

I like Life Must Go On very much, emotionally. I cherish the fact that it is a goodwork done by a teenager. It tells something about the times we live in, and what arein our minds. It is a very integrated work. The director documents his friends withsincerity. He stresses that this documentation must be done before he turns 18years old so as to make a record about this young generation of Hong Kong.

The Empty Body hangs together and it is also about students. I find its story
subversive, which expresses his resistance to wearing uniforms. I can tolerate theweakness in its techniques. The protagonist did not simply die. There you can see
sublimation, which I find extremely poetic.

The Island tries to tell a story with a big theme and deeper meanings. It tries also avariety of techniques. Relatively, however, it is not as complete as the others, andperforms badly as far as the techniques are concerned. The same flaws can beseen in Rule & City.

I find My Rose too complete and its techniques too perfect. The director displays
too well his story-telling skills, with strong visuals. I believe he will shine in the future.
He knows what he should and should not do; he understands so well about editing
and how to develop the story. The treatment in the ending about the relationships ofthe three protagonists, and the reflections about homosexuality, is very integrated.

Quite a lot of things about Woke Up are praiseworthy. It tries to tell a story in askillful way, but the overall performance is just average.

I was not quite into Let You Know at the beginning. However, after our last
discussion, I was convinced by your viewpoints. It has good techniques, a very
integrated use of camera movement and the script. It knows how to put an end tothings and how to edit the material. When I saw it for the first time, the extras (in thegroup scenes) really disturbed me. But now I have new discoveries about them.
They do carry meanings and play a significant part in pushing forward the plot; theirdialogues are important. With your opinions in mind, I am thinking if we need toconsider giving it an award.

Without Title is a special one. At first it was not at all my preference for I thought it
was just something arbitrary. But the more I saw it and discussed it, the more I wasdrawn into it. It has achieved consistency in its visuals and music, and at somepoint, it touches the heart.

I’m Back lingers in the middle. Viewing it as a feature, I prefer it to Let You Know.
I’m Back is child-like and cheerful; the performers are playful. Its theme is close tothe world they are living in.

CHAN： Without Title is an alternative work. It has its own aesthetics; its focus andcinematography are up to the standard. It is full of emotions instead of being just a
demonstration of techniques.

CHIU： Graduation has a clear and lucid concept with an integrated use of cinematography,
music and performers. It tells a story with a song of just a few minutes long. Theskills are delicate, but you will easily lose sight of such delicacy along the way. In thefirst round of selection, we did come across a lot of works too skillfully crafted that its
truthfulness in the making was shrouded. Graduation is obviously one of them. It is
so polished that two girls can be posed to make a perfect heart shape. Everything in
the work is calculated.

CHAN： It looks familiar to me when I saw it for the first time. It is very fine. There is a kind ofmood or sensation flowing in the work but I have no way to fathom its theme. The
treatment in framing and colour temperature is very well put. But it seems just too
familiar to the extent that I feel reluctant to vote for it.

CHIU：

What you have just pointed out is that it is in fact a copy cat. Its story-telling is socommon and popular nowadays, which is nothing new to us.

First Round of Voting

IFVA：

John WONG votes for Life Must Go On, My Rose, The Empty Body, Woke Up
and The Island. We can first recommend the Gold Prize, but first of all we need anomination.

CHIU:Life Must Go On

YU:

I choose My Rose and Life Must Go On.

MAK：

I nominate My Rose for the Gold Prize.

IFVA：

John WONG nominates Life Must Go On for the Gold Prize. So now, two works
have the same number of votes. I suggest we do some lobbying among ourselves.
Shall we award a shared Gold Prize, or one Gold and one Silver Prize?

MAK：

I value the creativity of a work. My preference is My Rose for it has richer elements
in its camera treatment, creativity and art direction. Life Must Go On is a good work,
too, just that I reckon it is a record of the life of the director’s own. It touches me forits being a good documentary. If we consider the effort it takes to make a short film
from scratch, I would give My Rose the Gold Prize and the Silver Prize to Life Must
Go On.

CHIU：

I am speaking from a totally different perspective. I think being realistic is thevaluable thing about Life Must Go On. It takes a close look to life and originatesfrom a truthful heart. Its value lies in its originality and creativity, all displayed by thefact that the director has paid much effort in developing the concept, shooting thestories around him, and then editing the material. More importantly, everything wasdone in a spare style.

Secondly, the creativity of Life Must Go On is rooted in its origin--it captures theattribute of the present times. It is subversive for being seemingly a film about youth
problem while exposing also the fact that the same problem can be shared by theelder generations. It is thought-provoking especially when it is voiced out by
someone who is not even 18 years old.

YU：It seems to me the two films belong to different types. It would be difficult to choose
between them. We can see craftsmanship in My Rose done in a very controlled
way. There is something tough about Life Must Go On, and it allows us tounderstand more about young people nowadays. In the final scene, the director
does not forget to raise his own question.

When I came across some social workers by the latter part of the film, I thought theymust be the one who asked the youngsters to engage in art making so as to put
their energy into good use. I even had this thought about the film being made by agroup instead of just one person. But as the director started filming, he must havegained a lot of sensations and feelings of his own, leading him to work out his plans.
In this way, this film is very different from My Rose.

CHAN： I am reluctant to make any comparison for it is cruel to do so. The way Life Must
Go On uses to establish relationships with people through the camera is not aneasy task. The director leaves his own remarks by the end of the film, making thework complete.

CHIU：We seem inclined to award a shared Gold Prize, don’t we? Here we are, just four ofus, a situation which is quite embarrassing.

MAK：I am okay with a shared Gold Prize, but not giving out a Silver Prize. I think Life
Must Go On is realistic whereas My Rose is surreal. To make a choice between
the two means that we have to choose between “realistic” and “surreal”. For me,“surreal” is definitely the choice. If all of us agree with a shared Gold, I think bothfilms deserve the award.

CHAN： If we give a shared Gold Prize, I don’t think any work deserves the Silver Prize.

YU：

I agree.

CHIU：

Taking into consideration of your opinion, I tend to give a shared Gold Prize. In fact I
tend to vote for Life Must Go On; as Juno observed correctly, I am more intorealism. The way My Rose expresses the inner heart is dear. I am delighted by how
Chan Wai described it with the word “desire”. I think the work deserves our respect
and affirmation for its craftsmanship and creativity. It is exceptional for a YouthCategory entry like this one.

Personally I think we have a very high standard this year. There are many works
that deserve the awards. If to vote for the Silver Prize, my favourite is The Empty
Body. Like what I said before, its concept hangs together and it is poetic. There issomething unique about it and it deserves our support.

IFVA：

What do you think about the Silver Prize? Any other nominations?

YU：

I rank the works in three levels. The first level is Life Must Go On and My Rose;
the second, The Empty Body and Without Title; the rest of them go to the third. Iwould say, The Empty Body and Without Title.

CHAN： I’d rather not give the Silver Prize. Again, it is difficult to compare Let You Know
and The Empty Body. They are just different in terms of the production andstory-telling. On the other hand, The Empty Body can be grouped with WithoutTitle, but that does not give any of them more credit.

MAK：

There are some good and bad works among the rest of the entries. I would
recommend no Silver Prize, nonetheless I suggest Special Mention for Let You
Know and I’m Back.

IFVA：John WONG has chosen My Rose for the Silver Prize. Is voting needed for theSilver Prize?
CHIU：

I don’t think so. I call back my previous suggestion and opt for no Silver Prize.

Voting for Special Mention:

IFVA：John WONG chooses The Empty Body、Woke Up and The Island. It becomes
clear that The Empty Body and Without Title are in.

MAK：

And now it’s between The Island and Let You Know.

CHIU：

We have three choices: to pick two, three or four films.

YU：

If I have to pick just one, I will go for Let You Know. The Island is a very lovely
work, but less successful than Let You Know which has a better execution in thenarrative, craftsmanship and structure. I am also impressed by The Island it
expresses a kind of innocence and sincerity about movie making. Sadly, its
outcome does not pass muster.

CHAN： I agree to give three Special Mention because we are not going to award the SilverPrize.

IFVA：

If no objection, we will award the Gold Prize of this year’s Youth Category to bothLife Must Go On and My Rose; The Empty Body, Let You Know and WithoutTitle are the three Special Mentions.

Youth Category
Gold Award
Life Must Go On
Ka-ki SHAMGold AwardMy Rose
Lok-to TANG

Special Mention
The Empty Body
Sze-ming WONG

Special Mention
Let You Know
Kai-tung KWONG, Hiu-kwan WONG

Special Mention
Without Title
Toson CHAN