thThe 15 ifva Open Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Percy Fung (FUNG), Pang Ho-cheung (PANG), Law Kar (LAW), Wong Ain
Ling (WONG), Chan Wai (CHAN)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Kattie Fan (FAN)

PANG:

How were these 12 works selected?

KWONG:We had more than a hundred entries in the Open Category this year. In the firstround, Kattie, Vincent Chui and Simon Chung picked forty something works outof all the entries, then in December, Percy, Ain Ling and Chan Wai picked 12
works out of the forty odd ones. Do you want to know more about the selection
process in the first two rounds?

PANG:

No, I just want to know the rough figures.

KWONG:

Now we can go through the 12 works one by one as a warm up exercise, then in
the next stage we can discuss which works should be awarded. The first one up
is Revolution.

FUNG:

Let me go first. Among all the works this one should receive some consideration,even though it may not be the best work. As its director stated, the film pays
homage to Johnnie To Kei-Fung, and uses his style to make a high school drama.
That was the reason the film made it past the second round. In terms of creativity
and style, the film is imitative, and is therefore of inferior quality than a lot of otherworks. Allowing it to be among the finalists is a sort of encouragement. We hopethe director will keep trying.

PANG:

I think it definitely deserves to be among the finalists. However, it doesn’t gobeyond imitation to become something else. It simply parodies other people’s
works. In this respect it’s more like something you see on Youtube than an indie
film. Tarrantino also borrowed from City on Fire in Reservoir Dogs, but it isimportant to upgrade from your source. I don’t mind that he pays homage toJohnnie To, but Johnnie To may not be particularly flattered by this homage.

CHAN:

It’s just an imitation.

PANG:

That’s right, it’s too similar to what you see on YouTube. I think Revolution
wants to make a statement by using gangster film aesthetics in a school setting,which in a way is similar to The Betrayed Tigers, but the latter is far moremature in its filming technique and acting.

KWONG:The next one is Homecoming.

LAW:

I asked about independent spirit just now. I don’t want to put down or praise
Homecoming, but a film like this is clear in its storytelling, rich in emotions, andhas a smooth style. Even though it is about racial minorities, its narrative style isquite traditional and there is nothing experimental about it. It is very good in
describing details and emotions. The film feels mainstream even though it isabout Filipinos. What is independent about it?

KWONG:

I don’t know how other jury members feel about this…

LAW:

This is just a hypothetical question. It doesn’t reflect my own views.

KWONG:

Everyone has a different interpretation of independent spirit, and each of you canhave your own, too.

CHAN:

I think independent film is relative to commercial film. The latter is a commercial
product, and so has to take into account many considerations, which limits its
choice of subject matters. Some topics lack commercial appeal, and commercial
films won’t touch them. Yet these subject matters are worthy ones, and I hope to
see them explored in independent films.

WONG:

The entries this year are quite mainstream in terms of narrative style and filming
techniques. This film is quite rare in that it deals with the world of Filipino maids
in a way that is not patronizing. When I was having dinner with Chan Wai justnow, we discussed the fact that most Hong Kong films are weak in portraying
people. This film is the exception in that it delves deeply into its characters, andthe result is quite moving without being melodramatic. It shows the employer as
nitpicking and unforgiving, and the portrayal of the son is not overly twee. Itshows the progression of the relationship between the Filipino mother and her
son from animosity in the beginning to the mother understanding her son at theend. The script is not ground-breaking, but is rich in details. The acting is alsofine. On the whole this is quite a solid film.

LAW:

My own view is that there is no such thing as independent spirit. You can only
define a film in terms of whether or not it is mainstream. If it is made by a big
studio then you could say it is not an independent film and cannot enter thiscompetition. It is hard to define independent spirit, but you can tell whether awork is creative. I only want to raise this issue, but not try to evaluate all theworks by this criterion alone. I think that even if a work is mainstream in style, it
should get high marks if it moves me.

PANG:

My definition is whether the work has been commissioned by others, that means
if an employer or company like RTHK commissions the work, then it is notindependent in spirit. Independence means initiating the work yourself, and it
doesn’t matter if the film has been shown in theatres. Some works are better than
RTHK shows in terms of production value, like The Newlywed and The
Betrayed Tigers. Their storyline is complete, the narrative is clear and every
aspect is above par. But aside from the fact that they were independently
produced, there is not much in these films that is innovative. Sometimes I don’t
mind if a work is rough on the edges, I really want to see something new. But thisyear there are few works like that. In terms of production Homecoming is okay,
and the character portrayal is quite good. Subject matters like this can easily
become clichéd, like having mean employers, yet the characters in this film arerealistic. The script, casting and acting are good.

FUNG:

None of the characters are perfect, and they don’t easily fall into either good or
bad categories. This makes the film stand out. Also the performance of the kid isvery good. Regarding independent spirit, in the past we consider elements suchas whether or not the film is experimental or innovative. The flip side of that arefilms that are school exercises. Many of the entries are school projects, like
Chinese Opera Boy, with the school dictating certain requirements, which is likehaving a studio boss looking over your film.

LAW:

Some school projects even have the teacher participating, paying for expenses
or helping out with editing. Personally I don’t consider these issues…

FUNG:

This should not be an important consideration in the Open Category…

PANG:The end credits for Revolution shows IVE as the copyright owner because thefilm was made with school resources.

CHAN:

This year there are many school projects. Both Camera Gun andPoor Child,
Rich Mind are from Poly U, Chinese Opera Boy is from APA, Life Goes On isindependent, Daylily and I can See, I can’t See are from City U, The Outsider
is also a school project…

KWONG:

As far as I know she is in secondary school matriculation class, and she made an
English version of the film to enter into an English language video competition.
Her secondary school probably provided some equipment support but no money.
For your information,The Newlywed is a RTHK commissioned project, The
Betrayed Tigers is from Fresh Wave Short Film Competition, The Life andTimes of Ho Chung Villagev was part of a program of shorts thatthcommemorated Ying E Chi’s 10 anniversary. Ying E Chi received a project fund,and commissioned 10 directors to each make a short on the subject of
independent spirit. Homecoming is an APA graduation film.

PANG:

All the films have backers!

KWONG:The next work is Camera Gun.

FUNG:

This is quite an innovative work. The camera work and camera angles are very
impressive. The content and creativity are both good, but the finishing is rough.
This is one of my top two choices, its creativity and experimental nature bothdeserve high marks.

LAW:

This is quite an outstanding work and worthy of discussion. At first I thought it
was a bit nonsensical, as if he is just playing around, but parts of it are quite
imaginative, like the relationship between camera and gun. In the end he doesn’tquite deliver, though. I can see how a camera can become a gun, but don’t see
how a gun can carry the function of a camera. His thinking is outside of themainstream, and the storyline doesn’t follow dramatic conventions, it doesn’tdevelop out of narrative structure or character relationships. Also the image
design is quite unusual. I don’t see any external references in his film. It doesn’t
follow any trends, and is quite independent. Pang Ho-Cheung has made films
about cameras and guns. Perhaps he will have something to say about this film.

PANG:

Actually my impression of this film is just so-so. Its concept is interesting, but you
only need five minutes to tell it. I see how a camera can resemble a gun, but theending is poorly done. It sets up certain rules of the game but does not follow
through.

CHAN:

When I saw it on the big screen today, I felt its faults are magnified, and I havemore reservations about it than when I saw it in the first round. I chose it as a
finalist because its concept is independent, but its narrative doesn’t strive forcompleteness. I enter into its world, but don’t know what its conclusions are.

PANG:

I don’t like the fact that it complains that Hong Kong has a lot of junk information,
but doesn’t say anything coherent about it. It’s like a grumpy old man’s complaint,
especially towards the end. The beginning is quite interesting, but after fiveminutes there is no development.

CHAN:

The scene where the girl points a gun at the man and asks him how he could kill

people, it subverts the whole film, but doesn’t tell me anything. It does exactly
what the film is trying to protest against.
PANG:

It doesn’t know what it’s protesting against. It seems to be defending itself, but isactually detailing its crimes. The scene where the girl pulls the sales person to aback alley, I don’t know what it is attacking. The film keeps fighting against
something, but what is it?

FUNG:

At the screening just now a lot of people were asking about this film. I’ll try to
explain it from the director’s point of view. The lead character thinks that people
are hypocrites, so his camera becomes a gun, while the girl’s gun becomes acamera. She thinks that she should kill the magazine editor not with a gun but
with a camera. The director’s intent is not easy to understand. When the girl kills
the man with a gun-like camera, there are two meanings. One is reincarnation—
that’s why you see images of Tibet, and after he is reborn he rethinks his own
hypocrisy. That’s the director’s explanation.

LAW:

Even though he doesn’t express himself clearly, but he is passionate about film.
Not only is he the writer and director, he is also involved in camera, art direction
and sound mixing. He is crazy about the meaning of film. The lead character
thinks society is hypocritical but he is a part of it. It’s like the Buddhist parable inwhich a fanatical person is so convinced he is on the right path that he is actuallyon the wrong one. This reasoning can be applied to gossip magazines or eventhe democratic movement. Of course this is just my free association, but the film
gives me the space to make these associations. It is not a badly made film, it
doesn’t involve the audience on an emotional level because it is experimental,
whether or not that is successful. I feel this person is really keen about film since
he takes part in six different departments. Even though it is rough on the edges, itis nevertheless interesting.

WONG:

We can all agree that this is an unusual film, and should get extra points forcreativity. But I feel it is confused; its concept take precedent, but you soon
realize what that concept is. The girl faces two people. One tells her not to kill thechief editor, but later on she confronts the sales person. If she is able to show
understanding about the editor’s difficulties, why is she unable to sympathize withthe sales person, who after all is just a little guy trying to make a living? This is asort of conceptual confusion. Also the transcendence scenes at the end looks
more like parody to me, I don’t see any transcendence at all.

KWONG:

Chinese Opera Boy.

WONG:

The acting is good, the lead actor is quite unusual.

FUNG:

Does he really know Chinese opera?

CHAN:

Yes he does.

PANG:

I want to make a more general observation first. Camera Gun is rough on theedges and immature, but it has real personal convictions. Some works aresmooth in terms of technique and execution, but are too politically correct. They
are concerned with issues that juries like this tend to favor, like bemoaning theloss of traditional culture, dealing with issues like urban redevelopment, concern
about racial minorities, etc. I’m not sure whether they really care about theseissues or not, but these works seem to violate the independent spirit. Whether
you pander to the tastes of a studio boss or to the ifva jury amounts to the samething.

CHAN:

I don’t know about the other student works, but at APA we don’t
consider the ifva when they plan their productions. Their first concern is whether
they can graduate. When we are at the planning stage and discussing projects
with the students, we often get into fierce arguments because the students are
passionate about what they want to express on screen. They can use theschool’s equipment and have a team of classmates helping them. They realize
once they graduate they may never have the same resources at their disposal
again. So they fight with the teachers to get their films made and they neverlisten to us. They are quite politically incorrect in this regard. So the definition ofpolitical correctness varies depending on the context. I think most young people
just want to make the films they want to make. You can’t force them. After they’redone wit the film they leave school, so they don’t really have to listen to theteachers.

PANG:

So these two films are their own ideas?

CHAN:

Yes, and neither film is easy to make. We questioned the director’s knowledge
about Chinese opera, as well as how he planned to execute it and find actors forthe roles. In the same way we warned the director of Homecoming about thedifficulty of directing his Filipino actors if he does not speak Tagalog. We worry
about execution problems, and when they completed their films they felt very
pleased with themselves. We should be fair about our criticisms of these films,
because the school put up a lot of resistance. We warned them based on our
professional experience that they may not be able to achieve what they intended.
Yet their persistence becomes “political correctness” under a different context!

PANG:

I like Chinese Opera Boy because of its completeness. I just want to understandhow this film came about.

KWONG:

Works exploring similar topics have not only appeared in the Open Category inrecent years, but also in other categories such as animation.

LAW:

I think Chinese Opera Boy is very exemplary; it is like turning an opera lesson
into film, I’m sure Chinese opera associations would welcome this film. Many
problems in the film are easily solved. The master quickly accepts him as his
protégé, and then he appears on stage. The message seems to be you will
succeed as long as you work hard, and your teacher and your mom will be
moved. Everything is just too simple.

PANG:

The film doesn’t explain why the lead character likes Chinese opera, except that
his mom took him to see a performance when he was young. He is not a typicalteenager, and is certainly an exceptional case.

LAW:

The director over-simplifies the process.

PANG:

By comparison I think Homecoming is more realistic.

CHAN:

I think his treatment is too conservative. Every problem is solved in 20 minutes.
That’s why I have reservations about it.

FUNG:

In terms of filming technique, Chinese Opera Boy is quite an accomplishedschool exercise. Part of the reason is that APA provides a lot of resources, likemotion picture film for filming, color grading, etc. But the lead character is too
simplistic.

WONG:

I think it is interesting how he treats the stage. I’m a fan of Chinese opera myself.
The director does not favor filmic expression over stage performance, which iscommendable. In terms of stage structure and movement of the actors the
director did a good job.

KWONG:

Poor Child, Rich Mind.

FUNG:

This film has 5 directors, one of whom is that of Camera Gun.

LAW:

Did they each direct one section?

FUNG:

I don’t know how they organized the production, but in the discussion period just
now they mentioned the film has 5 directors.

CHAN:

We chose it to be one of the finalists because of its portrayal of the children andtheir lives, which is quite good, even though it is not outstanding. It doesn’t say
anything new about the topic. It is enough that the film is among the finalists.

FUNG:

I think his treatment is quite special. But like Camera Gun, perhaps it has to dowith the school’s resources or its custom, the quality of the production is not high.

KWONG:The next work is Life Goes On.

CHAN:

The subject matter is quite politically correct. Technically, there is nothing special
about it either in terms of its storytelling or camera work.

PANG:

The subject matter is well selected, but as it develops nothing much comes out of
it. When I was young I lived in Yue Man Square, so my interest was piqued, but
as the film progressed it does not have much to do Yue Man Square, except for
the last shot where you see apm Mall in the skyline.

CHAN:

I’m not sure whether it’s because he failed to grasp the topic, or that his technicalskills are not up to par.

FUNG:

The director is a student at IVE and lives in the area. He is telling his own story in
the film.

KWONG:The next work isDaylily.

WONG:

The first time I saw it I was very pleased because it captures young girls’…

(Law Kar Kar comes back from making a phone call.)KWONG:

Does Law Kar have anything to add?

LAW:

AboutPoor Kid, Rich MindI have a small comment, that it is a bit superficial.

WONG:

Daylily is likable and has nice details. But when I saw it on the big screen thistime I was less impressed, whereas I can See, I can’t See had a lot of
problems when I saw it on the small screen, but on the big screen I felt it
captures some fine points well. I still thinkDaylilyis enjoyable, but it didn’t havethe same impact on me as the first time I saw it.

CHAN:

On the big screen everything seems banal. The actors portray adolescent girls
well, but don’t go beyond it. I enjoyed it when I first saw it on DVD, but on the big
screen the feeling was gone.

LAW:

When I first saw it I thought the first ten minutes was good, but the film is too long.
All the scenes are of the same three or four girls lying on the grass or on thehillside. It becomes too much. I was impressed with the opening credits with thetext against a natural background and the first ten minutes describing school life,
but as the film progressed every scene looked the same.

PANG:

Is there a limit on the length of the entries?

KWONG:The entries have to be 30 minutes or less.

PANG:

No wonder many works are 29 minutes and 57 seconds long! Sometimes they
just don’t know when to stop. If you cut down Daylily by 15 minutes it will begreat; after the first 15 minutes the film just drags on. Perhaps they feel that withshorter films they are at a disadvantage. I don’t know whether or not it was thisfilm, but the end credit for one of the films was so fast you could barely read it.
This shows they care less about the integrity of the film than whether or not it fits
the rules. I think the actors in this film are okay, but nothing much happens
towards the end.

FUNG:

The actors are good. The production and camera work are okay. I was prepared
for the difference between the big and small screen, so it didn’t affect me. At the
post-screening discussions just now, they said the shooting of the film lasted 10days, and they did not direct the actors much on set. It was more like playing
around. The three actors didn’t know one another before the film, and became
well acquainted as the filming progressed, which is why their performance is sonaturalistic.

LAW:

What format was this shot on?

PANG:

It should be either DV or HDV.

LAW:

Has it been color graded?

FUNG:

Yes, it has a softness that normal video lacks. Also the balance was done well;
you don’t see the color shifting abruptly from scene to scene. The equipment
they used was probably not as professional as that of the ADC or APA projects.

CHAN:

The post-production is done very well..

KWONG:The Life and Times of Ho Chung Village.

PANG:

I can’t imagine that this is a 14 minute film. At first when I saw the overlapping
stills pictures, I thought it was part of an opening credit sequence. I feel 14
minutes of this is just too long.

WONG:

I like it a lot. It is raw and simple. It only has one concept. I think using sounds tolink up different things is clever and creative.

PANG:

I agree, but it shouldn’t go on for 14 minutes. I could bare 7 or 8 minutes, but
towards the end it just keeps repeating itself.

LAW:

I’ve seen this film twice, the first time at Ying E Chi’s screening, and both times I
saw it on the big screen. Whether you feel it is long depends on your mood. Its
intention is to inspire you to think about an issue, so it needs to be of a certain
length in order for you to get into the topic. I like its concept and technique, like

making collages out of different elements, or the part where the bulldozer moves
across the screen and houses start appearing. The use of sound is also good.
When I saw it the second time I was even more drawn in. The film doesn’t want
to shock or surprise you, but aims to inspire nostalgic feelings about families,
places and the passage of time. These feelings need time to percolate. It is notlike a dramatic film that leads you along through the storyline, so 14 minutes is
not too long. Also I heard she plans on making more films on the same topic. But
it is hard to compare a film like this with, say, Homecoming, because they arevery different.
PANG:

This is more like a documentary. It is hard to judge it according to narrative film
standards.

LAW:

It is all very subjective. You can’t use the same standards to judge the two films.
You can only say you like one more than the other.

WONG:

I like the way it captures the feeling of time. It really touches me.

CHAN:

I agree with Law Kar. I like its concept. The difficult thing about this film is that I
can’t use documentary standards to judge it, because it doesn’t tell me anything
new. This film’s method is interesting when you view it from a Hong Kong context,
because many of our old things are gone, and you can only trace it from people
who have lived there. I like this film because it is poetic, but I don’t think of it as agood documentary.

LAW:

I don’t think of it as a documentary. Experimental films can have elements ofnarrative and documentary. The difficulty we face is comparing a films like thiswith something like Homecoming, which is intricate, documentary-like and full of
emotions. Both deal with socially conscious themes, but one is experimental
while the other is more conventionally narrative. So it is hard to compare them.

FUNG:

Also this film is more graphically oriented, it straddles between animation and live
action.

PANG:

This is not a documentary. It is more like something you see playing in an
endless loop in an art gallery rather than a film you watch in a cinema.

KWONG:

I should add that according to ifva regulations for Open Category, we do not
specifically state where the works have to be exhibited. In response to Percy’s
point, the rules for animation category state that works have to be shot frame byframe.

FUNG:

This work is done on a frame by frame basis, and in fact some Animation
Category entries in the past have used similar techniques. But this is notimportant. Many Open Category award winners in recent years employed various
techniques in their works.

KWONG:The next one is I can See, I can’t See.

CHAN:

When I first saw it in the first round I quite liked it. When I saw it again I stillthought it was complete, but technically lacking. It creates a special atmospherethat takes the audience into an imaginary world. It handles the topic well, andallows you to know that everything happens in the man’s imagination, then it
takes you to a melancholic place. Among all the works this is the one I like the
best.

LAW:

Do you mean everything that happens is the guy’s imagination? I don’t
understand which part is his imagination and which part he actually sees. Is theending real?

CHAN:

When the girl gives him the broken kaleidoscope, he intercuts this with shots inwhich he imagines the girl visits him.

LAW:

That means he actually almost becomes blind?

PANG:

Everything after his injury is imagined.

LAW:

You mean he imagines the visits?

PANG:

I don’t know. That’s what I want to ask too.

CHAN:

Perhaps he is technically deficient. The turning point is when she gives him thebroken kaleidoscope. Perhaps he doesn’t use enough shots, and there is justone line of dialogue to express the turning point. He doesn’t show the man’s
reaction.

PANG:

I wouldn’t have known if you didn’t tell me! I like the role of the girl, and the scene
when they are playing on the stairs.

LAW:

Even if what you said is valid, what is the main theme of the film? Is it just about
an introverted guy’s imagination? What is the film trying to say?

CHAN:

It’s about a guy who is lonely and misunderstood. Technically he may not haveprovided sufficient information at the crucial point to tell his story, but I think thescript is well written.

KWONG:The next work is The Outsider.

PANG:

You mentioned there is an English version as well. When I saw it I thought thefilm doesn’t quite hold together. In the middle of it she decides that she has beenusing the interviewee, but that may be part of the design. I felt uneasy about this.
She has been exploiting him, and then comes to a realization in the middle,
which in itself could be another type of exploitation. Several years ago there wasanother work called Desire of Egg, which was more worthy of debate. In this film
I don’t know what made the director come to this realization and why. Is the
English version set up the same way?

KWONG:

More or less.

WONG:

I was uneasy when watching this too. One should not question the motives of adocumentary filmmaker, but with this I can’t help but question her motives. By
contrast Poor Kid, Rich Mind is more simple and direct.

PANG:

And a lot more genuine.

LAW:

I agree, but Poor Kid, Rich Mind does not go deep enough, and does not follow
through with its subjects. But at least it is touching in its depictions of the kids’
everyday life and how they have fun under those circumstances. This film, on theother hand, does not move me. Her self realization just came about out of theblue.

KWONG:The next work is Newlywed.

LAW:

It reminds me of Jessey Tsang’s Lovers on the Road. Both feature Joman
Chiang as a woman who goes on a trip and meets another Putonghua speaking
man, has a brief encounter with him and then part ways. I’ve always liked
watching Joman act. She is pretty and likable on screen. This film differs from
Jessey’s in that they travel on the train to Tibet, but it doesn’t make good use of
the railway journey.

CHAN:

It is well made.

LAW:

Her spiritual quest is just talk.

PANG:

I like the pretty images, but should I give it high marks because of that? It goes
all the way to Tibet, but what it wants to say could have been said in Tai Kok Tsui.
The production has abundant resources because it is a RTHK production, so the
production value is high, but does it deserve an award? It doesn’t have much tosay. It focuses on two newlyweds, but fails to shed much light on their problems.

CHAN:

I don’t really care how he got the resources to go to Tibet, but whether it isnecessary for the film to take place there. What Pang said was right, the story
Chau. What concerns me is the director doesn’t seem to care what happens to
the woman. The story takes place on a picturesque journey. She comes to some
sort of epiphany, and everything is alright again.

LAW:

It’s questionable whether it is an epiphany. She merely decides to stay with her
husband.

KWONG:The next one is The Betrayed Tigers.

PANG:

Quite interesting. Even though there are traces of other films in it, it is well
executed.

CHAN:

It’s like Revolution.

PANG:

But better made.

CHAN:

Because he is in a more senior level in school.

PANG:

Should we as jury members take this into account?

CHAN:

There is nothing new about the story.

PANG:

The director admits that he was inspired by《The Mission》, but the film is
executed with precision.

CHAN:

A studio head would want to hire this director.

PANG:

If a studio head asked me to recommend a dependable new director, I would
definitely put his name forward.

CHAN:

He is a safe choice.

FUNG:

This film almost didn’t make it to the final round, but I insisted that it does,
because it represents another kind of work, one that approaches industry
standards on a technical level.

LAW:

I think there should be works like this every year. If every film were like I can See,
I can’t See the audience will fall asleep.

PANG:

I think this director may well work in the industry in a few years. Now he is still
imitating others, and hasn’t found his subject yet, but he is technically mature. He
ought to be encouraged.

KWONG:

Don’t worry, there are bound to be more works like this in the future.

FUNG:

There have been fewer experimental and innovative films this year.

PANG:

In the past there were film like Wong Ching Po’s I Love Bath Tape and Wong
Choi Fung’s Desire of Egg that were both experimental and controversial at thesame time.

FUNG:

Perhaps the new works are too calculating. Or maybe the competition gives theimpression that it had not been as insistent on the experimental and innovative
nature of the works.

CHAN:

I think its part of the general atmosphere at large. The works reflect what people
care about.

LAW:

Perhaps it is part of the college education nowadays. 30 or 40 years ago there
was no such thing as professional education in this field, and so there were few
technical requirements. People just took a camera and filmed whatever theywanted, and there were a lot of unconventional ideas. Now the schools requirethat works achieve a certain technical level. You can’t just film a guy rollingaround in bed or commit hara-kiri. Nowadays you have to have a story, plot
development, characters.

PANG:

Nowadays there are fewer extremist, controversial films.

KWONG:

I don’ think the amount of resources affect the works. For example Korean shorts
are well funded, but they tackle much broader issues. Perhaps it has to do withthe education system.

CHAN:

I have seen student works from Taiwan and the Mainland. Whether dramas or
documentaries, these works have a much higher social awareness than Hong
Kong films, and you can also observe the relationship between society and its
people. By watching these works I know what their authors care about.
Taiwanese films tend to be more sentimental and more individualistic. Hong
Kong works are more and more technically sophisticated, but I can’t tell fromthem how their directors view themselves.

KWONG:

We can now nominate up to five films that deserve awards. The other way is tonominate the Gold Award winner. Or we can eliminate some works first.

LAW:

Let’s eliminate some works first.

(The jury members vote for films that they want to eliminate.)
KWONG:The Outsider, Revolution, Life Goes On, Chinese Opera Boy, I can See, I
can’t See, Newlywed get 5 votes, Camera Gun gets 4 votes. At the end,
Homecoming, The Betrayed Tigers, The Life and Times of Ho Chung Village,
Camera Gun and Daylily remain.

FUNG:

I want to say something on behalf of Camera Gun. Compared to all the otherworks it is more innovative and experimental. We can now go on to nominate
award winners. I think The Betrayed Tigers deserves a special mention at least.
I like Homecoming because it is complete. The second place is Camera Gun.

PANG:

I hope Homecoming gets gold, The Betrayed Tigers gets silver, The Life andTimes of Ho Chung Village and Camera Gun gets special mention.

WONG:

I suggest giving both Homecoming and The Life and Times of Ho Chung
Village Gold Awards because I find it hard to pick between the two. I like both,and they are very different. I suggest special mention for Daylily.

CHAN:

I nominate gold award for Homecoming, special mention for The Life andTimes of Ho Chung Village, silver award for Daylily.

LAW:

I second that. Gold award for Homecoming, special mention for The Life andTimes of Ho Chung Village and silver award for Daylily.

KWONG:

Then the Gold Award goes to Homecoming.Daylily,Camera Gun and The
Betrayed Tigers each gets two votes.

FUNG:

I can take away my vote for Camera Gun.

PANG:

I can also take away my vote for The Betrayed Tigers. I feel the film istechnically mature even though it is not experimental. I would like to give himsome encouragement.

LAW:

The Betrayed Tigers is of professional quality, while Camera Gun is quite
special.

CHAN:

If there were two special mentions, I’d like to give them to The Betrayed Tigers
and The Life and Times of Ho Chung Village.

PANG:

I agree with having two special mentions.

KWONG:

So Daylily gets silver, while Camera Gun is the runner-up?

PANG:

We don’t have this category, all 12 finalists are runner-ups.

FUNG:

Is three special mentions too many?

WONG:

If it is a choice between The Betrayed Tigers and Camera Gun, I’d rather pickthe latter.

LAW:

Can we have three special mentions? It’s just a certificate. We can state which
jury member nominated the films.

KWONG:

That’s fine, as long as you all reach consensus. So our final result is Gold Award
for Homecoming, Silver Award for Daylily, three special mentions go to The
Betrayed Tigers, The Life and Times of Ho Chung Village and Camera Gun.
Please keep the results secret until we announce the winners, and please cometo the award ceremony next week and be our award presenters.

LAW:

I think we can give some comments for the special mentions to explain why weawarded them.

FUNG:

Should we do a review of the whole competition?

KWONG:We are thinking about changing the categories, but that is quite complicated. We
want to encourage more documentaries to enter the competition, but don’t wantto rashly add another category. We also thought of having a best documentaryaward in the Open Category.

LAW:

Tammy Cheung already has a documentary competition, which is well run andthe works are of quite high standards. I think we should keep the Open Category,
and think about how we can improve its overall quality. If it is Open Category, it
should be open to all so that the entries reach international standards. For
example, we should encourage people in the film industry such as Peter Chan orPang Ho-Cheung to take part. At present the entries are stuck at the level ofgraduation works.

CHAN:

Perhaps it has to do with the length requirements. I wonder why there are so few
RTHK productions.

FAN:

In the first round there were a few of them among the 40 something works but
they didn’t make it to the final round.

CHAN:

Producing a 30 minute work without the support of colleges or Fresh Wave isquite difficult.

PANG:

Why was rule about length of the entries changed from 60 minutes to 30 minutes?

KWONG:A 60 minute film is considered a medium-length work, not a short. We also
looked at the practice of other short film festivals. The other consideration is
distribution. Actually we have always welcomed people from all walks of life takepart in the competition. In the first and second edition we had people like Yu LikWai and Jia Jiang-Ke taking part. In recent years the entries are mainly
graduation films from universities.

LAW:

Does the ifva encourage people from the Mainland to take part?

KWONG:We have an Asian category.

PANG:

You can raise the amount of prize money. This is an important consideration for
independent filmmakers. For example if I were to choose between Pusan
Production Plan and Hong Kong Asian Film Finance Forum I would choose theformer. Not only do I get to meet more people, the prize money is higher.

KWONG:

You think if we raise the prize money to $100,000, it would attract better entries?

PANG:

Yes, and if the works are not up to standard that year you can withhold the firstprize. I think documentaries should be separate from non-documentaries
because they are hard to compare. I was in the jury for a Korean film festival, andwe had to choose between a musical and a documentary as recipient for anaward, and we spent the better part of a day discussing what standards weshould apply to judge the two kinds of films.

KWONG:

Germany’s Oberhausen Short Film Festival is an international festival that states
as its organizing principles certain criteria such as experimental and social
awareness.

PANG:

Whereas we don’t have a theme.

KWONG:

We have also considered allowing Hong Kong works to compete in the same
category as other Asian films, reserving a “national” prize for Hong Kong films. I
don’t know if this is a way to raise ifva’s standards.

PANG:

In addition to the prizes, we should also consider the artists’ continual
development. For example we could provide sponsorship of post-production
services to help the artists with their next films.

KWONG:

We tried this several years ago in which the Gold Award winner can enjoy
services at Cyberport, valid for one year, but in the end he did not takeadvantage of it.

PANG:

Perhaps the time limit can be extended to more than a year. The sponsorship
could also be given to Special Mention recipients.

KWONG:

Thank you for your suggestions. ifva should keep improving and not stay at one
place. I agree with your point about the prize money. It had remained the samefor the past 5 years.

Open Category
Gold Award
Homecoming
Zune KWOK
Silver Award
Daylily
Wallis Tsz-wai CHAN
Special Mention
The Life and Times of Ho Chung Village
Tsui-shan TSANG
Special Mention
The Betrayed Tigers
Stanley Ming-yin LIU
Special Mention
Camera Gun
Jason Man-kwan YIU