thThe 11 ifva Youth Category Jury Panel Meeting (Excerpt)

Jurors in Attendance:

Pikyu Chan (CHAN), Dr. Ng Chun-hung (NG), Vincci Cheuk (CHEUK),
Pang Ho-cheung (PANG), Simon Shen (SHEN)

Organizer Representatives:

Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Chelsea Man (MAN)KWONG: Thank you very much for joining our Youth Category Jury Panel Meeting. We
suggest discussing the works in regard of the following aspects:

creativity, content,form, techniques, structure and the use of medium. This year, we have ten finalists
in the Youth Category. So, shall we start with Trapped?

CHEUK: It is very well-made, a work after Korean films. It depicts the struggles inside a man.
I like the work because I understand it thoroughly.

CHAN:

I like Trapped, too, though it doesn’t seem to have a well-written script at all.

PANG:

Trapped is the most mature work among the finalists.

SHEN:

I think it’s mature only in terms of techniques. Its idea is good but it is not goodenough to depict the feeling of “being trapped”.

PANG:

The actor is weak at presenting his characters. It just makes people feel that he’s
really “acting”.

CHAN:

It lacks of creativity.

PANG:

To be frank, all the ten works are so-so. Not even one of them is outstanding.

NG:

Especially when you refer to Objective 2 - “be creative and challenge the existing
form of expression…” - none of them can accomplish this purpose.

CHEUK: I like Shit and I think we should grant it an award.

KWONG: What do you think the merits of Shit are?
CHEUK: I think it’s rather a statement from the Jury. We grant it an award so as to deliver amessage that filmmaking is not necessarily serious and it does not require us tohave very good techniques.

SHEN:

Yeah, he’s smart but…

CHEUK: The work is not playful enough?

NG:

He has a point but the work doesn’t really deserve an award.

CHEUK: But I think if we give him some encouragement, he may become a successful
filmmaker, like Spike Jonze.

PANG:

I have reservations about your suggestion. He deserves encouragement, but notwith the Gold Award or the Silver.

CHEUK: Shit has a point but it sounds too simple…

SHEN:

Quite a few people have done similar things before…

NG:

I think Shit is interesting but it doesn’t deserve an award.

PANG:

It has only one gimmick.

CHEUK: How about First Second Third Fourth? I like it. They have an idea, though it’s notvery clear.

NG:

In fact, we can compare First Second Third Fourth with Trapped. What do you
think about these two works?

CHAN:

I think the filmmaker’s idea is well delivered in Trapped while very often, the idea ofFirst Second Third Fourth couldn’t be expressed very clearly. They have tried touse many different ways to express it, though.

SHEN:

I have watched First Second Third Fourth three times but still couldn’t get its idea.

NG:

It has some good shots but there are many flaws in regard of techniques, forexample, the use of zoom lens. Languages are used in a rather confusing way. But
some scenes are good, for example, the ice-melting scene and the balloon scene,
etc.

CHAN:

They have tried various means and I think this spirit is worth commending.

NG:

How about Anybody Here? I think it was a drag.

CHEUK: It should be re-edited.

PANG:

Actually, the second half of the work is meaningless at all. Using illusion andhallucination to express the psychological state of the character is kind of cliché. For
example, there were scenes that the actor smoked and fixed his eyes upon the far
side…

KWONG: How about Seek?

CHEUK: I like Seek a lot.

NG:

I couldn’t figure out if he’s really camp or not.

CHEUK: Neither could I. He does have a good idea. The last shot is a master-stroke. The
acting is also natural.

NG:

But I think the director blew hot and cold about the subject matter because the work
is not consistent in its presentation at all. Sometimes it’s really camp but sometimes
it’s just kind of crazy; and sometimes it’s not even either of them. And that’s why thework looks odd.

PANG:

Here is interesting but it does not deserve an award. It doesn’t have an idea inside;
it’s just a piece of homework to me. There’s no reason for us to choose apromotional video of the Cheung Sha Wan Catholic Secondary School.

KWONG: How about Cheung Tin Shaolin Temple?

PANG:I think Cheung Tin Shaolin Temple gains the upper hand. It makes good use of theelements of Hong Kong films while Here is only playful in the visual.

NG:I also prefer Cheung Tin Shaolin Temple to Here.

KWONG: And Angels’ Trumpets?

CHAN:

Angels’ Trumpets is a more completed work.

PANG:

It’s well-finished. The directors know exactly what kind of genre the film is and they
execute it in that way. The atmosphere they create is quite good and effective,
though the acting is very bad.

CHAN:Agree.

SHEN:

They said in the directors’ notes that the plot is inspired by American campus
shooting. ‘Angels’ trumpets’ comes from the Bible. The trumpet calls of the Seven
Angels ushers in the Apocalypses. But I couldn’t see this kind of messages in thework.

CHAN:

I believe they enjoyed very much when making this film.

NG:

As for 0 Budget, I found the actress is more interesting than the work itself.

SHEN:

I don’t think it’s appropriate for her age to make such a work.

CHEUK: It’s nostalgia for the past times of other people.

PANG:

Yes, it is. But it’s not even nostalgia for the seventies; it’s kind of “Old Time Buddy”, a1997-TVB-drama-remake of a popular old film.

CHAN:

I like Little Shoes a lot because it is simple and can exude emotion and feeling.

NG:

Compared with other finalists, its subject matter is more special.

KWONG: Shall we enter the second round discussion and make some nominations for theawards? How about nominate five works for further discussion?

NG:

I would say Trapped, First Second Third Fourth, Angels’ Trumpets, 0 Budgetand Little Shoes.

CHAN:

The same.

PANG:

The same.

SHEN:

Me too. But instead of 0 Budget, I choose Cheung Tin Shaolin Temple.

CHEUK: For me, Trapped, Shit, First Second Third Fourth, and Seek.

SHEN:

I give up Cheung Tin Shaolin Temple and pick Seek.

KWONG: OK, then it’s time for nomination of the awards.

CHAN:

I nominate Little Shoes for the Silver Award.

NG:

I nominate First Second Third Fourth.

CHEUK: I think both First Second Third Fourth and Trapped deserve it.

SHEN:

If there are two Silver Awards, I’ll nominate Angels’ Trumpets.

PANG:

I choose Angels’ Trumpets and Trapped.

KWONG: We have now four nominees for the Silver Award. Let’s further discuss about this.

NG:

All of them are well-made works. Two of them have a very clear message to deliver
and are relatively mature in terms of techniques. For example, Little Shoes is atouching work but it’s too short. First Second Third Fourth has some sounding
points but not well rounded. And I think both First Second Third Fourth andTrapped have their outstanding points.

SHEN:

I think Trapped is better than First Second Third Fourth in the sense ofpresentation.

NG:

It’s because it’s not ambitious. Trapped deals with only one idea, one subject matter.
On the other hand, First Second Third Fourth challenges form and audience’sfeelings by using various kinds of imagery. So, it’s more difficult to make.

CHEUK: I choose both Trapped and First Second Third Fourth because these are twodifferent kinds of encouragement. Trapped is a more refined work while First
Second Third Fourth is a work of other attempts. If we give out two Silver Awards
to Trapped and Angels’ Trumpets, then we cannot encourage those who makemore edgy works, like First Second Third Fourth.

PANG:

We hold the Gold Award this year because all these ten finalists are only works that
resemble the existing ones. For example, Trapped is after the fashion of recent
Korean films. Angels’ Trumpets imitates American B-grade horror movies. First
Second Third Fourth looks like the form of a European film. I found both Trappedand Angels’ Trumpets are mature works. But First Second Third Fourth is too
ambitious and becomes out of control. Anyway, I still think it deserves a SpecialMention.

SHEN:

Can the Organizer advise us about the meaning behind Special Mention? Is it set up
to encourage edgy works, or is it just a distinguished award in general?

KWONG: We’d like to emphasize quality. So, we only give out the Gold and the Silver Awards.
Special Mention is up to the Jury’s interpretation. It can be presented to the works
which you think some of its elements should be highlighted; or it can be only a kindof encouragement. It’s because Special Mention is not a cash award. Shall we startvoting? Every juror can choose two out of the four nominees.
(Result of the voting: Trapped got 5 votes; Angels’ Trumpets got 5 votes; First Second
Third Fourth got 0 votes; Little Shoes got 0 votes.)

KWONG: We now start another round discussion about the Special Mention. The jurors havementioned First Second Third Fourth. Will you consider any other works?

CHEUK: We may consider Seek as well.

PANG:

The songs selected in Seek are very impressive and I think the director did put
efforts on it.

KWONG: Now we have Shit, First Second Third Fourth, Seek and Little Shoes to compete
for the Special Mention. You may do the nomination.

CHAN:I choose First Second Third Fourth, 0 Budget and Little Shoes.

NG:The same.

SHEN:Me too.

PANG:

I would put one more, Seek.

CHEUK: I pick First Second Third Fourth, Little Shoes and Seek.

KWONG: In conclusion, all of you agree to grant the Special Mention to First Second ThirdFourth and Little Shoe. And we can take out Shit. Now, we have 0 Budget andSeek left for further discussion.

CHEUK: 0 Budget is like an internet short film.

NG:

I choose neither of them. Seek has too many flaws.

PANG:

Both works have their own flaws. But Seek has a message at the end of the film.

CHEUK: The best thing about 0 Budget is its use of colour.

PANG:

It’s only a remaking of the old works.

NG:

Seek is no good at all, even the caption is wrongly written.

CHAN:

I think 0 Budget is not a work without meaning.

PANG:

But what she said is not something personal. She’s not in the industry and it’s not
her own experience.

KWONG: I think we have now two options: 1) to give out only one more Special Mention,
which means choosing between Seek and 0 Budget; 2) to grant the Special
Mention to both works.

CHAN:

If I have to choose, I will pick 0 Budget. But I don’t insist on it.

NG:

I’d rather not grant to either of them.

CHEUK: For me, of course, it’s Seek.

SHEN:My bottom line is: 1) both are not awarded; 2) only Seek get awarded.

PANG:

Perhaps, let both of them get the Special Mention.

CHAN:

I can accept this.

KWONG: I suggest voting again. We now have three motions: 1) choose only ONE work; 2.
choose NEITHER of them; 3. choose BOTH of them, for Special Mention.

(Result: Motion 1: One vote; Motion 2: One vote; Motion 3: Three votes.)

KWONG: Majority rule. So, we also grant Special Mention to Seek and 0 Budget.

PANG:I think it’s good to have both of them for the Special Mention because we hold theGold Award this year. Our rationale behind is: The works are far from mature, but weencourage all of them to keep on creating their own works.

Youth Category

Gold AwardWithhold

Silver Awards
TrappedCHEUNG Tung-cheukAngels’ Trumpets
LAI Pak-hei, YEUNG Mei-fung, KWAN Yik-chung,Special Mention
First Second Third Fourth
Helen NG, YUNG Cho-yan, LAU Wing-ying

Seek
WU Kong-tung

0 BudgetWOO Ling-chi

Little Shoes
CHOW Hong-ching