29th ifva Awards
Animation Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jury Members: Lo Che Ying（Lo）, Fung Hing-keung (Fung), Tamas Waliczky (Tamas),
Ulrich Wegenast (Ulrich), Yu Kaho (Yu)
Organiser representative: Roxane Tsui (Tsui)

Tsui:

Today, we are gathered here for the Animation Categories jury meeting. We
are going to select the Gold, Silver and Special Mention awards. The Gold
Award winner will get a cash prize of HK$20,000 and a trophy, for the SilverAward, we will offer a cash prize of HK$10,000 and a trophy. For the Special
Mention, we will have one certificate for the awardee. If you cannot choose
whether that work can be awarded under Gold or Silver, then you canconsider to give that work an endorsement under Special Mention. We startwith O/S.

Tamas: I like Max’s work in the pre-selection round. It is a nice, clean and professional
abstract animation. In the screening I liked it a little bit less, I don't know why.
On the small screen, it seemed to me a very strong and clean work, continuingwith the tradition of electronic abstract work of people like Larry Cuba. On
the big screen I was not so positive.
Yu:

I know his other works, so I feel like this one is not as inventive as his otherworks. It's very monotonous. Perhaps the monotony is intentional, but it isvery flat. I think it's an artistic direction. It just doesn't really excite me. Maybe
I was looking for something and have expectation on his works, and this issomething very different. Also, this is not purely his own work, and done withhis student. I have a similar impression as Tamas. I'm not 100% excited aboutit.

Ulrich: I have the same opinion about this work, even though it has the same kind ofstyle as all of his works. I see his intention in that it should relate to earlier
abstract works of absolute films. I like that on the big screen, but overall, it's
not really that original and well done. Maybe it's a little bit too clean,everything was well done but not so inventive, so maybe a Special Mention
could be possible because it was outstanding compared to the rest of the films,
and because it is something different. But for me, it wouldn't be awarded Goldor Silver. It works with abstract ideas, but not all professional.

Lo:

I watched it only once on the big screen and it was quite impressive. I thinkthat it goes back to the basic and it's just like a homage to the masters we had
before. It’s nothing new, you could say, but the execution is very good.

Fung:

I haven’t seen his works before. I feel that the work looks better on the big
screen. When watching on the small screen, I am reminded of earlyanimations, with a lot of graphics and lines. I think the work is highly finishedso that it looks good on the big screen. But perhaps the work is so pure, it
doesn’t have enough variations for me to feel passionate about it. I didn’t feelthe work gave me anything. The interplay between visual and sound is highly
finished. It has a higher quality compared with other finalists. However, it’screativity is lacking.

Tsui:

The second work is GARISANI.

Tamas:GARISANI is one of my favourites. It's really beautiful, professionally made.
It's a fine art animation. I can imagine it in a museum or in a gallery, not justin an animation festival or film festival. I like very much how the director
mixes traditional graphic with modern graphic. I also like how he mixes thedifferent layers and the whole animations is one of my favourites. It is strong.

Yu:

I have a slightly different impression of this one. I mean, I remember
watching it on a small screen, it was very impressive. On a big screen andwatching it again, I noticed that there are some inconsistent styles, maybe
because of lack of resources or lack of time.

Lo:

The characters are cute.

Yu:

The design is nice. I like the direction of the terms of movements. This is a
lot of very nice morphing movements, very well done. But there are othermoments where you see that the animation is really, rough. For example,
there is a moment where we see the big tiger enlarging, but the enlarging
seems like he’s just scaling up. There’s a lack of consistency in terms of the
movement. I found there's a lot of symbols that I don't quite understand. It
was very culturally specific. I watch it as an abstract film, a musical. There's
a lot of musicality, which I like, but I'm afraid I cannot really get the wholemessage of the film.

Ulrich:It’s the same with me. I also like the general non linearity within the film.
Also, I'm not sure if I really get all the symbols. I also like the musicality andrelation to some of the traditional musical elements. It was quite nice, butthere were a few things lacking. Normally, I like this kind of rhythm
repetition but as a whole, there are a few things in the film is lacking inconsistency. I think that the quality is quite ok and impressive, but it's not
for me. It's not my favorite, but it's still a nice work. I think it works in thegallery space as well as in a festival.
Lo:

I think it's good to watch this film in the gallery. I really want to know more
about the story background, because it is based on an Asian story. I can see
different characters and want to know what's their relationship. I really
don’t get it that it because of the untraditional storytelling. That's one thing
that's quite disappointing.

Fung:

My views are similar. I understand that it has some decorative andsymmetrical elements. You see certain symbols and also repetitive
movements. I feel okay seeing the film on the small screen, and I also foundthe morphing of the main character interesting. When I saw it on the big
screen, the morphing was interesting, but there were not enough variations
to sustain the whole work, and it was a bit repetitive. I agree that it probably
lacked some stylistic consistency. I felt something was lacking, and it wasn't
interesting enough, perhaps because I could not understand everything. The
film was not able to sustain my attention to the end, which was a pity. I knowthat you don’t have to understand all the symbols and everything. I felt thework was beautiful.

Tsui:

The next work is 80dB.

Tamas:

I think it's a very interesting and important concept. I like this sort ofanimation which based on an internal dialogue. But for me the animation
was not professionally structured nor professionally edited.

Yu:

The first time I watched it, I was quite moved by the story. I also thoughtthat it could also be a very good radio program. Just listening to it would bevery satisfying, the visuals seemed secondary in this case. It seems thevisuals came later, they definitely had the interview recording first. There
are a few very poetic moments which I really like. The most poetic momentis created by the very interesting juxtaposition of the dialog with the images.
I haven't really decided where it would position in relations with the otherfilms. But it has something that really touched me.

Ulrich:I also found it to be an important work in terms of the topic, but it's not allabout the topic. But I don't have the problem with the visual quality andlanguage. With these kind of references on abstract film, it's not always easy
to connect the documentary sound. I think she managed quite well that
there were two different levels of the image and the sound, which is not too
illustrative. I'm more positive regarding this film in comparison with

GARISANI. For me it’s among my top three films.
Lo:

The topic is a good one, I think they should explore more on this topic.
Considering the dialogue, there are two characters, one has normal hearing,
while the other is hard of hearing. But to me, their difference is not sosignificant. The way of speaking and their pronunciation in Cantonese is alittle bit confusing for me, but after knowing that it’s talking about being
hard of hearing, I tried to pay more attention on the difference in the dialog,
but I don't know why it make me a little bit confused. For the animation, I
wanted more. The animation is okay and works well with the sound, but I'mlooking for a little bit more. There are no very impressive moments in thewhole work, in fact it is quite bland.

Fung:

I find it highly creative and also a very impressive topic. The film is about
hearing loss and the presentation is effective because of the play on hearing
and seeing, but there's definitely some room to explore this genre. I feel thatin the beginning when the director talks about how she can hear certain
things and cannot hear others, I find it more imaginative and creative. As
the film got to a later point when she shows some waveforms, that part wasless impressive visually. The animation is okay, not too great, but not badeither. But yeah, it's a very interesting topic to explore using animation, butthere is something lacking overall. It is better than GARISANI, which is little
bit boring to me, but this one not boring at all.

Tsui:

Let’s move on to the next one, You Build a Home in my Mind.

Tamas:

This is also one of my favourites. I think it's a really beautiful work withsimple technique, but it has very strong imagination and visuals. The artist
can make a very strong vision about Hong Kong and childhood toys andnighttime Hong Kong, and these playgrounds at night. The film has a very
nice rhythm and editing, I also like the sound. I really like this work. Two or
three weeks ago I saw it in a gallery in Hong Kong. It was an exhibition ofyoung Hong Kong artists, and watching it once more, I really liked it. It's avery nice artistic animation.

Yu:

The first time I watched it was in a gallery exhibition. It was part of an
exhibition of sculptural forms. The impression was very different fromwatching it on the screen, which felt very nice in the beginning, but then it
got repetitive at the end. There are quite a lot of scenes that are repeatedmultiple times. I don't think it needs to be so long. I think it was made solong and repeated because of the gallery exhibition, where you expect
people to come and go. But watching the film in a screening, it was acompletely different impression. My mind kind of drifted away because Iwasn't really paying attention to it. But I liked how she portrayed thecityscape, it is very imaginative.
Tamas:

There are some parts where I felt I know this park, and those moments arevery effective.

Yu:

She’s not really illustrating what she saw. She's actually illustrating her own
memory.

Ulrich:I have to say I wasn't that convinced. It’s really important to see it more thanonce, then you know if you really get something out it the second or thirdor a hundred times. I couldn't relate that much to this kind of imaginary
world. I would love to be, but it was too repetitive even though there weresome nice elements. As you said, it's a visual representation of the memory.
But in general, I think it works better in a gallery space, compared to Max
Hattler’s work, which works better on the big screen. This work doesn't workthat well for me in the black box of the cinema. It's not one of my favourites.

Lo:

It's lovely, I can say. Everyone has a childhood, so you can easily get movedby the work. The crayon drawing matches well with the subject matter, andthe background makes the drawings more outstanding. The music is good.
But it is really too long. They should do a director’s cut, a shorter version for
this. There are too many repeat shots. The first 4 minutes I really enjoyed,
but the following 3 minutes, I see the same scenes again. Do they want totell us memories always repeat? The film doesn't have a storyline, it's justfragments. The structure is simple but with so many repetitions, I felt bored.

Tamas:

The film has repetitions because it has a musical structure. It's like when you
have a musical composition: in such you also repeat.

Lo:

I love the music. I know the bar runs again and the visual is same. The music
is too long. But anyway, it’s lovely. We have to declare that on this film,
Monsoon Blue and the On a Dark Stormy Night we were the mentors.

Fung:

I found it a little too long. Perhaps that's the maximum she can achieve interms of the variation. I’m not sure why it’s so long, but I do appreciateelements like the playground. The scenery is from growing up and it is a kindof reimagining of those memories. I think it's okay to repeat those elements,
but with the transition from one element to another, it seems like thedirector ran out of ideas. It's very beautiful and I appreciate thecontemporary illustration style. The music is also good and works well with
the image, but it is too repetitive and the director would have to come up
with 50% more elements in order to justify the current length.

Tsui:

Let's go to the next one, A Night with Moosina.

Tamas:We have here in the ten films two really different kinds of productions. There
are films like GARISANI, 80dB and You Build a Home in my Mind which are
more personal animation made by one person or maybe two persons. They
are really small and very personal production. And then there are these likeOn a Dark Stormy Night, Temporarily Removed and Monsoon Blue that haslots of people working on them. And A Night with Moosina is like a superproduction with lots of people. This is one thing which makes it difficult tocompare with these other productions. This film is very professional. The
rotoscoping is very professional. But I'm not sure I really understand thestory well. It's very local. I really don't get why at the end they are so happy
to see the burning. Technically it's very professional, but when somebody
uses the rotoscope I really like to see somebody using it on a more intuitive
way, like Richard Linklater, something which adds to the rotoscope. This
could have been recorded with real actors.

Yu:

I remember last time we had a little bit of a disagreement on this too. We
had a debate on whether it has independent spirit. I thought did, butwatching it the second time, I thought it’s something that could have beenshown on Netflix. Regardless of the level of quality and the level ofproduction, the film has something that moved me. I can't say I fully
understand the story. I think the director is trying to say something abouthuman's relationship with nature, but I don't quite get the motivation of thecreature. At some point. I thought that the creature was a children eater,
but then at the end, it appeared to not be very threatening to the children.

Ulrich:I agree that there are a lot of professionals in the production with a lot of
production elements. We should see it the second time, it is very enigmatic.
I think the Asian perspective on such creatures are more open and easiergoing, compared with dragons in the European culture who are reallyaggressive and dark, and here it’s more light. It's more open and visionary,
more like a dream in a way. It reminds me of Hayao Miyazaki, it’s dark but it
never makes you feel uncomfortable. Comparing 80dB or You Build a Homein My Mind with this film is like comparing apples with cheese or whatever.
It's really good to see that if you have a lot of possibilities, you can create
more imaginative storytelling. For me, it's not the best film, but it’s one of
my four tops. The question is we don't know what is this positive explosion
at the end? It's really weird because the father and all the adults are judging
her and putting pressure on her. This a kind of mid-format film, 25 minutes
is long for a short film.

Lo:

It's a very good production all the way. It's quite ambitious to choose thistheme, but I think it’s also a problem, because it seems all of us don't quite
understand the story. It takes 25 minutes to tell us something, but we can't
get the theme. There’s something missing in the directing. The camera
movement in particular scenes is quite impressive, but I really don't like thecharacter design. The main character, the girl, is not that lovely. At first, I
don't know whether she’s a boy or a girl. The art direction is quite unique ina way, very dark.

Fung:

The style of the film doesn’t match the story. The rotoscope finishing wasokay, but the characters’ performance was not sufficient and not interestingenough. The rituals, the forests, mysterious happenings are okay and the art
direction are good. I found the storytelling and camera set-up are not uniqueenough. It wants to be a commercial feature film, which makes it not very
independent or creative. The approach is too mainstream and thestorytelling style doesn’t match with the story.

Yu:

I agree that it uses the very conventional cinematic language, it feels like thedirector is trying very hard to tell a story.

Tamas:

Maybe it's clear in that culture.

Tsui:

The next one Monsoon Blue.

Tamas:

It’s really very well-made and it really gives us a strong impression. It makes
this metaphor between the fishes who cannot breathe and this girl. But thismetaphor is too much for me. These childhood memories just do not explain
to me that why this girl is struggling. It seems that maybe in a very distantway, it wants to speak about Hong Kong. I think it's a very strong film andit’s amazing how good the animation is. Did lots of people worked on it?

Lo:No, although the credit is very long.

Yu:

It’s very culturally specific. There're a lot of Hong Kong elements. One
obvious symbolism is the fact that all these goldfish are a living in small bags,
and the other metaphor is when she talks about what goldfish looks like inthe original form. That's a metaphor for something inside her that got lostas she grew up. That loss through growing up may be another metaphor forthe political climate.

Tamas:

You're very right about the fishes in these small bags because I like fish
markets very much. I also see lots of little cages with birds and when I saw
that, I understood why Hong Kong people like them.

Ulrich:For me the same, I think it’s the most outstanding film. I don't know verymuch about Hong Kong, but I think it's very immersive. Even though the
topic is not that easy and it’s in between. It's political and at the same time,
it's magic and everyday life. It’s well-done, although by the end it's a little
bit losing but I don’t mind. It connects visionary elements with the everyday
life, and whether it’s political or not, people can make their own minds. It's
not only Hong Kong based, it's also very universal. It talks about our lives
and routines and how we are stuck. If it comes to maybe a Gold Award, it
has the substance to receive such an award because it has a lot of different
perspectives not just for the audience, but also for us. Every single image isvery strong, you really see that it's handmade.

Lo:

This is a really strong work. This is very well-made and technically, the useof animation and cinematic language are mixed very well, the acting is very
sharp and very sad, so the impact is all there. This film is particularly
welcomed by Hong Kong people because it is very Hong Kong. It talks about
the recent atmosphere and even foreign audiences may feel the impact of
it. It’s quite universal. I watched it so many times, and I still enjoyed watching
it because there’s so much you can get. Even the sound design, balance ofthe monologue, everything is fine.

Ulrich:Maybe you want to add some regarding the symbolism and the clarity of thevisual language? I think we criticize a few other films that are not really clear.
Now we have a clear, maybe too clear, use of symbolic language, but I think
it's important to use the simple symbols, and not just the personal
symbolism or personal mythology. For me this film is really good and also
very social that we can relate. I think many people in Europe or othercountries will read the symbols a little bit differently.

Tamas:

When I see the heavy rain in Hong Kong and then she wakes up underwater,
it is a strong symbol. The fish scenes are maybe a little bit too direct. But still,it’s a very strong hand-drawn animation. The beauty of traditional
animation and very strong images, these Hong Kong buildings, rain, the fish
everywhere, these images are very strong.

Ulrich:It’s a traditional animation but it doesn’t look very traditional. It's still very
fresh, especially the lines and the buildings.

Fung:

I really like this film. I’m really impressed by the film quality. It’s one of thebetter works I’ve seen in recent years. The drawing, the storyboard,
composition, everything is great, and the visual presentation as well. I’ve
seen it 2 to 3 times and still find it very strong. Seeing it on the big screen,the lines, character design and animation design are good. The only thing I
have reservation about is the goldfish metaphor. It is a little too direct, tooeasy and too convenient to make that kind of connection. The script could
have been better and show a wider perspective. In response to the current
political climate, many young filmmakers get too caught up by it. The image
editing, the sound, everything was great. I could also identify with all the
Hong Kong elements, but I feel that the metaphor actually limits the scopeof the film.
Tsui:This next one is On a Dark Stormy Night.

Tamas:An animation which is based on a recorded interview with a taxi driver,which is a funny interview, but for me it's a little bit too loose. I would love
to have more structure somehow, better editing or something. In the middleof the film, all of a sudden it just changes its style and this is a bit strange to
me.

Yu:

I thought it was a very fun film to watch, but I think the jumpiness that you
were talking about, how it jumped from one thing to another, that was how
the taxi driver was telling the story. I think it is a very truthful portrait of theactual event. But I think this is not a real recording of the taxi driver in thatmeeting, but a reenactment.

Tamas:

If it's a reenactment, then it should have been much more structured.

Lo:

I like it in terms the visual inventiveness, I wouldn't consider it one of my top
three.

Ulrich:There were some nice elements and I understand that this is very illustrativeand jumps from one topic to the other, like how taxi drivers talk. It's just a
concept, and he or she should work much better on this topic. I think there's
real potential with it. I like the non-linearity, but it doesn’t work. It wants tobe as weird as possible, but doesn’t manage to succeed in this film. It's not
one of my favorite ones.

Lo:

Of course, it’s very Hong Kong, all the dialogue is in Cantonese. It is veryloose, so even if you don't watch it and just hear it, you will get it. Of course,
you can say it’s some kind of a design or something, but it doesn't work well.

Fung:

It only has a concept, but doesn’t quite work as a film. The ending is abrupt
and not complete, and the structure is lacking. It is lively but the finishing is
not enough. The film is very Hong Kong, even gimmicky. It has a cleverconcept and was probably done quickly.

Tsui:The next work is The Rubbings of Trajectories.

Tamas:

An interesting, visually artistic work. My problem is I don't really understandthe text which goes under it. Perhaps it's a kind of poetry; maybe it works in
Taiwanese, but the English translation doesn't work. The visual style is not
so original, and has references to Pop Art. I like these metaphoricalanimations and these strong colors and forms. I don’t understand the text,
so I don't really get the connection between the images and the text and thewhole thing doesn't really work for me. Maybe it's a cultural problem, but it
seems to me it's really a personal film. It's really like a sort of visual poetry,but I don't really get it. It doesn't really grab me and it doesn't move me.

Yu:

I find it very difficult to understand. I couldn’t understand the dialogue. Even
though I picked up the words, I still don't understand what those words
actually mean, not only on the surface, but on a deeper level. I think it's avery personal poetry. I would treat it like a musical film. As such, it's quite
interesting. There's a certain rhythm that is created by the movement. I
would consider it more like dance choreography. What I like about this film
is the choreography and movement. Overall, I wouldn't give it too high a
grade.

Ulrich:I found it okay, not one of my favourites, but also good. The director didn't
repeat too much in 4 minutes. It has a Japanese Pop Art anime style. The
style is nevertheless unique and I also didn't get the words and the meaning,but I didn't have problems with it because it seems quite clear what theauthor wants to say. It’s a kind of inner dialogue, some kind of visual poetry.
I found it was quite okay in general, even though I can’t decipher the words,
I find it quite consistent compared with other films.

Lo:It’s really too personal. It talks about the director’s travels to different places
but I really don't know the difference between different countries,
everything is colorful. I got some sexual symbol inside, but not really well
expressed in a positive way. And then it ends abruptly.

Fung:It’s short and fun to watch. I like the rich colors and movement. It's a good
4-minute work. I enjoyed the visual representations. I didn’t look for any
deep meanings, and just enjoyed the visuals. It could be fourth or fifth placeout of the finalists. I also get the sexual undertones you mentioned, whichis interesting.

Tsui:

The next work is Our Uniform.

Tamas:I like this work because I think it's really brave in Iran to speak about thisproblem. Also, she made this work in a way that is not provocative, it's fullof irony, humor and very playful, just visually using these textile materials
and characters with different connections between how the textile moves.
It speaks about dictatorship, freedom, very important things. I think she's
very brave to make such a work and this is why I like it. I think it's a very
nicely made animation and a very important topic.

Yu:

I find the visuals very inventive, I liked it a lot. I don't know what to say aboutit, because sometimes you just like something so much there’s not much tosay. There's something in it that affected me and touched me.

Ulrich:I watched it and started immediately to have many thoughts. I also think thisfilm is strong. It's very brave. I saw a lot of films from Iran at festivals. This isvery subtle criticism, it’s not direct. The irony of the children protesting
against the United States, it's not just about the scarf topic. It's maybe
nothing new, but it’s presented in a very special way. The representation of
the scarf with the material, and employing the material within the film. It’sa materialist film in a way. It’s very strong and one of my two favourites.

Lo:

This film is really nice. The art direction is very good. It talks about theclothing of Iranian women, it's a perfect match of everything. She takes it ina very relaxed way to make fun of the situation inside Iran.

Fung:

I think the film is powerful and complete, the theme, the materials and its
relationship with the subject matter is tight-knit. There is nothing I can findfault with or am dissatisfied about. It employs many techniques like stop
motion. It is an outstanding work. It is my number one film.

Yu:

I’d consider it my top film.

Tsui:

The last one is Temporarily Removed.

Tamas:

This is a big production with lots of people. A very well-made 3D animation
combined with 2D characters. What was really interesting to me, I havenever visited Israel, what was amazing to me that how well it represents
modern museum. The images, the installations, it's really like a typicalmodern museum with these huge spaces, artworks and installations. Frankly,
I'm not really sure I understand the story well. At the beginning there is thisold lady who tries to freeze down everything. I don't really understandwhether she does it because she hates the visitors and doesn't wantanybody to come in. Then, when the air condition system goes wrong, they
put her in different positions and I'm not really sure what happens with thebird, it seems that she saves it, but actually doesn't know that she saved it
because it seems dead. Then, the bird starts to fly. Anyhow, the story is notreally clear for me. The animation is really professional, very clean. Again, if
it's an imaginary museum, then it's very nice visualization.
Yu:

I notice that that the bird at the end is actually the bird in the painting in the
beginning. I didn't see it the first time I watched it. I guess it may have to dowith the bird, it’s all about the art. I think it has a very meaningfulcomponent here that keeps the woman in this very room. Maybe she wants
to be with the bird, and she's very attached to the painting. I agree it's a very
professionally made. In terms of how the film portrays the characters, I think
it is really strong but when you piece together different scenes, they don’t
connect very well. The characters, animation, the portrayal of emotion arequite good. But overall, I can't quite connect them together.

Ulrich:I have some problems with the film. It was professional but I think in thiscase they failed in terms of storytelling. I think they want to have a clear
structure in the storytelling and things, and that didn't work out. I like what
you said about the museum a space and institution, and the change
between day and night, the empty museum in the night and when she
becomes a kind of museum supervisor. The museum becomes empty andthere is this kind of loneliness. I didn't understand the connection between
her and the bird. They tried many ways of storytelling. I like therepresentation of a museum, although I think it's is a little bit a kind of an
applied work approach. For me it was not one of the top five films. It’s in
between a commission work and a short film. They didn't manage to tellanything real about art and the museum. It's not very original to involve theguards as characters. I don’t see this old woman relating to the artworks,
she’s just standing there.

Lo:

The production is good. I enjoyed the animation and the art direction is niceand unique. From the very beginning I follow the character and I tried tounderstand the story. What is she going to do? What is her motive? Then
more characters came and I don’t know what they are doing. Anyway, I enjoy
watching it, but I get nothing out of it. I like the museum setting, it is very
real.

Fung:

I enjoyed watching this film. The visual presentation, the pacing and therhythm are good. But I think as a whole, the story doesn't seem to work. It
seems like it has too much to say. It could be that the approach that they
adopt actually limits the way they tell the story, like the single frame
approach. After a while, I lost focus. On the whole, I enjoyed watching thefilm, but it's not a top work.

Tsui:May I suggest that you consider the Gold, Silver and Special Mention
nominations.

Tamas:For Gold, Monsoon Blue, for Silver, Our Uniform, for Special Mention, You
Build a Home in my Mind.

Yu:

For me, Gold goes to Our Uniform for its bravery and independent spirit.
Silver goes to Monsoon Blue.

Ulrich:I nominate Monsoon Blue for Gold, Our Uniform for Silver, 80dB for Special
Mention.

Yu:

80dB for Special Mention for me, too.

Lo:Gold goes to Monsoon Blue, for Silver, Our Uniform, for Special Mention,
80dB.

Fung:

Special Mention, 80dB, Our Uniform is Gold, Monsoon Blue for Silver.

Tsui:

The result for Special Mention goes to 80dB, Silver goes to Our Uniform,
Gold goes to Monsoon Blue. Do you agree with the results?

(The jury members agree.)
29th ifva Awards
Animation Category Award Winners
Gold Award
Monsoon Blue
Wong Hiu Kit Jay, Chan Ka Yin Ellis
Hong Kong
Silver Award
Our Uniform
Yegane Moghaddam
IranSpecial Mention
80dB
Lam Tsz Ching
Hong Kong