thThe 12 ifva Open Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Patrick Tam (TAM), Wong Chun-chun (WONG), Daniel Yu (YU),
Makin Fung (FUNG), Ellen Pau (PAU)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Chelsea Man (MAN)thKWONG:First of all, I would like to thank all of you for joining the 12 ifva Open Category
Jury’s Meeting. The aim of today’s meeting is to select works for this year’sawards. We have almost 400 works received this year and there are totally 12
finalists after rounds of jury meetings. For this year’s competition, we suggest to
have a Gold Award with cash prize of HK$50,000 and a Sony HDV camcorder, aSilver Award with cash prize of HK$30,000, and a Special Mentions Award with acertificate as reinforcement. Of course, you can have your own choice in thejury panel. If there are no Gold Award, two Gold Awards, two Silver Awards, so
on and so forth, the cash prize will be given pro-rata. The objective of the ifva
competition is to encourage media creativity by using media as a means ofexpression. You are suggested to judge the works by criteria such as contents,
creativity and use of techniques. Today we will first go through each of the 12
shortlisted works one by one. Next, we will nominate and then vote for theworks for the awards after some discussion. Please feel free to start themeeting if there is no question.

YU:

What does the marks mean on the marking sheet?

KWONG:

This is to make the evaluation easier and let you roughly have an idea how goodor bad the works are. According to our experience in the last few years, themarks not necessarily mean anything. Even some works scored high marks,
they are not the best works in everybody’s mind.

Anna
TAM:

I think it is Godardian, but not really in depth.
without difficulties. It is quite a dull work.

It is quite an easy production,

FUNG:

I agree.

YU:

I like this work very much.

WONG:

I think it’s ok.

TAM:

I think this is not a creative work. Such idea has been worked on by lots ofpeople already and the idea is not especially exciting or original.

FUNG:

I think not many people would do this.

WONG:

Also this is a very economic way of work – no actor needed.

TAM:

So clever!

It is not difficult to produce, but with very nice shots.

(Everybody laughs.)
YU:

I think it has a kind of mood capturing Hong Kong. This is good.

TAM:

But this is not difficult to do. The subject matter itself is interesting. The story
goes with transition from blindness to imaginative dreams, and from seeing Hong
Kong with open eyes to an alienated feeling of Hong Kong, but the feeling does isnot conveyed in illustration, but is more than a statement or monologue.
work is rather shallow.

This

Tomato School
TAM:

Can I have some background information about the director?

KWONG:As I know, he studied Architecture in London, UK. He intends to capture theurban space with moving images. If I get it right, there is really the Tomato
School in the UK and he is shooting promotional trailer for them.

YU:

I think this work demonstrates very good skills. Just that maybe I am too remoteand can’t understand it. Also I have difficulties in comparing this with otherworks.

WONG:

Very good skills.

FUNG:

He belongs to the technical school. I select his work because it conveys skills
and content – lots of work in the technical school actually do not have contents.
In the first round, I have seen lots of work like that, but this one is comparatively
more complete with skills. Therefore it is here.

TAM:

What do you mean by technical school?

FUNG:

He is merely playing around with technology, with composition, etc. He merges
a lot of layers in a city. He does make a very pleasant work, not in a blunt way
and not merely for the sake of technology. However, its content is not strong
enough. As there’s no other work in such style available, I have selected thiswork then.

TAM:

I personally quite like this work. It’s striking. I think having those effects is not aeasy thing, but he set the pace very accurately. My only complaint is that it is too
short, and I am not contented. This work is about modern living in which people
are being controlled and monitored. It does create such feelings but isunder-developed. I’ve no idea whether this can be viewed as a complete work.
If this is just a fragment, I’d think this is brilliant.

KWONG:

So you mean this work should be lengthened? Which part should be lengthened
then?

TAM:

I don’t know. For example, there should be a process of development in anavant garde piece of work. It would be a pity if a piece of work is too short andends abruptly and ambiguously. He is not a film student but studyingarchitecture, that’s why he may not be aware of that. So he has the feelings but
doesn’t know how to fully develop and explore his ideas though sound andimages. What a shame. However, I give 8 marks for this work, which is mysecond most favourite work here.

WONG:

I give 8 marks for this work too.

MomentTAM:

An average work.

WONG:

I’ve also marked it as average.

YU:

Nothing special.

TAM:

I think this work is very similar to “Within a Letter of Love”, ie, like scratching anitch across the boots and very shallow but processed in a clean and neat way.
Within a Letter of Love is a work created by my undergraduate student but I
think it is not good enough. Indeed both works are very hackneyed and theacting are not natural enough too.

Within a Letter of LoveTAM:

I am not convinced by the kind of adolescent love feelings.

WONG:

This is really boring.

It’s very stereotyped.

Lovers' Lover
TAM:

I like this work best. I didn’t take part in it, but I don’t want to talk too much about
it. She is my student and I am her advisor. I find this work very mature, natural,with very good acting and casting. Also I think she manages to capture that kindof feelings and does the whole work at ease. But I think you’d better exclude my
opinion.

WONG:

I like it. It’s very fluent. The story is pleasant, technically or dramatically. I findthis work a bit like “Twelve Night” by Aubrey Lam. Also, the cast is very good
and the casting really contributes to the good work.

TAM:

I think she is capable of mastering film language. For example, she is notconstrained by the narrow space and can make good use of it. This is quitedifficult indeed.

YU:

I think it’s ok. The shots in the opening scene is really powerful and striking…

TAM:

Daring!

WONG:

But the middle part is dragged.

YU:

Yes, it’s ok overall, of very high standard.
script should be more concise.

WONG:

I think the work can be a bit shortened. I think the film would best end at the taxi
scene when the lovers’ lover is discovered.

YU:

Indeed only the middle part is too long.
but the treatment is not strong enough.

TAM:

30 minutes is very long indeed, but she manages to set the pace and the flow of
the whole work. Other works are very conscious how to show off in front of thelens pretentiously whereas this work is very natural and is capable of capturing
feelings of people nowadays and their views on love matters. I can’t make thisas I don’t have such sense.

YU:

I feel the work is not good-looking enough. The shots are rather simple, rather
realistic and ordinary. I think now the set is a limitation and I would suggest to
have a better setting for it.

TAM:

Indeed there is very good casting and acting – I didn’t mean the actors or actress,
but the sense of direction of the director. As an artist, I think she has got abalance among everything.

About Romance or Something Else

But it’s dragged in the middle.

The

Overall, the story and the script are ok,TAM:

At first glance I expect something. Except the 13 minutes of documentary, I
can’t figure out the reason for the long take. At the beginning, there was a mirror
image about taking part in love. I didn’t see any transition in that character and I
was not convinced. I think this work is just a gimmick but nothing else.

YU:

The long take is used as a gimmick, but the whole work has only one gimmick.

TAM:

Comparing to other works, the actors are somehow natural.

YU:

The leading actor is ok.

TAM:

Yes, he’s pleasant.

FUNG:

Let me make a remark here. Ellen and me selected this work because of theshot after that long shot. The character is listening to walkman, somehow like anillusion, somehow realistic. We think that the ending is interesting, but thecomposition before that, as Patrick says, is very loose.

YU:

The long take should be used only if it’s necessary. The part in the toilet does
not mean anything and can be cut with dissolve lens. The director should adjust
the story and razor the part which has no meaning.

TAM:

That means the part with no necessity.

WONG:

Is he a student?

FUNG:

He is a student at the Baptist University.

KWONG:

Also in the post-screening discussion, he mentioned that the exploded part at theend is just a technical mistake – lot of people thought that he made it deliberately.

YU:

Instead, that is the most interesting part, but that is a wrong shot, a mistaken shot.
He shouldn’t send us the NG-take and uses the subtitle to hide away his mistake.
I don’t like this. Never mind. Anyway, we all agree that the work is more agimmick than anything else.

WONG:

I would like to emphasize again that this work should be shortlisted. The
objective of the ifva competition is to encourage non-professionals to try to deal
with the problems faced – they have no limitation, but professionals do.
Although that long take is not a good one and it seems everyone can make it, we
promote creativity and not anyone would have the courage to make a film for acompetition. Therefore, it should be shortlisted.

FUNG:

So this should be encouraged.

Upstairs
WONG:(To Yu and Fung) It’s your favourite.

TAM:

I think the whole film is bad and I give only 4 marks for it. I think it’s about mental
illness, but the whole thing is hackneyed. Technically it’s good, very neatly andcarefully done. He seems to have spent a long time writing up the story, but thevery pretentious acting fails to engage me in the kind of pain and suffering. Very
bad acting, especially for the male characcters.

FUNG:

The most interesting thing about this work is that the director employs themulti-perspectives approach popularized in Hollywood after “The Butterfly Effect”.
Does the female role really exist? Details are conscientiously planned and you

can’t find a seam in it. To certain extent, it is quite “Hollywood”. Also in the
middle there is a female mental patient in the street. I think this is all calculated.
The artist attempts to add some rises and falls and side plots to balance the story.
I most appreciate its point of view. This a student work, and the film is mostly
shot at night instead of daytime.
TAM:

Indeed the artist has paid a lot of effects in the technical aspects. Issues such as
dreams and fantasy of mental patients can be very emotionally touching. But I
think this work lacks the intensity of emotional vibration and therefore fails toconvince me by the acting, etc. The female character is alright, but the malecharacter who often hides away, doing monologues plus very painful facial
expressions is poorly superficial and pretentious. I really can’t stand this kind ofpresentation. Maybe the director indeed cannot direct him in acting too.

FUNG:

I agree indeed. I wonder why there is a kind of Hiroyuki Sanada-style acting andactors. Well, I have never thought about mental illness when I watch this film.

TAM:

One of the shots is nice and creates some very little feelings, with the man on the
bed and the mother being sort of very understanding and putting a toilet roll on
the bed. But other shots such as stripping off in the street, in theory should bevery powerful, but mean nothing to me. I can’t get into it.

YU:

I’m fine.

TAM:

This is not a problem of agreeing or not. It is more than a matter of the actors,
but the whole thing – what are the suffering and the pain indeed in the story?
How to illustrate such things? I think it is not detailed and in depth enough. I
think the kind of pain of everybody in the film is over-exaggerated. Also I think
the point of views mentioned by Makin is not very accurate and nothing special at
all.

YU:

I don’t know much about mental illness. This work makes me think that suchproblem is really serious in our society. From a commercial point of view, theambiguity you mentioned would be quite attractive. The use of lens is not bad
too. Of course, the actors are incapable of delivering the play, but after all, they
are non-professional actors.

FUNG:

The artist also creates a sense of suspense.

TAM:

The director shows his sincerity, but his ambition doesn’t match his ability. I
think his work is too conscious and pretentious. I want to be thrown into the film
but I can’t.

FUNG:

It’s overdone.

WONG:

I also find it pretentious.

YU:

Yes, it’s overdone.

TAM:

For me, Within a Letter of Love and Moment are of the same level overall.
Techniques are not the most important, but sincerity, feeling and emotion.

I think it’s really hard to join them if you don’t agree with the actors.

Face/ lift
Wong:

This is quite a creative work – not to mention the execution, she can’t execute it.
But I like this more than other works such as Within a Letter of Love. This work
arouses my curiosity and makes me think about what it is about.

Tam:

She is my student too, but I have never seen this work before ifva.

I can’t getinto its state. I have no idea what’s going on. I think she just can’t take control of it.

Toilet Paper
YU:

Very playful, but that’s it.

FUNG:

The second part is fun, but at the beginning the colourful scene inside the hosue
is not very interesting – it’s almost disgusting and lacks the comic feelings that itshould have.

YU:

The visual representation of the toilet is too realistic.

Tam:

But I like its energy, that is, the artist’s impetuousness and confidence.
problem is that it’s dragged too long.

FUNG:

This is a work by a student at the Polytechnic University for last year’s Fresh
Wave Short Film Competition. There was length limit of the film in thecompetition and this work just fulfilled the criteria.

The

Little Girl Lost
WONG:

Not bad.

TAM:

It’s a cliché.

WONG:

Very pretentious, and all the relations are not going smooth.

KWONG:

Ellen found this work touching previously.

YU & TAM: I don’t have such feeling.
WONG:

Maybe it touched her in some personal aspects.

The Easter Egg
WONG:

It’s ok.

FUNG:

I select this work because it’s interesting.

TAM:

But it’s boring to mention the salty duck egg (a Cantonese slang for someone
who is dead) all the time. The kids are not natural in acting and look like RTHK
drama.

YU:

The character of mother is not doing well. Also there is a very grand shot of
the tree, which doesn’t match with other shots at all. This shows the poor
coordination between the camera-person and the director.

FUNG:

That’s a careless mistake, but it’s an interesting work as there are all outdoor
scenes of kids and streets shot on location.

TAM:

But the kids are not doing well, not very special too.

FUNG:

I can’t understand why there is the character of mother at the end.

TAGSPOTTINGThere is no information in it and it’s not

TAM:

An average work, with nothing special.
in depth enough.

YU:

There are not much techniques involved, just that the subject matter is
extraordinary.

WONG:

You can see this kind of work in television.

FUNG:

The difference is that the way they are not doing this kind of subject matter.
Television drama would be better analyzed – I don’t know whether it’s good or
bad – but there’s no such analysis in this work. It just presents a story.

TAM:

It attempts to present different perspectives on the same issues but not in depth
at all.

KWONG:

Now you can nominate a few works for the Awards: 1 Gold Award, 1 Silver Awardand 1 Special Mentions Award, as we suggest. So please nominate 3 works.

TAM:

Lovers’ Lover and Tomato School, and if possible, About Romance orSomething Elseb as well as Toilet Paper.

FUNG:

You can nominate more than one work for each award.

TAM:

Can I select only two in total?

KWONG:

Yes, you can.

TAM:

So I don’t have the third one.

YU:

Anna , Upstairs and Lovers’ Lover.

TAM:

So I’ll have Anna as the third one.

FUNG:

Upstairs and Lovers’ Lover – I’ve not decided on the third one, either Anna or
Tomato School.

WONG:

Not in particular order: Tomato School, Lovers’ Lover and Toilet Paper.

PAU:

Little Girl Lost is of not the top three and Anna is very bad in the audio part.
So I’ll have Tomato School, Upstairs and Toilet Paper.

KWONG:

Moment, “Romance or Something Else”, Within a Letter of Love, The Easter
Egg, “Face/lift” and Little Girl Lost have no vote. So please nominate one of thefollowing 5 works for the Gold Award: Anna , Tomato School, Lovers’ Lover,Upstairs and Toilet Paper. Then we’ll discuss and vote again.

TAM:

Lovers’ Lover.

YU:

Upstairs.

FUNG:

Upstairs.

KWONG:

Alright, there’re two works nominated for the Gold Award, Lovers’ Lover andUpstairs. Do you want to lobby each other?

PAU:

Let’s vote straight away.

YU:

I think Upstairs is very interesting as a whole. The artist manages to keep aboring story in control and makes it very engaging. I am impressed by the lastshot in which the female character comes out and you can’t really hear things
clearly. From this I think the director is capable of making commercial movie andI really support this kind of directors. There is no big difference between thiswork and Lovers’ Lover, maybe only 1 or 2 marks indeed. I’d like to promote
film-making to a wider range of people and I do hope that some other people canbe as successful as Pang’s Brothers. This is what I think.
FUNG:

I agree that the work itself is boring and clichéd, but the artist works very hard inattempt to obtain a balance among many things in order not to fall in the kind of
the form of RTHK-like production. Indeed the work is not clichéd, and is better
than the RTHK production. I think this is its newness.

YU:

I think he is accomplished in photography, with a tremendous momentum.
able to capture the mood of darkness, although there are some defects.

TAM:

I think it’s incomplete and very superficial in dealing with mental illness. Unlike
Lovers’ Lover which is expressive and genuine by capturing the feelings, theactors here are pretentious and self-consicuous.

WONG:

I agree that Upstairs is pretentious. I can see that the director works very hard
and thinks about all the things carefully, but does he execute the things well? I
won’t take his accomplishment as for the Gold Award.

TAM:

His work is awkward and I don’t feel the kind of creativity or freedom in it. The
mise-en-scene is not very impressive for me. He can create the mood in many
ways. However, although Lovers’ Lover is set in a single room, the artist is notconstrained by that. She has mastered film language and works things out
freely – this is good. Also the director takes up the key role and make the overall
work done. Casting and acting are all very natural.

PAU:

But is it something new?

TAM:

I think it’s new as she captures the adolescent love life. In term of newness, I
will take Tomato School, but I think it is not well-developed. Maybe it’s because
he is an architecture student, or he doesn’t want to make a narrative work. But I
find his visual sense, use of space and style of expression very interesting.
What a shame that it’s too short and under-developed and therefore it’s not thefirst. But I think he would be the second.

PAU:

For me, it is more less the same whether we have the Gold Award either for
Lovers’ Lover or Upstairs, because both of them are not very outstanding.
What are we commending for?

WONG:

Indeed I want to ask what ifva is commending for? The Gold Award stands forifva’s praises for something which would be the core and our starting point. If weare promoting creativity but not technique and execution, for example, Lovers’
Lover and Tomato School should not be shortlisted, and in this case maybe
About Romance or Something Elseb would be the best. Again, if we’reselecting directors for commercial movies, we’ll have something else.

TAM:

Yes, what’s ifva’s focus?

KWONG:As mentioned at the beginning, we promote creativity and the essence ofindependent production. Of course, content, skills and forms are all important.
Indeed every year the jury panel would adjust their emphasis according to the
combination of works then. For example, one year in the Asian Force category,
the jury panel opt for directors with great potentials and who tends to continue
creating works.

YU:

Indeed we all think that Lovers’ Lover is very good.

He is

PAU:

Well, I think we need not to have the Gold Award this year as the works are notvery outstanding at all. I think we can have the first and the second runners-up.
We really haven’t got a very outstanding work for the Gold Award.

TAM:

Who’s got the Gold Award in the last few years?

KWONG:

This year is not the same as last few years, as we have different pools of works.

YU:

Yes, I also think that we can’t compare this year with last few years.

TAM:

Is there any good work among the unselected ones?

PAU:

I think by average this year’s works are quite weak.

FUNG:

This year’s work is weak in creativity. Also the works can be divided into 2
categories: technically accomplished or not. The level of creativity is more lessthe same.

YU:

This is my first time to be a jury.
professionals anyway.

PAU:

Saying that Lovers’ Lover is made by a young person would get extra marks.
But if the work introduces a new perspective introduced instead of themainstream one, there would be bonus points.

WONG:

I think Lovers’ Lover is in the mainstream.

TAM:

It’s mainstream, but not submitting to it.
mainstream.

YU:

She is brave enough and capable enough, just like the kind of Before Sunset
Before Sunrise.

TAM:

Being at ease is the best thing of the film.
is rare too see.

YU:

I don’t think we should have no Gold Award.

TAM:

I think we should have the Gold Award.

WONG:

No comment.

FUNG:

No comment too.

PAU:

Just that I think this year’s standard should be reflected.

TAM:

Be more positive, and think about giving more encouragement. From theperspective of creativity, Lovers’ Lover is good enough. Criticism is an easy
thing, but producing the work is rather difficult. She manages to make the workat ease, without resources and working in such a space. Comparatively, thiswork is not pretentious and complete. One can see her ability to master all the
key things such as casting. As a filmmaker, we can see her potential. I hope
she would be encouraged and continue her development in another work.

KWONG:

Let’s vote now: Lovers’ Lover or Upstairs.

I think the standard is ok, because they are not

The way it deals with love is not

It’s energetic and not awkward.

To be or not to be, that’s the question.

(Voting: Lovers’ Lover Vs. Upstairs: 4:1)
Kwong:

Alright.
SilverThis

Here comes the result: the Gold Award goes to Lovers’ Lover, andAward to Upstairs?
TAM:

I think it should go to Tomato School.

PAU:

I agree.

KWONG:

Other than Tomato School, any other nomination for the Silver Award?

YU:

Upstairs.

KWONG:So are we having 2 Silver Awards or selecting 1 out of two?

WONG:

Is it possible if I don’t vote?

PAU:

Indeed the 2 works are of different genres and therefore difficult to be compared.

WONG:

Tomato School is really different.

TAM:

If you abstain, we’ll have 2 Silver Awards then.

FUNG:

I propose for 2 Silver Awards.

YU:

Ok for me.

WONG:

Let’s have 2 Silver Awards.

PAU:

Ok for me.

TAM:

Frankly speaking, Tomato School is really too short.

KWONG:

Alright.

YU:

Anna .

WONG:

Toilet Paper.

FUNG:

Both.

YU:

Both for me too.

PAU:

Both are ok.

TAM:

Are we having too many works then?

WONG:

Let’s vote.

PAU:

I think indeed Tomato School is complete.
For the artist, it’s complete.

WONG:

But we find this not enough.

TAM:

What a pity.

PAU:

I think we can have 2 Special Mentions Awards indeed.

FUNG:

I agree to have Anna which has more the essence of independent production
than Toilet Paper. Toilet Paper is not fulfilling such criteria.

TAM:

I also opt for Anna .

Let’s vote!

Let’s nominate for the Special Mentions Award.

It’s about 24 hours, day and night.

YU:

I opt for only 1 Special Mentions Award.

FUNG:

It’s like the commercials of KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus).

KWONG:

Any general comments for this year’s entries?

TAM:

They can be more creative.

YU:

They can be more conscientious and careful. Do not shoot scenes that you
have seen already. It’s ok to be influenced by others, but not to copy.

TAM:

I hope to see a feature film using the form of presentation like Tomato School.

PAU:

Only Peter Greenaway can make it then.

Tam:

What a shame that Tomato School is not well developed.

Open Category
Gold Award
Lovers’ Lover
MAK Hei-yan
Silver Award
Tomato School
Benjamin LAM Ho-yin
Silver Award
Upstairs
CHOW Kwun-wai
Special Mentions
Anna
Philip HO Pak-hung

Toilet Paper is not creative enough.