The 24th ifva Awards
Youth Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jury Members: Serrini (S), Andrew Choi (Choi), Adam Wong (Wong), Wong Chun (Chun),
May Fung (Fung)
Organizer representative: Kattie Fan (Fan)Fan:

Today, our goal is to select the Gold, Silver award winners and 3 Special Mentions
among the 10 finalist works. The Gold and Silver award winners will receive
HK$20,000 and HK$10,000, respectively, while the Special Mentions will receive
certificates.

Chun:

Last year, there were many one-minute UNICEF shorts among the finalists. Did
the number of entries decrease from last year, or did the first-round jury not pick
any such works?

Choi:

There were a lot of such films, but they were eliminated in the first round.

Fan:

We received 83 works this year, from which 10 finalist works were chosen.

Choi:

Is the number of works fewer than previous years?

Fan:

It’s about the same as previous years.

S:

How do you feel about comparing the one-minute UNICEF works with the longer
shorts?

Chun:

I don’t think it matters. The length of the works is not a main consideration.
Rather, originality, creative ideas and the integrity of the works are more
important.

Fan:

We invited UNICEF to be our collaborator, but we do not have any creative input
into the films.

Choi:

In the first round, there were about thirty or forty one-minute films, but their
quality vary greatly, so in the end we only included two in the finalist round.

Fan:

Perhaps first-round jurors can share their experiences of the selection process?

Choi:

We had doubts about whether some of the works were produced by young people.
Several works raised this kind of doubt in us.

Fan:

Why don’t we discuss the works one by one and then nominate works for awards?
The first work is Dear.

1

Fung:We chose this work initially because we think it is interesting and bold. The wholefilm is made in the Japanese language and captures the grace and stillness ofJapanese films. Even though this style of work is not original, the filmmakercaptures a certain mood and the work is very touching. Compared with otherworks, this film makes use of the texture of Japanese film to good effect. However,watching it again today, I wonder if it was made completely by students. It seems
that their teachers have a big part in the production, and I have a lot of doubts
about its treatment.

Chun:

I think it is hard to judge, and I don’t think it is the juror’s job to conjecture afilm’s division of labour. We cannot prove things one way or another, we just haveto place our trust in the work, unless it is too over the board.

S:

I feel it is like a piece of homework for a Japanese language course in which thestudents are tasked with writing the dialogue, which is too difficult, literary andbeautiful, especially the soliloquy at the end (derived from Natsume Sōseki’s The
moon is beautiful tonight), which is a cliched way of saying I love you. Set in a
Hong Kong school using Japanese language, its feeling of innocence does not work
well in the Hong Kong context. I expect the basketball playing boys to shove ateach other and swear, which would be very typical of Hong Kong. However,speaking in Japanese, the actors fail to deliver. Many edit points are unclear, likegoing to the sports ground directly after playing the piano, and from the sports
ground they go directly into the corridor. The spatial shifts are hard to grasp.

Chun:

I think it is hard to use the term borrowing, it’s more like straight out imitation.
The director fails to notice or explore the kind of cultural and language clashes thatspeaking Japanese in Hong Kong would bring. Do they choose to ignore thesefactors, or pay attention to the clashes these factors bring about in their work?

Fung:

At this point they haven’t achieved the latter.

Chun:

If it is just imitation, I don’t think it’s a worthy creative intention.

S:

It’s interesting to put the Japanese language into the Hong Kong context.

Chun:

When watching the work, I expect the creators to expand on the clash of different
contexts. Do they point out the incongruities? In the end they did not take theminto consideration, and the work lacks a sense of experimentation and tolerance of
those incongruities.

Fung:

I agree with Serrini that the work seems like a piece of homework, and they did notthink too deeply about issues.

Chun:

In terms of storytelling and the control of sound, this work is relatively moremature among the ten works. The creator’s understanding of editing, time andspace is more open, whereas other works are more typical and only express what
they film.

2

Wong:The shots of flowers at the beginning led me to expect something more layered inthis work, but after a few minutes my expectations began to fade. The work iscliched, but I appreciate that they are not burdened in using this way of expression,
they don’t need to think about the meaning behind it. I think they don’t go far
enough, it should be even more cliched. The shots of blue skies remind me of
Makoto Shinkai, which brings out the sense of literary work. I am glad that young
people are still into this kind of feeling. This has nothing to do with whether thework is good or not, but at least the creators are not chasing current fads. This kindof simplicity is worth encouraging.

Chun:

I am still trying to calibrate what aesthetics standards to apply to this work. Should
I appreciate its wholehearted imitation, or insist that this kind of imitation is notvery creative?

Choi:

When I saw it the first time, we discussed whether some of the shots imitate certain
Japanese films. Watching it again this time, I feel a sense of incongruity. Just as
Serrini said, the characters are in Hong Kong but they speak in Japanese, which
seems pretentious and makes it hard to get into the story. It seems as though theywant to show that they know Japanese, and so they made the film in Japanese.

Fung:

I feel touched seeing the film this time. Some of the shots are typical of Japanese
literary films, which contrast with shots they come up with themselves. It’s
obvious that they must have done a lot of homework to be able to imitate this style.

Choi:

It would be better if they had gone deeper.

Chun:

I think they are genuine and honest in their presentation of this romantic stylerather than trying to imitate others. They are able to use visual language to tell theirstory in a smooth way, which is a rare achievement.

S:

It’s hard to imagine whether they can achieve this sense of purity if it was filmed in
Cantonese, and what the effect will be.

Chun:

If it was in Cantonese, it would be something else entirely.

Fung:

The whole work is very detailed, but when watching it on the big screen, I can seethat the piano scene is out of focus.

Fan:

The next work is Speechless.

Chun:

This is similar to the documentary last year that talks about life. The intentions
behind the work is benevolent and commendable, but it suffers from the sameproblem as the other documentary, which is that it is too direct and filled withinformation. It is more appropriate to call this a reporting documentary. The film
starts off with an animation, which is interesting. I expected the filmmaker to go
deeper in terms of the expression or put more thought into the creative elements,
but in the end, it is just straight-forward reportage. The thinking behind the work is
not comprehensive but the intention is good.
3

Wong:On the whole, the work is relatively mediocre not just in terms of the technique,but also the problems that it explores is superficial. The images do not capture thesuffering of animals and the content does not fully explore the mindset of people
who mistreat animals. Is the opening animation interesting? I can only say they put
in some effort, but it does not chime well with the rest of the film. The animation
can only be seen as decoration in an otherwise ordinary work. The incident had
been reported in the media and many Hong Kong people know about it, but for
those who don’t, the animation only shows the experience of a Japanese Spitz, but
the expression is vague and weak. The whole work uses a singular and ordinary
piece of music and the effect is monotonous.

Chun:

Many works from the Youth Category this year use music to drive the whole piece.

Choi:

The structure is comparatively straightforward. It gives viewers a lot of
information but it is not deep and reflective enough. It is a worthy attempt in termsof the research and the animation at the beginning, but it does not reach a higher
level.

Fung:

The animation is interesting and gives people a happy feeling, but later the tone
shifts to become more realistic. I agree with you that aside from this part, the worklacks creativity. As secondary school students, it’s good that they react to current
affairs. It is not an outstanding work, but it’s commendable.

S:

I agree that it’s good that they care about society, but as the film progresses, it
seems like a promotion video for Roy Kwong Chun-yu, and argument is not too
effective or sufficient. For example, he mentions there will be greater penalty, butdoes not explain how to achieve the end result. The interview with the institution
staff is also vague. Why pick this institution? The owner keeps a lot of dogs in atenement flat, but the film never explains his background. Also, the filmmakerincludes many shots of small animals to show their pitiable state, but the effect is
not pitiable. If that is something the filmmaker tries to get across, the film does notquite achieve it.

Fan:

The next work is See Me Fly.

Chun:

The plot is easy to guess. I basically was able to guess after the first five seconds
what the first-round juror Amos Why called suspenseful. The film shows a girlerasing something on a blackboard but does not show what the blackboard says
until the end, yet the whole thing is expected.

Wong:It’d be better if she simply opened the window and let the camera capture theoutside world instead of showing the pictures on the blackboard. Now everythingis too neat.

S:

I don’t see how unhappy the girl is under the exam system. It seems as though she
is just melancholic when she just goes into the classroom and opens the window. I
don’t know what her intentions are.
4

Chun:

The works from secondary school students in the past few years are almost always
about pressure from school work and exams, with few exceptions.

Fan:

The next work is Zero.

S:

The story is very personal.

Chun:

I think it’s taken from incidents in real life. This is typical of works on campus TV.

S:

Because the end credits show the names of the bully and victim.

Wong:

These kinds of topics appear every year. I call them campus purgatory films,
because they make school life look hellish. The biggest problem is that the director
put in a lot of effort but shows no restraint. Basically, the director uses every
means at their disposal, such as transitions and texts. Sometimes the work is like asilent film but sometimes not, and adds clever twists with the text sometimes but atother times the text is normal. The transitions are not clean and look fragmented
and messy. The director’s handling of the form and process of film production isrelatively weak.

Chun:

At the end when he is questioned by the police, he feels regretful that his friend
died because of his bullying. His punishment is to raise a chair in the air, which I
don’t understand.

Fung:

This part is very vague. Perhaps he had been punished this way in the past. On thewhole, the work is vague in how it depicts time.

Wong:

That place does not look like a police station.

Chun:

I am not sure if it is a substitution technique.

Wong:

It is apparent that the director has a lot to say and tries hard, but the execution is
not rigorous enough.

Choi:

I agree with Adam that the work does not come together well enough. Why does
the middle part involving dodge balls have to be so long?

Fung:

The treatment is strange and the teacher character is also weird.

Wong:

The character is played by a secondary school student.

Chun:

I don't mind his handling methods or technical problems. I just think that he has no
unique opinions on this subject. The film simply expresses what everyone alreadyunderstands and knows. If the director had observed bullying up close or
experienced it personally and have something to say about it, he would havesomething unique to offer even if his technique is not good. However, I don’t see
it in this work.
5

S:

The filmmaker wants to express a very direct message, that is, "the person who
hurts me will receive retribution." His work description says that in the film, evil
people come to bad ends, but this is not necessarily true in reality. The message hewants to bring out is a cry of protest that "bullying is wrong." In the film, there aremany characters who hurt others, but they are very flat characters who merely
injure people while the victims do not get help from others and there is no one tospeak up for them. The victim’s acting is good. On the whole, the work brings out
the message on campus TV that “hurting other people is wrong."

Fan:

The next work is Run of My Life.

Chun:

From my perspective, this is the best film. Even though it is not too long, I knewthat the director had thought about his way of expression deeply from the first few
shots. The use of sound, visuals and control over time and space are good. Some ofthe synecdoche is also interesting, and I can accept the low-fi nature of the work.
The pixilated quick zoom close up is also coherent. In the Youth Category, ourfocus is not on technique, but the potential of the creators. Judging from thedirector’s creativity, one can see a lot of potential. This is an artist with goodpotential.

S:

Is the camera he uses of higher quality than the other entrants?

Chun:

This is considered basic filming equipment. I guess it was filmed in 60 frames per
second.

Fung:

He put that to good use.

S:

He is able to capture facial expressions well.

Wong:

I am not happy with the beginning and end credits. He obviously put a lot ofthought into translating that philosophy into a short and concise work, but thetrademark at the beginning and the making-of footage at the end ruined theconciseness of the work.

Chun:

For a short film, that part takes up a relatively long time.

Wong:

He is not rigorous enough.

Fan:

The next work is LIFE Limited.

S:

The story is interesting, but I don’t understand the ending.

Fung:

What does the elevator at the end mean?

Chun:

That person is the replacement.

Wong:

I guess that he wants to bring out the message that people should be themselves.
6

Chun:

Does he want the audience to guess whether that is the replacement or his own
self?

All:

That’s right.

Choi:

I notice that in the beginning, his clothing is of a different colour.

Fung:

I guess it is to bring out the idea of true self and false self.

Chun:This work is complete, but there are few surprises. The script and grasp of visuals
are quite good, while the plot and story progression effectively express the
director’s ideas. Having someone replace you can be a very bad thing. How bad?
What are the moral implications? This is a common story idea. The female
protagonist finds out that the person she is dating is false; this is not a surprising
plot point, but an effective one. The production is fine and some of the shots aregood attempts. The shot involving the exchange is so-so in terms of execution,some of the storyboarding serves the drama and the storytelling and production
compliment each other. This is not a first-rate Youth Category work, but in thisedition of ifva, this work is complete.

S:

The scene in which the girl students are chatting is the most natural scene set in aschool out of the 10 finalists.

Wong:

The script is quite well-written, and I admire the sub-plot of Cherry who wasbullied. Finally, the heroine complained that her boyfriend sought a replacement todate her and mentioned this to her close friend. I am not sure what the director
wants to convey with this part. Maybe he wants the audience to think about what
the purpose of life is. This sub-plot makes us think. Having this appear in the script
is well thought-out, and unique. The production is thoughtful, as is the use of
jump-cut and time lapse. Even though most people feel that we should not pay too
much attention to technique in this category, I still want to mention this film’s
technique. In the past, many entries can achieve good production standards interms of character design, performance and set design. Among conventional
dramas, Dear. is relatively good.

Fung:

This film is the most well-rounded, and all the elements are just right. However,watching it the second time, I did not like it as much. The tone, acting and sets are
not realistic, many small details are lacking and only in the story line and themeaning of the story can we detect a little vitality.

Choi:

The filmmaker tried his best and the work is complete.

Fung:

Every part is well-designed.

Wong:

Does it not lack passion?

7

Fung:The story is too straightforward. It is not exciting enough and did not inspire me tothink deeper.

S:

The suspenseful parts are not well-delineated and there is no follow-up.

Fan:

The next work is Balance.

S:

Personally, I like this the best. It is a very mature work. The dialogue between thetwo boys seems so perverted.

Fung:

It is perverted yet appropriate.

S:

It seems appropriate but not preachy. They seem to talk nonsense but yet it makes
sense.

Chun:

His message is simple, very singular and strong, but his idea is not too unique or
new. The filmmaker effectively communicated his message, but I did not get muchout of it.

Wong:

The police detention room is supposed to be a realistic scene, but they got students
to play adults, which I can’t accept. It is like watching a children’s play.

Chun:

I agree, the two young people don’t look like police.

S:

This film is a little different from the others. It wants to communicate some easy tounderstand message, which is often seen in Japanese comics. The two boys as wellas the writing and directing are interesting. Much of the dialogues come out nonstop, which is mostly exposition. I appreciate the actor who plays it like a pervert
with his stubbles, obesity and lisp. The film is like a futuristic science fiction film.

Choi:

If you take away the parts about environmental pollution, we are left with only
what the two characters talk about. I agree with what Adam said, that the police
part is not well done. The fat boy really makes people believe that this world is
bad.

Fan:

The next work is ON.

S:

This is very interesting.

Chun:

By comparison, this work is more interesting. Is the main character the filmmaker?

Choi:

Yes, I met her at the press conference for the 24th ifva, she said she made the filmon her cell phone by herself.

Chun:This is also a case of a child playing an adult, as Adam said, but it gives audiences
a context to accept that. The rhythm, acting and the whole visual style isdistinctive. Even though it is not ground-breaking, the filmmaker thought about
how to express herself, which is better than the more straightforward method that8

other people used. I appreciate people who have something to say and think about
how best to convey their ideas.
Fung:

The film is simple, and this is what short films should be like. She does not havemuch resources, and is responsible for the lighting and dialogue, which is touching.
The film communicates its message in a simple way, and causes audiences tothink.

Fan:

The next work is Depression.

Chun:

Is the protagonist the director?

Choi:

No.

Wong:

The soliloquy is very good.

Fung:

It is very real.

Wong:

Quite powerful.

Choi:

As we discussed in the first round, this shows the state of depression.

Wong:

But as the film goes on, I feel the dialogue and visuals lack spark. I think that thiskind of stream of consciousness expression can more powerfully depict the worldof depression, the perspective of patients and their everyday environment. As it is,
the treatment is just superficial. The close-up shots of her taking medicine and on
the bed have some power, but with the part about the girl and her tutor, I justassume that it is part of her daily life. However, the film does not talk about what
the tutoring has to do with the whole matter, and I don’t get it.

Fung:

She does not bring out any messages with that, it is just a depiction of a part of her
life.

Wong:

I like the part at the end about Tin Shui Wai. I like it, but it seems not to match thepreceding part and is off topic. I like watching the night scene of Tin Shui Wai.

S:

It’s like going out to society to take a look. I like the line of dialogue that says,“What do you want me to say? I may not say what you want to hear, because I
don’t know what I am doing…” I think the room is messy and has a lot of stuff, but
the film never explains it. It could have explained more.

Fan:

The last work is Alert.

Wong:This entrant seems to have participated in ifva competition two years ago. I know
her and know that she likes filmmaking. I know a little about her background, so it
is easier for me to identify with her reflection about her work. If you don't know
her and watch this work, you may find the work too personal.

9

Fung:

Did she win any awards two years ago?

Wong:

She was among the ten finalists.

Fan:

The work won Special Mention.

Wong:

I personally like it. I can understand that she seems to have let go of her work. In
the end, the work turns from colour to black and white, and the person changes
from black and white to colour. Although this intention is very straightforward bycomparing the fake created world with the character’s life, which becomes morecolourful. I find this realization touching.

Choi:

I agree. After talking to her, I watched the film again. I realize that she had trieddifferent kinds of artistic creations, and I understand her struggle with her art.

S:

I think her ego is very big. It seems that she wants everyone to understand her
personal struggles and put creation in a somewhat awkward position. When you(the audience) have not talked to her, you will not understand. Her emotions arehandled very well, like a person talking to herself.

Fung:

I think she has great potential. The second time watching this film, I feel that she isvery reflective and this is an experimental work. I began to wonder what she
wanted to do, but slowly began to understand. I hope she will continue to work
hard. Her facial expressions are unique and deliberate, and I accept this coherence
and experimentation. But this is a gamble and many people may not understandwhat she is doing.

Chun:

I agree. For the general public, the (message) may be hard to get, but for us artists,
the message is effective. The director turned her frustration or self-reflection into acreation, which is very smart and honest. Typical of many artists, she is torn
between feeling inferior and arrogant. She has potential, and I appreciate her
autobiographical introspection.

Fung:

It is interesting to note that basically the film does not say anything, but just relies
on visuals to get across its point of view.

Chun:

For a person of this age, she has a lot of potential in that she has the ability to be
introspective and self-aware and become dissatisfied with her own work. The only
thing I didn't like was that she relies too much on music in her work. If you takethe music away, the whole thing will not work, which is a pity. This is a “coming
out of the closet” (honestly facing your own shortcomings) story, right? She is so
courageous and credible, yet fails to find a way to reach a conclusion at the end or
expand on the latter part, which seems a waste.

Fung:

She did not completely abandon music. Sound is very important and can help
advance the film, and she uses different music in different parts. I guess that she
likes music, so she cannot give that up because it would be too challenging.

10Perhaps she could have used some sound that is detached from the visuals, but I
think she is not bold enough to do so.
Chun:

What is the next agenda?

Fan:

Do you have any work that you want to nominate? Do you already have Gold,
Silver and three Special Mention awards in mind?

Chun:

Do we only have three Special Mentions, or is it up for discussion?

Fan:

I lean toward only having three, since only the Youth Category have three whileother categories have just one Special Mention. This category aims to encourageartists, and we have had 4 Special Mentions in the past. If you think the works are
not up to standard, you can omit some awards.

Chun:

I understand. Based on previous years’ experience, shall we discuss whether toomit prizes?

Wong:

On the whole, the quality of works is not good. It is the worst in years.

Chun:

Do you think we should omit Gold Award?

Wong:

We can consider it.

Chun:

I also think it is worth discussing.

Fung:

I have also had experience with other competitions. I don’t think we need to omit
prizes. Why don’t we each nominate 5 films for discussion? I suggest Alert, ON,
Balance., Run of My Life and Dear.

S:My choices are the same.

Chun:

I choose Run of My Life, LIFE Limited, ON and Alert. That’s it for now.

Wong:

Dear. and Alert.

Choi:

Alert, LIFE Limited, Run of My Life, Dear. and ON.

Wong:

I am adding Depression.

Fan:

So far, Alert got the most votes, even though that does not mean it’s the best film.
We can discuss that later. Five people voted for Alert. Run of My Life and Dear.
each got 4 votes.

S:

I don’t think Dear. deserves the Gold Award.

Fung:

I agree, otherwise, people will think that the award is based on technique alone.

11

Chun:

I agree, we can start the discussion based on this criterion. We can encouragetechnique but not overly emphasize it.

Wong:

Does Alert deserve the Gold Award?

Fung:

Yes.

Wong:

I think it is the only deserving work. However, I also agree that its use of sound is a
bit cliched.

Fung:

But this is only in comparison with other works.

Fan:This far, we all agree that Alert can be nominated for Gold Award?

Chun:

I think we can omit Gold Award, and if so, can we give out two Silver Awards?
This sends out the message that we want to encourage young artists but we haveexpectations about ifva. On the whole, the standard this year is not high, so I
suggest not giving Gold Award and give out two Silver instead.

Fung:

I insist that Alert is better than Run of My Life.

Wong and Choi:

I agree.

Fung:

So, I disagree with giving out two Silver Awards.

Choi:

I agree.

Fung:

Are you going to raise up Run of My Life and put down Alert? I don’t know about
previous years, but there is no reason to make such comparisons.

Wong:

I suggest omitting Gold and give out one Silver and 4 Special Mentions.

Fung:

I don’t see any reason for omitting Gold.

S:

If a young artist gets the Gold Award, it is very encouraging for them. If a workthat is so personal and questioning of the self ends up getting Gold, it would havean interesting effect.

Fung:

I am looking at the judging criteria: independent spirit, content, creativity and
form.

S:

I don’t think Alert is superior to Run of My Life.

Fung:

You think they are the same?

S:

Not really, they are just two very different works.

12Fung:

Do you agree with what Adam said about giving one Silver and 4 Special
Mentions?

S:

Has ifva done that in the past?

Fan:

Yes.

Wong:

We discussed omitting Gold last year and again this year. That means the overall
standards has fallen again.

Fung:

We should compare this year’s works, and I don’t think they are unworthy. I haveseen other awards that are really unworthy. Why shouldn’t this work get Gold?
What’s wrong with it?

Choi:

We spoke about the director of Alert and agreed that she has a lot of potential in
depicting a certain kind of struggle. Run of My Life is obviously a young person’s
point of view. Judging from the creativity of the artist and sense ofexperimentation, it deserves the Gold Award. Of course, every work has its flaws
and could have been better, but putting aside from some cliched elements, it
deserves Gold.

Fung:

I think many of the films have potential. I am not sure how good the works were in
the past.

Chun:

If we set aside omitting awards for now, what are your nominations for Gold?

Wong:

Alert.

Choi:

Me too.

S:

My picks are Alert and Run of My Life. They are similar in spirit. The former isserious, striving and intense, whereas the latter is lighter.

Chun:

I choose Run of My Life, but not for Gold. I would rather give out two Silver. The
two works are very different in their intentions, and neither is better than the other,nor are they very outstanding, so I would rather give two Silvers.

Fung:

I do not consider one better than the other, I simply consider which one is the best.
Run of My Life is good, but it’s not the best work, while Alert involves more effort
and successfully conveys a certain emotion.

Chun:

I think Alert is profound and the director has certain expectations about her works,
but as a visual creator, her imageries are only so-so. As for Run of My Life, it is
not very deep but the visuals are handled better. Both elements should be taken
into account.

Wong:

I consider Run of My Life to be more creative. The artist turns a message into an
imagery. Alert left a deep impression, but the effect is more emotional. If Gold
13

Award is a form of encouragement, then it should be based on this emotional
impact and that it affected me personally. Some parts are too straightforward andfamiliar and therefore commonplace, like the imageries about coming out of
darkness. I have seen too many student films, and many of them cannot escapesuch clichés. Also, I agree with Chun’s point about the music. I think the subject
matter can be sharper.
Chun:

I wonder what kind of artist should Youth Category encourage? Of course, weshould commend an artist who is self-reflective. However, if she holds herself tosuch high standards, she should pay more attention to how she treats her visuals.
She does not think about that enough. She is merely dissatisfied with her own work
but does not consider how to improve it, and in the end settles for a rather ordinary
way.

Fung:

As long as she can fully express her feelings and I am able to get it, I think that’s
okay. I appreciate that the filmmaker is able to completely convey her emotions
and certain concepts within a short film. I also admire Run of My Life, but on thewhole, Alert is better. However, after listening to what Adam just said, I feel
conflicted.

Wong:

I like Run of My Life and appreciate his clever ideas. His short film is concise but
to the point.

Fung:

Alert is not as clever as Run of My Life, but the thinking behind it is better.

Wong:

You cannot ignore technique. I cannot accept the hand turning in the background in
Run of My Life.

Chun:

I can accept that, it is effective.

Fung:

It is playful. The film is able to communicate the filmmaker’s situation and iscomplete.

Chun:

The film does not try to cheat the audience. That hand obviously belongs to him.

Wong:

I don’t feel the playfulness of the hand part, it is a bit sneaky. By contrast, having
the classmate sprinkling paper at the back is obviously deception, I can accept andappreciate this kind of artistic form. I think that secondary school students can havegood technique without spending a lot of money on equipment and complicatedmethods. The most powerful Youth Category works can be done with the simplest
equipment such as a tripod and achieve good rhythm and art direction.

Fung:

ON is able to achieve what you said.

Chun:

Why don't we move on with our discussion?

Wong:

Should we decide the ranking first before discussing whether to omit awards?

14

All:

Yes.

Fung:

I don't think comparisons should be made with previous years. Every year, thecreative environment is different. Many factors may influence the quality of theworks. Andrew and I both feel that we should not omit awards. As a jury member, I
support works that I believe in. If we omit Gold, do we give out two Silvers?

Chun:

I think it’s feasible to omit Gold this year. We need not have Gold Award winners
every year.

Wong:

It’s not the first time we omitted Gold Award. In the end, it is a matter of whether awork can move jury members and convince them to give out Gold Awards.

Chun:

Shall we vote on whether to omit Gold?

Choi:

Alert’s ideas are more deep and profound than Run of My Life, so I give my vote to
Alert.

S:

Omitting awards is strange. I feel that if we omit Gold, we can consider giving out
two Silvers. However, other than these two, I don’t think any other works deserve
Silver.

Wong:

I have never felt that omitting Gold means we do not encourage artists.

Chun:

If we omit Gold this year, Silver represents a great encouragement, and will spur
entrants to examine themselves. This is a kind of encouragement.

Fung:

What do you think, Serrini?

S:

According to what you said just now, we can omit Gold.

Fung:

Will we omit Silver also?

Chun:

No.

Wong:

If we omit Gold, do we give out one or two Silvers? My marks are different for thetwo works, so we can discuss it. I favor one Silver and 3 Special Mentions.

Chun:

Let’s discuss our award list and gain some understanding first.

Fung:

I choose Alert as Silver, Dear., Run of My Life, Balance, and ON as Special
Mentions.

Choi:

I choose Alert as Silver, Dear., Run of My Life, LIFE Limited and ON as Special
Mentions.

Wong:

I choose Alert as Silver, Dear. and Depression as Special Mentions.

15

S:

Alert and Run of My Life as Silver, Dear., Balance. and ON as Special Mentions.

Chun:

Alert and Run of My Life as Silver, Dear., LIFE Limited and ON as Special
Mentions. How do we discuss further?

Fan:

We can narrow down the choices by deciding the Silver. Now there are three votes
for Silver Award given to Alert and two votes for two Silvers to Alert and Run of
My Life. Do we have other options?

Fung:No, but I suggest giving Run of My Life Special Mention, since it already received
4 votes, some for Silver and some for Special Mention.

Fan:Yes, if we count the votes, Silver should go to Alert, the first place for Special
Mention is Run of My Life, which received two votes for Silver and two for Special
Mention. The second place is ON, with four votes for Special Mention, third placeis Dear., with four votes for Special Mention.

All:

I agree.

The 24th ifva Awards - Youth Category Award Winners
Gold Award
Nil
Silver Award
Alert
Fong Ho-ching
Special Mention
Run of My Life
Tam Tsz-lok Douglas
Dear.
Wong E-ki, Yeung Hoi-tung
ON
Tsang Choi-shu

16