18th ifva Awards - Open Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jury Members: Ying Liang (Ying), Alex Cheung (Cheung), Ma Fung-kwok (Ma), Shum
Long-tin (Shum), Felix Chong (Chong)Organizer representatives: Teresa Kwong (Kwong), Kattie Fan (Fan)

Kwong: The mission of ifva is to encourage media creation in Hong Kong and Asia as well
as exchanges among filmmakers in these regions. The competition emphasizes
content, form and technique, but we pay special attention to independent spirit andcreativity. Do you have any questions?

Ma:

I notice that among the 9 finalist works, 4 have been part of the Fresh Wave Short
Film Competition, organized by the Hong Kong Arts Development Council. I have
served as the chairman of the HKADC for 6 years. Would that be a problem? Also,these works have been judged by other panels, and some have received awards. If
our decisions differ from other jury panels, would that cause any problems?

Kwong: We invited the five of you to be the jurors for this category because of yourachievements within your field, and therefore we trust your professional and artistic
judgment. In the past there have been jurors who are professors at institutions
where entrants study, and they would declare their interest before the discussions
begin. As for the work experience you mentioned, I think the relationship is moredistant, so it is not a problem. As for some of the works having been part of theFresh Wave competition, I am sure many of the entries have also participated inother festivals, which have their own positions and roles. I believe that Fresh Wave
has its own ideology, as does ifva. In the past there had been works that havereceived awards at Fresh Wave, and may or may not get an award at ifva. I believethat the standards of judgment are different, so it is not a problem.

Ma:

Can you explain the organizer’s interpretation of independent spirit?

Kwong: Everyone can have their own views and ways of interpreting it, and this is what
independent spirit means. The organizer defines independent spirit is that we do not
accept commercial films, or works that promote a funder’s particular brand. We
accept works that originate out of the creator’s autonomy. We emphasize how
filmmakers use the work to express their views and feelings. This is just a general
1

way of interpreting independent spirit. In the past, there had been works that
repeats or copies mainstream productions, and to some jury members, that worklacks independent spirit.
We invited all of you to act as Open Category jurors because of your experiences in
the industry. I believe each of you will have your own ideas about independent spirit,
and we allow for different interpretations of independent spirit.

Ying:

I want to declare my interest. One of the finalist works, Sam Hui Yat is done by astudent of mine at the Academy for Performing Arts. Even though I was not directly
instructing this group of students, I know clearly how they went about the production.
When discussing this work, should I refrain from comment?

Kwong: We have encountered similar problems in the past. The jury member would refrainfrom commenting on works that they have a relationship with. If you do not havefurther questions, we will start by discussing Paradox.

Chong:Us three first round jurors had a heated discussion about this work already. I think
we can let the two new jury members (Ma Fung Kwok and Alex Cheung) say a little
more about it.

Cheung: I think the technique of Paradox is okay, but its perspective is not wide enough andseem one-sided. It puts together many unhappy things. Coincidentally, the theme of
the work is similar to another finalist, 6th March. By comparison, I prefer the latter,because its perspective is more well-rounded. Both pro and against arguments arepresented, and the work lets the audience make the final decision. Paradox simply
gathers together many things that the director is unhappy with. I’m not too
comfortable with this work.

Ma:

Paradox gave me several feelings. It emphasizes the director’s personal feelings,
and expresses his message through the main character. The story is about a guy
who used to be a social activist, and after some time decides to become involved insocial activism again. I am okay with this, but I have problems with the film’s
structure. I cannot completely follow the director’s train of thought. The structure
jumps around, and is not complete. I don’t think it has enough dramatic elements.
Even though it is generally smooth, there is a lack of climax. There is a great deal of2

documentary footage in the middle, which simply illustrates that many people are
involved in social activism today, but does not explain why the main character isinvolved. His motivation and goals are not clear. On the whole, this work does not
move me very much.
Among the finalist works, I gave 6th March the highest mark. It is clearly superior tothe other finalists, and I personally like it the best. It is very mature in many regards.
The story is complete and it’s clear that a great deal of attention is paid to the
dialogue. The story is very taut, and the structure is complete. It brings out acomplete story through the interaction of six people. The use of camera shots isgood. The actors are not bad, some are wonderful, while others basically okay. In
terms of drama, the director uses the two brothers to bring out the climax, which
demonstrates superior technique. The editing and camera work are both smooth.
Therefore I really like this film.

Cheung: I totally agree with what Mr. Ma said about 6th March. Among the 9 finalist works,
this one is very professional in terms of camera work, script, acting and lighting. I
liked the film and felt very touched by it. Compared to the other finalist works, thisone is closest to a professional film, and its content is good. I especially like its
multi-dimensional nature. When I saw Paradox, I felt there is something missing in
the middle, then I saw 6th March and I felt that all the characters are very clearly
depicted. The scriptwriter successfully created five different characters, with thethree policemen all being quite distinct. The students are more similar, but each has
his own personality. It is not easy to achieve this effect. If there was a best actor
award, I would give it to the guy who plays the older policeman. His acting is really
good, and his expressions and small details are outstanding. The editing is very
precise, and the end result is even better than many professional films. This film
really moved me, and I feel this director will be a future star. I particularly like theolder policeman. He probably added many details himself.

Chong:

Like the nasal inhaler?

Cheung: That’s right, and also his way of smiling and his expressions. I believe it is hard forthe director to put in these details. He can only reply on the actor to fully immerse
himself into the role, and put in these details themselves.

Shum:

He is a professional actor.
3

Cheung: I know. Several of the actors in the film are professional actors.

Chong:The three policemen are all professional actors with a wealth of acting experience.

Cheung: I think this is a really fine work.

Kwong: Do the other two jury members have anything to add?

Chong:

Seeing the 9 finalist works altogether today gave me a different feeling thanwatching them the first time. After watching them today, there are only two works I
can select, 6th March and Waiting to Drown.
Watching these films on the big screen again, I feel the former is very solid, and the
director’s control of suspense is very good. Although the camera work has problems,with many shots out of focus, its dramatic treatment is very precise. As for Waiting
to Drown, I had already seen it twice in my office, and this is my third time watchingit. From the part at the end, I really admired the freedom with which the director
made this film. As a creative person, we are often faced with many limitations, andtherefore cannot be truly independent. This work is like playing a game. Watching iton the big screen today, I found it even more outstanding. Of course, from a rational
perspective, I’ll pick 6th March because it is clearly superior to other works.
However, as a creator rather than a juror, I prefer Waiting to Drown, especiallyafter seeing it on the big screen.

Kwong: This is one of the reasons why we let our jurors watch the films on the big screen.
Do you have anything else to add?

Chong:Sam Hui Yat has technical issues, and there is pixilation in the middle part.
Epilepsy looks like it was filmed in 16mm, and there are problems with the filming,
which affected the overall impression. Each of the shots is like a separate shot, likea perspective drawing with the perspective effect missing. I think the problem withSam Hui Yat is the director’s oversight. The automatic aperture opens and closes,
which makes it hard to watch. Perhaps the students did not notice this problem.

4Shum: I wanted to talk about Paradox. When I watched it the first time, I didn’t like it, butwatching it again I grew to like it. In response to what was said about it being fromone perspective and one-sided, I feel that a work does not have to be all-rounded oreven have multiple perspectives. This point only arose in comparison with 6th
March. 6th March tries to use dialectics as a means of advancing the story, andestablishes two opposing positions, within which there are radicals, middle andconservative sides. That’s why it feels balanced. The script advances according to
the rules of dialectics. The story is about the exchange of views and opposing
positions. On the other hand, Paradox is about the suppression of emotions, andhow the generation of post-80s and post-90s face these times. Watching it for the
first time, I felt that it was too sad, but watching it again on the big screen, I thought
this is exactly what the director intended. Through depicting suppression, it allows
the pain to be shown. The two works are actually about the same theme, that evenif people go out and march on the streets, they cannot change society. 6th March
expresses what a young person feels, and how he deals with the old policeman andolder views, and in the process brings out multiple perspectives. Paradox talks
about the same issue directly. I was touched by both works. Paradox presents two
opposing sides through barriers, some are external and some are internal barriers.
The metaphor about hearing and sound is a bit clichéd, which affected how I viewed
the work the first time around. Speaking of clichéd, Cow is even more so. All its
elements are outdated: the sentimentality, photographic film, depiction of new
immigrants and the image of Hong Kong are all out-dated. By comparison, Paradox
is not outdated. It looks better on second viewing, and I don’t know if this has to dowith watching it on the big screen.

Chong:

Absolutely. After watching the first 5 minutes, I felt Lo Chun-yip is the best director
out of all the finalists. His problem is his lack of creativity. The part with the radio
appeared three times. He simply stuffs the film with headlines, and there is novariation. The first time it appeared the sound editing is impressive. The second
time my interest waned. The third time it was drowned out by the image. I think his
style is too monotonous. However his treatment and editing is better than 6th
March. It’s a pity that he just repeats himself, and is no fun to watch.

Shum:

The progression is problematic.

5

Chong:Actually there is no progression. The one chance for progression is when the oldwoman who picks up cigarette stubs appears. I can only say that his choice of script
is not very good.

Shum:

This has to do with the way he shoots. I can imagine that he first shot the July 1
protests and then tried to construct a story around it. This way of working limited his
options. Then he goes around to find social activist characters.

Ma:

I also participated in social activism in the past, so when I watched Paradox, I
thought I would rediscover those feelings. The only moving part about the whole film
is when the lead character goes to look for the cigarette stub picking old woman andtheir conversation. This part moved me a little. However the work as a whole is flat.

Shum:

It is like an edited news program. It lacks everyday occurrences.

Ma:

It’d be better if the director could express his passion or feelings more. Perhaps I
would be touched.

Chong:To use a film industry expression, the film lacks gimmicks.

Ying:

I agree that from the point of view of direction, the director of Paradox did very well.
Even though there are problems with the script, he performed well as a director.
When I saw it on the big screen just now, the film made me believe that such afamily exists in the world, which is quite something. After watching the film, I could
take in his message and the history he portrays. I can only say that its flaws are too
obvious in that it does not have a good story. All the sections are just fragments,
which when joined together only forms a collage. The desire to speak is greaterthan the will to communicate. From the point of view of the script, it does notconsider well the characters. For example, the character used to work on the airport
runway. What does this have to do with his situation in the past and present? I can’t
find a connection. I understand his deafness. But I’m not sure about the airplane asa means of transport. Also the message in the dialogue and whether the words
have power and is believable--this flaw is quite obvious. We discussed this in our
first round meeting already.

6

Shum:All the background information is just expressed in words rather than shown, andlacks the support of real life situations. Therefore it seems unconvincing.

Cheung: This is my first time watching this. At first I thought it was okay, but then he keeps
repeating himself. The radio appears three times.

Ma:

If it can be shortened by 4 or 5 minutes it would be better.

Chong:The second time with the radio is like a commercial for a radio station.

Ying:

I want to talk about 6th March. The other jurors talked about its good point, so I’ll
talk about its flaws. I don’t agree with the older brother’s performance. For example,
the fact that they are brothers is not a point of suspense, but the director tries very
hard to develop it as a suspense. Actually this film is very good. I’m just being picky.
I quite agree with Chong. From the perspective of a professional filmmaker, this film
is easy to like. But as a filmgoer, I am a little put off by and suspicious of its maturity
and neatness. But on the whole, among the 9 finalists, I most approve of 6th
March.

Kwong: Let us discuss Epilepsy next.

Cheung: I think this work is quite unique and bold. It reminds me of the works Shūji
Terayama that I had watched when I was young. The director sets up a stationary
shot, and has people looking into the camera. This is a bold and uncommon
approach. There is a scene where someone wearing an orange necktie walks backand forth. However the story did not leave a big impression on me.

Ma:

I agree that this work is bold, and the director tries to make something different. Thisintention is quite obvious. Even though the work is not too long, I felt a bit bored by it.
Perhaps there is something wrong with the actors’ performance, I felt that they werea bit too much. Their performance seems at odds with the tone of the work, andruined its overall consistency. As for the experimental nature of this work, I was
expecting something special, but felt disappointed afterwards. The work did notresonate with me, and I felt it could be better. However I applaud its attempt.
7

Shum:

When I watched Epilepsy for the first time, and then watching again just now, I felt
this work is pretentious. You said it is bold, but I disagree. He is merely using
theatrical style, and people who frequent the theatre would not find anything special
about it. The theme is old, with epilepsy as the reaction to the system. The design ofsets introduces visual depth, but the logical connection between scenes is not clear.
Necessity and level of rule system are related. Usually rules have an external set ofgoverning principles, which then become internalized, leading to self governing. In
the end you think that you are free, not is actually ruled by the system. This kind ofwork usually follows this formula, but this work only goes so far, and then stops. It
merely talks about external factors until the student jumps off a building. The story
takes the point of view of a person being oppressed, and then a girl appears.
Usually the girl would play the role of a redeemer, but this hope comes to naught.
You can say that this director is being subtle and his technique is good. The end
scene merely recalls the first without expressing any point of view or any sense of
progression. Usually when watching a work on the small screen, I would find that I
had missed many small details that I was able to catch on the big screen. However
watching Epilepsy for the second time, I did not discover any new elements, so I
found the work disappointing.

Chong:

I had chosen Epilepsy to be included among the finalists. I like its mise en scene,
which many professional directors are not able to do. His control of the rhythm ofeach scene is very good. When watching it on the big screen today, the resolution isa big problem. It is related to the TC transfer from film to video. The end result lacks
depth. When watching it in my office, I found the lighting design to be very well done.
The contrast between highlight and lowlight was around five to six stops. But now
the image is flat.

Long:

The most obvious part is the elevator scene.

Chong:

Not only that scene, but also the push-up scene and the scene with the mother inthe room—they all become flat. The other reason I chose this film is because I felt
there should be many kinds of experimental works in this kind of competition. There
are many traditional dramas this year, whose style is similar to TV dramas. I feelthere should be different kinds of works.
I feel strange about this, I remember when I entered the first ifva, even the drama
category works were experimental. I think the problem with film education today is8that everyone emphasizes creative industries, and they all try to become part of theindustries. They push this idea onto the students when they were still not fully
mature. Being an industry, everything you say has to be well understood by people
and liked, rather than simply understanding it yourself and doing things one likes. I
chose this film to highlight the idea of “independent”.
This work is one of the most outstanding one out of the more than 50 works in thefirst round. I did not suffer through it when I watched it.

Kwong: This is a trend in recent years.

Chong:

This trend over-emphasize the industry element, it cares too much whether
audiences will understand.

Ying:

In the previous round, I also supported Epilepsy. The problem when viewing ittoday is the visual part. Its message is very dependent upon visuals. I was quite
surprised when watching it in a theatre that its sound treatment is not good. These
two elements are regretful. Just now, Long Tin talked about the internal state of thecharacter, and I agree. I can only say that watching it on the big screen did not offer
this work any advantage. When watching it on the small screen, the scenes where
the character looks directly at the camera were really shocking, at least for me.
However this feeling was gone today. Yet I feel that we should support this kind ofwork that is complete, has independent spirit, expresses personal feelings and isdifferent from other people.

Kwong: Let’s discuss One . Superhero next.

Shum:

This works should be discussed in conjunction with GwanGong VS Alien. In thelast round, we felt the two works are similar, and that only one should make it to thefinal round.

Chong:

It’s because I insisted on One . Superhero.

Shum:

That’s why both works made it into the final round.

9Chong:

I felt that if we let GwanGong VS Alien into the final round, then One. Superhero
should be included too.

Ma:

I have made a list that includes marks for each work. I gave 6th March the highest
mark, and Waiting to Drown the second highest. They are both dramas. I agreewith having different types of films, and they should be encouraged. After givingmarks, I would compare films from the same genre, for example, Sam Hui Yat with
Kwun Tong-going away, which are both documentaries. The other two that I madecomparisons were the “superman” films, One. Superhero and GwanGong VS
Alien. Personally I like the former more because its theme is clear, and uses special
effects to bring it out.

Shum:

It is low-tech.

Chong:

It’s not low-tech, but beyond the director’s ability.

Ma:

It can’t be helped, being low budget.

Chong:

I don’t think that’s a problem. Monty Python also has these kinds of outlandish
special effects.

Ma:

I personally like One. Superhero more. I particularly like the fact that it subverts theconventions of superman films, which are usually about superman against monsters,
but in this work the monster emotionally moves superman. I like this innovation,
which subverts the idea of heroism and inspires the audience to think. On the whole,thOne . Superhero ranks 4 on my list.

Chong:

Watching these finalist works again, I am more convinced that One . Superhero issuperior to GwanGong VS Alien. When watching the latter, I could completely
imagine its final cut. This is a haphazard work in which the director simply packs
with whatever element strikes his fancy. There is no relationship between
characters. Of course sometimes haphazard works can be good, but this work lacks
that chemistry, because it does not go far enough. When watching it again, I reallyfelt this is a conservative work. It uses cliché means to criticize clichéd topics. On
second viewing, the low tech nature of One. Superhero is outlandish. On the big
10screen, it seems too bright, it would be better if it was darker. Of course GwanGong
VS Alien is very clever. The director uses a multi-layered film look to cover up manyof its flaws, which One. Superhero did not do. However, the latter reminds me of
the comedy show The Funny Half Show, starring Liu Wai Hung and Lam Mun
Chung. I appreciate the fact that the director tries his best to tell his story,
unencumbered by the special effects, and his story-telling is smooth. I will notconsider GwanGong VS Alien for an award, because seems patronizing. I thinkAlex Cheung should say something. You are the pioneer of Hong Kong special
effects films.

Cheung: Your ideas are more progressive, while my point of view is more basic.

Shum:

When watching them the first time, I thought the technique and other elements of
GwanGong VS Alien is better than One. Superhero . However, watching it on the
big screen, I sense the works’ underlying elements. The latter does not hide its
crudeness, which makes its satire clearer. The whole work is satirical from start tofinish, including the part after the credits. Even though its message is shallow, it isconsistent in its satire. As for GwanGong VS Alien, it is more calculated, and talks
about being a cult film from the beginning. The director wants to make a cult filmthat contains political metaphors.

Chong:

I think the director uses the label of cult film to do whatever he wants, andeverything is allowed because it is cult. But One. Superhero is truly cult. When I
saw the part about Battleship Potemkin, I wondered how serious the director was
about his dream. However he treats this topic very seriously. It is a true cult film.

Shum:

Watching the film more than once reveals the fact that GwanGong VS Alien is too
calculated, which makes it hard to accept. Its ending and theme are also hard toaccept. He uses a very serious issue to achieve what he wants, which makes it
unsuitable.

Chong:

GwanGong VS Alien lacks humor.

Shum:

The part about June 4 simply becomes a tool.

th

11Ying:In the first round, I supported GwanGong VS Alien. Because I come from a
politically repressed region, my perception is different from the audience in HongKong. I find the freedom of this work interesting, powerful and fun, even though it
lacks discipline. Perhaps because of my cultural upbringing, I find these elementsinteresting, powerful and fun, such as when the names of Hu and Wen appeared.
When watching One . Superhero on the big screen, my perceptions improved, but I
still felt it did not go far enough. It could still go further.

Cheung: When watching these two works, my feelings were mixed. I admire their courage inattempting special effects. Just now someone mentioned Monty Python. I reallyidolized them when I was young. I can sense that the directors of both these works
are sincere.

Chong:

It is hard to reach the level of Monty Python.

Cheung: Those works are of very high standards, and would make me wonder how they did
it.

Chong:

From the point of view of special effects, these works remind me of Holy Grail, withequally outlandish special effects.

Cheung: Perhaps because this is my first viewing of both works, I feel that the technique of
GwanGong VS Alien is better, while One. Superhero is more 2D and more flat.

Chong:

I wonder if he has the ability or the intention to do better. On the big screen, it iseven more ridiculous.

Ma:

I tend to forgive all these, because they have limited resources. I like his humor andsense of satire, and care about whether its message is clear. I think he delivered his
point from start to finish.

Shum:

That is his only good point.

12

Ma:

Yes, I would not treat it as a special effect film.

Chong:

I like the scene where they go up to the 5thfloor, I think the treatment is good.

However its crudeness and editing is obvious. I think this is a pure cult film.

Kwong: Now we’ll discuss Kwun Tong-going away .

Chong:

There are two documentaries among the finalists. I feel that for documentaries, thecamerawork and image quality are very important. The quality of image has tomatch with the message. Watching the two works on the big screen, neither
achieved this.

Shum:

Kwun Tong-going away is more flawed.

Chong:

Kwun Tong-going away has serious problems. It was filmed in DV, and uses
DVHS format. The aperture of Sam Hui Yat is unbearable. I had just had Lasik
surgery, so I am very sensitive to light. Sam Hui Yat goes from bright and dark, andas a documentary these are serious technical flaws. I would not consider these twoworks for awards.

Ying:

In the previous round, I did not like Kwun Tong-going away, and like it even lessthis time around. I feel that he has a definite plan before he started, and went out tofind the people and the situations to put in it. I cannot feel any sense of life andmovement, which are things that can draw the audience in. I don’t care about thetechnical details, because I know the technical situation of documentaries. If acreator has strong feelings about a community, he could make the “I” less hidden,
and express his ideas through interviews with people in the neighborhood andscholars. If he wants to be “objective”, he must go deeper and spend more time,and record the details and lives of people within that community. In this way, he canbring the audience into that community. I feel that he has failed in both regards, andis at odds with the way I approach documentaries.

Ma:

I feel a little differently about this work, probably because I grew up in the area it
was filmed. With regards to the two works, I think Sam Hui Yat is good at describing
its characters, but the cinematography is a bit too shaky. Perhaps the director is13trying to depict the narrowness of the space with moving shots, but it is hard on theaudience. As for Kwun Tong-going away, because I’m very familiar with the thingsin it, I was more emotionally involved. I accepted its filming style. Even though it has
its flaws, at least the camera does not move around so much. Obviously it was
pre-designed, but I can accept this way of expression. Both these works are about
the same in terms of quality, although I gave higher marks to Kwun Tong-goingaway than Sam Hui Yat.

Chong:In the previous round of discussions, I insisted on selecting Kwun Tong-goingaway. I explained to Ying Liang that the people depicted in the film are disappearing,and they have their own way of speaking. This is a problem Hong Kong society
faces, that it is trying to phase out these people. When I watched this film I was
powerfully moved. The fact that it is pre-designed does not affect my enjoyment. As
for Sam Hui Yat, it is trying to explore something, but fails at the end. I will not judge
a work by the creator’s initial intentions, but from its final quality and whether ittouches me. I agree with Ma Fung Kwok. I especially like the scene where theyrinse the whelk.

Ma:

I am even more touched. I pass by such scenes daily.

Chong:

When I was young I often see Chiu Chow people wash whelks, and such sounds
are familiar to me from a young age. I grew up in North Point, and I did not realizethat the sounds of North Point and Kwun Tong are the same. No one would dress
this way when exercising or have such hairstyle. It’s great!

Shum:

I had lived in both communities described in these two works. I grew up in Western
District, and have passed by the community described in Sam Hui Yat, and haveeaten at that restaurant. For the past 4 years I have been living in Kwun Tong, andbore witness to the changes and disappearance of the community. Therefore I feelstrongly about Kwun Tong-going away. In the previous round of discussion, I liked
the film’s design, leading people into the story with one character after the next. In
the end the main character is the community rather than the people. These
characters lead us to traverse the community and observe its appearance. I reallylike the whole editing logic. But when watching it on the big screen, the image
quality was an obvious flaw. The sense of a community’s disappearance is

14

important to this work, but it not come across. By comparison, Paradox succeededin portraying the substance of Kwun Tong’s older communities.

Chong:

That’s because they used HD.

Shum:

The quality of the cinematography affected the nostalgic feeling of Kwun
Tong-going away, which brought down its overall quality. Emotionally I am more
drawn to Kwun Tong-going away, and find it superior to Sam Hui Yat. Even
though it did not spend a lot of time in the community, it probably took longer to film
than the latter.

Chong:

The character in the latter changed clothes three times, so it probably was notfilmed in one or two days.

Shum:

I think Kwun Tong-going away spent a lot of time in Kwun Tong.

Ma:

I feel that Sam Hui Yat spent a lot of time preparing. It only started filming when it
established a relationship with the people. I agree that the editing of Kwun
Tong-going away is very good. Even though I watched it on the small screen, it
was still good.

Chong:The editing and sound are professional.

Ma:My deepest feeling is that it can capture the changing community. My parents still
live in that community, and I visit them often, so my feelings for it run deep.

Chong:

Among the finalist works, this is probably the only one that has sound editing. I don’tknow why the others don’t do it.

Cheung: I find Kwun Tong-going away to be stronger. I have not lived in Kwun Tong, so I
do not have those direct and indirect feelings that you have. I like news shows like“Hong Kong Connection” and “Sunday Report”, because they are able to take me
into different communities and help me discover details. I would look at the two15

works from this angle, and feel that they do not dig deep enough, and seems
superficial. Of course this comparison is not fair.

Ma:

I did not use the standards of “Hong Kong Connection” and “Sunday Report” tojudge the two works. The contrast would be too great.

Cheung: The comparison would not be fair. But I feel that the works could have given me
more information.

Kwong: Let us talk about Cow next.

Chong:

I did not pick this, so I give up (he laughs).

Ying:

I did not pick this either.

Shum:

I chose this despite their opposition. I like its out-datedness. Everything about it isoutdated, but this is suited to its theme. The theme is about escape, and its
outdated style is at odds with reality, and achieved what the work is trying to say.
Watching the work a second time, I think many of the elements are superfluous,even though the work is not too long.

Ma:

Even though I am not a professional in cinematography, I feel he spent a lot of effort
in designing the shots. As a drama, it is not bad. Even though it is a bit outdated, I
find it acceptable, particularly if it a talking about what happened 10 years ago.

Cheung: It is talking about the last HKCEE.

Ma:

hat is why it feels a bit outdated. Nowadays young people don’t think this way.

Chong:

I don’t think it’s a problem that the background or the relationship among its
characters is outdated. When it comes to dramas about people, you have to find a
special angle to portray it. Unfortunately this work did not succeed in doing so.

16

Kwong: Let’s discuss Waiting to Drown next.

Shum:

I think this is the main focus of discussion.

Chong:

After watching it on the big screen I find this work controversial. Watching it side byside with the other 9 works, I feel this is the only lively work of the lot, even though it
has many flaws. I feel this work is well suited to this competition, because it has adevil may care attitude that I want to emulate. I dare not say this is the best workthat the 5 jury members can choose, but I like it a lot. The editing is great. I am
jealous of this work. When I was in school, I was good at writing scripts like this, buthaven’t done so for a long time. The script follows a person’s stream of
consciousness, but also has a rigorous plat structure. This is something that every
scriptwriter wants to achieve.

Shum:

Recently such stories that blend fact and fiction are in vogue. When I watched it on
the small screen the first time, I liked it. Even though I gave it high marks, I also
thought it has many problems. I like the narrative that shifts between fantasy andreality. As a viewer or an interpreter, this kind of story is attractive. It successfully
portrays the feelings of young men as they prepare for going abroad to study. Theinterplay between reality and fantasy give ground to the young man’s sentiments.
From the sentimental perspective I prefer Waiting to Drown, but from a rationaland content point of view, I would choose 6th March. The latter strongly portrays
the social and social relationship of Hong Kong today, and giving it an award would
be meaningful. Perhaps I would not give Waiting to Drown the grand prize, but its
good point should be recorded here.

Chong:

I think Waiting to Drown does not have fantasy and reality, everything is real. A
young man imagines things that are important in his life, including fantasy about
violence. He imagines going out to a restaurant with friends, and then has a fightand glasses get knocked on the ground. This is a fantasy. The whole film pulsateswith life. The director does not depart from the main character. Many independentfilms get lost, but Waiting to Drown does not have this problem. The other thing is,
do we have to consider the social situation of Hong Kong today? I am not against
this consideration, just bringing up the issue for discussion.

17

Ying:

This is my second time watching Waiting to Drown. I did not select this film in thefirst round. This time around my feelings about the work has changed. It is mainly arational change. I can feel its methods and sentiments, and his need to tell this story.
I wonder why I did not like this work at first, even though my feelings had changed.
Perhaps it is because I don’t identify with the main character and this way of
expressing emotions. We mentioned previously that “In the Heat of the Sun” is thelimit to what I can accept, and I can understand the part where they climb up on thechimney. This work is more difficult for me, perhaps because I know little about how
local kids grow up. In contrast with the two of you, I accept this work rationally, but
not emotionally. I think the film is a rare achievement. If someone I know made thisfilm, I would admire him for it. I feel this kind of person should go on making films.
However I can’t get emotionally involved with it.

Ma:

Rationally, I gave this film the second highest mark. I feel that my thinking isprobably ahead of its time, because it is similar to young people today.

Chong:

Me too. I think you must have studied in an all boys’ school.

Ma:

I have this feeling too. I think the director must have injected his own feelings into
the film and dramatized them. He did a good job. Perhaps it has to do with my own
experiences, for the film really resonates with me. The production is also good andthe editing is smooth.

Chong:The shot where he hugs his mother is powerful on the big screen. The third shotfrom last.

Ma:

The whole film is decent, perhaps because he has had professional training. The
cinematography and music are good. The problem is if we should let two dramas
win both awards, or should we strike a balance.

Cheung: I liked the beginning, but the second half is weak. Perhaps because I don’t
remember much about my youth, my feelings are opposite to yours. The overall
technique is good.

18

Kwong: We have discussed all 9 finalist works. Please nominate 3 works for awards, andthen we will vote on your choices.

Chong:

I nominate 6th March , One. Superhero andMa:

My choices are exactly the same as yours.

Waiting to Drown .

Cheung: I nominate 6th March and Epilepsy.

Shum:

I nominate 6th March , Waiting to Drown and Kwun Tong-going away .

Ying:

I nominate 6th March , Epilepsy and Waiting to Drown.

Kwong: Shall we strike out those that did not get any nominations? They are Paradox, Cow,
Sam Hui Yat and GwanGong VS Alien.

Everyone: Yes.

Kwong: Of the 5 remaining works, can we vote for the Gold Award winner? (The 5 jurors
raise their hands.)

Kwong: The Gold Award goes to 6th March. Now let us nominate the Silver Award.

Ying:

I nominate Epilepsy .

Ma+Long+Chong: I nominate Waiting to Drown for Silver Award.

Kwong: The Silver Award goes to Waiting to Drown. Please make your nominations forSpecial Mention.

Ying:

I nominate Epilepsy.
19

Ma:

I suggest 3 Special Mentions, Epilepsy, Kwun Tong-going away and One.
Superhero.

Kwong: The organizers are very flexible. We initially suggest only one Special Mention, but
the final decision will depend on your consensus. There are only 9 finalists. If wegive out 3 Special Mentions it may cheapen the award.

Ma:

I should explain my suggestion. It is hard to compare films from different genres.
Epilepsy is a strongly experimental work, One. Superhero is a special effects film,
while Kwun Tong-going away is a documentary.

Chong:

Perhaps we do not need to compare them. We can simply discuss which of thethree deserves our commendation.

Ma:

That means choosing only one work?

Chong:

That’s right. I would tend towards a work in a relatively weaker position. therefore I
would choose One. Superhero, because the director of Epilepsy will have a great
future, while the format of Kwun Tong-going away is not quite suited to thiscompetition. If CNN were to hold a documentary competition, this work may be
more suitable. This is just my personal opinion.

Shum:

Personally I feel both One. Superhero and Kwun Tong-going away are
acceptable, but I will not give special mention to Epilepsy.

Ying:

I support Epilepsy. Perhaps I’m not familiar with all Hong Kong shorts, but films likeit are rare. By comparison, Kwun Tong-going away and One. Superhero are morecommon.

Shum:

I should add that Kwun Tong-going away and One. Superhero are both very
simple. Epilepsy looks complicated, but is in fact simple. It simply uses form toplease people. Its form is stronger than its content, which I find comparatively
pretentious.

20Chong:I want to respond to what Ying Liang said just now. Among the 50 works that wesaw, the rarity of experimental works like Epilepsy and so-called parodies like One.
Superhero are about the same.

Cheung: I did not see all the 50 works in the first round, but only the 9 finalist works. From mypoint of view, Epilepsy is very bold.

Kwong: Now someone suggested that one work receives Special Mention, while Mr. Ma
suggested 3 works get Special Mention. How should be solve this?

Shum:

We can have two Special Mentions. I’m just opposed to Epilepsy.

Chong:

I feel that having only one Special Mention is better

Ma:

We can have either three Special Mentions, or just one.

Kwong: Why don’t we vote on the three works.

Fan:

One. Superhero gets 3 votes, Epilepsy has 2.

Kwong: The Gold Award for the Open Category is 6th March, Silver Award goes to Waiting
to Drown, and Special Mention goes to One . Superhero.

Open Category Award Winners
Gold Award
6th March / Wong Chun
Silver Award
Waiting to Drown / Nick CheukSpecial Mention
One. Superhero / Ben Tang21

22