thThe 14 ifva Asian New Force Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Linda Lai (LAI), Park Kiyong (PARK)
Absent Jurors: Lou Ye (LOU)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Mickey Choi (CHOI)PARK:

I notice that the filmmakers who attend tonight’s screening are elder, like theChinese director. What is the average age of the directors this year?

LAI:

Do you think age factors should be brought into consideration?

PARK:

The reason I asked because the mixture of age and experience of life, fresh
graduation from college and people who already have experience. In that case, whoshould we support? The newcomers or?

LAI:

But I think it’s not their age but how experienced they are. But since this question isbrought up, may I ask - is promoting young film maker a key objective?

IFVA:

No.

LAI:

It’s more about promoting short film, is that the case? Is this platform encouraging
short film as a special genre or encouraging young people to make works?

IFVA:

I think we go for the first point for the creativity.

LAI:

Some thoughts in my mind in the whole process were: how many of these works wehave seen today are actually ground-breaking in the sense of opening up whatshort film may mean? Short film is a unique category; it has its own norms that don’t
apply to feature films or feature-length documentaries. Short film has its own kind ofgrammar. If this is the case, there is a set of priority in my mind: which film proved
itself to be an innovative short film, not just film. Also, I found that a lot of theseworks are short, but they need not be considered just a work of a smaller scale; but
they are something else. Often they are actually poetry or painting. In a sense, thatis also one way of looking at how these works open up the category, the idea ofshort film.

Before we jump into individual films, I wrote some notes during the firstscreening. I found there are some possibilities for us to define how to pick the final
award winner in case we disagree. I think there is a direction to set to look for a filmthat best suggests the future of cinema. The second possibility is to award a film1that is most enhancing cultural understanding -- if this is important enough. The
third is that a film should be awarded for its aesthetic achievement andcraftsmanship. I just found it very unsafe jumping into a discussion, just to disagree
or agree with each other without any shared values. Maybe we can add more to thelist or should we arrange them in order of priority.

PARK:

I disagree to look at these three. I think the difference is that this is supporting theindependent film making, there should be no argument. It’s not what you want topush or what you believe. It’s supporting the new talent of independent film making.

LAI:

Then maybe we can talk about each work.

The Soliloquist

PARK:

The Soliloquist is an animation. It is OK. For me, nothing is wrong but the concept
is not fresh.

LAI:

I more or less agree when only one work is going to win, this would not be the film.
Although I feel very intrigued by this film, thinking about the subject matter, it’s so
old and yet I’m still interested in it. At least it still caught my interest for the loss oflove. My appreciation of the film is the use of space because he has a very unique
way of approaching the screen. The screen is no longer the usual three
dimensional perspective space, but you never know when the next shot is, andwhen something may fall outside of the frame space. Sometimes the space onscreen is a well; sometimes it’s a wall. In terms of use of space, I find it very
interesting. My critique will go to the text. I think the text is too much, telling us
everything. I don’t object to the use of language but it can be used more skillfully,
and more integrated into the entire work. The filmmaker’s drawing skill is verystrong.

Film of the sea

PARK:

Film of the sea is an experimental film. To be honest, I don’t like experimental films.
The reason is that I don’t understand. It’s very difficult for me to understand.
Besides, you don’t need to understand, you have to feel it. I could see what this film
is trying to do. But I don’t really get it through the projector, the sea and the imagesof the water.

2

LAI:

Because of how it was made and how it was presented to me, I noticed that I am
not going to look at it as a normal film. The film immediately demands me toapproach it not for comprehension, not to get the point but to be more face to facewith the work, more perceptual. I am finally fascinated with the employment ofpainting styles because it seems there is a lot of painting styles mixed into thereference of cinema, of what is the frame, of what is the limit of cinema. In my
original comments in the first round, I did mention that one thing the film has notdone enough – which is the idea of ocean. The idea of ocean in the beginning isvery strong, but towards the end, as the work moves on, it became more and morean accessory. The main narrative trajectory is more towards playing with all thetricks of 2D and 3D. There’s a bit of repetition there but still I love this film. There’s apoint to defend is this festival for opening up new categories and be daring, I will still
keep my vote for this one.

4 Kilometers

PARK:

4 Kilometers in the beginning I thought it was quite naive and started amorous. But
as it moved on, I liked the film. It became quite sincere, especially the last shot. It’s
more than adequate.

LAI:

I will defend the film for its precision in the deployment of film language. I found thefilm very dark and it’s not an easy story to tell, nor is it an easy task to sustain thevisual narrative for such a single-directional plot. Certain things remained
unexplained, or maybe actually explained but I didn’t get it. Nonetheless I like thefact that certain things are unexplained – in particular the reason why she actuallyturned back. It seems she is giving up on a chance to change her life, and yet it
seems she is making a very powerful decision not to go along a certain kind ofromanticism for a woman. I don’t know which way it was. I like works that are more
open but do not draw a straight conclusion. Acting is adequate.

The Old Fool Who Moved the Mountains

PARK:

I don’t like The Old Fool Who Moved the Mountains. She didn’t match with thethree generations.

LAI:

It seems that we have two very different senses and directions for what cinema wewant to promote. I don’t know if this is a case or not. But I like to promote this type ofcinema myself because it has created a lot of gaps for viewers to fill in, or for them3

to make sense of the unsaid. I am often doubtful especially in the case of
documentary when the director is too certain about what he wants to say and it will
become propagandist. In this case, I think there’re three elements and actually wehave more than three generations there. I like collage because collage itself is a
progressive form in the sense that it doesn't just want to draw a conclusion from theold meanings – and this is the opposite of the main stream cinema. Not that I don’t
like main stream cinema – I mean I enjoy main stream cinema too. My only querywhen watching the work was, especially knowing who the director was, what thiswork was for. I found that if it is a work by a Chinese person, I would have to look at
the film very differently. But knowing the background suddenly, I found the wholething is about one person trying to make sense of other people’s culture. I am notnegative but it makes me think more what the film is.

PARK:

When I watched the film, I think I like it more than after I realize it was made by thisPhilippine film maker. As I told you, I saw her previous films that was seven years
ago. She has been living in Beijing for last six to seven years. I was quite surprisedthat she is still there making this kind of documentary. The reason I dislike the film isbecause she wasn’t like what you said.

LAI:

I don’t want to be misunderstood here. When I mentioned that the knowledge of thefilm maker has is that of an outsider, I did not mean it to discredit the film. Rather, it
raises another set of viewing criteria for me to understand the film. It’s a good
attempt for an outsider to make a work to try to understand the culture. My little
disappointment was that if this is the case, if she has this very unique outsider’sview, then the work should have been much shaper and stronger.

PARK:

She lacks of outsider’s point of view.

LAI:

She’s a bit too afraid to assert a little bit more. But still I like to see more people
stepping into this kind of muddy water. I don’t even think I would call this adocumentary, maybe she thinks so, but I would rather call it a film essay in which
she is aligning her ideas to try to make sense of things and try to form some kind of
a position of what she has experienced.

The Dream of Cortazar

PARK:

The Dream of Cortazar, because it’s Korean film and I’ll become too critical.

4

LAI:

I like the film because I come from a much broader pretext in which I’m very tired ofstory telling – not because I don’t like stories but I just find filmmakers are runningout of techniques too to tell fresh stories. So I’m often a bit skeptical when a film isgoing to tell a story. But this one won my sympathy because it’s not trying too hard
and yet it set up a very simple mechanism in which a very simple story could
multiple its own value. The work is actually a metaphysical detective story which isabout space and I like the illusion. The whole film is turning us into an active agent.
It is more than cinema – it’s itself a game. And why not? Haven’t we been watchingfilms so passively for over a century? Let’s turn ourselves into an active agent. The
story is very difficult to tell. The story-teller attempts to manipulate and is also being
manipulated and forced into a passive position. So I think there’s a lot of charm tothis and the director could have pushed further.

PARK:

In terms of the story, I thought it was quite interesting. The film construction wasvery concise; the direction especially the acting was not very good. The acting was
not natural.

TrembleLAI:

The theme of Tremble is politically correct, is a type of story we should talk. I foundit should be more and longer. The film could be more interesting if he kept
developing.

Go to School

PARK:

Go to School is not bad. It had everything. The theme started quite well but the end
was trying a little bit too much. I think probably this is the best way to end the story. I
would have had a stronger feeling if the ending was focused on the mothersituation.

LAI:

If I have to choose a work to show my students to illustrate a typical good short film,
I will pick this one because it was very neat. For the same reason, I felt that it’s tooneat. It’s too much knowing the rules to set the formula of beginning, the middle andthe end. I don’t like the ending as well. I think the film was very strong and effective,
very efficiently catching you into the world of the mother. But something is a bit
lacking in acuteness and I don’t know how to put it. It doesn’t hit me more thangiving me a tidy story unlike some of the other works. It seems that some kind of
humanistic concern which make this film very charming as a motive end up

5becoming a heard of, because it’s total humanistic. I agree that I don’t like thepostcard but I told myself that maybe the postcard is what happened in the real life.
I found that on a narrative closure level, there’re three claims: the mother getting thebirthday card, the appointment she missed was re-arranged, and finally the little girlwas willing to take her brother back to school. Everything opens up very beautiful
and suddenly everything becomes the full circle and it rounds up with a punctuation
mark like that. It’s a bit of waste of the night process of leaving the story to finallyjust ending up in a very simplicity and realistic comment.

Family Script

LAI:

About Family Script, still the comments I made about the film in the program notes
I would maintain that. I still feel the middle window is not content played enough for
how it can actually work to bring together the left and the right.

Actually two families are trying to communicate through her. That’s why I thought
the middle window could have something very different. I don’t want to say as there
is a norm or tradition in documentary in which the film maker should appear at one
point to make the work reflexive. It’s an easy solution to say that the middle window
should be replaced; the journey maker should reveal herself. And yet I found thateven without that, there could be a little bit more, stronger role than just someone iscarrying the message to the right and left. But I like those two sides when they
suddenly look at each other.

PARK:

I like the film but this kind of technique using multiple windows is not usedanymore. Also, if she was going to use multiple windows, she should be moredaring from the beginning to the end. I am a bit disappointed about this. The storiesof two families, one group in Tibet and one group in India, I fully understood what istalking about but I think she should give more information to understand thesefamilies when they separated, what is the reason behind.

FadingPARK:

I did agree with the filmmaker of Fading talking about the memories. But it was notenough. It’s not about the number of interviewers but the memories to make up forthe audience to feel what the village is about.

LAI:

If it has another 15 minutes, the work would be very different. I find that the circle of6things should repeat more and more to bring out the dynamics; it does not attempt
to turn the dynamics even at this length. Yes, it could be longer. Maybe I am overworry, whichever film we pick as the Award winner, it stands for something, it
speaks about a certain standard of excellence. For me, this is one type of
excellence, not everything. That’s why I came up with three aspects. It’s very easythese days to see young people trying to do lawful things, to make a film not special
than a normal work.

But then the basic craftsmanship and aesthetic achievement,

is something I always found, could not be compromised. This work among the threecriteria that I set for myself, it may not suggest anything for the future of cinema,
and yet it may, it does, because it reduces the sophisticated continuity editing norm
which has been ruling our cinema for a century. Now it brings back to the purist
aesthetics of cinematography which is a photograph itself. I felt sympathetic in thisone, it is very economical and yet it suggests reducing than adding onto the current
film language. Also, it has a very strong cultural concern about the loss of a place.
Definitely we should award for works that want to do more than just achieving
craftsmanship. I understand and I think I will agree with you that I wish the film much
longer. The circle of things and those still images are very nicely done. I am dared
to believe that doing so little would make a film last and I think it does last.

Disconnection

PARK:

Disconnection has four ways of communication including mobile phone, telephone,computer with Internet, email and fax but nothing works. He was certainly pushing
too much.

LAI:

I will most likely to give up this one even from the very beginning. I am not surewhether this work is trying to illustrate a point too much about technology andpushing a bit too harsh on the metaphoric, the symbolic meaning of communication.

IFVA:

Shall we go to the second part nominating two to three films that could beconsidered to give awards?

LAI:

I pick Fading, The Dream of Cortazar, 4 Kilometers and Film of the sea.

PARK:

I pick The Soliloquist, 4 Kilometers and Go to School.

LAI:

Actually I put The Old Fool as the fifth one which I didn’t mention. You can take that
into consideration. I want to keep that.

7

IFVA:

We still have 7 films.

LAI:

We can cross out more. Fading seems get no support except from Linda. This is
my favourite, keep it and remove The Dream of Cortazar.

IFVA:

So we have 6 films. Do you want to talk about the grand award or nomination
again?

PARK:

I will recommend 4 Kilometers is the grand award. Special mention will be doesn’t
matter, Fading or Film of the sea.

LAI:

I like 4 Kilometers too but I actually immersive with The Soliloquist. Either one ofthem get it, I am fine.

IFVA:

For grand award? But you didn’t vote it.

LAI:

I didn’t vote Go to School as well but these are the works I like. I didn’t vote manyof them. I don’t know what to do. Should I try to facilitate?

PARK:

But in this case, as LOU Ye voted The Soliloquist for grand prize, if you agree, weshould give the grand prize to The Soliloquist.

LAI:

I’m a bit hesitating. For some reasons, either Go to School or Fading should be
included either for grand award or special mention. They are both very strong.
Maybe Go to School or Fading can actually be nominated for special mention in
my view.

IFVA:

To conclude, there are 2 works being considered to give the grand award. The
Soliloquist and 4 Kilometers. For special mention, Go to School, Family Script
and Fading.

LAI:

Let me put it in this way. I would not want to see Go to School get the final grandaward. For me, that would not happen. But it can go for the special mention
because I like its simplicity and its observation of the saddest of woman which notenough people are really paying attention to. I am just not 100% happy because in
my view there is other more than in the film. I definitely want to defend Film of thesea. But it seems I am the only person, so how should the game carry on?

8

PARK:

But the question is we still have 6 films. We can give 1 or 2 films for the grand prize.
For special mention, I think not more than 2 because otherwise it’s too much. So
maximum it’s 4.

Which film do you think should get the grand prize?

LAI:

Not Go to School. Maybe not the Film of the sea. Maybe not The Soliloquist.

PARK:

We should vote for a grand prize, we could eliminate Fading because it has only
one vote. That means Family Script and 4 Kilometers is left.

LAI:

Do you want to give 2 grand awards?

PARK:

Not necessary.

LAI:

I want to encourage the filmmaker of Family Script but then I want to encourage
everyone.

PARK:

I would like to give special mention to Go to School. You’ve already given and so
did LOU Ye.

LAI:It depends. For example, if the grand prize goes to 4 Kilometers, I would want the
special mention to be something not so much telling a proper story. But if the grandprize goes to Family Script, then I don’t mind having a story film to perceive thespecial mention. How are we cooperating with LOU Ye’s? How are we going toweight LOU Ye’s choice? It seems it’s up to us. We are likely to end up with 4
Kilometers and Family Script as the grand prize. I do want to encourage
something more special. Let me make up my mind. I will go for an unusual one andvote for Family Script.

PARK:

How about 4 Kilometers? For special mention or not?

LAI:

Yes, keep it on the list. I like that work a lot. Well, my bias is if I have a choice and I
am blind, I always go for something more experimental. That’s not bad of course.
Based on our discussion, these films still last in the list and they are not bad to be
removed. But I shocked myself too. I never thought of including Family Script as
the final winner.

9PARK:

It's not a compromise. It’s always an agreement. You want to vote up what you want.
Actually this is the smallest jury panel I joined, usually more than 5. You say what
you like and what you don’t like but at the end you’ve to agree with others. It’s allabout agreement. I don’t agree to give the grand prize to Go to School. I totallyagree if we give it the grand prize, it’s a safe choice. I am not against giving a special
mention to Family Script but against giving it the grand prize. As I said, it’s not reallynew. She could be more dared with the spilt windows and find a new way to use thismethod. I always said no grand prize to Fading but I am ok with special mention. I
didn’t choose Film of the sea. If I have to choose between 4 Kilometers and The
Soliloquist, I will choose 4 Kilometers because it would have been more difficult to
make.

IFVA:

Can we say 4 Kilometers is the grand award?

LAI:

I have no reservation for 4 Kilometers.

IFVA:

How about the special mention?

LAI:

Then I would like to choose something more off the beat. So I pick up The
Soliloquist, Fading, and Film of the sea.

PARK:

The problem is Yet in Exile-“Family Script” is picked up by LOU Ye. I agree The
Soliloquist and Fading.

IFVA:

As I said, the final say is between you two. So the result for this year is 4
Kilometers is the grand award. The Soliloquist and Fading are special mention.

Comments by LOU Ye:

The Soliloquist
The film abounds in an inherent emotion towards life, towards human being and towards toeverything that surrounds him. From his soliloquies reveals apperceptions on human being
and life. Perceptual, mild, calm yet relaxing.

Film of the sea
This is a very beautiful visual poem. The visual transitions are excellent and very beautiful. The
composition of images is complicated and diversified. The changes of the shape of screen isvery good. The excise of point-line-plane-cube and time is very successful. The projector is10kind of interfering.

4 Kilometers
Some details in this film are very impressive, the reading Hulud, the worms in the book,schoolbags and the walking.

This documentary itself reveals quite a few unexpected special

sights. Details of life themselves are for ever fascinating, especially those details and people
that have been neglected.

THE OLD FOOL WHO MOVED THE MOUNTAINSThe clue of the interviews with the Old Fool and Gouzi is well-done. Hope to see more on thisclue, however, the clues of "the old man" and "the kid" interfere with our watching. Even though
he clearly expresses a viewpoint of the author,

many details of the Old Fool and Gouzi, whichhave been documented in this film, are much more interesting and valuable than the author's
pov, for instance, the mother's comments on her kid, the chatting of the guys on the rooftop,
the demolishing itself, the ending and etc.

The Dream of Cortazar
Interesting. It constitutes an inter-narrative story which reproduces a saying that as you aretelling a story, the story is telling something about you at the same time. The film successfully
establishes and manages the connection between reality and the story.

TrembleVery creative. The split of images and trembling VFX achieve very good result. But the film islack in efforts and considerations of the strong and powerful visual effects that it has gained
already.

Go to School
Fluent in narration. The unadorned documentation involves fun, humour, suspense andtension and it shows clearly the conditions and dilemma of the characters.

An ordinary

morning, an ordinary car, three ordinary characters, the crossroad and the lonely people who
are waiting to be rescued in the broken-down car at the crossroad and etc., all of theseeffectively comprise this film and as well comprise our living conditions of today.

Yet in Exile - ''Family Script''
The film shows us that the meaning of images lies in the behaviour of passing-on the images.
Here, to those who are in the images, the images are more important and more significant thanthose watching the images. This is the most outstanding aspect of this film.

11

Fading
Excellent exhibition and organization of spaces, very good documentary passages of
conversation.

Almost fascinating but profound background story. However, subtitles alone

would never be able to convey the profound meaning of them. The shot at the end is very good.
Very impressive.

Disconnection
Loneliness. The opening shot is very beautiful. The abstract human conditions makes this film
almost a science fiction on individual's life in the future.

It conveys the possible feature foreveryone of us.

Asian New Force Category
Grand Prize
4 Kilometers
Shapiro MIRI

Special Mention
FadingKo-shang SHEN

Special Mention
The Soliloquist
Kuang-pei MA

12