thThe 11 ifva Asian New Force Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Zhang Xianmin (ZHANG), Apichatpong Weerasethakul (WEERASETHAKUL),
Gary Mak (MAK)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Chelsea Man (MAN)KWONG:We have ten finalists this year. About the prizes, there will be only one
Grand Prize and one Special Mention for this category. But it is feasible:
maybe you think there is no work qualified for the Grand Prize, or we may
have more than one Special Mention, etc.

MAK:

So how to begin?

WEERASETHAKUL: It’s hard to judge.

MAK.

Yeah, they’re from different genre: animation, drama, documentary… Shall
we just nominate some films or we talk about each of them first?

KWONG:

Prehaps you can consider to discuss the works one by one. Then to
nominate the award winners later on. There are two crucial factors wealways uphold. They are “creativity” and “independent spirit”.

My 747WEERASETHAKUL: I think the director knows his subject very well. The documentation of his
motorcycle is interesting in the sense that it turns out to be a
documentation of Taiwan’s city-life. For me, it’s emotional though.

ZHANG:

It’s a kind of an extension of his own body, not only the camera but also his
scooter. It’s very funny to me. But I don’t know if it has great impact on the
Taiwan audience.

MAK:

It’s pretty well-made.

There’re not much technical problem.

I like thefeeling that it’s his own “Dear Diary”. And I think it’s interesting to talkabout motor-cycles because in Taiwan it’s very phenomenal to use
scooters. But to me, it’s not exciting enough, no matter visually or in theterm of content. It’s a nice work but not adventurous. It could not stimulate
me to think more about the character or the Taiwan society.

ZHANG:In this film, the images and the editing are the most important ways of
expression. I think the director is shy to express in other ways.

The Chamber
MAK:

Again, it’s very well-made.

You can experience the progress and thechanges going on throughout the film. Visually it’s interesting because it
explores the different dimensions in animation. At first, it’s a box and thecharacters interact, and you think it is a three-dimensional space only,
which is exciting enough. But later you even found out it’s actually a twodimensional space! There are many layers in the film, surprises one after
the other. But it’s exactly the problem of the film. It’s very skilful but it’s allabout techniques.

ZHANG:

I like the film. It’s like a small piece that could be downloaded from theinternet to pass to friends for fun.

Technically, it’s the color problem.

Because in the screening, I could not judge it’s in black and white or not. It
seems monochrome but a little brown. I got a feeling that the work is notfor a film-screening but a piece for the internet.

MAK:

I think it takes a lot of time to make. It’s very complicated.

WEERASETHAKUL: For me, it’s different from other works.

You can see that it’s quite

anonymous. I mean it can come from Russia or wherever. You don’t see
the filmmaker. But it’s the characteristic of this kind of work. You don’tknow the nationality but only the idea of the film.

MAK:

It’s not human. It’s dry. It’s only a concept of how to create surprises. It
lacks the human side.

12
MAK:

Why is called “12” (twelve)? In the opening shot, when it shows 1, 2 on thewindow…

WEERASETHAKUL: Yes, on the frame of the window.

MAK:

So does it mean “one, two” or “twelve”? Because 1 and 2 are separate.

KWONG:Is there any special meaning for “12” in Thai? The running time of the film
is 12 minutes. I don’t know if it’s coincident or not.

ZGHANG:

It’s a typical work, like an installation work. The work has a lot of ideas andthe director has spent a lot of time on shooting and the effects.

WEERASETHAKUL: It’s like The Chamber. It’s tricky. It is only a bunch of ideas. Its world is so
closed; it has no contact with the outside world.

MAK:

For the first time I saw it, it’s quite cute about a little girl and the reflectionof her routine city-life. But when I saw it again last night, I found it a bit too
long, too dragged.

There are two parts in the film.

In the first part,everything’s spinning around her. And the second part is more or less thesame, and it seems repetitive.

WEERASETHAKUL: I found the problem is not in the length, but in the voice-over. At certain
points, I think the voice-over could work better. Because the visual is verystrong and you understand the way he’s playing with the color. So thevoice-over turns out to be too instructional. And also it’s too stylish for me,
like a commercial. Props like the television set and the telephone are notcontemporary and they look like things from a film set. It is not very frankin this sense.

Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?
MAK:

Is the text adapted from a book?

WEERASETHAKUL: Yes, it is from a short story by Tornorn Sukpreecha. But he changed it insome ways. It’s hard for me, because I know the director very well. I know
the story and his history. He had a crush with a boy and the name “ShiwPing” always appears in the film. For almost all of his works, he makes for“Shiw Ping”.

MAK:

For me, the most striking part of the film is the text. The story itself isinteresting and poetic. The text is lyrical. This is the best part. But when it
comes to the images, especially in the beginning and towards the end,
they are quite sudden. There is a guy traveling in a foreign country – it

looks a bit odd because the main part of the film is about the images of theboys. It’s better to focus on the images of the boys.
WEERASETHAKUL: I think the opposite. That’s the strong point of the film. At certain point, you
see the film is kind of disintegrated. It is quite heartbreaking for me to seethat the guy is trying to gather information through images and so go toanother country. His frustration, his feeling of being lost, and his trying to
make sense of, actually match the story – it is about a broken robot thatneeds love. It talks about the machine and how he sees the world as afilmmaker and as a creator. It also talks about our desires. It’s sad to see a
guy who wishes to touch but he could not, because robots are not humanand they are controlled.

ZHANG:

When I see the film, I got an expression that it’s a very personal poetry. It
will only be a complete work if he makes 12 or 15 more pieces in one or
two years with the same mood. The work looks like a piece of a bigger
work.

MAK:

I think he needs something to round up the film. It needs a bit more time topolish the film. The idea is very good but it’s not very well-executed.

WEERASETHAKUL: Like My 747, it’s complete. But as you said, it’s too complete.

MAK:

I don’t mean the story is not complete. I am fine with a story with an open
end which leaves the audience to think over. What I mean is the technicalpart. Towards the end, I feel it could be better, like the sound. That’s why I
discuss it in terms of the text and the images. The text is well-done, andhas expressed what the director wants to say. But visually, I just feel it canbe more polished.

ZHANG:

I don’t think he has to complete the film. He should go to the next one.
The next several films he makes or he will make may change himself. Asa filmmaker, he may jump to another stage and he will do other things. It’svery important, because he’s building himself by these films. Like My 747,
it’s not about the film. It’s about his future.

WEERASETHAKUL: I agree.

Is Am Are
ZHANG:

It is a strange academic work, with a bit of western sense. I don’t know if
the subtitles are well-done or not. I found the conversation of the middleaged guy on the bus is too much.

I like the performance of the girl.

Compared with the other two Thai shorts, 12 and Vous Vous Souviens
De Moi?, there are no performances of the actors. The actors are just kindof appearances; they’re not acting. But for Is Am Are, the director tries tomake the girl really act and I appreciate this.

MAK:

I think the film is quite creative. You could never expect what’s going on.
Not only in terms of the storyline, but also in terms of visual images. It’s
interesting. In the beginning, I thought it’s a ghost story. It turns out to be
totally different from what I expected. Yes, I like it. I can only say there aresome redundant elements in the film and it’s not concise enough. The
story is about “Are you happy?”, “What’s going on with your life?”, “What’s
your future?”, etc. “You have to realize yourself and make a move” – thatare the messages I got from the film. I think the message can be more
precisely done. The narrative could also go more smoothly and directly.

WEERASETHAKUL: I think it’s too long. You got the point already. And as a Thai, the dialogue
is very stiff, just like you have mentioned.

That’s its weak point. The

acting is so-so. I only like the way that it gives you a sense of where you’regoing.

ZHANG:

Visually, the images are strong. The suspense is good. But all I see is:the director is only a good student; unlike the way I feel for the director ofVous Vous Souviens De Moi?, whose demonstrates his potential and I
believe he’s going to be a good artist.

MAK:

There are altogether three Thai works in the finalists’ list. They are all
creative.

ZHANG:Yes.

MAK:

They’re very interesting, in terms of techniques and concepts.

Seoul Tower
ZHANG:

You can expect that this director could make a long fiction film.

MAK:

The director is totally capable of narrative feature.

ZHANG:A typical Korean style for young people. The portrayal is quite aconventional one. Perhaps it’s the most conventional film amongst the
finalists.

WEERASETHAKUL: I think it’s a nice film. But it could be a book or a short story. It doesn’tshow to me why it has to be made into a film. I can get the same feeling byreading.

MAK:

I think the film is nicely done. There’re no particular problems. But it’s tooconventional, in form. But the scene in subway is interesting.

WEERASETHAKUL: The film is finished when the script’s finished. But for some other films,
when the script is finished, the film can be more adventurous.

Mom
WEERASETHAKUL: For me, it’s a very different work from the others. As a filmmaker, it’s very
professional. So, it’s hard to judge. Again, it’s different from Seoul Tower.
As you can see, although there is a structure, he’s working in another way.

MAK:

I think the Mom character is wonderful, no matter she’s acting or just being
herself. She captures every screen, whenever she appears. She gets all
the attention of the audience. But this is also the problem. Though the film
is called “Mom”, it’s more about her relationship with the son. And it’s about
their chemistry. But the Mom performs like an actress. She’s too good andshe steals everything from the film. I think as a Chinese, I can identify withthe part between the son and the mom. In Chinese family, mom often
behaves like this. And he chose to shoot the film in a kind of documentarystyle. It’s quite clever and gives me a sense between fiction anddocumentary, though this kind of form is not new.

ZHANG:

I don’t like it very much.

The film may be made in a mixed form of

documentary and fiction. But the narrative is too weak. After all, I only gotsome characters and a strong person. I didn’t get the story. Yeah, maybe
the director is not going to tell a story. It’s only a record of life and it didn’t
bring you to the point of why he’s using both documentary and fictional
style.

The Ear
ZHANG:Is this director forty years old?

KWONG:Yes.

ZHANG:

His age is important in this case because his film is talking about memories
of war.

WEERASETHAKUL: I like the idea but the execution is too good, especially the music. I think
the story is very personal and very nice. But sometimes the image and thesound may stand out too much.

MAK:

It looks like a big production film, with lots of money and experienced staff.
I think it’s the most accomplished film among the ten. It’s so skilful; every
frame is just like a commercial. It’s so nicely done, including the lighting –while the others don’t even pay attention to the lighting at all. There’s
nothing I can say against The Ear, because it’s so nicely done technically.
I also found its idea interesting. Even though most of the scenes are set in
the contemporary world, it’s very historical and surrealistic at the sametime. I also found his way of talking about memory is very interesting andcreative. There’s only one little problem for me. Everything is put together
artificially, you can see the skill there but it lacks a kind of human touch,even though it talks about the human.

WEERASETHAKUL: It’s very sophisticated.

Innocent LifeZHANG:

I don’t know how to see it.

WEERASETHAKUL: I like the visual very much. It’s computer generated. It’s bold in some sense.
You can also feel the dynamics in the beginning – the factory life, etc. But
when the story begins, I feel detached to the film. The filmmaker seems toforce us to a story. The guy suddenly dies and it loses a sense of mysterythat he’s building in the beginning.

MAK:

the images are very well-done. I just found the editing too fast and rather
messy. You didn’t realize what’s going on and he just cuts to the next
scene. There should be more linkages between the frames. I think it
develops too quickly.

WEERASETHAKUL: I like the drawing and the contrast, very much.

MAK:

Yes, the animation is very good, the drawing and the computer generated
images.

WEERASETHAKUL: But it seems to me that the filmmaker could not find a good ending for thefilm.

The Snow Still Remains After WinterWEERASETHAKUL: I don’t get the sense of the story because the guy spent many years of hislife for the song collection but I don’t see this aspect in the film. I only saw
people talking to the camera and the landscape. We don’t see the action
and how they feel into the characters and his struggles. There are only
people keep talking and it’s a very typical work.

KWONG:Is it like a TV documentary?

WEERASETHAKUL: Yes. I don’t see there’s any innovation.

ZHANG:

I would say a lot of people try to do these kinds of films. Like Betty Lee
from Hong Kong, whom I met here last year, did the same kind of peopleon Yao people. The film is called “Yao Mountain”. It’s about young people
who learn Yao songs from the older generation so they can speak theirown dialect and pass the folk culture on.

There are also similar

documentaries in different provinces, like Yunan. I think the problem is thesame for most of these films - they are all “made-up”.

Like in “YaoMountain”, it is the filmmaker who tells them to sing or not. There areseveral sequences which are actually directed by the filmmaker. That’s thequestion. . It’s a documentary but they told people to do something. Wecan see the same problem in The Snow Still Remains After Winter too.
It’s not only in the interviews but also in some other scenes. There’s only
point I would support this film among the ten works. It is that all other films
are very personal and this one is the only film which is very engaged in thesociety and is open to others. I got the expression that all the other ninefilms are trying to close their doors. They are in their bedrooms and aretrying to find their own self. But this film is the only one which is trying toopen to its culture and its society.

KWONG:

Do you mean the film has a social context?

ZHANG:

Yes. It’s a social movie; all the others are personal ones.

MAK:

I think the film is culturally significant.

It’s about the heritage of the

traditional songs. In this sense, it’s important.

But there are someinconsistencies in the style of the film. In some way, it tries to be Hou
Hsiao-hsien – it tries to be distant, with a wide shot showing people sitting
and talking.

The camera captures and observes from a distance. But

sometimes, he does the closes up and people are talking in a very
sensational way.

This kind of shooting is totally different and actually

against the style of those Hou Hsiao-hsien-like scenes. So, I think,aesthetically it’s not consistent. The form is a bit conventional as well.

ZHANG:

It’s too sentimental and there’re too much tear.

MAK:

The subtitles are not clear enough. I found it difficult to follow.

ZHANG:

It’s a bit like a TV work.

MAK:

It’s something between a film and a TV work. In some scenes, it’s trying to
be a film; but in some scenes, it looks like a TV work.

ZHANG:

Yes, in term of cinematography, some scenes do look like Hou Hsiao-hsien.
But the narrative and the interviews are so sensational and sentimental…

KWONG:

Shall we now go to the nomination?

WEERASETHAKUL:I would say My 747 and Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?.

ZHANG:My 747, Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?, The Chamber and The Snow
Still Remains After Winter.

WEERASETHAKUL: I would say Mom and The Chamber as well.

MAK:

I would go for The Ear.

KWONG:

Shall we cross out the following works first? 12, Is Am Are, Seoul Tower
and Innocent Life. So, we have six works now.

MAK:

The competition is more for the creativity. So, shall we examine upon theircreativity in this second round?

WEERASETHAKUL: Yes. I think the award is to make people to know these filmmakers andencourage them to continue to work. In such respect, how shall we treat
The Ear?

MAK:Yes, he’s already established and skilful. Everything is sophisticated andpolished.

WEERASETHAKUL: Yeah…even though some of the works are not as sophisticated as The
Ear, we see the potential; we see the future of the director. For Mom,
there’s something that I can see he’s a good filmmaker. I think his future isgood, but then the work is not so adventurous. The Ear is well-made andvery personal. But I doubt if it’s the personal of the filmmaker. Because
you see there’re so many films in Japan that do about memories and go
back to the war again. It seems kind of cliché.

MAK:

If we only look for a film, I would go for The Ear. But if we consider thecontext of this competition, we then have to think if that particular
filmmaker has the potential. We should not take so much attention about
the techniques because they’re still very young directors. It’s unfair tocompare them with the experienced filmmakers. I also consider the point ofcreativity. For me, The Chamber and The Innocent Life are quite similar.

They are both very well made animations. But again, they are not personal;
they are only a demonstration of skills.

WEERASETHAKUL: I think The Chamber and The Ear are the same for me. But if I have tochoose, I’ll choose The Chamber. Both of them are impersonal. The Ear,for me, is not at all personal. It’s manufactured, like a representation ofsomething that’s already there. It’s the same with The Chamber. But I likethe humor, the preciseness and the execution.

ZHANG:

Anyway, I suggest we have to consider the creativity, artistic achievements
and innovative use of media in the second round. The filmmakers also
have to show their own personal ideas in the works.

WEERASETHAKUL: Why do you choose The Snow Still Remains After Winter?

ZHANG:

I met too many young people against this kind of social context. They tend
to be self-indulgent, like living with the computer only. The Snow Still
Remains After Winter seems to be the only one which opens to the outerworld and other people. It’s easier for us to share the subject matter. But
its weakness is that it’s too easy to share and is made like a TV approach.
I would say, among all of them, the most personal one is Vous Vous
Souviens De Moi?. But the most narcissistic is My 747.

WEERASETHAKUL: No, I think My 747 told a lot about how people live in Taipei. It’s very rarethat you can see on TV a programme about someone’s motor-cycle shotby his own video camera. It’s about individual, about expression.

For

example, in the past, you see a lot of documentaries about important
people or elite people but you don’t see the voice of individuals and video
cameras are not allowed. You can imagine, if hundred years ago a regularfarmer had a video camera and filmed their life from their subjective pointof view, it’ll be very interesting.

MAK:

I don’t mind if the film is personal or social, because in other aspects, they
may show their creativity and the potential of the director. Basically, they’refrom different genre.

It’s very difficult to compare animation with

documentary, for example. So, I would rather look into the context of theaward.

Why are we here? I believe we’re looking for creativity andpotential?

ZHANG:

If we have one Grand Prize and one Special Mention, should they comefrom different regions?

WEERASETHAKUL: I like My 747 a lot. It’s cute. Usually, I’m quite against the cuteness. You
can see his passion from the video camera and he manifests himself into
this film. He has used the camera for a long time and now it’s kind ofsummary.

KWONG:May I suggest that each of you nominates a work for the Grand Prize andgives the reason behind?

WEERASETHAKUL: I did. My 747.

ZHANG:

I could not decide between My 747 and The Chamber. But if there’s only
one Grand Prize, I’ll go for My 747 and I’ll have The Chamber for Special
Mention.

WEERASETHAKUL: I will choose Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? for Special Mention.

MAK:

For Speical Mention, I would go for Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? as well.
It’s raw but it’s bold and courageous. For the Grand Prize, I’ll go for My
747.

WEERASETHAKUL: How come?

MAK:

My thought would be like this. If I only go for the film itself, I’ll go for The
Ear. But consider that it’s for the ifva award, it has many considerations
like creativity and potential. I agree with Joe about the director of The Ear.
That is to say, no matter how many awards we gave them, he can still bethat polished and sophisticated in terms of filmmaking. We don’t need togive him another award because he’s already in the scene. I think that’strue and it’s the point. For the rest of the other works, like Vous Vous
Souviens De Moi?, I think it is not up to that Grand-Prize level. For Mom
and The Snow Still Remains After Winter, they are not worth for theGrand Prize. For The Chamber, yeah, it’s good but it lacks the humantouch. So, that’s how I come to the conclusion that My 747 is my choice of
the Grand Prize.
WEERASETHAKUL: If one more Special Mention is allowed, I’ll say The Chamber as well.

KWONG:So shall we conclude that the Grand Prize for this year is My 747? Is there
any objection? (note: No objection from the Jury)

KWONG:

So do we have two Special Mentions, one is Vous Vous Souviens De
Moi? and one is The Chamber?

WEERASETHAKUL: I don’t know. I just propose. If there’s only one Special Mention, I’ll say
Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?.

ZHANG:May I say that both My 747 and Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? are very
spontaneous films? The Chamber is another kind of short movies. It has a
lot of preparations and planning. But if we talk about potential, I am surethe directors of My 747 and Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? would
continue to make good movies.

I am not sure if the director of The

Chamber would continue or not. His work is typical among the cyberteenagers.

MAK:

Shall we also consider The Ear?

WEERASETHAKUL: Is it made for himself or…?

MAN:

It’s his first short film.

ZHANG:

He said this is his first personal short film.

WEERASETHAKUL: I would like to watch The Ear again, if time allows…

MAK:

I would like to see The Chamber again.

WEERASETHAKUL: The Ear looks like a TV to me, and that’s why I don’t see it as a personal
work.

MAK:

Yes, very high quality.

WEERASETHAKUL: Mom is very professional. Is it made in the Studio?

ZHANG:The students at the Beijing Film Academy are very professional. I don’tmean they always make good films but at the time they graduate, they areusually very professional in technical sense.

MAK:

Yes, the cinematography is good. The “Mom” character plays very well.
The mother-and-son relationship is interesting too. I just think it’s notcreative enough and I have seen this kind of pattern many times.

(The Jury is watching The Ear.)ZHANG:

I think both The Ear and The Chamber are technically well-done. So, I’ll
go for only either one of them. Technically, they’re more or less the same
to me.

MAK:

I think The Ear is better. I think it’s still worth for the Grand Prize.

WEERASETHAKUL: The Ear is very… a film for the prize.

MAK:

Yes, the film itself is flawless.

ZHANG:

I think it’s a good film. But I totally agree with Weerasethakul that I got the
impression that most of the things we saw in The Ear have been seen insome other Japanese artists’ works.

(The Jury is watching My 747.)

ZHANG:

I think My 747 is using canned music. There are two English songs andI’m sure he doesn’t pay the rights for the music. The Ear is using original
music. I am not sure if The Chamber or Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?
are creating their own music or not.

WEERASETHAKUL: Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? is using the original music by a band thatthe director works with.

ZHANG:

So should we not only look for creativity in the image but also on thesoundtrack?

WEERASETHAKUL: Yeah.

ZHANG:

When I watched My 747 again, I feel the film is like a free breeze. The
editing is very natural.

You can see different places, the interiors, theexteriors, the moving, the still…
WEERASETHAKUL: I am thinking about the music in The Ear…

ZHANG:

It’s not very original, but at least it’s trying to do its own music. The music
is not only a background.

WEERASETHAKUL: Right.

(The Jury is watching The Chamber)

ZHANG:

What I mean the color problem in The Chamber is that I don’t know if thefilmmaker wants to have these colors or not. It seems to me that it’s not
the true color of the film. Is it technically ill, or only a result of multi-transfer?

WEERASETHAKUL: I think the color is kind of classics. I like it for the fact that it doesn’t use any
music which gives a sense of suspense.

MAK:

The Chamber is actually the one in the picture, in the jar, in the glass box?
So I think it’s just illogical. It’s kind of illusion of the inside and the outside.
There seems to have many layers and they’re all connected and go backto the same place. But it’s not logical, I think. But it’s interesting; it gives
you surprises.

KWONG:

So…Any of you has changed your mind?

MAK:

They are all good.

WEERASETHAKUL: My 747 looks better than on a bigger screen. The Ear, for me, is better on
small screen. That’s why I said it’s like TV.

MAK:

To me, all of them are good. So, shall we compromise on some principles,
the things what we’re look for the award and then look back to each workand see which one fits the principles. Should we proceed in this way?

WEERASETHAKUL: For me, we’re looking for the future of the filmmaker, his potential. Like
Zhang said, we can imagine he would make a film in the future andcontinue the path.

ZHANG:

Yes. I think the award is not only an encouragement to the filmmaker but
also an encouragement to other young filmmakers in the same culture.

WEERASETHAKUL: I think The Chamber is a good example of something that you just do by
yourself in a room.

It’s another kind of filmmaking. However, if The

Chamber is in the competition of animation, it would not stand out.

ZHANG:

I have two questions. Is My 747 still our choice for the Grand Prize? How
many Special Mention do we have this year?

MAK:

So Weerasethakul, will you still consider My 747 for the Grand Prize after
the second viewing or you now have other choice?

WEERASETHAKUL: I hesitate between The Ear and My 747. But again, I imagine The Ear isfor Hong Kong International Film Festival, not for an “Independent” film
festival.
MAK:

It seems not independent.

WEERASETHAKUL: Yeah… so I’ll save My 747 for the Grand Prize.

ZHANG:

Yes, it’s the same for me. After the second viewing, my choice is still My
747.

MAK:

OK. My 747.

ZHANG:How many Special Mention do we have this year?

WEERASETHAKUL: Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? and The Chamber.

ZHANG:

I would say if there’s only one Special Mention, it’ll be The Chamber. If
there’re two, they’ll be The Chamber and Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?.
If we have three, they’ll be The Chamber, Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?
and The Ear. The problem is The Ear is too professional. The reason I put
The Chamber as the first place for the Special Mention is that I think for
ifva, it’s not good to give the Grand Prize to two animated films. I prefer it’sa movie like Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? or My 747 to get the Grand
Prize. But again, The Chamber is still very impressive to me. When you
see The Ear, you imagine you need a crew of 8 to 15 people to do it. But
the director of The Chamber is alone. He did all technical works himself.
It’s a truly independent work and technically good. It’s human as well.

KWONG:I must say we’re very friendly to animation as well. ifva has no priority
towards genre or whatever.

ZHANG:So should we keep all three? Or do you prefer to make a choice among
them?

MAK:

Actually, I think there should only be one. It’d be Vous Vous Souviens De
Moi? because it’s courageous and it’s totally different from the rest of theothers.

KWONG:

Should we do the voting?

MAK:

Yeah… I think if The Ear doesn’t get the Grand Prize, then there’s no point
to have the Special Mention, because The Ear and My 747 are quite
similar in the sense they’re both fictional films. But Vous Vous Souviens
De Moi? is more experimental. So, I don’t mind if The Ear is not includedin the Special Mention. We don’t need to have three Special Mention. But
now I have reservation for The Chamber. I think it’s a bit dry.

WEERASETHAKUL: But I think it’s a good personal project.

MAK:

In the beginning, I thought there’s only one Grand Prize and one Special
Mention.

So, if we have My 747 for Grand Prize and Vous Vous

Souviens De Moi? for Special Mention, then it’ll be very clear for us, I
mean, for the jury as a whole. My 747 is a fictional film and it balancesbetween creativity and personal touch.

For Vous Vous Souviens De

Moi?, we encourage this kind of filmmaking.

It’s experimental. Even

though it has some flaws, we encourage it because it’s exploring somepossibilities of the image and the text. So as the jury, the direction is clear.
But if we include The Chamber, we’ll encourage the filmmaker, but…
maybe it’ll be confusing to others what kind of messages we are giving as
the jury. I don’t know. Of course, The Chamber is good and it deserves aSpecial Mention.

ZHANG:For me, My 747 and Vous Vous Souviens De Moi? are quite the same…

WEERASETHAKUL: The guy with a camera.

ZHANG:

I think if we only have My 747 and Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?, then
we’ll have a very strong aesthetic aspect.

WEERASETHAKUL: To be genuine, I think The Chamber should be included in this competition
because The Chamber is outstanding in this festival.

Asian New Force Category

Grand Prize
My 747
HOU Chi-jan (Taiwan)
Special Mention
My Chamber
YU Seock-hyun (South Korea)
Special Mention
Vous Vous Souviens De Moi?
THUNSKA Pansittivorakul (Thailand)