19th ifva Awards - Youth Category Jury Meeting Transcript
Jury members: Adam Wong Sau-ping (Wong), Adrian Chow (Chow), Heiward Mak (Mak),
Candace Chong (Chong), Ong Yi-hing (Ong)ifva representatives: Teresa Kwong (Kwong), Kattie Fan (Fan), Wa Choi (Choi)

Kwong:

thWelcome to the jury panel meeting for the 19 ifva Youth Category. The purpose of
today’s meeting is mainly to select award-winning works for the Youth Category.
ifva consists of four sections, and the competition is the one with which mostpeople are familiar with.

The Youth Category is open to Hong Kong residents aged 18 or younger. We place
no limitations on the form and content of the entrees, which qualify as long as they
are under 30 minutes in length. The aim of ifva is to discover shorts, animation andinteractive media works from Hong Kong and Asia. ifva is open to both Hong Kong
residents and people across Asia, and encourages cross cultural exchange. In
March each year, we organize the ifva Festival.

With regards to judging standards, we consider a work's content, creativity, form
and technique. We place great emphasis on independent spirit and creativity, which
are the main considerations for this competition.

This year, our awards consist of one Gold Award, the winner of which will receive
HK$20,000, a Silver Award, the winner of which will receive HK$10,000. There arealso three Special Mentions, the awarded works whose overall standard may not be
on par with Gold and Silver Award winners, but are nevertheless worthy of being
recognized. It is up to the jury panel to determine what aspects of the works
deserve recognition. Examples may be acting or screenplay, and we can discussthem later.

Now let’s move on and start discussing the work. The first one is Instagram.
There's one more point I'd like to add. By the closing date in late October last year,
we received 79 works in this category, from which the first round jury members
chose 10 finalist works.

Ong:

This work touches on a subject of interest to today's young people. The artists areinterested in this topic, and did not simply make it for the sake of this competition. I
have served as the juror for other competitions, and often people produce works
that serve a particular purpose or in fulfillment of certain standards. This work1chooses an easy-going topic and way of presentation. Even though the artists areunder the age of 18, I could easily picture it broadcasted on television. Theirtechnique and editing are outstanding. However, I wonder whether this work is atrue documentary, or does it merely imitate the design of documentaries. The firstfew minutes were ok, it was like a normal documentary, but as it went on, there
were more and more interference and control by the directors, like how they wanted
people to answer and how they edited it, etc., which made me wonder whether theartists were pretending to be fair and objective, but in fact already had apreconceived idea. If that was the case, I would question what the directors aretrying to express about the popular app Instagram. I am not so certain. Theyinterviewed many people, but what are they questioning or reflecting upon? Overall
this work is above average, but it did not really leave a deep impression with me.

Chong:

I agree that the work is easy on the eyes, and also what Ong said about thedirector's point of view and attitude. Because I don't play Instagram, I feelenlightened by the work, although it does not delve too deeply into the topic. Theirquestions are leading, and their choice of interview subjects and the kinds ofquestions they ask only serve to achieve a preconceived conclusion, which is a pity.
I feel they could have done better.

Ong:

With their editing, they only keep the things they want, and even edit out half asentence. If their interview subjects were really man-on-the-street and if their goal
was to entice older people into playing with Instagram, then they are very
successful. The two girls at the beginning of the film seem too contrived. They don'tseem to me like normal man-on-the-street, which made me question the directors’
motives.

Wong:

I think it's obvious that the directors intervened, so from the start, I did not judge itfrom the perspective of whether or not it is objective. The part that left the deepest
impression with me is the heart shaped stickers on the photos. If you are unfamiliar
with Instagram, I should explain. The hearts in Instagram represent "likes", and sothey transposed this symbol derived from Instagram into the film. I don't mind thefact that they intervened, only that they do not have much point. They only
presented Instagram in a superficial, disjointed, piecemeal manner. I don't thinkthey explored anything.

Mak:

I agree that the work does not draw any conclusions. Even for documentaries, there
is no problem in taking a stand on an issue, the problem is that they are not clear2

enough. I don't knot whether the directors are criticizing this topic or satirizing it.
When I wrote my comments for this work, I mentioned that they made an interesting
attempt to represent Instagram with live characters. When we do such things on theinternet, nobody feels strange, but when we do it in real life, it is ridiculous to acertain extent. Even if I don't know you, I can still "like" you this way. Some people
use Instagram because they want to attract attention. However, the artists did not
express this to any great extent. Even though they take a stand in this matter, theyshow only a limited side of things to the audience since most of the interviewees are
their friends.

Ong:

It does not show the attitude of older people or that of people who do not like
Instagram.

Mak:

They could have done so with additional interviews, or how people earn "likes" onsocial network. For a work in the Youth Category, this film is alright, and it is apleasant viewing experience, although they could have delved deeper.

Ong:

I agree with Heiward. It is a clever rather than creative work. This type of actualized
treatment of the virtual world is nothing new. Jan Lamb Hoi-fung did it in one of his
stand-up shows, so there is nothing groundbreaking in this film.

Chow:

I quite like this work. Reading their artist statement, they are not too ambitious.
They merely want to show the phenomenon of Instagram among the younger
generation, and emphasize how people buy “likes” and followers. They do notintend to draw grand conclusions, and their motives are simple. The film’s editing istight and nice to watch, as well as entertaining. From this point of view I like thiswork. As Heiward said, no matter if the work is fiction or non-fiction, it expresses theartist’s position, and it’s hard to be completely objective.

Kwong:

If you have nothing to add, let’s move on to the next work, Ex.

Ong:

I think this work tries too hard to be cool, even though putting it this way is a bit rude.
Also the Japanese titles are wrong. “Ex” in Japanese is not written this way. The
film’s stylized treatment gives it a feeling of coolness, but it’s just empty techniques,
like the grainy black and white footage. It tries to express young people’s attitude
towards love, but what does it say at the end? Why does it show the girlfriendinterviewing her former boyfriend, but it leads nowhere? I wonder what message
the film is trying to convey? Does the scene where the lead female character taking
3

a shower serves to please the audience? If you do not question the mistakes in theJapanese titles and credits, you cannot help but be impressed by the film’s
technique, yet there is no content. If we say that the maker of Instagram lacks an
identifiable stance, then Ex is even more so.

Chong:

However, parts of the film are really cool, like the section with the ex-boyfriend,which feels real and the character is likeable, and I enjoyed watching it. The visuals
are beautiful, even though the rest of the film does not surprise me.

Wong:

The gay character is also good. He shares his thoughts with sincerity andexpresses how he defines a relationship with honesty. They like speaking in
English, which expresses their speaking habits. I don’t have much to say about thiswork, except that I don’t like the Japanese titles.

Mak:

I also question his motives in using Japanese. Does he wish to reach a wider
audience, such as those who speak Japanese, or is he merely using Japanese as
decoration? Even if it is just decoration, it should at least be correct. I think it’salright to want to be cool; in the beginning of one’s artistic life one always tends toimitate. I am curious about the three cases presented. The one involving the girlbathing emphasizes her everyday life at home. I am fonder of the part with the gay
guy, which presents his experiences in a simple way. The part with the girl has
good technique, but it’s hard for to get into that world. It contains a lot of cool
techniques that allows you to enjoy its visuals and music. After watching the film, I
think what allowed the film to be including among the finalists is the part with theboyfriend because it is the most real. Even though there are technical problems
with that section, I don’t think it matters. It’s hard for me to say whether I like thiswork or not.

Chong:The part with the boyfriend is quite distinctive. The whole film is about love, but it is
only in this part that I feel the love.

Chow:

Watching it again, I do not have any new thoughts. I still think it is cool, thebackground music is good, and it looks real. However there is not much content. I
don’t have strong feelings about the boyfriend, except that he is cute.

Ong:

The director wasted a good topic. The term “ex” easily stirs people’s imaginationand experience, but she does not quite get to the heart of the matter. With this topic,
you need to have moving personal events or real experiences. There is nothing4new in this work, and it only showcased the director’s filming technique. It isremarkable that a person under the age of 18 can achieve this. However I expectedthat the film would reveal the younger generation’s breathtaking attitudes toward
love, which it failed to deliver in the end.

Chow:

The director’s statement is just one simple line: break-ups are ugly.

Ong:

I don’t see it in the work.

Mak:

The name of the film made me want to watch it, but the Japanese titles turned me
off.

Kwong:The next work is Kidnap.

Ong:

I gave this work quite high marks, not because of the actors or technique, but
because of its political symbolism. Independent films should have independent
spirit and the courage to speak out, and among the ten works, this one alone
achieves that. Instagram is only concerned with its own world, but even though thisfilm’s technique is green, it has something to say and tries to express it, but does
not do so in a didactic manner. Because of its independent spirit and concern forsociety, I gave it high marks.

Chong:

I don’t think the film works, and it is too obvious. The metaphor is not thatinteresting.

Wong:

I selected this work as one of the finalists. I don’t think it as a metaphor. It simply notforthcoming, leaving things unsaid and letting the audience figure it out forthemselves. That’s why I don’t think it quite reaches the level of a metaphor
because it does not have a larger meaning. It talks about the current situation ofHong Kong as being like a kidnap, but wants you to fill in the gaps.

Chow:

I like this work even though the metaphor is an obvious one. It uses a monologue
format to explore the tension between Hong Kong and China, and inspires theaudience to reflect upon the deeper questions surrounding Hong Kong’s current
political impasse. It is rare for secondary school students to have such vision. The
use of camera movements and voice-over, which add to the sense of tension anddrama, is especially noteworthy. When the lead character sings “I Dreamed aDream” at the end, it hit the Hong Kong dilemma right on the head, and makes me5feel sad. Actually the lead character is not very good, but I treasure this effort from agroup of Form 5 students. The use of a single actor is a bold move and quitelaudable.

Ong:

The work has courage and vision, but the dialogue is not good enough. There
should be more double entendres that make people think. Even though thetechnique is lacking, the filmmakers should be lauded for making this work rather
than a more palatable work like Instagram, which shows their passion for the
subject. Technique can be improved with practice, but their spirit deserves praise. I
highly recommend this work, for we should encourage young people to explore
subject matters that go beyond their own interests.

Mak:

It does not matter to me whether ifva entrees or others works explore politics or
personal issues. If they have chosen this angle, then I have to look at what stancethey take and what message they try to convey. At the end of the film, when hepoints a gun to his own head, the message is very clear. In the process, we can see
what messages young people are exposed to and what education they hadreceived, and how they view Hong Kong-China relationship. I am surprised thatthey touched on this topic. I believe that many more young people go on the streets
to protest rather than make a video. It is bold of them to choose a monologue
format. The film looks better on the big screen than on DVD. This is my feeling.

Kwong:The next work is 6.

Wong:

I had a hand in selecting this work, and at the time I did not know that it is the same
director as Ex, although I knew that the same person directed Hole. It is easy to be
attracted by such a handsome looking work. It has a different aesthetic compared toother works. It does not try to tell a straight-forward story, but only tries to convey a
feeling, which is laudable, even though the standard is not too high. It chooses a not
too difficult approach, but scored highly. There is not much to fault with this work. 6,
as its name suggests, is concerned with short term memory.

Chong:

At first I did not know the artist’s intention, and wondered whether there wassomething wrong with the projection. Watching it the second time was better than
the first. I can find no flaws with it. It is an interesting work.

Mak:

The work differs from the artist statement. The text is richer than the work itself.

6

Chow:

I feel that the film fails to deliver what is written in the statement.

Mak:

The artist says, “Goldfish’s memory only lasts for a few seconds, but human canremember for a lifetime. Sometimes, people’s actions towards me are like rape. I
have never thought that people are capable of destroying another person’s fateutterly. But my dear, with your super-human abilities, you can do so much.” If one
looks at the work on its own, it manages to showcase the artist’s abilities well, andachieves what a short is supposed to. It is rough around the edges, and is not adifficult film to shoot. The music and editing are good, but it is hard to get from thework what the artist statement says. However, I think that this does not really matter,as long as the work conveys a certain atmosphere. It does not need to tell a story or
be a documentary. This work lacks novelty; it merely presents what all of us musthave done when we were young in a romantic way.

Ong:

If the film’s title is 6, and I forget it as soon as it’s over, does that mean it’s asuccess, or the opposite? You mentioned that its technique is fine. I think including
it among the finalist is already sufficient encouragement for this kind of work.

Chong:

There are some interesting things in this work, like the part about goldfish memory
only lasting 6 seconds, the dress and rape. The juxtaposition of these elements isinteresting.

Kwong:The next work is Yao Dao Police Call.

Mak:

A very good work. Is Yao Dao their school?

Chow:

Yes, this school submitted a series of works, but this one is different from the rest.

Chong:

What are the rest of them about?

Wong:

One of them is about first aid. This work also serves a topic. It’s about campus
bullying.

Ong:

When you say the work is good, what’s so good about it? I don’t really get it.

Wong:

The filmic technique is excellent. The filmmaker has a good grasp on film language
and his instincts are sharp.

7

Ong:

As a work that talks about campus bullying, shouldn’t they try to warn people
against bullying?

Mak:

The good thing about this work is that it does not serve the topic. Even though it is aschool project, they enjoy the process and are really into making it. Usually forthese kinds of projects, the actors would be unconvincing and even laugh during ascene, but in this work, all the actors play their parts well.

Wong:

The actors are great. I think that’s on account of the director, who knows how tocommunicate using body language. I think this young director’s grasp of film
language is remarkable.

Mak:

The chase scene on the bridge is great!

Chow:

I agree that the editing and camera angles are very good. I also paid attention themusic and dialogue recording. Even though there are some rough patches, they aresmooth on the whole. The actors are also fine. Instead of giving clichéd advice on
how to deal with campus bullying, they also show that aside from the bully and thebullied, there are other bystanders that made the act of bullying possible.
Compared with the other works from the school, I like this one the best, because it
is better than all of them by far.

Wong:

The other films may have been directed by the same person because the technique
is similar, but this one is more ambitious. The four characters work well dramatically,
with one person standing by and smirking while another two do the bullying, andone of the bullies is kinder than the other.

Chow:

The dramatic progression is also good.

Wong:

However the work does not explore any real issues. The director merely takes theopportunity to make a good drama using fluent film language. For the competition,
they could have left out the text at the end.

Mak:

Or they could have chosen a better font.

Wong:

Perhaps the director thought that it was not what he wanted to say anyway, so hedidn’t care. I look forward to seeing what this director can come up with next if he
did not have to follow a fixed theme. A few years ago there was another work that8

won the Gold Award called Where. It dealt with the pressures of exams, and wasfilmed like a ghost film. The entire film had no dialogue. I even invited the director togive a talk to my students. His previous works were also funny.

Kwong:The next work is Hole.

Mak:

It is clear that the director has certain views about herself and sex. However she
seems to be under some unseen constraint, and could have gone further.

Ong:

A participant in previous year called Wong Choi-fung used her own pregnancy as
the topic of her work, in which she touched her own body and did other things thatwas more daring. By contrast, this film’s exploration of sex is relatively more clean
and palatable. Making films on a taboo topic but using such a tame way ofpresentation makes this work unremarkable. There is some display of technique,but there is little else the audience can get.

Kwong:

If there is nothing else to add, we’ll move on to I am not a Superhero.

Ong:

The director must be very familiar with superhero films to be able to display such agood grasp of camera angles and timing. I like its humor, like the scene with thethieves in the parking lot. Played by amateurs, the scene is better played than manyfilms with professional actors. The ending brings out the message that there is morethan one superhero in the world, which is brilliant and gives the audience food forthought. It exceeds the level of most TV soaps. This way of expression is
unconventional, albeit a bit didactic, but one can see that the director had reflected
upon this topic. That's why I gave this film very high mark.

Chow:

I really like this film, and wrote the comments for it. I said its photography, editing,action scenes, CGI and sound effect are all excellent. Superhero films can be veryclichéd, but this work blurs the line between good and evil. I particularly like thedrug dealer character, which shows that evil and poverty are not character failings
but have to do with the social structure, and it is interesting that he could show thison film. In the end, the film brings out the empowering message that everyone canbe a superhero. This director also made a film last year featuring the same leadcharacter, which was a sci-fi story about an assassin who works for a certain
association. The story was unconvincing because the lead character looked too
slim and weak to be an assassin. That film had an old guy who was sent by theorganization to take care of the main character, but was in fact spying on him.
9

However, the actor playing the old guy was actually not too old. This film employedsimilar technique as the director's previous work, but it is a great deal moreconvincing. That's why I feel he has really improved.

Wong:

Compared to the previous film, this one has a more definite theme, and among thefinalists works, it is the most sincere and has something substantial to say, which
the director expresses through the superhero genre. I don't agree that this film ismore convincing, because I find it equally unbelievable.

Chow:

I'm saying that even though it is a fantasy film, it is comparatively more credible.

Wong:

If he wants to improve, he should watch more cult films and try to learn from it,
rather than big-budget films, since he could never achieve that kind of realism.
That’s why he should strive for being alternative. For example, the drug dealer old
guy is miscast because he’s not really that old, nor does he look like a heroin dealer.
If he had employed a more over-the-top approach, the work would be more fun towatch.

Chong:

That’s why the robbery scene in which the young people wear masks is moreconvincing.

Mak:

Among all the works, I like this one the best. I think the director has heart, his
execution and direction have been well thought out. I look forward to seeing him
make an even better film next year.

Wong:

Perhaps he would enter the film industry sooner, because this director has really
good film sense.

Chong:

I think the lead character is the director.

Wong:

His image matches the film he makes. I remember last year, some jurors remarked
that he was like a kid trying to be a hero.

Ong:

There’s nothing wrong with that. In Japanese comics, heroes are always kids under
the age of 18.

Kwong:The next work is Light War.

10

Ong:

The product placement is too long!

Mak:

The good thing about this work is that they have fun doing it. If not, they would nothave gone to so much trouble. A lot of similar works are shoddily made.

Chow:

I like this work because it made ETV seem fun, so it deserves encouragement.

Mak:

What year are they in?

Kwong:

Form 1.

Chong:

When I first watched this, I wondered if the other jurors played a joke on me. But inthe end, I understood why they chose this work. It does deserve encouragement.

Kwong:The next work is Dead End.

Wong:

The work is complete, but clichéd.

Ong:

As an independent short, it does not offer anything new.

Chow:

However the artist statement is quite something, and says that it uses Tarantino’s
films to express herself. Two points touched me, one is good and one is bad. The
first is that the lead character speaks English with a native accent, but his motherspeaks Mandarin, which I don’t understand. The good point is that the part where
he hangs himself sent shivers up my spine.

Wong:

But you could have expected that from the start.

Kwong:The last work is Journey of Headwind.

Chong:A pretty looking film, and the lead character is very good.

Wong:

It is hard not to include it among the finalists, but the story is too fake and did not
move me. However it is clear that the directors spent a great deal of effort in making
it, and it is a tidy looking work.

Ong:

The making-of is better than the actual film. The MV style editing and original musicin the end deserve extra points. However, the story is too soap opera-like. Young
11people should have done a better job making films about young people, but thedirectors chose a not very novel way to do it.

Chong:The story is very predictable.

Chow:

I like the MV part at the end, which reiterates the story. The editing and music isgood. However, the work is less impressive on the big screen than on DVD.

Ong:

Speaking of deafness, there was a Taiwan film called Here Me, starring Eddie Peng
and Chen Yan-xi, which was quite fresh. By contrast, Journey of Headwind does
not tell us what difference wearing a hearing aid makes to the character’s daily lifeand how it affected her singing, etc. The audience does not know what difficulties
she faces.

Mak:

People have misconceptions about young people. Actually it depends on what they
absorb as they grow up. They want to make films about their own kind, but theresults depend on what they want to emulate. Obviously the filmmakers are
influenced by Korean, Japanese and even TVB soap operas, which is something
we should reflect upon.

Chow:

However, sometimes what they absorb and what comes out can be different things.

Mak:

This work is beautifully shot, but the friendship between the protagonists is a bit
fake. The music is good, but it made me more aware of how melodramatic the film
is. The film's execution is good, but it fails to move me.

Wong:

This is an interesting phenomenon. Some works better than this one in terms ofexecution, but we do not include them among the finalists, while this work, which isclearly influenced by other works that came before, made it to the final round.

Chow:

Deep down, we like works that are not too well-polished. If it is too much like a TVB
drama, we don't let them in. Even though this work is influenced by TVB, it also hassome rough edges.

Kwong:

Having discussed all ten finalist works, we can now nominate the Gold Award. Or
you can each choose 5 works that you think deserve prizes, and then we can pick
the award winners from among them.

12

Mak:

I already have an idea.

Kwong:

Then we can nominate the Gold Award winner directly.

Ong:

I vote for I am not a Superhero.

Chow, Mak, Chong: Me too.

Kwong:

Are there other nominations for Gold Award besides this one?

Wong:

Yao Dao Police Call.

Kwong:

You can now discuss why you think the work you chose deserve the Gold Award.

Ong:

I think it is quite difficult for a director under the age of 18 to make a film with limited
recourses that has few major flaws. I appreciate that he has reflected upon the
superhero film genre and made a work that is relevant to society. The execution is
also smooth. The heroin dealer character has the effect of galvanizing the main
hero, thus elevating the whole story, which is something that even Hollywood films
may not be able to achieve. This work is more complete and serious than the otherfinalist works, that's why I nominate it for the Gold Award.

Wong:

In my mind it deserves the Silver Award. I can't accept such a big flaw in a Gold
Award winner. I think it tries to imitate genre films, but falls short. This kind of flaw I
cannot accept, which also includes the character's image and the fact that the way
they talk seem out of place with the situations. These are all obvious failings. What
Ong said about the work, I can only see those points as reasons to forgive its flaws.
I feel we should encourage this work, but to me it is not up to the standards of aGold Award.

Kwong:Why do you think Yao Dao Police Call deserves a Gold Award?

Wong:

This work also has flaws, but they mainly have to do with the titles in the last few
seconds. Aside from that part, the work is very complete and powerful.

Chow:

I think Yao Dao Police Call should get the Silver Award.

Chong, Ong: I agree.
13

Mak:

I am a little bit swayed by Adam, and am considering the gap between what he istrying to emulate and what he has achieved. However, it seems like we are notholding these two works up to the same standards. Yao Dao Police Call is a pieceof homework, but exceeds the level of homework.

Wong:

Even if we do not consider it as homework, it is still very good. If not for the text at
the end, I would not have known it is homework.

Ong:

I don't think Yao Dao Police Call deserves the Gold Award. Even though it contains
many fun elements and its execution is good, it falls within the range of a student
work. I don't think there is anything outstanding about it.

Kwong:Let us vote to decide. To repeat, the Gold Award winner gets HK$20,000 and atrophy, Silver Award winner receives HK$10,000. Those who agree that I am not a
Superhero should get the Gold Award raise your hand.

(Ong, Chong, Chow and Mak raise their hands.)

Kwong:

Four votes. So the Gold Award this year goes to I am not a Superhero. Are there
any nominations for Silver Award?

Wong:

Ong, are you opposed to Yao Dao Police Call getting the Silver Award?

Ong:

I also like Kidnap, but I don't think it reaches the level of a Silver Award.

Kwong:

So Yao Dao Police Call is the Silver Award winner. There can be a maximum of
three Special Mentions.

Ong:

I nominate Kidnap.

Chow, Wong: Me too.

Chong:

I nominate Instagram.

Ong:

I have a dilemma. How to choose between Journey of Headwind and Ex?

Wong:

I suggest only giving one Special Mention instead of three.
14

Ong, Chong, Mak: I agree.

Chow:

I vote for Kidnap.

Chong:

I agree.

Kwong:

So the Gold Award for this year’s ifva Youth Category goes to I am not a
Superhero, the Silver Award goes to Yao Dao Police Call, while Special Mention
goes to Kidnap.

Youth Category Award Winners
Gold Award
I am not a Superhero / Jonathan Tam
Silver Award
Yao Dao Police Call / Wong Chun-pong
Special Mention
Kidnap / Mok Chui-shan, Yip Tsz-ching, Kiang Tin-long, Lee Suet-ying, Yip Yuen-ting, Wong
Ka-chun15