The 27th ifva Awards
Asian New Force Category Jury Meeting
Jurors: Chalida Uabumrungjit (Chalida), Hsiao Ya-chuan (Hsiao), Ray Yeung (Yeung)
Organizer Representatives: Kattie Fan (Fan), Sandy Lai, Sammy Wong, Helen Lam
Interpreter: Cecilia Wong

Fan:

Today our mission is to select the awards. This year we had 282 eligible entries
in the Asian New Force category. Our pre-selection had already selected 70
submissions from the bigger pool. Then we had a first-round jury who helped
us select the 10 finalist works that you had seen. Today we are going to selectthe awards, which are the Gold Award, Silver Award and Special Mention.
First of all, we will go through the 10 works one by one. You can give somecomments or views on what you think about the works. Then we will proceed
to the second half, where we will select the awards. If there is no question, we
can begin to talk about the films. The first film is The Secret of My Birth from
China. Ray, would you like to begin first?

Yeung: I really like this film. The story is very beautiful. It tells a very personal story.
I like the cinematography; I think it’s very pretty. We know that the budget islow, but I still feel the shots are well-selected. I think the use of music is also
good. The conversations they have, there’s not a lot of dialogue, and it wasused quite effectively. There are some very clever elements in the film, like thegoldfish. Used as a device, it is very clever. At first the father says he put thegoldfish there for feng shui purposes so he will get a son, then later on, the girltries to affect the birth by pouring the fish soup into the fish tank. I think t’svery interesting and clever. All the characters are very well-rounded as well,like the mother who also loves the daughter, and there’s the scene of them
together which is quite touching. The film is also quite humorous, with theritual she has to do and then they have to dance on the beach at the fire. Thatbrings out the culture of the area, Chaozhou, and I think that’s somethinginteresting for international audiences It’s also interesting that at that moment
she has her period, and the screenwriter uses that as a symbol that she’s grown
up, and that’s the reason why her father cannot do the ritual, because she isunclean. That is very ironic and very clever. The use of sound is also very good,
like there are moments that the filmmaker uses the chanting very cleverly whenthey’re doing the ritual. Later, the filmmaker uses the firecrackers to cover up
1the little girl’s crying. The ending is also good, it’s almost a perfect ending
because she’s worried about the family bringing in a son, and her status isgoing to be lower in the family. But in the end, they don’t get a son, they get
another daughter, and that shows a type of Chinese culture where they place a
lot of importance on having a son, and women’s status is much lower in society.
In the end, the little girl who’s making all these gestures to get rid of her brother,in a way she is successful, but she also loses as well because her parents are
upset with her and she also has a certain regret at the end of the scene. For ashort story, it is very complete.
Chalida: First of all, I’d like to say that it’s a very good selection, so that’s going to be
tough, there are 10 good films in different ways. It depends on what elements
we want to highlight because each film has its own strength. I think it’s fun
when you have to select films that are good. The first film is a bit slow for me
to engage. At the beginning I can’t engage with the story so much. The end
scene is very interesting and powerful where no one wants the baby sister. It
has a strong effect on me. It is a slow burn and finally it connects with meemotionally at the end. It’s an important subject; in Chinese culture the girl isalways a bit inferior.
Hsiao: I think this film is enjoyable, including the performance, color andcinematography. I have a small question about the script. There’s something I
don’t quite understand. It is the part in the latter part of the film later when she
asks her mother, do you like us children? Her mother replies that all parents
love their children. After that, she had prepared a bowl of soup for her mother,but she took it and poured it into the fish tank. At this time, I don't know if she
is moved, so she decides not to hurt her brother, or she doesn’t want to hurt her
brother at all? If she takes the soup to the kitchen and dumps it, then I canunderstand, now I don't know if she still wants to hurt her brother or not. I
thought she doesn’t want to hurt her brother because she was moved by her
mother. I don't know if you have this problem. If she is moved by her mother,
the effect is more beautiful, because it means she has gained a little
understanding. As a short film, it's still a good story, but this point bothers me
a bit emotionally.
Yeung: My understanding of the fish soup is that the grandmother said the green bean
soup is bad for the baby, the fish soup is not bad for the baby. The fish soup is
actually good for the baby.
Chalida: I didn’t totally understand it, to me it’s kind of slow. There are so many things
that are confusing for me in terms of culture. I get the sense of how the girlfeels, she is hesitant about certain things, and she doesn’t want to get2abandoned by the family. For me it’s part of her hesitance about whether sheshould be doing this. When she goes to the old lady, at the beginning I didn’t
understand what’s going on, but finally I got what she wanted to do and what
she did. At the beginning there are many things that are not connected, maybe
I don’t understand the culture.
Yeung: The English subtitles are not very good. That’s why it’s more problematic foryou if you don’t understand Chinese.
Hsiao: I think it’s a good work, it just has a small flaw, but it’s still good.
Fan:

Let’s move on to the second film, Asphyxia, from Taiwan.

Chalida: Surprisingly, I like it. I didn’t expect that it’d go in that direction. It’s aninteresting way to talk about domestic violence and present it in this way. I
liked it when I finally realized this is what the whole thing is about. It’s
effective way to talk about domestic violence.
Hsiao: I have a little bit of a problem with the acting. The beginning part is not thesame as the latter. In the beginning, the acting style and storytelling are more
realistic. At the end, when the reporter asks him what he wants to say, he loses
control and acts dramatically. I think many short films have similar issues, thatis, when they want to create tension, the film takes on a different direction. I
liked the first part and was looking forward to the ending, but the ending was
too melodramatic.
Yeung: I also agree that the film has stylistic changes halfway through. The beginning
has some nice atmosphere and the selection of shots creates good tension. I do
find the acting problematic, like the woman’s performance in the police office
is not very convincing to me. I also have problems with the actor in the lastscene where he reacts to the killing in front of the reporters. It feels very stagey
to me. It doesn’t feel naturalistic at all. I feel that the story has an interesting
concept to show domestic violence, but it’s not very effective because it wasusing domestic violence without really exploring the issue. The characters do
not come across as being very complex to me. They seem more onedimensional.
Fan:

The next work is Hawaii.

Hsiao: I like this work. It deals with a difficult subject, which is what is reality, andwhether my subjective experiences are the truth. This is a difficult subject
matter, which it handles very well cinematically. It makes me realize that it3

uses many subjectivities to construct the objective. I watched it three times,
but the first time I didn't notice its circularity. When I understood what it was
doing, I didn't feel that the director was showing off, but tried to balancesensibility and rationality.
Yeung: I really like the concept of the film. I think it’s very interesting. I very much
like the beginning, because we are put right in the middle of the argument. I
feel the fight could have been shortened a little bit. In that sense it wasn’t very
even, the first part was too long and the rest of the scenes of different couples
were too short. The beginning of the film was actually the end, because it goesaround in circles. Once they get into the party, quite soon you realize what thedirector is doing, and there is an “aha” moment, and you realize this is very
interesting. Maybe I’m not that familiar with the culture of that country, but
it’s very open about lesbian relationship or cheating, they don’t make a big
thing out of it and it is very natural and life-like. It shows a very nicerepresentation of that age group, the social culture and dynamics of thatcountry. It did that very well. I like this film; my only real issue is about theunevenness that I mentioned earlier. I wish it was more balanced.
Chalida: I like this film, too. I like the moment when they get off the car. I thought it’dbe another driving film where people are behind the wheel and talking. Once
you get off the car, the story moves so fast, and you start to pick out the namesof characters. Without trying to explain too much, we tag along in the car andso many things happen in a short time, and you have to figure out what theyare. The filmmaker has to be confident and have a clear mind to make this kindof film. Nowadays Iranian films are not just about women oppression, they
explore other modern life and young people. It reminds me of some European
films, like Antonioni. It’s quite an interesting mood.
Hsiao: I wonder about the title, Hawaii. I don’t know why it’s called that.
Chalida: It doesn’t explain anywhere. At first I thought that place is called Hawaii, it’s
like a resort.
Fan:

Let’s move on to the next one, Can You Hear Me?

Yeung: I like this film, it’s a black comedy, so it’s not easy to do. The opening is quite
scary and eerie to see those ghosts walking around. When you find out the guy
is dead and you are introduced to his family, I think that’s quite well-developed.
Within a short time, we know all the family members and their characters. One
thing that we rarely talk about is the struggle of long-term caregivers, the wife
who has to look after someone who’s sick for a long time. I thought that was4shown quite well, even though it was very short. The part where they suddenly
accuse her of manslaughter, I think that’s not necessary. The part about themseeing the guy who comes in, and he can see ghosts. I think the filmmaker wascramming too much in, we don’t really need those elements. Later, we find out
the dead person has an old lover, that twist is interesting and quite sweet. The
two old men singing Chinese opera, of course I’d find that sweet. It’s a niceending for me. I think the acting and production design are very good. The film
has elements you don’t expect and is quirky. For a short film. it is very
comprehensive. Black comedies are hard to achieve and the film is successful.
Chalida: It’s good for what it’s supposed to be, in terms of black comedy, the charactersand the details. I think it plans to be something longer because it has different
characters and their backstories. It works well for what it is and it’s touchingat the end. At the beginning I wasn’t sure if they are lovers because the English
translation is quite ambiguous. Maybe they’re just friends who like to go to
Chinese opera together.
Yeung: He did say they never had sex.
Chalida: In Chinese (dialogue or subtitle), it’s quite clear they’re lovers, right?
Yeung: I don’t think they’re lovers in the real sense, but emotionally committed.
Chalida: Is the actor professional or famous?
Hsiao: Yes.
Chalida: That’s why he worked well. At the end the wife says I take him for a walkevery day. It’d be perfect if it was a longer film to show the wife taking careof him and to show their relationship. It’s good for what it’s supposed to be, aheart-warming comedy.
Hsiao: I also feel that it’s well done. The art direction and acting are both wonderful.
I also feel that it is like a feature film because the structure of the film is very
typical. You discover a secret, which is revealed to others, and in the process
accidents happen. This sort of structure is very stereotypical, and the film lacks
the experimental spirit of short films. Therefore, I am a bit hesitant about thiswork.
Chalida: When I say maybe it’s a long film project, I mean it has many characters withbackgrounds that can be expanded. Short films can be sophisticated and havea lot of elements, that’s okay with me. This filmmaker may be planning a long5

film, and this may be a pitch or pilot project, and it’s a good pitch.
Fan:

The next one is FULL CIRCLE, another film from Taiwan.

Chalida: It is beautifully shot and would be nice to watch on a big screen. I watched it
on a computer, which is a disadvantage for this kind of film, because you reallyneed to be immersed into the film. I couldn’t get a lot from it, but I can feel it
has one of the strongest cinematography.
Hsiao: This film is very different from the previous one, one is a narrative, one ispoetry. It’s like the difference between novels and poems. You can tell that thedirector wants to communicate a sense of cycle of life, like the life of eels frombirth to death, which is like human birth and death. The film places the twocycles together. With a film like this, I can only judge it according to whether
it is beautifully shot and whether it is poetic. It is the same with the film PATH.
Yeung: It’s documentary style, very slow burn, showing a life cycle. It changed me,
about whether I will ever eat pork again. I was shocked by what they put in thefood for the pigs to eat. I thought, what are we putting in our body? In thatsense, it’s an interesting statement about the life cycle, and it makes me thing
about what I eat and what comes out, and how it affects my own self and mybody. It’s effective in that way.
Hsiao: Maybe his observation over life is this kind of cycle, including lots of ugly
stuff. Life has its beauty and ugliness.
Yeung: It’s very naturalistic as well.
Chalida: In the beginning, I did not read the tile of the film, I only read the synopsis.
The photography is beautiful, it’s a universal theme. There are some scenes I
pay attention to, but I don’t see how it connects with the disgusting part, likethe sea part that is so beautiful and poetic. If the film is about the cycle of life,
it’s too big a claim and a big statement. I look for something more specific in
the details. Some parts I feel I lost connection with.
Fan:

The next one is SARIRA, from China.

Hsiao: One can see that this film is eager to explore certain issues such as civilization,
tradition and modern superstitions. The images are very formalistic, like theworks of China’s fifth generation film directors.
Yeung: Are you talking about the symbolism?
6

Hsiao: It includes both symbols and forms. It is a powerful film, but the visuals are a
bit showy. I was not able to become emotionally involved in the film.
Yeung: I see this more as a black comedy about a monk who has a toothache. It’s
interesting in a comedic sense, that he has a toothache and he is unable to do
the one thing he is supposed to be able to do, and that is chanting. Chanting is
supposed to give him tranquility and peace, and because he is unable to do thechanting, he is unable to get tranquility and peace. It works in that ironic sense,that somehow the director wants that to symbolize religion in modern society
where you cannot find peace and therefore you are unable to have tranquility
because of all the noise in the world. So later when his master dies and thetemple is being removed, he still tries to get hold of something, and therefore
he tries to rescue the Buddha’s head. And it is in trying to save the Buddha’s
head that it’s helping him get rid of the bad tooth. By doing that, he’s able tochant again and gives him the tranquility at the end, the peace that he’s been
looking for at the beginning of the film. The film has an interesting, ironic
philosophy that it’s trying to portray, although it is a bit over-slow andpretentious.
Chalida: This is another film that’s disadvantaged to watch on a small screen. There’s
a lot of dark parts. The cinematography reminds me of films from Eastern
Europe or former Soviet Union, in a good way, with the black and whiteaesthetics. To use toothache as a thing to start the narrative, it starts the journey
and you watch how it’s going to end. It’s quite sophisticated, it’s also a festival
film. I’m not surprised it’s been selected to so many festivals like Pusan andso on. It’s a good film on its own, it’s good for what it is, but it’s not the first
film of its kind. I always have some reservations about black and white, do you
have very good reasons for making it in black and white? In the end, it’seffective in black and white rather than color.
Fan:

The next one is The Exchange from Israel.

Chalida: I feel nothing bad about the film, but when you put it among the ten films, it’s
not my top rank. The acting is good. At the end, it talks about things happening
again, but we don’t have the next episode to follow.
Yeung: The choice of shots and editing is very sophisticated and professional. It’s oneof the most professional films of the lot, the selection of shots really supports
the story. The performances are good and the character development is also
good. The whole story is solid. My only issue with the film is that it’s not very
fresh. I feel I have seen this movie before, a story about brothers having
different personalities and goals in life, and are brought together at a dying
7relative’s death bed, and all their histories come out. It’s a story I’ve seen manytimes. About their differences, I don’t feel there’s anything particularly freshor culturally specific. In terms of filmmaking, it’s very polished.
Hsiao: This is a small story about what is violence. Sometimes indifference can be aform of violence. That’s the message I got from the film. I quite like thisperspective. Being indifferent and not understanding is a kind of violence. I
like a line in the film, “You are all Nazis.” The casting and acting are very
good.
Fan:

The next one is A Little Circus from Japan.

Yeung: The film is very charming. It’s a documentary style film, a slow burn. At the
beginning you don’t know what’s going on with this bunch of boys in thecircus, but you feel they’re having fun. They have a sense of purpose and areproud of what they’re doing. Later on, because of COVID, they can’t work
anymore. To survive, the main character has to work at a building site. We cansee that because of his age, he gets a lower wage than everybody else. All theseare done in a naturalistic way, it almost feels organic, I didn’t feel it wascontrived. At the end when his friends from the circus come to cheer him up,
I thought it was a very sweet moment. It shows the kind of friendship andkindness, which is very simple but very enchanting. The boys are not actors,
but they come across as very natural and they do a good job. I find the film
very sweet.
Chalida: I watched the film before reading anything. The production is good, it is lively
and fresh. I am surprised it’s a Japanese film, an NGO film to help withfundraising. I like the film very much. It talks about hardship in life and young
people. It’s one of the films I quite enjoyed.
Hsiao: I feel this is a lovely film that wants to be seen by a wide audience so thatpeople will understand and help these children. But as a creative project, it is
not sufficient. It is too much like a promotional film. I want to encourage thisfilm and hope that more people can see this film. The team behind this film
have very definite aims; they hope to help these children with this film.
Fan:

The next one is PATH from India.

Chalida: In Indian films recently, they have this thing about tracking shot. Have you
seen the film Pebble? It’s an independent Indian film. It has an extreme wide
shot and walking tracking shot. Once they open the suitcase, it can becompared with the black and white Chinese film (SARIRA). The
8cinematography is nice, the landscape is artistic. In the beginning I wasn’t
aware it’s about COVID, so many people in India died. It’s very solid when
you have those elements together.
Hsiao: This is a simple film, I quite enjoy it, but I don’t have much to say about it.
Yeung: It takes a while before you know what’s going on. It’s about a guy carrying
this box, you know there’s something in the box and it’s a slow discovery.
Once he opens the box, it makes me question the film because the box is way
too light to have a corpse in it. That’s a big problem for me, the director hasn’t
been taking it seriously. The box would have to be a lot heavier, and it’d be
more interesting to have the guy really struggling with this box. It would makethe film more effective if the box was heavier. It was too artificial for me when
I found it was a corpse. The part where he dresses the corpse is touching. The
part I really like is the last shot, it’s beautiful and memorable. But I can’t
forgive the box.
Hsiao: Is that his wife or child in the box?
Yeung: The wife is in the box, right?
Chalida: Or the mother?
Yeung: Either the wife or mother, it’s someone close to him.
Hsiao: Is it the one who gives him a bottle of water?
Yeung: My guess is like in a lot of Indian movies, they have this supernatural element.
It might be a spirit. I didn’t see it as a real person. I thought the corpse is thewife because of the way he put the jewelry on her body, it seems more likeromantic love rather than respectful behavior.
Fan:

The last one is K’s Room – the Creation and Destruction of the World.

Chalida: This one is hard for me because of the layers they have in Chinese. It’s hard tocompare with others because it’s quite different from other films. I feel thefilmmaker did a lot of research to use the footage and text. I don’t have enoughknowledge to understand it deeply. Maybe it needs some other context. I canonly understand it on the surface and I cannot go deep into it. I may have to dosome research on the text.
Hsiao: This film is about the White Terror period in Taiwan, which lasted from the91950s to 1970s. A dictionary writer, Mr. K., whose dictionary is well-known
in Taiwan, was imprisoned. The sentences mentioned in the film came fromthis dictionary. It is ironic that dictionaries are supposed to free our minds, but
this person lost his freedom. But if you didn’t understand this background, you
may not understand this film, which is a pity.
Yeung: It’s difficult to compare, because this is an experimental short, not a narrative
short. With experimental shorts, it’s about the feeling and mood they are trying
to convey. This film is about imprisonment and freedom, and it is trying to
explore the idea of liberty. What it brings out is who would be reading a
dictionary religiously over and over again? It’s someone who’s very bored andhas nothing to do and is just repeating something all day long. He’s using thatto show the boredom of being in prison. The filmmaker is trying to use humor,
like with the sentences, “If I were a bird, I would be flying. But I am not a
bird.” This ironically shows his situation and his hopes. It’s quite successful inshowing that kind of boredom and frustration of losing your liberty. But as anexperimental short, the format itself is very dated. The split screen and format
give me a very 1980s experimental film feeling. It doesn’t feel modern to me.
For an experimental film, it needs to be more modern.
Fan:

Next, we can have a discussion on the awards. As mentioned, we will have 3
prizes, the Gold Award and Silver Award, these are the best and second-best
works considering the overall excellence. I’d like to explain about the Special
Mention. We have this award instead of bronze because we’d like to see if
there are films that have something special to mention, recognize, or encourage.
You may use this prize to highlight some unique characteristic of that film.
Now you may nominate the awards directly, or you may choose two or threefilms that you like most.

Yeung: I like The Secret of My Birth, Hawaii and A Little Circus.
Hsiao: I choose The Secret of My Birth, Asphyxia, Hawaii, Can You Hear Me? andThe Exchange.
Yeung: I want to add Can You Hear Me?
Chalida: For me, it’s Asphyxia, Hawaii, Can You Hear Me?
Fan:All of you have chosen Hawaii and Can You Hear Me? We can begin withthis. Do you have any Gold Award nomination right now? We can start with
that.

10

Hsiao: I like Hawaii very much.
Yeung: My Gold is The Secret of My Birth.
Chalida: If I pick one, it’ll be Hawaii.
Fan:

So two jurors picked Hawaii. Ray, would you say something to defend yourchoice?

Yeung: I think The Secret of My Birth is very original in the sense that it completes
the protagonist’s journey. It brings out a serious subject but does it in acharming and humorous way. The plotting is very clever. It’s a very traditional
style of narrative, someone has a goal and there are many things she has to do.
But it’s done in an original way, like the girl finding the witch doctor and manyother details that bring out the culture of that specific place. The question you
had about the fish soup, how I see it is the girl wants herself to be the favorite,and she feels jealous that her parents will love her sibling and her equally. Forme, the soup has no green beans in it and is not bad for the mother, she throws
it out because she doesn’t want the mother to drink that soup, which is goodfor the baby. At the end, the father’s sister says, “It’s probably your fault forthrowing the soup in the fish tank.” In terms of filmmaking, this is the mostcomplete work for me.
Chalida: My top two are Asphyxia and Hawaii, my top choice is Asphyxia. If Can You
Hear Me? doesn’t get first or second, it shouldn’t get Special Mention,
because it doesn’t look like that kind of film. It’s good for what it is, but not afilm worth a Special Mention.
Hsiao: Hawaii is good.
Chalida: If I don’t change, Hawaii should get Gold. It is a difficult choice because eachfilm has its own strength, and it depends on the point we use to judge them.
Hsiao: I feel that short films are not short feature films, just like there is a difference
between short stories and novels. For example, I make features as well as
shorts, and when I make short films, I would use a different kind of thinking.
I would consider what sort of stories is suitable for a film of 10-20 minuteduration. Short films are not like feature films, which is why it is a distinctive
form. I like Hawaii not because it uses a one-shot technique, but because it
tells a complete story in 20 minutes, using a distinctive story-telling technique.
All 10 finalists are very good, and it is difficult to choose between them. For
me, Hawaii is a true short film.

11Chalida: If we have Hawaii as first and The Secret of My Birth as second, would you
be happy with it? I look at it from the programmer’s point of view. The ending
really touches me and is very strong. Do you want to let Can You Hear Me?
go or do you want to have it as Special Mention?
Yeung: I want to know why you think Asphyxia is so good? I would not select it, I
find the performance not good and the last part contrived.
Chalida: I didn’t have much expectation when I watched it, but in terms of plot, it leads
me to a place I didn’t expect, it’s out of the usual route, and it works well forme. You expect it to be something but it turns out to be something else, whichis reasonable. These days, when you watch a lot of films as a programmer, youwatch for 3 minutes and you know how it’s going to end. Many times, I can
predict the film and what the next shot is. It’s something nice for me personallyin terms of watching short films. With short films, some are nice but they fall
into certain categories. This film is more personal.
Hsiao: I like the first part of this film, and even though it has flaws in the latter part,
it is among the five films I selected.
Chalida: For me, it’s okay not to give award to this film.
Yeung: The scene where he kills the burglar is problematic. I just don’t buy it. I don’t
feel that he could just kill that guy, then later on he gets arrested because thatguy was trespassing, but why would he still be in trouble with the police andcharged with murder? Then later on he acts out the scene in front of thereporters, I just don’t buy it.
Chalida: I just want to note that I selected it at one point, even though I know it won’t
make it.
Yeung: Regarding Hawaii, I do like the film as well, but I find it a bit uneven. The
beginning was very long, and I just feel that it could be better in the sense that
we could explore all the other relationships a bit more. In terms of filmmaking,it’s quite brave, although it’s not that original. I have seen that kind of playing
with cinematic time before. In terms of what kind of effect it leaves me withafter watching it, it’s not as powerful as The Secret of My Birth. Hawaii would
be my Silver, but if both jury members prefer it to be Gold, then you know…
Fan:

Do we all agree that Hawaii is the Gold Award?

(The jurors agreed.)
12

Fan:

So Hawaii is the Gold Award. Would The Secret of My Birth be Silver?

Chalida: I don’t mind that. It’s very hard to choose anyway for the rest of them.
(The jurors agreed.)Fan:

How about Special Mention?

Chalida: It should be Can You Hear Me? because we all like it. Or do you want to pickothers like A Little Circus or The Exchange?
Yeung: Out of this lot, I would choose Can You Hear Me? as Special Mention.
Chalida: I like it a lot, the filmmaker has the potential to be a good feature film maker.

1327th ifva Asian New Force Category Award Winners

Gold Award
HawaiiMorteza Fereydouni (Iran)

Silver Award
The Secret of My Birth
Li Jing (China)

Special Mention
Can You Hear Me?
Li Nien-hsiu (Taiwan)

14