thThe 16 ifva Youth Category Jury Meeting Transcript

Jurors in Attendance: Chan Wing-chiu (CHAN), Kit Hung (HUNG), Adam Wong (WONG),
Heiward Mak (MAK), Chu Fun (CHU)
Organizer Representatives: Teresa Kwong (KWONG), Kattie Fan (FAN)

CHU:

Many works are quite meaningful but are technically deficient, or thecinematography is not so beautiful. My Story of Being A New Immigrant is one
such work. It talks about new immigrants and uses subjective point-of-view shots,
but because of its technical deficiency, it is not able to express what it tries to say.
Some works may receive technical support or assistance from others, and are able
to achieve more.

HUNG:

ifva’s rules state that half of the entrants must be 18 or under, so some works may
get help from people with more experience.

CHU:

I guess My Story of Being A New Immigrant did not get much assistance, and I
feel the directors went about it on their own. Perhaps they did not have formal
training, and consider certain techniques very creative. In this film you never see theprotagonist’s face, but just the hands. This makes it quite unique, although the end
result is not very pretty.

HUNG:

What works do you think obviously had help from adults?

CHU:

Get to know me. got to know myself obviously does. You can see from the creditsthat White Box is from a certain school, so the film makers probably received
technical assistance or learnt certain impressive effects in class, which allows themto make the work more beautiful. On the other hand, Sept Chiens Andalou does
not use many effects, but it is a meaningful work that expresses the students’dissatisfaction with school life. It uses a stream of consciousness approach thateschews conventional story-telling. I graduated with a Communications degree
myself, and I took a cinema and television course in my first year, and the teacher
showed us Un Chien Andalou. I didn’t understand it then. Now I see these students
using a low-tech method to express their ideas, like being trapped in school, andthey do so without getting very strong support from their school. wild kids is also avery meaningful work, and when I looked at the end titles, I realize it is because theparents are absent that the kids turned out that way. When I watched wild kids I
laughed a lot, although this effect was not intended by the directors. I laughedbecause many of the actors probably helped out as a favor, and their acting skills
were not that good, so the effect was funny. Also some of the scenes were
humorous, like the one involving the sick dog, which was meaningful. On the whole,
Besides Dreaming is quite complete and the photography is pretty. I think one ofthe directors probably lives there and that’s why they made this film. Some of thetechniques used were very good and comprehensive, like the contrast between thedrawing and reality. China in Expo is a very good documentary. It is raw andunpolished. I get what it’s trying to say. I am not sure whether the film makers
intentionally made it looks this raw. Unlike a TV documentary, it leaves it to theaudience to figure things out. The Storyteller is very pretty and the storytelling isgood. You have to pay attention when you watch this, or else it would be easy to getlost. Paper/plane seems to lack an ending. I was expecting a more shocking
conclusion, so I felt something is missing. I like The Gain when the protagonist say,“don’t force me to accept reality.” This film probably did not get much assistance, so
the production is just so-so. The voice-over mispronounced the protagonist’s name,so I deducted marks for that.

WONG:

I come into contact with many young people who make films. From my experience,
entrants of this edition do not get a lot of support from others. The most importantconsideration is whether the most distinctive element in a work is instigated byadults. I don’t feel this applies to any of the finalist works.

MAK:

I don’t feel any of the works have adult participation. Because it was associated witha theatre group, wild kids may have adults making adjustments to make sure thatthe work reflect the theme of “not leaving kids alone”, and they might have given
their opinions. However, looking at the technical details, it is apparent that they did
not get much adult help.

HUNG:

However, some of the shots like the one with the policeman and the opening of thewallet feel mature and adult.

WONG:

It is hard to judge whether they have adult participation, and we must not let entrants
eel that it is wrong to get help from grown-ups. Young people should get help fromadults as they grow up, and the question is how they absorb the information. As theylearn about film making they will also reference other people’s works, so it is hard tosay whether a work is influenced by other films or if it received direct adultassistance.

MAK:

In previous years you see many works that are influenced by popular films andtelevision. However there are no such works this year.

HUNG:

Perhaps they had all been eliminated.

MAK:

A lot of times when you see more mature elements in a work, it is because themakers are influenced by media such as film and television. This year, the two works
from Shau Kee School of Creativity shows obvious departure from mainstreamstyles.

WONG:

My essay talked about works from Shau Kee too. Their works are different from therest. This has been the case for the last couple of years.

HUNG:

Sept Chiens Andalou has the most video effects, but they are not executed well, sothey have a low-fi feel. However the idea is good. When viewing a work I care more
about the content and how original it is. Technically I only require that the workcommunicates well with me. It does not have to look beautiful.

CHU:

Many of its elements are simple but well done, like the scene where they are runningup the stairs.

HUNG:

Sept Chiens Andalou has many classical elements, like the door that could not be
opened, but it is done with originality and freshness.

MAK:

I think that its casting and acting is also interesting. It is divided into seven parts,
each with a different director and cast. That’s the best thing about this work. All thestories revolve around the school, like male and female toilets and gender, all ofwhich are oppressive elements imposed by the school on them. They use thoseclassical elements well, and the shot division is good. It is clear that they did a
storyboard and were well prepared. Even though the end result is very raw, they
probably did a lot of preparation beforehand.

CHAN:

Among the ten works this is the most joyful. It is clear that the students had a lot of
fun making it. This year most of the works are solemn, and the issues they careabout are also heavy, and one feels weighted down after watching them. We don’t
get the trashy works as we did in previous years. The only exception is wild kids
with its use of canned music, which makes it even more precious. Most of the works
are overly serious, and this is reflected in the makers’ attitudes.

CHU:

Perhaps they feel that for a competition like this one, they have to have sociallyconscious themes. Only Sept Chiens Andalou takes the point of view of today’s
youths, and the work retains a sense of youthful innocence. The other works are too
ambitious.

HUNG:

You can see some of the film makers trying hard to be adults, which is great. wildkids does not have this element. In Besides Dreaming the protagonist looks like asecondary school student, but he is already working in an office wearing a suit. It is
as if they know that when they grow up they will try to reclaim their lost dreams,
which is interesting.

MAK:

The script of wild kids is typical and predictable, but the treatment is innocent, likefeeding the dog medicine. The incidents are taken from everyday life, but are filledwith childishness and youthful spirit. Its low-tech approach prevents it frombecoming too stereotypical. The directors obviously have a feel for this subject
matter, and uses music to enhance their point. This is an above-average work
capable of delivering what the directors want to say. While watching Besides
Dreaming I was close to tears.

WONG:

Besides Dreaming is a bit sentimental and takes for granted that old things aregood and new ones bad. Actually building houses in villages is no simple matter, andadults face many problems in life that are more complicated than that presented in
the film. Here their sense of sadness is seen as matter of course. However I agree
that among the finalists this is the most touching work.

MAK:

I think we find it moving because of events in the past little while.

CHAN:

In many of the works we see these young people trying to dialogue with the times,
including the film makers behind Besides Dreaming , China in Expo and wild kids,
which looks at the world from a child’s perspective. Adults would not make thesekinds of films. I agree that it takes things for granted, but that is also a reflection of
the times, and I realty treasure the fact that they are using the camera to record thehere and now. China in Expo is very courageous and patient and I admire it a lot.

CHU:

I admire the film makers’ patience.

CHAN:

They must have been standing in queue for three days or more, so their efforts
should be treasured.

WONG:

Will we be discussing the works on by one later?

CHAN:

Is that necessary? If there are works that have not been discussed you can bringthem up.

HUNG:

I think The Gain, Paper/plane and Sept Chiens Andalou are works that have themost distinctive styles. The Storyteller also has style, but it is more pretentious. The
Gain also referenced other works, but is quite enjoyable.

WONG:

The least pretentious works are wild kids and China in Expo. I would
whole-heartedly recommend the Gold Award winning work from last year, but thisyear, I feel many works are flawed. You can see the passion in China in Expo, butwhen I watched it the first time I felt it was very cynical and condescending by telling
people that they should line up. At the same time it is very conscious of this attitude,
and tries to incorporate other points of view and offers other ways of looking at theissue. As a work by a person under 18, it is very good. Nevertheless the viewpoint is
not brand new or very shocking.

CHAN:

My opinion is just the opposite. There are two directors in China in Expo, one isadult, the other is a youth. When I watched it on the big screen today, I felt they
deliberately put the interview with the Mainland Chinese guy in front, in which hesays that this is the situation in China now, but you should give it time to Chan
Wing-chiuge. This caused me to be more tolerant towards this film. When filming
people cutting in queues, they are not mean-spirited about it, but rather take a wider
perspective. In terms of editing, it does not just try to dig out the bad stuff about
Chinese people. For example, the shots of garbage are not that severe.

CHU:

I have seen worse on news programs. Perhaps the film makers already did their best
to look for garbage.

CHAN:

Maybe they did not have enough footage. However it is still the case that they are
documenting the times. Paper/plane is beautifully filmed and pleasing to look at,
although it is not that touching. It captures a youthful sense of ambivalence withcarefully composed shots. Perhaps the director had been well-instructed by histeachers.

WONG:

The director is a student of mine. His previous work is also called Paper/plane, but
this is not a sequel. I think the previous work is better. It is about a boy who dares notexpress his feelings, and a girl who cannot communicate with others, and the two
characters come together through paper aeroplanes. This theme was better
expressed in the previous work, and this current film is more ambiguous. This filmmaker’s grasp of cinematic language and art sense are good, but its technicaldeficiencies made what he wanted to express less clear.

HUNG:

In terms of style Paper/plane is the most original. I was especially impressed by thescene in which he sits down, and then you cut to a shot of the exterior. This
happened more than once.

CHU:

Also the part where he tells other people not to be so loud, when in fact they are very
quiet. You see the other people’s reaction, which is quite shocking.

CHAN:

This film captures your attention with its very first shot. It seems unassuming at first,
but becomes more attractive as it goes along, and you don’t want to look away. It isquite a modest work; it doesn’t talk about any grand themes, but nonetheless is very
meaningful. You leave the theatre feeling fulfilled. When I watched Besides
Dreaming for the second time I still felt moved, and that feeling is hard to describe.
The girl does not seem like she is acting; her performance is raw and sincere.

CHU:

At first I thought this film was too raw, but gradually I accepted it. It’s just like theprotagonist who does not know whether he is in a dream or reality.

HUNG:

The dialogue is very obvious. It is mawkish yet heart-felt.

CHAN:

That is why I like Besides Dreaming a lot. It is powerful and worth watching again.
That 360 degree shot really touched me. That is the power of cinema. There is a lotthat White Box wants to say, but the different segments do not hold together too well,and you suddenly feel like you’re watching another film. I had a great deal of fun
watching Sept Chiens Andalou. Many shots are very symbolic. This school has
participated in this competition many times. This work is a vast improvement over its
previous efforts. While watching the The Storyteller again today I felt it was
lackluster.

CHU:

It is well made, and the characters and locations are good, yet the story and content
lost me.

HUNG:

All its shots are well thought-out.

WONG:

It is unrelentingly pretentious, which gives the work a certain integrity.

CHAN:

On the big screen the work lacks power, while on the computer screen it is morepalatable. The first part of The Gain is interesting, but the second half isincomprehensible. get to know me. got to know myself is far too long.

MAK:

What bothers me most is its music. It really affects how I read this work, andprevents me from becoming immersed in its world. I know that this work issponsored by Skyhigh Creative Partners, and its intentions are sincere. But every
time when the protagonist finishes speaking he would look down. The director could
have edited out this part, but he didn’t, which leaves me wondering why. I imagine
that there is a lot the director wants to say. I also wonder if what he’s saying is real.

CHAN:

I don’t think you should read too much into it. It is just a process of self-therapy. It
doesn’t have very deep meaning.

MAK:

I don’t think it is very deep, but as a director I’d like to know why he needs therapy. It
is worth considering the intention behind it. I think this work also dialogues with thetimes. Why do our youths dislike expressing themselves? Why do they choose thismeans of expression?

CHU:

When watching this work I felt it was too long. I wondered why I had to spend somuch time getting to know this person. When he said that he does not dare to speak
to other people and has to rely on making this video to communicate with others, I
felt this provides a justification for the film. I think he intentionally made the editing
fragmented. What his school-mates say is repetitive, and the interviewees do notseem to say what they really feel until the end, when they have to face the camera. If
one has to rely on this film to get to know this person, the impression is not very
complete.

WONG:

I find it too straight forward. It’s a bit like those TV specials on pop singers. I included
this work among the finalists because it is a good attempt by a young person using
video to express himself. However the work does not have too many levels. At first I
was even a bit put off by it because I felt the director is too full of himself—why
should I spend all this time to get to know you through this rather obvious work?

HUNG:

On our last meeting, we mentioned that at least we see the author reflected in thiswork, which is something lacking in many others.

CHU:

The editing is beautiful.

WONG:

His choice of locations shows he has a good artistic sense, but his self presentation
lacks direction.

CHAN:

The self that he presents may be fake. The first half deliberately creates a certain
image, and there is contradiction between the interviews and his self introduction.
The most contradicting work is My Story of Being A New Immigrant, the film is likecross cutting between stories about three different people. I don’t know if this reflects
the fact that the lack of agreement between the authors and their teachers.

HUNG:

I agree with Chan Wing-chiu that a work should capture you from the first shot. With
this film, the beginning part where he recites a poem seems different from him as aperson.

WONG:

This is a work worth encouraging, although it is not too successful. It is also an
unbalanced work in terms of style and content, and there is a lack of consistency
between talking about the individual and the big city. Sometimes it talks about thecity as a whole, and other times it talks about his personal experience of growing up,
which is strange.

MAK:

His use of a male voice-over and a female protagonist is also strange. I think hemust have a reason behind it.

CHAN:This film is based on a book. Perhaps he is citing text from the book. When making
the film, the film maker diverged from the book. Also why is the girl in pigtails? Do all
girls from the Mainland have pigtails? Let’s choose our top five works now.

WONG:

Actually this is a matter of taste.

CHAN:

I understand. I choose Sept Chiens Andalou, wild kids, Besides Dreaming,
China in Expo and Paper/plane.

CHU:

Mine are the same.

MAK:

Me too, but I exclude China in Expo.

WONG:

I choose six: The Gain, The Storyteller, Sept Chiens Andalou, wild kids,

Besides Dreaming and Paper/plane.

HUNG:

I choose The Gain, Sept Chiens Andalou, Besides Dreaming and Paper/plane.

KWONG: Can we pick the Gold Award winner now? Or eliminate those without votes?

CHAN:

Sept Chiens Andalou, Besides Dreaming and Paper/plane got the most votes.

KWONG: Why don’t we concentrate on these three? In the past we have had two Gold Awardwinners, or two Silver Awards but no Gold.

WONG:

I don’t think that’s worth doing this year.

MAK:

If we do not give out a Gold Award, the entrants may feel deprived.

HUNG:

In my mind, it’s a choice between Sept Chiens Andalou and Paper/plane.

CHU:

For me it’ between Sept Chiens Andalou and Besides Dreaming.

WONG:

I like Besides Dreaming.

MAK:

Besides Dreaming is a film of the times, while you can see the director’s skill inPaper/plane. There are many people involved in Sept Chiens Andalou, so eventhough it is good, it is hard to judge. This award should encourage a director’s
development, so it is worth giving it to Paper/plane.

WONG:

I think we should talk about the works first, and not talk about the effect of prizes on
entrants until the end.

CHU:

Among the entries in the Youth Category, Sept Chiens Andalou is the one work thatis true to its youthful identity. A work like this would not be among the finalists in theOpen Category.

CHAN:

I agree that we should focus on Besides Dreaming and Paper/plane. Sept Chiens
Andalou has more flaws, and besides, in the past there had been works like this.
Most jury members were moved by Besides Dreaming, and this is important. On
the other hand Paper/plane shows a mastery of video as a visual medium. It has auniform style, and it is obvious that the director is in full control of the work.

HUNG:For me, the most touching part of Besides Dreaming is when the protagonists aretalking about planning trees, and that they have somehow given up on their past
dreams. I was not moved by the stuff about city planning, and I found the ending
melodramatic. Their stiff acting styles also put me off. It does have a touching ending,but that part does not require acting technique, only visuals.

CHAN:

It is hard to make a good drama, especially in the Youth Category. Besides
Dreaming is a narrative film that is complete and has vision, plus it is very moving.
This is rare for a Youth Category entry.

WONG:

Its flaws are greater than Paper/plane, which does not have much of a burden, anddoes not care about plot development.

MAK:

The acting in Paper/plane is subtle and true to life. Both the lead actor and actressare good, and the director has good control. The visuals and music are bothcomplete, and his technique is mature. We find Besides Dreaming moving
because of the general atmosphere around us. If we talk about the film itself, there isa lot we need to bring up.

WONG:

Besides Dreaming depends on a lot of pretext for its emotional effect. For example,
it assumes that working life must be sad, and in the village, the girl is an embodimentof nostalgia.

CHU:

This is an artistic choice on the part of the director.

WONG:

I think there is something strange about the character design and performance of the
girl.

CHAN:

Like in past years, our selection comes down to the choice between an emotionallymoving film and one that is more artistically accomplished one. Every year we havethe same discussion.

HUNG:

Paper/plane is very fine, and the editing is flawless.

MAK:

I agree with Adam that it has moments of ambiguity, but I like the open ending ofPaper/plane.

WONG:

On a micro level, his directing skills are great, but being able to communicate themain theme is also important. On that score he is a bit lacking.

CHU:

To me it’s not important if it is open ending. I think the ending is not sufficient, andthere is no resolution to the relationship between the male and female protagonists.

WONG:

The film does not depict the female character well. There should be parts that focus
just on her.

CHAN:

Should we zero in on Paper/plane and Besides Dreaming, and forget about Sept
Chiens Andalou?

WONG:

I had fun watching Sept Chiens Andalou, mostly because it is a light-hearted work.
But it is far from masterly, and cannot be compared to the classics. Dadaism wasrevolutionary, while Sept Chiens Andalouis only an imitation. It has to rely on
mental disorder to explain the irrational story-line. It is a good attempt, but not worthyof a Gold Award.

CHAN:

To sum up our discussion so far: Besides Dreaming is more complete, while
Paper/plane is visually stronger.

WONG:

Actually Besides Dreaming has many flaws too.

MAK:

I think Besides Dreaming says too much and is too obvious, perhaps because thedirector is too emotionally attached to the subject. Do they have to have the girl say
those lines at the end? It was emotionally moving enough prior to that point.

WONG:

That 360 degree shot was just trying too hard.

CHAN:

I think the director miscalculated. The dialogue is effective, but the 360 degree shot
distances people. Also the shot where they drop the plant is too deliberate. But you
tend to forgive it.

WONG:

If we are to consider being encouraging, you can see that the director of Besides
Dreaming has put a lot of effort into learning different techniques. Given time, hewould become more mature. The shot in which the picture is dropped is very good.

CHAN:

It hints at the fact that the protagonist has grown up.

MAK:

From a production point of view, this work is hard to Heiward Make.

CHU:

The choice of locations is good, like the one with the big tree. All the scenes arecarefully thought out.

CHAN:

That’s right. All the shots of Besides Dreaming are well designed, and the contrast
between the picture and reality is good.

HUNG:

The director must have intense feelings about this topic. Besides Dreaming is a bit
repetitive, which shows a lack of confidence on the director’s part, but nonethelesshe is sincere.

CHAN:

Much of the technique in Besides Dreaming is commonplace, but put to good use.
Paper/plane attempts new things, but doesn’t quite get there. Besides Dreamingis
more down-to-earth, while Paper/plane is more esoteric.

MAK:

Another reason I like Paper/plane is that it has a sense of doomed youth, a youthfulennui.

HUNG:

Everything in Besides Dreaming is clear and obvious, while Paper/plane makesme think about it for days afterwards. I would be happy if both works win something.

CHAN:

Should they both get the Gold Award? What happens to the prize money?

KWONG: They would split the $50,000, and part of the prize could go towards buying anothercamera, or just give the camera to one of them.

WONG:

My impression is that Besides Dreaming is the more superior work, but because I
had seen the previous version of Paper/plane, I may be biased.

CHAN:

Besides Dreaming is more emotionally moving.

CHU:

Viewers may find Besides Dreaming easier to understand, while Paper/planerequires that they think about it after they leave the theatre.

MAK:

I feel Besides Dreaming is a bit old fashioned but touching, and I would be happy if
Paper/plane won a prize, be it Gold or Silver Award. The two are very different
works, and you have to judge them by different standards. Both are flawed; while one

is easier to digest, the other has higher artistic merits. The qualities of artistry andoriginality are both important for ifva, so I suggest giving two Gold Awards, since thetwo directors are worth encouraging. Of the ten finalists, I don’t think any of them
automatically deserve the Gold Award, and if the award is supposed to offer
encouragement, then both directors are worth encouraging.

CHAN:

Then let’s give them both the Gold Award.

HUNG: Because this is the ifva, I think Paper/plane deserves the Gold Award, since
Besides Dreaming is ore accessible.

WONG: Being accessible or not should not be the most important consideration for thiscompetition.

CHU:

But it is important that a work is able to communicate with the audience.

CHAN: The most important thing is that these works are up to par. Does giving them both
Gold Awards fit in with the sprit of ifva?

MAK:

Being accessible and having good taste are both good qualities.

WONG:

ifva is not a type of style.

CHAN:

Paper/plane uses film language to tell a story, which should be looked upon withfavor at ifva, for this kind of works tends to be overlooked on other occasions.

WONG:

But you can also say that, ifva ought to encourage expressing how you truly feel, andworks that appeal to both the high and the low.

HUNG: However, Paper/plane would probably not get an award at other competitions.
WONG: That’s hard to say. I would not make such a political assumption until the very laststep.

CHAN: The most important thing is that there is no very outstanding work this year.

WONG: I don’t object to two Gold Awards.

(Chan Wing-chiu, Heiward Mak and Chu Fun also agree.)

WONG:

Kit, do you agree with Gold Awards?

HUNG:

I like Paper/plane, but I understand your points of view.

KWONG: I suggest that you give up to three special mentions, since we want to offer moreencouragement to the entrants of this category. But unless you insist, we don’t
suggest giving more than three special mentions.

CHAN:

Sept Chiens Andalou should definitely be one of them.

KWONG: You also mentioned The Storyteller, The Gain and China in Expo.

MAK:

I recommend The Storyteller. It is beautifully filmed, consistent and unrepentant.

WONG:

Not everyone can be pretentious, and it does it with style. I also want to give special
mention to wild kids.

CHAN:

I suggest China in Expo and wild kids.

CHU:

I vote for wild kids and The Storyteller.

MAK:

Me too.

WONG: Me too.

KWONG: wild kids received the most votes.

HUNG:

I vote for The Gain and China in Expo. I think wild kids has adult participation,and it lacks truly youthful elements. I think the part with the dog is designed to look
like it was done by a youth. There is a shot that uses a dog’s point of view, which is
too precise to have been done by a youth.

WONG: The script of wild kids is very good.

CHAN: We should first eliminate those that have no Chan Wing-chiuce.

th

WONG: I also like The Gain, but if I were to rank it, it would come in 4 .

CHU:

I also like The Gain, but compared with the other two, I prefer the others.

HUNG: I rank The Gain the first, but that does not matter.

WONG: Then let us eliminate The Gain. I would rank China in Expo even further back.

HUNG: I like its passion.

MAK:

There is no argument expressed in China in Expo; it just has one point frombeginning to end. There is no development. Even though they edited in an interview
about how Mainlanders view this issue, that is just one point of view. There is no
standpoint, they just documented certain things.

HUNG: I don’t think works like The Storyteller is worth encouraging.

CHU:

As a Youth Category work, it is quite an achievement. It is beautifully filmed.

HUNG: But there is no content.

WONG: He has, but he does not want to tell you what it is.

HUNG: The visuals do express the distance between two people, as well as the intimacy
between two girls.

CHAN: It is a matter of taste. It’s hard to discuss.

HUNG: Then I switch my vote to wild kids and give up on China in Expo.

CHAN: Then we can eliminate China in Expo.

KWONG: So Besides Dreaming and Paper/plane get the Gold Award, wild kids, The
Storyteller and Sept Chiens Andalou get special mentions.

Youth Category
Gold Award
Besides Dreaming
WONG Man-ki, LEUNG Yu-fung, YIP Ka-yan, LIU Kwok-ching, YU Chui-sang
Gold Award
Paper/plane
LEUNG Yuk-hang, CHIN Matthew Frederick, LEE Ho-yan
Silver Award
Withhold
Special Mention
The Storyteller
CHOI Nga-man, SO Chung-hay
Special Mention
wild kids
CHAN Sung-hei, CHAN Tik-man, CHAN Ka-yan, CHUN Fung-yingSpecial Mention
Sept Chiens Andalou
WONG Chui-yee, TSOI Wing-fung, TAM Miu-yin, Milky, LAM Man-chun, TSANG Ho-yeung, LO
Chun-yin