Members have very kindly shared their BIAFF reviews; -
Title: ‘YOUR CHOICE’ Award: Three Stars *** (Actors Alan and Nigel) This film relies on the premise that driver-less cars are just around the corner and a team of computer programmers would be employed to design and write the software for the system. The question that is central to the piece is; would the software allow the car to crash and maybe kill people? The follow up being whose choice is that? The movie achieves its aim of being a one minute information film. But the two actors are not particularly convincing as software designers. The supposed ‘office’ where they are working is devoid of any other human beings and the green screen effect has not been properly manipulated to look as if they are in the scene being shown. The sound of the two actors at the beginning is not good with too much background hiss and hum. This can be fixed in Audition or a similar programme. The microphone sounds as though it was mounted on the camera instead of on a boom or as radio lapel mics. Either would have eliminated much of the problem. The dark blue colour of the dozens of monitors in the scene behind the end of the film was very unconvincing and certainly clashed with the more natural lighting on the actor. In contrast the on screen simulation of a driverless vehicle causing an accident was very well done. This is an important question and one that Nuneaton Movie Makers might like to take further. Questions to our politicians suggest themselves, starting with Priti Patel’s office. Thank you for this intriguing piece of black comedy that certainly got the panel talking. John Howden FACI on behalf of: Judging Panel: John Simpson, Dip. Ed, and Tim Stannard AACI
Title: ‘ANCIENT AND MODERN’ Award: Three Stars *** (Alan, Michael R and Terry). An informative look at the history of cement and its development over the years. Plenty of information given in this documentary using a plethora of media sources, including some good archival footage. The soundtrack was clearly recorded throughout, although at times it felt as though we were being lectured to, the voice being delivered without passion. Some humour would have helped to enhance the storyline. There was a clear music track running in the background along with the narration and ambient sound, but at times the monotonic manner proved somewhat tiresome. The pace of the documentary was very fast but generally good. More consideration of the amount of information being given to the viewer should have been considered, and there was a lot information to digest! At times it became overwhelming which didn’t allow the viewer time to study what they were seeing, and therefore the information was lost. Overall a well-researched subject, and a good informative film. The judges came away more knowledgeable. Stephen Green LACI on behalf of: Judging Panel: John Howden FACI, Rod Leyland.
”Title: ‘CAUGHT KNAPPING’ Award Three stars ***(By Michael Finney, with Alan, Michael Ridgway and Etta Schaller, Florida) “This cleverly named film is all about the skill of knapping (the making of flint tools) and is of particular interest to archaeologists and palaeontologists. It describes in good detail the skills used by our ancestors to make their flint tools. There were good clear pictures and generally good angles and close ups of the craftmanship and end products. The flint tool-making demonstration to a group of people was well covered and there were good interviews with various specialists here and in the USA. There was good photography of the coastal site in Devon and of Creswell Crags in Nottinghamshire. The opening title music was appropriate but it faded at the Robin Hood cave and the introduction of Daryl the British archaeologist was bitty. There was a loss of lip-sync in some interviews and the judges thought that the PIP was over-used. In the demonstration of tool-making the camera sometimes tended to wander off the main action so kept missing the focus of the demonstration. There was also a shot where the camera zoomed in late and too close and almost missed the held-up blade which was dubbed in unnecessarily later. Generally, we found this film informative and educational and it held our attention despite the criticisms listed above. Rob Phillips on behalf of: Judging Panel: John Howden FACI, Ron Davies FRPS FACI(M) EFIAP FIPF.”
Thanks for sharing chaps
Cropped screenshot of Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable from the trailer for the film
It Happened One Night. Colbert's costume is by costume designer Robert Kalloch.
Trailer screenshot, from DVD It Happened One Night, Columbia, 1999
Another gem from Terry (my most prolific Newspage contributor) “I have mentioned before the ridiculous censorship rules of early Hollywood, even up until 1960, but one even earlier film stands out. In 1934, as a punishment for difficult behaviour, MGM sent Clark Gable out on loan to Columbia Studios, to make a small ‘B’ movie, being directed by Frank Capra. Claudette Colbert was also sent by her studio as a ‘punishment’, to appear in the same film. The censors would not allow even married couples to appear in bed together - but Frank Capra beat the censors. The film, was ‘It Happened One Night’, when Gable and Colbert were made respectable, but at the same time, ‘titillating, by the room being divided by a blanket over a clothes line. The film won 5 Oscars in 1934, and Gable and Colbert returned to their respective studios from their ‘punishment’, receiving massive increases in their salaries. The ‘Oscar’ is of massive importance to people in Hollywood, but a screen-writer named Francis Marion wrote, ‘The statuette is a perfect symbol of the picture business - a powerful athletic body clutching a gleaming sword, with half of his head - the part that holds the brain - completely cut off.’”
Whilst Brian Ratcliffe is no longer a club member, he did send me this missive in which I’m sure we might all find some tips to improve our editing skills...”Well, the portcullis is down, the drawbridge is up, and we’re hunkered down in fear of Covid 19. So, this is an ideal time to catch up on some reading. First down from my dusty bookshelf is Walter Murch’s perspective on film editing, which he called “In the Blink of an Eye”. This book, in its first edition, was a transcription of a lecture on film editing, given by Murch, in the mixing theatre at Spectrum Films, Sydney, Australia, in October 1988. The book, first produced in 1992, and subsequently revised a couple of times, gives a remarkable insight into the mind of a brilliant film editor. It is a real eye-opener, not least in the way it underlines Murch’s dedication to his art and his determination to make every film he edits the best it can possibly be. Working with a team of editors, Murch led on the editing of Francis Coppola’s film “Apocalypse Now”. The film took a full year to edit, with a further year spent on the audio mix. At the end of the process, it was calculated that each editor on the team had made the equivalent of 1.47 cuts per day to achieve the final award-winning result! How’s that for perseverance and determination to be the best. Maybe we need to think a little harder about our own approach to editing. I’ve just read the BIAFF judges’ comments on the NM film “Time’s Up”, in which they called for a “tighter edit”. So, the question we should ask ourselves is whether or not the film might have got four stars, had this been done. Either way, I contend that editing is an extremely important aspect of film-making (Murch would likely argue that it is the most important) requiring a very special skills set. In my view, when we decide to devote a lot of time, energy and resources into producing a club film, we should consider giving the editing job to a dedicated individual who can make it the best it can be. This leads me to my second book. I have just acquired the fourth edition of “The Grammar of the Edit”. Originally written by Roy Thompson in 1993, this book has been revised several times, and is now produced by Christopher Bowen, following the death of Roy Thompson some years ago. If you only ever read one book on editing, let this be the one! Unlike Murch’s essay, this is very much a technical guide. Easy to read, indeed easy to dip into at will, it covers all the basics of editing, together with detailed insight into the working practices developed by editors over the years, and which underpin the editing process today. I commend both books to you – good reading!
“In the Blink of an Eye” by Walter Murch Silman James Press ISBN 1-879505-62-2
“The Grammar of the Edit” by Christopher Bowen Focal Press ISBN 1-138-63220-2
At this point in our email messaging I emailed Brian back with this question...”Thanks Brian for the message you sent yesterday. An absorbing read. One point...it says this...
”..had made the equivalent of 1.47 cuts per day to achieve the final award-winning result! “
Is that what it means - JUST 1.47 cuts? Not quite 1.5 cuts PER DAY? Brian replied,
“Yes, Gerry, that is what it means – the equivalent of 1.47 cuts per day!"
As you know, the editor’s job is to take the work of the actors, the cameramen, the director and all the other skills that have been employed in producing a mountain of film clips, and to create a work of art – the finished film. This is no mean task. It requires a specialist. In the case of Walter Murch, a brilliant & highly skilled specialist. The editing of ‘Apocalypse Now’ was a major challenge. To quote Murch, it was the longest post-production of any film he’d ever worked on. One of the reasons for this was the amount of film that had been shot – 1,250,000 feet of it – just over 230 hours of film!! The finished film ran to just under 2.5 hours, which gives a ratio of unused:used footage of around 95:1. This compares with an average ratio of 20:1. Another reason – the number of takes per scene was very high. As you know, the editor will view all the takes to decide what works best to achieve the result he wants – not just considering the various takes of each individual scene, but also all the various takes of the scene he is cutting to. A highly involved and time-consuming process. Imagine cutting three scenes together, each scene having multiple takes. Say, six takes for scene one; seven takes for scene two; four takes for scene three. Now imagine how many possible variations there are for cutting these three scenes together to achieve the best fit. It could well take a week to work through it; and, at the end of this, two cuts will have been made. Now imagine the discussion with the producer – is he happy with the editor’s efforts? He may well say:
“Well done Walter, my boy, you’ve done a fine job!”
But, he’s quite likely to send Walter back to his edit desk to make some changes. So, it’s easy to see how cuts take so long! Fascinating, isn’t it?” I later received a further missive from Brian.... ”Just as a follow up, I got to thinking about the editing of the NM film “Flypast”. The film was made in 2011, in my formative years as editor. The film went through at least five major re-edits, interspersed with innumerable tweeks and adjustments, and even then I was not entirely happy with it. In the end, I stopped when Liz, quite reasonably, got fed up with the time I was spending on it. So, when I view the film now, I can still see changes that could make the film so much better. Hopefully, later films benefited from me following that steep learning curve. The experience certainly made me more appreciative of the efforts of the professional editors who make our cinema-going so enjoyable. I’ll stop there, though I could go on all day about what is a fascinating process.”