Movie Makers (Jan-Dec 1952)

20 JUDGING CLUB CONTESTS An exact film rating form is needed to judge club contests, says this member from the Midwest. Does his form fill your bill? STANLEY YASBEC, ACL, Blue Island (III.) Slide and Movie Club IN THE growing excitement of amateur movie making, one phase — that of film judging — has been least rapid in attaining its proper stature in the scene of things. This, I believe, was demonstrated early in 1951 at a meeting of delegates in Chicago of the Associated Amateur Cinema Clubs, a Midwestern association of movie clubs: the meeting had been called for the purpose of preparing a new rating form for club and interclub use. For, judging of films with the aid of the ACL club contest form (Cinematography. Continuity, Interest) within the clubs was no longer regarded as adequate. This position was not taken simply as a revolt against the ACL, which had and still has the prestige it deserves. Nor is the form itself condemned, since it is acknowledged that in the hands of the ACL staff (or other equally trained personnel) it does an equitable job. What had occurred was that the various clubs had found the ACL form too broad a tool, which in the hands of relatively inexperienced people did not work out very well. The members wanted to know what, exactly, was being rated. They wanted to have their films broken down into recognizable elements for future reference. In an effort to answer the members, and at the same time to help those who were to do the judging, various forms — some detailed, some both long and complicated — were introduced within the different clubs. The upshot of the AACC proceedings was to adopt for one year a temporary composite form made up of the ACL form and a step-by-step breakdown, with the proviso that the question would be reopened the next year. Well, this is the first of that "next year." We haven't met here in Chicago yet for this club contest discussion. So before we do I have suggested to Movie Makers editors that they open their pages as an informal forum on this important and controversial matter to all clubs, everyivhere. To start the ball rolling, the following are one man's ideas on the issue. They are submitted sincerely, but also in the hope that they will start an argument. How about it, fellows? Let Movie Makers hear from you! What's your judging system? In drawing up the proposals which first to estimate the minimum general characteristics of a satisfactory film judging system. I submit, then, that any such system must be: Universal in scope. Short in basic form. Definite and understandable. Proof against personal prejudice. There is not much question as to the desirability of a method that is universal in scope. At club levels contests are not limited to certain types of films. For general ease within the club, therefore, a good method will be one which is capable of application to widely different film types, such as travelogs, scenarios and the documentary. To be effective, the judging system must not be cumbersome. Often clubs have their contests with the entire membership present. In such instances the judges are pressed, since for the program's sake many films are projected in follow, I have tried rapid succession. With long involved forms, the outcome is obvious. To make sure that the results are consistent, the matter of terminology is extremely important. Grading points should be as clear and as explicit as possible, so as to avoid any misunderstandings on the part of the inexperienced judge. Finally, a good system will have its form so arranged as to nullify the effect of an individual's unconscious prejudices. Again we are thinking at the club level, since it is here that an inexperienced judge may unwittingly perform an injustice because of his inability to evaluate on his own the merits of an unusual film. The argument that such inconsistencies level out is not, unfortunately, true, since a key block may keep a film from ever leaving its own club precincts. The proposed film analysis form, which it is felt may permit amateurs to act as competent judges of their fellow amateurs' efforts, follows: Film Title: FILM ANALYSIS REPORT Made by: I: MECHANICS a) Focus b) Exposure c) Stability (use of tripod) d) Alignment (horizontal & vertical) e) Coverage (comprehensive & detail) II: PURPOSE a) Theme b) Continuity III: INTERPRETATION a) Direction 1. Composition 2. Mood 3. Tempo b) Editing c) Effects, transitions d) Titling & title wording Possible 5 5 5 5 5 25 15 15 Score 30 5 5 5 5 10 15 45 COMMENTS: Date: Analyzed by: A sheet of definitions, of course, should be supplied each judge along with this Film Analysis Report form. Also, to save time during the judging process, the judges should be urged to study these definitions before the contest screening and, if necessary, to clarify them by individual questions. Suggested definitions follow: I: Mechanics — This phase, of course, is basic. Correct exposure, focus, a steady camera, and normal vertical and horizontal lines go almost without saying. (Deviations from the norm, when they occur for an obvious purpose, are considered as elements of interpretation and should be graded as correct for mechanics.) II: Purpose — Here the intent of the film is in question. Has the maker succeeded [Continued on page 29]