評審感言 Jury’s Note (短片組Shorts)

評審感言 Jury’s Note

 

紀錄片的定義是甚麼？這次的參賽作品，形形色色，百花齊放。當中不泛包裝嚴謹的專業之作，但令人看得津津入味的，反而是一些製作粗糙，但能真實捕捉人的情緒變化的作品。人，每當面對鏡頭，很多時會收起自我，表現拘謹起來。於是很紀錄片記錄的，往往不是人最真實最自然的一面。很多的所謂紀錄片，亦不是記錄第一身在現場發生的真人真事，受訪主角之間真實對話，反而是一些事後感受的總結，輔以一堆死物畫面憶述，這樣紀錄片便去紀錄片的作用，攝影機亦發揮不了它記錄事發現場的作用。這樣的紀錄片不能稱作紀錄片，而是文字專題的一個電視版。這次的作品當中，我最欣賞一些製作人員，投入極大的耐性及精力，日以繼夜地在受訪者身邊出現，做到好像在受訪者身處的地方，裝上一個隠蔽鏡頭一般，把受訪者最真實最自然的一舉一動，表情變化，真實反應和對話，一一記下。令觀眾走入受訪者的世界，和他們共同進退，感受他們所感受的喜與悲。紀錄片的定義是甚麼？在我看來，如能做到這一點，實難能可貴。

岑應

 

What is a documentary? The entries this year show a great deal of varieties. Many of them were professionally made, yet it is those that capture the true emotions behind the stories which prove to be the most attractive. People tend to be shy and hide their real emotions in front of the camera, often resulting in scenes that do not feel entirely natural. A lot of the so-called documentaries are not filmed at the time of the event, but afterwards when the subjects reflect upon what happened when everything is over. These “documentaries” should be called news features instead. I greatly appreciate the patience and hard work of some of the production teams that followed their subjects day and night to capture every minute of the their lives. What is a documentary? The most important aspect of a documentary is to bring the audience into the world of the subjects so they can feel and experience the joy and sadness in their lives.

 

Sum Ying

 

 

動人的故事

以前當攝影記者，近年拍紀錄片，一直以來的工作都離不開「人」，工餘不論看小說、看電影，以至看歷史和傳記，皆為「人」的故事。

今次一口氣看了八十多部短片，百分之九十九都以「人民關懷」為主題，當中有不少令人動容的作品。我喜愛《父親》裡樸實的老農，在今天流行弄虛作假的年代，就像一股清流。我喜愛《春天的對話》裡，兩位年輕人對鄉土、對生活的真摯情懷，跟本港的年輕人相比，就顯得本地青年太過無聊膚淺。《薩爾瓦多日記》裡的陳信行教授，不祗是高喊口號的社運家，他處處流露出對遠方的南美洲朋友，那份深深的關懷。還有、還有…… 許多令人感動的故事，都在這些紀錄片中記錄下來。

從這些片子可以看到的，是一個個真摯的感人故事，沒有說教、沒有悲情，都是淡淡然，但令人感動的故事。雖然今年《天水圍的日與夜》在萬眾期待下失落了「最佳電影獎」，但無減它散發的光芒，人性的故事最是動人的。這批優秀紀錄片，就有不同的人的故事，讓我們深深感動。

林偉鴻

 

Moving Stories

Whether when I was a news reporter or working as a documentary filmmaker in recent years, my work has always revolved around “people”. Even outside of work, my world is filled with stories about “people”, from novels and films to history books and biographies.

I watched more than eighty short films this year in one go. Of these 99% involve themes centering on the care and concern between people, and quite a number of them are indeed very moving. I love the old, down-to-earth peasant in Father. It is a film that feels like a fresh stream in this age where genuineness is a rarity. I love the sincere sentiments in Spring of the two youngsters towards their home town and their life there. Local Hong Kong youth feels almost superficial in comparison. Professor Chen Hsin-Hsing in El Salvador Journal is more than just a slogan-yelling social activist. He shows immense concern for people in faraway South America. And then there are… many, many more moving stories. These documentaries are a record of all these wonderful tales.

In these films I see one sincere and touching story after another. There is no preaching, no contrived tragedy. The stories are all subtle yet touching. As we can see from Ann Hui’s The Way We are, which was somehow denied the Best Picture Award that it so much deserves, the most affecting stories are always those about the human conditions, like those in this year’s entries, which deeply moved us.

 

Augustine Lam

 

 

對紀錄片獎的一點意見

一口氣看了八十套參賽紀錄片，雖說是短片部份，但作品動輒六十分鐘，加起來時間很長，不可謂不吃力。主辦單位明年要好好考慮給評審報酬（尤其是初審）。如何微薄或象徵式也好，起碼慰勞各評審在工餘抽時間看片及開會討論。

不過作品多也是好事，證明不少人真的知道這門比賽，也交件來了。「華語紀錄片獎」這個名字可大可小，現在數碼甚至高清拍攝門檻這麼低，兩岸四地加起來有條件參賽的影片，一年下來肯定是天文數字，這當中除了民間自發的製作，還包括院校、電視台及一些輔導金贊助的出品。未來這個獎更多人知了，揚名了，會不會導致五湖四海的交件數太多、主辦單位無法應付？華語紀錄片獎要是再辦下去，或要再思考清楚比賽定位及遴選機制的可持續發展問題。

當然現在言之尚早，以香港為例，作為兩岸四地之一，參賽作品其實不多，可觀的更少。評審開會時也說到了香港紀錄片不成氣候問題。這或有兩可能性：一是參賽情況真的反映了現實，香港紀錄片製作目前就是這樣未成氣候，比起中國內地及台灣都遜色很多。第二可能性是，有很多紀錄片製作人或學生選擇不參賽，或根本不知道這項比賽。比如他們覺得比賽跟自己的理念不同，或比賽認受性不高？所以乾脆不來了，甚至連觀摩放映的興緻都沒有。至於網絡發佈漸漸流行（如Youtube）的影響，應該是中港台同時面對的，照理不會對香港收件特別造成阻礙……這些疑問，要留待主辦單位在未來好好想想及嘗試解決了。

參賽作品題材千變萬化，洋洋大觀，難說甚麼熱門或趨勢。不過今年多了幾部以汶川地震為題的倒是實情，但水準都比較普通。至於風格上，解說性（expository）的紀錄片的確較少，似乎除了電視台，解說性紀錄片早已不受自主拍攝者的青睞。參賽作品很多都沒有旁白的，製作人的介入也較少。也許，不少人對紀錄片拍攝的「純客觀性」，還是有點遐想吧。

家明

 

An Opinion on Documentary Film Award

Having to watch all 80 documentary films in one sitting, even though just short films, but some of the films frequently 60 minutes, add up to a very long time, it may be said not strenuously. The organizer of next year will have to consider well (with first trial in particular) for the appraisal reward. No matter how meager or the symbolic type, it is consoles each appraisal to pull out the time to watch and discuss each films after work.

However, more works is also a good thing, which means a lot of people know about this competition and participating in. “Chinese Documentary film award” is a big name. Nowadays digital film or even high-definition film have such a low threshold, there are tens of thousands of films in between mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, in the middle of this except not only form folk spontaneous manufacture, but also includes the colleges and universities, the television station and some counseling support fund productions. Would it cause a problem to the organizers when the films deliver from all corners of the country when this event grows more successful and well known in the future?

Of cause it’s still too early to say anything. Take Hong Kong as an example, the participative work are not actually many, even less to be considerable. The appraisal holds a meeting when spoke of the Hong Kong documentary film not amount to anything. This could has two possibilities: the first possibility is, the participative situation is a real reflection of the reality, the Hong Kong documentary film manufacture at present is really not amount to anything, when compares the Mainland China and Taiwan. The second possibility is that many documentary film producer or the student chooses not to participate, or simply does not know of this competition. For instance they thought the competition is different with own idea, or the nature of the competition recognizes is not been high? Therefore just simply does not participate, not even interests in observes and emulates showing. As for the influence of the internet issue (such as Youtube), should be gradually Hong Kong and Taiwan at the same time, it should not create the hindrance in just Hong Kong. These questions will have to well consider and attempt to solve by the organizers in the future.

 

The participative work theme ever changing, it is very difficult to say which is popular or tendency. This year many several take on the Wenchuan earthquake as the topic, but the standard of those were quite ordinary. As for the style, expository documentary films are indeed fewer than the past, as if except for the television station, expository documentary film already not the favor. Most of the participative works does not have the narration, even less producer’s involvement. Perhaps many people still have the reverie of the “pure objectivity” of the documentary film.

KaMing

 

 

中國大陸、台灣和香港三地的紀錄電影放在一起觀看的經驗，在2009年的華語紀錄片電影節上的這個評審經歷對我來說還是很新鮮的事情。短片單元對於現在的記錄影片創作來說，可能并不是“主流”——特別對大陸來說，影片的長度是越來越誇張了，以致看短片的時候就感覺不怎麼像在看電影了。這當然不是想說短片的短處，可能反而是一種優點吧：如果能通過短片來探索的紀錄電影的更多可能性的話，也許是一種更有效率的方法。從另外一個角度來說，我所看到的短片的總體的情況是相對薄弱的。這個情況可能在三地都是比較類似的？

因為評選的結果已經是出來了，所謂作品的優勝，這可能算是一個旁證。不過影片的情況畢竟是豐富的，而作者對於其自身影片的看法，并不能因為有了評選而改變。對作品評選的結果，我認為最好的態度就是不在乎這個結果。作品在同一個平臺上的交流的好處是促進瞭解，評選僅僅是為了讓大家更關注作品。如果真要讓每個人都談對每一個影片的看法，那肯定是更豐富的。電影在影院中的放映已經是很說明問題了。

最後對所有獲獎和沒有獲獎的紀錄片導演都說一聲：獎項是給別人看的東西，而作品才是自己。

朱日坤

 

The Chinese Documentary Festival invites entries from Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. This has been a very refreshing experience for me as a judge because of the diversity demonstrated by the entries. One thing I note is that shorts do not appear to be mainstream in documentaries, especially for Mainland China, where documentaries are usually quite lengthy. Shorts, in comparison, almost do not feel like films. This is not to say that shorts will be put at a disadvantage because of their short running time -- it may actually be an asset if it can help get the message across in a more efficient way.  That said, the competing shorts are quite weak compared with the features this year. 

Although the results for the competition are out, they should not affect the filmmakers’ perception of their own films. I personally think the best attitude is to put the focus not on the results, but the benefit of sharing different films and getting to know the views of different directors. The aim of the competition is to encourage filmmakers to continue their great efforts, and the competition would be an even more worthwhile experience if directors can exchange ideas through their films. 

To all filmmakers: whether you receive an award or not, prizes are only acknowledgement of others, it is your work that is truly yours.

 

Zhu Rikun

 

 

該怎麼評紀錄片呢?

我從來沒想過我不懂得紀錄片!

因為我幾乎是看紀錄片長大的. 我從小對電視播的生物片是“有殺錯沒放過”，坐飛機也要選國家地理雜誌或discovery的節目, 又常常看香港或外國的時事特輯，當然也看像《河殤》等等大陸特有的理論性歷史寓言。

這次我竟然覺得自己不懂得評紀錄片。

當我一齣一齣看下去，我不斷想，社會性的紀錄片與時事專輯是甚麼關係? 生物紀錄片的珍貴程度、真假價值、視野高度都很容易判斷，但是社會性的紀錄片，該以甚麼為標準呢? 填寫評判紙上風格創意的評分項時，我反覆想紀錄片的風格創意是甚麼，與劇情片的風格創意有甚麼不同要求? 如果一齣紀錄片選材好、議題深、剪裁嚴謹、呈現客觀，整體流暢成熟但沒有新風格，那它值得高分嗎? 紀錄片追求藝術性時，有沒有限制?

今次入圍的幾齣短片，普遍水平不低，有一些長時間追蹤拍攝，頗不容易。但也有可改善之處: 有些把握了獨特題材，可惜主線琢磨未夠乾淨; 有些題材重要但嫌常見，幸而選的人物極生動，簡直是角色表演; 有些對營構很用心，亦因此令我對它的絕對真實性未放心。入圍作品共通的優點是細膩，共通的不足是分析和視野廣度, 看來這是華人拍紀錄片的提升空間.

最後我這個不合格的評判選擇回歸最基本的評斷標準: 為甚麼這齣片值得拍? 如果值得拍, 它的處理手法對得起它的題材嗎?

紀錄片是推動社會了解和發展的一大力量, 這個華語紀錄片獎太重要了, 我希望以上的思考對切磋提升華語紀錄片水平能略有貢獻, 而不是摧殘。幸好我讀文學, 大概不致因為以上的評斷取向, 太扼殺紀錄片的藝術空間.

張倩儀

 

How Should One Judge Documentaries?

I never imagined I would fail to understand any documentary!

I have always been a fan of documentaries. When I was a kid, I had never missed any single program of wildlife documentaries on TV. Whenever I am traveling by air I always pick the National Geographic and Discovery channels. I watch both local and foreign news specials, and of course I do not miss the uniquely theory-oriented history programs from mainland China that almost achieve mythic quality.

This time around, however, I was almost shocked to discover my inability to judge documentaries.

A question kept recurring to me as I watched one entry after another: what is the relationship between social documentaries and news specials? It is always easy to judge the merit of wildlife documentaries based on easily determinable criteria such as the value of the information provided, level of genuineness and scope of vision, but what about social documentaries? When filling in the style and creativity section on the grading sheet, I kept thinking what style and creativity mean for documentaries and how they might differ in a narrative film context. If a documentary tackles the right topic, explores in enough depth and completed with flawless editing, suitable dose of objectivity, smooth and mature overall direction but without a new style, should it be given high marks? Are there any boundaries when it comes to pursuing artistic qualities in documentaries?

All the finalists this year are of solid quality. Some of them involve the difficult task of tracking subjects over prolonged periods of time. There is nonetheless room for improvement. Some entries are on unique topics, but their main threads need refinement. Some issues explored are important and at the same time a bit too familiar but the vivid depictions of individual subjects assume almost performance-like quality helped a lot. Still, there are others that are so meticulously structured I have reservations as to their level of genuineness. One common attribute of all finalists is their delicacy, while their common area for improvement are depth of analysis and breath of scope. These appear to be applicable among Chinese documentary filmmakers.

Finally, I, an unqualified jury member, decided to be resorted to the most basic judging criteria and simply asking questions like these: Why is this topic worth making a film? If it is worth making, does the way it is made match with the topic?

Documentaries are a powerful force in promoting social understanding and development. And the meaning this Chinese documentary award carries is so great that I wish my thoughts stated above may somehow contribute to the Chinese documentaries quality improvement and the filmmakers interflow, instead of discouragement. Fortunately I studied language and literature, so chances are my judging orientation not inclining much space for documentaries artistic exploration.

 

(A translation of the Chinese original text by Ms Shin-yee CHEUNG)

 

Cheung Shin Yee

 

都是真事！

 

一部部紀錄片看下去，每次都從心裡喊出來：都是真事呀。

看紀錄片的心情和看劇情片真不一樣。看劇情片時，都看了不少真人真事的改編，但經過導演編劇反芻又反芻，再真的事，都加了創作者個人主觀習性，我們做評審的，面對這些個人習性比較容易發表意見，反正就是道不同不相為謀，不喜歡，就打個交义，不會不好意思。

但看紀錄片，面對真人真事，就下筆為艱了。一件件都是真人真事，要是有血要流，那些一定不是紅汞水、有淚要流一定不是眼藥水，有汗要流一定不是噴水，於是乎，即使影片多不成熟，導演攝影多笨拙，但好像每部片都值得推薦，因為想要更多人看到，希望更多人關注那些個話題。

只是，比賽就是這麼一回事，總要選個名次，因為大會預算有限就獎項有限，而且人人有獎又一定給人罵作分贓，所以……。但名次之分，向來不是影片高下之別，這種比賽一向如此，因為評審就只有那麼幾個，人人都可以質疑他們的代表性，例如我。而大家意見又不一，總有影片得到阿甲垂青卻給阿乙冷眼，又有人孤寒成性，分數從嚴，有人慷慨大方，分數從寬，做過評審就知道當中的爭執混亂。

但紀錄片最重要還是要喚起大眾對時代話題的關注。香港最近不是接連有教師跳樓？我最近還鄉探親就聽到幾個子侄沒錢讀書的困難。難得剛好就有這幾部片，給我們的時代聚了焦。

羅維明

 

It’s All Real

As I watched one entry after another, I found myself yelling in my heart each time:

“It’s all real.”

Documentary and narrative films are totally different viewing experiences. Yes, many narrative films are based on real events, but after repeated processing by the director and screenwriter, even the most faithful account will inevitably be tainted by the filmmakers’ subjective views. It is perhaps easier for jury members like us to comment on these exercises of subjectivity – somehow one does not feel bound to share the subjective view of another. If I do not like it, so be it.

It is an entirely different story when it comes to documentaries, which are accounts of real people and real events. If we see blood and tears, it is real blood and tears – not strawberry syrup and eye drops – that we see. Somehow, even if the direction is immature and the camerawork clumsy, a documentary would still seem recommendable, if for nothing else but to show it to more people so they can pay more attention to the issues examined.

A competition is a competition, however, and it is necessary to rank the entries. There can only be a limited number of prizes, partly because the organizers are working under a budget, and also because there is no doubt a competition will never be taken seriously if every entry is awarded. One should always bear in mind the fact that rankings do not denote difference in quality, especially in competitions like this where the results are determined by a handful of jury members like me, whose authoritativeness may be accepted by some but challenged by others. Moreover, it is all a matter of taste when a film is complimented by one member of the jury but panned by another, not to mention there are among the jury members both the harshest critics and the most generous of reviewers. One can never truly appreciate the chaotic process until the day he or she becomes part of a jury.

That said, the most important aspect of documentaries remains their ability to rekindle people’s awareness of the issues at hand – everything from the recent string of suicides involving teachers to children who cannot afford proper education, to name but a few. We all owe our thanks to these documentaries for putting things back in focus.

 

Law Wai Ming