It was way exciting to turn it over and see that the winner of the My Home Town competition (In Case I Disappear) actually had their film on the disc, even though I knew they would. So thanks Marie at Soda Pictures for helping to put together such a great competition with us! I find it exciting that we were able to offer distribution for some of the entries on the Internet, television, DVD and at festival screenings.

The four which will air on 3 Minute Wonder as a series early next year, and each get £1,500, are:

In Case I Disappear – Simon Aeppli
Parade – Mathy Tremwan
My Amersham – Marco Williamson
Stratford Side B – Christopher Chen

So congrats to them, and everyone who entered. You can now watch all 12 shortlisted films in the new My Home Town player, or leave comments about individual films in the blog. Do you think we chose the best films? And what did you make of the way Lee discussed them? Let me know…

The friction of a resident’s real experiences contrasted with a corny Tour Tape could have been corny itself – but it kind of held it together. It must be a pain living under the shadow of Shakespeare’s quill.

All in all I’ve enjoyed watching the films in this competition and if I’ve seemed harsh at some points ­ grow a thick skin. This is just one man’s opinion. I’m not arguing THE way. I’m just championing what I like. You should champion your own style and your own voice. If you don’t march to the beat of your own drum your step will be all over the place.

The one thing I would argue having watched these films is this: if your doc is just visual journalism ­ or a pictorial statement of facts ­ then I doubt the film has any longevity. It’s simply an info-mercial. Once you’ve absorbed the information you don’t go back. Most documentary on TV approaches this model. It is designed for just one night’s viewing and maybe a repeat. It’s not a painting that you could look at again. Or a piece of music you could put on repeat.

I want documentary to approach something more akin to art and for doc-makers to acknowledge that the viewing of films is not just sitting in a lecture hall. It is a sensory experience and you should appeal to those senses with the use of rhythm, sound and the internal interplay of picture and imagery. Watching a film is a physical experience ­ it is not just cerebral.

Someone said they thought I’m more interested in form over substance ­ which couldn’t be further from the truth. Everything I’ve ever championed has been about the spirit and soul of a piece and that this should be given precedence over gloss, sheen and “professionalism”. However ­ the visuals of your film are the corridors to the content ­ so you’ve got to be on top of it ­ otherwise you won’t communicate your message ­ and you won’t communicate the feeling you wanted to – you won’t communicate whatever it was you wanted to communicate to the audience.

Now everyone make films. Disregard everything anyone tells you until you make the film you want. Bye.

Again it had that feeling of late night filler you used to get on TV ­ where there might be a couple of minutes you need to fill in the schedule at some ungodly hour and so they stick in something that doesn’t really go anywhere or do anything. Who knows? Maybe the feeling I had of wanting to get away completely echoes what it’s like to live in Bargoed, South Wales?

My mind wandered a lot ­ not because I’m simple ­ but because the whole rhythm of it felt so nothingy. The only point where I started to get a bit interested was when the form completely changed at the end and we had a bit of an interview with the ventriloquist. I think it’s cos the puppet and old lady thing was doing my head in prior to that. It was a bit like a terrible insert from the kids show, Rosie and Jim. Anyway, that was the only time in the film where there was a gear change and where the rhythm felt a bit dynamic and sprightly.

I definitely think there’s something in the idea of using a dummy in a doc though. Personally I would have written and delivered the voiceover as if it was a real life interview – not assume a kind of kids TV storytelling patter. (Or just do an intervew with a real lady). Then I would have had played the interview over imagery of the “lady” moving around the house – but all shot in soft focus or concealed in late afternoon shadow. Then I would have revealed the dummy only towards the very end. That’s what I would have done. Anyone got any other ideas for using dummies/puppets in docs?

Sorry ­ it just wasn’t for me. It had echoes of those daytime history channel programs where you have pieces of archive footage or re-enacted events which have been made to “look old” in the edit by clicking on the, “make it look old” button you get on all the editing software owned by the history channel. They also have a sound effect machine that has either the sound of a plane, the sound of Nazi boots marching, or the sound of Hitler shouting.

There was a lot of the latter. My brain couldn’t always makes sense of the connection between the words and the pictures

Is that because I’m a rubbish viewer? Or is it cos the editor didn’t communicate successfully enough to me as a viewer what was perhaps obvious to them? The result was that as a viewer I began to increasingly lose my grip on the film’s narrative and in turn my interest waned.

The photos were also totally discordant. There was no visual uniformity to them, and no reason to suspect this was a deliberate stylistic choice. It began to feel like the pictures were dragged from google image searches, and were simply the first pictures found that sort of made sense to the narrative. Pretty harsh but what do you want from me? There’s a credit crunch on and that’s hitting praise too.

And that really counts for a lot, ­ especially if telly is the route you want to take. (You’re gonna have more success if you come across as likeable as opposed to coming across like a bastard.)

There was a stylistic unity to the visuals of the piece and the editing hit the right notes and kissed the voiceover on the cheek in all the right places. There was a sweetness to the voiceover. It was very simple but really sincere. And this was all complimented by the music and indeed the sentiments within. Really lovely to see a film about a hometown that wasn’t wraught with bitterness or frustration. But that’s Brighton for you. What do you expect? Bloody, happy bastards.

Dropped you into a sensory experience to communicate a feeling of unease and agitation. In this respect it placed the viewer firmly within the emotional landscape of what it’s like to live in that town ­ rather than narrating, lecturing and telling you what it’s like.

Brooding use of sound. Successfully edited to create an emotional narrative rather than a traditional narrative that appeals to your head and your thoughts. Obviously it makes you think and appeals to your head, what I’m saying is the narrative is not aiming for coherency in terms of language or construction of an argument in the same way that you would if you were writing an essay for school.

It adopts a stylistic approach that seeks to generate mood and feeling. If it captivates you and made sense to you on that level then it succeeded.

The idea was cute enough – but the narrative and the visual rendering of it didn’t transcend anything other than generic TV documentary. There was nothing singular or idiosyncratic in the filmmaking ­ which is what I personally look for when I sit down to watch a film. In an anodyne world of formatted TV and trend-following commissioning, I’m desperate for violent individualism and for filmmaking that is a breath of beautiful idiosyncracy. So whilst competent and solid ­ controlled and clean – for me this film veered towards TV orthodoxy with regard to its catalogue of shots, it’s editing and its voiceover.

Ask yourself this when you watch a film: ‘Could a number of filmmakers have made the same film given the same subject matter? Or could that filmmaker and that filmmaker alone have produced the final product?’ That’s kind of what I¹m looking for in films. What are you looking for?

The visual geometry of it was nice too. Each shot was a carefully rendered composition that balanced its visual components in unexpected and refreshing ways. The general homage of the piece was a nod to a kind of dark futurism – with shapes and shadows and powerful angles rendered accordingly.

The swivelling CCTV camera has never looked more like a sentient little monster to my eyes. It was like something from War of The Worlds? So yeah – as a visual spectacle – I enjoyed this film. In particular its framing of the subject matter and composition of shots. I used to have a theory that you could go into any situation and if you filmed the right geometric angles of something and edited it correctly – you could therein unlock it’s spirit and reveal its emotional essence to the audience.

Do you think this film has managed to bring you closer to the heart and soul of Hungerford and this bridge? Or do you think that – whilst a skilled and accomplished exercise in cinematography – it lacks deeper contact with the world it’s studying?