From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Aug 26 2006 - 16:56:57 PDT
--- Ken Bawcom <email suppressed> wrote:
> Thanks for admitting that the statement I objected
> to was "too much of
> a blanket statement."
No problem! I was probably getting a bit erm,
overexcited when I wrote it. ;)
> Either a film maker submits through WAB, or they
> don't. They may submit
> directly. The filmmaker makes that choice, not the
> festival. We deal
> with films as they come to us, and choose to accept
> WAB submissions. We
You mean that those are the choices offered to the
filmmaker by the festival. The festival is offering
more choices in the way that people can submit their
work might be one way of looking at it.
Also submissions that are not sent through WAB are
penalised financially. They pay more even tho WAB
takes no cut. Thus the choice is skewed in favour of
Lastly and as I pointed out in my previous posting,
WAB is actually reducing filmmakers options and
> have no way of knowing if the same film would
> otherwise come in
> directly from the filmmaker. Of course, we would
> rather get it directly
> from the film maker, and not have WAB take a cut.
> But, I repeat, to
> refuse WAB submissions would be to refuse those
> filmmakers who chose to
> use the service, i.e. to not care about them, or
> their films. Your not
> understanding that seems strange to me. The "way of
Yes but I'm saying you wouldn't be refusing their
entry they would just have to submit it a different
It's not refusing the filmmaker or their work, just
their choice of submission process.
> knowing really" how
> we would get a submission is to see how we actually
> got it, not to
> conjecture about how we might have gotten it some
> other way, when we
You appeared to be suggesting that you wouldn't have
received the film except through WAB. I was suggesting
that this might not be the case, so I was just
responding to your conjecture that you wouldn't have
received the film:
"I have seen a number of excellent submissions from
WAB. The AAFF, and our audience, would be the poorer
if we had not received them."
I'm saying that WAB might be irrelevant to whether you
recieve these films or not as there is another way for
> To the best of my knowledge, the AAFF has always
> charged an entry fee,
> and did not alter that fee based on WAB taking a
> cut. I agree that
> WAB's practices can be seen as encouraging higher
> entry fees, and I
> don't like that either. If a festival does raise
> fees to compensate for
> WAB's cut, that is a bad thing.
If they don't raise fees then surely it is still a bad
thing as then WAB is taking money away from the
> I mentioned awards only in the context of my
> "perfect world" statement.
> After 18 years of screening (and other things) for
> the AAFF, I could
> write pages on how to do a film festival as if in a
> "perfect world,"
> but I spared you that, and only mentioned awards,
> another major
> monetary consideration, like entry fees. But you're
I have to say, I've never even thought about monetary
awards, let alone worried about them.
> right, they weren't
> really part of the discussion. Sorry if that was
That's okay! :)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.