Ghosts Among the Corn critique

Had an opportunity to sit down with the CRIFF judges today and get a critique on GATC. I think this is a great thing the festival does because it allows not only winning entries to get feedback on their film but also non winning entries as well.
My only complaint is that it's only a 15 minute session.

Anyway, I got some good feedback on GATC. Basically it was very well recieved.
The judges said this was the year of the documentary. Seems like docs were coming out of the woodwork. Even Max Collins ( Road to Perdition) had another one this year entered.

On a side note, why is it no one ever says Max Collins? Every article I see on the guy has to mention Road to Perdition. In the future I'd like to be know as Kevin J. Railsback ( Ghosts Among the Corn).

Anyway, back to the critique...

The judges basically explained that it came down to nitpicking small details because the level of the films this year was really, really good.

At this point I stopped them and told them that I had changed the film since the version I submitted to them.
I then proceeded to tell them I had added professional narration, changed the still shot of the cougar moving in front of the car to an actual cougar in motion, changed the music, added new footage, added cutaway shots to some of the longer segments etc.

Everything I mention was the things they felt could be improved on. So, it was nice to see that what I thought could be improved were the same things they thought could be improved.

I told them that if a film is recut and or changed they should allow the film to be resubmitted. Granted if nothing is changed it's most likely not going to be selected the second go around because the caliber of films submitted is getting better each year.

But, if changes are made that improve upon the film why not allow it to be sent in and given another shot at selection?

I know I've changed GAtC quite a bit from what they saw. I have a whole year basically to improve it with better footage etc. Eventually I'd like to expand it to include some of the things I wanted to have in this version but didn't have the footage to support the story.

Hopefully the judges won't get pissed that I'm doing this but here are a few comments from their judging sheets...

"Some of the effects rivaled a similar show I saw on Discovery"

" I love the topic - The setup was perfect. All of Iowa sees the corn but we forget what could be inside."

"Beautiful blend of natural shots, people and animal B-roll."

"Good persuasive piece."

"Good incorporation of different sources of subject material."

" Good wildlife footage and Iowa imagery."

Not to bad.

here are some of the things they felt could be improved upon or didn't mix well with the rest of the film. I'll comment on them as well.

"Awkward when interviewees look at camera"

I tried to get one subject to look at my raised hand during the interview but they kept looking at the camera. We did several takes and although they finally did a take not looking at the camera they had told the story so many times that it started being a condensed version and they began to leave out things from the earlier takes. I decided to go with an earlier one since it had the most information.

"Choice of narrator seems weak."

Narration has been changed hired professional radio personality to narrate the film. Vast improvement.

"Lots of stock footage"

Actually there's hardly any. There's three aerial shots that are stock footage and one shot of some woods that was stock footage. Every other shot in that film was taken by me. I know that's the biggest question I'm asked." Did you shoot all that?" Except for about a minute of stock footage everything in there is shot by me. Every animal shot in the film is mine.

" Funny mountain lion graphic seems out of place."

It sure did, that's why I replaced it. So now instead of a stupid still of a lion in mid leap there's a motion shot of a lion leaping in front of the car.
I was hoping since the orignal still was only for three frames it wouldn't be that big of a deal but it did look stupid. The new version looks a lot better.

"Odd choice of classical piano for background music. Why use Cat Stevens?"

New music has been licensed for the movie. No more Cat Stevens. One woman who heard the new ending music told me she cried when she was watching the movie. It moved her so much she watched it twice more before she could put it away.

And that was about it for the things that they felt were weaker than the rest of the film.

I really enjoy getting this judging ballots because it's honest feeback from the judges. It's hard I'm sure to sit in front of a filmmaker and explain why their film wasn't selected. These ballots really gave me insight into how the film played.

So there you have it. With the changes made and the additional footage I hope to add over the course of this year would it make the 2006 festival if it were allowed to be reentered? Who knows. As the quality of entries goes up what was almost good enough this year may still not make the cut.

Posted: Sun - April 3, 2005 at 09:01 PM