Campus MovieFest directors should find voice

Student filmmaking is as indie as the movies get.

I would imagine there are some telecom students shooting with multiple HD cameras or in 3-D that would disagree with me, but the work done Sunday at the Campus MovieFest said differently.  

I watched a number of films that lacked substance but were made up for in style, some that had strong concepts but called out for a larger budget, and some that were impressive in both aspects but were still complex in their execution.  

CMF provides equipment for the filmmakers to shoot their projects, but only a handful of the 16 finalists were clearly shot on the handheld camera given to everyone. Even those few demanded a lot from their actors, their screenwriters and their cinematographers to make a remotely decent film.

After the screening, a friend of mine, who had made a very well-shot, well-told and well-acted short and was selected as one of the nominees for Best Comedy, expressed his disappointment at his loss. He explained that in all of his precise cinematography and cooperating with the actor and screenwriter to achieve a convincing story, he might have left out his own voice.

It is true that no film is made by just one person, but ultimately in a student filmmaking competition where time, budget and resources are limited, it becomes an increasingly independent venture.  

I wonder, then, why directors would rely so heavily on factors they have little control over, like telling a complex story in five minutes or expecting deeply dramatic performances by amateur actors and friends, especially when the odds are already stacked against them.

Some of the best films ever made are purely cinematic in nature, and it’s the one element that can be controlled most closely in production and post by a director or author.  

Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho,” a film with a minimal budget, a straightforward whodunit screenplay and casual performances (outside of Anthony Perkins’), remains a classic because of the style and identity that Hitchcock embedded so deeply in his work.  
Orson Welles, too, sought to minimize every element beyond his power, abandoning the studio system to make his masterpiece “Citizen Kane,” and he spoke behind and in front of the camera to do so.  

And while none of the CMF winners were on the level of “Kane,” they expressed individual qualities and some of that same simplicity in their work.  

My favorite of the evening and the winner of Best Drama was “Glimpse,” a film whose screenplay was nothing more than a poem recited by two actors rarely fully seen on camera. The director instead spoke vividly through a remarkable stop-motion photographed sequence, rapid but elegant editing and bright cinematography.

The winning comedy was a bit more complex in its story and in its performances, but that didn’t stop the directors of the cleverly titled “Clean Streets” to display their love of outrageous crime cinema, as well as a small Easter egg for those who remember their winning short from last year’s CMF.

And the Best Picture winner of the evening, “Sparks,” may have had an elaborately choreographed dance number, but more memorable than the simple child’s storybook screenplay and the somewhat hammy performances were the beautiful soft lighting and color throughout the short that jumped out.

These films all had something to say. They sprang from the minds of individuals rather than a collective group trying to make a viral video. That’s why they won.  

So maybe being “indie” isn’t such a terrible thing.