And This Year’s 48 Hour Film Project Winners Are …

I have once more—along with Brenda Lily and newcomer Christopher Manheim—survived another year of judging the results of the 48 Hour Film Project. I don’t want to give the impression that this is a terrible bit of drudgery. It’s a walk in the park—or at least a comfy sit in the screening room—compared to actually getting out there and making a movie from top to bottom in 48 hours. It is, nonetheless, a bit daunting to sit through the entire set of contenders in one day. In some ways, it was even more so this year, because there wasn’t such an obvious, clear-cut overall winner.

At first I was of the opinion that this year’s crop was a little less grand than last year’s simply because we kept running movies and nothing was leaping out at me. Then I realized that this was the result of the general level of quality being that much higher. Face facts: You expect a certain number of less-than-glorious entries in any film competition. When you’re looking at a timed competition with some pretty strict rules, that prospect increases dramatically. But this year that wasn’t the case.

I’m not saying that every film was great. What I am saying is that there weren’t any entries that had everyone turning to each other at the end and asking, “What the hell was that?” When that factor goes out the window, the matter of choosing the best of the lot becomes much more complicated. It also allowed for a broader range of winners this year.

We were asked to pick the best overall film, as well as winners in the categories of direction, writing, acting, editing, cinematography, sound design, use of character, use of prop, use of line, and—if they applied—best graphics, special effects, musical score, choreography and costumes. Those final categories are wholly dependent on whether or not any of the films entered made particularly notable use of those aspects of filmmaking. Put simply, if there aren’t any dance numbers or fight sequences, there’s nothing to give a choreography award to.

To brush up a bit on some of the awards and requirements, it should be noted that the films can be no more than seven minutes long, plus up to one minute of credits (that actually became an issue this year). They also have to be turned in on time. They need to have adhered to their assigned genres, and the filmmakers have to incorporate a specific character, line of dialogue and prop that is given to them at the start of the competition.

Far and away the funniest film this year was Forfeit from Strawboss Labs. Unfortunately, they’d drawn the genre of “historical fiction,” which is probably the worst possible thing that could happen to anyone working on no budget. But it turned out to be both the best and worst thing that could have happened to these filmmakers. It was best in that they used the fact that they thought their genre sucked as the basic underpinning of the film they produced. It was worst because—despite the filmmakers tentatively sticking their toes in several very funny halfhearted attempts at historical fiction—it was impossible to make a serious claim that they’d adhered to their assigned genre. The upshot? We invented the category (which is permissible) of Best Subversion of Genre. They won hands down.

The remarkably stylish Tear of the Beest from Broken Burrito Productions was little short of amazing. There was no question that it was the best directed of the entries, which award it took, along with the award for best use of the line of dialogue (“Is that all you’ve got to say?”). What made the line business especially noteworthy was that the film took issue with its use of English! Unfortunately, the filmmakers went long on their credits. While the film fit snugly—almost exactly, in fact—into the seven-minute slot, the credits ran 40 seconds too long, effectively disqualifying it from the top prize.

The work that did take Best Overall Film was Blue Ridge Community College’s Serial Love, a rather bloodthirsty black comedy that was done with a good deal of style itself. Few films done this quickly make especially good use of sound. This one not only did, but it also used the combination of sound and image for one of its best gags. The film also garnered the Best Credits nod for its very clever end credits (OK, so they were probably inspired by the ones on Don Mancini’s Seed of Chucky, but they did take the concept to a new level.)

The runner-up film, Chelsea Raynal and the Secret of the Poison Crop Caper, came from last year’s big winners (for Cosmo of 1932), We Make Pictures Move. Once again, they came up with a clever and well-made production that just barely missed the big prize—from my perspective at least—by being a little too enamored of green-screen work. Still, that same work is what nabbed them the special-effects prize. And they also took Best Use of Prop (an ashtray). Not too shabby, that’s for sure. If there’d been a prize for most unwieldy title, they’d have walked off with that, too.

Other winners were Mobius Loop for Best Costumes and Writing; Gangsta Daydreams for Best Song (a pretty big year for songs); Hallow’s Eve: Night of the Cicadas for Best Sound Design; Divided Highway for Best Editing; and Quantum Type for Best Cinematography. Zach Blew (Smoke Break) and Kaley McCormack (Chelsea Raynal and the Secret of the Poison Crop Caper) took Best Actor and Best Actress respectively.

All in all, it was a great year for the competition and I look forward to next year—whether I’m a judge again or not.

 

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

11 thoughts on “And This Year’s 48 Hour Film Project Winners Are …

  1. bEESTpELT

    WE ALL KNOW THAT TEAR OF THE bEEST SHOULD HAVE WON THIS COMPETITION! FACE THE TRUTH AND ALL YOUR DREAMS WILL BE SET FREE!!!!! LONG LIVE THE pELT!!!!!!
    TIME LIMITS ARE FOR LOSERS….OH YEAH WE LOST. WHOOPS!!!!

  2. TonyRo

    I was the writer and co-director for one of the films called HIRED FORCE. It wasn’t our best effort (it being our first), but it was fun. I think it was pretty good.

  3. Ken Hanke

    At this point — and I just cleared the paperwork off my desk today — titles have pretty much run together in my mind. Which one was this?

  4. Vince LaMonica

    Great article! When we saw the Tear of the Beest film, I did think the credits ran a bit long; 40 seconds! Oh man – I feel so bad for them! :( Their production value was top notch.

    It was great to hear what you thought of the films you were able to mention; I find that good [and esp. bad!] feedback about one’s work can be very helpful in continuing to improve.

    I’ve never seen any of the Chucky films, but now you’ve got my curious; I think I’ll need to add that one to my Netflix queue. :)

    /vjl/ [aka Serial Love credits guy]

  5. Jennifer Treadway

    Ken:

    Thanks so much for your kind words about our film “Serial Love.” I always check with you and Roger Ebert before I see any movie so the fact you enjoyed our film means a lot. Could I make a suggestion? Is there any way the judges could do a some type of formal written critique of the movies submitted? Blue Ridge Community College has submitted films for the last 3 competitions and done all right awards-wise but I would like to have had them critiqued so we could know more specifically areas that need work.

    Again, much thanks for all your work and we hope to see you again next year.

    Jennifer Treadway, director of Serial Love

  6. Ken Hanke

    I was the writer and co-director for one of the films called HIRED FORCE. It wasn’t our best effort (it being our first), but it was fun. I think it was pretty good.

    I’d agree with you that it’s good, especially for a first effort. The very fact that you had fun and weren’t yourself displeased with the results should lead you to going again next year.

  7. Ken Hanke

    I’ve never seen any of the Chucky films, but now you’ve got my curious; I think I’ll need to add that one to my Netflix queue

    I think you’ll be surprised how similar they are in approach. Yours go a clever step further by inventing demises for the crew.

  8. Ken Hanke

    Could I make a suggestion? Is there any way the judges could do a some type of formal written critique of the movies submitted?

    I’m sure there is, but judging is only an honorary position. Any such approach would have to be put forth to the 48 Hour Film Project folks (the local level). Then, of course, the question would arise as to whether or not there’d be enough time for detailed critiques on each film.

  9. MK Harrison

    We have the dates for this year’s 48 Hour Film Project! 19 June 2009!

    You can find us on Facebook: facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Asheville-NC/Asheville-48-Hour-Film-Project/71661312361

    Any and all suggestions are welcome!

    MK Harrison

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.