Scores and Comments

19.c.pr.109.509

Florida State University

Application Details

Proposal TypeSpecific Cultural Project - Discipline-Based
Request Amount
$25,000
Total Score268.000
Average Score67.000

Panelist Scores

Panelist Excellence Impact Management Accessibility Total
Hughes William 34 15 15 9 73
Riley Trish 30 28 18 9 85
Scoon Valerie
Thaler Rob 20 10 5 5 40
Zaldivar Juan Carlos 30 15 20 5 70

Comments

Hughes William - Score: 73.000

No Signature check box

This is a media grant not research grant

Riley Trish - Score: 85.000
{No comments provided.}
Scoon Valerie - Score: 0
{No comments provided.}
Thaler Rob - Score: 40.000

 

Makes an incomplete and/or inadequate case for the public value of arts and culture. Does not merit investment of State of Florida funding.

Specific Cultural project:

Do proposed activities occur between 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019?

Funding is for post-production. Legal affairs: $5,000, Press agent: $2,000. Website and Graphic Designer: $3,000. No admissions or impact in the grant period. 

Funded activities must occur in the grant period. As proposed, there is little benefit for the people of Florida.

The application represents your work - proofread.

No measurable objectives provided.

What? The main reason why I submit the film we are currently finishing, is, to see the level of support the community showed in that film, that will certainly guarantee a similar success in achieving the film in this documentary. 

2. A film screening and panel discussion with cast and crew who participated in the film at Florida State’s Seven Days of Opening Nights.

 

The name changed 3 years ago.

 

Accessibility is relevant to post production.

 

 

Zaldivar Juan Carlos - Score: 70.000

Without a visual sample from the filmmaker, it is a bit hard to judge this proposal. The experimental framework proposed (only to cover the children's face) is interesting but it is unclear if this is a strong enough choice to carry a feature film and engage a general audience. It is intriguing nonetheless and can prove to be an interesting cinematic choice.

Though the written proposal is strong and the success of the previous project is described, there is no tangible plan in place for how to use the film to make an impact beyond the amount of eyeballs that will potentially see it at film festivals. 

As written, the proposal raises questions about gaze and exploitation/extraction of a delicate an sensitive subject matter. The filmmaker is transparent about his notion of "the other" this is both exciting but can be equally dangerous when it comes to representation. It would have been helpful to provide links to previous work so the panel can gain confidence on the team's artistic integrity,

All that said, I would be in favor of supporting tis project if the rest of the panel is in favor of doing so because the budget is low and the potential for success seems high based on the information provided about previous work.