This time all 30 films made me really happy. I think that this year we've noticed some quality spring in the level of expression. Almost all of the films from the 30 of nominees are professionally processed, a man cannot reprimand them a lot. It is clear also from the very elementary analysis pointing to the high standard of means of expression. And that's good.
It maybe understandable that majority of the films bring fiction. This is the simplest way and I am aware that fiction - as a "genre" - is the most popular, has the highest publicity and draws attention in a highest degree. But we have to keep in mind that cinematography has originated in documentary, that is the film nobility. And on the other hand, experiment shows, respectively may show new ways of film communication. Therefore, it seems to me, these fields would deserve higher concentration. They are often more inspirational, they open wide space for cogitation of spectators and also the author learns a lot with them. For example, the film Christ - however it may look as a piece of amateur - has a wit, excellent rhythm and idea which lifts it up - over those many of a quality, yet traditional small artworks of fiction. So I recommend more innovations. There's never enough of innovations. There's no need to be satisfied only with variation, often to take a risk and play with form is worth of and may bring a surprising original result. Simply, sometimes it is better to make an experiment (also, at the price of mistake) than to work with a traditional form of fictitious scene.
The span of the themes depicted here was also interesting - from corruption through lesbianism, up to relations of (football) neighbors. Animation (Sperms), hidden camera (Real Video), documentary means (Ecce Homo) were used in a brilliant way, etc. Simply, the authors inserted all their endeavors and used out whatever possible modes. The collection is colorful and often lighthearted, in spite of the given theme logically leading to sadness from our imperfection. If the audience perceive that when watching these films, then the work done with films competing in this year's edition was undoubtedly sensible. 'Cause a film, taken as a form of art, has definitely to provoke, to bring - if not new ideas - then in any case, to depict reality in a way which we would have never seen in our eyes. It is all the matter of interpretation - the filmmaker has great possibilities of interpretation (technical, esthetic), definitely higher than an ordinary man left on his few elementary senses. And filmmakers, who participated in this year's competition of AZYL, have shown to have also abilities.