TIFF 07: The End (part one)

In Chacun Son Cinema on Friday night, Wong Kar Wai's entry featured two characters at a movie, shot in the sensual Wong style and featuring a certain Alphaville by the man of the hour, Godard.
In the sequence (which we only heard, never saw), the characters (Anna Karina and...Lemmy Caution) were talking about a festival, and how it's the reason out of towners pass through. and how it was nearly over, there was one big gala left and then it was done with. And I got all teary inside thinking about how, in a little more/less than 24 hours, this festival would be over.

What I didn't realize was that more or less at that moment the festival ended for me. The next day was sort of a blurry sleep deprived stream of images and so-so movies, with the one exception being Herzog's newest. And don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the 4 movies that day, and I'm glad that I saw them all (since they pretty much have no hope at showing up in syracuse). But I just couldn't get as into it and excited as I was say, three days ago. I felt like I was marching on the way to a funeral (you'd understand if you were going back to...syracuse). It's been surreal, intense, challenging and inspiring, and I think it's the best thing I've ever done. I can't wait for next year.

And now, it's actually over. I'm sitting on the train heading home, getting all emotional inside, and just looking back on everything. I can't believe what I've just experienced. I started planning this back in May, really. And unlike my other big plans from back then (make 6 short films in the summer! buy a projector! go to new york for a week!) I actually pulled this one off. In July I ordered my passes and booked my train. I reserved a spot in a hostel (which I ultimately didn't need). Everything was in place a few months ahead. All I had to do was chicken out. But I didn't. I took the time off work, took the time off class, packed my bags and all of my money and 36 movies later, I'm on the way back.

It was worth it. About once a day I'd have a moment where I'd realize where I was and what I was doing, and I felt this wonderful bubbling inside.

But enough blathering about that, now for a bit of a recap:

My festival top 3 (and a brief explanation why):
1) Paranoid Park - I'm going to be thinking about this every time I pick up a camera. And every time I sit down to edit. And every time I try to write. It was striking, it caught me completely off guard. I wasn't expecting to go wild over a Gus Van Sant movie about a skater. But I did.
2) The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - It already feels like a classic. I got swept away in the myth.
3) TIED between Silent Light - Because I really should have hated it. It had everything working against it. But instead, I got some of the most fantastic images I've ever seen.
And
Control - Because I haven't ever cried in a theater before. But the performance at the center of this made me do it. Also, I think Corbijn's handling of Curtis was nuanced. There's more to this, but I have to watch some other musical biopics and "great man" movies to flesh it out. Look for that essay in a few weeks.

Honorable Mention (roughly in order of how much I liked them):
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 days - I was with it all the way through. And I loved the starting and ending.
No Country for Old Men - How can you not go wild over the Coen brothers? Especially when they're doing what they do best.
Juno - Because we need more scripted comedy in the world. And more Ellen Page. And more Michael Cera.
Water Lilies - Maybe it's the teenage boy in me, but talk about chemistry.
Encounters at the End of the World - As pessimistic as he is, Werner is still really soothing.

The Innovation Awards (aka really cool movies with flashy styles that I liked a lot):
1) The Tracey Fragments - Completely unlike anything I saw at the festival (or ever, for the most part). I'm fairly certain it was all shot on video, and I didn't mind at all. In fact I think it helped (the whole "immediacy" thing). But yeah, this definitely gets the singularity of vision prize.
2) I'm Not There - Also unlike anything I've seen before, but like everything I've ever seen before. Pretty complex stuff. And damn that Cate Blanchett for not being overrated.
3) My Winnipeg - Because how can I have this sidebar and not include Maddin's docu-fantasia madness.

Honorable Mention:
You, the Living - Oh so bleak, but oh so funny. And meticulous.
Les Chansons D'Amour - A french musical indebted to Demy, Godard, and Truffaut? Who could refuse? I actually liked this more than I thought I did. The music gets a little poppy and redundant at times, but overall what a trip.
Dr. Plonk - Because who makes silent comedy these days? Aside from Maddin, nobody else really uses the silent techniques. And although he missed the mark a bit, Plonk still has its moments.
The Man From London - The Bela Tarr movie is a genre all its own.

My festival bottom 3:
1) The Banishment - I've already forgotten this. It was a completely unpleasant experience. Bleak, boring, and bothersome.
2) Across the Universe - Because it disappointed me a lot. It was just a bunch of loosely connected trippy music videos set to new arrangements of great songs. I'm going to try to forget this so I can enjoy the Beatles again. And as different as the arrangements were, I've found myself thinking of them when the Beatles show up on the ipod. At least Hey Jude made it through, I'll always think of The Royal Tenenbaums when I hear that one.
3) Run, Fat Boy, Run - Just too corny. Who knew Michael Ian Black would be so mainstream?

Other contenders:
Cassandra's Dream - Damnit Woody, why Colin Farrell? Why? And don't let Wilkinson drink on set again.
Chacun Son Cinema - Because with this much talent, the results should have been much better.
Lust, Caution - Because it's been overrated. It's really a prestige picture that's getting heat and attention because it's Ang Lee (he made that gay cowboy movie) and this time he's got lots of graphic sex. You see Tony Leung's balls. How are they necessary to any story?

And now for some performances:

By an Actor:
- Sam Riley as Ian Curtis in Control
- Brad Pitt as Jesse James - Because he actually uses his celebrity and public image to his advantage here.
- Casey Affleck as Robert Ford - Because he holds his own against Brad Pitt.
- Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men - incredibly badass.

By an Actress:
- Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan - she walked away with the movie. Completely.
- Ellen Page as Tracey
- Ellen Page as Juno
- Anamaria Marinca as Otilia in 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days

Props for overall cast excellence:
- No Country for Old Men
- Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
- Margot at the Wedding

Note: These are picked for being more "actorly." I'm not really considering the movies where the performances were based on the whole "non-acting" idea. But y'know, why not:

Best "non-acting" performance:
- Gabe Nevins in Paranoid Park
- the cast of silent light
- Xavier Latiffe in Dans la Ville De Sylvia

So those are the highlights. More musings to come soon.

TIFF 07: Day 10 "straddle a goat and ride off into the sunset."

Ok, so I guess after I'm Not There yesterday, my mind said "festival's over." Today was a big, sad blur.
Woke up, went to the Cumberland and saw:
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD (dir. Werner Herzog, 2007):
Herzog's back in documentary mode, and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Some beautiful shots, some interesting stories from people, profound comments on nature and mankind, and there's a sense of humor in this one. Also, he didn't use any terribly annoying music.
Grade: B+ (nice and Herzog-y, but not a major change or revolution)

And then, blew some time trying to stay warm and saw...

ME (dir. Rafa Cortes, 2007)
I feel guilty saying this, but I zoned out about ten minutes in. It wasn't doing anything for me. I stayed up the whole time, giving it chance after chance, but it just didn't have it together. The pacing was too slow, the idea wasn't clear enough, the motivations were fuzzy. Maybe I was fuzzy. I don't know. The one credit is that for Digital, it looked pretty good.
Grade: C- (excessive, boring)

Burned some more time, then headed to:
PLOY (dir. Pen-ek Ratanaruang, 2007):
Well. It was better than the last thing of his that I saw (Last life in the Universe, I had to turn it off it was bothering me so much). However, it still wasn't too great. It felt like a generic art movie. Everyone was sort of hanging around being moody, then an argument, some dream sequences (or are they?), a twist that almost makes you think there's a story, then more moody. Just didn't do it for me.
Grade: C+ (misguided, but mildly interesting)

Then I ran an errand or two, and went to the final film:

GLORY TO THE FILMMAKER (dir. Takeshi Kitano, 2007):
The first 45 minutes or so were fantastic. It's basically the director making mini-movies in different genres that he hasn't done before. But once it settles onto what's going to be the rest of the movie, it turns into this absurd, not very funny, overly long crazy-fest. So close, but so far.
Grade: B- (it'd be worse, but the first hour was actually funny, and interesting)

So that's that. Long wrap-up essay coming tomorrow (It's my project for the 8 hour train ride).

TIFF 07: Day 9 "mutant mosquitoes"

Today was bumpy. I got up about 15 minutes late, prepped and rushed out to the Cumberland (my first movie there), where I was set to see...The Moquito Problem and Other Stories. But there was one problem. My fatigue finally caught up with me and wanted to face off, and I lost. I think it was a combination of exhaustion and the air conditioning being way too powerful for the theater that early in the morning. Usually I'm good about staying up through my 9ams, but today, I just couldn't. When I get too cold I generally start to nod off, and despite wrapping myself up in my hoodie and trying to hold my eyes open, I just couldn't make it. The little bits and pieces I did see were funny and they felt almost fictional. It was about this small town with a mosquito problem. It reminded me of an Errol Morris-Christopher Guest hybrid. People were there for a Q&A, but I had to rush out (because of guilt, naturally, and hunger).
I got another huge slice of pizza and went to wait in line for the highly anticipated...
I'M NOT THERE (dir. Todd Haynes, 2007):
I'm going to need another viewing to really flesh out my thoughts on this. It's a crazy experience, Haynes uses 6 actors to play Dylan though a bunch of different life phases, the idea being (according to Haynes) that Dylan was always changing. People would meet him, see him a few months later, and he's look and sound different and have a whole new set of influences. The working definition of Dylan is that he's undefined. That sort of ambiguity manifests itself in a few ways throughout the movie, one of which is the cast. Each of the phases has a different style, from documentary to Fellini, straight to the camera confessional to a western. And the other is the narrative. Haynes weaves things together in this fluid, ever shifting way. Chronology is loosely followed, but it often jumps forward and backwards, adding more layers and pieces to the puzzle. It reminded me of The Tracey Fragments, in this regard (although that was broken up for different reasons, and in different ways, same sort of ideas though).
As far as the performers go... Blanchett wins. I didn't want her too, after seeing that scene that leaked on the internet a few months ago, I wasn't crazy about her and I came in expecting not to be. But I was wrong. She rocked. I think it would be pretty funny if on Oscar night she was nominated, along with one of her co-stars. I doubt that two people have been nominated for the same role in Best Actor and Best Actress. But hey, maybe it'll happen. Although which actor to nominate would be a lot tougher. I think Blanchett might be on her own with this (she'll probably be up against herself anyway... there was that new Elizabeth movie here too, and we know what happened last time she had that part...). But back to I'm Not There.
It was a complex, admirable film. And I look forward to seeing it again.
Grade: A-

Haynes was there to introduce the film, he couldn't stay after for a Q&A, but he did a short one before the screening. He talked about the choice to use all the actors, how the film was made with Dylan's blessing, casting Cate Blanchett, etc.

As soon as the credits started, I had to RUN to the scotiabank (well more like to a streetcar, then to the theater) where I missed the opening credits for...

LA FILLE COUPEE EN DEUX (dir. Claude Chabrol, 2007):
It reminded me of another French movie by a master that I wasn't crazy about, but respected a lot (Comedy of Power). It was solid, well put together and interesting to watch. Props on an unexpected twist that starts the third act (I should have expected it though. They say if there's a _ _ _ introduced in act one, it'll be used by act three). But yeah, I don't feel terribily blown away (it's no Paranoid Park), but it was a satisfying experience. Smarter than your average film.
Grade: B

And again, I had to get a pizza and RUN to the Elgin (I was on time, thankfully). I got a late place in line, so I ended up in the front row. But I just found my favorite seat in the theater. Why the front row at the Elgin is probably the best place (at least for me):
- The screen isn't right up in your face, and if you lean back a bit and rest your head on the seat, you can see everything just fine.
- Because it's the front row you don't have to constantly shift your position because of the person's head in front of you.
- Infinite legroom. My knees have started to hurt from being pressed against seatbacks.
- But there is one drawback. You can turn around and see that this movie is being projected...
digitally. We basically watched a DVD of...

CHACUN SON CINEMA (dir. Various, 2007):
Hah so this was weird. And uneven (as many of these movies are). Essentially, 34 directors each have to make a 3 minute film about going to the movies. I'm not even going to bother with the 30 of them that I didn't like/don't remember anymore. But the ones I enjoyed/still recall were...

WORLD CINEMA (Joel/Ethan Coen): With Josh Brolin as a simple country-fella who stepped into an arthouse showing Climates or Rules of the Game. He (comically) interrogates the man at the counter about the movies "so they talk in Turkish?" "is there nudity?" and comes out afterwards, to find the guy he talked to at the counter off duty, so he asks that someone tells him that he it was really "true." Funny stuff. I remembered it.

OCCUPATIONS (Lars Von Trier): Man starts talking to another man during a movie. Things get crazy.

FIRST KISS (Gus Van Sant): It was just strange, it stood out because of that. I don't know if I liked it much though. But it stood out.

Michael Cimino's segment was lame.

I TRAVELLED 9000 KM TO GIVE IT TO YOU (Wong Kar-Wai): It's like a Wong Kar-Wai candy bar or something. Delicious.

AT THE SUICIDE OF THE LAST JEW IN THE WORLD AT THE LAST CINEMA IN THE WORLD (David Cronenberg): The title says it all.

Oh, and before the thing even started we got to see David Lynch's short. Which looked like an awful student art video. But that's just my opinion.

Also, there were a few general trends: Godard was incredibly influential. So was Bresson, and Truffaut, and french cinema in general. Oh and a handful of the shorts featured blind people at the movies.

So overall, the GRADE is C+ (base grade of D+, add the memorable shorts/occasional laugh, et voila)

And now, about 3 hours earlier than usual, I can sleep. I see Werner Herzog's new movie in the morning (sadly he won't be around for a Q&A), followed by "me" (I have no idea what to expect), and wrapping up with Ploy (not sure where that's going either). I'm going to try and do a rush line or same day ticket, probably for Glory to the Filmmaker! since word on the street is that Sukiyaki Western Django pretty much sucked. And then, I pack up.

TIFF 07: Day 8 "lars-centric"

So part one of this is coming to you early, since I've got a big break between screenings 3 and 4. The new place I'm staying at is awesome. There's a cat here that woke me up this morning with like, forced petting. It was so weird. I open my eyes and here's this cat like putting it's paw on me and all and being all "pet me!" But I like cats so that was cool. This one seems to like me a lot.

So after getting up and getting ready I went down to the Scotiabank (of course) to see...

NAISSANCE DES PIEUVRES (dir. Celine Sciamma, 2007):
Very very good. It's about this girl who gets obsessed with the captain of the synchronized swim team (also a girl). Girl A is probably 15, girl B is like 18. Both of them were great performers. The atmosphere reminded me a lot of The Virgin Suicides, and not just because the subject matter was teenage girls. It had the same feelings of isolation, of self discovery and so on. It was nicely shot, lots of rich blues with the occasional red. And the best part, for me, was the interactions of the two leads. They created the most romantic tension I've experienced in a long time. It got to the point where when the younger girl saw the older girl, my heart would start beating faster too.
Grade: A- (wonderfully done, a unique experience)

And then I went to the Elgin for:

MARGOT AT THE WEDDING (dir. Noah Baumbach, 2007)
Which I wasn't too crazy about. The emphasis (as far as cinematic elements go) was on the characters and story, which I'm ok with. Visuals were solid but standard handheld-y stuff with Baumbach's familiar slightly desaturated images. The performances from Kidman and Leigh were good. I was so happy to see Ciaran Hinds in this. He's great and never used enough. I had some issues taking Jack Black seriously though (and I never did. Maybe that was the point though. He was the loser-ish "why is she marrying this guy?" character). But in this especially (and looking back at Squid and the Whale), I see what people's issues are with Baumbach's typical character-- the intellectual asshole who's a crappy parent. I had trouble identifying with a single character. Either they were too mean, too silly, or I didn't know enough about them to make a choice.
Grade: B

And I just came from...
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (dir. Craig Gillespie, 2007):
Another crowd pleaser, except this one had more heart than Run, Fat boy, Run, and it was better directed. It's sort of a 2007, indie update on Harvey. It went like this: Ryan Gosling's character (who probably has some kind of mental disorder), orders a life size sex doll, but instead of using it for the obvious purpose, he dresses it up, calls it his girlfriend, and lives with it. Eventually the community he lives in comes together and pretends the doll is alive with him, and he grows as a person and the community grows stronger. It was sweet and well made. I fell asleep for a little bit though (oh the fatigue). And I woke up and didn't miss anything. Although everyone was laughing, I think it was at the same joke, the whole movie. Which is the one thing that bothered me about this. Everything was funny because it was a doll. And he thought it was real.
Grade: B- (nice, but redundant)

And then I came back here, and on the way picked up a crepe with strawberries and nutella. It cost more than I expected, so I was mad about that. But whatever, I thought. I went outside and got on the streetcar with it, and headed back. The car was overcrowded and I realized about 1/4 of the way through the trip that... my crepe was leaking. It was dripping nutella everywhere. I realized this when I looked down at my hoodie, and saw it covered in Nutella. Oh it was maddening.
So I got back, tossed the crepe in anger, and washed my hoodie. The End.

And then I came back here, and had the best shave of my life. Seriously. I haven't shaved in a little over a week, and between the scruffy face and the poof of hair, I looked a terrible mess. But now I feel light years better, and ready for more movies.

Off to see...

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD (dir. Sidney Lumet, 2007):
I just fell in love with Network, so I was excited to see that Lumet was still making movies. I need to see more of him though, since I'm unfamiliar with everything he's done besides... Network.

OK, so before I get to the movie itself, first a note about... "festival fatigue." Today was the first day that it really hit me. I think it was two late nights in a row that did it (3am and 2am, with wake ups at 6:30). So today, for everything but Naissance, I was fighting the urge to nod off.

And now for the movie:
It was everything Cassandra's Dream should have been. The writing and the acting were a lot sharper than Allen's film (it pains me to say). And of course, the plot was a little bit different. But same sort of idea: a murder complicates the lives of two brothers. In Allen's film, it's intentional. In Lumet's it's accidental. And of course, the crowd still found some things to laugh at (sort of the opposite end of the whole audience's being great), even though, if it weren't at a festival/a group of people looking for entertainment (and by that i mean entertainment=comedy), it would have played as a tense, serious drama. Hah the Cassandra's Dream thought was probably the only major thing I've got on this. The performances were fantastic (as you'd expect with a Lumet film). He was there to introduce, along with Marisa Tomei and Ethan Hawke. Phil Hoffman was shooting in Australia and couldn't make it.
So, the second place price goes to this one.
Grade: B+ (well written, well performed, well directed, not amazing, but just pretty good.)


Now there's only two days left. It's almost terribly depressing.
Tomorrow I have my first documentary. And I'm Not There (so excited). And La Fille Coupee En Deux (also exciting). And Chacun Son Cinema (again, very exciting. an omnibus film about the movies!).

Until then.

TIFF 07: Day 7 "if it wasn't, he would have fired them on the spot"

So I've relocated, I'm now staying with another random stranger courtesy of EVD. After taking care of that this morning, I made my way downtown for...

CASSANDRA'S DREAM (dir. Woody Allen, 2007):
Oh boy. He's done it again.
He's made another not so great Woody Allen movie.
OH MY GOD.
Ok, so basically, it's this story about these two guys who end up getting super paranoid and doing crazy things over money. And a bit of the way through the crowd at the Elgin found a few lines to laugh at. And then they found a few more. And a few more. It got to the point where at the end, everyone was incredibly confused. Why? Because nobody could tell if it was a really bad drama or a really funny comedy.
And I just looked it up, and...
WOODY ALLEN MADE A "BAD" MOVIE!
And of course, I mean the good bad. He wanted it to be a drama, exploring the depth of man or something through murder. And on the IMDB page it lists it under "crime" and "drama."
And yet, the audience was howling with laughter. The whole time. So, now that I know what the original plan was, I can do this...
GRADE: C+ (sorry Woody, looks like you got a bit too lazy with this one--I did watching it [I fell asleep for like ten minutes, so did the guy down the row from me])
BAD MOVIE GRADE: B+ (the moment of realization was priceless. thank you.)

Man, I still can't believe it. I'm overjoyed and saddened at the same time.

So after that, I got some breakfast and headed over to the Scotiabank (cause I don't spend enough time there), for the day's other 3 movies. First up was:

RUN, FAT BOY, RUN (dir. David Schwimmer, 2007)
Which I was prepared for, to a point. Michael Ian Black wrote the script, Simon Pegg was starring, it looked like it might actually have a bit of potential. But it fell short (I should have gone to Redacted).
I mean, it wasn't awful. It was just a standard comedy. It'll probably come out in theaters and break even. It wasn't amazing, it wasn't awful. It was just ok.
Grade: C+

A pizza and beverage later, I saw:

DANS LA VILLE DE SYLVIA (dir. Jose Luis Guerin, 2007):
Which was probably the number 2 movie of the day. It was a more of artistic film (enough so that the people next to me were complaining afterwards about how it wasn't "entertaining, it had no plot!"). Basically, there's one scene with dialogue. The rest of the movie is about this poet-illustrator guy who follows this girl around. We get lots of ambient noise. Lots of long tracking shots. And then a few sequences with some spiffy editing. I wasn't surprised to see, yet again, the influence of a certain set of filmmakers who used... non-acting, detheatrical plots, deliberate pacing, etc. It's funny that all the best things I've seen have been strongly influenced by older directors that I'm not fond of at all. But I'm glad that people are taking the lessons and making them more interesting and watchable. So yeah, I'm getting a soft spot for this sort of movie so...
GRADE: B+ (well executed, interesting {once I started taking notes and actively viewing}, and it pissed some people off, which gets points)

And lastly, today's Movie of the Day...

THE TRACEY FRAGMENTS (dir. Bruce McDonald, 2007):
Which I need more time to think about to fully comment on.
It was a crazy experience. Just crazy. Ellen Page starred. She was awesome, as usual.
But the most fascinating thing about this was what they did with the screen. It's a movie where, as the title may imply, the screen is fragmented pretty much the whole way through. and it's not fixed at all. The fragments change and move and the editing is superfast. What's great though is that I was with it all the way through. I didn't get lost (as it could be easy to do).
Grade: B+/A- (I'm on the cusp right now, when I write more tomorrow I'll update).

So that was the day. Sorry things are getting less and less... eventful? verbose? I don't know. Fatigue was heavy today (only 4 hours of sleep), so it's tough to think about everything at 1 am.
Also, today was the first day where I broughy my ipod around, and used it. I've realized that part of why I don't like hearing the waiting in line talk, and the waiting in the theater talk, is because I don't want to know more than I already do about the movie. I mean, it doesn't matter, I guess, but I'm bringing enough baggage into it already, and I don't want to be thinking about why that jerk in the line yesterday said it was godawful and so on. I want to form my own thoughts.

And also, today. I had a more positive thought about the festival at large:
I've realized why you go to the theater to see a movie. It's something that in general is missing in Syracuse. The experience. People turning a "drama" into a comedy about Colin Farrell's bad acting, or applause at the end of a musical number, people sticking around and taking a serious interest in what the filmmaker has to say. It's all wonderful and delightful, and it's what movie-going is really all about.

Anyhow
On tomorrow's agenda: Naissance Des Pieuvres, Margot at the Wedding, Lars & the Real Girl, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

TIFF 07: Day 6 "youtube."

I'm proud of myself. I kept myself well fed and wide awake all day. And each of my movie's was at a different venue, but I made my way around on time. It was a delight.

Also, for a couple minutes I got really annoyed with everyone talking about what they've seen and voicing opinions. Which probably doesn't say a lot about me. Except, OK, I'm glad they're discussing and all, but it's the loudness of it all that bothers me. I just need to bring my ipod for those times when I'm waiting in line/in a theater for a movie to start. Or maybe next year... I'll bring an entourage, and we can be those loud opinionated people who everyone needs to hear.

Anyways, that's out of the way, so now for the movies. Today was pretty damn interesting, all around.
Firstly...the one you've all been waiting for:
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (dir. Julie Taymor, 2007):
Certain people will love this movie. Actually, most people will. I didn't. And I won't.
As far as expectations going in... it sort of rested on the trailer. Oh, and the Beatles songs. I wasn't going crazy about the trailer, but as it went on I liked it. I was hoping the same would happen during the movie, but it was the opposite. I considered walking out a few times. But I stuck it out, trying to pinpoint what my issues were.
And I think they're something along these lines:
- It was set in the 60s, but all of the political crazyness of the times seemed forced in. Taymor was trying too hard to put in that "spirit of revolution."
- I didn't like one of the leads. Her singing just hurt my ears.
- I know, as a musical, it has a license to go into choreographed fantasy dance numbers and grand spectacles and all of that. However, I think the stronger musicals either take it in one direction or the other, or somehow manage to strike that perfect balance (see Bob Fosse on how to do that, Luhrmann on the spectacular, and Once or more recently... Chansons D'Amour on the realistic). What bothered me about this was that, it was trying to stay firmly rooted in reality, but at the same time it really wanted to be a big flashy spectacle. And the struggle between those two took away from the experience.
- Also, there was some needlessly trippy stuff.
- And she wasted Bono. Wasted. She gave him "I am the Walrus" which was OK enough. But his strength is in the high soaring upper range, and he hardly went there at all. I was saddened.
- I laughed at the dialogue/delivery a few times. I was the only one. Of note "this is a revolution mom!" Oh, so funny.
So that's most of my reasoning on that one. Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure you will once it opens like next weekend.
Grade: C+ (boring, sometimes preposterous, overwrought, disappointing, grade would have been lower if Taymor hadn't done the Q&A, but her talk gave her a bit more credibility)
Also, Taymor was there for a Q&A, which softened me up a bit. She talked a lot and was really nice about everything. (more to follow maybe soon)

Now on the other side of the universe, I grabbed lunch and.... a festival hoodie. Finally, I have a hoodie to call my own. And then I saw...

SLEUTH (dir. Kenneth Branagh, 2007):
Which was pretty freakin sweet. Watching Caine work is always incredible, and Jude Law held up against him very very well. Pinter's screenplay was sharp as a tack. I love his writing, so this was a treat. Oh, and there were only two characters. It felt like an incredibly satisfying night at the theater (which works, since it was based on a play). There was some sort of thing going on at the start, where we don't see the faces of either of the characters. Maybe the play is starting out level or something like that. But yeah, it was short, sweet, and solid.
Grade: B+ (satisfying and fun, not incredibly stand-outish though)

So, a subway ride and a milkshake later I saw...

DR. PLONK (dir. Rolf De Heer, 2007):
Which was a silent comedy! It was great. De Heer nailed the look and humor. And we got to see 2007 in silent movie mode. I had a blast, for the most part. There were a few moments where the jokes were stretched a little thin. But snap this was cool. I'm glad that he was actually able to make this in 2007.
Grade: B (great idea, funny throughout, enjoyable, but with some issues)
He was there for a Q&A, which yielded two interesting bits of info:
- He came up with the idea of making a silent film when he found a ton of old film stock in a fridge one day.
- The dog in the movie was obsessed with balls. You couldn't even say "ball" around the dog or it would go crazy, so you'd have to say "spherical object." The balls were used to get the dog to do what they wanted (like run across the frame or look at a box).

And lastly...

PARANOID PARK (dir. Gus Van Sant, 2007):
Beautiful. I feel like if I say more it might take away from it.
Grade: A (visually stunning, perfect Bresson-ian performances, wonderfully edited)

Also, I asked Van Sant if he had any advice for the aspiring filmmaker. He basically said to use youtube. It's your own distribution company.

And lastly, I've calmed down about Control, it's now an A-. It's tough grading everything when you think about stuff in relation to each other. Is No Country for Old Men really as good as Paranoid Park or Jesse James? What about Control? (which isn't, I've decided). I might end up switching systems.

Oh, to be a blogger.

I finally have a hoodie.

TIFF 07: Day 5 "i've never been a 16 year old girl before"

The fatigue is starting to set in. Also, I realized something that may or may not be an issue: I might just be slightly overrating things because I'm getting caught up in the whole festival frenzy. So take things as an approximation for now, and maybe when I get to re-view some of these things I can be a little more level headed.

I had pizza for breakfast and lunch today. I almost did dinner, but a bag of popcorn covered that.

Talking about today's movies is going to be very difficult. I skipped coffee this morning, and I'm starting to get very worn down. But tonight ended early, and tomorrow starts late, so hopefully I can pull things together again by then.

And so today went like this:

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (dir. Joel/Ethan Coen, 2007):
They finally pulled it together again, and man is it good. I want to say it's their best since Fargo, but I'm not certain. Mostly though, I think it is. The story is pretty similar to The Man From London, but the plot actually moves. A man finds a case of money amidst a lot of dead bodies. The police are interested, so are the owners of the money. So we've got these three leads (all of which are incredible, especially Javier Bardem), each sort of a step behind each other. It's complex, enthralling, funny, and spot on.
Grade: A (as good as Fargo, which I love, sharp all around)

Also, today was my first day with screenings at the Ryerson. Not a particularly amazing venue, but the crowd really comes alive. Everyone laughs and applauds and loves it all. No wonder they have the midnight madness screenings here. I mean here I am at 9 in the morning, hungry and still tired, and yet still completely absorbed with the movie. And so are the 1499 other people in the place.

And one last sidenote to No Country: Julian Schnabel was sitting behind me for the movie. (oh, to be a film nerd).

So after that I rushed to the Scotiabank, got pizza, and saw:

CHRYSALIS (dir. Julien Leclercq, 2007):
Which was a french sci-fi movie. Shot in the typical sci-fi fashion (lots of blues and metal, dark). It looked like it might have been good. But unfortunately I may never find out. I fell asleep for probably over half of the movie. I tried so hard. And still, despite being in the front section during a bunch of super-loud action scenes, I still managed to pass out for a while.
But from what I did see, it seemed like I may have been disappointed. I inferred that the plot was something about this machine that steals memories, and some people were fighting over it.
Leclerq was there to present and do a Q&A, but I left before it began. I was feeling guilty having to see him in standing right in front of me when I accidentally slept through his movie.
I think if I were awake I would have given it a B-/C+ though. While I credit him for using mostly hand to hand fight scenes, the choreography got a little redundant.

And so, I got food this time and managed to make my way back to the Ryerson for the spectacular:

JUNO (dir. Jason Reitman, 2007):
Did I mention that this was spectacular? It was another Control-esque surprise, since I didn't like Reitman's earlier Thank You For Smoking very much. But this. Man.
It definitely falls into the quirky-indie-type of movie, although it's on the good side of the spectrum.
Ellen Page (who was there), played Juno, a girl who accidentally gets pregnant (thanks to Michael Cera). She decides to keep the baby and put it up for open adoption (the parents are going to be Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). And of course, Juno is your "weird" girl, she's got more in common with the girls in Ghost World than American Pie. She also has a best friend who's into teachers. Her dad fixes air conditioning and heating, her step-mom is stiff, but hilarious.
I suppose you can go either way on this one. I think most people will enjoy it though. The writing was almost too sharp, but in today's age of "make it up as you go mr. vaughn and mr. ferrell" it's a VERY nice change. Reitman doesn't let this one go crazy (even though he admitted that he let a whole two of Cera's ad-libs into the final cut). The strength of this is in that writing and the performances. Page is fantastic as Juno. I've read/overheard (from older types) that she's playing it too mannered, she's going too quirky with it. But alas, I disagree completely. Probably because I've met people like Page's Juno. I know I have, and the whole time I was wondering who it was that she reminded me of. Cera actually tones down a lot of his super-hilariousness, and he's got some really great moments. I'm so glad Jason Bateman is still working. He's just as good as ever. I was surprised by Garner. I didn't realize she could actually act.
I think one of the bigger surprises (or at least the actress who came up most in the Q&A, besides Page/Cera) was Allison Janney, who played Juno's step mother. So funny.

I feel like I'm gushing again. But I was really looking forward to this and it didn't let me down.
Grade: A- (great great great, but I concede to some of the points made by the detractors)

So there was a Q&A after this one too, with Reitman, Page, and Diablo Cody (the writer). Interesting points:
- the relationships in the film were autobiographical (for Diablo)
- Cera wasn't there (damn!) because he had to fly out to Berlin or something last night on a private jet. Which is funny to picture.
- We found out about those two ad-libs that Cera slipped by. Aside from that and one or two other small things, they stuck to the script the whole way through.
- And part of why they could do this is because Diablo was kept a part of the process the whole way through. If they needed more material, she'd write it and 20 minutes later they'd be filming.
- It took Diablo 2 months to write the script. She was "discovered" by one of the film's producers, who read her blog and suggested that she write a script. Reitman happened to be friends with this producer (or a friend of his), and got his hands on the script early. He dropped the script he was working on because he felt that if he didn't direct this he'd regret it forever.
- Ellen Page is super cool. I want to be friends.
- Reitman doesn't really see the film as about the open abortion thing. He looks at it as a take on the struggles of growing up. In the film, it happens either too fast (Page) or too slow (Bateman)
- Jason Reitman has never been a 16 year old girl.

So I went back to the Scotiabank to see:

THE OLD MISTRESS (dir. Catherine Breillat, 2007):
And my brain was pretty fried for this too. Breillat was there to introduce and Q&A, although I had a hard time understanding most of what she was saying (combination of accent and slow speech).
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this (probably because I'm young). It's the story of a guy who's about to get married, but (for the first half of the film) tells the story of this affair he's been having for 10 years to his future grandmother (who is concerned about the affair getting in the way of his new marriage). Of course, we get the flashback and see everything unfold. And then it picks up from the wedding, and the affair ends up starting up again. There's also some explicit sex in this, but unlike Lust, Caution, it actually did help the plot along significantly. And it wasn't just "ok here's explicit sex for a while" it actually progressed as the affair went on. We slowly see more and more of the sex and we learn more and more about the characters. It didn't really do a lot for me. It was good all around, and I stayed involved.
Grade: B (solid, some nice things, not tremendous at all, but still pretty good)

and that let out early. so now I can clean up and sleep. Tomorrow (or maybe Wednesday) I swap my lodging. Woohoo.
Tomorrow should be exciting though. I start out with Across the Universe, go to the re-make of Sleuth, head over to the silent-comedy Dr. Plonk, and close the day with Van Sant's Paranoid Park (I have no idea what to expect on this one, besides skaters). It's all so exciting. And hopefully I can rest, too.

TIFF 07: Day 4 "I think she was actually french."

I'll get the in betweens out of the way first:
After getting back at 2:30 because of the Brad-debacle, I got a whopping 4 hours of sleep and then got up and got ready for a fun filled 4 movie day. After the usual shower-commute-coffee-seating deal, the movies started. On today's list: Lust, Caution/Starting Out in the Evening/Les Chansons D'Amour/Silent Light. Completely fatigued by the end of Chansons, I rushed back to the apartment to rest for an hour. My neck and eyes were sore. And I'm having wisdom teeth issues again (they bite me while I sleep), so I think the little sore at the back of my mouth might be ready to sprout an infection. Which means I pick up the mouthwash and saltwater routine for the next few days until it blows over.
And just as I get over that stupid cold...
But now for the movies:

LUST, CAUTION (dir. Ang Lee, 2007):
My first reaction: Eh. I liked Black Book better. Sure this was more "sophisticated" and "serious," but in this case I don't see those as compliments. I've given this a spot as a contender for the most overrated movie of the year, and we'll see how that pans out. I mean, sure it looks great, and it's got solid leading performances, oh and there's sex that's "essential" to the story, and graphic (gave me some ideas). But at the end, it was just too... commercial? predictable? It reeked of a prestige picture, and it left me pretty cold.
Grade: B- (solid, mostly engaging, but again, not for me)

STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING (dir. Andrew Wagner, 2007):
Pretty standard, all around. It's the story of an older man (this time Frank Langella, who was present) learning about himself. This older man was a writer past his prime, and his self-discovery is kickstarted by a young grad student who is doing her thesis on his work. And she's sort of got a crush on him. The dynamic between the two was the best part. The writing was... very writerly, which was a nice change, but I ended up rolling my eyes at a lot of it. I suppose it works, since the main character is a writer and everyone involved is (presumably) well educated and literate. But I don't know if I've met anyone who talks that way. Maybe once. I did really like the little debates (Langella and the literary critic, Langella and her daughter's boyfriend, etc.). Aside from the two performers, those were fascinating little bits on their own.
Oh and there's this sub-story involving his daughter and her boyfriend issues, and her own little mid-life crisis. I could have done without it. But I guess it served some kind of purpose.
And, of course, Langella was great. There are a lot of really talented older actors out there, I'm just getting a little tired of them playing guys who are rediscovering themselves. Which might be why I was interested in seeing King of California (different deal, older guy who's crazy, bonds with daughter--gah I don't know. Maybe it would be different! Maybe!). But it didn't fit in my schedule, so why complain.
It was also very cute watching Wagner tear up a little before the screening while thanking Langella for all he's done, how he's helped him find his dreams, and how happy he was that he could be there for the screening (the first showing of the film Langella has been present for). The Q&A didn't yield anything terribly interesting (to me), but I did learn that Langella is a pretty cool guy, and Wagner isn't too bad himself.
Grade: B- (again, entertaining enough, but pretty standard, nice dynamics with the leads and a performance from Langella that grows on you.)

And then...
CHANSONS D'AMOUR (dir. Christophe Honore, 2007):
Very very cool. I actually liked this a lot, despite my brain being completely fried for reasons listed above (max fatigue, low on coffee, soreness, etc.).
Basically, Honore made a musical. It's not a Moulin Rouge/Chicago-y thing, or anything with any dancing at all. No spectacle. It's more in the vein of Demy/Once/et al. An alternative musical, basically. And the songs... some of them were catchy/touching-ish. Others were annoying and redundant. Most of it wasn't very sophisticated (but why should it be? These are the common folk).

So, story follows a young guy through a few turning points. It's divided into 3 parts, each marking a change in the direction of the character/story. First part: Guy is part of a 3-some, one guy, two girls. There's fun stuff and it's nice. Then all of a sudden the guy's girlfriend (the one he really loves, the other is just "a bridge between the two" or something), has a big ol' medical accident. Which was actually a surprise, and it made things more interesting.
Then other fairly realistic stuff ensues, guy gets depressed, sleeps around (with girls and guys), etc. It's plausible enough.
Sorry this isn't sounding very enthusiastic. I did like this it's just hard for me to rationalize it at the moment. I loved the look and feel of it, the atmosphere. It was wonderfully shot and it did have that nouvelle-vague feel to it. I kept thinking of Umbrellas of Cherbourg/A woman is a woman and smiling. There were some cool little things Honore did with stills and fast motion. And I actually do want to take another look at this and give it a closer viewing. The timing was just iffy. However...
Grade: B+ (kept me involved, loved the look, and the premise/execution was admirable, I'd like to make something along these lines one day)

And lastly...
SILENT LIGHT (dir. Carlos Reygadas, 2007):
Which I actually liked a whole lot. Which is incredibly bizarre. Normally this Ozu-Dreyer-Bresson influenced stuff really bothers me, but this time it didn't. I'll try and attribute that to a few things: Reygadas was a lot more fluid than the abovementioned masters. And I like his eye for things a lot more. He does stick to long takes, and he does use nonactors, and he does have a pretty loose plot. But the way he uses it just worked for me. The images, all of them, were gorgeous. It was a beautiful, beautiful film. My eyes were able to relax and take it in. It didn't force anything on me, it just was there, happening, calmly. I could look around and interpret things.
The Q&A with Reygadas also helped me appreciate it more:
- He thinks of acting with the Kuleshov effect in mind. He gives his actors the lines, when to say them, and the feeling he wants. Then they say them. The cinema does the rest. Some guy behind me was like "well Kuleshov cut to something, there was no cutting." But I don't think he was implying that the performance was created in the editing (a la the Bourne movies, for example). He was letting the film take care of it. The words themselves and the layering that slowly builds implies the performance. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but it works in my head (something Reygadas also said repeatedly).
- Along those lines, when he talked about the feeling he wanted, he didn't encourage the non-actors to read the script and look for psychological subtext and all that super actor-ly stuff. He did more of a method thing, having them recall personal experiences and let them bring the feelings forward.
- He wasn't looking for a fixed meaning. His main rule was to "let things happen, as they happen in life" which reminded me a lot of Mungiu's idea for 4 months, although here it's taken in a slightly different direction of realism. And that's because...
- The story is about a mennonite who gets stuck in a love triangle. Reygadas said that he started with the triangle, and stumbled on the mennonites in his travels. He decided that it was the perfect setting for the story (which it was) because it was it's own self contained world, free of distractions (like money, social classes, etc.) it allows you to focus on the characters and the atmosphere (and stay involved, because it's foreign but not alienating), and it really really worked to his advantage.
- He also thought about time's place in the movie. As someone in the crowd pointed out, the clock stops while the main character is having his personal dilemma over his triangle. Reygadas gave this two reasons: firstly, the mennonites sort of exist outside of time, they've got their own universe that's not very similar to our own. and secondly, it's the feeling that you're stuck in limbo when you're having this kind of a personal dilemma, that you're stuck, time's frozen and it's not going to move on until you make up your mind. but you will make up your mind, and time will go on, as it always does. He kept referring back to cosmos and chaos, and life being a cycle.
- Also, he was influenced by Ordet, Sleeping Beauty, and Ozu.
- Jacques Brel is one of his heroes.

Grade: A (beautiful, interesting, superbly made)

And there you have it, a two so-sos, one pretty fly and one awesome movie. Another great day at TIFF.

TIFF 07: Day 3 "I felt like a gumball in a machine"

I thought I could relate to the above quote after my rush line experience at Young People Fucking, but I had no idea how true it was. I'm going to start at the end and work my way to the start for this entry. So here goes:
I just got back, after a longer than usual streetcar ride (some traffic jam), the biggest slice of pizza I've ever had (it was bigger than my head...which says a lot), and...

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (dir. Andrew Dominik, 2007):
Well. Things were off to a rough start here, and it may take a second viewing to confirm whether it was situational, or the movie itself. I think it was the movie (although being hungry and swept away in "ohmygoshisthatbenaffleckmattdamonanddoncheadle" mode might have something to do with why I had a hard time following the first two reels). Basically, the title tells you exactly what the movie is about. It follows Robert Ford (Casey Affleck), a young fella who's in awe of Jesse James (Brad Pitt), the notorious outlaw. Ford becomes a double agent, and things get tense.
After hearing that it was long, and slow (from the director nonetheless), I ended up expecting something different. But I'm completely satisfied with what I got. Two things stood out (for me): The performances by the two leads, and the incredibly tight command Dominik has on the tension that's steadily maintained throughout the film.
To elaborate: I didn't know Brad had this much depth. All of the traits that make Brad Pitt the star that he is are used (and twisted) to his advantage as Jesse James. The sly charisma, the "piercing blue eyes," and his bad boy nature (which gets taken to the next level, and then some). James alternates between a genuinely nice guy, family man, celebrity, friend, and a nervous, cruel, and suspicious outlaw. Casey Affleck holds his own as Ford, the man destined to takes James out. He's the perfect choice for the part. He's got the innocence, but intelligence. You can sympathize with his conflicted feelings over James (civic duty vs. hero worship).
And now for the tension. Dominik really gets points for this one. First off, the title. It tells us exactly where things are going, and Dominik does a few things to keep you on the edge until you get there.
He said it was slow, but of course, when you slow things down it ups the ante. The pacing (which you may call elegant), did wonders for the movie. It reminds me of Leone in a way (especially the... assassination scene--which does reference The Good the Bad and the Ugly).
Dominik also makes use of opposing forces to heighten the response. Or so I thought. You've got James and Ford, two different types playing against each other. Visually, scenes alternate between very warm, candlelit interiors and cool, unforgiving exteriors (it could also be read as an expression of James' character).
The other great thing about The Assassination... is that it's an epic. And nobody makes those anymore. It's very classic, mythic, etc. I like it.
Also, the music rocks. I was happy to find out it was done by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. Mad props.
Grade: A- (entertaining, fascinating characters, nice spin on a familiar plot (the double agent meets the western), and there are some experience points, for the star-studdedness of it all)
REVISED GRADE: A (the more I think about this the more I like it. And it keeps coming back to my mind. Which is odd. I've been getting more and more fascinated by the how different it is. All the genre bending. The way it fits in with older offbeat westerns, but doesn't actually involve the typical "wild west." It was just so good.)

But to get to this movie, I had to wait in line...for 3 hours. And I already had a ticket. Basically, TIFF does this stupid thing at the Elgin, where VISA gold/platinum cardholders get in before regular ticketholders. Being VISA platinum-less, I was stuck in the regular line. And being in line for a movie starring...Brad Pitt, the wait for everyone to arrive and the crowd to settle took longer than expected. A lot longer. But I did get to see Brad and Angelina (close-ish, enough to get a semi-decent picture on my ever so crappy cell phone camera). It was insane. My heartrate went up, I was straining on my tip toes to catch a glimpse and snap the shot. Unlike anything I've been through before in poor, celebrity-free Syracuse.
So that's where the application of the quote comes in. After waiting FOREVER, we got squeezed out (like gumballs) in little groups, so as to avoid the already enormous havoc caused my so much starpower in one theater.

While in line, I devoured my third cup of coffee for the day (man did it help). I just went against my coffee-ban of the past... 6 months or so? Maybe longer. But now I really appreciate it. And I REALLY need to stock up on some snacks for future screenings, since the whole "oh I'll just pick something up quick between shows" will never work. I don't want to starve myself here. I noticed during Assassination that the whole hunger thing kind of impairs your ability to... follow a story. Although I think the celebrity thing was part of the distraction as well.

Anyhow, before the Brangelina insanity, I was at...
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, AND 2 DAYS (dir. Cristian Mungiu, 2007):
Also known as "that romanian abortion drama"
Which is as good as they're saying it is.
It's one of those movies that in theory, isn't inherently cinematic, but at the same time couldn't work any other way. It follows a woman whose friend is getting an abortion (the title is how far into the pregnancy she is). And it's in the new... Romanian Realism style (a la Lazarescu, but I liked this more). It puts you right there, and as many people said after the screening, that's how it was. Most shots are long, everything is dark. I found myself completely engaged throughout.

Grade: A (Wonderful, and affecting [at one or two choice moments], grade will probably get bumped up from A- to A when I've slept and can think about it.[after sleep: yes, it does get an A.])
Also, Mungiu was there for a Q&A afterwards. He basically said that he wanted to present things as they were (which many agreed that he did). He refused to give an explanation or interpretation of events, saying that it's really up to the viewer (which it is). He also said that he just writes. He doesn't sit down and say "ok, this character is going to be naive and needy, while this one is that other thing" life's not that simple, according to Mungiu. It's chaotic, and frenzied and imperfect, and that was what he was going for with the film.

And before that...

THE MAN FROM LONDON (dir. Bela Tarr, 2007):
I'm not crazy about Bela, I guess. I mean, I respect what he does and I appreciate that he's doing it. But it's boring to me. As much as I love camera movement, I don't want to have to sit and think about it for over 2 hours. Everything was well choreographed and beautifully shot. But, it was just boring. It should have been interesting, but no. However, if you go by Tarr's Q&A afterwards, he did exactly what he wanted. He said that he was most interested in the atmosphere of the place, and he captured that incredibly well. You get that it's a monotonous, dead town. You get that this man's life is less than interesting. And you get that Tarr had something specific in mind and achieved it.
And lastly, I devised a little game going into this that I call "count the walkouts." After hearing about lots of walkouts at Cannes I wanted to see what would happen here in Toronto. Total count: about 40. It was fantastic.

Final Grade: B- (I respect it, even though I didn't enoy it.)
Tarr did a Q&A afterwards, more to follow soon.

Oh and there was also a minor flash of film nerd celebrity awareness... Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum was at this screening, and Tarr was present as well. After the screening the two of them were planning a dinner or something... like two steps behind me on the escalator. I really wanted to talk to them, but being the shy movie-nerd that I am, I didn't say anything. Maybe next TIFF.

And before that... the biggest surprise of the day...
CONTROL (dir. Anton Corbijn, 2007)
Which I was planning to hate and find over-rated. But boy was I wrong. It was devastating, in the best possible way. The reason I wanted to hate this was because I've only seen a handful of Corbijn's music videos, and I hated them all (I turned them off before the chorus, in most cases). But wow. Maybe it's that he knew the parties involved, maybe he just got lucky. I think a lot of it was thanks to Sam Riley's work as Ian Curtis. It was so gut-wrenchingly-tear-jerkingly perfect. Basically, I got misty a lot and cried a few times, and when it was over for a while. Maybe it was fatigue, maybe it was the early morning, or maybe I just saw something amazing. I think it's the last one.

Final Grade: A (devastating, in the best possible way. an experience I can safely say I've never had in a theater before.) [note: I'll follow up with a repeat view once it either gets to Syracuse or DVD, so I can actually comment instead of enthusiastically gushing about how amazing it was.]

Naturally, the morning was a commute in to the Scotiabank, so nothing terribly exciting there.
But man, was a crazy day. I've seen more famous people (both actually famous and film-geek famous) in one day than I have in my lifetime. Only at TIFF...

TIFF 07: Prelude to day 3

I need to start drinking coffee again.

TIFF 07: Day 2 "this is my winnipeg"

I'm going to get this out of the way now: One of my favorite things about Canada is that everything has a label in english and french. I can't look at anything without thinking of that and smiling deep inside. Don't ask why, I don't know myself.

Most of the day was drab, but the movies, oh the movies.
I made the 30 minute ride into festival-town early on this morning (I got there around 8:30, for a 9:15 showing). And naturally, once I got off the subway, I got lost. Well, to put it fairly, I missed a street sign, but I wasn't far off. Nor was I the only person. Which brings me to today's....

RANDOM STRANGER MOMENT:
I was walking around, headed toward where I thought the Scotiabank Theater was, when all of a sudden this girl asks me if....I know where the Scotiabank Theater is. I guess I looked pretty confident about where I was going. To which I replied, "I think it's this way, I'm going there myself." and so we had the same small talk that I had yesterday, "where are you from?" "syracuse" "school?" "yeah, film" "what're you seeing?" etc. Finally, we find the theater and part ways. In the second movie of the day, I see random stranger and wave. End of random stranger story.

Now the moment you've all been waiting for... the movies. First of the day was:

YOU, THE LIVING (dir. Roy Andersson, 2007):
Brilliant. I loved it. Which naturally means I'll have a hard time writing about it. I really liked Songs from the Second Floor, and after You, The Living I really wish I had the chance to see it in theaters with a crowd. Everyone was receptive, taking in the comedy, laughing and enjoying themselves. Which is even better because Andersson is Swedish, and we know how uplifting Swedish cinema can be. Granted, YTL still has that bleak Swedish-ness to it, but Andersson is probably the closest thing Sweden has to Jacques Tati. Andersson uses more words, but the source of the humor is essentially the same. Like Tati, Andersson's compositions shift between the exceedingly flat and the incredibly deep. Everything plays out in one long take, and most of the time the camera is pretty much static, or moving so slowly that you don't notice.
Technical points aside, YTL really hits on personal communication. Characters are often unable to communicate with each other, which forces some to speak directly to the camera (or in one notable instance, sing). Favorite moments: The opening song, the entire "tablecloth trick" sequence (complete with popcorn at the execution), and the honeymoon.
I was looking forward to this, and it was even better than I expected.
Final Grade: A- (enjoyable, entertaining, interesting thematically and technically, I got tired once)

And then, I waited around for a while (hoping to grab lunch), but failed. Everytime I try to just pick up a quick bite to eat, I fail. I'll have to fix that. So in lieu of lunch, I got ripped off while buying a bag of M&Ms from the concession stand ($4--just awful). And then I got my seat for:

THE BANISHMENT (dir. Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2007):
Which I hated. There were two things keeping me from leaving and jumping over to Voyage Du Ballon Rouge (which I should have done): 1) I was sitting in the middle of a row, and getting up would mean a lot of hassle, and more importantly 2) I only had 5 dollars, and wasn't sure if my paycheck was in the bank yet. So I had to sit through an excruciating two and a half hours of everything I don't like about Russian art/literature. By that I mean it was bleak, boring, long, full of suffering (mostly psychological), and lots of references to Jesus. The story was something like: A guy goes away for some job, and his wife has an affair, and ends up pregnant. The husband is pissed, and wants her to get an abortion, and so she does. Then she dies, and the husband's brother has a heart attack and dies too. And it lasted 2 1/2 hours. Lots of long takes that weren't very interesting and lots of pained expressions. Somewhere in there I fell asleep for a few minutes, which I don't regret. After I woke up, the pain continued and then there was this flashback that made no sense to me. I guess it was what happened to the wife while the husband was gone. It lasted forever, but the main point was that her lover wasn't actually the father, it was the husband. Or maybe I missed the point. There was enough unexplained absurdity (and not the good, Roy Andersson variety), that by the end I was stuck trying to figure out what just happened. And I still have no idea.
But, there were a handful of good shots, one was a long take while rain started pouring in the country. Another had to do with water on the windshield, and other things like that. The whole "visual textures" idea. Aside from that though, I didn't like this.
Final Grade (C-, dull, boring, nonsensical at times, but high production values and some good cinematography keep it from the D-level)

After that, I was exhausted, and wanted to try to come back to the apartment and take a nap for a bit. It took me about 2 hours to get back, mostly because I wanted to just stop someplace and get food, and ended up walking in a big circle. I also stopped to refuel my wallet and get some subway tokens (Ripoff of the day #2, I should have got the weekly pass). But I finally got back, rested for an hour and made my way to the Wintergarden theater for...

MY WINNIPEG (dir. Guy Maddin, 2007):
But first, the Wintergarden is an AWESOME venue. It's basically a super nice, older theater with some neat murals and all, but on the ceiling space there's a bunch of faux-foliage, and lots of hanging garden lamps. The proscenium and any other columns look like trees, and it's probably one of the coolest theaters I've been in.

And as for Winnipeg. I'll put it this way: Guy Maddin did with Winnipeg what I want to do with Syracuse. He's made a personal documentary (he calls it a docu-fantasia), about what it's like growing up in a somewhat dreary, winter-heavy, working class city. And it's all in Maddin's silent-era-influenced style. Maddin was there to narrate the film, which for the most part added to the experience. It makes me wish I had seen Brand upon the Brain! in the live setting.
It's hard to really describe the experience of a Maddin film, and My Winnipeg is proving the point. I think I'll have to sleep on it and update when my mind is actually working properly. But for now:
Final Grade: B+ (interesting, funny, stylized, but with a few distractions [mainly the switches to DV])
And there was a Q&A afterwards, which was fun but not terribly informative.

That was the end of the day, I came back, ordered a pizza (naturally), and now I'm going to bed. Tomorrow is the first 4 movie day, and I've got no naptime, so until then.

TIFF 07: Day 1 "super model pizza: our crust is as thin as super models."

Long, long day.
The sleep last night, for whatever reason, consisted of me waking up at least 6 times, probably more. Once awake, I'd rush to the sink to get water, since my entire body somehow managed to dry itself out completely. Before I knew it the sun was up and in my eyes (no curtains here), so on top of being dehydrated, it took forever to fall back asleep.
Finally, around 10am, I gave up on sleep and decided to get ready for the day. My plan was to go to the bike shop and buy a new tube, so that I could bike around today. On the way I'd get breakfast, and maybe exchange my currency so I could pay for said breakfast.
Knowing almost nothing about bikes, and unable to find out what type of tube I'd need, I decided to just take the whole tire off and bring it with me. Which mean finding the proper tool (an allen wrench, buried at the bottom of the toolbox), and removing the tire (which mean undoing all the work my shower had just done).
But it's the start of the day, so I decide that things can only get better, forget about being covered in grease, and start walking in the 90 degree heat. Half an hour later I run into a bank, get the money changed (the exchange rate is awful), and continue. Finally, 45 minutes after starting, I arrive at the bike shop. I get the tube, ask the guy how to put it in, and head back. In a severely stupid move, I skip breakfast (never doing that again). I get back to the apartment, walk the 5 flights, and begin to take the tire apart (I've never replaced a tube). The guy at the store said to inflate the tube some, so that it fits in properly and all. After a thorough search, I realize that there's no pump in the apartment. I ask a neighbor, who points me to the car wash across the street, where there's air.
So grudgingly, I walk back down the 5 flights, across the street to the pump, and then realize that I have no quarters. After a brief panic, I make my way to the Portuguese cafe across the street and get a dollar changed. The tube gets inflated, and by some miracle, I install it correctly.
Back across the street, another 5 flights, and I put the tire back on the bike. I decide that damn, I need food, so I better get going. Down the 5 flights, carrying a bike this time.
So the new goal was to go pick up my tickets, and get breakfast on the way (since the road is long, and there are tons of places to eat). Naturally, I forget the breakfast part, and go straight to the box office for my tickets (another 20 minutes or so, by bike). I wait in line for what felt like 20 minutes or so (and may have been longer) to get my tickets. That goes smoothly, and again my focus shifts to breakfast (by now it's lunchtime).
Being the dietary moron that I am, the ideal breakfast today is a chocolate croissant and some chocolate milk from Tim Horton's. There are two of them in the building where the box office is. Neither has croissants.
So I forget about food again, and decide to go find all the venues where I'll be seeing movies. I get lost (which was the point), and finally run into a place called Pizzaville (super model pizza was on the way downtown, I wish I had stopped). I go in, order a slice, and eat. Life is good for a minute. The pizza slices here are always big, and cut in two, so you feel like you're getting more. I am pleased.
After that, it's time to go to the North-end venues. Another 20 minute bike ride later, I've seen the places I'll be, and I stop in the park to just sit for a while, since going back to the apartment would make no sense (I've got to wait in a rush line later, and it's nearby).
Freshly rested from half an hour in the park, I head toward the last venue on my list and get another slice of pizza (sidenote: I haven't had an amazing slice of pizza yet. I'll keep looking). It's now something like 6pm, and I decide that it's as good a time as any to get into the rush line for the 7:45 showing of Young People Fucking. The rumors I heard about total strangers starting conversations in the lines of the festival prove true. I talk to this older guy about what he's seeing, what looks good, how I broke down my selections, and so on. I'm about 26th in line for this particular showing, and since I have nothing better to do, the wait doesn't bother me. The guy next to me told me he hasn't been let down by a rush line yet, so I've got some hope.
More time passes. and passes. and passes. Soon it's 7:30, and the director and his huge entourage show up for the screening. The line slowly crawls forward. At about 7:50, the two girls next to me get handed tickets (one of their professors just happened to be giving away two tickets at that exact moment). I'm starting to get frustrated. The movie may have started, and we're still waiting. Finally, I'm 3rd in line. It's probably 8:10, maybe 8:15. At about 8:25 they tell us that it's closed. There are no more seats.
....
I did have a backup plan though. So I rushed to another venue (getting honked at, and lost). When I get there, I can't find anything to lock my bike on. I'm flipping out cause I don't want to get stuck waiting in a rush line for nothing, again. I lock the bike to a tree and run over to the line. I ask the volunteer how the odds are looking, and thankfully they're good. It's a 1500 seat venue, so there's bound to be some extra seats. Another set of conversations in line arise, this time between myself, a peruvian who's into Joy Division, graphic novels, and artists being more creative when they're bipolar, a woman from Connecticut (I think), who doesn't really say a lot, and an opinionated Indian guy from Chicago who's been attending the festival for like 7 or 10 years. Most of the conversation was the Peruvian and the Indian going back and forth about whether medication affects creative artists, my awful rush line story, and general small talk. And then, the moment of truth. After only waiting in line about 20 minutes, I get to buy a ticket and go to my first screening of the festival. And I get a student discount.
Which brings me to the movie:

PERSEPOLIS (dir. Vincent Paronnaud & Marjane Satrapi, 2007):
I was pleasantly surprised. It was more enjoyable than I thought it would be, but it was about as good as I expected as well. Basically, it's the life story of Marjane Satrapi (from her graphic novel of the same name), told at lightspeed. For the first 20 minutes I didn't really have an idea of what was happening, and to be honest I still don't quite know. It was a rush, and it left a sort of blurred impression of Satrapi's lifetime. What I know is that there was a lot of conflict in Iran, she went to Europe, there was loud music and boys and hippies, she came back to Iran, there were still problems, she left again, and there were more boys. Oh, and her grandma was pretty cool. The whole family was a bunch of independent spirits, which inspired her. And there was a lot of the oral tradition going on. She's telling us a story and other characters tell their stories and so on.
The animation was pretty sweet, and for this film, it worked. Paronnaud and Satrapi took advantage of the flexibility of animation. I would have disliked it if it were live. In fact, it would've sucked.
Music played too big a role. In moments where I should have been moved by what I was seeing and being told, I was too busy noticing how hard the music was hinting at how I should be feeling to actually feel that way.
It was funnier than I expected. And more interesting than I thought. Satrapi's got an interesting life, what's even more interesting is that I'm sure she's not the only Iranian who's had the same experience. But that's a whole other thing.
Final Grade: B (solid, interesting, but with distractions)

And also, the Elgin is a great theater. It's huge, ornate, and classy. It reminds me of the landmark in Syracuse, or an old Broadway theater. Great venue.

After that, I biked back. It's took forever. But I did finally get my chocolate croissant and chocolate milk. And then I lugged the bike up 5 flights of stairs. I'm taking the transit tomorrow.

TIFF07: prelude (getting there)

just in case anyone is reading this: I made it.
I'm looking out the window at toronto.

and the day went something like this:
- Wake up at 7 to order the one extra ticket for the last movie I wanted to see (Sukiyaki Western Django--which looks awesome).
- Wait for a busy TIFF server to finally let me through, only to discover that said movie (for the showing I wanted) was sold out.
- Try to buy a ticket for the midnight showing, and two other movies to cap off my festival
- Get denied.
- Sort out parts of my life, via e-mail.
- Fall asleep.
- Wake up to a phone call from Amtrak, the train is 40 minutes behind schedule.
- Fall asleep.
- Call mother, ask for sinus medication (since I've gotten about 8 times sicker than I was yesterday)
- Sleep some more.
- Wake up, shower, give my mom directions to get to me, open the door and then
- Have tea with mom, emily and cooper (video teachers from school who were wonderful enough to give me a ride to the station)
- Start walking to the car, break my suitcase handle.
- Get to the station. Wait. and Wait. And Wait. The train is supposed to leave at 12:40, it shows up at 2pm.
- Sit on a train, sick, listening to music. Wait even longer, since there's construction on the rails.
- Take off my headphones to hear a woman two seats behind me, belching. THE ENTIRE RIDE. I'm guessing it's a disorder.
- Finally get to the border around 6:15, wait there until 7:30.
- Arrive at Toronto at 9:30.
- Take the subway out to Landsdowne. Walk two very sketchy blocks with an enormous suitcase and backpack, wearing a sweater and a blazer because the train was so cold. Now it's got the opposite effect.
- Get to the place I'm staying (at Darren's, who happens to be awesome), and realize that it's on the 5th floor.
- Lug my suitcase and backpack up 5 flights of stairs, still in a blazer and sweater.
- Put the key into the door, only to realize it doesn't work.
- Buzz random stranger (Darren's neighbor) to get let in.
- Put my stuff down, try to get online, it isn't working. Flip out.
- Run to the corner store to get a key copied, so I can get in all week. The two guys who worked there had a fun time making the key, but luckily it worked.
- Walk back up 5 flights of stairs. Return the neighbor's key. Realize I'm starving, since all I had today was a bowl of cereal, some candy bars, and sinus meds.
- Get a pizza from the Dominos right outside, come back upstairs, fix the internet.
- Eat the pizza. It was a surprising pizza, the opposite of Dominos in the states. It almost reminds me of... Digiorno.
- Blog.

And now I'm going to rest. On tomorrow's agenda: Fix a bike tire, try not to get sucked into the streetcar rails and ruin said bike/my skull. Pick up my tickets. Exchange currency. Try to get that one ticket. Maybe wait in a rush line and see a movie. And try to get rid of the sinus issues.

Long day, but it's over now. I'm still in one piece.