The Vancouver Film Festival has been known to show a lot of feature movies during its 16 day run. What they also show is a wide variety of short films, especially those made by Canadian directors. The shorts exhibited range from those with an established reputation to those just starting out. For airings of Canadian shorts, the VIFF had four segments titled off of the earths four natural elements; Air, Earth, Fire and Water. The first shorts segment I saw was the one titled Water. All the shorts in the segments had something to do with water either as a metaphor, part of a scene or as a central theme. Each had their own style and/or their own story to say or play out.
For this year’s VIFF, I wanted a good mix of films to see: Canadian, foreign, documentaries and shorts. This was the first segment of shorts I saw. I’m happy. At the beginning of the segment, I was expecting this to be showcasing works of ‘the filmmakers of the future’ as shorts are often known as. What I saw here, I was a bit surprised:
Wait For Rain – This is an amusing comedic short. People who work at a sales business waiting for rain for their plant in a world where fresh water is rare. James is always the last to get rain for his plant and thus the least suucessful. One woman is interested in him and his plant while he’s interested in another. Amusing quirky love story that plays out humorously form beginning to end.
Steam – This is a more serious short. A middle aged man struggling with something he’s always felt as a burden. Now he learns to accept himself. It seems odd to go from a cute and funny short like Wait For Rain to Steam but Steam is a good short in its own right where one is kept intrigued by the drama.
Snowbound – This is the most shocking short of the bunch. A 13 year-old girl learns she’s pregnant. She can’t tell her boyfriend. Her mother finds out accidentally. What does she do? In the end, she makes a decision that will leave all shocked.
Swim – It’s four minutes where you see a man swimming in an area of Lake Ontario. But what makes it is the narration form the filmmaker. He tells of a childhood memory that still haunts him. He would later repeat that same dare on his boyfriend years later. More of an introspect or a reflection than a drama played out.
Le Rocher – Another short that’s not a piece of drama played out. Instead it’s a showcase of places and spaces from both Canada and Europe. It’s meant to show the relation of both. Mostly a collection of landscape filling. If you like scenic films, you’ll like it. If you came to the shorts segment expecting all shorts to be dramas like I did, you’ll leave confused.
Blood/Sweat/Tears – At first the two people in the crashed car all alone on the street look dead. Then they become conscious and arguing. It all starts out with the two arguing by themselves, then amongst a crowd of onlookers and then the woman is taken away while the man is out shouting. Interesting story about troubled love. Also interesting is that’s it’s of a single-car crash with no other car, no street light, no nothing causing it. I think the crash was meant to be a metaphor of the relationship.
Bone Wind Fire – This is another intimate short. This is of the lives of three of the greatest North American painters: Emily Carr, Frieda Kahlo and Georgia O’Keefe. What it’s focus is on the nature of where they lived and how it played out and inspired the paintings they created. Awesome cinematography. You really get a feel for the nature.
And there you have it. The seven shorts that comprised Rain. I’m sure anyone that came to saw it might find at least one they liked. One thing is that it taught me a lot about short filmmaking. Not everyone who creates a short puts a story or a drama on film. There’s more creativity to it. Glad to see it shown in this segment. As for the fiilms, some shorts may catapult directors into something bigger in the future. Some may lead to other filmmaking jobs in the future. And some may continue to do shorts. Only time will tell how they do.
Back on Saturday, I started my volunteer work for the Vancouver International Film Festival. It is my fourth year volunteering. It’s great being part of an event that gathers a lot of media attention and helps promote filmmaking.
If you look back to the late 1970’s, you might remember there being film festivals like the Toronto Film Festival and the Sundance Film Festival that garnered very little attention but were growing at the time. They were still below the ranks and renown of the more established film festivals in Europe like Cannes, Venice and Berlin. Since then, Sundance and Toronto have made a major impact on the film world with its releases and its promotion of films. The Vancouver International Film Festival started in 1982 and now ranks as one of the top film festivals in North America. It nevertheless does carry a bit of an identity crisis but does have a lot to offer.
Since the Vancouver International Film Festival, the VIFF, opened in 1982, it has grown to an annual attendance of 150,000 every year since 2003. The 2000’s saw the construction of a special theatre, the VanCity Theatre, and an adjacent office for the VIFF organizers. This year it features over 300 films from 59 countries. Quite a lot. Nevertheless many feel that the VIFF is sandwiched in the role of playing second-fiddle to the Toronto Film Fest. In fact one person frequently tells me that we always get the ‘leftovers’ from Toronto. It is true that we get a lot of films that have already had their show at Toronto, especially those that get a special presentation at the Visa screening room. Very rarely, if ever, does a big-name actor show up. At most, a big feature will only have a tech person in the audience at the VIFF. What’s also true is what the VIFF has to offer on its own. Firstly the VIFF has more Asians films than any film festival in North America. This year there are more than 100 from dozens of countries. The VIFF also features more Canadian films and works than any other film festival in Canada. Not even Toronto has as much. They’re too busy hyping up the Oscar contenders. The VIFF also features loads of documentaries. There are dozens this year too from a wide variety of topics. The VIFF also features a lot of short films and films for youth. The film festival is not simply a festival showing straight features but a wide variety of films from across the spectrum from shorts both animated and live action to at least four films longer than 4 hours. There’s also the possibility of Q&A sessions from directors and even actors.
The VIFF also has a lot of dealings going on. Some films will catch the eye of distributors and will work things out to have them shown to the big screen. Others, like documentaries, will be able to be shown on specialty television networks. Some will be promoted as videos or films for special groups or resource centers. Like last year I saw the Canadian film Two Indians Talking and the director said in the Q&A that she hopes for it to be put on DVD and shown in First Nations resource centers. Then there are those where the VIFF will be the furthest their film will get. That’s the nature of the beast in filmmaking and promoting. It’s always a case of chance and luck of how far it will go.
Another thing the VIFF did was that it had a special panel. With this being the 30th Year of the Festival, it had a look back to the early years of the Festival and also hosted a free forum about the future of film. I wasn’t there at the Forum but I’m sure there’s a lot of discussion. I myself believe the world of film faces a lot of challenges in the years and decades ahead. One is the future of creativity and taking film in new directions in what is essentially a bottom-line business. Film can allow for a lot of creative minds to express themselves but there’s this beast called ‘showbiz’ where the subject of movie marketability is inescapable. Whether creativity can be taken in new directions and possibly even change filmmaking, only time will tell. Another factor to take into consideration is the multitude of media sources one now has, including some that didn’t exist ten years ago. When the VIFF opened, film’s top rivals were television, VCR and the newly-created pay TV. Multiplexes were increasing but it was still possible for a single-screen cinema to hold its own. Today, we have digital cable with hundreds of channels at our fingertips. We have websites like Youtube and Netflix. We can watch a movie on our laptop or even on our cellphone. Multiplexes are now the mainstay for big screen cinemas and single screen cinemas nowadays have either succumbed, are now in the fight of their life, or have to have some backing from some film source or company. Some of you may already have read some of the current difficulties of running a cinema as noted in my Hollywood Theatre article. Just to give a heads up, there’s going to be a multiplex opening in the new shopping mall at the New Westtminster station: ten cinemas with a total of 1800 seats. A multiplex with samll per-screen theatres; another example of what’s happening with the movie business. Don’t get me wrong. There will be a future for film–there’s no doubt in my mind– but it has a bumpy road ahead.
This year, there were some changes in the venues with the Festival. The Granville 7 still remains the biggest venue for showing films but the Visa Screening Room is no longer Cinema 7 on the top floor. Instead it’s the Vogue Theatre. The Park Theatre is not one of the alternative theatres this year. The VanCity and Pacific Cinematheque are still being used for the Festival. Last year, the Festival opened with the screening of a Canadian film–Barney’s Version— with promotion of Telefilm Canada. This year they open with Pedro Almodovar’s The Skin I Live In, a film from Spain. Last year, they closed with the animated movie The Illusionist. This year, they close with the French film The Kid With A Bike.
In its thirtieth year, the Vancouver International Film Festival shows strong signs of growth. It may have a while before it joins the ranks of Sundance and Toronto but I’m sure it will continue to establish its own identity in the future. For more information about the Festival, go to the VIFF website.
September 11, 2001: A day that will live on forever. A lot has changed in the ten years since. Air security is way tighter. Arabic names and words no one could pronounce previously have since become part of our everyday vocabulary. Entering the United States is more regulated. Being Arab American has made people more victim to racism than ever before. We have a no-fly list and a terrorism alert of color grades. We have people claiming conspiracy theories. We have had two wars declared since which has further divided political sides. We’ve caught many to do with the terrorism but have more to go.
Around this time, you will read many articles and views surrounding the events, political climates and beliefs of the writers. You will hear many stories from those involved to those who lost loved ones to those in political power. As for me, I won’t be focusing on such. Instead I will focus on the day as I remember it.
Tuesday, September 11th 2001 started off like any other day for me. I wasn’t yet 30 and had recently moved to Vancouver months earlier and living in a character house with at least six other residents at the time. I was off to work and listening to a radio show talking about a bizarre contest where people do crazy stunts for the sake of an entry. Things wouldn’t be the same after that. In the morning while I was on a break from my first job, I saw one of my co-workers laughing. When I saw him, he said a plane hit the World Trade Center. Some of you may think it was insensitive but looking back, I think he was laughing at the bizarreness of the event. When I first heard the news from him, I first thought it was probably a small passenger plane and it hit one of the Twin Towers by accident. That afternoon I was working at my second job for a government business. I heard one of my supervisors talking about what happened and saying that it could have happened to a building like ours. Hearing that, I started to think that this may not be an accident after all, but how?
Later on in the day as I was returning home, I saw news stories and images of the events that happened. There was even a second newspapers issued that day about the events. I saw one of the towers hit by an airplane was burning while another airplane hit the other tower. When I first saw it, I was in disbelief. I thought it was something that could only happen in the movies. Then hearing of other crashes like the plane that hit the Pentagon and one that crashed in a failed attempt to hit Camp David. Then hearing how all Worldwide commercial air ground to a halt. Then seeing images of people running and screaming for their lives as the first of the Twin Towers crashed down. The events were just completely unreal in my mind. Until then, I always thought hijacking a plane was always about the terrorist using plane passengers hostages for the sake of making demands. Until then, I’ve only heard of airplanes used as weapons during the Kamikaze attacks of World War II. I never thought that terrorist could use passenger planes for the sake of a suicide mission. The attacks on the Twin Towers also immediately brought back a memory of how back in 1993, the World Trade Centre was bombed but there were only five fatalities at the time. I also remember that the mastermind was a Muslim cleric. Remembering that got me thinking that the attackers had the failed attempt from 1993 in mind to bring the towers down for sure that time.
Then back at my home, I met with the other residents in my character house and we were all shocked. One who was visiting from the Netherlands even videotaped the speech from President Bush. The day was just completely surreal. All networks were focused on all the events that happened. There was no changing the other channel. It would continue to be that way for at least two weeks straight.
Days later, I would hear stories of those who died that day. There was even a memorial service broadcast from radio at my workplace that consisted of five minutes of silence. I also heard from those who lost loved ones. Even later on I heard even further details of the activities. Hearing about how some of the terrorists went to flying school to carry out those activities completely surprised me. Hearing how Al-Qaeda had a worldwide network with followers even in Canada shocked me. Hearing of these countries having weapons given to them by the United Stated puzzled me even further. Hearing the various reactions around the world also caught my eye. Most of the world, including many Arab countries, expressed their condolences to the events. There were some, like Palestinians, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, who considered that day a day of celebration. Then there were the speeches of Osama bin Laden. Already infamous for his years of bomb attacks on American embassies in other countries, he led the taunts. Shockingly he promised a ‘great day of terror’ weeks earlier.
Despite all the nastiness, there were also a lot of positives. The United States however refused to let it defeat them and a renewed sense of patriotism happened. New York City also developed its own pride in itself. People who used to diss the police and firemen and politicians almost immediately rallied behind them. Families would help out stranded air passengers during that time. Nations would come to the support of the United States and some other nations even lost citizens of their own.
Ten years have passed. Yeah, you could say a lot has changed. Even reflecting back on the happenings of that tragic day still boggles my mind. Commercial planes used as weapons for a suicide mission. Four flights hijacked with the intent to destroy four places. Thousands dead. I was never involved with it nor did I personally know anyone who died that day but even ten years ago, it does seem like yesterday.
Anyways those are my thoughts on 9/11. I just wanted to reflect on what I remember from that day. I didn’t want to get into any political speech or political thought. If you want any political thought from me, read my Osama bin Laden is Dead article. Since I wrote it, Al-Qaeda has elected a new leader. Whether he has the same sophistication as Osama or not is something only time will tell. I just hope there’s no massive loss of life in the process. There you go. That’s the most political I will get in this article.
I hope you liked what I had to say because that’s what I remember. I was never an actual part of the events. I never knew anyone lost that day. Nevertheless I still remember the constant broadcast of the day’s events and the atmosphere surrounding it. You can’t deny how much it’s changed the world and changed people. I end my article saying: God Bless the souls of those lost that day and may God continue to be with the families.
I don’t have to explain Game 7 for you; most of you know Boston won 4-0 and took the Stanley Cup with it. I don’t even have to explain the aftermath that happened immediately after. It’s worldwide news now. However I would like to tell what I experienced, why I’m not surprised and what has happened since.
I saw the event over around Robson and Beatty. It was in a building with 70 others. It was a fun time, even though we weren’t happy with the final score. We sat through watching the Stanley Cup being given out, despite our obvious disappointment. Afterwards many of us stuck around to help set the place up for tomorrow’s work day. As we were looking out the window, all we saw were people walking down the street. Within a matter of minutes, I heard someone say that two cars were being burned. Another short while later, I heard another say that a police car was set ablaze on Granville. Once we had the room completed, I talked with four others I would be leaving the building with that I felt it was best to go to the Yaletown SkyTrain. Just as we were leaving, we went outside and saw rising smoke from above a skyscraper. The skyscraper was blocking the view of where the smoke was coming from. Then we heard two explosions that sounded like gunshots only to see more smoke. It was after ten minutes of looking out to the rising smoke that we decided to walk the long route to Yaletown SkyTrain. While walking, we saw one cafe had a TV screen on and live coverage of a car burning outside the Post Office building; that area where we saw smoke rise. We were all shocked. Soon we boarded the Canada Line Skytrain, got off at the Langara station and took a bus to a Metrotown Restaurant to toast the Canucks.
At home hours later, I didn’t know if I would be going to work the next morning. The next morning I was able to go to work but not without seeing some of the damage, destruction or repairs happening. It was all over the news. Reactions not just in Vancouver’s news but all across Canada and around the world poured in. The riot led to 150 injuries, 15 burned cars and millions in damages and stolen goods. Even a story of a Boston Bruins fan stabbed in the neck. Vancouver was officially defamed.
The craziest thing about these riots is that they were not completely unexpected. Some may remember that seventeen years ago, in 1994 when the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup to the New York Rangers in Game 7, there was rioting happening then too. Businesses were damaged, there were at least 100 injuries. Police had to rush in to stop the action. Remembering that, I was originally planning to title my article Vancouver Riots: The Next Generation. Recently I heard a story from my uncle that there was a riot in Vancouver back in the 60’s when they won the Grey Cup. Whatever the situation, it was the riot of 1994 that would make Vancouver the unofficial ‘riot capital of North America’. There would be further riots: 1997 at the time of the G8 summit, a multitude of pre-Olympic protests and clashes, and Olympic raids during 2010. Vancouver has also been known as a central meeting spot for anarchists from all over BC and even the Northwestern United States. Even many people knew that there would be a riot after Game 7, win or lose. Some made mention that there were people in the crowd of Georgia street dressed as fans but carrying pepper spray and goggles for the sake of wreaking havoc at the end. Mayor Gregor Robertson and the Chief Of Police even made mention in a news story that they learned from 1994 and would be prepared for a possible riot this time around. They couldn’t have been wronger.
Despite all the nasty things that happened, there was a ray of hope. As workers started cleaning up the glass from smashed-in windows, volunteers came in and helped with the clean-up. I saw many along the streets and even around the Post Office building cleaning where cars burned the night before. Groups on Facebook started support groups like: ‘Vancouver Spirit Rally,’ ‘Real Canucks Fans Don’t Riot!’ and ‘Canucks Fans Against the 2011 Riots.’ One Facebook page even encouraged volunteers to clean up from the night before. That may have to do with why there were volunteers cleaning the next day. There were even pages devoted to posting photos of people causing criminal activity like ‘Vancouver Riot Pics: Let’s Get These People Locked Up,’ and ‘Report Canucks Riot Morons.’ Pages like those has led to many arrests since. On the plywood held in place of the various business’ broken windows, people wrote messages of apology or messages condemning the rioting or support to Canucks and the city of Vancouver. It’s a given that when cowardice like the riot arises, humanity responds.
It has been eleven days since the riots. A lot of rebuilding and replacing have happened since. A lot of support has happened since too. The reputation of Vancouver since the riots still has yet to be determined. Will new laws be passed to prevent further riots from happening? If Vancouver qualifies for another Stanley Cup finals, will there be another telecast on a big screen on Georgia Street? Win or lose, will things be better this next time? Or will we have another riot? And will the authorities be prepared this time around? Only time will tell.
This is it. On Wednesday June 15th at Rogers Arena, the Stanley Cup will be decided in a single game. The two finalists–the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins–both have won three games apiece. Both have shown their strengths and both have shown their weaknesses. Both have some key players out, either by penalty or injury. Both have also been the subject of negative opinion and positive opinion. Whatever the situation, tomorrow decides it all. But who will win? Instead of predicting the winner for tomorrow, I decided to sum the two all up and break them all down:
VANCOUVER-Three wins on home ice. All of their wins have been very close: 1-0, 3-2 overtime and 1-0. One thing about the wins is that they may not have been big or spectacular but the Canucks knew how to play smart at home in order to make the wins happen. Yes, the wins were mostly conservative but their conservative play would pay off at home. Their losses to Boston have been a lot bigger: 8-1, 4-0 and 5-2. Part of the reason for their losses in Boston have to be with the lack of confidence many would display. It would be noticeable as they would miss many important plays. Also during the Boston games, there was a noticeable weakness in Roberto Luongo as he let in a total of fifteen goals. Whenever he was replaced by Cory Schneider, the Canucks would soon get their confidence back and start playing better hockey. Already two top players: Aaron Rome and Mason Raymond are out.
BOSTON-Also three wins on home ice. All three of their wins against the Canucks have been decisive: 8-1, 4-0 and 5-2. The Bruins definitely know how to go all out on them while at home but during the away games, they’re lacking. All three of their losses have been tight games. They’re not as good at scoring in Vancouver and despite having a lot of puck control, they don’t materialize it at Rogers Arena as well as they could. One thing about their big wins is that they’re hoping to use it to intimidate the Canucks en route to winning the Stanley Cup. The big wins didn’t intimidate the Canucks enough as they would win 1-0 on Game 5. Tim Thomas has been an excellent goalie conceding only eight goals in the final. However this would prove to be a weakness as there would be two Canuck wins of 1-0. Plus Boston’s big wins in Game 3 and 4 didn’t succeed in intimidating the Canucks as they would win Game 5 1-0, putting the embarrassments of Game 3 and 4 behind them.
Now there’s the overall play. The media are already calling this the ugliest Stanley Cup finals in recent years. It all started in Game 1 with the Burrows Bite. Then in Game 3 came the check from Canuck Aaron Rome to Bruin Nathan Horton. That left Horton hospitalized and out of Finals play. For Rome’s part, he was slapped with a four-game suspension also leaving him out of Finals play. Then came the ‘pumping his tires’ reference from Bruins goalie Tim Thomas to Roberto Luongo that has been well-published. Already the Canucks were labels the most hated team of the Finals by many. Then things took a worse for Boston. Game 6 saw a check to Canuck Mason Raymond which left him hospitalized with a fractured vertebrae. Also many on the web have suspected the Boston ice to be too soft and the Boston referees too ignorant to the Bruins own penalty-worthy misdoings. Already the Finals are memorable for a lot of wrong reasons.
With Game 7 just more than a day away, people are already giving out their predictions. There has even been some numerology and trivia bits floating about to hint who will win. Now I’m not one who completely believes in numerology or trivia odds and ends but I have been hearing some interesting facts that may lead to tomorrow’s fates. I heard that a Canadian host city of an Olympic Games would win the Stanley Cup the following year: Montreal hosted in 1976 and won in 1977; Calgary hosted in 1988 and won in 1989: Vancouver hosted last year and it’s just so close. Also in favor of Vancouver, there’s the fact that of the fifteen previous Game 7’s of the finals, all but two have been one in the Game 7 host city. However there’s also one going against Vancouver which I learned of during Game 5’s telecast. Of the previous fifteen Cup Finals that lead to a Game 7, all but four winners of Game 5 would not win the Cup.
Whatever the odds and ends, whatever play happened in the previous six Finals games, only tomorrow will decide the 2011 Stanley Cup Winner.. Will Vancouver’s conservative style of playing and winning at home pay off? Or will it take its toll in Game 7? Will Boston’s big wins succeed in intimidating the Canucks for Game 7? Or will it be like in Game 5 in which the Canucks were able to bounce back from humiliation and show the Bruins they weren’t so intimidated? It will all be decided when the puck drops in Rogers Arena tomorrow, Wednesday, June 15 at 5pm Pacific time. May the best team win!
Me with the Stanley Cup. Which team will hoist it tomorrow?
So some of you may have already got my first taste of Canucks talk. Well guess what’s happened since? I was at the very first Stanley Cup Finals Game at Rogers Arena! Don’t ask me how much my tickets were. The most I’ll say was they were over $500. I will say that I was glad to be in the arena for a once-in-a-lifetime event. Looking back, I can say I was there when it all started.
Tickets for the Finals games didn’t go on sale until 10am on Tuesday, May 31st,, only the morning before Game 1. They were originally intended to go on sale Monday at noon but they were delayed 22 hours for inexplicable reasons. I took an early lunch break at that time to buy a fair-priced ticket for Game 1 from Ticketmaster. By the time I got on, they were either impossible to buy or completely sold out. I know that before ticket-buying I promised myself that $500 was the most I’d attempt to spend on a Stanley Cup ticket, but desperate times call for desperate measures. I called ShowTimeTickets to place an order because I had trouble logging in to their website. Luckily, I was able to buy one ticket for Game 1, for up on the balcony. Unluckily, I broke my promise to myself. I mean it is history in the making, right?
Okay, Game Day. On Wednesday June 1st, I was finally done my job at 4:30. I was told by ShowTime to wait until 3 at the latest to get the best seats in the house for my order. Once my work was done, I took my Canon Rebel camera and bag out of my backpack to make my trek to the ShowTime office. Luckily I get my ticket just a minute as soon as I arrive. Amen! My order was for a balcony seat and I ended up with Section 329, Row 13, Seat 107. Original ticket price, $150. Luv-lee! I immediately head to the nearest path to get to Rogers Arena. I get to one entrance and security demands that they check my camera bag and backpack and removed all my empty liquid bottles. Real fun. Then my ticket was taken and scanned. Easiest part of getting in.
First thing’s first, I find my seat. Okay, first thing’s not first. I go to get a medium soda and huge pretzel. Yes, my favorite game snack is the huge pretzel! I get my goodies and then head to my seat. I find there’s no finals towel there. Which means either arena personnel forgot to put one on or the guys in the seats above me stole it as an extra thing to hock on Ebay.
I set my bags underneath my chair and have my camera around my neck. Nice SLR camera I bought for the Olympics for the sake of taking some good action shots. Now ready for another set of action shots. Before the game began, there was a rap from rapper Kyprios—whom I personally don’t care for—who rapped “How The West Was One”. Game begins with the Bruins and the Canucks on the ice. The national anthems are sung. Meanwhile Luongo is warming up the whole time. Anyways the game starts off on an exciting note. During the first two minutes, the Canucks produced four shots on goal. Boston would respond strongly. First penalty of the game would go to Daniel Sedin and that landed him 4 minutes in the box. Despite more shots on goal, Boston failed to score. The second half of the first period saw more Canucks dominance with a powerplay and six shots on goal compared to Boston’s four. After the twenty minutes were up, the period was scoreless. One thing I have to say is that being so far up in my seat made it hard to notice the Burrows Bite at the very end. It looked like a typical hockey squabble from where I was sitting and I wouldn’t know until tomorrow’s news what exactly happened.
During intermission, I left my seat and learned some yahoo spilled beer on my backpack. As annoyed as I was, I should have expected it. Anyways I made a full circle around the lobby to check out the shops, concessions, exhibits and fandemonioum. During the break, I bought another pretzel, this time salted. I took photos of the exhibits and some of the more colorful fans: both Canucks and even a Bruin or two. I hope those Boston fans inside know that Vancouver has a store that sells all sorts of ‘different’ meats, including bear meat! I bought some souvenirs in time for Father’s Day. Oh yeah, Supertramp and Michael J. Fox were spectators that night and Don Cherry was there too.
Before I get into my talk about second period, I have to say that being up there in my seat was not an easy thing. I wanted to watch the game and take pictures at the same time. It was not an easy thing to do being from my seat and sometimes using my camera as binoculars for the game. Sometimes I’d forget to take pictures of some of the highlights. I must admit that watching is easier without the camera.
I arrive back into my seat minutes after second period began. By the time I arrived, Boston had four more shots on goal and the Canucks had a power play. I returned around the time an injured Dan Hamhuis delivered one of the more entertaining tackles by flipping Bruin Milan Lucic. After that, there was some boring play for a while and then came the penalties- three in a minute. Thanks to a Bruin getting a penalty, I get my first look at the green men. Vancouver loves them but I bet every other team hates them! Vancouver soon came on strong and then Boston had more goal attempts. Nevertheless, the period ended with the game still scoreless. I didn’t want to deal with a soaked bag again so I remained in my seat during intermission.
Third period came with the Canucks coming on stronger but Boston continuing to challenge. There was music mixing from DJs Marlon J English and Jay Swing and the Canucks band played in our area. The last half of the third period saw the Canucks come out of their shell and start making more of a serious attempt to score. However in the final minute, most of us were groaning about a possible overtime after a scoreless game. Then the miracle happened. With 18.5 seconds to go, Raffi Torres delivered the goal, much to the euphoria of the full venue. It was there and then we knew the Canucks did it! Even though Boston called a time-out, we knew there was no hope for them. The game was ours and the Canucks began their quest for the Cup with a Win and Torres was the savior of the night. The final mark of the win was Fin waving the Canucks flag on top of his hockey stick.
After the win, it was a party as people were leaving the Rogers Arena and into the streets of Vancouver. As I exited arena with my backpack soaked in beer, the streets were loaded with fans. I met one guy who came from Winnipeg to see this. For three blocks until I hit the Central Library, it was like a complete parade of fans. Even after I left the library ½ hour later, it was still active with fans. Already the quest for the Cup began with a good start.
Hard to believe it was five days ago. Hard to believe Game 3, Boston’s first Finals game as host happened tonight. We had a second game on Saturday where the Canucks started good but Boston pulled a second period surprise. I was with friends in a church hall at the time. I kept on telling them ‘It’s not over.’ In the third period was the game-tyer. However with an event taking place upstairs, the church was under a strict regulation to end telecast of the game at regulation, overtime or no overtime. When we made it to the chapel, we were reassured that the Canucks won: 11 seconds into overtime by Burrows.
All I can say this last while is fan euphoria like no other. There have even been fan videos from Youtube. My favorite is of a Victoria comedian imitating a Bruins fan with Boston accent, attitude, foul mouth and all. I think he could rival the green men.
Just now, Vancouverites are recovering from an 8-1 loss to Boston. I was working when it all happened but I heard a lot and saw enough from replays on Youtube. Canuck Aaron Rome has gotten the biggest heck for that check to Nathan Horton that left Horton carried off on a stretcher. Boston sure came back with a vengeance, although many Canuck fans are complaining about bad reffing. Bad reffing or not, the Bruins won the game. Personally I had a bad feeling that Boston would win today but not by that much. I knew that both Canucks wins came from very tight games. Game One was won by a goal in the last minute. Game 2 was won by an overtime goal after just eleven seconds. Before Game 3, Boston was able to show the Canucks that they can be a formidable rival, even though they lost both games. Boston knows the Canucks are a tough team but they also have a vulnerable side and they really exploited that tonight. Many Canuck fans are claiming they appeared tired after the second and that’s where it all went Boston’s way. Now the Canucks know they will have to play harder smarter games if they don’t want to give anything else up. I believe the next Boston game will be another nail biter for both teams. Nevertheless Vancouver can take comfort that they still lead the finals two games to one. It ain’t over yet.
I don’t think I’ll ever see another Stanley Cup Finals game ever again. Not that I doubt the Canucks in the future but I believe the next Stanley Cup Finals tickets will be way more expensive the next time. It’s even possible that in the near future, $1000 won’t even be enough. All I can say is I was glad to be there when it all started. Now I have something to tell my grandkids!
Me With The Stanley Cup During The 2010 Paralympics
Okay. Now’s when I take a break from my journalistic ambitions and I write about something on my mind.
Normally during most of the year, I don’t pay attention to hockey that often until playoff time. Then, like most Vancouverites, it’s my focus on how far they make it through the playoffs to the Cup. This year was a landmark year for the Vancouver Canucks. For years, Vancouverites have been hoping they’d win the Stanley Cup and this looks like the first year they might do it. They’ve made it to the Stanley Cup finals before–in 1982 and 1994–but they’d lose both times. The latter was especially famous for the rioting that happened for days. Since then, Vancouver has had a reputation of being the unofficial riot capital of North America.
Since the 1994 Stanley Cup, Vancouverites have been hoping their Canucks would have another shot at the Cup. The time since the 1994 Stanley Cup to the 2004 NHL Lockout were not the best of times for the Canucks. Despite a new arena with the GM Place, now called Rogers Arena, it had some difficulties including four years in a row failing to make the playoffs. Whenever it did qualify, they would only get as far as a Conference Quarterfinals of Semifinals. After the 2004 Lockout, the Canucks have had a change for the better. Upon returning to NHL play, they didn’t qualify for the 2006 or 2008 playoffs. 2007, 2009 and 2010 would see them win the Northwest Division but only make it as far as the Conference Semifinals. one bright note was that Roberto Luongo was named Goalie Of The Year by the NHL for two years straight.
The 2010-2011 was a different year for the Canucks. After the usual trades and free agent deals, the Canucks were ready to start their new year, which was also their 40th Annivarsary, with a bang. After losing their first game against the Los Angeles Kings 2-1, the rest of the season was complete magic.With 54 wins and 19 losses, including scoring 262 total goals and conceding only 185, the Canucks were the top team of the NHL in regular season. Upon having the top standings in regular season, they were awarded the President’s Trophy.
When the playoffs began, their first round pairing was against none other than the defending Stanley Cup champions the Chicago Black Hawks. The first three games were wins against the Hawks and appeared to have a comfortable lead over them. Things sure changed once the fourth game began. The Hawks showed that even though they entered the playoffs the last of the Western Conference teams to qualify, they were not going to give up their Stanley Cup chances easily, and boy did they pour it on once the fourth game started. The Hawks came back with 7-2, 5-0 and 4-3 overtime wins. That left the seventh and last game a nailbiter. Played at Rogers Arena on Tuesday April 26, the Canucks appeared poised to win with 1-0 until Hawk Jonathan Toews scored the game-tier with 2 minutes to go. This left fans nervous as the game went into overtime. It took a goal from Alexandre Burrows at 5:22 to win it for the Canucks and move them to the next round. It’s a good thing too because the previous two Presidents Trophy winners lost in the Conference quarterfinals. If the Canucks did the same, three-in-a-row would make the Presidents Trophy a curse!
After the Conference quarterfinals, things were easier for the Canucks although they still had to put in a good fight. The conference semis against the Nashville Predators was also a tight competition but the Canucks prevailed four games to two. The Conference Finals against the San Jose Sharks were possibly the easiest of the bunch. The Canucks won four games to one and the Canucks wins were in spectacular fashion. They’re the first Canadian NHL team in four years to qualify for the Stanley Cup finals. For the record, the last Canadian team to win the Stanley Cup was Montreal in 1993. Will the Canucks break Canada’s 18-year drought?
Now the Finals. The Western Conference winning Canucks will be up against the Eastern Conference winning Boston Bruins. How well do they stack up?:
CANUCKS-What haven’t I talked about already. A team loaded with talent, but all coming down to how they play as a team unit, and under the pressure of the Stanley Cup. They showed they could lead well but almost give it up, as they did against Chicago. They also showed they can come on strong as they did against the Sharks. It all depends how they play against the Bruins. One thing about the Presidents Trophy winner is that those winners that qualify for the Stanley Cup final have the odds with them. Of the nine previous Presidents Trophy winners that made it to the Cup Finals, seven won. Will the Canucks be the eighth to do so or the third to lose?
BRUINS-They finished third in the Eastern Conference and won the Northeast Division. Like the Canucks, they had a tough fight in their Conference Quarterfinals against the Montreal Canadiens and qualified for the semis on a seventh game overtime goal. Their Semis against the Philadelphia Flyers were magic as they won four straight games en route to their Conference Finals against the Tampa Bay Lightning. Their Conference Finals against the Lightning was a tougher affair as Tampa Bay proved to be a tough opponent. In the end, the Bruins won their seventh and final game with a single goal by Nathan Horton with 7 1/2 minutes to go in the third period. That’s all it takes! One important fact: In their one regular season game against the Canucks, they won 3-1. Even the Canucks will admit that they are a good rival. The Bruins had one of the highest goals-per-game averages in regular season this year. The defence of the Bruins is so good, even Luongo will admit it’s their strongest asset. However in playoffs, their scoring magic has taken a backseat. They’ll have to pour it on against the Canucks featuring Luongo if they want to win their sixth Stanley Cup.
Anyways on with the show. Hopefully the Canucks will win their first ever Stanley Cup. What’s especially noteworthy is that I promised my Admin team at work that if we win the Cup, I will buy them all a cake! I’ve already bought cupcakes for them when we won the Conference quarterfinals. Make it a yummy win guys!
The month of March didn’t look too optimistic either. Mind you it is hard to challenge the previous year’s March when it had Alice In Wonderland opening, and that had the sixth-biggest opening weekend gross ever at the time. Basically March 2011 was another yawner of a month with it failing to outgross March 2010. The box office for the first three months was so bland, I’m glad Box Office Mojo didn’t write up a summary of March. Otherwise I would have had an article titled Diary Of A Wimpy Box Office.
With that dismality, I was expecting April to be yet another ho-hum movie month in 2011. Actually things looked up. According to Box Office Mojo, this April was the highest-grossing April ever at $791 million, outgrossing last year’s April by 5%. This was also the first year since 1984 in which April’s box office tally was bigger than any of its preceding months. A lot of it can be attributed to strong showings from Hop, Insidious, Source Code and Rio. However it was a case of save the best for last when Fast Five opened with $86.2 million, the highest-ever April opening weekend. This April also sold the third-most movie tickets of any April. And to think that most of the April movies weren’t in 3D.
The month of April did a lot to lift some spirits who were paying close attention to the box office. Despite April’s strong showing, the year-to-date is still struggling.The box office total from January to April is nearly $2.9 billion, the lowest since 2008. Total ticket sales up to April were also the lowest since 1995.
As for May, the biggest opener came from Thor and it continues to hold the #1 spot this weekend. The May tally so far is just 5% less than that of May 2010 to date. Nevertheless there’s a lot to anticipate, like Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tide this weekend. The following weekend, The Hangover Part 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2 will open, so there’s still lots to wait for.
Interesting about the box office. Sometimes the most intense competition isn’t necessarily movie vs. movie or star vs. star or even studio vs. studio. Sometimes it’s movie weekend vs. last year’s movie weekend or movie month vs. last year’s movie month. Or even movie year vs. previous movie year. The competition doesn’t end, does it?
In A Better World is the winner for this year’s Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. It is only the third of the five nominees I’ve seen: the others being Canada’s Incendies and Spain’s Biutiful. I finally had the chance to see In A Better World a while back. This film has a story line that really gets one thinking.
The film begins as a Danish boy named Christian reads a eulogy at his mother’s funeral. He appears calm and composed but his mother’s death troubles him. He and his father move from London to Denmark where he spends his spare time on the roof of his grandfather’s silo looking out. We then meet Anton, a Swedish doctor who lives in Denmark but spends most of his time working in a refugee camp in Sudan. The villagers, especially the children, regard him as a hero but home life is difficult as he is on the verge of a divorce and he doesn’t see his sons as often as he’d like.
Their paths cross as Anton drops his son Elias off to school. A group of bullies taunt Elias because of his awkward looks. As Christian interferes, he too is assaulted. As Elias is bullied again the next day, Christian assaults the bully with his bike pump and threatens him with a knife at his throat never to hurt him again. Anton hopes to teach the two boys about the wrongs of violence as he himself witnesses it in the refugee camp each day. He gets a chance as his son is fighting with another boy in a playground and the father of the other son hits Anton. From atop the silo, Christian is able to spot where the man who hit Anton works by his car. Anton takes the boys again to see him confront the man where he gets hit again. Anton wants the boys to see how violence fails but they don’t get his intended message.
Later Anton is called back to work in the refugee camp. He soon has to deal with tending to the wounded warlord despite villagers pleading for him not to help. It’s later after a female patient dies that the warlord coming asking for her body that Anton leads him out where he is met by villagers ready to lynch him. After coming across fireworks in the silo, Christian gets an idea to create a bomb to blow up Anton’s attacker’s van. Meanwhile Christian’s relationship with his father takes a turn for the worse as Christian lets out his frustrations about his mother’s death, including his father’s failed promise that his mother would get better. Elias tries to talk to his father via Skype about Christian’s plan but Anton is exhausted after a stressful day. Elias then agrees to Christian’s plan. They go out one Sunday when no one is to be around and set the bomb off under the van. As Elias notices joggers, he wards them off but the bomb explodes knocking him unconscious.
Anton comes rushing back to Denmark after learning Anton is unconscious and hospitalized. When Christian tries to visit Elias in the hospital, Elias’ mother tells him to leave and calls him a ‘brat’ and a ‘psychopathic killer.’ Christian runs off and goes to the top of the silo contemplating to jump, only to be stopped by Anton. He reconciles with his father and goes to visit Elias, relieved knowing that Elias is alive and recovering well. The movie ends as Anton returns back to Sudan and is greeted by the adoring children.
There are a lot of subjects in this film. One of which is about communication barriers between people. There’s the main protagonist Anton struggling with communicating to his wife while they’re on the verge of splitting up. Anton again struggling to be there for Elias while he’s thousands of miles away in Sudan. Anton struggling to be an idealist to the boys and show how weak violence is when the boys expect Anton to be a hero. Christian struggles to relate with his father just after his mother’s death. He also struggles with the personal troubles of himself. There’s also the subject of making hard decisions. Anton has a duty of being a doctor to the refugees while Elias faces problems of his own. Anton is faced with a hard decision of being a doctor to the wounded landlord while the people insist that he doesn’t help him. Overall Anton is trying to be the man of reason and he has his share of successes and failures. Elias makes a tough decision whether to rejects Christian’s plan to blow up his father’s enemy’s van or not. All of which deliver in the results in the choices they make, or fail to make.
This is another impressive script from Susanne Bier. Although I have not seen her past works, I know she has developed a reputation. She has produced many works in Sweden and Denmark and even has one American release: 2007’s Things We Lost in The Fire. This is her latest work. The script she co-wrote with Anders Thomas Jensen also touches base on another subject of the film. Before they wrote the script for the film, Bier and Jensen had a discussion about how Denmark is perceived as having a harmonious society. They then wanted to write a story where dramatic turns of events would disrupt the image of a place perceived as blissful. The film’s original title is Hævnen, which is Danish for ‘revenge’. This film is a stark reminder that it’s quite possible in countries like Denmark that appear to be harmonious and peaceful, violence can happen through the actions of a single instigator. The film does a good job of setting situations of violence, both in Denmark and Sudan, while capturing the perceived peacefulness of Denmark at the same time.
The acting in the film was also excellent. The lead actor, Mikael Persbrandt, was excellent in portraying a man trying to maintain peace and show rational thought in hugely stressful situations both on the job and at home. Young actor William Johnk Neilsen was excellent as the troubled Christian. Also excellent were the performances of Trine Dyrholm and Markus Rygaard. The film did a good job of not overdramatizing events and maintaining its themes along with the storytelling. The cinematography added to the storytelling of how acts of violence can happen in such a peaceful place like Denmark.
It’s hard to say if In A Better World deserved the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I’d hate to compare it against its rivals. Nevertheless it was a very good film in its own right. It keeps one thinking as they leave the theatre.
Okay, some of you who don’t live in Canada have heard that we have a National Election—the 41st Canadian General Election– in which we will be voting on May 2nd, but don’t know all the details of what’s going on. Here are the details about what’s been happening and what to anticipate.
For those unfamiliar with how Canadian elections work compared to American elections, Canadian elections are held on any given date instead of the first Tuesday of November. A Prime Minister’s term can be any length of time instead of the solid four years of an American President’s term, even though most Prime Minister terms are between three to five years. While Presidential Elections are decided by electoral votes based on which Party wins the most votes per state, Canadian Prime Ministers are decided by the most won seats with each voting district or region deciding its own winning Member of Parliament per Seat. In other words, while citizens vote for electors in the Presidential election and the winning Party in the state wins all the state’s electors, Canadians vote for MP seats in the Prime Minister election. While an American President is decided by the most electoral votes, even if he doesn’t have the highest total of votes, A Canadian Prime Minister can be declared upon winning the most seats even if they don’t have the highest total of votes. So there are some similarities between Canadian elections and American elections but a lot of differences.
Now for the current political scenario in Canada. Politics in Canada has gone through a lot of chaos over the past few years; so chaotic this is the FOURTH National Election in seven years. The most recent National Election was declared in the aftermath of a political scandal. Stephen Harper’s Conservative party was long considered to be in contempt of parliament at the beginning of March upon refusing to meet Opposition requests for details of proposed bills and their cost estimates. The Liberal Party responded by declaring a motion of non-confidence against the Government and on March 25, 2011, the House voted agreeing 156-145 to the motion. This marked the first time in the history of Canada or any nation in the Commonwealth of Nations that a cabinet has been found in contempt of Parliament. Following a meeting with Stephen Harper, Governor-General David Johnston agrees to dissolve the 40th Canadian Parliament and a Federal Election was declared.
Even before the most recent election was declared, Canadian politics has already been known for its chaos in the last seven years. Back in 2005, the Liberal Party under then-Prime Minister Paul Martin faced a sponsorship scandal of what would be documented in the Gomery Report. Even though Paul Martin had been Prime Minister for less than a year, an election was declared and in January 2006 Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper won the election with a minority of seats. The Conservative Party victory was considered an arrival for political conservatives in Canada who struggled during the 90’s after the eventual decline of the Progressive Conservative party upon the resignation of Brian Mulroney.
Another national election was held less than three years later in October 2008 and Harper’s Conservatives again won the election with a minority with Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP making up most of the remaining seats. Shortly after the 2008 Federal Election, the Liberals and NDPs banded together for an overthrow of the Conservative government through a unified vote of non-confidence. Some may call it the right thing, others political mutiny. Whatever the situation, the coalition didn’t succeed and the Harper-led Conservatives remained the leading party of Canada. Since then, many Liberals have tried to distance themselves from the coalition.
Now it’s Stephen Harper’s try for a third term as Prime Minister. He comes in the election with the scandal creating baggage for him, but not a lot. Before the scandal, the Conservatives were tops in the polls and they still remain on top. One thing Stephen Harper is hoping for is a Conservative majority, especially with the 2008 attempted coalition still in his Party’s memory. The most surprising fact of the polls is that the Liberal Party is not the party with the second-highest ratings but the NDP. The Jack Layton-led NDP surpassed the Liberals in the April 20th poll and the most recent polls have the NDPs at an average of 31.4% in comparison with 3% for the Conservatives and the Liberals at 20%. This has many believing that the NDP could be setting up for a possible upset for Monday’s election; maybe even a Prime Minister Layton. Mind you the polls only represent popular voting patterns. It will all be decided when the ridings vote for the MP’s and their parties.
Win or lose, Jack Layton appears poised to have the biggest National Election result for the NDP party ever. The biggest ever result for the NDP Party is 43 seats in the 1988 election while the Party was led by Ed Broadbent. Even its founder, Tommy Douglas, never experienced the success Ed received. One difficulty of Layton’s, especially after the coalition, is for the NDP to distinguish its political platform from that of the Liberal Party. Too many voters label the NDP to be like the Liberals since they are on the same left stance. This may be seen good for liberal-siding voters but not so good for the NDP’s own identity. Whether Jack Layton wins or loses, he will have to prove the NDP’s distinction from the Liberals politically. Otherwise voters will continue to believe the NDP and Liberals are two choices of the same stance.
Then there’s the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc was started in response to a resurgence of Quebec nationalism felt after the decline of the Parti Quebecois and after the Meech Lake Accord, which was intended to grant Quebec distinct constitutional status, was overturned in 1990. The party has attracted Quebec nationalists and even prompted a second referendum in 1995 in which Quebec nationalism lost again. Despite Quebec nationalism being voted down, the party has always won at least 50% of the Seats open to Quebec. The Bloc had 49 Seats in the last election–47 are still current– with 10% of the popular vote in Canada and 38.1% of the vote in Quebec. However recent polls have them at 7%. Could this mark a decline of the Bloc?
Party aspects aside, One thing about the election is that the parties are hoping for a better voter turnout than what happened during the 2008 election. Then, the voter turnout was 58.8%, the lowest turnout percentage ever for a National Election. Parties have been making the effort to urge voters out. Even campuses have had young people out to drum out support. Interesting how around the time I first became an adult, MTV started a ‘Rock The Vote’ campaign around the time of the 1992 Presidential election and MuchMusic started ‘Vote With A Vengeance’ for the 1993 Federal Election. This election, there’s no ‘Vote With A Vengeance’ campaign. Funny. Doesn’t Much care anymore?
The big day is May 2nd, tomorrow to be exact. Canadian history will be decided by the people. The election results and its aftermath will further shape Canadian democracy in the years to come. Stay tuned. As for Canadians, get out and vote!
Jon The Blogcentric 