film

A VIFF 2012 Wrap-Up

Jon The Blogcentric3 Comments

By now you’ve probably read the reviews of all eleven of the films I saw at this years’ Vancouver International Film Festival. The Festival ended its sixteen days of films and festivities on Friday October 12th. I was working at the Granville 7 theatre at the time. The following Sunday all volunteers were treated to a volunteer appreciation luncheon at the Fan Club Cabaret in downtown Vancouver. The luncheon consisted of a live jazzy blues performance and a good lunch buffet. I was able to talk with people I volunteered with during the Festival.

As for the Festival itself, the festival did not succeed in breaking its 2011 record in ticket sales. The number of tickets went down 8% to 140,000. That can be blamed in part due to record-breaking hot Vancouver weather at that time. Yeah, it was a milestone ‘Indian summer’.  Nevertheless there were excellent turnouts and even filled crowds at many shows, even at special showings at the Vogue Theatre. If you want to read up about last-year’s success, which includes details about how film festival income is made, read here.

Here is this year’s VIFF by the numbers:

-140,000 – total admissions

-750 – volunteers

-643 – screenings

-392 – total films shown

  • 235 – feature length (60+ minutes)

-800 – number of Canadian films entered for the VIFF

-108 – Canadian Films shown

  • 37 – feature length
  • 51 – shorts
  • 20 – mid-length
  • 15 – co-productions

-96 – non-fiction films shown

  • 83 – feature length
  • 17 – Canadian

-75 – countries entering films

-64 – Canadian premieres

-51 – North American premieres

-37 – International premieres (first screening outside home country)

-21 – World Premieres

-16 – days of showing films

-12 – entries in the Best Foreign Language Film category for this year’s Oscars shown

-10 – screens showing films

-4 – theatres participating in the VIFF

Very impressive numbers for this year. Anyways I’m sure most of you want to know what film won what award, right? Well let’s say it had to be tough from the multitude of ballots filled out at this year’s Festival. An impressive 87% of the films shown were mostly rated ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ so you could understand this would be quite the tough call for both the VIFF juries and the ballot tally. Nevertheless winners have been declared and here goes it:

ROGERS PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD

-THE HUNT/Jagten (Denmark/Sweden) dir. Thomas Vinterberg,

VIFF MOST POPULAR INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY FILM AWARD

-NUALA (Ireland) dir. Patrick Farrelly, Kate O’Callaghan

VIFF MOST POPULAR CANADIAN DOCUMENTARY AWARD

-BLOOD RELATIVE, dir. Nimisha Mukerji

VIFF MOST POPULAR ENVIRONMENTAL FILM AWARD

-REVOLUTION(Canada) dir. Rob Stewart

VIFF MOST POPULAR INTERNATIONAL FIRST FEATURE

-I, ANNA (UK/Germany/France), dir. Barnaby Southcombe

VIFF MOST POPULAR CANADIAN FILM AWARD

-BECOMING REDWOOD, dir. Jesse James Miller

Women in Film and Television Artistic Merit Award

-LIVERPOOL (Canada) dir. Manon Briand

DRAGONS & TIGERS AWARD for YOUNG CINEMA

-EMPEROR VISITS THE HELL (China) dir. Li Luo

Honorable Mentions:

-A FISH (South Korea), dir. Park Hongmin

-PECULIAR VACATION AND OTHER ILLNESSES(Indonesia), dir. Yosep Anggi Noen

BEST CANADIAN FEATURE FILM AWARD

– BLACKBIRD, dir. Jason Buxton

Honorable Mention: BECOMING REDWOOD, dir. Jesse James Miller

MOST PROMISING DIRECTOR OF A CANADIAN SHORT FILM

– Juan Riedinger for FLOAT

Honorable Mention: PEACH JUICE, dirs. Brian Lye, Callum Paterson and Nathan Gilliss

So there you have it. Those are the winners of this year’s Vancouver international Film Festival. Great to see the Festival end on a great note. I myself had a good time seeing films. I saw eleven, as I reviewed at this site in the last while. I wanted a mix of films and I got a good mix out of it: four documentaries, two shorts programs (all by Canadians), three foreign-language films, one country’s entry in the Oscar category for Best Foreign Language Film and three Canadian features. I feel I had a good mix.

One thing about this year’s festival is it did mark the end of an era for the VIFF. This is the 11th Vancouver Film Festival held at the seven-screen Granville 7 Theatre in Downtown Vancouver. As of November 4th, the Granville 7 will cease to exist as it will be constructed into a condominium building. It was a shock to all of us but for years we kept on hearing “It’s closing within the year” and we’d come back there each and every year. This time it’s for real and even Empire Theatres that owns the Granville 7 made it official in an email to Granville 7 patrons.

The Vancouver Sun and Province didn’t shy away from that fact and even wrote stories that it will mark doomsday for the VIFF in the future. It first seemed believable since the Granville 7 was key to the VIFF’s growth over the years and its location being central to most of the other theatres showing films during the VIFF. The actual fact is most of us won’t believe it to be doomsday. If you know Vancouver media, they love moaning ‘doomsday’ about everything. In fact they kept on shouting ‘doomsday’ in the years leading up to the Vancouver Olympics and they ended up being the best thing that happened to the city. So what does that tell you? Finding a new theatre facility will be a challenge for next year’s film festival. I myself predict it may be either the Tinseltown in downtown Vancouver or the Fifth Avenue Cinema near Kitsilano. Nevertheless I’m confident that a new location for next year’s VIFF will not hurt the festival. In fact those who have VIFF email subscriptions will learn of the new location in the spring of 2013. Also they pointed out in that email that with the healthy attendance at this year’s Festival and 60,000 year–round members, the future of the Festival is bright and secure. Plus the Festival continued its reputation as one of the Top 5 Film Festivals in North America. So no reason to mourn doomsday. Besides if Canadian cities smaller than us in population continue to hold their own International Film Festival, there’s no reason Vancouver can’t.

Here’s to the continued success of the Vancouver International Film Festival and to a new era starting next year. I haven’t been given a start date of VIFF 2013 so I assume it will either be September 26th or October 3rd. I’m looking forward to next year.

VIFF 2012 Review – Side By Side: The Science, Art And Impact Of Digital Cinema

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

The first documentary I saw at the Vancouver Film Festival was Tribeca Film’s Side By Side. It first caught my interest on opening day as I was assigned to be an usher for the screening. I was lucky to see it as an audient three days later. I’m glad I did because this is of a topic I’ve been interested in over the past ten years.

The documentary is hosted by Keanu Reeves and it is on a hot button in the filmmaking industry. this hot button is the transition from making celluloid motion pictures to digital motion pictures. It attempts to answer the question: “does it mark the death of an art form or does it accelerate it?”

The documentary starts with some opening opinions by some of the biggest names in directing like George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, David Lynch, Christopher Nolan and Danny Boyle. It also features opening comment from independent filmmakers too. The beginning also gives descriptions and computer simulated examples of how images from both celluloid cameras and digital cameras are created. Interesting is the terminology used for filming: film filmed on a reel in a single day and developed the next day would be called ‘dailies’ while digital images would be described as ‘immediates’. Later on the documentary would describe the invention of digital filming dating back to the late 60’s to George Lucas experimenting with it. The progress of digital filming would be described more over the remainder of the documentary, which I will elaborate on more throughout my review.

The documentary also points out that the use of video cameras was not accepted by the film industry at first because video cameras were seen as something for ‘cheap movies’. They showed the first two movies filmed on video camera that made an impact on video cameras’ use in film: Denmark’s The Celebration from 1998 and the US’ Chuck And Buck from 2000. The quality was obviously cheap but the cinematic angles it was taken from caught people’s eyes. Nevertheless many people still felt video cameras were not good enough quality for something like motion pictures. To think back in 1999 when George Lucas announced after The Phantom Menace that he would no longer film on celluloid, most people didn’t take it that seriously.

As I just mentioned, we shouldn’t forget at the time digital film was still lacking in quality. Slowly but surely big name directors would take notice over time and make the switch. That’s another quality of the documentary is hearing of how so many big name directors made the switch to digital. They describe the scene filmed on digital that put the nail in the coffin for their use of celluloid film. The most interesting for me is Danny Boyle’s story about the change. He described one scene in 28 Days Later–the scene of a deserted London–that was able to be done on digital because he could shut down traffic in one area temporarily for a few minutes while he would have to shut the whole of downtown down for hours if he did it on celluloid. Many directors said that filming on celluloid film has gone as far as it can go and none sensed any limit to filming on digital in sight.

Back to the part which give demonstrations of the two filming methods. As the descriptions of are demonstrated, film professionals interviewed would describe their experiences in dealing with both filming forms, both the positive aspects and the negative aspects. One filmmaker talked of the use of dailies of how they’d look at the dailies in the screening room and at how they were taken aback by what they’ve created. It was often the case but not always. There were times when the dailies would be something flimsy. As for digital, the ‘immediates’ were convenient because they were there in an instant and they were cheaper. It’s not to say the ‘immediates’ were a complete solution. One director even said immediates would show the filming well immediately on a computer screen but won’t answer what it will look like on a 50-foot big screen.

Also described in the documentary are the various changes to how one does their job. The director and cinematographer, or director of photography (DP), have always worked as a team during the days of celluloid. The two still work as a pair even during digital filming but there are changes to how they work and communicate to each other during their job. The documentary also describes how actors have had to make adjustments of their own. During filming of celluloid, there was always a period of time when the cameramen had to do technical things that would allow for a break. Now with digital there’s more consecutive shooting less of that break time, if any at all. There’s even mention of a certain ‘protest’ done by Robert Downey Jr. when he did his first digital picture. Another thing involving actors, which would get on the directors’ nerves, is that they’d want to see the ‘immediates’ to see what they looked like all too often. Should we really be surprised? Film editors as well describe how their job has changed from literal cut and paste of reels to the computerized cut and paste. Some say the quality is still there while others say it’s cheapened. And we also see how visual effects personnel work with digital film as they’re able to create greener trees and bluer skies.

Another aspect showcased in the documentary is the changes in technologies over time. I mentioned at the beginning that video camera use for motion pictures were not accepted at first because of the lack of quality. What a difference more than ten years can make. Over time just as computer technology has improved, so has video imagery and designs of cameras. The documentary showcases the pixel quality of pictures over time and also highlights camera companies creating digital motion picture cameras that would be breakthroughs. Interesting how images shot for the big screen are at least ten times better than they were at the start of the century. Video cameras used for filming motion pictures have also become better and even smaller which allows for more unique angles. The simultaneous use of two cameras for filming 3D movies is another example of technological breakthrough. Then the news of the ultimate: the announcement from motion picture camera companies in 2011 that they would no longer manufacture celluloid movie cameras.

Despite the mention of all the technological progresses of digital cameras and its progresses leading to digital practically overtaking celluloid filming, the documentary does remind us there are still Hollywood movies and independent movies shot entirely on film and there are also still ‘celluloid purists’ who won’t hop onto the digital bandwagon for their own personal and professional reasons. Last year’s Oscar winner for Best Picture The Artist was shot entirely on film as were Best Picture nominees Moneyball and War Horse. Even two of the biggest moneymakers of this year, The Hunger Games and The Dark Knight Rises were shot entirely on film. In fact both Christopher Nolan and his personal DP Wally Pfister have even declared that if they’re the last people in Hollywood to shoot movies on celluloid, so be it. There are even some independent filmmakers that talk of the beauty of shooting on celluloid that digital can’t equal.

This documentary may give a lot of examples and opinions about the filming types but it doesn’t give the final word on the future of film. It cuts off to now and will leave the future to define itself. With no more celluloid cameras being made, the ‘celluloid purists’ will face a bumpy ride if they want to stay true to their principles. As for moviemaking, where will an industry full of predominantly-digital movies take this in the future? Will the ‘celluloid purists’ succeed despite the odds? We’ll see. One thing one director said was as long as a director has a vision, they will try to create that vision with whatever means they have.

I admit that this is a topic that caught my attention and it’s one dating back ten years ago. How it caught my attention was when I attended an acting class which a top Hollywood cinematographer Monty Rowan. He talked about celluloid filming and brought up George Lucas’ comments about never filming on film again. Rowan mentioned that digital will never have the same artistic quality as celluloid. Years later I read a magazine–either Time or Newsweek–that talked about filmmaking and once again Lucas’ talk about filming on digital: “You don’t work at the office the same way you used to. So why should I do my filming the same way I used to?” It also mentioned of a younger generation weened on digital this and that and who don’t have the same appreciation for the filmmakers of the past. That had me scratching my head. Even hearing how filming on digital has cut costs on filmmaking has still led me wondering about Rowan’s comments. Yes, filmmaking is an art but there’s this vice called ‘showbiz’ that’s unavoidable. Can celluloid continue one despite the business demands of showbiz? Especially as movie viewing is no longer cinema-only and now flexible to the point one can see movies on their tablet or cellphone?

The best quality of the documentary is the big names and wide array of professionals being interviewed by Keanu for this picture. We not only hear opinions and experiences from some of the top name directors in the business but some of the independent  filmmakers who have their own say, whether positive or negative. We also hear the various cinematography, film editing and visual effects angles from some of the top names in their respective fields. We also hear from the various ‘trailblazers’ of digital filming who did something that would pave the way to the future of film, though they didn’t know it at the time. Hard to believe that Anthony Dod Mantle filmed with video cameras with the thought “I may never win an Oscar but…” and he did for Slumdog Millionaire. It does however limit the number of independent filmmakers in the business. Yes it’s great to hear opinions from the big Hollywood names but the independent directors were limited in numbers and opinions.

Another thing I liked about the documentary is that Keanu did it unegotistically. He wasn’t like Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock who try to steal every scene and force their personal opinions. Keanu stuck to the topic and put focus and emphasis on the facts, the technologies and the professionals’ opinions. I don’t think I noticed anywhere in the documentary him talking about his own personal experiences.

As far as this documentary goes, I would not consider this to be a documentary meant for a movie cinema. One of the things with the VIFF is that there will be a lot of documentaries shown. Some will be lucky enough for a big screen run. Some will most likely be shown on television through either a documentary channel like Vancouver’s Knowledge Network or a teaching channel. This documentary looks like something that would be best suited for something like a science channel or even an entertainment information channel. I would like to see it again as this this about a topic I’m interested in as I mentioned earlier. I like how thorough this documentary was.

Side By Side is an important documentary for anyone in film, whether a professional or a student at a film school, should see. It doesn’t just present the situation but is very thorough in presenting the examples of filming, history of technological advances, and how some of the biggest names in moviemaking have taken it on. Thank you Keanu for doing a great job of giving us the facts.

VIFF 2012 Review – City Lens: 60s Vancouver by Night & Day

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

I mentioned that I already saw one shorts program at the VIFF. I was lucky to come across a second one. City Lens wasn’t just any shorts program but one done by Vancouver filmmakers in the late 50’s and early 60’s and all were filmed in black and white. It was an interesting look at Vancouver through those years and what they showcased. Here are the films I saw and what I thought of them:

-City Patterns (1962)-This was a ten-minute short that featured images of Vancouver architecture to band music. It’s not necessarily the quality of the short I paid much attention to but of the places that were filmed. I often thought things like “So that’s what it looked back then” or “Does that place still exist?.” It was just a piece-by-piece film but I was amused with it.

-The Outcast (1963)-This was a biographical film of a former criminal trying reintegrate himself back to society. He’s both the subject being filmed and the narrator. We see him in a hotel on Main Street getting ready for the morning. We see him walk from industrial area to industrial area looking for work. We see him have a nervous look as a flashing police car drives by. During the filming shots he narrates who he is and what crimes he committed. He talks of his struggles to find a job with his criminal record. He also talks about his hopes to leave his bad past behind. The short left me wondering about former criminals and their opportunities to reintegrate into society back then. It left me wondering what was it like then? Is it better or worse now?

-PNE Midway (1960)-Now this is something that would definitely take a Vancouverite back in time. The Pacific National Exhibition fifty years ago. It was nice and fun to see how a day in their life of the PNE was like back in 1960 from workers setting things up to the rides and performances happening all day and night to the closing down for just another night. It was really neat and exciting to see. There was one scene I wasn’t happy to see which was the performance of an African American singing group with ‘Ebony Queen’ on the sign. It was a reminder that entertainment was one of the few big opportunities open to blacks back then and even having ‘ebony’ in the name was unpleasant to see. We should remember this was three years before Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech.

-The Seeds(1959)-This was actually a show meant for CBC Vancouver back then but it never was aired due to what claimed to be disturbing content. The movie starts with a gang of guys who like to control a diner. When the owner tries to stop the leader from harassing a girl, he gets beaten up. We later see the gang hang out in their favorite abandoned building playing cards and drinking straight whisky. At night they like to drive around like maniacs anywhere and everywhere. One day a young woman goes shopping with her young daughter when she caught the attention of the gang. She tries to get away only to be found in a shopping area. S tells the daughter to go home, sensing danger. They all try to chase her into a corner of the parking lot and it ends with her unhurt, unrobbed but scared. I didn’t understand what the point of the show was. Violence? Misogyny? I was left confused. I’m sure I would’ve felt uncomfortable watching that on television. I found it disturbing enough watching it in the theatre.

Overall I thought it was a nice break from the usual film fare. It was also nice to see how Vancouver looked those many years ago. I’ve only lived in Vancouver for 11 years but it was still quite an eye-opener to see how the city looked back then. Also it was unique to see four different types of films: documentary, a drama, a visual diary and a parade of images. This program was brought to us by Videomatica’s Graham X Peat along with some assistance from a Vancouver Archival Film company. It’s very rare to have a chance to see something like that.

City Lens was a welcome break for me at the VIFF. I think there should be something like this every year at the VIFF  that shows images of Vancouver past.

VIFF 2012 Review – Shorts Program: Break Even

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Once again it was my goal at the VIFF to see at least one program of shorts. I had the good opportunity to see one during my ushering duties. You remember how the four programs of Canadian shorts were given names of the earth’s natural resources: Earth, Air, Fire and Water? This year the theme is about breaks. The program I saw was titled Break Even and featured nine shorts done by Canadian filmmakers. So here’s the rundown:

-Barefoot-In a Cree community, Alyssa is the third girl in her class expecting to be a mother. She has a supportive boyfriend and a supportive family but she has secrets. The story was meant to be a drama but I think this was a statement to do about teen pregnancy in First Nations reserves. An upsetting story but important as it will hit you with some hard truths.

-Peach Juice-An amusing animated movie using dolls and wrapping paper for the animating. Not the most professional but it succeeded in entertaining. This was another teenage story that has a charming outlook on a certain curiosity.

-OMG-A teenage daughter moves in with her grandmother after a spat over her phone use. Grandma handles her granddaughter’s annoying habit well both in her cellphone use and her relationship with her mother. Very clever ability to have a great entertaining story within the same location. Funny and charming.

-Liar-Tara believes her boyfriend Brian lied about being gay when he broke up with her. She and her two girlfriends attempt revenge on Brian but when it goes too far, what will Tara decide? Very good story but it leaves one wondering if it was meant to be a story or a message about violence on gay teens, especially since the bullies were all female?

-First Snow-Siblings and their mother reunite but not in the happiest settings. It’s in a hospital and it’s to decide who will donate their kidney to save their father’s life and it has to be immediate. Who will go forward, especially with all this squabbling? Very comedic with a surprise ending that ends the story well.

-Canoejacked-Two escaped prisoners try to escape across a river with a metal canoe. Only problem is the canoeist is inside with him, and he’s a ‘canudist’. How will they all escape with them in full view of the officer. They find a way. Quite funny, despite the bizarre situation.

-Hollow Bones-Boy bird loses girl bird in this live-action–yes, it’s live-action–short. However he does see hope along the way. Didn’t see the point of showing a break-up scene with the actors having birdheads. Wasn’t that amused.

-With Jeff-Nydia is in love with Jeff but wants to be a strong teenage girl. She receives a lot of advise from friends but loses herself whenever Jeff takes her on his motorcycle. The story appeared to be a good thoughtful story but the ending didn’t make a lot of sense.

-The Worst Day Ever-Bernard is one hard-luck kid. He has one bad incident after one bad incident happen this day. You think things couldn’t get any worse for that tyke until…It was a bit shocking to see all this happen to Bernard but it was funny and easy to find comical.

As for the whole segment, I have to say I first had the sense I was watching a program of shorts about teens after the first four shorts. It wasn’t until First Snow was showed that I got more of a sense of variety. Sure five of the nine shorts had teen subject matter but the mix of more adult shorts evened it out. Many of the shorts either charmed me or made me think. I’d say five of the nine were both entertaining and professional.

Some of the shorts were filmed by BC companies, some by Ontario companies and others by Quebec. I don’t know any of the filmmakers who filmed these shorts but I hope this leads on to bigger projects for them in the future.

The shorts program of Break Even was great to watch. Director wannabes often use short films to try to launch their careers for bigger things in the future. I’d have to say most of them show potential for both the director and even some of the actors involved.

Here I VIFF Again

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

September 27th to October 12th will be when this year’s Vancouver International Film Festival will occur. Lots to look forward to. Hundreds of films and shorts from 75 countries over these 16 days. Last year’s was a record-setter. This year the Film Festival wants to take things further.

You may remember last year I wrote about that year being the 30th for the VIFF, explaining the history and what to the festival showcases. Also you may remember the Festival records that year achieved. What’s also remarkable about last year is the Oscar success of some of the featured films from last year. The Best Picture winning The Artist was featured last year as was the Best Foreign Language Film winner A Separation.

This year’s VIFF also has goals of achieving a lot. There is estimated to be 380 films from 75 countries this year. Canadian and Asian film as well as documentaries are once again expected to be the highlighted genres of film at the Festival. What’s new this time is having the closing gala at the Centre for Performing Arts. Two live performances at the Centre are also expected to take place this year. Also added is a new real-time electronic ticketing system much like the one used at sporting events. The additions came upon the return of a $250,000 gaming grant the Festival once had until it lost its eligibility in 2009 as the government left adult arts groups behind in giving grants out. The grant returned as a result of the provincial government reassessing gaming grants.

Now that the grant is returned, the festival can continue to grow in both attendance and the number of films exhibited as well as the venues showcasing the films. The Granville 7 and its seven cinemas is once again the theatre with the most action. Pacific Cinematheque and the VanCity Theatre are the two other main theatres showing films throughout the sixteen days of the Festival. Temporary theatres showing films include the Park Theatre which will show a pair of films on two separate days and the Vogue Theatre which is scheduled to be a venue on nine of the sixteen days including the opening gala tomorrow night which will feature the screening of Canadian director Deepa Mehta’s Midnight Children.

As for me, I’m scheduled to do six shifts of five hours each. I actually volunteered this morning. It was good. Good to see a lot of volunteers I know back. Also exciting to see what featured films will be playing. I plan on taking in as many films as I can. Like last year, I’ll be aiming for a mix of Canadian, international, shorts and documentaries. I hope to post as many reviews here about the films I have seen. Anyways here’s to another year of film festing. If you want to check out this year’s fest, just go to the official website.

Oscars 2011 Shorts Review

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Now one would wonder why on earth would one want to see a reel of short films. First reason: They’re all nominated for an Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film or Best Animated Short Film. Second reason: a lot of winners of this category would go on to direct bigger and better things. Peter Cattaneo directed the Oscar nominated short Dear Rosie years before his big break with The Full Monty. Taylor Hackford won this category for Teenage Father 25 years before he directed the Oscar-nominated Ray. Most recently, Brutish director Andrea Arnold won seven years ago for Wasp and has gone on to direct two renowned British features: Red Road and Fish Tank.

Now 2011 has a crop of nominees for the categories of Best Animated Short Film and Best Live Action Short Film. I will review each and give my picks for what I feel should win and will win:

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM

–Pentecost – dir. Peter MacDonald and Eimear O’Kane -Interesting story about a boy–Damian– who’s a lousy altar boy and is punished by having no football for three months. He has the opportunity to redeem himself with a mass led by the Archbishop. Sure enough it’s in time for when Liverpool is playing the European Cup. Even the priest gives quite a pep talk to all participating in the mass. Will Damian do it right? A big surprise at the end!

–Raju – dir. Max Zahle and Stefan Gieren-This is an excellent story about a German couple who adopt a boy from India only to lose him and find a dirty secret along the way. The story brings up the same moral dilemma Gone Baby Gone brings up. This is of a situation that could be quite real: an orphanage that gives away kidnapped children. The story will leave you wondering what side to choose and the ending will surprise you.

–The Shore – dir. Terry George and Orrlagh George-The story is of two boyhood friends. One, Paddy,  stayed in Belfast, lost his arm and continues life as an illegal crab hunter. Another, Joe, moved to the US but returns to Belfast after being away for years. He wants to come and visit again and make peace with Paddy years after Paddy took his girlfriend, and married her. The story is as humorous as it is touching and it provides for a happy ending. I pick this as my Should Win pick.

–Time Freak – dir. Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey-There have been lots of stories about time travel but none as weird as this. A guy invents a time machine only to go back a few days into the past to correct things he’s done. And he does it again and again until he gets it right. Bizarre is right!

 –Tuba Atlantic – dir. Hallvar Witzo-A man has six days to live. A young woman is to be is death angel and help him before he dies. It won’t be easy because he’s quite eccentric: he hunts with a machine gun and fishes with dynamite. Then she learns he has a horn that can send a signal across the Atlantic. He hopes to use it to send a message to his brother whom he hasn’t seen in 30 years. She wants to be a successful death angel and he’s her third chance. It makes for a touching story with a surprise ending. I predict this for the Will Win in this category.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

–Dimanche/Sunday – dir. Patrick Doyon/NFB of Canada – This is a charming 2D animation story that is coarsely drawn and has hardly any dialogue but tells a lot. It’s about a boy and the town he lives in and the places he visits. Not spectacular but charming and entertaining. One of two Canadian entries in this category this year.

–The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore – dir. William Joyce and Brandon Oldenberg- Morris Lessmore had everything fly by him in a windstorm. Then one day he sees a young woman flying with books instead of baloons, and that changes everything for him forever. Impressive use of 3D animation. Good use of music and of the animated story. I predict this Will Win the animated feature category.

–La Luna – dir. Enrico Casarosa – Interesting that Disney/Pixar’s Cars 2 didn’t get a single nomination but this short that was played before Cars 2 did. While most of Disney/Pixar’s shorts feature a story done without dialogue, this story is mostly in the types of mumbling. As expected from Disney/Pixar, top notch animation and a very unique story about being able to touch the moon and its glitter.

–A Morning Stroll – dir. Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe-Features a chicken’s stroll down a New York neighborhood in 1959, 2009 and 2059. In 1959, people say “How do you do?” don’t get too peeved if you bump into them and the chicken’s able to make it there safely. 2009 and people are too into Starbucks coffee and iPhone using. A bump into someone causes a big coffee spill and a chicken entering into a house is perfect moment for your iPhone video camera. Once again, the chicken makes it there safely. 2059 and New York is filled with zombies. The chicken makes it home but not after a big zombie chase. This was a good mix of 2D and 3D animation with a creative image of the future.

–Wild Life – dir. Wendy Tilbe and Amanda Forbis- A British émigré tries to make his home in a small town in Alberta. While everyone else is either a cowboy or made themselves a villager, he continues to be an Englishman. Interesting and humorous. Plus me knowing Prairie life helped the sort to appeal to me. Both the dialogue from him and the villagers add to the humor of the story. The animation was excellent not just as 2D but as painting animation. The painting animation was its best quality and it makes it stand out from the five nominees. I pick this as my Should Win pick.

And there you have it. The nominated shorts for the 2011 Oscars. Stay tuned to find out the winners. Stay tuned to find out which directors move on to bigger and better things.

2011 Oscars Best Picture Nominee: Hugo

Jon The Blogcentric3 Comments

Hugo is a delightful movie based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. It’s a unique story about how a chance stealing by a young boy changed everything forever.

It all starts in a train station in Paris in 1930. Hugo Cabret has a life no child would want. He lives in the train station completely orphaned and with nothing but a bed and an automaton from his late father whom he hopes to repair. He ended up there after his widowed father was killed in a fire and taken by his alcoholic uncle who would look after the station clock. After his uncle died, Hugo steals food and runs the clock himself from revealing the death of his uncle. If the truth is found out, he will be sent to an orphanage.

One steal by Hugo of a toy part from the station’s toy store owner would change everything. Hugo was able to escape the station policeman thanks to his leg brace being caught in a train. Hugo however loses a book of animated drawings to the toy store owner. For Hugo to get it back, the toy store owner punishes Hugo by making fix his broken toys. The toy store owner is surprised to see that Hugo is very skilled at fixing toys thanks to his father’s teachings.

Soon Hugo catches the attention of Isabelle, the girl who frequently visits the train station. She is an orphan too who is being looked after by the toy store owner, whom she refers to as Papa Jacques. He notices the key she wears: it is heart-shaped. His automaton has a heart-shaped lock. Another link to the mystery. The two spend time together. She sees the clock area Hugo lives and the view of Paris. The two sneak into a movie theatre and see a movie, something Papa Jacques forbids her to see. Later Hugo uses Isabelle’s heart-shaped key on the automaton. The automaton draws a picture of the moon with a spaceship in his eye and the name Jacques Melies.

The two try and search further to see if Papa Jacques really is Jacques Melies. Upon a return visit to the house, they try to uncover the top drawer in his bedroom. Out comes a wide variety of imaginative artist images. Nevertheless Jacques is distraught to learn the children have learned of his secret. It’s only until the children bring a young film student to Jacques that Jacques finally reveals that he really is Jacques Melies, director extraordinaire of the early 20th Century. He explains to all why he became a recluse, because of his films failing as the First World War was taking place. He even burned most of the master copies of his films in a fit of rage during his downtime.  It is through Hugo and the film student that he’s able to receive an acclaim from a new generation of film enthusiasts. It is also where Hugo finally finds a family.

The movie is more than just a salute to Jacques Melies and his contribution to film in general. This movie is also a salute to moviemaking and movie watching. Movies achieved their greatness by making people’s fantasies come to life. They took them to worlds never before imagined. They took them to adventures and thrills they wouldn’t experience in their own lives. And to think it all started when a film of a train approaching the station made the audience duck for their lives. Nowadays movies face a lot of rivalry from many entertainment sources. Its biggest rival is now video games which allow the viewer to live the fantasy via an avatar, but movies still capture people’s attention and take them to worlds they never dreamed of.

Even though the movie is very much a salute to movies, it’s also a reminder that even then, great directors like Melies faced downtimes too. Jacques created hundreds of movies in his lifetime but as soon as most of the French public lost their liking for movies his fortune disappeared, his studio became useless, burned his films in anger and lived in obscurity for years. Nowadays we hear countless stories of people, especially greats, who had their moment but fade fast and die in obscurity without a penny. It happens to greats as often as it happens to ‘one-hit wonders’. Showbiz is cruel. Fortunately there does come a time long after their downfall when their achievements are recognized once again. It may be while they’re still alive or it may be post mortem but their greatness does become remembered and honored again.

Overall the movie was top-notch quality. That’s something you rarely see in most live-action family movies. There was no one acting performance that stood out or was spectacular but the performances of all worked excellently with the movie. Ben Kingsley was very good as Jacques. Sacha Baron Cohen who’s known for his comedic characters was great as the comic relief of the movie. The child actors of Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz did an excellent job in their lead roles. The story was very well-adapted and well-edited as it’s able to keep the audience excited, thrilled and interested from start to finish. Martin Scorsese did another excellent directing job. He’s tackled a lot of genres of film excellently and now he achieves another triumph in directing family movies. The score by Howard Shore fit the movie perfectly. The visual effects were also amongst the best of the year. The movie being shown in 3D worked. This was one of the rare times in which the 3D viewing appeared to be less in vain or for extra money and more for the delight of the crowd. It looked like Scorsese knew that if he was to have a movie in 3D, he should have the effects that make it work.

One thing that’s been unique in the film world of recent years is that a lot of well-renowned directors have started to make family movies. Seven years ago, Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire) released Millions: a story about a boy who encounters a bag of stolen money and consults patron saints for advice. Many years ago, Roman Polanski did his version of Oliver Twist to make a movie for his children who were twelve and under at the time. Two years ago, Spike Jonze directed the film adaptation of Where The Wild Things Are. Even Quentin Tarantino says he’s interested in doing a family film if the right idea comes around.

Now we have Martin Scorsese with a family movie out. It may come as a surprise since he has been renowned for his filmmaking of some of the grittiest legendary dramas. Nevertheless if Martin was to make a family movie, Hugo would be the perfect fit. The celebration of film in Hugo is something Martin would do well because Martin is known to have a love for film itself. Martin even did a documentary series for the BBC years ago where he narrated the history of film and its genres. In Hugo we see Martin’s love for film as much as we see the reasons why movies have become so beloved. Even Roger Ebert described the move as “in some ways, a mirror of his own life.” And the love of film started with Jacques Melies. Martin Scorsese does more than just make a family movie. He also makes a masterpiece that even adults can appreciate, especially those who love film. The film has been nominated for Best Picture and ten other categories at this year’s Oscars. It is the first live-action family movie since Babe to be nominated for Best Picture.

Hugo is a pleasant film not just in terms of family movies but all films. Very rarely is a family movie able to be referred to as a masterpiece. Very rarely does a family movie deserve to be referred to as a masterpiece. Hugo is that rare.

NOTE:  Usually around this time, I start my reviews of the Best Picture nominees. I have five more reviews coming. Best Picture nominees already reviewed are: Midnight In Paris, The Help and Moneyball.

30th Year Of VIFF A Record Year

Jon The Blogcentric5 Comments

After sixteen days of showing films, welcoming crowds, making deals, and allowing directors to give Q&A’s to the audience, the Vancouver Film Festival ended its 30th year on Friday, October 14th. I had my excitement with volunteering and seeing seven different shows of differing variety. Those that volunteered, like myself, were treated to a Mexican style brunch at the Waldorf Hotel which consisted of some prize giveaways and small gifts. Almost a week later, the news hit that this year’s film festival achieved new records.

The 2011 Vancouver International Film Festival was the most attended and highest-grossing VIFF. Admissions totalled over 152,000, up from 148,000 from last year. Ticket revenues also hit a record with $1,178,811, breaking the record of $1,074,025 also set last year. Very impressive.  

One thing we learn about hosting film festivals like these is that the money from ticket sales are not enough. Although we hit a new high in ticket sales, the Festival itself costs $3.5 million to put on. The remainder of the baklance is covered by government support (about 10%), private sector sponsorship, and personal donations. One thing about this year is that there was a bigger expense this year in using the Vogue Theatre for showing movies. Although the VIFF used the Granville 7, Pacific Cinematheque and the VanCity Theatre as it did last year, the Park Theatre wasn’t used this year, opting for bigger crowds with the Vogue Theatre. The Vogue served as the Visa Screening Room for all the big premeieres and Gala events, replacing Theatre 7 at the Granville 7. It did pay off as film crowds were bigger for the Vogue.

The success of this year’s VIFF keeps its reputation as one of the Top Five film festivals in North America in attendance and films screened. Here are some of the numbers behind this year’s Vancouver International Film Festival:

-152,000 – total admissions

-633 – public screenings

-600 – industry guests

-386 – total films shown

  • 240 – feature length (60+ minutes)
  • 126 – shorts
  • 20 – mid-length films (20-59 mins)

-97 – Canadian Films shown

  • 39 – feature length
  • 57 – shorts
  • 1 – mid-length

-80 – countries entering films

-49 – North American premieres

-40 – Canadian premieres

-36 – media screenings

-30 – International premieres (first screeening outside home country)

-20 – World Premieres

-17 – entries in the Best Foreign Language Film category for this year’s Oscars shown

-16 – days of showing films

-10 – theatres showing films

Very imporessive numbers indeed and a hard act for 2012 to follow. Also for those interested in the award winners, here’s which film won what:

DRAGONS & TIGERS AWARD for YOUNG CINEMA

  • The Sun-Beaten Path  (China/Tibet) – dir. Sonthar Gyal

ROGERS PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD

  • A Separation (Jodaeiye Nader az Simin)  (Iran) – dir. Asghar Farhadi

VIFF MOST POPULAR DOCUMENTARY FILM AWARD

  • Sing Your Song (USA) – dir. Susanne Rostock

ENVIRONMENTAL FILM AUDIENCE AWARD

  • People of a Feather (BC/Nunavut) – dir. Joel Heath

SHAW MEDIA AWARD for BEST CANADIAN FEATURE FILM

  • Nuit #1 (Québec) – dir. Anne Émond

MOST PROMISING DIRECTOR of a CANADIAN SHORT FILM

  • Andrew Cividino for We Ate the Children Last (Québec)

NFB MOST POPULAR CANADIAN DOCUMENTARY AWARD

  • Peace Out  (BC/Québec) – dir. Charles Wilkinson

VIFF MOST POPULAR CANADIAN FILM AWARD

  • Starbuck  (Québec) – dir. Ken Scott

So there you have it. Those are the winners of this year’s Vancouver international Film Festival. Great to see the Festival end on a great note. I’m happy to have volunteered for the Festival this year. I hope to volunteer for the Festival again next year and I hope to see its records broken again. Will it be a marquee film festival in the future like Cannes, Sundance, Venice or Toronto? Only time will tell. Nevertheless I commend the VIFF for showing its huge variety of films, showing the most Canadian film and for promoting a wide array of films and talents from the up-and-coming to the established. Also I commend the volunteers for doing a good job with the crowds. Last year my uncle visited the Toronto Film Fest and he said the people thee get treated like cattle. So I myself comment the VIFF volunteers for treating the crowds right.

Here’s to the continued success of the Vancouver International Film Festival and to its success in the future years. VIFF 2012: Starting September 27th. Already I can’t wait!

VIFF 2011 Review: Miss Representation

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

One of the most notable things about the VIFF is that it features a huge selection of documentaries both in the number of films aired and the variety of topics. Many documentaries are focused on topics revolving Canada. The documentary of Miss Representation is focused in the United States but one can see a lot the issues discussed in the documentary facing Canada in similar ways too.

Tired of your daughter trying to make a sex object of yourself? Tired of your daughter imitating the stupidities of reality show stars? Ever stop to think about how women are depicted on television? Ever feel a lack of female roles or smart female roles in movies? Tired of the lack of females in CEO positions or politics? While some people, including other women, overlook it, there are women that don’t and are unhappy about the state of things. This dilemma is well-stated in the documentary Miss Representation.

Miss Representation has an impressive lineup of women interviewed for this documentary from actresses like Geena Davis, Jane Fonda and Rosario Dawson to feminists like Dr. Jean Kibourne and Gloria Steinem to newscasters like Katie Couric and Rachel Maddow to politicians like Condoleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi. It does an impressive investigation of how women are portrayed in today’s media, in both entertainment and news. It highlights the negative depictions of them in ‘reality shows’ and misogynistic treatment in hip-hop videos. It shows how computer enhancements shorten a model’s waistline to an unrealistic width. It shows sexist depictions in television ads. It shows networks’ news shows hiring women for sexiness over professionalism. It shows the negative role models girls are given via reality shows and MTV. It also highlights how these images have affected their self-esteem, especially in terms of eating disorders, depression and even undergoing cosmetic surgery.

It doesn’t just stop at entertainment but also focuses on politics too. It points out the United States ranks 90th in the world in terms of the percentage of female politicians in office and noticed a decline in 2010 that was enough cause for alarm. It shows how American female politicians get more copy over what they wear than what they have to say in office. It shows how right wing conservative pundits and their ridiculing of female politicians also are part of the blame. Even conservative groups who hurl slurs at Hillary Clinton like “Iron my clothes” have their part in this. It also focuses on the business world, on how it’s like being a woman with a top position in a room full of men. It also talks of the lack of female CEOs. Funny how when we’ve made progress in the last 40 years, we learn there’s more to be done, and at a faster pace.

Mind you it doesn’t completely dwell on the negative. It also features messages of hope. It also shows of the efforts of young teenage girls in their own political pursuits. It shows a discussion with teenage students–both boys and girls– and how they feel about this. Just when you think teenage America is eating it up and enjoying it all, there are some teens that are concerned. It even talks of Miss Representation, the campaign. The documentary Miss Representation is as much a campaign as it is a documentary film. Its goals are to empower women and girls to challenge limiting labels in order to realize their potential. They are encouraging actions that lead to a cross-generational movement to eradicate gender stereotypes and create lasting cultural and sociological change. They are using various media outlets like girls using social media to speak their mind, a school curriculum to educate and encourage activism, community screenings where discussion is encouraged, and consumer empowerment to encourage the success of female-friendly entertainment.

The unique thing is that the film is done from the point of view from the director and the founder and CEO of the Miss Representation campaign. The filmmaker is Jennifer Siebel Newsom. She is married to former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. Siebel has a Masters Degree from Stanford, completed acting studies at the American Conservatory Theatre and had done environmental work overseas through Conservation International.  Her acting credits include films like Something’s Gotta Give, Rent and In The Valley Of Elah. Her television credits include Strong Medicine, Numb3rs and Mad Men. This documentary is her directorial debut. Miss Representation is as much a personal focus of hers as it is a documentary as she filmed it just after she had given birth to her daughter and wonders what type of world she would grow up in. Anyone else who has a daughter might want to question the same thing too.

I found this documentary quite intriguing. I especially took note of what they said about entertainment. Entertainment and how it’s delivered to various peoples is a big interest of mine. Interesting is during the film, they pointed out to entertainment in the early 90’s that took women’s roles in new directions, like Thelma & Louise and A League Of Their Own. It brought back memories back in the 90’s when women were defying convention in entertainment. We had the sitcom Roseanne where the star Roseanne Barr looked like an actual mother. We had A surge of female singer/songwriters whose intimate work helped spawn off the Lilith Fair festival. Nowadays you could say it’s a memory with profit-oriented entertainment more competitive than ever. We shouldn’t forget about entertainment sinking to new lows for the sake of new highs in profits. In fact I myself could even right an essay on how the improvement of women’s image and role in music in the 90’s suddenly grounded to a halt thanks to Britney and “Oh Baby Baby…” I could also write how Paris Hilton reversed the women’s movement. Or even my thoughts on Snooki. But I’ll save it for now. I’m sure you have your own annoyances too. I’m just glad Lilith Fair hasn’t been replaced by Tartapalozza.

It also got me thinking about how things are doing in Canada. I often feel that Canada is not as sexist as the US but I’m frequently reminded that there’s still work to be done. Even though wage parity between male and female workers is closer than its ever been, female workers are still paid less than male workers. Canada ranks 50th on the world scale of females holding political office. 70 on the 308 seats in the House Of Commons are women; 27 from the victorious Conservative party. Canadian teenage girls have done their share of idolizing Britney and other reality show stars. In fact it encouraged one Canadian magazine journalist, Anne Kingston to write an article that made the cover story for Maclean’s, Canada’s national magazine. For those who want to read it, here it is: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/10/outraged-moms-trashy-daughters/ Glad to see that while Americans mostly ignored this issue, one Canadian writer decided to speak up.

Miss Representation is a film that’s angry about the portrayal of women without having to ‘shout’. It shows stats and views to show its disappointment but also offers messages of hope. Jennifer Siebel Newsom put in a lot of effort and research to get her message across. I’m sure her frustration would not only be shared by mothers like her but fathers of daughters as well. For those interested in the Miss Representation campaign, go to: http://missrepresentation.org/

VIFF 2011 Review: i am a good person/i am a bad person

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

The Vancouver International Film Festival is very good at showcasing Canadian films. Some from directors who have establised themselves and some who are trying to make a name for themselves. The film i am a good person/i am a bad person is a film directed by Ingrid Veninger. Ingrid has already established herself first as an actress, then as a director in films like Gambling, Gods and LSD, Nurse. Fighter.Boy and MODRA. Her latest film i am a good person/i am a bad person is the latest film she directs and plays lead.

In this film, Ruby White is a married director who’s taking her daughter Sara to two film festivals with her as she showcases her latest release, leaving her husband and son at home.

Both are having problems. Sara’s dilemma is obvious as she is testing herself for a pregnancy. Ruby’s dilemma is less obvious emotionally but more physically as the strains of her marriage appear to be affecting her. Ruby is the more bohemian type as she enjoys partying and meeting new people at clubs and is unafraid of trying eccentric things for inspiration and solving problems. Sara is more reserved and often keeps to herself about her problems. Nevertheless their problems cause obvious friction in their relationship and their own lives during their first stop in Brighton. Ruby’s film is showed to a small audience unimpressed enough for one to ask her during a Q&A why she made the film. That leaves Ruby at a loss for words. Meanwhile Sara doesn’t know if she’s pregnant or not and it’s bothering her to the point she wants to leave her mother to visit cousins in Paris. Ruby agrees.

During their three days away, Ruby tries to assess herself as a person, as a wife and as a filmmaker in Berlin before her film opens. Sara meets up with the cousin in Paris and her beau and is able to take her mind off her troubles. Each try their own method in sorting out their problems. Sara is able to enjoy Paris and find it as a source of enjoyment and inspiration in her drawings and her photography. Ruby relies on a poster board sign she wears with “i am a good person” on the back and “i am a bad person” on the front. It is the input she receives from others that draws her insight. In the end, both make crucial decisions for themselves: Ruby for her filmmaking and marriage and Sara for her pregnancy. They meet up again back in Brighton and are able to return as mother and daughter with the satisfaction of their decisions made.

One unique thing about the film is how the alone time of three days helps to develop both Ruby and Sara. While in Berlin, Ruby contemplates herself and her relationship. While in Paris, Sara’s imagination and artistic dreams come alive. While both spend time with themselves and with others, they come to terms with making the huge decisions with their lives in the end.

Another unique thing about the film is that it is very woman-centered, unlike most movies out there right now. Ingrid Veninger directs, writes and plays the protagonist in the film and her daughter Hallee Switzer plays Sara, the main supporting role. The whole story revolves around these two women. It’s here in film festivals where female directors get their works best showcased. In an industry that is very much bottom line and almost completely run by men, it is through female filmmakers through independent companies being exhibited at film festivals where they have their best opportunities to showcase their works. This could lead to more female-based film works in the future. It’s film festivals like these that serve as a reminder that a lot of bottom line-oriented entertainment is missing something valuable.

 Of all the unique things about the film, the most unique thing about it is Ingrid’s shoot-as-you-go approach. For those who don’t know, this film was shot within a period of 19 days. Ingrid shot her scenes in Brighton and Berlin while she herself was out promoting her latest production at film festivals. During the time, she would use some of the film festival audience as part of the audience for this film, for what would be her follow-up. She would also use her interactions with other people as additional footage for the film. This capturing is very unique especially since filmmaking is frequently seen as something carefully directed and edited. I admire Ingrid for her courage to try something new and unique. Basically the only thing about the film that wasn’t that unique was that this is Ingrid plays the lead, as she does in most of her works, and includes her children–Hallie and Jacob–in the works. Here Hallie and Jacob play her character’s children.

This film I believe is meant more to be a personal film than it is to be a crowd-grabber. It is a very though provoking work that will cause some viewers to think as it does reflect on a lot of themes like a failing marriage, one’s career, sudden changes in life, and how to deal with what’s coming. I believe Ingrid did a very good job with her work. Some are calling it her best and most chance-taking work to date.

If you’re looking for a film out of your usual movie-going and are more interested in a thought-provoking film that your typical heavily marketed escapist fluff, i am a good person/i am a bad person is a good choice. At first you think the film makes no real sense but it comes together in the end.