Media

VIFF 2020 Review: Black Bear

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment
What starts as film work leads into what becomes a bizarre love triangle in the film Black Bear.

It’s funny I didn’t see my first American live-action film at the VIFF until the second-last day of the Festival. Black Bear was that film. It was quite a story.

The film begins with a woman in a swimsuit out by the dock near a lake in the Adirondacks region and just meditates by the water instead of swimming. We later see that woman walking down a road in what appears to be a remote area of the woods. She has a lot of baggage. A man stops to ask if she’s lost. She says she’s an actress-turned-director names Allison. He introduces himself as Gabe. He is actually the director who will be working with Allison on an upcoming production. Allison is willing to accept Gabe’s offer to bring her luggage to the place. During the walk she reveals she chose directing because she’s hard to work with. She’s known for emotional outbursts. She hopes to spend some time at the cottage in hopes that the natural greenness with help her unblock her creativity and help her to produce her next project. They arrive at their cottage near the lake with his pregnant wife Blair waiting. Gabe tries to introduce Blair to Allison, but you can sense the jealousy in Blair’s body language, even though she tries to hide it.

During the dinner, things really get heated. Blair talks of how they moved from Brooklyn to the Adirondacks; because Brooklyn was too expensive and they were getting nowhere in the film business. Blair soon gets all confrontational with Gabe. She even gives him a hard time in front of Allison about a comment she perceives as his male chauvinisms. Allison sides with Gabe, adding more suspicious feeling from Blair. The dinner leads to more friction from Blair about Gabe and how she can’t stand the world he creates. Late at night, Gabe finds Allison alone. The two develop a good conversation. Then it leads to a lot more. It turns out Gabe has had a thing for Allison since they first met and she has a thing for Gabe too. Right while they are about to have sex, Blair physically attacks both of them. She knew it all along and she’s infuriated. She even chases Allison out, but it leads to an area in the woods where Allison is confronted by a black bear. The bear doesn’t attack Allison at all.

The film then progresses forward weeks or months later to the wrapping up of the film. The shooting is taking place around the cottage and the dock. The crew is setting up. The directors are having confrontations of how to have the next scenes shot. Gabe and Blair are cooperating well for this project. It’s possible they’ve decided mostly for the sake of the film to put all personal feelings aside. But for the last scene, Allison appears to be out of it. The calm, cool Allison from that time before is not there. She appears angered or hurting inside. However the final scenes still need to be shot.

As Allison becomes more uncooperative with the actors and crew on the set, she finds a place to withdraw herself. Problems arise all over the place. The crew have their issues of setting up and one has a severe stomach problem. The directors have an ego clash over what is to be done. Gabe and Blair have talks about the film that appear to be more about their relationship, or fading relationship. The actors squabble with each other. However it’s Allison who’s the biggest of the problems. She’s just become an emotional time-bomb. It’s unclear why she’s that way but any attempt from anyone to get her to work properly on the scene, especially from Gabe, only succeeds in making her even more confrontational. Eventually she does agree to the scene, but it appears things could go better. After the shootings done, she leaves the cottage where she comes across the bear again. Again the bear doesn’t attack and Allison smiles for the first time today.

This is an interesting story about a bizarre love triangle and how it intermingles with film. An actress who wants to venture into film decides to meet with the director of her next film. She makes the way into the house and the wife suspects something. Everything falls apart from that point on. Blair starts friction with Gabe while Allison appears to coax him. It results in an affair that drives Blair angry. Three weeks later, work on the film happens and Allison can’t take it anymore. She becomes an emotional timebomb. You’re left wondering why? She said at the beginning of the film she was confrontational on the set. Is that the reason why Allison is acting like a time bomb? Or could it be she still has feelings for Gabe? Or is something deeper than that? Even of a natural sense? You’re left to wonder.

Despite how interesting the story is, it does get confusing. The first story appears to set up for the second story. I can understand how films don’t try to reveal everything mainly so the audience can make their own decisions, but there’s still too much that’s unclear. One of the things that’s unclear is whether the marriage between Gabe and Blair ended. They get along better while shooting. You’re left to wonder did they patch things up or did they split and are now getting along better? Another is Allison. I know I mentioned how Allison’s behavior on the final day of shooting get you wondering. If you saw the scene yourself, you yourself would find it hard to decide the biggest reason why she’s acting that way. Also confusing is the role of the bear in the film. The film’s two scenes are titled Part One: The Bear On The Road and the second scene is Part Two: The Bear By The Boat House, but you don’t see the black bear until the very end. The bear doesn’t attack Allison in either scene and the appearance of the bear causes Allison to smile at the end. You’re left to wonder what’s the symbolism of the bear? Allison coming to grips with her mentality? Her tranquility with nature finally reached? You’re left wondering.

Despite the confusing story, this is an ambitious film from writer-director Lawrence Michael Levine. This is the sixth film and third feature-length film he writes and directs and the first of his films he doesn’t act in. The film is impressive that it is a psychological film about human nature and how personal problems, especially among people in the arts, cause the friction, but its imperfections are noticeable. The best work from the film comes from the actress Aubrey Plaza. She goes from an actress who doesn’t appear to be the type to call a time-bomb at first to one who fits the description of ‘time-bomb’ perfectly. Her transformation was excellent because she was portraying two different Allisons and it worked excellently. Christopher Abbott was also good as Gabe: the director left confused in all of this. Sarah Gadon was excellent with portraying Blair as one who does not shy away from letting her personal feelings show. Additional technical efforts that highlight the film are the cinematography of Robert Leitzell, the cinematic score of Giulio Carmassi and Bryan Scary, and the images of pencil and paper of going from scene to scene and the end credits.

Black Bear hasn’t won too many awards on the film festival circuit. It was a nominee for a NEXT Innovator Award at the Sundance Film Festival and a New Vision Award at the Sitges – Catalonian Film Festival. Nevertheless those who saw it have talked a lot about it and its story and it has become a major attraction at film festivals.

Black Bear does make for a drama about a bizarre love triangle. It’s a story of the affair and the aftermath. The problem is there’s too much in the film that is unclear, including the inclusion of the bear.

Advertisement

VIFF 2019 Review: It Must Be Heaven

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Elia Suleiman
Director/writer/actor Elia Suleiman plays himself trying to get his film of Palestine made in It Must Be Heaven.

Saying It Must Be Heaven is a Palestinian film can give a lot of people the wrong impression at first. It’s a film that is enjoyable and worth seeing.

The film begins with a Christian religious ceremony in Nazareth, Palestine. They’re to enter the church, but it’s locked. It’s locked by the custodians who want to be alone drinking up. The priest and those part of the mass are angry. They barge in and get violent with him.

Life in Nazareth is not a pleasant experience for filmmaker Elia Suleiman. Elia has been experienced some downtime since a close friend of his died. Elia still has their wheelchair, walker and other personal items.  Wherever he goes, it appears people have a surly attitude. He goes to a restaurant and there’s an argument over the wine. He lives on the opposite end of an apartment where a father and son live in opposite suites and exchange insults. The few times when the Palestinians are nice to each other are when they know they’re being observed. Once outsiders leave, they go back to being their grumbling selves. The one Palestinian in Nazareth who looks to have a pleasant attitude is a young gardener who tends to Suleiman’s lemon tree, against Suleiman’s will. Suleiman tells him he doesn’t want him to trim it, but he comes back.

Elia seeks inspiration for his script. However he has to seek financial support from outside of Palestine. He goes on a flight to Paris and the flight gets turbulent as is goes over the Dinaric Alps. When he arrives in Paris, the Paris of people’s fantasies is alive. He sees it as a city of romance, a city of nice fashionably dressed women at a cafe having a good time together.

Then the realities of Paris start. His hotel suite is right next to a fashion house and their LED ad shines out a lot of lights that make it hard for Elia to sleep. He sits outside his window and looks out onto the street. He’s on the subway and sees a tattooed punk try to look menacing to him. He sees someone put a plastic bag underneath a car parked just outside. A bomb? The police come on Segways to check, but notice nothing and move away. He sees a homeless man lying around nearby and the police arriving to give him food. Suleiman is there during Bastille Day. He finds himself lost in a crowd during a military parade.

Elia knows he has business to deal with in Paris. He meets with a film producer, but the producer tells him that his film isn’t Palestinian enough. Elia tries to work more on his script. He notices that a bird has flown into his hotel suite. He welcomes the bird at first. However problems arise when Elia is typing on his script and the birds wants Elia’s attention. The bird hops onto his laptop and Elia gently pushes him aside. The bird repeats, but Elia’s had enough. He decides the bird need to fly back out in the open.

Elia then sets his sights on New York. Before he does, he has a day where he just wants to relax. He goes over to a park area, but notices a woman dressed in an angel costume with the Palestinian flag on her torso. A group of police try to pursue her, but she makes it a case of ‘catch me if you can.’ When they do catch her, she mysteriously disappears. Returning to his hotel that evening, he sees the car that had the bag placed underneath it is towed away. The bag is still visible.

When Elia arrives in New York, he is taken to a hotel by a cab driver who tries to develop conversation. The cab driver asks where he’s from, and Elia responds “Palestine.” The cab driver slams on his brakes and talks about how surprised he is to see a Palestinian. He’s never seen one before! He meets with a pretentious film professor. The professor wants his story to embody the Palestinian cause in the best way it can. He goes to a meeting held by a Palestinian-American group. The crowd is too enthusiastic for the leader to handle so she demands they all give one clap for each speaker she announces.

Then the meeting with the producer happens. Before he does, he is met in the waiting room with Gael Garcia Bernal who is his friend. Bernal has read over his script and he is very happy with what Suleiman has written. The exec however is uninterested in funding a ‘Palestinian story.’ Before Suleiman is about to return back home, he walks around New York and notices how Americans everywhere, even in the supermarkets, carry guns over their shoulders. He arrives back in Nazareth and notices that the gardener is back pruning his trees. The film ends with Suleiman in a discotheque with young people dancing to a song celebrating Palestine.

The film has a message to say, but instead of it speaking its message, it allows the message to be told in the images it shows. The film says its messages in what Suleiman sees. We see the world through his eyes. Nazareth looks to be this unhappy place in the middle of nowhere. Suleiman thinks that he will have a better time in the cities he will visit: Paris and New York. He can escape the unpleasant attitudes, the violent actions of others and fear of terrorism. He’s in for a surprise. In Paris, he notices what could be a car bomb placed underneath a car. The bomb never goes off, but it does remind you it has its own threats. Even in New York where there are still memories of 9/11, the threat of terrorism is there too. Bad manners? Suleiman witnesses as a stranger on a Paris subway tries to look menacing to him. Over in the part, an elderly lady tries to get a seat, but a young man on a bike beats her to it with no regrets. He’s reminded there’s rudeness there too. He’s also reminded of military preparedness and vigilance too as the Bastille Day parade has a military march and Americans in New York show their weapons openly. what he thought he’d leave behind in Palestine is still there in Paris and New York.

The film also feels about the difficulty of being a Palestinian in the outside world. Elia may be Christian but he defines himself as a Palestinian. He finds it hard enough living in Palestine, but finds it challenging to define himself to others. The meeting with the producer in Paris shows the French are interested in showing an image of Palestine, but one common or friendly with French audiences. The meeting with the taxi driver also adds to the feelings of confusion with his identity. He goes to a Palestinian-American rally that supports the cause, but doesn’t get too much out of it. How can a Palestinian relate to a Palestinian-American? Even if they share the same cause, they don’t have too much in common.

The film is less about the words spoken that it is about what one sees happening. This is pretty much a film of what Elia Suleiman sees through his eyes and he lets the images and moments do the talking instead of him. There are very few instances when you see Elia talking. It’s very rare in a film where the protagonist doesn’t even utter ten words.  Almost all moments of the film, including moments when he appears to be in a conversation, show him being a silent observer or a silent responder. That adds to the humor of the film, and Elia wants the film to blend humor with the theme and message of his story. Yep, even moments where you see Elia being dead silent get us laughing. It’s part of the film’s ironic dry humor. Some could say Elia’s wit is a lot like Woody Allen’s. You be the judge.

This is the first film in seven years for Elia Suleiman. His last one was 7 Days In Havana. This is a film he directs, writes, and plays lead. He does a good job in letting the images tell the story. Even during his mute moments, he adds to the humor of the story. It’s a silent humor that you have to get and understand while you watch this film. The inclusion of music in the various scenes adds to the story and fits it well.

It Must Be Heaven is Palestine’s official entry in the Academy Awards category of Best International Feature Film; a retitling of the Best Foreign Language Film category. The film has won a lot of acclaim. Acclaim includes a win for Special Mention at this year’s Cannes Film Fest as well as a nomination for the Palme d’Or, a nomination for Best Film at the Seville Film Festival, and a nomination for Best Canadian Feature Film at the Toronto Film Festival (film had production in Canada).

It Must Be Heaven is a film with a lot of wit and dry humor. Its silence of much of the story and of its main protagonist actually speaks volumes and is the film’s best quality.

The Return Of VIFF

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Cinema

Yes, the three most predominant topics on my blog are either the World Cup, the Oscars, or the Vancouver International Film Festival. And VIFF is back! Yesterday began the 38th installment of the Film Festival. Exciting films and exciting events are expected.

Creator Talks and Master Classes are back again. Slated lecturers for this year include Oscar-nominated director Atom Egoyan, director Michael Apted, It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia actor/creator/executive producer Rob McElhenny, costume designer Arianne Phillips and Oscar winning sound editor Walter Murch. For the Showrunners events, it will be focusing on women in production featuring five female producers or creators. The Decision Makers event will consist of a lecture from broadcasters, networkers and streamers. There’s even a lecture from Public Enemy rapper Chuck D on Fight The Power and its importance in film as well as fun events like a live score to This Is Spinal Tap and a live feminist read of Some Like It Hot. VR films will again have their exhibit at the VIFF Immersed showcase. It will take place at the Annex this year.

As for volunteering, this year there were 1200 volunteers signing up, just like last year. Also like last year, volunteers are required to do a minimum of four shifts. As for my volunteering, I am assigned to work at the Center For Performing Arts, which is the venue showing the galas and feature events. In fact I signed myself up to do the Opening Gala! Now that will be a night to look forward to! Also if there are any other volunteer shifts in other venues, I could accept as along as it works with my time.

This year’s roster of films promises a lot of attractions This year’s VIFF claims to show about 300 shorts and feature films from 72 countries or regions. As of press time, twelve films are official submissions for the Academy Award category of Best International Feature Film for this year; a re-titling of the Best Foreign Language Film. One thing is that while most films are shown twice or three times during the fest, there will be more films that will get only one showing during the fest. Canadian films will remain the focus as has been in past Festivals. As well, this festival will feature more Asian films than any other film festival.

This year’s top sponsors include Telus, Telefilm Canada, Christie screens, CinePlex, Delta Airlines, Subara and Creative BC. SuperChannel will take over the People’s Choice awards again.

As for highlights, here are some of the films headlining the VIFF this year:

  • OPENING GALA: Guest of Honour – Canadian Oscar-nominated director Atom Egoyan returns with his latest film about a daughter trying to remember her complicated father. Review coming soon.
  • CLOSING GALA: La Belle Epoque – A French comedy by director Nicolas Bedos of a man who goes time-travelling thanks to his son’s invention. Looks to be something very personal.
  • SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Parasite – Winner of the Palme D’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. South Korean director Boon Jong Ho delivers a dramatic comedy of a poor family scheming their way to prosperity and things going all wrong.
  • A Hidden Life – This film won the Ecumenical Jury prize at Cannes. Terrence Malick tells the true story of a Nazi evader who refuses to bow down to pressure.
  • Jojo Rabbit – Winner of the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto Film Fest. Similar to A Hidden Life but contrary, this film by the Thor: Ragnarok director is an anti-hate comedy set in Nazi Germany.
  • Just Mercy – A film starring Jamie Foxx and Michael B. Jordan about legendary lawyer Bryan Stevenson who successfully battled incidents of injustice and racism in Alabama.
  • The Lighthouse – Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson play two lighthouse keepers in 19th Century Maine who struggle to keep their sanity.
  • Motherless Brooklyn – Set in the 30’s or 40’s, Edward Norton directs and stars as a detective trying to solve the murder of his mentor and one friend.
  • Mr. Jones – Agnieszka Holland’s latest is of a Welsh journalist who visits Ukraine in 1933 and discovers a famine forced by the Communist government and attempts to hide it from the Western World.
  • No. 7 Cherry Lane – Hong Kong director Yonfan delivers his animation debut in a story of a student in 1967 Hong Kong living between love and revolutionary times.
  • Pain And Glory – Pedro Almodovar’s latest, and he reunites with Antonio Banderas! But this is of a distraught director trying to regain his passion for film, and life as a whole.
  • The Painted Bird – This Czech film starring Stellan Skarsgard and Harvey Keitel is of a Jewish boy escaping the Nazi Concentration Camps of World War II.
  • Portrait Of A Lady On Fire – This film set in 18th Century France is a story of a female painter commissioned to paint the daughter of a noblewoman. Only to fall in love in the process.
  • The Song Of Names – From Quebec director Francois Girard comes a film of a Holocaust orphan who becomes a big musician but is searching for the son of the British family who adopted him.
  • Sorry We Missed You – This is a drama/comedy by director Ken Loach of a construction worker during the 2008 financial crisis who takes a freelance commercial driver, and regrets it!
  • The Two Popes – City Of God director Fernando Meirelles directs a story of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis meeting and sometimes clashing as Benedict is to leave the Papacy. Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce star.
  • Young Ahmed – This Belgian film is of a Belgian-Moroccan student who goes from your normal 13 year-old to suddenly showing off an evil side.

So this is what VIFF has to offer fans this year. Not just films to enjoy but events focusing on various aspects of the craft as well. It starts September 26th and ends October 11th. Definitely sixteen days of excitement!

VIFF Is Back!

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Cinema

Yes, the Vancouver International Film Festival is back for 2018. Yesterday began the 37th installment of the Film Festival. This year promises more excitement, more films and more events.

The biggest thing VIFF will have for this year is Creator Talks and Master Classes. Slated lecturers include The Good Place writer Michael Schur, Canadian writer/director Patricia Rozema, production designed Paul Austerberry, director Paris Barclay, rapper RZA and a Showrunners event where they feature nine writers all on one stage. There will be other events too like giving director Jean-Marc Vallee a Tribute Award and a fundraiser event featuring Jane Goodall.

As for volunteering, this year there were 1200 volunteers signing up. Bigger than last year. One thing that’s changed is now volunteers are all owed to do a minimum of four shifts. That’s different from the old minimum of 32 hours. Volunteers and free films are the same situation as last year. As for my volunteering, I will do a wide variety of things like assist with the virtual reality exhibit over at the Centre for Digital Media, do ushering duties at the International Village, or do office work for the Exhibitions team.

This year’s roster of films promises a lot of attractions This year’s VIFF claims to show over 300 shorts and feature films from 84 countries or regions. As of press time, 14 films are official submissions for the category of Best Foreign Language Film for this year’s Oscars. One thing is that while most films are shown twice or three times during the fest, there will be more films that will get only one showing during the fest. There will even be a fourteen-hour three-film trilogy at the VanCity Theatre. La Flor by director Mariano Llinas will be shown as the three films will be aired consecutive nights. Canadian films will remain the focus as has been in past Festivals.

This year’s top sponsors include Telus, Telefilm Canada, Christie screens, CinePlex, Delta Airlines, Lexus and Creative BC. SuperChannel will take over the People’s Choice awards again.

As for highlights, here’s a list of some of the films headlining the VIFF:

  • OPENING GALA: The Hummingbird Project. Canadian director Kim Nguyen highlights competitive stock trading in this film starring Salma Hayek and Jesse Eisenberg.
  • CLOSING GALA:  The Front Runner – Jason Reitman delivers a film chronicling the rise and fall of Democratic candidate Gary Hart. Hugh Jackman plays Hart while Sarah Paxton plays ‘other woman’ Donna Rice.
  • Boy Erased – Rising star Lucas Hedges stars in this film about a young gay male forced into conversion therapy by his heavily-religious family.
  • Can You Ever Forgive Me? – Melissa McCarthy stars in this biographical film of Lee Israel: one of the biggest literary fraudsters of modern time.
  • Cold War – A Polish film about a showbiz couple who try to love and perform just shortly after the end of World War II. Director Pawel Pawlikowski won Best Director at this year’s Cannes festival.
  • Collette – Keira Knightley stars in this film of revolutionary French writer Sidonie-Gabrielle Collette. Her relationship with her husband comes into play.
  • Everybody Knows – Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, who’s won the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar twice, directs Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz in a story about mistrust and deceit.
  • The Favorite– Yorgos Lanthimos, whose most famous work is The Lobster, returns with Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz starring in this comedy on who can win the most praise from the queen.
  • The Grizzlies – The story of a teacher who tries to start pride in a Nunavut town by building up a local lacrosse team.
  • The Happy Prince– British actor Rupert Everett writes, directs and acts in this film of the last years of Oscar Wilde.
  • Non-Fiction – Olivier Assayas tells a humorous story of the marriage of an actress, played by Juliette Binoche, and her publisher husband who’s fearing the ‘death of print.’
  • The Old Man And The Gun – David Lowery directs what is believed to be Robert Redford’s last film as an actor as bank-robber Forrest Tucker.
  • A Private War –  Rosamund Pike stars in this biographical film of war correspondent Marie Colvin.
  • Shadow – Chinese film from Zhang Yimou directs a kung fu romance that promises to be an unforgettable story.
  • Sharkwater Extinction – Rob Stewart directed 2006 documentary Sharkwater highlighting how important sharks are to the ecosystem. This sequel shows the threats sharks face in today’s world.

So this is what this year’s VIFF has in store. It all starts September 27th and it all ends October 12th. Definitely lots to enjoy

VIFF 2013 Review: Antisocial

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Antisocial is a Canadian-made bloody gory teen horror thriller that's very impressively made.
Antisocial is a Canadian-made bloody gory teen horror thriller that’s surprisingly high quality and entertaining.

I’ll admit that I didn’t see as many Canadian films as I hoped to see at the VIFF. Antisocial was one I did see. It was the very last movie of the official Film Festival shown: starting at 11:30pm at the Rio Theatre. It proved to be an ambitious work from Canadians at moviemaking, particularily at horror filmmaking.

The movie begins with an introduction of two girls filming what appears to be a simple video about clothing only for it be one torturing the other and killing her. Later on New Years Eve a college girl named Sam interacts with her boyfriend through a social website called The Social Redroom. It goes bad as he breaks up with her. That leads her to delete her account.

She tries to party it up with her friends to help try to forget the problem. Four of her five friends have active accounts with The Social Redroom. Unknown to them is that an epidemic is spreading outside of them out on just as they’re about to party. The epidemic gets worse and reporters show how this is affecting the world. They even trace it back to The Social Redroom. The founder of The Social Redroom even makes a video of his own warning people of a deadly tumor transmitted to its users. Then Sam and her friends get their first notice when one of their outside friends is a monster infected by this virus. The virus soon spreads throughout the campus. Those of the friends with accounts to The Social Redroom are most at risk. Now the infected are coming after their blood.

There is a way to rid one of this virus but it’s to come out of their bodies. So it’s up to Sam and her friends to try to protect each other. They try to look for everything. First the video of the original two girls to trace its origins. Then the warning video of The Social Redroom founder, in which he commits suicide. Then finding information to rid the tumor being transmitted via The Social Redroom. Then Sam to defend herself and then rid herself of the virus.

I don’t think the filmmakers intended on giving a negative message about social media sites. Anyone who sees this knows that The Social Redroom is a Facebook-like site. In fact looking at this movie, I feel it’s more of just an attempt at trying to make a teen horror movie. That’s it: nothing more than a teen horror movie meant to scare them for their entertainment pleasure. I will have to say this is a very good effort at putting one together. It features many ingredients that would make for your typical entertaining horror movie. There’s the paranormal, the action happening at a college dorm, and the all-too-common phenomenon of social media and giving everyone all the details. The visual effects, horror make-up and even the climactic moments of horror didn’t come across as too cheesy or amateurish. Even the ending didn’t look bad. It ended on the right ridiculous note. The musical score was also a good addition to the horror story as well.

I will admit that it doesn’t have the big-star fuel that Hollywood teen movies have nor does it have the mass marketing given from Hollywood to make it excel at the box office. Oh yeah, it also lacks the shirtless scenes of guys that have been standard ever since the Twilight movies. Nevertheless this is a very entertaining movie that was put together very well and very professionally. I had a hard time trying to find a moment that was very amateurish. I even found it hard to notice a moment from one of the actors that lacked believability. Michelle Mylett was good in what is her first acting role. Also good is Cody Calahan in his first ever direction of a feature-length film as well as co-writing with more experienced writer Chad Archibald. I felt it was kind of like The Ring mixed with 28 Days Later with Night Of The Living Dead mixed in.

Okay I’m sure a lot of you are wondering: “What’s a film like this doing in a Film Festival? Film festival films are supposed to take the art of filmmaking to new lengths.” True but not 100% true. The Vancouver Film Festival is an event that showcases filmmaking quality from around the world including Canada but it’s also an opportunity to have films for further distribution. Some films will go on to the big screen for bigger and better things. Some will find their way on DVD, Digital Movie Websites or movie television networks. And then there are some where the VIFF will be the furthest it gets. Antisocial made its debut at Montreal’s Fantasia Film Festival. It continues to make appearances at various film festivals. Good buzz for it can help it get picked up for further distribution. We should remember few English language Canadian-made movies make it to the big screen. Nevertheless I see good potential for this film. We’ll have to see.

Antisocial is a teen horror thriller that lacks the star-studded buzz but is excellently put together and goes beyond its modest expectations. All it needs is more film fest buzz to develop a crowd to give it a fair chance.

The Royal Wedding: Positive For The Royal’s Future?

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Unless you’ve been under a rock all this time, you know by now that William Windsor, Son of Charles Prince of Wales and grandson of Queen Elizabeth, is engaged to commoner Catherine ‘Kate’ Middleton. The wedding will take place the morning of Friday, April 29th: tomorrow to be exact. It is scheduled to be the biggest Royal Wedding of the British Monarchy since Prince Charles wed Lady Diana Spencer in 1981. Most of the world will be watching, especially England and other members of the Commonwealth. The big questions are what will the future of the Monarchy be like? And will the new Royal couple go the distance?

The British Monarchy has always been an important symbol of the British Empire, especially in the heydays of its superiority back in the 19th Century. In fact Victoria Day is still celebrated in Canada in tribute to the Queen that granted Canada its Dominion. Even though the United Kingdom is a democracy under rule of the Prime Minister, the Queen and her Royal subjects are still an important symbol of rule in England and many other nations of what is now called the Commonwealth Of Nations.

The present-day Commonwealth is completely different from what has been known as the British Empire. The Commonwealth is an intergovernmental organization that promotes many core values amongst its fifty-three independent member states including Canada such as democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, multilateralism and world peace. Even Queen Elizabeth herself declared shortly after her Coronation in 1952: “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty, and the desire for freedom and peace.”

The Head of the Commonwealth is the King or Queen Of England. Currently that title belongs to Elizabeth II. She is a symbol of the Commonwealth’s free association and plays an important role in shaping the Commonwealth. She attends the biennial meetings of the Heads of Government, attends dinners and makes speeches at the meetings, and has private meetings with the individual heads of state.

Now that we’ve dished out on the importance of the British monarchy–and as stated above, they actually are important in today’s world–there’s the question of the future of the one sitting on the Throne. Elizabeth II has held the throne since her coronation as Queen in 1952. She shows no signs yet of handing the throne over to the next in line: Charles Prince of Wales, first-born child of Queen Elizabeth and father of Prince William. One of the key rules of the monarchy–one that reiterated in the movie The King’s Speech–is that the King is not to be married to a woman previously divorced. Prince Charles was married to Lady Diana Spencer in 1981 but the marriage dissolved in 1992. Soon he had a relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles who was already married. It was her relationship with Charles that led her first husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles to divorce her. In 2005 the two finally married with Camilla choosing to adopt the title Duchess of Cornwall. Since the marriage, Camilla has worked to develop a more positive image away from the ‘scandals’ of the past. This may explain why Elizabeth is in no rush to hand over the Throne to Charles. As for Edward, the only one of Queen Elizabeth’s children who has kept their first marriage intact, he shows no interest in owning the Throne. Talk about a Royal dilemma!

Now outside of the future of the Throne is the big question of another future: the marriage of William and Kate. William and Kate first met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland back in 2001. You could say the rest is history but there’s more to it. While the world is familiar with William’s ancestry and background of privilege, Kate came from a family that started as workers for British Airways but later formed their own mail order business which succeeded well. Kate herself worked as an accessories buyer for a clothing company for some time. William has grown up in a fishbowl while Kate experienced discomfort during the first few years upon dating William but leaving the relationship ambiguous. Many times during the early years of the suspected relationship, she would complain to her lawyer and even threaten legal action against the press. In 2007 they broke up but would reconcile within months. Even after the reconciliation, they would try to keep their relationship low-key. That all ended in November of last year when their engagement was officially announced.

Now comes the personalities of the two. William may have been born into a life of privilege but he has come across as well-behaved and considerate. A lot of it is attributed to Diana raising him and Harry outside of Buckingham Palace. It’s noticeable as William appears to posess more of Diana’s personality traits than Charles’. Although he’s second in line to the throne behind his father Prince Charles, there are many who feel he should be King instead. He’s had his share of living the high life, but he has also followed in his mother’s footsteps and has done humanitarian work. He’s also part of the RAF and has done military work in recent years. Kate, like Diana, has developed a fashion sense all her own and has made many ‘Best Dressed’ lists in recent years. She has graduated university with an honors degree. She’s also known for being well-mannered. As for whether the marriage will go the distance, that remains for the future to tell. They both appear to be two intelligent people in love but anything could change. We shouldn’t forget about their breakup from years earlier. It’s possible it could happen again. As mentioned earlier, Kate had her own difficulties with living life in a fishbowl when she was just ‘seeing’ William. After the marriage, it will most likely increase and top of it Kate will now have to play a role as a public figure. Will she be able to handle her new role and the pressure of the press?

Friday April 29th will not only mark the beginning of Prince William’s marriage but also the beginning to his future fate in being heir to the Throne. We all know it’s the divorce and remarriage to a divorcee that is causing Prince Charles to wait. Only the future will tell if Prince William’s marriage will go the distance, and if whatever happens is a help or hindrance to his line of succession. Also Kate’s role in both the Royal Family and in the public eye will also come under intense media scrutiny. Will she remain calm under pressure? Or will she be a huge subject of scandal and tabloid fare? Stay tuned.

WORKS CITED:

WIKIPEDIA: Commonwealth Of Nations.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations&gt;

WIKIPEDIA: Catherine Middleton.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Middleton&gt;

WIKIPEDIA: Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall&gt;

J. Crew In The Middle Of ‘Toenailgate’

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

This picture in a J. Crew e-flyer is the subject of major discussion this week.

Ever notice how in the news there’s always a story that comes from nowhere and is not worth paying any mind, until some loudmouth makes a hullabaloo about it? It’s funny that while Japan is recovering from a tsunami, earthquake and nuclear meltdown, and Libya is fighting a war to depose a dictator, there’s a minor story that makes a lot of loud news. It happened this week when the picture on the right that was featured in an e-catalog from J.Crew got on a conservative pundit’s nerves to the point he spoke out about it. And it has since drawn a lot of reactions since Tuesday.

It all started when J.Crew sent out its e-catalog to subscribers on Tuesday April 5th. For those unfamiliar, J. Crew is a clothing store known for its colorful preppy looking clothes. Its most famous customer is First Lady Michelle Obama. Included is a Saturday With Jenna column written by J. Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons. On that column’s front page that weekend was that picture of her having fun with her 5 year-old son Beckett. Why should that cause controversy? Because the fun she had with Beckett was painting his toenails with pink nail polish. She even included in the Quality Time caption: “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

Some of the J. Crew customers who received that ad would look at it as something funny and some might raise their eyebrows over it. It was able to stay away from being a complete controversy, until Tuesday April 12th. That’s when FOX News Psychologist Dr. Keith Ablow made these comments:

 Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” is not known.

Dr. Ablow further goes on to talk about the benefits and goods of gender distinctions and continues:

Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions a whole lot more than any creative Force in the universe.

Dr. Ablow wasn’t the only right wing pundit speaking their mind on this. Four days earlier, Erin M. Brown, writer for the Culture and Media Institute website, wrote an article on the ad which she declared ‘blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children’. She then went on to say: “Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna’s indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future. J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics.”

Since the ad controversy, there have been a lot of responses. Numerous news stories in websites, newspapers and television have featured the heated issue. All three major networks have done discussions about this. They’ve interviewed parents on the street: some were freaked out while some liked it. Psychiatrists interviewed have said it’s normal for children to play cross-dressing games. Some news stories showed celebrity parents including Gwen Stefani with pictures of their own boys wearing nail polish.  Alyona Minkovski from RT Network responded: “Look people. Mom’s actually spending time with her child having fun, which is a lot more than what I can say about a lot of parents out there who tend to neglect their children. And if painting your child’s toenails is a way for a child and parent to connect, then have at it.” Jon Stewart even talked about it on his Daily Show, declaring the fiasco ‘Toemageddon 2011’ and commenting: “You make it sound like it’s a story about incest or cannabalism…You’re all aware that nail polish comes off, right? You’re all acting like this lady gave her son an ‘I Love Cock’ tattoo.” For the record, J. Crew have not responded because they ‘don’t want to add fuel to a non-issue.’

Even amongst the internet, there have been responses. Youtubers have also spoken their mind with one man even paining his fingernails pink. On the opposite side, there’s been at least one video in support of the complaining pundits, from the channel Final Justice Movement. Bloggers have posted their opinions. Message boards have also been loaded with comments both for the ad ‘what century is this?’ and against this ‘This is disgusting!’ Change.org started a petition thanking J.Crew ‘for the heartwarming ad’ and received 7500 signatures. The 10 year-old son of a writer for Wired magazine painted his fingernails green in response. There’s even a Pink Piggies page on Facebook where the page honors ‘people of all gender identities.’

One thing I like to say is that it’s another example of how people like to raise a big fiasco of just about anything. I’ve seen it from both the left and right side of people raising a big fuss over something simple. It seems like the thing nowadays to be offended about anything. Years ago, people were declaring The Passion Of The Christ to be anti-Semitic when it’s the story of Christ’s crucifixion that has been played out many times in the past including on film. Recently after the movie Mars Needs Moms was released, a gay Youtube personality posted on his Twitter page that it’s very offensive to non-traditional families. And now we have right-wing pundits taking a crack at this ad. Do people enjoy getting offended?

Yes, it’s a different parent-child bonding scenario but it’s not worth declaring ‘propaganda’ to turn into an issue for headlines’ sake. I also agree with Alyona: in case you didn’t notice, there’s a load of joy between Jenna and Beckett in that picture. It’s very common for parents to neglect their children in their busy lives so a moment like that should be considered fun.Secondly I don’t think paining a son’s toenails pink makes him gay. His orientation has already formed itself even before he was born. In addition when I brought this story up at work, one of my co-workers mentioned that she painted her nephew’s fingernails and they had a fun time together. Weeks later when she brought up ‘nail polish’, he said “That’s girls stuff.” So what does that tell you? Also I admire J. Crew for not responding to this and dismissing it for the ‘non-issue’ that it is.